Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!src.honeywell.com!msi.umn.edu!cs.umn.edu!dmshq!com50!craig From: craig@com50.c2s.mn.org (Craig Wilson) Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk Subject: Re: Fool Summary: Aren't we all? Message-ID: <1990Nov6.030346.11113@com50.c2s.mn.org> Date: 6 Nov 90 03:03:46 GMT References: <18667@rpp386.cactus.org> <1990Nov2.191240.4568@lavaca.uh.edu> <18684@rpp386.cactus.org> <1990Nov3.193714.4223@lavaca.uh.edu> <1990Nov4.031734.19127@com50.c2s.mn.org> <284@crucible.UUCP> Organization: Com Squared Systems, Inc. Lines: 63 In article <284@crucible.UUCP> al@crucible.UUCP (Al Evans) writes: >But *any* society needs mechanisms for adjusting differences, even stupid >differences. And for this very new sort of society, it seems evident that >those means do NOT involve appeals to authority of any sort, whether lawsuits >or sixguns (appeals to sysadmins are discounted as being useful only due >to temporary anomalies in the distribution of technology:-) But the mechanisms that are evolving or are in use are extremely inefficient and still do not produce a resolution to the conflict. The examples provided by just a few of the recent conflicts provide a good variety: 1. The DDMI newsgroup moderation problem evolving into a e-mail war. Quite a bit of modem time spent on that one, eh? And, although there has been moderated behaviour by DDMI, if I were certain people involved in this one, I wouldn't turn my back. 2. The posting of copyrighted material that seems kind of tame on the surface, but is just the kind of issue that can cause major problem for certain sites. In the current environment, this sort of issue could be the one the S.S. is looking for. After all, the government might be a little pissed after the 911 case was dismissed. There will be lots of mail and postings sent over this and they will not modify behaviour one bit. 3. The current "I'm gonna sue" conflict which is generating lots of heat, but little light. If I were going to sue somebody, I would DO IT. Not write about it in a public forum. I would definitely not post any further articles related to the issue and I might possibly not post anything until the suit were settled. > >So the question is valid: How DO we, here at the forefront of the future, >resolve such differences within the anarchy? Perhaps the kill file is >the ultimate weapon? > --Al Evans-- Network traffic certainly would be reduced once everyone got into everyone else's kill file. No, I am certain that all of the folks involved on both sides of the conflicts listed above truly believed that they were IN THE RIGHT and that the posters on the other side were evil, vile, people bent on destroying them and all that they hold dear. And the problem is that there is no higher authority to which the matter could be passed for judgement. No Solomon. No Bible. No Magna Carta. No Constitution. Just some references to Usenet Guidelines. The guidelines may be a start. But the reason legislators attach punishments to laws that are passed is that they realize that not everyone is going to be reasonable all of the time. So, we end up with postings flying fast and furious in every which direction. After the first several dozen, it doesn't matter what is in them as long there are several remarks pointing out the lack of mental facilities by the opposing party. I am not saying discussion is bad. Or that heated discussion and conflict are bad. Hell, I enjoy the inanities as much as the next person. What I am trying to say is that we need to develop a way to deal with these issues, so that they do not get out of hand. The network needs to continue growing and the users need to grow with it. /craig