Subject: RE: Question about list members masquerading as someone else

From: Eastlake III Donald-LDE008 <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2003 12:31:09 -0400

I would agree with Avri.
 
Note that saying some statement is a "lie" is quite different from merely saying it is "wrong" or "inconsistent" ...  In particular, calling it a lie is an attack on the person by making the assertion about their internal mental state: that they are deliberately making a statement knowing it to be wrong. I would think you should contact the accuser privately and ask them to retract such statements they have made and cease making them in the future. If they refuse to do so then you could bar them on that basis.
 
(Of course, it is hard to have a general policy that always applies. For example, presumably there is a vanishingly small probability that the person being disruptive actually has some proof, like a videotape of the person they are attacking in which that person says they are going to engage in a campaign of lies. But even if that were true, the accuser isn't going about things the right way and should, in the least disruptive way practical, be requesting some action against the purported liar.)
 
Donald

-----Original Message-----
From: Avri Doria [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, September 15, 2003 3:00 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Question about list members masquerading as someone else

In some ways it might not matter if the person is masquerading. If she or he is being disruptive and using personal invective, you probably have sufficient cause to warn and then restrict from the list. 

I would not in any case make a public list accusation of pretended identity. Something like that would very hard to prove. 

a. 

On måndag, sep 15, 2003, at 15:14 Asia/Seoul, [email-masked] wrote: 

I have a situation on my list where I am fairly sure someone has signed on with a fictitious name.  Not a problem really, lots of people do this.  However, in this case, this "new person" on the list is making comments defending a position and making comments like "you lie..." etc.  The real problem is this new person is defending the position that someone on the list can not get anyone else to agree to - and several of us are fairly sure that the "new person" is indeed the same person who had made the original position statement. 

Has anyone else run into this on their list?  If so, how did you handle it?  You can't come out on the list and say "hm, Mr. so and so, are you really who you say your are or are you an alias for ....."  This one is tricky and this person is now really causing the list to turn into a ugly and nasty mess.  Before I do what I have planned, I wanted to poll the other chairs first.  Don't you just love this non-paying stress jobs....8-( 

___________________ 

Patricia Egen Consulting 

www.egenconsulting.com 

423-875-2652

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2003 17:25:07 -0400

Actually, for point of reference, here's what I had sent to the list 
before I posted my comments here.  This person has still continued with 
the ranting and I was using this list as a sounding board before I got 
really tough.  I know now what I need to do and the advice was helpful. 
Thanks!

My note re: nastygrams on the list (names removed to protect the 
guilty....)

"Actually, Mr. xxxxx, the chair (me) is really waiting to see when people 
will get back to the issue at hand - getting CAP out the door.  I am also 
waiting for people to get back to being adults.  Occasionally, the chair 
has to step in and suggest we keep things aboveboard.  It that is 
chastisment, then so be it. 

Blasts of emails between two or three people is not the answer.  Making 
offensive comments about people also is not the answer, nor appropriate. 
There is no one person at fault.  There are many, including myself for not 
getting into the middle of some of these discussions and saying - stop the 
noise and get productive. 

However, that's not the way the IETF works.  The chair is there to call 
concensus, keep people cool, and push drafts.  We are not supposed to 
interfere or persuade people to move in any particular direction. 
Therefore, I take great pains to not interfere with dialog..  However, I 
have to interfere when people write things that are abusive.  It is 
appropriate for the chair to step in when things get out of hand and when 
trying to reach concensus. It is also the responsibility of the chair to 
step in and say there may be an issue.  I know XXXXX- and he does not lie. 
 He gets "enthusiastic" with his replies.   (snip ...some irrelevant 
text...)  And when someone starts making comments like "you lie" on the 
list, then I have to step in and say "foul, below the belt, keep it nice." 

