[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: Tale and the SRH-reorg (Was: Re: Charter changes?)

In article <qum20iysz27.thoron@cyclone.Stanford.EDU>,
Russ Allbery  <rra@cs.stanford.edu> wrote:
>This message was posted to news.groups, and a copy was mailed to Mr. Rao.

This reply is being posted to news.groups and to soc.culture.indian,
and cc'd to the moderator address for soc.religion.hindu.

>Please read the ENTIRE MESSAGE before even considering responding.
>
>I marked Mr. Rao's last message right after I read it the first time and
>walked away for a few days and try to calm down.  I came back and it
>didn't help.  I walked across Stanford and back trying to get some, *any*,
>grasp on why Mr. Rao is acting the way he is and why the incredibly abrupt
>transformation in the way he is writing.  No luck.  I'm still just as
>baffled and just as furious.

Tough.  What can I say?  Life just ain't fair no more.

>I wrote an extensive, line-by-line response to this entire message, went
>back and looked at it, and deleted it unsent because it wouldn't have done
>any good.  It was just a flame, in response to Mr. Rao's flame, and that
>accomplishes nothing.

But then, the hand-waving that you finally presented didn't accomplish
anything, either, so perhaps it would have been better to have flamed
away.  Better an honest exchange than any kind of make-believe.

>And then I looked up and noticed this message is crossposted to
>soc.culture.indian, which means that a thread has been introduced to sci
>with a message that contains, in my opinion, at least four outright lies
>and multiple character assassinations by Mr. Rao.  And I'm back to
>furious.
>
>I apologize to everyone else on this newsgroup; I simply don't know how to
>respond to this.  It's a horrible idea to post while one is angry, but I'm
>just as angry now as I was five days ago and it doesn't look like I'm
>going to get over it.  And this post deserves -- *needs* -- a response.

And yet, you didn't dare to respond either on soc.culture.indian or on
soc.religion.hindu -- your fury at the readers of the former being
exposed to the "four outright lies" didn't quite rev you up to the
level where you could face them with your response?

>If I respond to this entire post line-by-line, I'll be constantly
>repeating myself, the thread of the conversation will be nigh-impossible
>to follow, and I'll undoubtably get angry in the process of writing it.
>Which means that I'll write things that aren't fully qualified and of
>near-mathematical precision, and Mr. Rao will promptly take those
>statements, exploit every conceivable loophole in what I said, and turn it
>into a personal attack.  I can't even count the number of times that's
>happened over the course of this proposal.

Instead of all that moaning, it would have been better to have
answered the points I made -- but you didn't even say what four lies
I'd stated, much less debunk them properly.  That is pathetic.

>If I don't respond to the entire post line-by-line, Mr. Rao will
>undoubtably take that as a sign of victory and claim that I am stipulating
>to everything I miss, overlook, or dismiss as not worth responding to.
>More word games.  And I'm really sick of them.

Yet, you're the one playing them now.  What purpose to your long
ramble?  Why not get down to brasstacks?

>See, I can't even write an introduction without getting angry.  It's
>getting to the point where this is hardly healthy.  Dimitri Vulis, after a
>short burst of being extremely reasonable, reliably informative, and
>clear-headed, is now back to making an ass of himself on more newsgroups
>than I can count.  Terrorist activities coordinated by him are practically
>shutting down the UVV coordinator who has singlehandedly done more to keep
>the newsgroup creation system running than anyone will *ever* realize.
>Due to a variety of circumstances, I'm currently pretty much the only
>person in any situation to handle group-advice mail at the moment.  And I
>just started a new job, which means that I do not have time for this.

1> Dmitri Vulis is external to the issues.

2> The UVV coordinator is external to the issues -- he's expressly
detached himself in no uncertain terms, and it does no good to try to
drag him in.

3> What Vulis did/is-doing/will-do to the UVV coordinator is external
to the issues (vide the previous two points).

4> Whether your new job allows you to handle group-advice mail, or
not, is external to the issues.

