GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2002-01 > 1012311457


From: (Bryant Smith)
Subject: Re: U.S. Copyright Law (was: several related threads with diffeent titles)
Date: 29 Jan 2002 05:37:37 -0800
References: <a9b2ce02.0201270621.d444576@posting.google.com>, <005101c1a759$0f5bffe0$b3eafe18@tulsa1.ok.home.com>


(Phil Moody) wrote in message news:<005101c1a759$0f5bffe0$>...
> Andy wrote:
> > It is also a very good argument for a private mailing list that has as a
> > condition to joining an agreement that anything discussed will ONLY be
> > discussed on THAT list and no part of any discussion will be copied,
> > published,
> > or transmitted in any form whatsoever to any third parties not also a
> > member of
> > the list.
>
> PLM: You must be proposing an entirely new group, ...

[His Jadedness replied:

"That is exactly what I am proposing as a solution. It would function
as if the
gateway between this group's newsgroup and maillist were severed. Any
member of
the mailing list found violating the "rules" of the mailing list could
easily
be struck from the list.

"There would be no front end moderation of postings on such a mailing
list."]

<SNIP>

"_as if_?" If the gateway were not _actually_ severed, striking an
abuser
from the list would get you nowhere because anyone can access the
postings
through Google (and post replies) exactly as I, not a subscriber to
the
list, am doing now. So you must consider the consequences of severing
the
Google gateway, and they would be dire.


> Though I have often heard that a moderated forum is undesirable; I have
> not heard what their reasoning is for believing it to be so. The only
> negative impact I can see is that the moderator/s would have an inordinate
> amount of control and this could have a negative impact on free thought and
> speech,

That's reason number one.
Reason number two: Who wants to take on the job of moderator? I
suspect
that anyone willing to take that power would be someone to whom most
participants would not want to give that power.
Reason number three: As long as the gateway is maintained, what you
propose would be utterly ineffective.

> but this could be resolved by putting all major disciplinary actions
> to a vote, in a democratic way.
> Naturally, all votes cannot be equal in a academic environment,

or at the Animal Farm ...

> where
> you have professionals and hobbyists intermingaling because the level of
> expertise is to disparate; so the votes should be similar to the house of
> representative's system.
>
> 1 point = member of forum
> 1 point = College degree
> 1 point = Published Author
>
> The above point system is a simplistic example of how some parity can be
> achieved for voting purposes, based on merit, but finer distinctions can be
> made, if necessary. Using the above point system, my vote would be worth 1
> Point, but Todd Farmerie's would be worth 3, on any issue.

In short, in place of a fair hearing you would have a political
decision
by an assembly of "citizens" many of whom have personal axes to grind,
and
moreover a political decision in which the ballot would be open, not
secret
(or would you prefer a complex process with Judges of Election to rule
on qualifications of voters, count secret ballots and certify the
results?),
no doubt exacerbating personal grudges. Would there be provision, in
lieu
of a fair hearing, for political campaigns to solicit votes? The
whole idea
is ludicrous, but just for fun let's try it out:

Shall Ken Finton be excluded on the ground that he has improperly
republished the contribution of a poster?

On your system my vote is "worth 3," and I vote "NO."

C'mon folks, get your votes in, the polls close -- when????

I imagine that Socrates is turning over in his grave.

Saludos
Bryant Smith
Playa Palo Seco
Costa Rica
>
> Best Wishes,
> Phil


This thread: