[Chat] [Discussion] revoking access and list rules

[Brad Schlegel]

Digested is the term found on the website where all list members can go to 
check who is on the list.  People on the "digested" side receive only ONE 
daily e-mail, which contains ALL the messages posted fot that day.  I used 
to use that but found it difficult to read through and to reply to.  I 
prefer the "non-digested" mode where each posting comes as an individual 
message.  Follow these sites to look for yourselves:

http://charlesvillage.info/mailman/listinfo/chat_charlesvillage.info
http://charlesvillage.info/mailman/listinfo/discussion_charlesvillage.info
Sincerely,

W. Brad Schlegel
1552 Oakridge Road
Baltimore, MD 21218-2228

410-467-1933 - H
410-962-9506 - W and Voice Mail
william.schlegel at us.army.mil

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <tweefie at juno.com>
To: <william.schlegel at us.army.mil>; <Discussion at charlesvillage.info>
Sent: Friday, November 18, 2005 1:21 PM
Subject: Re: [Discussion] revoking access and list rules


> Im not sure what you mean by 'digested' as in 'Readers Digest'
> Or, chewed up and not spit out...?
> At any rate, Jenny, your proposed rules would effectively strike out
> one of our more regular, and respectful contributors, Brad.
>
>
> -- "Brad Schlegel" <william.schlegel at us.army.mil> wrote:
> Jenny,
>
> I would feel badly if the list was restricted to only CVers.  I have made
> several good friends through this list and have been a member for over 6
> years.  At one time we had many more contributors, but the "fighting" by a
> minority led to a large drop out rate.  Nonetheless as of today the
> composition of the lists are:
>      38 Non-digested Members of Chat:  8 Digested Members of Chat:
>
>      50 Non-digested Members of Discussion:  12 Digested Members of
> Discussion:
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
> W. Brad Schlegel
 >
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Jenny Rolling" <jrolling at yahoo.com>
> To: "Charles Village Discussion List" <Discussion at charlesvillage.info>
> Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2005 11:12 PM
> Subject: Re: [Discussion] revoking access and list rules
>
>
>>I would support a ban if this person is not a Charles
>> Villager or someone with a reasonable stake in the
>> neighborhood. I've only ever belonged to one other
>> email list and that one had strict rules, so I am
>> personally used to it. I think it would be a good way
>> to perhaps get more people to contribute more
>> regularly if there were rules against (1) non CVers
>> (and those refusing to reveal their identities at
>> least to the list administrator) and (2) those using
>> undue amounts of profanity, personal attacks on
>> others, and other generally offensive behavior.
>>
>> Ever notice that there are only about 5 people that
>> contribute reularly, maybe 12 max? It's probably
>> mostly because other people don't want to bother with
>> the garbage. To run a better list, you have to be
>> willing to get rid of the garbage. The other list I
>> was a member of had about 50 regular contributors to
>> very interesting discussions. Lots of disagreement,
>> but also lots of respect.
>>
>> How about a discussion about some list rules?
>>
>> I support revoking Hobble's access to the list. I
>> think it's a no brainer.
>>
>> To those of you would might like to make this a larger
>> issue about free speech, etc... how about creating an
>> environment where a greater number of people can feel
>> able/comfortable participating? How about a slightly
>> more professional email list? These are also good
>> goals that are completely in line with free speech
>> ideals.
>>
>> Jenny
>>
>> --- Kiko <kikodawgz at riseup.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Emil:
>>>
>>> I propose a full ban on the basis of Hobble's
>>> refusal to reveal his
>>> identity. An ultimatum should be given to Hobble to
>>> either reveal who he is,
>>> where he comes from and what he is doing here, or
>>> face a ban from the list,
>>> which would, or should, apply equally to any
>>> subsequent identities or emails
>>> he might adopt to try to circumvent that move-- the
>>> advantage of the people
>>> on this list being that we are all smart people and
>>> can tell when someone
>>> with a certain attitude is the same person under a
>>> new alias-- in other
>>> words that we're not indiscriminate about WHO we
>>> ban.
>>>
>>> Arjay agrees with this as well; see his post to the
>>> list.
>>>
>>> On your concern about free speech. I do not think it
>>> violates free and equal
>>> speech to do this. If an anonymous pedophile came on
>>> the list and started
>>> talking about raping children, I should hope that
>>> we'd be principled enough
>>> to kick him or her off the list. If an anonymous
>>> Klan member started coming
>>> on the list and talking about "killing the k---s and
>>> the n-----s," I should
>>> similarly hope that we'd be principled enough to
>>> kick him or her off the
>>> list.
>>>
>>> And just to show you I'm balanced about this, if I,
>>> or someone claiming to
>>> be communist (or anarchist) with views claiming to
>>> be similar to my own,
>>> that refused to identify himself or herself and his
>>> or her location of
>>> origin (the general expectation being that the