So, that being said, can we please move on and get this done.  And again, 
name calling and mud slinging will not be condoned on the list. "

Eastlake III Donald-LDE008 <[email-masked]> 
Sent by: [email-masked]
09/15/2003 12:31

To
[email-masked]
cc

Subject
RE: Question about list members masquerading as someone else

I  would agree with Avri.
 
Note  that saying some statement is a "lie" is quite different from merely 
saying it  is "wrong" or "inconsistent" ...  In particular, calling it a 
lie is an  attack on the person by making the assertion about their 
internal mental state:  that they are deliberately making a statement 
knowing it to be wrong. I would  think you should contact the accuser 
privately and ask them to retract such  statements they have made and 
cease making them in the future. If they refuse to  do so then you could 
bar them on that basis.
 
(Of  course, it is hard to have a general policy that always applies. For 
example,  presumably there is a vanishingly small probability that the 
person being  disruptive actually has some proof, like a videotape of the 
person they are  attacking in which that person says they are going to 
engage in a campaign of  lies. But even if that were true, the accuser 
isn't going about things the right  way and should, in the least 
disruptive way practical, be requesting some  action against the purported 
liar.)
 
Donald
-----Original Message-----
From: Avri Doria  [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, September 15, 2003 3:00  AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Question about list  members masquerading as someone else

In some ways it might not matter if the person is masquerading. If she or 
he is being disruptive and using personal invective, you probably have 
sufficient cause to warn and then restrict from the list. 

I would not in any case make a public list accusation of pretended 
identity. Something like that would very hard to prove. 

a. 

On måndag, sep 15, 2003, at 15:14 Asia/Seoul, [email-masked] 
wrote: 

I have a situation on my list where I am fairly sure someone  has signed 
on with a fictitious name.  Not a problem really, lots of  people do this. 
 However, in this case, this "new person" on the list is  making comments 
defending a position and making comments like "you lie..."  etc.  The real 
problem is this new person is defending the position that  someone on the 
list can not get anyone else to agree to - and several of us  are fairly 
sure that the "new person" is indeed the same person who had made  the 
original position statement. 

Has anyone else run into this on their list?  If so, how  did you handle 
it?  You can't come out on the list and say "hm, Mr. so  and so, are you 
really who you say your are or are you an alias for ....."   This one is 
tricky and this person is now really causing the list to  turn into a ugly 
and nasty mess.  Before I do what I have planned, I  wanted to poll the 
other chairs first.  Don't you just love this  non-paying stress 
jobs....8-( 

___________________ 

Patricia Egen Consulting 

www.egenconsulting.com 

423-875-2652

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2003 14:39:33 -0700

My experience has been that sending a general appeal like this to the list
only helps if the person or people performing the distruption are not
motivated by wanting to disrupt, but just by the fact that they are so
deeply into their particular position that they won't move on it because
they can't see the other guy's viewpoint. Usually, if people's motivation is
sincere, they'll cease after one general appeal pointing out that progress
isn't being made and that the group needs to get back to coherently
discussing issues. If that doesn't happen, then it might be time for a
private RFC 2418-mode warnings to the parties involved.

As for the language of any general appeal ("lie" etc.) and the identity of
the person doing the posting, I don't think the WG chair needs to make any
judgement about that. The issues are that a) the WG chair believes that
disruption is occuring, based on some evidence, verified with the
shepharding AD and b) the disrupting emails are coming from a particular
address. If a general appeal to get back on topic doesn't work, and the
disruptive email continues to originate from a particular email address,
then after a suitable number of private warnings, the WG chair is perfectly
within rights to have the email address removed from the list.

            jak

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <[email-masked]>
To: "Eastlake III Donald-LDE008" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, September 15, 2003 2:25 PM
Subject: RE: Question about list members masquerading as someone else

To
[email-masked]
cc

Subject

I  would agree with Avri.

Donald
-----Original Message-----
From: Avri Doria  [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, September 15, 2003 3:00  AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Question about list  members masquerading as someone else

a.

___________________

Patricia Egen Consulting

www.egenconsulting.com

423-875-2652