[hackerspaces] status of this list

[Matt Joyce]

I would encourage eric to bring forth his talking points.  If he's put a
great deal of thought into this maybe he can start us off.

  I have some immediate concerns that I've already mentioned.  No ad hominem
attacks.  Which means you can't detract weight from another persons argument
based upon personal attacks or attacks concerning their situation and
background.  Another good one to be weay of is straw man attacks.  Using non
relevant arguments to bolster ones own arguments.

  A few examples:

  "Your points on moderations are void because you sent a troll email!"
  Could be seen as a straw man argument.

  "Your hackerspace is new or smaller than ours and therefore of lesser
importance.  Thus your argument is weaker!"
  Situational Ad Hominem attack

  "I am immediately discounting your opinion because I believe you have not
thought about the topic enough."
  Blind ignorance.

  "Childish bullshit!"
  Maybe using curse words and other derrogatory language should be
disallowed

  "I am king of the hackerspaces!"
   Maybe absurd troll emails should not be allowed.

  "You said germany was the size of ohio and are therefore wrong in your
anti-political stance!"
   Ad-hominem attack.

   "Politics is an integral part of hackerspaces."
   Be accepting of other viewpoints than your own.  Don't assume yourself to
be correct.

Just a few examples and ideas.

Regards,

   Matt

On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 4:32 PM, Paul Böhm <paul at boehm.org> wrote:

> > We agree on a list of rulese to abide by.
>
> can you give specific examples, or even draft such a full proposal?
> i have a hard time thinking about this while it is so vague!
>
> paul
>
> On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 1:26 PM, Matt Joyce <mdjoyce at gmail.com> wrote:
> > It's not the topic of discussion that's a problem it's the method of
> > discussion.  THUS the call for a form of moderation.  One form is to kill
> > trouble topics.  I am not a fan of that approach but it is a method of
> > moderation.  Another method of moderation is the enforcement of
> discussion
> > etiquette.  Or netiquette.  Or debate / discussion rules.  Or "be
> excellent
> > to each other" rules.
> >
> > We agree on a list of rulese to abide by.  Then we moderate people who
> > violate the rules and admit their emails on a case by case basis until
> such
> > time as they stop with the violation of those rules of etiquette.
> >
> > Does that make sense?
> >
> > On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 4:20 PM, Paul Böhm <paul at boehm.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> Ok, so what should we discuss on this list other than what has been
> >> discussed?
> >> Specifically?
> >>
> >> Also how would you moderate a list without an impartial moderator?
> >>
> >> On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 1:09 PM, Matt Joyce <mdjoyce at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > Paul,
> >> >
> >> >    Failure to protect discussion on this list is in no way a solution
> to
> >> > the
> >> > problem at hand.  You are in effect choosing to forsake discussion on
> >> > the
> >> > discussion list entirely in favor of something else ( Re Ad hominem
> >> > attacks,
> >> > Fallacy, and other "Childish Bullshit").  I would like you to take
> your
> >> > other thing elsewhere and free up the discussion list for actual
> >> > discussion.  Calling this list "Discussion" in light of a complete
> break
> >> > from the commonly held definitions of discussion is deceptive.  And
> >> > inviting
> >> > people to hold discussions anywhere but the discussion list is absurd.
> >> >
> >> > Warmest regards,
> >> >
> >> >    Matt Joyce
> >> >
> >> > On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 4:00 PM, Paul Böhm <paul at boehm.org> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> hello from your friendly list creator,
> >> >>
> >> >> at the moment the meta-discussion mails about moderation/killing the
> >> >> thread/etc. have exceeded the mails about the actual subject roughly
> >> >> by a factor of two.
> >> >>
> >> >> killing off discussions you don't like solves the problem for you,
> but
> >> >> does not help others who feel the need to discuss certain subjects.
> >> >> there's a backlash because of that.
> >> >> hopefully the discussion will wind down after a bit, but we still
> >> >> won't all agree at that point.
> >> >>
> >> >> however, seeing that we're different from each other is valuable all
> by
> >> >> itself.
> >> >>
> >> >> in any case, this list won't become moderated since we won't be able
> >> >> to find an impartial moderator.
> >> >> if you want your own list on hackerspaces.org, we'd be very happy to
> >> >> create one for you.
> >> >>
> >> >> paul
> >> >> _______________________________________________
> >> >> Discuss mailing list
> >> >> Discuss at lists.hackerspaces.org
> >> >> http://lists.hackerspaces.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > Discuss mailing list
> >> > Discuss at lists.hackerspaces.org
> >> > http://lists.hackerspaces.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> >> >
> >> >
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Discuss mailing list
> >> Discuss at lists.hackerspaces.org
> >> http://lists.hackerspaces.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Discuss mailing list
> > Discuss at lists.hackerspaces.org
> > http://lists.hackerspaces.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at lists.hackerspaces.org
> http://lists.hackerspaces.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.hackerspaces.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20090514/bcd51217/attachment.htm