Alec Conroy alecmconroy at gmail.com Fri Nov 30 04:33:08 UTC 2007
... Now at least two arbiters decided, long before this case started, that not only was a "secret investigations" list appropriate,but they actively participated in it. Any ruling against addressing whether "secret investigations lists" are appropriate is commenting just as much on Flonight and Morven as it is on Durova ...
Members of hte Secret Investigations List shoudl have been recused from the get go. They shouldn't have been even participating, they should have been parties.
-------------------------------
Alec, you're mixing up so many issues, it's hard to know where to begin. Some points:
1. There is no suggestion that Durova, or anyone else, mentioned !! on the Investigations list. 2. I can confirm that no ArbCom member took part in the thread that Durova started with her case study of !! on the cyberstalking list. There is therefore no evidence that ArbCom members even saw it. The list can sometimes be high traffic, and not everything gets read. You wouldn't want to be held responsible for everything that happens subsequent to posts on this mailing list just because you subscribe to it. 3. I'm again confirming that Durova didn't propose to block !! on the cyberstalking list. 4. You're trying to create a "secret lists" meme, just as others tried to create a BADSITES one. Fact: there are no secret lists. There are public ones and private ones. The existence of the private ones is not a secret. It's just that the membership and the discussion is not posted. Just as your private inbox not being open to the public doesn't mean that your use of e-mail is a secret.
Sarah