Conference turris::womannotes-v1

    Since DEC has not defined a policy towards non-work-related conferences,
    I think we have to be very sensitive towards how others feel about
    topics.  However, notes obviously do not reflect the views of DEC as
    a corporation (else we wouldn't complain about DEC :-) ).  Perhaps we
    need a disclaimer (all notes in this conf. do not necessarily reflect
    the views of DEC and/or the moderator) to be really safe from liability.
    I think that if someone is upset, the moderator should contact the
    author, just as you did, and perhaps try to explain to the person who
    complains if you disagree with their view.  Maybe they'll back down.
    Yeah it feels like giving in to threats, but I think it's important to
    not jeopardize this conference.

    Personally, I thought the note could be taken as an invite to call
    the number.  But it is illegal to set up a program to constantly call
    them (harrassment, I think).  Anyways the hacker that the note referred
    to got in trouble (I don't remember if the note mentioned that or not).
    People are liable for their own actions if they do something illegal,
    even if they could have construed something they read as an invitation.

    ...Karen

    At Prime, someone posted some negative comments about a doctor on
    a corporate electronic bboard.  Someone else at Prime printed out
    those comments, and showed them to the doctor.  He (the doctor)
    threatend to sue both Prime and the individual who made the comments.
    Prime's legal department asked that negative non-factual comments
    not be posted anymore.  So, posters could say things like "I got
    an estimate of $20, and was charged $40", or could say "If you're
    thinking of getting Foobar to pave your driveway, give me a call
    or send mail".  The second was obviously a negative signal.  
    
    I don't think either of these approaches would be useful to this
    file.  What about the whole "Sexism is alive and well and living
    at..." note?  The sort of topics we want to talk about could indeed
    be found offensive by some.
    
    The concern is realistic.  Given the public scandals about electronic
    bboards, we should be particularly cautious about anything smacking
    of hacking.  Things don't always have to be clearly stated in a
    bboard posting, if you're hitting the fine line.
    
    I think it's a shame for this particular file that someone felt
    they had to promote a grievance up a hierarchy, instead of going
    to the file and noting the problem, or sending you a request for a
    response. 
    
    	Mez

    This has come up in various ways in a number of conferences.
    The proper way to moderate such things is to be very conservative
    and protect DEC against possible litigation - after all, these
    conferences are on DEC property and as such are reasonably construed
    to BE DEC property.
    
    Examples from other contexts: requests in the MUSIC conference for
    copies of records to tape have been put down (though generally not
    deleted) because such activity violates copyright laws. The
    SEXCETERA conference was shut down entirely due to offensive
    discussions. The BIBLE conference has just been shut down due to
    some conferees offending the religious sensitivities of others
    (apparently; I'm not privy to details, so I've just observed
    the external results).
    
    This didn't occur to me when I first saw it, but I think the 800
    number issue is the kind of thing which should be marked hidden by
    the moderator as soon as it appears, due to the possible legal
    ramifications, with a request that the author rewrite or delete it.
    There are better ways to discuss such things than by promoting what
    COULD be viewed (by those on Falwell's side of the fence - and I'm
    sure there are many at DEC even if they don't frequent this
    conference) as a conspiracy to defraud. 

    It's obviously a sensitive problem, where some people might view
    this kind of moderator activity as "censorship". I don't. I doubt
    that any rational reading of the law would hold this medium (being
    DEC property and subject to other controls such as disk resource
    management and "appropriate use of company property" restrictions)
    to be protected under the first amendment. 

    I think it's important to keep in mind that the number in question
    was a public number.  If that is the case, they must have prepared
    themselves somehow for dissenting calls. (If someone had published any 
    well-known figure's *private listing* in a public conference, then that 
    individual owns the responsibility for their action, not the moderator.)
    
