[OpenID] On the banning of Santosh

[John Kemp]

On Nov 29, 2009, at 3:30 PM, DeWitt Clinton wrote:

> Not to deviate too far from the point, but there's a bit of game  
> theory to that approach:
>
> In a closed environment, an agreement among participants to ignore  
> rude behavior (in hopes that it goes away), might be an effective  
> strategy -- but only if all participate.
>
> In an open, anonymous, public forum, there is always the chance (and  
> as we've seen, the inevitability) that even one person can defy the  
> agreement, thus rendering that strategy ineffective for all.

Well, I wasn't really talking about a single strategy, but more  
generally about how the actions of an individual are quite largely  
determined by the community within which the individual is acting.

>
> But again, this is not a discussion about the merit of Santosh's  
> points.  It is a reaction to his repeatedly making inappropriate (by  
> any measure!) personal attacks on fellow contributors to this  
> forum.  That's the part that we *shouldn't* ignore if we hope to  
> foster a productive, civil environment for collaboration.

Perhaps I'm imagining it, but it felt to me very much as if Santosh  
felt his points were being ignored, for whatever reasons, by the  
community. Perhaps he felt that his best option to make a point was  
then to "go nuclear"?

- johnk

>
> -DeWitt
>
>
> On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 12:08 PM, John Kemp <john at jkemp.net> wrote:
> On Nov 29, 2009, at 2:43 PM, DeWitt Clinton wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>
>
> This has absolutely nothing to do with the points Santosh is trying  
> to make (some of which I actually enjoy reading).  It has everything  
> to do with creating an environment in which people can collaborate  
> successfully.
>
> When people shout or are rude, it is often because they feel that  
> their point (which they might have tried to make repeatedly) is not  
> being heard. Sometimes the point is not heard because it is not  
> explained in terms that the listener(s) can sufficiently understand.  
> And sometimes the point is not heard because the listener is not  
> listening hard enough. And often there's a combination of these  
> problems. Communication is always conducted between two or more  
> people, and if it doesn't work, any blame is shared by all the  
> participants, however much those participants will say that they are  
> being clear, or listening carefully. Getting to a shared  
> understanding of an issue is a real art - and even more so when  
> people can't see each other.
>
>
>
> Thank you to David Recordon for actually doing something and not  
> just turning a blind eye to inappropriate behavior.  If people  
> insulted each other this way at a conference or in a meeting they'd  
> be asked to leave until they cooled off (or more likely, asked not  
> to return at all).   We shouldn't condone equally disruptive conduct  
> here just because we're online.
>
> The most effective way to deprive someone of their ability to make  
> their point is to ignore them when they are not "on topic", not to  
> deprive them of their ability to make their point, which often  
> simply results in more shouting.
>
> Regards,
>
> - johnk
>
>
>
> -DeWitt
>
> On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 11:02 AM, David Fuelling  
> <sappenin at gmail.com> wrote:
> David,
>
> I strongly disagree with your banning of Santosh, if even only for  
> 30 days.  Here's why:
>
>        • Santosh's "offenses" may seem [insert negative adjective  
> here], but they don't warrant a ban.  Some people construed his  
> remarks a "disrespectful", but this is a relative term.  If Santosh  
> feels some people are stupid, I believe he should be free to voice  
> that opinion.  The person being called stupid is free to disagree or  
> ignore.  Are we really so thin-skinned that we can't handle somebody  
> describing us with a term that we don't like?
>
>        • This sets a dangerous precedent.  Because a few people  
> chirped in and said they wanted him gone (and you happened to  
> agree), he's now gone?  I respect all of the work you've put into  
> OpenID (especially like setting up these lists), but I don't think  
> that people should be banned for trying to defend themselves, even  
> if it's in an ungraceful way.  I do think that there should be a  
> clear OIDF policy here (for things like spam), but in general I  
> would argue for a policy of freedom -- let people say what they  
> will, no matter how "disrespectful" because one person's "noise" is  
> another person's "signal".
>
>        • Politeness as a bar for list participation is a bad idea --  
> the whole idea of politeness is murky, and sometimes being polite  
> discourages technical debate.  Besides, who of use should be the one  
> defining what is polite and what is not?  I would argue nobody  
> should be given that responsibility nor that authority.
>
>        • Finally, what of the people on this list who have responded  
> to Santosh by calling him a variety of names, including  
> "disrespectful"?  Should they not be banned as well, for isn't it  
> "disrespectful" to call somebody "disrespectful"?
>
> I respectfully request that you un-ban Santosh from this list  
> immediately so we can put this episode behind us.  If there are  
> those on this list who do not like what Santosh has to say, then  
> they are free to ignore his words (though to my above points, I  
> haven't seen much of this happening lately).
>
> Sincerely,
>
> David Fuelling
> sappenin at gmail.com
>
>
>
> On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 7:06 PM, David Recordon  
> <recordond at gmail.com> wrote:
> Having been one of the creators of this list, I've banned Santosh  
> and will remove that ban in 30 days.  Santosh, many people – myself  
> included – have very politely asked you to think about your postings  
> within this community and to be more respectful.  Obviously you've  
> continued to ignore us.
>
> John, MarkMail has a bunch of awesome analysis tools for many  
> different open source mailing lists. http://markmail.org/search/?q=openid
>
> --David
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> general mailing list
> general at lists.openid.net
> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> general mailing list
> general at lists.openid.net
> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general
>
>