List topics (was Re: Help kill the Surveillance State Bill)

Ben Scott dragonhawk at gmail.com
Wed May 11 13:13:01 EDT 2005


[The order of quotations has been re-arranged for editorial purposes.]

On 5/10/05, Derek Martin <invalid at pizzashack.org> wrote:
> Note that as with most political issues that surface on the list, this
> topic IS at least tangentially related -- it's about the politics of
> technology. 

  That particular argument has been had before in this forum.  Right
or wrong, all the points that are going to be made, for or against,
have been made.  I refer you to the archives and will not rehash them
here.  Reply off-list to me if you feel you must discuss them with
somebody again.

> Many people aren't also interested in ham radio, but that's ok here.

  To the best of my knowledge, there is no clear majority in favor of
banning the discussion of ham radio in this forum.

> People are going to do it anyway, and it's NOT about being rude, and it's NOT
> about being irresponsible.  It's about doing what comes natural in an environment
> that lends itself to having exactly those kinds of discussions, and the passions
> of the people who hang out here.

  Shitting on the floor is doing what comes naturally.  Our ability to
overcome our natural desires and behaviors is one of the defining
characteristics of being human.

  I disagree with your assertions that such behavior is not rude, not
irresponsible, and is unavoidable.

  It is rude because it appears the clear majority would rather not
have this stuff here, and there are ample forums of equal
accessibility where this stuff can be discussed.  It doesn't cost
anything to not have this stuff here.  I find disregarding what others
think in that fashion rude, just as interrupting someone when they are
talking is rude.

  Likewise, just as children learn not to speak out-of-turn in
elementary school, people can learn not to hijack forums and threads
for their own purposes.  Being a responsible member of a community
means you agree to adhere to the conventions of the community at
large, even if that means doing things you don't particularly want to.
 That's what responsibility is all about.  So I view those who refuse
to put in their part for the betterment of a community as
irresponsible.

  While I have, as you say, been on plenty of lists where topic was
freely ignored, I have also been a member of plenty of forums where
topic was adhered to.  Most often because there was a formally defined
topic which was enforced by a moderator ("moderator" in the general
sense, not the Usenet sense of "person who approves all postings prior
to dissemination").

  I think a bit of a historical digression here may help illuminate
where I am coming from.  My original background in electronic
discussion forums is not Usenet, but Fidonet, the amateur BBS network.
 Every forum (called an "echo") had a moderator.  Fido moderators did
not act as Usenet moderators do, but rather, were "in charge of" and
"owned" echos.  How strict the rules of each echo were, in theory and
fact, was up to the moderator.  If people did not behave, moderators
could get them banned from the echo.  If a single person became a
nuisance, that person could be banned from all echos.  If an
individual BBS was lax in policing it's members, that BBS could be cut
off from Fidonet.  This is a radical paradigm shift from the barely
controlled anarchy of Usenet, but it worked pretty well, and still
does in parts of the world without good Internet connectivity.

  NOTE WELL: I am not attempting to argue that Fidonet is/was the best
format for a forum in the universe for any given definition of "best".
 Nor am I saying Usenet and/or this forum should adopt some or all of
Fidonet policies.  I'm simply using an example to illustrate a point.

  That point being: I've seen forums stay on topic in a nice,
friendly, manner, and I disagree with Derek's assertions that they
cannot.



More information about the gnhlug-discuss mailing list