| 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
comments.
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
witnesses.
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...
mgib
|
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:
<army@nctimes.net>
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.
Subject:
Re: Peace Keepers and Gate Keepers
Date:
Sun, 08 Nov 1998 17:28:30 +0100
From:
mgib <mgib@worldnet.fr>
Newsgroups:
awcommunity
References:
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
the
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
the
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
mute
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
enforce
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
mute
someone you can't see, but you can eject someone
you can't see, the
EJECT
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
peacekeeper@activeworlds.com
with as much information as possible. We
want to solve problems, not
shy
around them.
It's sad to see citizens hounded by citizens who
felt they were
working in
the best interest of the community.
armygeddon
pk-24
WE CAN MUTE!!!! GateKeepers always (from what
I see) instruct on the
use of the mute button.
|