Date: Sat, 9 May 1998 02:06:04 +0200 (MET DST)
From: m-18043-AT-mailbox.swipnet.se (Stuart Sheild)
Subject: Re: M-TH: Purposal for new list charter!


Comments on proposals for a new list charter:

HANS:
>>Bob, your list charter proposal is not open enough.
>>Who decides who the Wackos and the Fascists are?

HUGH:
>The moderating team decides who the fascists are, and I think we should
>make sure that at least one Trotskyist and one Stalinist are on the team
>and they both have to agree on this one for it to count. (Remember I see
>this as a discussion list, *not* as a party -- I am fully aware of the
>snivelling shame of Stalinist relations with Hitler and Batista, to just
>take two examples -- but for our list purposes anyone that the two extremes
>of our left spectrum agree on as a Fascist is probably a pretty likely
>candidate.)

Sounds sensible.

HUGH:
>"Wackos" (the political and discussion equivalent) should be determined on
>the basis of persistent integrity violations and dealt with as I suggested
>in my previous post.

I don't think Bob M's "non-political wackos" would be all that hard for most 
people to identify.

HANS:
>>I think the greatest openness can be achieved as follows:
>>
>>(1) it has to have a posting limit.  One post a day was too
>>little, as the experience of M-G shows, therefore let's try
>>two or three.  In addition, no one individual is allowed to
>>generate more than 20 percent of the list traffic.

HUGH:
>NO NO NO!!!
>If we've got the E-zine thing going and a "wacko"-rule for disrupters, any
>overposting should be manageable by appeal from the moderating team. The
>reason? As soon as anything interesting gets started, whether it's a
>discussion or a moblization requiring news and policy input and reporting,
>any limit will be more disruptive than the worst gossips ever could be --
>we'd be cutting off our nose to spite our face.
>
>Three is anyhow way too little, as the experience of M-International has shown.

Couldn't agree more. I think most of us recognize the need for reasonable 
restraint and can exercise same without the need for formal limitations on 
quantity, etc. It's a matter of trust -- on both sides. Calls for posting 
limits, expulsions and so forth. are invariably made by list turfies (pace 
Hans) terrified that open discussion will drive away "serious debaters" 
(read potential turf cronies).

Hugh, Bob, Rolf and others have consistently argued for an inclusive 
approach to discussion, where in Bob's words "anyone in the workers' 
movement is welcome" and where the arguments are left to fend for 
themselves. If they're sound, they're picked up and developed. If not, they 
fall in the end by the wayside. The process is often -- but not perpetually 
-- turbulent and chaotic, but I know of no other way of getting at the truth.

Before the invasion of the body matchers, Thaxis, under the benign sway of 
Rob and Bill, was purring along nicely. Discussion was serious, erudite, 
political, instructive, varied and, for the most part, remarkably civil. All 
without benefit of formal posting limits.

HUGH:
>The following name suggestion isn't bad, as long as we can live up to it
>without censorship and with no formal posting limits.
>
HANS:
>>(2) it should not be called marxism-general but
>>marxism-open, so that beginners will know exactly what they
>>are getting into.
>>
>>
>>(3) If someone wants to shut down marxism space, a list like
>>marxism-open is always a convenient pretext.  In the
>>design of our marxist discussion fora we must not be
>>influenced by what is acceptable to whoever is the host.
>>This is why it is important that we develop more than one
>>server servicing the same lists, and if one of the servers
>>is shut down, a different server can take over on short
>>notice.

Certainly.

Stuart



     --- from list marxism-thaxis-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---