[Northkeep] The Northkeep list aka "Troubles in paradise"

[Keith Duke]

Diarmaid wrote:

Just to let people know, it was suggested by the shmoe who has the
unenviable task of helping Pug to maintain the Ansteorra.Org system (i.e.
Jean Paul) that I go ahead and moderate things just in case.  So I did.  And
in the plus column there hasn't been anything until Piotr sent in his
message -- and you know what?  Aside from Piotr's overgentle irony, I didn't
see anything to block it for.  It contains everything that I think a good
well-thought-out message should have. I don't agree with everything he says,
but that's the point of discussion, and I'm going to respond to those
points.


Diarmaid -
Thanks.

I would enjoy any disagreement you would care to make... Shall we say
respectful keyboarding at dawn, sir? <<LOL>>



===========
>First, assume that if I delete something and don't respond to it in Piotr's
message, I agree with it completely.
>
>>happiness etc. ad nauseum, are the sorts of things that *modern day*
>>Americans have fought and died for. They are *not*, generally
>>speaking, the sorts of things that our *personas* typically did much
>> >for/with/about... (A debatable point I agree, and one which I think
>> >would make a fascinating conversation either here or in person...)
>
>Count me in.

OK - Sounds like an amusing discussion. Which side do you want?



>>I would respectfully request, that all of us - friends, >acquaintances,
>>neutrals and even those who detest each other - remember that this is a
>>public list. The audience includes people of >all ages... serve the
>>same purpose today.
>
>This is part of the major difficulty - so please bear with me.  If you are
saying that this is list that may be -read- by >the public, in that fashion,
I agree that this is a "public" list.  Absolutely, this is a publically
accessable list.
>
>Unfortunately "public list" is apparently frequently assumed to be
synoynous as say, "public park", an area that is
>*owned* by the public (This is why the SCA can not banish people from a
public park - it is owned by the public).  This
>list is -owned- by "Ansteorra.Org", so in that context it is not "public".
So we need to be careful, since that's the
>crux of the whole free-speech issue.

I appreciate the distinction. I meant that the list was freely available to
the public. I'm not enough of a constitutional scholar to grasp the finer
points of the rest of the argument.



>>In the realm of "solutions not problems" I would humbly suggest the
>>following as an alternative to a moderated list: 1. Please keep in mind
>>that Email is devoid of the non-verbal portion >of our interpersonal
>>communications... There is no laughing tone, or giggle... No theatric
>>sigh or shrugged shoulders that would transform otherwise offensive /
>>insensitive / mean words into a moment of humor >or a sharing of
>>commonality of frustration...
>
>This has always been a bother to me.  People who read my email elsewhere
notice that I use very few "emoticons",  I don't >believe in them except in
very limited circumstances.  People have been writing understandably for
millenia without them.  >Now they are all to frequently a crutch to cover up
lazy writing, or passive agressive attack ("I didn't mean it as a -
>real- insult, I was joking, seen the "smiley"?"  when some of the most
viscious attacks I've ever seen were spoken by
>someone who was smiling).  Here, I tend to try to use them as a social
lubricant only.
>
>Marc/Diarmaid

Hmmmmm... I think that this can be a problem for any of us. And, it is
perfectly OK to unequivocally tell someone that their 'joke' or 'friendly
insult' is unappreciated.
And of course, in the process they get a lesson on the topic that "Nice"
doesn't equal "Weak"... And while I have seen the phenomenon you describe
(the horrible vicious attack under cover of a smile), there are equally fun
ways to deal with people who engage in *that* behavior, well short of
disemboweling them with a garden rake.

Although that *is* my favorite method.

Piotr