    Since I tend to be on the right-to-choose side of the fence, I tried
    to think of a conservative individual posting something inflammatory
    about an abortion clinic, perhaps giving their counseling hot line
    number, and making the statement that people could flood the line
    with calls, or "even bomb the murderous place".  I don't know what
    the legal ramifications of such a posting are, but if I saw something
    like that I would first reflect on the good sense of the person
    making the posting, and next I'd think "If they are going to flame,
    they could have said so."  Since such a posting is tagged with node
    and name, it is the responsibility of the individual involved, I believe. 
                        
    Maggie, I think you need to establish the legal implications of
    such postings with the corporate lawyers if necessary, and if there
    are none, then I personally believe that freedom of speech should
    prevail.                                                     
    
    Holly

        Without going into details, I moderate the BIBLE file mentioned
        in 88.3. It WILL be reopened. There will be new rules about what
        can and cannot be said, and there will be multiple moderators
        to provide a broader range of view points and fuller covereage.
        I'm not thrilled about resetting the conference in this way, but
        I felt I had to do it given the attention that notes gets from
        time to time in the policy making parts of the company and the
        complaints I had received. 
        
        I know this is a bit of a digression, but I wanted to make sure
        that no-one misunderstood the rather brief statement in 88.3.
        
        As to this file, as I said in a previous note, I think it is run
        very well and the judgement of the members has been very good.
        If I were to recommend any changes it would be to have multiple
        moderators to act as checks and balances on themselves.
        
        JimB. 

Set note/lengthy_personal_opinion

Strange that such a dilemma should come hard on the heals of our
compliments to you Maggie.  Your handling of this situation
justifies all that was said.  Up to the point of bringing in the
possibility of "higher authorities", the situation was handled in a
reasonable fashion by all concerned.

Yes, it would have been a nice touch to let all parties concerned know what
was going on.  However, it seems the response to not doing so was
inappropriate.  This is more a personality issue than a policy one.  This
group is intelligent and committed.  We do not always agree, but the spirit
of this conference is one of assumed mutual sincerity and concern.  Calling
out the dogs of authority can not be considered in that spirit.

Given the strange atmosphere and precedent set by the demise of Sexcetra, I
think the author's action was prudent if not happy.  

Bringing this before the conference was an excellent move.  Notes is so
much like a conversation, that we often forget what we write has much more
longevity and much less implicit context.  But we have a reverence for what
gets written down for some reason. If a conference is to retain the flavor
of a conversation then we should write freely here.  And if that freedom
raises concern for the well being of individuals, this notesfiles, or
DIGITAL, then those concerns should be dealt with *HERE*, in the notesfile,
openly.   If that process results in some note being removed, that's o.k.
Not necessarily happy, but o.k.  Not everything we write will be wise,
well-considered, or prudent. The key is that we are capable folks, and
given a little time (we're all busy) and a little encouragement we can
be trusted to regulate ourselves, without external assistance. The original
concern was probably justified, the secondary tactic was certainly not. 

Maggie, if you want to share the burden of moderation, we (I) will be glad
to help.   But I can't imagine one or all of us working together could
improve on your grace, style and method of moderation. 

-Byron

    set note/lengthy_personal_opinion_also
    set flame/on
    
    I find it threatening and uncomfortable that one person can think
    they have the right to introduce censorship into this conference.
    The original concern is a little misguided (the phone number was
    publically advertised if you care) and the secondary reaction is
    childish and immature. I don't understand how you as moderator can
    exhibit such grace and diplomacy when dealing with a whiner who
    can get what they want. I'd have probably told them to go take a
    flying %^&* 'cause I had more important and relevant things to cope
    with.  But then I never have been noted for tact.
    
    The suspicious part of me says the complainer is a supporter of
    Mr. Falwells beliefs (or at least his position on abortion).  I'd
    like to point out that I am a member of the Immoral Minority and
    don't care much for anything that Mr. Falwell says, so this may
    color my opionion.  I am also vehemently opposed to censorship.
    We are supposed to be mature adults who by this point in our lives
    ought to be able tell right from wrong. I don't think we need a
    bunch of special intrest groups affecting what we are allowed to
    read. Or maybe censorship should be applied to those allowed to
    participate in this conference. It's tempting to just exclude
    antagonistic twits but I guess everybody's got to be someplace.
    
