On Nov 27, 2007 9:45 PM, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman(a)spamcop.net>
wrote:
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 10:51:58 -0500, "Alec
Conroy"
<alecmconroy(a)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