>Mr. Rao, I do not know what to tell you.  You apparently think I, and
>Tale, are some sort of dictators who are trying to distort the truth to
>keep you from having your proposal.  Or that I'm utterly ignorant about
>what's going on.  Or that I'm not listening to you.  Or that I'm involved
>in some conspiracy with the current soc.religion.hindu moderator.  Or
>maybe you think I hate Indians.  At this point, I have no clue *what* you
>think.

But even so, with no clue to what I think, you felt it right to make
confident predictions as to just what I'd do ("Mr. Rao will
undoubtably take that as a sign of victory and...," etc.).  Isn't that
odd?

Never mind that.  For the life of me, I don't see why we need to play
these mind-reading games here: what are we trying to accomplish?  Why
don't we just stick to *facts*?

>Here's what I think.  I think that your proposal is designed to change the
>moderation status of soc.religion.hindu and the way the newsgroup is
>treated, and that the entire rest of it is pretty much incidental.  I
>don't think there's anything wrong with that, and I think you've presented
>your case fairly well for why soc.religion.hindu should be reorganized.

Thank you.  Much appreciated.

>However, the current moderator has refused to go along with your
>proposal.  I do not know why that is.  Perhaps he doesn't trust you.
>Perhaps he's a sadistic dictator who wants sole and absolute control over
>everything Hindu on the Net.  Perhaps he doesn't think your proposal is an
>improvement.  Perhaps he thinks that you're attempting to destroy his
>newsgroup.  Perhaps he doesn't like the first letter of your last name.
>By tradition, by common previous agreement, and as previously enforced, IT
>DOES NOT MATTER WHY HE WILL NOT GO ALONG WITH THE PROPOSAL.

But it does matter why you will continually divert the issues...

>Moderators own their groups.  They are essentially mini-dictators.  And
>historically nothing can be done to a moderated group without the
>permission of the moderator, including reorganize it.  This is because
>moderators traditionally cannot be removed against their will, so all they
>have to do is state that they will not go along with the proposal and the
>proposal then has the effect of removing the moderator if it passes.

*Historically*, the situation is unprecedented -- Tale said so.  Thus,
"historically nothing can be done..." is false.

>Have you read about this in the Moderator's Handbook?  It's as official of
>a source as you can get on this issue -- it's an RFC draft.  Here's the
>appropriate exerpt:

[*chomp*]

>Please read this carefully.  Perhaps it will help.  Perhaps it will
>explain where I'm coming from.  At this point, I have no hope.  I've seen
>this go around so many times that I'm about to throw up my hands in utter
>despair.  But for some reason I'm still trying to get through to you how I
>feel.  I agree with the entire text above, including the last paragraph.
>
>Please read the sentence "A rabid readership can't really knock you out of
>the moderator position" again.  It's important.  That is the current
>accepted policy.  *THAT* is what you are running into.  Mr. Shah has
>refused to join the moderation team of the new newsgroup.  In doing so, he
>has escalated your proposal.  Because he is not on the new moderator list,
>your proposal, by definition, removes him.  And because of that, it pulls
>in *all* of this baggage.  And there is absolutely nothing that we can do
>about it.

Really?  But that's just the latest of the kaleidoscopically changing
excuses we've had.  And it just so happens that it's completely
inconsistent with previous ones.

It in fact is the case that Tale decided that he would not allow the
reorg proposal to go through *IF THE SRH MODERATOR HAD NOT ABUSED HIS
POSITION* -- that is to say, he decided that he would have to assess
the integrity of the moderator, and decide the course of the proposal
based upon that.  Isn't that correct?  And isn't it also correct that
he asked Todd McComb to make this assessment?  And that he finally
reported that in his judgement, there was no justification for
removing the moderator?

In fact, recall also that Tale at one time said that if Ajay were to
prove inappropriate, then he (Tale, that is) would change the UUNET
forwarding for soc.religion.hindu to point to other moderators?  So
what was all that about?

