Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!hoptoad!amdcad!decwrl!ucbvax!rutgers!mit-eddie!necntc!adelie!munsell!jdj
From: jdj@munsell.UUCP
Newsgroups: alt.flame
Subject: Social Consience
Message-ID: <1378@munsell.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 16-Nov-87 17:33:55 EST
Article-I.D.: munsell.1378
Posted: Mon Nov 16 17:33:55 1987
Date-Received: Thu, 19-Nov-87 02:51:37 EST
Organization: Eikonix Corp., Bedford, MA
Lines: 84
Keywords: Debate, Vote


	Okay, gang, I've had it! I've been following all this Eric Mading
diatribe for some time now, and as usual the net is all talk and no 'do'.
Everyone has opinions about what happened to Eric. Good! Some people have
noticed the ramifications of what we just did. Good! Lets try to establish
some guidelines for nettiquette so that everyone knows where we all stand,
and so that we can have a reasonable application of those guidelines in
the future.

	In other words, lets turn this net into a socially constructive 
entity like we read about in the SF novels, instead of just a high-tech
CB style gab line. Thus:

	Regarding the "network immune response" which (apparently) got Eric
Mading kicked off of the network, I propose that the network conceive, debate,
and vote upon a set of guidelines which may be used for rational network
administration and self-control. Central to this issue are the following
questions (not exhaustive by any means):

	1) Are we going to allow people to say anything they want over the
	   net, without regard to good taste, slander, or other legalities?

	2) Assuming an answer of "yes" to question (1), will the posters
	   be immune to possible subsequent litigation? (Such immunity
	   happens in Congress, I believe)

As an aside, I would like to point out that Eric's posting about Ginsburg
was not legally slanderous. On the other hand, I saw at least 11 BLATANT! 
slanders (in the legal sense) aimed at Eric, at which point I stopped    
counting. Those of you who posted those entries should thank your lucky
stars that Eric didn't notice that fact.

	3) Assuming the answer of "no" to question (1), what exactly will
	   be disallowed:   

	    a) Will we allow postings which advocate blatant violent crimes
		(such as cop killing)?

	    b) Will we allow postings which advocate soft or "victimless"
		crimes (pot smoking, prostitution)?

	    c) Will we allow postings which are in questionable taste
		politically (the 'jew' Ginsburg), legally (how to commit
		a murder), or socially ('you stupid asshole!')?

	    d) Will we allow nuisance activities, such as flooding a newsgroup
		or a person's mail queue?

	    e) Will we allow postings which *promote* nuisance activities,
		such as posting someone's phone number?

	4) Assuming question (3), will there be any exception methods?
	   (In other words, will there be more restrictions in a moderated
	   group? Will we allow items of questionable taste if they are in 
	   ROT13 with appropriate warnings? Will we allow (3A) postings if
	   the author claims that they are "only my opinions"?)

	5) Assuming question (3), how do we determine that a "nettiquette"
	   rule has been broken (popular vote, council of elders, etc.)?

	6) Assuming question (3), what penalty schedule should we apply
	   for each type of infraction? (Warning, temporary loss of
	   priveleges, permanent loss of priveleges, letter writing campaign
	   to his employer, etc.)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
	I hereby propose that the network formally debate the above
questions and add or modify sections as it sees fit. At a specified point
in the future, the network can vote on the specified sections with the
understanding that majority opinion shall determine just what is allowed or
disallowed network protocol.

	The week of May 1, I should think. That will give us 3 months to talk
it over.

	PLEASE DO NOT E-MAIL TO ME DIRECTLY!

	:-) We don't want newsgroups with good taste...
	:=) We want newsgroups that taste good!

-- 

Joel Jennings			| We don't want newsgroups with good taste...
				| We want newsgroups that taste good!