--- Manning Bartlett manning@bartlett.net wrote:

Hi maveric and all

Just wanted to make it clear that I was not criticising your comments re Max Weisman in any way! I'm quite sorry if you got that impression. I simply started with what you said, but then went off on a tangent completely.

I hoped I had made that distinction clear in my original post, and if not, let me make it clear now. I thought you had every right to question the validity of the article, although if JHK says he has some merit then I certainly won't argue.

Cheers Manning

Yes the intention was made clear � and the comment, by itself, was not 'overtly' critical of what I had done. Implicitly, however, it was critical of my actions because the example was from something I had done that was being questioned.

I really wouldn�t have minded (much) this 'particular' example, except for the fact that it occurred right after I screwed-up on another mater so severely that Jimbo openly considered removing my sysop status. So it was the timing that was the most sensitive issue, not really what was said in this particular case. I hope this distinction is clear, because I bear no hard feelings towards you Manning.

However, in general, it is oftentimes counter-productive to cite very specific and real-world examples when trying to spark a general discussion on policy (not always mind you � actual examples can be useful when they are appropriate � I tend to prefer to make up my own examples whenever possible though). Somehow, for me at least, Talk pages are different. This might have something to do with having the guy who owns the server and who is editor-in-chief as part of the regular discussion. An analogy would be telling a coworker in their cubicle that they had possibly made a mistake (still audible to others in adjacent cubicles) vs. telling a coworker they had might have made a mistake during an official meeting with all present including the coworker�s boss.

BTW, I�ve been far more egregiously guilty of using unnecessarily specific examples than anybody I can think of on the list (concerning an unfortunate and totally incorrect and unfair statement I made about another member of the list while making an argument during the 24 fiasco). That�s the problem with specific examples � they may not be good ones, may be outright wrong or are special cases made under extenuating circumstances. The devil is in the details my friends.

So my suggestion is this: In order to move the discussion along and try and prevent unnecessarily hurt feelings and keep on topic, we should, <i>in general</i>, avoid using specific examples of things �gone wrong� when a general or hypothetical example would suffice � <especially> when a specific example would concern another list member or something they had done. In addition, we should also consider <i>not</i> stating the names of who did what unless we want to discuss disciplinary actions or warnings. Of course, we can always start with the general and go down to specific examples when and where appropriate, if we keep in mind that the people on the other side of the computer screen have feelings and egos too.

With that said, I do think that in no way should we make this any sort of official rule for discussion on the list (Free Speech rules!) � just something to consider in order to keep on topic and have the best and most productive policy discussion possible.

Which, by the way, this is not -- I therefore (again) apologize to the list for introducing unnecessary drama.

Power to the wiki!

--maveric149

__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com