> My original comment was addressed to Andrew, not Olin.

Indeed.
But they were inappropriate regardless of who they were addressed to.
The adequate reason is "because" the "guidelines say so" but a major
reason they say so is because they cause to happen what happened next
- you "rifle loaded" for Jim, as we were off.

At a VERY VERY VERY minimum put such material in OT. And then try not
to incite others (which is not a comment on what you did or didn't try
to do :-) ).

My opinions on the merits of what people wrote are irrelevant. It
happens that I think that everyone has some good points, variably well
made. But plastering it all across PIC is asking for what happened
next. Alas.

> I know Olin considers
> his style acceptable, so we agree to disagree.

That's going too far.
You should maintain at least a vestige of desire that he would change :-).

> He is a much nicer person, in
> person.

I'd hope so :-)  (again).

> Admins are not royalty, nor are they prison guards. Admins are police
> officers, meaning they're public servants with special powers.

None of those things.
Admins are slaves, servants of the list membership, desirers and
workers towards the common and greater good.

> With power comes responsibility,

Yes.

> for example you have to be more polite/patient than
> the average citizen.

No. You don't have to be.
BUT, fwiw, I choose to try very hard to be.
But on some lists the admins never respond to criticism, never
explain, never justify - they just kneecap.
It seems to work effectively, as you don't hear from the kneecapped as
their screams of rage are suppressed.
Some list members here have been subject to this type of treatment and
are not, as far as I can ascertain, impressed with it. It's easier
here where that very very largely doesn't occur. I try harder than you
may be aware to keep it that way.
(But its tempting :-) ).

> The power must also be checked, otherwise the cops will
> quickly start abusing it and hitting you over the head with a baton.

Must?
Few and far between are the batons.
So far that some, present company exemplars, who on occasion run
around attempting to provoke batoning.


> Russel said:
> > Additionally:
> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Please do not respond to admins =
onlist in the
> > manner that you subsequently did. The merits and/or truthfulness or
> > not of anything you say is irrelevant.

> Russell, I love you,

Kiss kiss :-).
I consider you like a son.
That's flippant but also somewhat serious ! :-).
[love, concern, sorrow, desire for best outcomes, pride, shock, ...]

> but you are dead wrong.

Often enough, but ...

>They ARE relevant. I wouldn't
> want to face a judge or a juror who is prejudiced against me, and much le=
ss
> one who openly hates me. A decent judge would excuse himself in a similar
> situation.

Straw man - two situations rolled into one and then the one not
pertinent being addressed.
The 2 issues are:
       1. Whether bias exists and if so what to do about it.
       2. Due process for dealing with 1.
I was an am talking about 2.
You are attempting to talk about 1. and attributing my point to 1.

By all means disagree with how you feel you are and/or should be treated.
BUT take it up with the admins.
"Getting in the face" of an admin over admin matters that affect you
on list is not wise - regardless of whether your point has merit or
not. Doing it in [PIC] is doubly unwise.

> > Admins are most effective when
> > they never need to do anything and can be seen as a lurking power -
> > benevolent or malevolent as you see fit to perceive them.
>
> Yes. Paine would say, "that government is best which governs least."

And, not at all would be marvellous.

> > By getting
> > in the face of an individual admin onlist you pose an unnecessary
> > personally based =A0challenge to the admins effectiveness overall.
>
> The admin got *in my face*, first -- and he did it publicly.

No.
There's a major point here.
Bob addressed an issue involving 3 people.
All knew that their input had the prospect of ramping things up - even
if only between themselves.
Apart from calling their input "crap", which term I feel was more
provocative than was ideal, the admin response was fair enough and
balanced enough. You were mentioned (and seekers-of-freedom have
regularly asked that such things be done in public, but specifically
noted as NOT the lead player. Your use of "bully" can be laughed off
as something Olin could take and/or 'fair comment' (as some do see him
in that light)(even if he doesn''t)  BUT was about guaranteed to
provide bullets for somebody else to use. Merit is not the issue.
There was a fair admin point made. For argument, lets cancel out
"crap" with "bully" - that still leaves starting a near certain fire
fight (you succeeded)  in the midst of [PIC] - enough grounds for
admin intervention - and, again, you were one of 3 mentioned and
explicitly not top of the list.

