List Rules

[Hodgins Family]

Good afternoon!

On Sat, 2005-02-26 at 12:33 -0600, Thomas Cameron wrote:
> > First is that you probably shouldn't
> > call it "List Rules". It might be better to call it "Suggestions to ensure 
> > the
> > widest readership of your question or problem." This gets the goal across
> > nicely.
> 
> 
> Amen - when I saw the subject "List Rules," it actually got my back up a 
> bit.

Isn't that a bit of an extreme reaction?
Before anyone reads this post further, please know that I disagree with
this party's approach.

>   This is a community.  It is certainly nice for people to be aware of 
> and try to follow the community standards of behavior.  However, calling 
> them "rules" implies that there is a firm structure in place.

"Rules" implies no such thing! I recall this matter being an issue in
"Pirates of the Caribbean" regarding the "Rules of Parlay".

Here is one definition of rules: Established standards, guides, or
regulations set up by authority. 
Check it out at http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/rules

Yes, this is a community. All communities have standards, guides or
regulations. They aren't "firm". They are fluid and are open to change.
Please don't get your back up because you have decided that "rules" have
a definition that is far narrower than what is accepted.

>   Usually there 
> are punitive consequences for breaking "rules." 

No punitive consequences are implied by the definition, nor were any
proposed in the original posting! The only "punitive consequence" that
might occur would be that your question/problem/perspective may not be
appropriately addressed.

>  Anyone who claims to be the 
> arbiter of, or the enforcer of "the rules" seems to me to be claiming 
> authority that (s)he simply doesn't have.

Now, we move from a incomplete definition of "rules" through the
existence of non-existent "punitive measures" to the establishment of an
"enforcer". I guess that I should be terrified by now. I'm not.
Look, I didn't actually see anyone posing as an "enforcer" in the
original posting. However,"Seems to be" tells me that you haven't looked
"authority" up.

So, definition of authority: same reference as above
     1. [n]  official permission or approval; "authority for the program
        was renewed several times" 
     2. [n]  the power or right to give orders or make decisions; "he
        has the authority to issue warrants"; "deputies are given
        authorization to make arrests" 
     3. [n]  freedom from doubt; belief in yourself and your abilities;
        "his assurance in his superiority did not make him popular";
        "after that failure he lost his confidence"; "she spoke with
        authority" 
     4. [n]  an authoritative written work; "this book is the final
        authority on the life of Milton" 
     5. [n]  an administrative unit of government; "the Central
        Intelligence Agency"; "the Census Bureau"; "Office of Management
        and Budget"; "Tennessee Valley Authority" 
     6. [n]  an expert whose views are taken as definitive; "he is an
        authority on corporate law" 
     7. [n]  (usually plural) persons who exercise (administrative)
        control over others; "the authorities have issued a curfew" 


Definition 1 doesn't apply since it doesn't refer to a person.
Definition 2 and 7 imply control by one group over others. Are these the
definitions that got your back up? 
I would have defined authority more like any of 3, 4, 5 or 6. Probably 6
would be my favourite since I'd be more than willing to accept
guidelines from an expert if it ensures that my
questions/problems/perspectives will be addressed.

I sense something happening under these words:
> I would certainly strive to follow the community standards, and I have no 
> problems gently (preferably off list) pointing a community newcomer to a 
> list of community preferences. 

Then you have already grasped the necessity for the rules (you call them
community standards) and you are the authority (to the newcomer). 

>  But someone who pops off about violating 
> "the rules" is likely to get an earful from me.

Is this the core of your dissension? How about stating for us all that
if someone "pops off" about violations of "the rules", you would not
give "an earful". Rather you would take a few minutes to question
yourself as to whether or not, you might have actually caused some
problems? No community could ask for a better member!

Have a great day!

Rob