Can we vote.
Michael A. Chance
mchance at crl.com
Wed Mar 1 19:36:06 PST 1995
> thing I will insist on though is that the removal of any Society member
> from the list, will have to come from the Crown in the form of
> bannishment. This is the only way I am able to be truly impartial
> without being accused of showing favoritism.
I'm afraid I don't agree with this criteria for removing someone from
the list, for a couple of reasons.
Firstly, behavior on and off the discussion list may be completely
unrelated. Someone who, in posting, is abusive, offensive, or is
otherwise engaging in unacceptable behavior on the list may never do
similar things in person at events or in other contexts. If the
current Crown isn't participating in this forum, they may never see
the offending actions, and may not feel compelled to act.
Second, though this forum is related to SCA activities, it isn't part
of the SCA. The two "worlds" involved, that of this forum and that of
SCA events and other sanctioned activities, while certainly related to
one another, are seperate. While the Crown can impose sanctions with
regards to participation at SCA events, they have no official presence
or authority on this list.
I think of this forum and others like it more like a collection of
friends, most in the SCA while some are not, who meet on a regular
basis at a common meeting place to talk about many things, most of
which are related to SCA but not all. The Crowns can no more tell me
who I can and can't have over for drinks, snacks, and conversation
than the Man in the Moon. The Crown's writ may run far, but it doesn't
run to my living room, or my computer.
As the maintainer of the list, you have a responsibility toward the
health and well-being of it. If enough (however you define "enough")
people complain about the conduct of a poster _on_ _the_ _list_, then
you have a duty to act, first by warning the offender, then (if the
offensive behavior continues) by terminating his subscription. While
I realize that, unless the list software can be set up to prevent
posting from non-subscribers or from selected addresses, you can't
really stop someone from posting, passing off the unpleasant but
necessary responsibility for disciplining unruly subscribers to a
third party who, in all likelihood, may not even be a subscriber to the
list, is a cop-out, IMO.
Far better, I believe, to lay out clear standards of conduct, with an
equally clear statement that repeated violations of those standards
will be grounds for removal from the list.
Michael A. Chance St. Louis, Missouri, USA "At play in the fields
Work: mc307a at sw1stc.sbc.com of St. Vidicon"
Play: mchance at crl.com
More information about the Ansteorra