[hackerspaces] status of this list

Matt Joyce mdjoyce at gmail.com
Fri May 15 00:28:08 CEST 2009


For the most part, I agree with you.  I am sure with continued discussions
we may run afoul of each others opinions, but for now I agree 100%.  That
being said, If we stick to excluding the obvious problems, I think that's
likely enough.  Getting people to review their postings to the list, and
consider the fact that they will be held to at least some minor level of
scrutiny is enough for most people to begin to fire up their own
pre-parsers.  At least that has been my experience.  Just knowing there is a
wall to be hit is usually enough to keep people inside the yellow lines so
to speak.

In regards to Eric his example was perfect.  I had another more technical
parallel involving standardized transfer of meta data but I figure he
covered it better than that would go over =P.



On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 6:00 PM, Jens Ohlig <jens at ccc.de> wrote:

> Am 14.05.2009 um 23:36 schrieb druid at stonedcoder.org:
>> now if the GROUP responds formally, saying "you are an instigator, based
>> on this this and this", hackerY will not assume as he has in the past that
>> the person criticizing him is just responding in kind, because the
>> language will indicate the criticism has been well thought out.
> This assumes a common set of values in the group that this group is willing
> to defend against the instigator. With drastic examples like the use of
> extremely derrogatory speech or ad hominem attacks, it's probably easier to
> find a consensus. Things get a lot trickier if you look at the examples of
> your original list: "religious and policitcal issues, gender issues
> portrayed negatively, etc..." In that case a group of 3 people can stop any
> thread they disagree with by requesting that thread to be moved and
> seconding that. This may not say anything about the position of the majority
> on the list.
> Also, please keep cultural differences in mind (we're dealing with an
> international audience here). The thing that made me very unhappy about the
> thread in question that started this meta-discussion, was that it became a
> flame-fest with ad hominem attacks. On the other hand I was really confused
> when a group of people wanted to kill the thread because it dealt with
> political issues. I may be totally wrong (I've only lived in Europe all my
> life), but I got the impression that discussions on political issues are
> often avoided among Americans daily smalltalk, as it might offend those with
> a different opinion. I'm not judgeing that, it's a perfectly fine example of
> a cultural difference. Yet it feels foreign to me personally. On the other
> hand, there are counter-examples to this, two people from das Labor in
> Germany also voiced their opinion that they didn't care for political
> discussions. So I may be wrong here.
> Still, I believe it's tricky to impossible to objectively judge when a
> thread should be removed, apart from the more drastic examples.
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20090514/860d2157/attachment.htm 

More information about the Discuss mailing list