    I am also offended by the threat to "take it to higher authorities".
    A note such as this is the appropriate place for a discussion of
    this nature, not a threat to take it to "momma". Personally if I
    was in  the higher authorities position and someone brought me this
    kind of trivia, I'd assume they didn't have enough work to do to
    keep their minds busy, and I'd go find them some more.
    
    In summary, I think this person is attempting to disguise a moral
    judgement as a legal issue.  The legal ramifications just aren't
    there.  The publicity aspects are kind of valid, but who is seriously
    going to use the phone call strategy, much less get caught and tell
    where they got the number?  There are lots of more effective means
    for coping with the Falwells of the world.
    
    Maggie, I think you did a reasonable job of coping with this situation
    -better than I could do. It has got to take a lot of effort to moderate
    a conference, and this is one of the best I've seen.  Those who
    don't appreciate it ought to start their own.

    set flame/off
        
    SIDE NOTE:
    It is difficult to respond to your note without assuming that the
    problem child is not a male of the rabid christian variety.  I think
    I need to work on eliminating my own sexist perspective.

    "Dragon Lady" expressed my view exactly.
    
    Unfortunately, NOTES is owned wholly by DEC and if "They" decide
    something needs to be censored, "They" have the right to do so.
    
    I just hope that "They" do have the good sense to ignore this petty
    little twerp and give him some real work to do.
    
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

    um, I do very much appreciate the expressions of support, gang...so
    much so that my ears are bright red...but I feel that I should point
    out in aid of fairness that the person who was so upset as to make the
    threat is a *very* well-regarded member of the noting community at
    large and someone for whom I myself entertain great respect.  I
    really don't believe him to be a closet falwellite and do believe
    he reacted (over-reacted perhaps) out of a concern for the common
    good.  
    
    					=maggie

    We can hope that this discussion doesn't get diverted into
    unwarranted speculation into motives. In that regard, I feel that
    replies .7 and .8 are a bit out of line, bordering on paranoia.
    While I'm sure I wouldn't have elevated the matter to higher
    authorities myself (not my style), I do feel that the note in
    question was inappropriate for a conference for which the company is
    liable, irrespective of political orientation, just because of the
    risk of its being viewed as promoting a conspiracy to harrass,
    defraud, or whatever. There seems to be no reason to suspect the
    unnamed individual of any motive other than concern for the legal
    liability of DEC. I know that's my sole motive in placing my
    opinions here.

There are a number of larger, societal issues in this.

It is often repeated, for example, that the notes conferences are 
conducted with Digital property and thus Digital is both liable for harm
caused by their content and has every right to impose any restriction on
their use that it sees fit.  I am convinced that this is probably true
on both counts.  But there are some disturbing implications for the
future of open discussion in this country.

An electronic discussion medium like this, or like the popular PC-based
bulletin boards, require somebody to invest their resources into the
equipment needed to host the discussion.  Must the person or corporation
that hosts an electronic discussion be held liable for harm that might
result?  Then who would (in their right mind) sponsor such a discussion
medium?  Probably only individuals or groups with vested interests in
the subject, that's who.  So it would seem to me that electronic
communication will never be a medium for free and open discussion under
the present legal "rules".

It reminds me a bit of the situation with radio and TV broadcasting.  We
tend to think of them as part of the "press".  We tend to think of them
as forums for free speech.  But both by the nature of the medium and by
regulation, both government and industry-imposed, there are restrictions
on what radio and TV broadcasters may do that do not apply to the printed
medium.

Where's the danger in all this?  The influence of the printed medium has
declined since the advent of broadcasting.  The advent of electronic
communication will cause a further decline in the power of the most free
medium.  Electronic communication, after all, is fun as well as fills
certain needs better than broadcast and printed communication.  So its
influence will grow -- most users will either ignore or "live with"
its restrictions.  But society as a whole will grow less free.  It will
be harder and harder to promote unpopular ideas.  It will be harder to
criticize popular but corrupt politicians.

We will have obtained freedom from offense to our sensibilities by other
individuals.  But at what cost? 

It's time I got down from my soap box.  I suspect that the future of
non-work-related notes conferences on the Digital network is limited.
We shouldn't be expecting Digital to provide a medium for free discussion
of non-work-related ideas.  But don't expect that anybody else can provide
it, either, given the current legal climate.

Bob

    I'm appalled.
    
    This discussion is full of replies from people who support Maggie
    so vehemently that they choose to completely disregard her opinions
    and her statement of the situation.  Maggie described her
    interactions with "a person of unimpeachable good will"; subsequent
    respondents have chosen to describe this person as a "petty little
    twerp" and an "antagonistic twit".  So much for valuing the judgment
    of your moderator!
    
    For heavens sakes, people, Maggie has asked for some advice about
    a situation involving someone who was honestly concerned.  Set
    aside your preconceptions for a few seconds and try to appreciate
    someone else's viewpoint!
    
    My own view:  Someone expressed a real concern (of whatever
    validity) about a note that had been written in this conference.
    He interpreted it as being tantamount to a public invitation
    to vandalism, and thought that this was a serious mistake.  He
    responded reasonably, by sending personal mail to the moderator,
    expressing his concern, and asking that some action be taken.
    He got NO RESPONSE.  Faced with the moderator's apparent
    indifference to a situation that might be a threat to Digital
    (whether through legal liability, bad publicity, or whatever),
    he decided that he had no choice but to escalate the issue. 
    However, BEFORE doing so, he sent a second mail message to the
    moderator, reiterating his concerns, and explaining what he felt
    his obligations to be.  Maggie now responded and resolved the
    problem.
    
    Were this person's concerns valid?  I don't know--one thing that
    has become clear in the last year is that the "powers that be"
    have a different view of the legal implications of noting than
    we noters do.
    
    Was Maggie's response correct?  Yes, but her failure to get back
    to the person was what almost turned a non-issue into a crisis.
    (Note that Maggie and the original author of the note had agreed
    to respond to the original request, but then didn't get around
    to doing so.  The APPEARANCE was of indifference.)
    
    Was the threat to escalate the issue appropriate?  Yes.  In Digital,
    if an issue needs to be dealt with, you deal with it, and if
    you can't deal with it personally, you bring it to the attention
    of someone who can.
    
    Remember "Doing the Right Thing" and the "Open Door Policy"?
    It seems to me that the only people here who didn't do the right
    thing are the respondents to this note who chose to impugn someone's
    motives instead of giving Maggie the constructive advice that
    she asked for.
    
    	-Neil

    re .12:
    
    I apologize to all for my use of the phrase "petty little twerp",
    it was uncalled-for and reprehensible.
    
    But aside from that, I will stand by my views. Notice that I do
    allow DEC the right to do whatever it d*mn well pleases with 
    any conference on the Easynet.
    
    I do believe that it would be wrong to let these conferences be
    totally at the mercy of anyone who had any kind of objection.
    However, if I were the moderator, and an objector threatened to
    take the matter to higher authorities, I don't honestly know if
    I would stand up to the threat and risk severe consequenses to my
    career. I hope that I could, but I am not sure that I would.
    
    I think the thing I would do is "hed him off at the pass". That
    is, take the matter to the higher-ups asking for an opinion as
    to what to do with this note, before the conscientious objector
    gets to them. Talk to the Law Dept. about liability etc.
    
    Once again, I apologize for previous derogatory remarks.
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

    I, too, read the note in question and have an opinion.  I agree that
    Maggie should have notified the person with the complaint of what was
    happening.  I also believe that threats should not have been made at
    that point to take it "higher up." The individual could have checked
    with the moderator on the status of the situation without any type of
    statement that could be interpreted as intimidation. 
    
