3 G's, another try?
Mon, 20 Apr 1998 12:08:43 -0700
>...Each side to present it's arguments once...
I think that there is no such thing as sides. The "side" shall
certainly not speak for me. More important, I am also
desinterested in hearing any of the "two" sides on the issue.
"Both" sides have more bandwidth then they deserve on the
rec.scouting newsgroups already.
What matters are individual viewpoints from scouters which
have something to say. There should be a place to discuss
these important issues without being shouted down or censored.
The rec.scouting.issues way seems not to work. Fanatics on
both sides only harden extreme positions and prevent any
I would also be kind of sad if the so called 3G issue stays
outlawed on Scouts-L. I think it would be a sure way to
destroy scouting if issues can not be discussed. Never
mind what outsiders want to happen, there are genuine
disagrements from real scouters.
I don't know whether that would cause legal problems,
but I would propose to try out a different way of handling
the shouting match. It is obviously a difficult underpining
to moderate a list. A moderator neither has the time to think
about each posting, nor would he wants to have to take
responsibility for each single posting he rejects, or he lets
pass. But there is another approach then censoring the issues:
Censor the participants!
If a poster looses his manners in post, if he violates the scout
law too strongly, if a poster seems to try to dominate a thread,
or, if a poster gets his full share of bandwidth on another
discussion group, revoke his priviledge to post to this
list for a few months. (I believe this should be technically
possible to enforce; if a poster is so obnoxious that he changes
account to evade blockage we'd have to ask his provider for
Terry Howerton Sakima Group, Inc. SCOUTER Magazine Kansas City