Re: [ga-abuse] Monitor disagreement about Kent Crispin case

[Alexander Svensson <svensson@icannchannel.de>]

Hello Kristy!

> Okay, I am now confused.  I am just following the rules WE
> established. There should be no exceptions for our friends, family,
> etc.

Agreed, and the same applies for foes and fiends.
(For the record: I've met Kent Crispin once during the
Stockholm meeting, trying unsuccesfully to convince him
of the need for At Large participation... ;))

> And why then were you comfortable suspending Jim Fleming for drawing
> a conclusion between us and a horrific war that is going on if you are
> comfortable following through with our prior note to Kent?

Jim Fleming had both exceeded the posting limit and
sent off-topic postings. He had received a personal
reminder, an official warning and kept violating the
rules. I also know his posting behaviour on other
lists, so I was perfectly comfortable suspending
Jim Fleming after the warning.

You rightly complained when Jim Fleming had not
received a warning before: There must be a warning
first before a suspension. But I don't think turning
this around makes sense: "There must be a suspension
after the first warning". This is not the way it has
been handled before (see Harald's explanation), and we
still have to pay attention e.g. to the gravity of
the violation and the frequency of violations. Kent
Crispin has in my perception not been a notorious
breaker of the GA list rules, and the GA list rules
are all I am willing to judge about.

But again: I respect your opinion and hope that we
can resolve this matter!

Best,
/// Alexander


> At 05:30 PM 8/16/2001 +0200, Alexander Svensson wrote:

>>Thanks, Kristy! :)
>>
>> > You are correct:  I mistook the #50 & #51 as being separate cases.  He has
>> > received one warning:
>> > [...]
>> > Please note the sentence:  If this happens again the practiced policy of
>> > the GA is to grant a two week suspension of your posting privileges.
>> >
>> >>It happened again.
>> >>
>> >>:)
>>
>>We seem to be now in the situation where we don't
>>come to an agreement: I respect your argument that
>>there has been a list rule violation after a
>>warning and a suspension is warranted, but I don't
>>find that a suspension would be proportionate
>>if compared to previous suspensions and therefore
>>think that a second, stronger warning would be the
>>better solution. Since we are only two monitors,
>>I cc this to Danny and Patrick with a documentation
>>of the case and hope for their comments. (E.g.
>>Patrick could act as M3, so that the decision can
>>still be appealed to Danny.)
>>
>>Best regards and thanks,
>>/// Alexander
>>
>>=====================================================
>>
>>M1: Alexander Svensson
>>M2: Kristy McKee
>>Against: Kent Crispin, kent@songbird.com
>>Complainants:  Joop Teernstra, terastra@terabytz.co.nz
>>Complainant Comments: "These childish vendetta's (or are
>>they deliberate provocations?) have to be stopped, if the
>>GA is ever going to get anywhere."
>>Date:  14-Aug-01
>>Message:
>>http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc08/msg00497.html
>> > It's interesting how you take Miltons characteristically inaccurate and
>> > insulting statement and run with it.
>> >
>> > The "powers that be" may or may not like the personalities involved, but
>> > the FACT is that the "cyberspace association" (aka as the "IDNO") simply
>> > does not credibly represent those that it claims to represent.  That is
>> > a completely sufficient grounds for rejecting it.  In fact, it would have
>> > been totally irresponsible for the Board to do otherwise.
>>
>>Grounds: Personal attack
>>M1 Recommendation: Warning
>>
>>M1 Comment:
>>There's no question that these personal sideswipes must come
>>to a stop. As Kent has been warned before, I think we have the
>>choice between a strong warning and a suspension. When I look
>>at the personal attacks that have led to suspensions in the past,
>>I would choose to send a warning (worded stronger) -- a
>>suspension looks disproportionate to me here.
>>I would send the following warning:
>>-------------------------------------------------------
>>Kent,
>>
>>The list monitors for the General Assembly (GA) of the DNSO
>>have issued this warning to you concerning complaints received
>>about the following post:
>>
>>http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc08/msg00497.html
>>
>>According to the rules for participation in the GA of the DNSO
>>   http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2000.GA-ga-rules.html
>>the messages must observe a minimum of decorum, including:
>>   - Not indulging in personal attacks, insults or slander
>>   - Not using offensive language
>>
>>In the posting mentioned above you are referring to
>>Milton Mueller's statements as "characteristically inaccurate
>>and insulting". Sideswipes such as this are unacceptable
>>personal attacks.
>>
>>You have already been warned against such list rule
>>violations. As you know, the practiced policy of the GA is
>>to grant a two week suspension of your posting privileges
>>if this happens again.
>>
>>Regards,
>>[Kristy or Alexander for the list monitors]
>>-------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>M2 Recommendation: Suspension Two Weeks
>>M2 Comment [paraphrase by Alexander!]: Kent has already
>>received a warning for this: it is absolutely time for him to
>>be suspended. Please note the sentence "If this happens
>>again the practiced policy of the GA is to grant a two week
>>suspension of your posting privileges." in the warning.
>>It happened again.