As such, given that:

1> Tale decided that there was no justification for removing the
current moderator (showing that he was prepared to consider the
possibility, and make a judgement); and

2> He even previously had not categorically stated that he would under
all conditions be bound by the language of the moderators' handbook
(which has, to my best knowledge, not been quoted as a reference, much
less as an absolute and binding authority, by Tale)

-- it follows that your current thesis is essentially ad-hoc.  Sad to
say, it is also the only part where you even made an attempt to give a
factual answer; the rest of your posting being taken up in the
deadwood prose and chest-beating that you favored us with.  I do not
understand how any reasonable person would believe that my arguments
were ABSOLUTELY IDIOTIC when you have consistently failed to respond
to them.  I also do not see how it is the case that the possible
nuances of "rabid readership" and "can't really" in the moderators'
handbook are being ignored.  Is every readership always rabid?  If
yes, then the qualification is meaningless.  If no, then we have an
important conditional under which a moderator may in fact be "knocked
out."  And is "can't really" such a strong negation?  Not in my
experience.

I, for my part, will continue to post this thread to
soc.culture.indian (and soc.religion.hindu as well, if Ajay will
accept my postings) -- after all, *I* can claim that in posting to
news.groups, I'm confronting an audience who hate my guts over
SCI.J-K.

Regards,

Shrisha Rao

[Rest of the previous posting left intact; perhaps someone may find a
pearl or two of wisdom in it.]