So, to then on list start in on your old baggage of hate and enemy etc
(merit or not irregardless)  ON list in PIC is asking for problems and
far far far closer to 'getting in someones face' (my term) than
anything else that had gone before.
The message was and is the same - 'Take it outside, please.'

> > Failure of admins to respond appropriately to such a challenge or to
> > show solidarity makes admins look weak and powerless and reduces their
> > effectiveness*. Responding appropriately would not be appreciated by
> > you. Please throw down such gauntlets offlist. By all means send
> > material to piclist-owner@mit.edu as desired - repeatedly if deemed
> > necessary.
>
> Do you really want the PICList to be a "Harmonious Society"? :)

Yes please. (I don't know if that term has wider implications but,
taken at face value, yes).

> Sorry, but allowing the admins to save face is not at the top of my prior=
ity
> list.

Indeed.
But you miss my point.
It is important for the list members that admins have "face" and
"respect" and are listened to.
It's not important how badly the individuals are treated as
individuals (although some may not appreciate that :-) )P. When "you"
spit on an admin you insult the list membership. The admins are
slaves/servants/ dogsbody's who have no merit or rights or rewards or
status as individuals. They are mere shadows to fill the exalted
undeserved position of "Admin" (Y'All bow now, Y' hear!).
When "you" attack the position (whoever and whenever this hypothetical
actor and act may be) you potentially make the list less well managed
etc etc etc ad nauseum. Said trembling encumbents may have to finally
reach a point where the 12 gauge is reluctantly taken out of the arms
cupboard, dusted down, loaded, cocked and waved around. Failure to do
so makes rubbish of the whole system and allows the most noisy most
obnoxious and most uncaring to create mayhem. Or to post cr ... er
rubbish in [PIC] :-).

> You guys need to deal with the problem, instead you continue to sweep
> it under the rug.

Kerchunk ... :-)
(Or is that a metallic click?
Only joking. really.

Let's leave all of Olin's stuff that you quote in here.
Read it again.
There is a point:

> Olin Lathrop wrote:
> > Then the guidlines are too strict. =A0You have to let people get things=
 off
> > their chest once in a while. =A0You cause more long term problems by ma=
king
> > them keep it bottled up. =A0And telling them to only complain to admins
> > privately, or the offender privately, just makes things worse. =A0I'm s=
ure
> > Vitaliy and Jim wanted everyone to hear their opinion. =A0It's importan=
t and
> > necessary that individual people's opinions of what is acceptable be
> > occasionally heard by all. =A0That of course doesn't mean anyone has to
> > agree
> > and very unlikely anything will change, but just letting people gripe o=
nce
> > in a while is important. =A0Think of this as a sortof "peer review" adm=
in
> > process. =A0That's a lot better in the end than a dictatorial admin pro=
cess.
> > You should embrace it instead of fight it. =A0Realize that some of that=
 will
> > go on and get over it. =A0The real admin task is to make sure it doesn'=
t go
> > too far, and to keep it from polluting PIC and EE (or even TECH ;-) ).
> > Most
> > of the time these things won't go too far. =A0If you think they do, then
> > your
> > threshold of too far is probably not in the right place.

To which Vitaliy said:

> I agree with majority of Olin's comments. Set up clear rules, enforce them
> consistently, and otherwise just leave us alone. And we will all live long
> and prosper.

AND, I largely agree with what Olin said, at least in principle and in
large part in detail,  and with what you said.

And/but - the rules were clear enough that you transgressed. You can
read through them and have no easy way (unless you are unbeknownst to
us, also a lawyer) to justify them. BUT when 'called' as part of a
group you complain and escalate the offense.
A reasonable reading of the clear enough rules suggests that a
wet-noodle-wrist-slap one week on moderation would be appropriate. 12
gauge back in the arms locker. BUT I have no doubt as to how you'd
react to such a "penalty". No ? :-).

So, here we are again arguing over why we should have clear rules but
not expect to stick to them. No?

______

FWIW - what I do disagree with in what Olin said is how reasonable it
is for people to go on and on and on and on and on and on about
something they disagree with  (me too :-) ) when they can't get their
own way - regardless of what the clear rules say. We had that
situation about ?4? months ago and 100's of posts were posted going
over and over and over and over and ... the same ground. looks like we
are about to start another round. No?


           Russell

-- =

http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist