Re: The Apple II Constitution - Lets call a TRUCE

[jkeim@unlinfo.unl.edu (james keim)]

Steve "Thomas Jefferson" Mentzer (smentzer@pacbell.net) wrote:
: ======================================
: Constitution of the Comp.Sys.Apple2 Newsgroup Heirarchy
: ======================================

: As users of the Comp.Sys.Apple2 newsgroup heirarchy, we
: recognize the following items to be true and pure.

pure?  In what sense are the items pure?  "Pure" seems to be a 
meaningless word in this context.

: III.	Every user has the right to ask questions at will, provided
: 	that they do not infringe on the rights of another user.

What court (or body of individuals) is going to determine this vague 
crime?  When will it be defined?

: IV.	Every user has the right to receive an answer to their question
: 	without snide, hostile or demeaning remarks.

Here begins what is more likely a "bill of rights".

: V.	Every user has the right to provide information to the Apple II
: 	community at will, provided that this information does not
: 	infringe on the rights of any individual.

Again, vague.

: VI.	Every user has the right to obtain and use any software without fear 	
: 	of reprisal or attack if any of the following conditions are true:

: 	1. 	The user has purchased a legal license of said software.
: 	2.	The software is no longer available through "normal" 		
: 		commercial channels. (Please see section VIII for information 		
: 		regarding "normal" and "abnormal" commercial channels).

Do we have a line-item veto here.  If so, I'd like to propose deleting
VI. 2. (No longer available through "normal" commercial channels.

: VI.	Every user has the right to distribute any software without fear or 
: 	reprisal or attack if any of the following	conditions are true:

: 	1.	The software is no longer available through "normal" 		
: 		commercial channels. (Please see section VIII for information 		
: 		regarding "normal" and "abnormal" commercial channels).

Again, a line-item veto seems necessary. (VI. 1.)

: IX.	No single user shall hold action against a user who has been proven to 	
: 	act unjustly within the apple II community. Only the board of users 	
: 	shall have the right to jointly	punish or scrutinize the offending 
: 	user, and this action shall come forth as a public
: 	post to the Comp.Sys.Apple2 newsgroup by a single member consisiting 	
: 	of a statement developed by *all* the members of the board of users. 	
: 	All members of the board of users *must* agree to this statement 
: 	before it can be posted.

This sounds like a back-handed method of seeming "democratic" while 
actually diminishing the executive authority of the "board of users" 
(whatever exectutive authority they possess).  How likely is it that 
the seven will vote unanimously?  Well, I guess that depends on who 
they are.

: X.	A "board of users" shall be chosen. This group will consist of 7 	
: 	elected users, who will	be responsible for delegating the 
: 	reponsibility of maintaining the effectiveness of the 
: 	Comp.Sys.Apple2 newsgroup heirarchy. Each user will have one equal 	
: 	vote, while one	user will be responsible for all public interaction 	
: 	via posting (ie. One of the 7 users is reponsible for posting the 
: 	public decisions of the board).

I can see it now.  The flame-fests will continue as the different 
flamers line up behind their "representatives" on the "board of users"
and fight about which "representative" is upholding the 
"constitution".  Why seven, anyway?  Is CSA2 so large as to justify seven
members?  Seems like too many cooks in the kitchen.

: 	All decisions of the board are final, unless enough public outcry is 	
: 	heard to reconsider the outcome of a decision.

Oh, good, unless enough flames say otherwise.  I like how we begin the
sentence by saying decisions are final and then contradict ourselve at
the end of the sentence.  In other words, "NO DECISIONS ARE FINAL".  
And the floodgates are opened again.

: XI.	Any post in direct violation of provision VIII.A can be "cancelled" by 	
: 	any active board member.

: XII.	From this day on the Comp.Sys.Apple2 newsgroup heirarchy will be free 	
: 	from war and strife. I will do my best to make this possible.

: As a user of the Comp.Sys.Apple2 newsgroup heirarchy, I agree to the above 
: terms, and hold them to be true. I swear to uphold the rules of this document 
: to the best of my ability and promise to never defame the glory of the Apple 
: II.


: Sign Here X					Date:
:             -----------------------------------       --------------


Something I learned the hard way in college:  Never put your name on 
something that will probably bite you on the butt.

Personally, I vote for moderation.  The spirit behind moderation seems
similar to the spirit behind this proposal (I do think that the spirit
of this proposal is good.) and moderation would probably achieve those
ends more effectively.

--James K.