    As for the note itself, I did not see anything wrong with its contents.
    I myself saw that it could have been taken in a tongue-in-cheek
    "wouldn't it be fun to get Rev. Jerry" manner, ONLY WHEN I saw the
    "title" of the note, which included the 800 number.  I believe that
    by deleting that "title" the note would have been made appropriate.
    
                  Carol

    If the title is all that was offensive then why not
    
    set note [note-ID] /title="new title name"
    
    I believe this is a privileged moderator command.
    
    lee

    I too send thanks to you Maggie.  You're doing a super job!
    
    RE:  problem at hand
    
    I have participated in notes files where a note/reply is set hidden
    until an issue is resolved (it doesn't happen to the smoking
    conference).  That has never particularly bothered me.  I certainly
    would not object if you adopted a policy something along those lines.
    
    FWIW,
    	   Audrey

    The following material is provided by a member who wishes to remain
    anonymous at this time.
    
    
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
                    -< In explanation, and apology >-
    
    WomanNoters, 
    
    I am terribly sorry if my actions in this incident have made any of you
    feel uncomfortable or threatened. That was certainly not my intent. My
    apologies to all. 
    
    It was, no doubt, unwise of me to "threaten" the moderator. That was
    not really my intent. Having come upon this note I felt I could not let
    it stand, both because it left DEC liable and because it could threaten
    WomanNotes, which I value highly. 
    
    Perhaps my imagination is too vivid, but I could picture a Falwell
    supporter seeing this and taking some action, especially if someone HAD
    harassed this number. I could also picture a DEC manager feeling, as I
    did that, they had to do something, but not going through the original
    author and moderator. 
    
    I therefore was trying, fairly desperately, to get the moderator or
    author to do something about it. The misunderstanding caused by the lack
    of feed-back made me feel that I would have to go through channels,
    since I didn't believe I could in good conscience do nothing about the
    note. I didn't want to do that. As someone else said, it isn't really
    my style either. 
    
    My message was intended more as a plea, than as a threat.
    Unfortunately, I guess I'm not all that good at writing so as to
    distinguish the two.
    
    It might have been wiser to bring it up in the conference as a way of
    getting something done about it, but I felt, rightly or wrongly, that
    that would increase the risk by drawing attention.
    
    For what it is worth, in addition to my apology for any trouble I
    caused, you have my assurance (for what ever that's worth) that I had
    no hidden political motive (I am pro-choice myself).
    
    Also, I commend Maggie for her handling of this, including starting
    this note. 
    
    --the "problem child"

    Don't worry about it.  I can only speak for myself (though I would
    like to speak for everyone) by saying that it is over, and there
    are no hard feelings in regard to any point of view.  Nobody was
    trying to cause difficulties for anybody.  It is human nature that
    even with the best of intentions, things can still go wrong.
    
    Seeing as how we have all learned something from this, can we go
    on now?
    
                     Carol

    Thank you all very much for the time and effort you've expended
    on this issue, I feel much better now than when I wrote the basenote.
    
    Am I right in thinking that a policy similar to the following would
    be acceptable to everyone?
    
           Anyone objecting to the tone or content of an entry
           in this file has the right to request, by email to
           the author or the/a moderator, that the note/response
           be *immediately* and *summarily* set 'hidden' until
           the objection is resolved. 
           
           Authors or moderators receiving such a request are
           obliged to honor it immediately <keeps down the
           black-hole effect> regardless of their personal
           feelings about the merits of the objection. 
                        
           Persons objecting to an entry must be prepared at the
           request of the moderator(s) to identify themselves,
           discuss the issue openly with the community and, with
           the author, accept the community's sense of what's
           right. (Or the moderator's(-s') sense of the
           community's sense, where the latter isn't clear.) 
                                                         
           
   Not stated, of course, is the unenforceable expectation that we will
   all continue to construe each other's behavior in the best possible
   light rather than the worst.
   
   					=maggie           

        That policy will work in most cases. The exception is if the
        ofeended party feels that they are being harassed by the note in
        question. The problem here is two fold, and has to do with
        enforcing the complainer's obligations.
        
        The first part of the problem is that if the complainer goes to
        personnel or security, they don't have to accept the community's
        judgement. In general, the corporate polcy is that if someone
        feels harassed by something then they are. Very little leeway
        for evaluating the offensiveness of the material is built in.
        The weakness in the rules as outlined is that a potential
        complainer might feel they have a better chance with formal
        corporate channels than going through the conference's
        procedure, which is clearly NOT what we're looking for.
        
        The second part of the problem is the request that they identify
        themselves to the community in general. It has been made quite
        clear to me by personnel that revealing the identities of people
        involved in a charge of harassment can be considered further
        harassment. Even if it doesn't itself constitute harassment it
        may lead to harassment. For instance, if the identity of the
        person whose complaint shut down Sexcetera were ever revealed,
        doesn't it seem likely that he or she would be given a hard time
        by at least some noters?
        
        You can *request* that they identify themselves, but what are
        you going to do if they refuse? Personally, I wouldn't be
        willing to reveal their identity, and I'm fairly confident that
        doing so would not be viewed well by the "powers that be".
        
        I'm not sure what the solution to these two problems is. On the
        whole, I think that your policy is reasonable. Any policy that
        allowed the anonymity and the no-questions-asked attitude of
        DEC's formal policy would be pretty suceptable to abuse. This is
        evidenced by the early days of Human_Relations, which had the
        rule that any not that anybody objected to would be deleted.
        Dozens or possibly hundreds of notes were deleted many because
        the complainers wanted to demonstrate that it was a dumb policy.
        
        As I was writing, I thought of a possible way to handle it. What
        if the rule was that if the moderator couldn't negotiate a
        solution to the problem that was acceptable to the author of the
        note in question, the complainer and the moderator, she (the
        moderator) would take it to "officialdom". This might work
        because  it reflects the reality of the situation, that upper
        managment/personnel/legal/security have the final word in these
        things, and it helps to weed out the nuisance complaints--you
        have to be sure enough of yourself to make your complaint to
        officialdom. A complaint that came through the moderator would
        have a much lower chance of hurting the file in general, as it
        would be clear evidence that the moderator was responsible.
        
        I haven't thought this out, but it seems like it might work.
        
        JimB.

	    As most of you can deduce, I am the author of the original
	note.  (Another deduction that can be made is that the problem
	*was* solved by changing the title.)
	    The topic was "Publications," and someone had said that the
	local gay press was male-dominated.  I thought this was odd,
	since the primary exposure I've had to the gay press was during
	the debate over the Dworkin/McKinnon resolution; and the local
	gay press was very heavily siding with Dworkin and McKinnon.
	The Dworkin/McKinnon party line is that male sexuality is in-
	herently oppressive, and all pornography (including that pro-
	duced by women for women) is equivalent to male sexuality.
	    I found it hard to believe that a male-dominated publication
	would promote such views, so I tried to see if _Gay_Community_
	_News_ had made a big switch over to patriarchy.  I found that
	it had not:  the publication of Falwell's toll-free number and
	suggestions for alternative uses of the number is a healthy
	sign of respect for the rights of women, in my book.  So I put
	a note in to indicate that _GCN_ was still as I had thought it
	was, and I illustrated why.  And I put the phone number in the
	title.
	    Part of the reason I included the phone number was to warn
	those who might be considering pregnancy counseling by phone
	that this particular number cannot be trusted to counsel, but
	to persuade one point of view.  The other part of the reason
	is that I would not be at all displeased if somebody would hack
	the number.  (My reasons involve civil disobedience, control of
	technology by people with ill-gotten funds, the need for the
	common folk to get some control over technology, etc.  If one
	really wants to discuss them, 2B::SOAPBOX is the place to do
	it, not WOMANNOTES.)
	    A little while later, I got a message from Censor (the name
	I'll use to preserve his anonymity), directing me to remove the
	note.  He expressed misgivings about legality, etc.; misgivings
	that I don't share, since it is a public phone number we're
	talking about here.  I told him I would change the title; I was
	not aware that only a moderator could do this.  When I found out
	I couldn't do it, my attitude was "oh well."  I don't generally
	put myself out in the name of censorship.
	    The topic went off into a tangent about innocuous-looking
	"abortion counseling" institutions that are actually anti-abort-
	ion groups in disguise.  Everybody had forgotten about the phone
	number.  Everybody, that is, except Censor, who sent mail to the
	moderator.
	    The moderator contacted me, and I came up with a reasonable
	compromise.  I would start up a new topic about the deceptive
	anti-abortion institutions and mention Falwell's phone number
	there, without any reference to hacking it.  The moderator would
	then change the title of the offending note and move the notes
	with the digression down to the new topic.
	    I didn't move very fast on this.  I had to write the topic
	in a way that the other notes would make sense responding to it.
	I was also researching the topic to find more examples, and it
	wasn't long until Censor, growing impatient, sent out the threat
	to take matters to the authorities.  (To his credit and to my
	discredit, I never did inform Censor about the compromise; so it
	is understandable that he could have had the impression that he
	was being ignored.)
	    I feel that the moderator is not to be held in disregard for
	any of this; at every instance, her actions and intent were to
	be fair to everyone.  I accept full responsibility for what I
	write, and I'm very sorry that the moderator had to be dragged
	into this.  (Part of the problem is that VAX NOTES has been
	designed so that moderators can be held responsible, in some
	measure, for what participants write.  This isn't really the
	place to discuss that, either, but one of the first notes in
	2B::SOAPBOX, "Tools For Censors", is devoted to the issue.)  As
	for Censor, I'm willing to believe that his targeting of that
	particular note in this particular file (as opposed to dozens
	of questionable notes in dozens of other files) has to do with
	his high regard for the file; but I can't bring myself to see
	how threatening to jeopardize the file could possibly be consid-
	ered an appropriate way to address the issue.
			<_Jym_>
	P.S.:  For the record, I am in no way in agreement with the
	dogma of the Dworkin/McKennon resolution.  I think it's asinine.
	I was just presenting it as an example of how far that publica-
	tion is from male domination.

Gee, I hate coming back from vacation to see that an interesting discussion
has wound down, so excuse me if I try to kick it up a little.

I think that this is really an important isue. Digital clearly own all the
terminals, disks, CPUs and network links that we use for notes.  Furthermore,
it's no surprise to anyone that there are some non-work-related conferences,
and by allowing us to have them, management grants some sort of implied
permission to continue.  Even furthermore, by having set no standards
for "conduct" in notesfiles ("Do the right thing" is kind of ambiguous; is
there more?), they've either left themselves open for trouble or have stated
that they don't expect there to be any trouble.

I'd prefer to believe that they don't expect there to be trouble, but there
have been notesfiles shut down. Have the shut-down orders come from some
uniform group? Can we ask for some guidelines from them so that we don't
find out later that someone stepped over the bounds of "decency"?

My gut feeling is that something should be very offensive to deserve
censorship, but there's always a problem of definition.  I don't suppose that
the first ammendment applies here because it's not any kind of public
situation, and the "It's my ball, and we'll play with my rules" story
applies.  Instead of going to the Constitution, we have to go to personnel.
Perhaps they need to draft a policy guildeline.  Notes has gotten very big,
and apparently a lot of people are worried about what might happen.  On the
other hand, having more rules won't necessarily help -- the new smoking policy 
is pretty wimpy.

Whatever moderators in general decide to do, I hope that the lowest common
denominator isn't allowed  to decide things.  If that happens, notesfiles
will wind up like television.

