[pp.int.general] Communication Plan

[carlo von lynX]

On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 02:13:17PM -0600, Ray Jenson wrote:
> You claim to have secured my failure, yet you do nothing to propose a good
> solution.

I just realized I already mentioned several years of research
in a post two weeks ago. Sheds a light on how intensely people
read the mails of a thread they are responding to.

> > > close, discussion might clear it up or it might not, but in any case,
> > > tabling something that might be useful in the future is harmful.
> >
> > "tabling"? What is tabling and what does it take to happen?
> 
> Google is your friend. You might try looking up the term "consensus
> process".

Consensus fails if any individual has an interest in making it fail.
We tried it several times, even with advanced tools such as VgtA,
but we always had to go back to liquid feedback.

> People do. The term "grammar nazi" is common.

That is not something a moderator would do. It is a behaviour
that the moderator would moderate.

> I find the whole line of reasoning to be off-topic, truly.

Probably since you've not read the thread.

> Decency has nothing to do with it. I've had people openly attacking me give
> me a solution to something else entirely without meaning to.

This implies other fallacies that are described in convivenza
and other documents. Anyway, the assembly decision was taken
and your feedback was heard.

> > Yeah, nettime-l is super vulnerable.
> 
> More like a social weakness, rather than a technical one.

Empirical data?

> The computer merely conveys it. The problem isn't with the computer, or the
> software. The problem is in how we, as human beings, handles it.

That is another popular mistake. Sociology has proven that the
medium is an important factor. Sources are listed in convivenza.

You assert things as facts which are scientifically wrong.
How does it make you feel?

> > > The only solution is to grow thicker skin.
> >
> > That is an ideological statement which has been proven wrong over and over.
> 
> Yet you don't propose a superior one.

I did. You didn't bother to read.

> > This is a false application of the notion of free speech.
> > It's poisonous false interpretation has caused the crisis of the
> > pirate movement.
> 
> Indecency is not protected by free speech. Trolling, however, often is.
> This is a matter of law.

Freedom of speech is your right to make your website and proclaim
what you think within certain civil boundaries, but it doesn't mean
that we have to give you a forum. Further elaboration in the usual
document and its references.

> "Thicker skin" works just fine. Look at the two main US Presidential
> candidates as a prime example. And look at any Presidential race since the
> 1780s.

Yes, I see how bad US democracy has become. We don't want to be
like them, because then we don't need to make our own political
party. We can just join them.

> The crisis is because we're assholes to each other, not because the trolls
> are doing anything in particular.

Then please research in the list of references I suggested
why we are assholes to each other.

> > First they let you speak freely, then they moderate you, then you
> > fail to contribute anything useful while the others get work done.
> > You try to get angry at everyone, but since noone hears your anger
> > you only have a choice of acting civil or be gone.
> 
> Yes, that's exactly what a Pirate stands for... not. You're being a
> hypocrite, here.

You're being ideological. I am proposing something that works.
If a Pirate stands for social forms that science has proven as
being dysfunctional, than the Pirate movement is dying.


-- 
  E-mail is public! Talk to me in private using encryption:
         http://loupsycedyglgamf.onion/LynX/
          irc://loupsycedyglgamf.onion:67/lynX
         https://psyced.org:34443/LynX/