Sharon wrote:
I do not have to justify that message to you. Obviously, you feel
quiet
sure that I wrote the message or you would not have asked me publicly
about it. It is clear that you are attempting to cause me problems over
it.
*** Sharon, you certainly don't have to justify anything to anyone if you
choose not to. I know you wrote the statement I read because you signed
it. And it is sad that you feel, that I am attempting to cause you
problems.
What you wrote is wrong. The fact that something needs to be done to
eliminate Page Stripping is real, but creating a blacklist for SC's is
absolutely
not the way to do it.
There was a whole group of messages that had been exchanged on that
list
before I added my comments. In fact, as seen on the message, my comments
were a response to a question asked by our National Coordinator.
***But your comment was in the "affirmative" for creating a BLACKLIST.
You even described how to make it secret and open only SC's. That is a
recipe for abuse and should never be considered as an alternative.
Until you have sat where I have sat, and dealt with the right down
nasty
attitudes that I have dealt with, and had folks trashing GenWeb pages out
of hatefulness and spite, don't judge me.
***I have and do set in a very responsible position and I have dealt with
the
absolute worst there is. I have been personally trashed on every list USGW
has. I have seen trashed pages. But a departing CC is not always the one
that has chosen his demise. Even you have delinked CC's and then a county
had to be redone from scratch. It wasn't the CC that chose to leave, but
you
chose for them.
I have not judged you. I am not your judge. But as an SC, you have a great
amount of power. Creating something as damaging as a Blacklist does no good
for anyone.
I don't think brainstorming messages are something to be taken
too
seriously.
***Well that's where you are wrong also. Brainstorming is
where most ideas
come from that end up as actions. Look at the current conversation we are
having. Just talking about it is enough to make plenty of people cringe
because
they know it is just a matter of time that a blacklist will contain names of
people
who should never be on it. They will be there because an SC didn't like a
CC
and chose to remove them from their state. By de-linking them, they have
created a county that now has nothing to it and must be rebuild from
scratch.
(That is reality) Once you create the system, it is then open to abuse.
What would be your thoughts on how people should be handled that
have
destroyed county web pages? Just let them float on to the next state to
do
> another site the same way when it suited them?
*** No! I don't apreciate people who have taken everything
from a county
page and left nothing to work with. But there is still the argument that
most of
the work on a county page, DOES belong to the individual CC who has found
the data and done the work to put it on-line. If they choose to take it,
they
have that right. If that is the case and it leaves nothing because nothing
is what
they started with, then who is right and who is wrong, if they end up on
that list?
The solution is something that will take time to develop and it will
probably have to
be a public discussion and the results will probably also have to be a
public type
of resolution. But a blacklist is not the answer. That is offensive to
most
average and regular individuals. We have already had people on blacklists
and
banned lists that should not be there.
My thoughts were simply aimed at handling things in such a way that
we at
USGenWeb and XXGenWeb states would be able to avoid unnecessary hardship
from people who have nothing better to do than to destroy web sites and
cause
strife. All we would need to do would be too open about misbehaving
and
end up
> getting sued for slander.
***Handling things by blacklists is simply not an appropriate
measure for
USGW.
You are more apt to be sued about a name on a blacklist than coming up with
some
sort of public awareness policy that would possibly have the neccesary
effectivness
The very essence of my message was aimed at providing SCs with
enough
information to make an informed decision, without causing unnecessary
publicity
> for the CC who had misbehaved.
***It is very likely that the mediation process, if the
Advisory Board is
able to get it
in high gear, would be the most reasonable and proper venue for solving
problems of this nature.
Thanks,
Ron