>Under the current system, Mr. Shah has the ability, as the sitting
>moderator of the group, to turn any proposal which modifies his group in
>any way into a proposal to remove him as moderator, and then appeal his
>case under the above provision.
>
>He undoubtably considers this justified.  I don't know why.  I would be
>much happier if he would accept a compromise and a position on your
>moderation team.  So would Tale.  Tale asked him to.  He refused.  At this
>stage, WE DO NOT HAVE A CHOICE.  By tradition and historical precedent,
>this proposal, regardless of its merits, regardless of the reasoning of
>the moderator, has to be treated by the newsgroup creation system as a
>forcible removal of a moderator.  It has to be because that is exactly the
>precedent it will set.  If this goes forward, then people will be able to
>bring forward proposals for reorganizations of moderated groups and simply
>make the new requirements for moderators for the new group too stringent
>for the old moderator to accept.
>
>I am not claiming that you are doing that.  I am saying that there is no
>way that any fixed, objective standard can distinguish between your
>proposal and a proposal which *does* do that.
>
>You may consider this broken.  You may consider these traditions wrong.
>And you know what?  I think you may be right.  But the implications are
>really frightening to me, because I look around and see Boursy and Grubor
>and Jai and I picture them exploiting mass mailing and massively
>crossposted lies to launch endless attacks on moderated newsgroups.  And I
>*know* that they, or someone like them, would do exactly that given any
>precedent at all to work with.  And once one proposal like that is
>allowed, there isn't any way that an objective rule can be applied to weed
>them out.  We're then in the situation of either having to allow *all* of
>those endless proposals to go forward, putting even more strain on the UVV
>(the quantity is not the issue -- the incredible controversy, vote
>forging, campaigning, and the like that would come out of those proposals
>is the strain), or having to make subjective determinations of which
>proposals are worthy and which aren't.  And I *know* that you have enough
>experience with the various terrorists (kook is far too friendly and
>forgiving of a word) to understand the kind of ammunition that that would
>give them.
>
>If your proposal were openly stated as a request for a change in this
>procedure, a request that the newsgroup creation system be opened up to
>replacing moderators, this would be far more straightforward, easier to
>argue, and less confusing and annoying for both everyone involved.  But
>that isn't your proposal.  You don't agree that it replaces a moderator,
>and I entirely understand your point.  After all, you don't *want* to
>replace a moderator.  You want him to continue.
>
>But all the good intentions in the world don't matter, because he won't
>agree to it.  And therefore you are replacing him.  The actual, literal
>letter of the proposal has the effect of replacing him.  And when
>proposals come down the line later, that's all that will matter.  Believe
>me, I've seen it too many times before.
>
>And for some reason I can't make you see that.  I've tried, and I simply
>cannot find any way to make you understand how I feel.  I can't get you to
>believe me when I say that I *know* how you feel and I *understand* how
>you want to improve the group, and I *want* the group to be improved, but
>I see the implications a year down the road due to the *way* you are
>reorganizing the group (not the reorganization itself) and they scare me.
>
>You don't understand, you see duplicity, lies, and fiats from on high, and
>you attack.  And that really *hurts*.  It hurts because you *aren't*
>Grubor.  Or Boursy.  Or Jai.  I've had meaningful discussions with you.
>I've seen a person that I can respect and agree with.  And I can't seem to
>make contact with that person here -- I can't seem to *explain* to you
>what I'm thinking without you finding the unintentional inconsistencies
>and uncertainty and writing off everything I say as a pack of lies.
>
>And so you attack.  And I attack.  And we get into flamewars.  And I'm off
>walking the campus trying to calm down and stop myself from strangling
>someone because I'm just so damn FRUSTRATED with this system that takes
>people who should be able to work things out with an honest discussion and
>makes them waste HOURS on these absolutely IDIOTIC arguments that
>accomplish nothing except rip people apart inside.
>
>Someone once asked me why I did this.  At the time, I said it was because
>it was fun, and that I wouldn't be doing it if it weren't fun.  I look
>back on that now and can't believe how naive I was.  It isn't fun
>anymore.  It hasn't been fun for a long time.  And I'm still here because
>too many people are already leaving and if too many more leave everything
>falls apart.  And I care too much about it to let that happen.
>
>So there you have it.  I don't know why exactly Tale changed his mind.  I
>don't know who precisely he talked to, although I have some ideas.  It
>wasn't Mr. Shah who changed his mind.  I don't think Tale is dictating.  I
>think he's trying to keep things running on far too little time.  But I
>don't *know* anything.  I never *know* anything.  No one ever *knows*
>anything because we never have time to sit down and leisurely discuss
>anything because we're all so incredibly busy that what little time we do
>have to devote to these things is spent trying to keep things basically
>functional.
>
>So all you get is my opinions.  And my perspectives.  And they probably
>aren't enough, and there isn't one damn thing I can do about it because
>I'm already doing absolutely everything I can for you.  And I can't do
>these flamewars any more.  I can't sit here and just let you yell at me,
>and I refuse to let myself yell back because it isn't going to help.
>
>So I don't know what else to say.
>
>I've been talking to Mr. Shah.  He said that technical difficulties have
>prevented him from setting up the new moderation system (with multiple
>moderators) that he wants.  I have offered him the use of my personal site
>on a temporary basis if he needs it to solve those technical problems.
>Maybe things will start moving forward and everyone will end up happy.  We
>can always hope.
>
>In the meantime, I'm off to try to explain to people on group-advice why
>their proposals haven't been posted yet and try to convince them that no,
>it isn't a conspiracy to try to force them to change the names of the
>groups and yes, we realize that things are slow, and yes, we're working as
>fast as we can.  And then I need to go look into installing UseVote on my
>system because there are 11 proposals pending, our main votetaker is down
>because of the terrorist activities of someone I thought I was finally
>getting through to, and it's getting to the point where I may have to
>start taking some votes myself.
>
>God knows where I'll find the time.
>
>I hope we can find a new system soon, because this one is eating people
>alive.  And we aren't going to last much longer.
>
>And no, I'm not posting this to soc.culture.indian.  It's bad enough that
>I'm posting a core dump on news.groups; I'm not going to core dump in a
>group I've never even read that's full of people who probably hate my guts
>over scij-k.  Posting this is at all probably a major mistake, given the
>mood I'm in at the moment, but hell with it.  When all else fails, maybe
>this will finally get through to someone.
>
>I can always hope.
>
>-- 
>Russ Allbery (rra@cs.stanford.edu)      <URL:http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Advertise with us!
This site is part of Dharma Universe LLC websites.
Copyrighted 2009-2015, Dharma Universe.