[New-imc] Banning Chuck0

[boud]

hi dana, everyone,

On Sun, 5 Jan 2003, Dana Williams wrote:

> I'm pretty new to this list, and the collective I work with just
> recently became official. All the same, here's MHO:

> I think Chuck has a right to express anger on this list, but I fail
> to see how name-calling and attacks are productive forms of anger.

Agreed.

>  I also think that everyone on this list should have the right to
> express their opinion in a fair, open, concerned manner, even Chuck
> (who did verbally attack someone). Do I agree with his opinions or
> his tact? Not in this case. But do I think he has a right to express
> those opinions? Yes. But, I would call for him to unilaterally
> refrain from petty attacks-- they don't get us anywhere. If Andy--
> or anyone else-- is doing __________ (fill-in-the-blank) now, we can
> all deal with that in a calm manner, right? Past behaviors, petty or
> not, don't need so many put-downs and f-words (ya made me blush,
> Chuck! ;-) (And, to answer your rhetorical question, no, I don't
> think it's (nearly ever) justified to physically attack others,
> especially comrades.)

Agreed.
 
> However, I don't know policies for banning people from this list, so
> I'm speaking out of partial ignorance. Also, I'm new to this list,
> and perhaps do not have as much invested in it as others. But, if I
> had to speak now, I would tentatively say "no" to banning Chuck,
> barring further evidence, argument, or precedent.
 
i've put your concern on V0.03 of the proposal:
http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/public/new-imc/2003-January/004427.html
 
If the proposal passes without a block, then it will be on the 
record that both you and torstein were uncomfortable with it, but
did not block.

Based on the discussion, you might choose to formalise your tentative
"no" into either a "stand aside" or a "block. A "block" should only
be for fundamental reasons of what the list is about. A "stand aside"
would show that although you wer unhappy with the decision, you chose
not to block it.

Here is "further evidence":
http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/public/new-imc/2003-January/004428.html

chuck0 wrote:
> boud wrote:
> 
> > The proposal has nothing to do with the imc-process list.
> > 
> > Please read the proposal carefully:
> > http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/public/new-imc/2003-January/004418.html
> 
> I flamed Andy on the IMC-process list.

chuck is confused not only about the proposal, but confused about
where she sent messages. Her "flame" (personal attack) is on the
new-imc list:
http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/public/new-imc/2003-January/004408.html

She could have easily checked this information on the archive before
posting this incorrect statement.

It is understandable that beginners on the internet or on Indymedia do
not know how to verify URLs, to look up archives, how to use google,
etc. In fact, people from new IMCs in poor (and rich) countries often
lack both experience and good internet access, and part of the work of
helping a new geographical IMC is simply explaining patiently and
guessing what errors a "newbie" may have made, or where they may have
missed some of the key information linked from
http://newimc.indymedia.org

But chuck has been on Indymedia mailing lists for a long time, at
least two years: 
http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/public/imc-process/2000-December/000229.html

In fact, chuck argued quite convincingly in favour of...
geographically-based IMCs rather than issue-based IMCs back on 21 Dec
2000 in the above post! Of course, there's nothing wrong with changing
one's mind.

The point is that two years of using the Indymedia mailing lists, by a
native English speaker, should be enough to learn about netiquette and
how people generally think in the Indymedia network and how to check
articles on indymedia list archives.

solidarity
boud