Re: [ga-abuse] Re: Please!!!

[k@widgital.com (Kristy McKee)]

At 11:06 PM 8/21/2002 +0000, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
>Kristy McKee wrote:
>
>>
>>Thank you for the advice, I was relying on the DNSO web site archive.
>
>What does this mean?

It means I used the DNSO's GA Monitored List Serve archive to view postings 
and make decisions.  I sometimes forget that they neither post their time 
zone nor use Internet Time and I am so location specific sometimes that it 
messes with me.

So I thanked you for suggesting the funky email address assignment for the 
list because it is a good idea.

>>---
>>
>>Okay, Roberto, so I place a complaint against Joe and what happens, 
>>nothing.  Joe is Joe and he has not ever really conformed to our rules, 
>>why should he if we don't expect it from everyone the same?
>
>I just canīt believe it!
>So, if somebody is a regular offender, he/she should not be sanctioned 
>because he/she "has not ever really conformed to our rules"? If the judges 
>applied your sense of justice, serial killers would get away without being 
>charged for murders!

No, I am saying that I don't usually send complaints to the list monitors.

In the instance of Joe Baptista, I understand Alexander will sanction him 
whether a complaint is sent or not depending on the nature of the offence; 
therefore there is no need for me to spend the time.

In the instance of You, I doubt Alexander would sanction you for anything 
so far this week as it has been in accordance with the rules (except for 
the copy paste thing, which we can agree to disagree about - I certainly 
can understand an oversight, it's not like I don't make any.)



>>You on the other hand, like me should continue to try to do the right 
>>thing.  So if I were going to file a complaint it would be against you.
>
>And for what? For having pasted few lines of text appeared in the GA list 
>into a reply to the GA list? That speaks volumes about your attitude 
>towards the list monitoring.

What do you think I'm suggesting?

This is simple:  you know better.

>  I however, rarely file complaints as a participant of
>>the abuse group I don't feel justified; but rather look to our group for 
>>their desires and make comments when I may not agree with the warning sent.
>
>And of course you donīt think that your judgement is biased by the person 
>who is the subject of the warning.
>One basic pillar of justice is that the offence is judged for what it is, 
>independently from the offender. You seem to think that people like Joe 
>Baptista, Jim Fleming, Jeff Williams (and probably yourself) should be 
>allowed to get away with excess posting, out of scope posting, libel and 
>slander, while Joe Sims should get expelled at the first offense.

You Are Wrong.  Let me keep this simple:

I think Mr. X should have received a more stringent notice about his 
infringement of the rules for sending a slander only post.

I think Mr. X should have received a less stringent notice about his 
infringement of the rules for sending more posts than we'd like to see.

I don't think the offenses weigh the same no matter who sent what.

I think sending the notice in the fashion it was sent sends a confusing 
message to all participants.


>Letīs be clear, I was seriously shocked by Joeīs posting, I agree that in 
>his position he should take double care than anybody else in avoiding such 
>silly messages, but in the end he is only hurting himself and ICANN, 
>surely not Michael by offending him without reason.

we agree


>Your role is different, methinks, and uncontrolled and biased posting from 
>your part can damage the GA. And your calling liar another GA member, even 
>independently of whether this is true or not, is firing back upon all of us.

You know, since you are such an experienced politician, I thought you would 
work harder to resolve the issue rather than the approach you have 
taken.  Looks like I was wrong all over the board today.

>I wonder if we are not falling into a trap by building discussion on this 
>at the eve of crucial decisions by ICANN on WLS, but OTOH I cannot accept 
>to be treated as liar on a public list without replying, because it will 
>remain on public record that I somehow accept the statement.
>Anyway, I see thereīs another posting on the GA on the subject, but I will 
>think until tomorrow before replying.

Too bad.  I have a very busy day tomorrow and not enough spare time to play 
with GA-Abuse issues.

Also, we've all said and written just about all there is about WLS, ICANN 
is going to do what they want (as usual) and probably without concerning 
themselves with consumers.  The GA is not going to sway them, especially 
since it took and passed a vote of no confidence in ICANN.  There is no WLS 
conversation because there isn't, not because we are arguing.

>The last thing I want to tell you, in a very friendly way, is that I 
>*really* replied to your statement only when I saw it a post to the 
>GAlist. How do you think I could remember, with the hundreds of emails I 
>receive every day, what was the distribution list originally? I see it 
>posted in public domain, and I treat it as public information. For this 
>very reason I use a separate email account for the GA, because I only 
>refer to the discussions there, and not to other various lists.
>For instance, I received this one only because ploki_xyz was explicitely 
>copied: when I am away from my office, I cannot even read the GAabuse, let 
>alone replying to it, because my autofwd sends only the To/Cc messages, 
>not the lists, and moreover on a completely different account, whose 
>address is not publicly known.

Ok, Roberto, I don't know how this CAN be true, but I will take your word 
for it.


>>AND yes I was wrong about Fleming and YES I reacted too strongly, that 
>>was my mistake and he did a great job of letting me look foolish which 
>>you so poignantly pointed out.
>>
>>
>>Are we done yet?
>
>For me, no, because IMHO you are wrong also about the copy/paste business, 
>and you donīt seem to realize it.

Well, I didn't do it to you.  I have always treated your messages with the 
same level of confidentiality that you've sent them.  Too bad you didn't 
feel I deserved the same respect, not that this shocks me after 
experiencing the IAB selection process.

:)

~k

>At most we can agree to disagree.
>
>Best regards
>Roberto
>
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com