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.
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?
That's the point that still hasn't been made.
As far as I know, the
whole little "militia" is going to chalk this up to just an "oops"
and
will continue business as usual.
No, I think a lesson has been learned: since silence may be mistaken
for assent, make dissent evident. And if you are thinking of
blocking someone, it's wise to actually say so beforehand so that
perhaps your friends can stop you doing something stupid.
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.
The real problem, Alec, is that "cabal" in this case is equivalent
to "group of which you are not a member".
Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG