Back to Contents

Readers Reports and letters, fait divers from the Worlds.

Open letter to AWWoS. (Reactions in red)

 About the article "Are the PKs contaminated?".

 This article is based on recent reports of ejection without warning. Few

 The first point raised is important and difficult. How can we rely on trustful
sources? We are facing here several problems.
First the fact a "victim" doesn't feel like reporting to PKs organisation which 
is the best way so evidences from both sides clarify the situation.
Maybe the case isn't worth it. Maybe the victim doesn't dare, even less to
report in public. 

We face the same problem in RL. The problem is when it's not an isolate 
case but several of the same kind; it indicates some potential 
deviation that claims for more attention.  A public places like a newsgroup 
is useful for that.
I did witness an ejection without warning but only reported there once
others did about similar cases.  What I thought was just a forgivable mistake
appeared to be a potential deviation when repeated.

Of course, such public reports don't contain all the needed elements
and evidences. At least it raises the case for further enquiries from
Alas, when done in a censored newsgroup where a Charter is a pretext to
delete any opinion or reported facts the power dislikes, it becomes pretty much
useless. Maybe PKs should have their own ng where people would be really
answered and at least not censored?

There is at least one place where similarities of cases can be judged, it's at
the PKs HQ from complaints. I mentioned for long, in public and private
how much PKs would gain trust if some summarised review were brought to the
public. After all this is what does any "public service", reporting to the public.
Not some shameless self-promotion we are used to. Reporting on problems and
how one tried to correct them. No need to be nominative, people are less 
interested in individuals than to have evidences the organisation take care of it.

I heard rumours about PKs being banned from the organisation for their
behaviour, but it's just rumours. The public can't be asked to trust blindly simply
because the job is done by clever people. Reporting individually by mail for each
case isn't reporting to the public.

AWWoS editorial is about these public reports on ejection without
warning, maybe info should be taken cautiously, but where is the consideration of
PKs organisation on that? Are they working on it? May we expect some public
answer? I read nothing for now. Not even they are officially caring of it.
Silence. Well, I know silence is the rule in AW.

The second point is even more difficult. When an ejector doesn't report. 
Should we ask the public to report by mail any suspect ejection, not because
feeling concerned by the case, but so the HQ can check if they have the
corresponding report? I don't like it. Sounds to me like legitimating a denouncing
system. I guess the clue is within PKs. If any mistake should be considered with
enough indulgence and opportunity to correct yourself, not reporting could be
considered as the ultimate offence. Enough to ban anyone without excuses
or second chance but of course after making it clear for all. Not standing
for what you have done is indeed the ultimate offence from people who are in
charge to say what's a bad behaviour and decide upon it. You may decide wrong when
you have the power, but hiding your decision isn't acceptable. PKs would gain pride
to let such behaviour to COF.  I'm sure one would think twice before not reporting if he knew what he risks.

Another point, I won't elaborate long is when the author says "I won't
go into the question if the PKs are necessary (...) We live now in the situation
that PKs are there, that they have rules and procedures".

Please, quote completely. between the brackets it read "at least not in this issue of AWWoS"

Sure this isn't really the topic here. Nevertheless one should understand these public discussions are pretty much pointless when based on twisted relation.
Would COF have said to set up its own organisation and rules because they are
owners, I guess we would have as much people to be against it. But what twists
the debate and make it shameful is when all this has been set up under the cover
of democracy, like if the community has been asked on what it agrees or not. I
won't elaborate but I witnessed the mockery of dialogue when all this has been
implemented. Now we are said "it exists", a "fait accompli". Next question please. 
Why should we trust the next question would get enough attention from what the public thinks? We can't even discuss freely such issues in the official newsgroup!!

How do we know the question on necessity does?

 Finally the most important: the topic. Ejection without warning. I do regret the article skips it rather quickly to elaborate on offensive and vulgar name, which isn't the point. IMO, the main problem comes from the fact ejection without warning is possible within the rules.
 I want to understand there may be cases where emergency needs it, though rare
cases. Maybe flooding, because the offender can't read the warning? At least for citizens warning by telegram is possible.  The thing is when the exception to the "law" is within the law it leads to special tribunal. Too easy to say you can't do anything when you may
rely on the rule and it's contrary.  PKs should understand what means "handling responsibilities". It is not applying rules blindly. That's the job of subordinates. 

Responsibilities also mean you decide and act in cases where there are no precise rules.
And you also apply rules for their meaning and spirit. In clear breaking the rules when
you feel they don't apply in a specific case. THAT is responsibility. To decide and stand for your decision aside from rules. Otherwise, any bot will do your job tomorrow. 

A PK ejecting without warning when it's not the rule shouldn't be judged only
because he broke the rules. But also for the reasons he did so. I wouldn't blame any of them for just breaking the rule, but would elaborate on the reasons. The law isn't the Bible.
Once the exception is in the rule in such a case, the worm is in the fruit.

The rules as they are now state explicitly what you would like to see a PK do. True, in the situation "as is"  any irresponsable PK can rely on the rules. 

Some time ago there were many anonymous ejection. PKs kept some trust from the
public because they could say PKs don't eject without warning, which means de
facto not anonymously. In the meantime this new clause has been introduced. I
warned PKs HQ of its potential danger of abuse.
Here we are! Some PKs eject without warning and it's no more against the rules.
Which arguments, evidences they will bring if others eject in their back again?

 You think such exceptions are documented as exceptions? In the case I witnessed I telegramed the PK who ejected, asking why no warning as it didn't look like warning was impossible or inappropriate.  Guess what... the answer wasn't some explanation why, but simply "PKs ' rules allow that". No comments.

Now I don't quote any name here as I think this isn't the point. I urge
you not to avoid the debate starting to explain this was just a black sheep in
the flock. You might be surprised.:)

PK's are not the only ones that can eject...


Another Private World report.

This week a chatlog landed on our desk, along with some messages about England. For reasons of property, the sender wanted only be stated that not only an ejection was based on questionable grounds, but that an ejection there is immediately for a long period of time : 1 month. First you're invited to build in there and then some caretaker blocks you from finishing it. Sounds very friendly to us......

Serendip Closed.

It seems that Serendip will be closed (already is) because of the treatment the owner and some of her friends got from CoF.

Postings deletions in AWCommunity

------- Forwarded Message Follows -------
From:          Self <Single-user mode>
To:            <>
Subject:       Re: Peace Keepers and Gate Keepers
Date:          Sun, 8 Nov 1998 18:24:26 +0100

This is an answer to your post in AWCommunity ng, which has been 
censored few minutes after. I let you appreciate.

            Re: Peace Keepers and Gate Keepers
            Sun, 08 Nov 1998 17:28:30 +0100
            mgib <>
            1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6

You bring several interesting and good points. Alas, I guess it's 
better to drop
the topic here. Too serious.  Some opinions are deleted here, so where 
is the
benefit of a debate? Unless you want to hear only  "selected" answers, 
which I'm
sure isn't your point.

armygeddon wrote:

 as a former gatekeeper and a present peacekeeper I want to state that 
 only difference I have noticed between the Gatekeepers and 
Peacekeepers is
 accountability, The Peacekeepers document all Ejections, Harrasment
complaints and Garbage reports, if those actions aren't justified in 
best interest of the aw citizens proper action by those overviewing 
the PK
program will be taken.

No one is taking the use of the mute feature from anyone, in fact the 
feature is highly recommended by most pk's instead of the EJECT 
feature, in
fact it saves us paperwork, PK's are strictly present at gz to 
netiquette, and quicker response to situations where some may not be 
able to
access the mute feature for whatever reasons (including small 
children) new
visitors to aw, or those perhaps in brb/afk mode.   BTW:  you can't 
someone you can't see, but you can eject someone you can't see, the 
 feature is not the 1st choice of pk's but an alternative, I myself 
tend to
 give 2/3 warnings, depending on the severity of the case as I have 
seen most
 others do.  Don't damage the group for the actions of 1 individual.  
If you
have seen anyone stray from pk policy please email
with as much information as possible.  We want to solve problems, not 
around them.

It's sad to see citizens hounded by citizens who felt they were 
working in
the best interest of the community.


WE CAN MUTE!!!! GateKeepers always (from what I see) instruct on the
use of the mute button.

 Back to Contents
This document maintained by
Material Copyright © 1998 Simon Says