RE: [ga] List Rules

[Hugh Dierker <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx>]

I meant nothing of the sort, I think, as I cannot uderstand what you wrote. That has to be the longest sentence, that didn't need to be one sentence, that I have seen for a long time. But I certainly did not mean anything to do with the ICT. And I certainly did not mean anything suggesting in comply with some regulation. 
  My comments were common sense mixed with my understanding as to what was desired  by the folks in the thread.
   
  Let me again suggest that when posting as chair I am trying to center debate toward consensus and not put forth my own ideas. I probably fail but I try. I would always welcome concise to a point criticism in this regard.
   
  Eric

jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
    body{font-family: Geneva,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:9pt;background-color: #ffffff;color: black;}      body{font-family: Geneva,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:9pt;background-color: #ffffff;color: black;}      Dr. Dierker and all,
     I hope you mean that dictating or setting some sort of standard for
  content and/or manner of expression as expressed in the written or 
  spoken word is folly and therefore attempting to do so as a matter
  or regulation ICT < Internet Communications Technology > creates
  more frustration, disgruntelment, and lack or effective communications
  via ICT that trying to control same via some sort of rule, regulation, or
  convention.   However if you don't mean such or nearly so, can you please
  be more percise or concise?



  -----Original Message----- 
From: Hugh Dierker 
Sent: Jul 14, 2007 10:57 AM 
To: JFC Morfin , Debbie Garside , terastra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
Cc: 'ga' 
Subject: RE: [ga] List Rules (GA Chair) 

  Well this is great input.
  I am willing to throw out the threat .... portion all together. Does that sound ok? I really do not like it because it is so "controlling the content of speech". Whereas the other restrictions deal with the result of the speech, like clogging the list and directly decreasing public participation.
   
  Eric

JFC Morfin <jefsey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
  This is an area where I have some experience, including against people (who were) on this list.

1) I tend to agree with Debbie about the OT proposition.

2) However, I think this is the role of a Sargent of Arms. Not of a Moderator or of the Chair who may be part of the debate.

3) experience shows that individuals and individuals' corporations may view things entirely differently. Exemple: I was agressed by a Member of well known coporation in my area, using his corporation's mail address. As a result I lost one of my clients. I contacted that corporation. They pleaded that I accept them to handle the case internally. They explained that this way they would not have to fire the person, but they were very clear: by the same token I was losing any possible compensation. I agreed. They informally discussed the point with the person, who made a hell about it on public lists. So, I took a community public blame and lost a second client as a result (However, the publicity given this way to my true position, made me gain serious support [but not to recover the financial loss amounting to the salary of one person, I had to fire]).

4) there is not such a thing as public "threat of frivolous action", there are "threats" and there are "actions". Threats are delictual. Even if the claim is sustainable. This is something to be addressed in every case by the SoA. 

Actions are characterised by the fact that they are registered and one does not discuss them. Warnings are not to be confused with threats. They belong to actions preliminaries, as such ad-hominem warnings should always be private. Public warnings should possible if be published by the SoA at the suggestion of participants afraid by a mission creep of the list.

jfc



At 14:29 14/07/2007, Debbie Garside wrote:
  Hi Joop
 
> What about a libel-victim? 
Should he threaten privately?
I would hope that the Chair or the List Monitor would intervene should any libellous posts be made and the offender would incur sanctions.   However, any actions for libel should be taken off list.  It is my hope that this forum can operate without behaviour that is likely to instigate such actions and this is why it is important to have rules for participation.The point of updating the rules is to try to steer people away from such behaviour for fear they would lose their posting rights.
 
> How about private threats of clearly frivolous legal action?
I have received such in the past.
Can a victim make such private mail public on the list?
Private threats of clearly frivolous action should be treated as frivolous and I find the best way to deal with these is to ignore them. However, from past experience, it can be helpful for the victim of such threats to post an Off Topic [OT] notification to the list especially if the member feels that other list members may be able to assist.  I certainly think that the Chair and List Monitor should be made aware of the situation in case it spills over onto the list.  I do not think that private mail should be made public.
 
Feel free to rewrite this section within the rules including any of the above or any further ideas you may have.
 
Best
 
Debbie

    
---------------------------------
    
   From: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [ mailto:owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Joop Teernstra
  
   Sent: 14 July 2007 03:27
  
   To: Hugh Dierker
  
   Cc: ga
  
   Subject: Re: [ga] List Rules 9GA Chair)

  
   At 01:05 p.m. 14/07/2007, you wrote:
    
   To date we have received no substantive contribution. We have recieved negative comments by Jeff Williams but no proposed improvements.
  
   
    
   Evolving rules may be found here;
  
   http://www.geolang.com/draftGAListRules.htm
  
    
  
   Hello Mr Chair,

  
   New is  the rule about not indulging on-list in legal threats.

  
   What about a libel-victim? 
  
   Should he threaten privately?

  
   How about private threats of clearly frivolous legal action?
  
   I have received such in the past.
  
   Can a victim make such private mail public on the list?

  
   I admit, thought, the proposed rules might help crimp the style of our most prolific poster here. 



  
   -joop- 
Regards,
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
   Abraham Lincoln

"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very
often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt

"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability
depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of
Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC.
ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Registered Email addr with the USPS Contact Number: 214-244-4827


       
---------------------------------
Got a little couch potato? 
Check out fun summer activities for kids.