From: Jonathan Davis (jonathan.davis@lineone.net)
Date: Mon Oct 06 2003 - 03:35:11 MDT
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-virus@lucifer.com [mailto:owner-virus@lucifer.com] On Behalf Of
Hermit
Sent: 06 October 2003 01:03
To: virus@lucifer.com
Subject: virus: Re:The Disciplinary Process of the Church of Virus
[Hermit 2] Have you ever heard of the "broken Windows theory"? It is a
proven police methodology. It is because of this that I would like to see
every infraction, however small, dealt with by means of the "Disciplinary
Process." Usually, when valid grounds are established, only resulting in an
"acknowledgement." This makes it not only unneccesary for a person
perceiving a "swipe" at them to respond, but also means that they too will
consider an on-list response carefully, lest it result in a "Disciplinary
Process" being instituted for them.
[Hermit 2] Within a very short time, the members will tidy up their acts,
and our environment will become a much more pleasant place for all, enabling
us to pursue our larger goals more effectively. A highly recommended article
which explains the psychology behind this is "Broken Windows"
(http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/crime/windows.htm).
[Jonathan Davis 3] I like the article on my blog last year
http://www.ukpoliticsmisc.org.uk/weblog/archive/2002_10_25_old.php#85601645
. Coincidentally, It was October of 2002. Just under one year ago.
[Hermit 4] A competent article. Incidently, as you would have found had you
gone there, the same article as I refered to. And the first to appear in a
google search. So a lot of people obviously feel the same way about it.
[Jonathan 4] linked was replaced with like by As-U-Type . So the sentence
was supposed to read "I linked to the article on my blog last year", thus I
was saying, I linked to THE SAME article last year.
[Jonathan Davis 3] I recommend you read a criticism of the theory (for
balance): Policing Disorder - Can we reduce serious crime by punishing
petty offences? http://www.bostonreview.net/BR27.2/harcourt.html.
[Hermit 4] Also a good article, but not relevant to the circumstances here.
Rather than a crackdown to prevent "serious crime" (which fortunately can't
happen here), we have established a "community-librarian (to extend the
parable - police is so authoritarian) relationship exercise" with the intent
not of "arresting" more "offenders", but of reducing the inevitable
progression of "disorder" to "more disorder" and by intervening early,
reducing the need to invoke the only effective sanctions - other than
community disapproval - we have - to dissassociate the community from the
offender either through silencing or disownment.
[Jonathan 4] I agree that intervention is a sound but I have observed that
disorder in this forum almost always involves more than one individual,
usually locked in a dispute and contributing to the problem in different
ways. Rather than focusing on individual "offenders", I think we might look
at ways of breaking unhelpful cycles of communication. "Offenders" are born
of situations which can be prevented or stopped fairly easily. Post facto
"sanctions" may be useful for cases where spite or malice are involved and
the community simply wants to boot an obviously deleterious offender, but
they are less effective where the wrongdoing is not agreed on or based on
provocation. In such cases - in my experience the majority - the situation
giving rise to offensive behaviour needs to be disrupted. It is only if
those efforts are ignored or violated that the more serious personal
sanctioning procedures ought to be activated.
The danger is that individuals may (and in my opinion have) used the appeals
for sanctions glibly, reducing them to little more that playground yells for
teacher-to-punish-because-he-called-me-a-name.
I will be reading through your thread with Mermaid to try and catch up with
where the debate has gone over the weekend.
[Jonathan Davis 1] On a personal level, your apparent deep involvement in
the system makes me distrust it.
[Hermit 4] The request was to keep the replies impersonal, so your comment
is off-topic. In addition, while you are welcome to hold any opinions you
like, expressing negative opinions of other members is not part of what this
community stands for.
[Jonathan Davis 2] I will decide for myself what this community stands for.
[Hermit 4] The community has already decided this, and instituted a process
to determine if those standards are being adhered to - and appropriate
responses when a determination is made that they are.
[Jonathan 4] I do not consider you a community spokesman nor do I consider
you an authority on what this community stands for. Your statement was
noted, but as I said, I will make my own determination as to what this
community stands for.
[Jonathan Davis 3] Furthermore, my comment was a personal aside to you about
an attitude of mine. It is a relevant truth that may aid your understanding
of me and so further our goals of empathy, vision and reason.
[Hermit 4] A letter sent to some 1600+ people, and appearing on a public BBS
is never personal, and nobody needs to be clairevoyant to determine your
"attitude" or the fact that public spats, particularly when completely
unneccesary due to your assertion that it was "all in fun" (i.e. deliberate)
are extremely unattractive.
[Jonathan 4] All posts are public, my comment a personal aside to you (which
I suspect has already helped your empathy). You are right about public
spats. They are unattractive, so perhaps you will take your own advice and
stop participating in them. After all, the common denominator in most of
these spats seems to be you: Joe Dees/Hermit, Bill Roh/Hermit, Demon/Hermit,
Jonathan/Hermit and lately Mermaid/Hermit.
[Hermit 4] Please stop.
[Jonathan 4] Yes, please stop.
Let me reiterate: Thanks for all your work on this. I value it.
Kind regards,
Jonathan
--- To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Oct 06 2003 - 03:35:38 MDT