					-- hs

        There is a new policy about to be added to the Policies and
        Procedures book regarding the use and misuse of corporate
        computer and network resources. It at least begins to set
        standards for conduct in notesfiles. The problem with the policy
        is that it is pretty broadly stated, and there is a lot of room
        for disagreement as to interpretation.
        
        (The policy in its latest draft is posted as a fairly recent
        reply to note #111 in HUMAN::DIGITAL.)
        
        As with most policies at DEC it is fairly broad, and only
        provides the framework upon which the real policy--the local
        interpretatin and precedents--will be built. That process has
        begun as well. There have, as I'm sure a number of you are
        aware, been a number of noting incidents lately. Unfortunately
        although most of us have heard about the incidents, there isn't
        a very widespread understanding of them and their implications.
        
        88.23 asks whether the order to shut down various files came
        from a uniform source. So far as I'm aware there has only been
        one fil order closed, so by definition it was from a uniform
        source. The file that was closed down was Sexcetera. I don't
        know who made the decision to close it down. I do know that two
        groups of management, security and personnel were all involved.
        It is generally believed in Personnel, Security and those
        portions of management who are aware of the file that Sexcetera
        wasclearly beyond the bounds of acceptability, so it is rather
        irrelevant who decided it had to go. Any of them would have,
        given the chance.
        
        In the wake of the Sexcetera incident, a couple of files were
        shut down by their moderators, who felt that that might be the
        safest course of action. I believe Flirts, a version of Soapbox
        and one of the files discussing pets (Canine?) were in this
        class. This was probably an over-reaction, although any number
        of files on the net could use cleaning up.
        
        More recently there were a couple of incidents involving
        Human_relations, a file that I co-moderate. The problem there
        was escalated up to the vice-presidential level, and the initial
        response was that the whole file should be deleted if it was
        causing trouble. Before Personnel had told us of that decision,
        the moderators went to Personnel to discuss the best way to
        handle the problems. As a result, we were able to show them that
        the file wasn't "just another Sexcetera", that it had a
        reasonable set of rules, and that the rules were enforced by
        responsible employees. The reaction was that it would be best to
        not lose the file, which they now realized was useful, and we
        were able to resolve the problems by deleting a few notes. We
        were supported in this by the VP who originally had said that if
        it was causing trouble it ought to be deleted. 
        
        Just after that there were a couple of problems involving Bible
        another conference I moderate. As a result the file has been
        temporarily shut down while we get a couple of extra moderators
        and formulate a new set of rules for it. The decision to shut
        the file down was mine. It was not required by management,
        personnel or Security. It probably could have been avoided if I
        had more time to devote to moderating.
        
        There have been a number of other incidents lately that I'm
        aware of, but to date they have mostly been solved by the
        deletion or tempirary hiding of a few notes, by the moving of
        the conference or by restricting the membership, or in the case
        of this file the changing of a title. On the whole moderators
        have been able to handle the problems.
        
        JimB.

re 88.24 (JimB)
>There is a new policy about to be added to Policies and
>Procedures book regarding the use and misuse of corporate
>computer and network resources. It at least begins to set 
>standards for conduct in notesfiles. The problem with the policy
>is that it is pretty broadly stated...        
>(The policy in its latest draft is posted as a fairly recent
>reply to note #111 in HUMAN::DIGITAL.)

When the smoking policy was about to be promulgated (gee, I've always wanted to
use that word!), many of us sent mail to the policy-writer. He responded, and
pretty quickly. It's not clear that our comments made any difference, but at
least they knew that we were out there and paying attention. If the note that
Jim mentions says who's writing the new policy, and I don't like it, I'm going
to write to that person too; perhaps we all should.

					-- hal

        As a tangent, since the shutting down of Bible was mentioned
        in this note, I thought I would mention that it has reopened.
        It can be found at DSSDEV::BIBLE. Press SELECT or KP7 to
        add it to your notebook.
        
        JimB.