On Nov 27, 2007 9:45 PM, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 10:51:58 -0500, "Alec Conroy" alecmconroy@gmail.com wrote:
No, I really don't believe it was just an oops, I think it was absolutely inherent in the very way the list was set up. As I've said before, I think the analogy of drunk driving is very apt here. If a drunk driver runs a red light and kills someone, it's not "just" an accident. Any reasonable person could know that driving while intoxicated is highly likely to lead to "accidents".
To the best of my knowledge the members of the group, which does include Jimbo as well as members of the arbitration committee, are all perfectly sober.
If the group were in reality behaving as a hive-mind in the way you suggest, it would hardly be necessary for you to expend so much effort in attempting to find out who they are. It would be obvious.
I personally don't intend to follow the links back and try and analyse times of votes and blocks and who agreed with what and other such nonsense. But I dare say someone might. It might be obvious, or it might not. I would have thought that it would be best if the obsessive weren't given further reason to obsess.
Secret evidence and secret mailing lists are such a situation.
Deprived of the ability for people to fully examine the evidence against them, and more importantly, deprived of the ability for the community to give feedback, is just waiting for the [[User:!!|!!]] to happen again and again and again.
Private <> secret, as you have been told many times. You have no access to arbcom-l, and matters of much greater import are discussed there. Will you be demanding that arbcom-l is opened? You have no access to the admin IRC channel. Will you be demanding that? You have no access to OTRS. Will you be demanding that?
Who could have forseen that "secret courts" and "secret evidence" would inevitably lead to erroneous bans? I did.
There are no secret courts. There is no erroneous ban. !! was unblocked after 75 minutes. It was a mistake, made out of excess of zeal.
Guy, you ignored the point I made earlier. There is a difference between this and IRC or arbcom-L. The difference is that you all already believe in Bigfoot, to quote the principle NYB suggested at the RfAr. As I said, and I will reproduce it so that this time it registers, "... I rather believe that most of us are concerned that this list or another like it has been perverted from that goal towards creating an unfortunate echo chamber for those who would like to see more zealous attempts to stamp out what they think is maliciously instigated drama and disruption. "This might create the effect that individual subscribers think actions are 'approved' when they're actually unread or misunderstood, or in cultivating a climate of groupthink in which one side of the evidence is presented and people show up in on-wiki discussions in a bunch with their minds made up, thus increasing drama all round.
Do you see what I mean about groupthink and the difference from the examples you cite? And why I was personally puzzled the sudden consensus at the original PM block for example? How artificial it felt to me and other observers at the time? And that was the only one I happened to notice. If this is a mistake, it is one that will recur with unacceptably high probability.
The real problem, Alec, is that "cabal" in this case is equivalent to "group of which you are not a member".
Oh, whatever. He says BADSITES, you say "Cabal", you're both tossing out caricatures that get us nowhere. Cut it out, already.
RR