>>> people on this list either
>>> reside, formerly reside or are closely associated
>>> with residents of the
>>> Charles Village area of Baltimore), and that person
>>> named names of specific
>>> people s/he was going to go and commit violent acts
>>> to, or that s/he was
>>> going to throw bmbs, or burn particular things, laid
>>> out plans or
>>> blueprints, or ANYTHING, etc. etc., I should equally
>>> hope that that person
>>> would be dropped from the list like a hot potato to
>>> avoid the CV list being
>>> implicated in entirely inappropriate and unlawful
>>> activity! (Remember what
>>> the FBI did to the Weathermen? I hate the FBI and
>>> the government, but the
>>> Weathermen were just stupid, and juvenile, and
>>> smarter people such as myself
>>> thoroughly know that actions like theirs, or like
>>> the above, are never the
>>> way to make a revolution.)
>>>
>>> To my mind, Hobble D. Goo is a lesser example of all
>>> those extremes, the
>>> primary thrust of the situation being that 1) to a
>>> lesser, less damaging,
>>> but no less overall disruptive degree, the whole
>>> purpose of his being on the
>>> list has always and forever, so far, been ONLY to
>>> incite, never to discuss
>>> or contribute in any form; and 2) he is anonymous,
>>> and stays anonymous,
>>> presumably with the endgoal of being able to
>>> continue (1) without being
>>> personally implicated in it, or tracked down.
>>>
>>> Because of those two things, and due to Arjay's
>>> agreement with me about the
>>> identity concealment thing, I stick by my original
>>> proposal for a total ban
>>> of Hobble from the list, and I contend that this has
>>> gone beyond the realm
>>> of personal opinion and has emerged as fact. Note
>>> that my number one
>>> "ideological foe" (who I actually really like)
>>> on-list has agreed with me
>>> that it's wimpy of Hobble D. Goo to take potshots at
>>> people and not own up
>>> to them by revealing him or her self! If the primary
>>> person I virulently
>>> disagree with, and sometimes outright oppose, is
>>> agreeing with me about an
>>> issue of practicality, you've got to know
>>> something's up and that the matter
>>> should be seriously considered.
>>>
>>> Frankly, I don't think Christine and Steve are
>>> taking the matter seriously
>>> _enough_. But, THAT is indeed just my personal
>>> opinion. <g>
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Nico
>>>
>>> > -----Original Message-----
>>> > From: Emil Volcheck
>>> [mailto:volcheck at speakeasy.net]
>>> > Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2005 4:34 PM
>>> > To: Kiko
>>> > Cc: weinsteinm at aol.com; volcheck at acm.org
>>> > Subject: Re: proposal to ban hobble
>>> >
>>> > Hi, Nico,
>>> >
>>> > Well, it sounds like it's time to do something
>>> about this.
>>> >
>>> > Matthew has some of the same concerns you do, so
>>> I'm copying
>>> > him.  Matthew proposed requiring members of the
>>> Discussion
>>> > List to reveal their identity.  You mention this
>>> as well.
>>> > I'm torn about this, because the "anonymous
>>> pamphleteer" has
>>> > a tradition of receiving First Amendment
>>> protection, however
>>> > when the pamphleteer stuffs your mailbox, that's
>>> not
>>> > necessarily protected.  Of course the Discussion
>>> List is
>>> > private, and we can make the rules, but I want to
>>> try to keep
>>> > good principles in mind.
>>> >
>>> > Another approach would be to sanction Hobble, say
>>> suspending
>>> > posting privileges for a number of months.
>>> >
>>> > What are you interested in seeing?  suspension?
>>> ban?
>>> > revealing identity? Something else?
>>> >
>>> > --Emil
>>> >
>>> > > -----Original Message-----
>>> > > From: Kiko [mailto:kikodawgz at riseup.net]
>>> > > Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2005 08:34 PM
>>> > > To: ''Emil Volcheck''
>>> > > Subject: proposal to ban hobble
>>> > >
>>> > > Emil:
>>> > >
>>> > > I would like to issue a formal proposal to ban
>>> Hobble D.
>>> > Goo from the
>>> > > Discussion listserv. He has been nothing but a
>>> disruptive influence
>>> > > and only stops in every now and again to throw
>>> potshots at list
>>> > > members. He contributes nothing positive. He is,
>>> as they say in the
>>> > > internet world, a Troll.
>>> > >
>>> > > My own personal politics aside, and the fact
>>> that most people
>>> > > including myself regularly ignore him, it's
>>> still somewhat
>>> > frustrating
>>> > > to have messages of his cluttering my inbox, and
>>> I'm sure
>>> > other list
>>> > > members feel similarly, given their occassional
>>> responses
>>> > to the situation.
>>> > >
>>> > > Furthermore, and this is a further piece of
>>> evidence that he is a
>>> > > troll and nothing more, he absolutely refuses to
>>> identify
>>> > himself or where he resides.
>>> > > How do we even know that Hobble is a Charles
>>> Village resident or
>>> > > former resident? How do we know that he ever, in
>>> fact, under any
>>> > > different name, ever contributed anything
>>> positive to the
>>> > list or to
>>> > > the community? As I see it, if we keep him on,
>>> we are implicitly
>>> > > validating his right to be here, when he may not
>>> even have
>>> > that right as a total and complete outsider.
>>> > >
>>> > > If you know who he is, now would be a great time
>>> to spill
>>>