Hi Bruce and everybody--
In my surprise, I like Bruce's idea of listing XMCA-rules of engagement. I'm
surprised because I am always suspicious of rules (I came from the Soviet
Union)... But I guess it is nice to spell out communal expectations if we
can define ones (I really like Bruce's rules).
My question is how we can decide that these or other rules is a communal
will and how we can change them in future if we need to do that.
As to expelling people from XMCA, I'm not sure it will work.... or we need
it. I can expel people from my XMCA by not reading their messages (I've
never done that, although).
What do you think?
Eugene
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bruce Robinson [mailto:bruce.rob@btinternet.com]
> Sent: Monday, February 21, 2000 9:31 AM
> To: 'xmca list'
> Subject: Too much introspection? Some practical suggestions
>
>
> Dear All, [note inclusive greeting]
>
> I have been somewhat frustrated by the course of the discussion
> of manners
> and what should or shouldn't be allowed on XMCA. There are periods in the
> life of every list when it reflects on its own existence and that's fine,
> but I'm not sure where this is leading. As a result of the
> content of the
> list (and thus the tendency to have a position on the ins and outs of
> discourse, power, email and similar things), it seems to me that
> we are in
> danger of losing sight of two things: that there are a small number of
> basic rules that should be taken as guidelines by everyone and
> enforced by
> the listowner, but that beyond those rules trying to enforce a particular
> tone, form of greeting etc is counter-productive; secondly, that compared
> with a number of lists I have been on XMCA is a pretty pleasant
> place to be
> with relatively little pulling of rank, polemical abuse, personal
> put-downs
> etc.
>
> Firstly, I think we'll find it fairly easy to agree on the following as a
> set of basic ground rules (having said that I'll doubtless be
> proved wrong
> ;)):
>
> - Sexism, racism, homophobia, ageism and other forms of
> discrimination are
> not to be tolerated;
>
> - Ad hominem / feminam argument (i.e. argument aimed at the person /
> personality of one's opponent rather than their substantive positions),
> abuse and threats are not acceptable;
>
> - Everyone has a right to take part in any discussion and equally
> to ignore
> any discussion.
>
> It seems to me that these rules should be enforced, if necessary by the
> _ultimate_ sanction of removing offenders from the list (though clearly
> there remains a certain fuzziness in definitions). Beyond that,
> matters of
> tone, address, relevance and content can only be self-regulating if there
> is the grounds for a consensus, which appears not to be the case - for a
> whole number of reasons, some good, some bad perhaps. Too rigid and
> wide-ranging a set of rules can be just as exclusive [and
> arbitrary] as no
> rules at all. This isn't to say that writers shouldn't think about tone
> etc, but there can be no general regulation which will not result in
> excluding _someone_ either from the list or saying what they want to.
>
> I do think that matters of tone are often dependent on 'where one
> is coming
> from' (both literally and metaphorically). Having a long
> experience of the
> far left where a certain polemical robustness is par for the
> course (which
> is not to say that it cannot be destructive), I don't take
> offence at lots
> of things that others might. Passionately held ideas tend to be stated
> passionately. Ironically, I found the 'politeness clause' which Paul D.
> inserted into his initial reply to me to be more patronising than polite,
> but didn't attach much personal importance to it, partly because
> I thought
> it wasn't aimed at me in particular. Which only goes to show you can't
> please everybody all of the time ;}.
>
> I think we should register that the atmosphere on the list has somewhat
> been poisoned by the Mary Daly discussion, in which there were
> occasions on
> which the above rules weren't kept to. [For the record, my position would
> have been distinct from all the main protagonists on that issue.] I could
> say more about that, but don't think it would be helpful at this stage.
>
> On my second point, I think we should register that on XMCA
> things do work
> out pretty well most of the time. It is never going to be
> possible to rule
> out all inequalities of power, authority etc on an email list existing in
> an unequal world, but one thing that does strike me about XMCA is that
> graduate students can join the list and have their work taken
> seriously in
> the spirit that others may learn from it; that there's a
> generally tolerant
> atmosphere and that ideas tend not to be dismissed out of hand.
> That's not
> bad.
>
> I'm now waiting anxiously to see what kind of response this post provokes!
>
> Bruce Robinson
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Mar 07 2000 - 17:54:10 PST