[LINK] The future of Link

[rchirgwin at ozemail.com.au]

Stil,

I have given this several hours' thought.

The libertarian purpose is not to restore liberties to all, but to 
restrict liberties to members of the club. In particular, freedom of 
speech is accorded on the basis of orthodoxy rather than as an intrinsic 
right. In the mind of the libertarian, the exercise of power over a 
forum of debate, like Link, is not to recruit converts, but to destroy 
the forum.

Every former member who leaves because of the deteriorating signal to 
noise ratio is a victory for the strategy. They're not a convert, 
they're simply a voice silenced. And a repetitive, fact-free stridency 
is one of the tools by which this game is played.

There really are only two courses; one individual, the other communal. 
The individual's response is to imitate Thomas Moore, and maintain a 
"magnificant obstinate silence." The communal is to exclude the 
brick-throwers.

Richard Chirgwin

Stilgherrian wrote:

>On 13/6/05 1:27 PM, "Ivan Trundle" <ivan at itrundle.com> wrote:
>  
>
>>I'm not suggesting that certain protagonists should be expelled, [snip]
>>    
>>
>
>I'll suggest it then!
>
>    I ask that people who make personal attacks be warned once about
>    their inappropriate behaviour and, if they continue the personal
>    attacks, that they be removed from Link immediately.
>
>I'm not a fan of censorship, but this isn't censorship. We're not saying
>that certain people or topics are verboten. We're just saying that to
>participate in The Community of Link we ask for a certain minimum standard
>of behaviour -- no more than you'd expect in any other social situation.
>
>"No personal attacks" seems a very reasonable standard to me.
>
>I see Link like an "all welcome" meeting at the local school or church hall
>to discuss some topic of interest. Anyone can turn up, and anyone's welcome
>to speak. But they're NOT welcome if they abuse people, or if they punctuate
>every speaker's statements with "Yeah what would you expect from a fascist?"
>
>(Indeed, they wouldn't even be welcome if the meeting was about childcare
>funding but they kept talking about the problems with the drains -- and the
>ever-polite Mr Barry does tell people to "take that topic elsewhere" from
>time to time.)
>
>Link can be fascinating, and it still attracts posters with interesting
>things to say. I'd hate that to be threatened simply because we allowed one
>rude person to continue alienating people to the extent that they felt
>uncomfortable taking part -- a point I believe we've reached.
>
>To Vic C:
>
>    I can understand the frustration you must feel when people
>    who hold a different point of view just won't "give in" and
>    agree with your strongly-held beliefs. But that doesn't
>    give you license to start calling them extremists, implying
>    they're drug-addled or to make other personal attacks.
>
>    If they're not convinced by your logic and rhetoric, then
>    take a step back, consider what you're writing, and see if
>    you can state your case more persuasively. Provoking a
>    slagging match just makes things unpleasant for everyone.
>
>    I honestly believe you've crossed the boundary far too many
>    times recently. I've been disgusted. I just can't understand
>    how someone with such a strong track record of involvement
>    in so many Internet communities over the years can behave so
>    appallingly badly.
>
>If anyone thinks I'm out of line here, please tell me! But as I read the
>mood, people have reached the point of saying "Enough is enough!" Now all we
>have to do is work out what to do about it.
>
>Stil
>
>
>  
>