Yahoo! posters value Groklaw, and that's why it's public


October 29, 2004

Well, the comment that I wanted to reply to, "Can't you email this to PJ?" by Anthony, is no longer visible or has been deleted. So I'll post my reply here and patiently wait for its deletion...

Why air out your dirty laundry in a public place? The only possible answer that I can come up with is that you're trying to give this site a bad name. In that case, whether intentional or not, you're acting on behalf of SCO.

This is the logical fallacy that many people here (including PJ) are falling into (taken from a Yahoo! poster):

PJ fights SCO
PJ make up rule to fight SCO
we partially disagree with rule

We disagree with PJ
Therefore we agree with SCO!

Just because someone might have a disagreement with how someone does something does not mean that they are their enemy.

Now SCO might well be laughing at this public dissension, but disagreements happen all the time in the Free/Open-Source world. The reason that these disagreements happen is because people value things and feel strongly about them and they may have different visions with how things should be run. We would much rather work through our disagreements than air them in public but being wrongly labeled as a SCO supporter or astroturfer doesn't help anyone.

I would hope that people here realize that the people at Yahoo! (most of them) value Groklaw immensely. They admire the work and dedication that PJ puts into researching articles and explaining court documents and value her legal analysis. They have a disagreement with how comments are moderated and how accounts are deleted. It is because they care about Groklaw and want to make it better that they are making it public.

Most of this could be solved by getting an explanation as to why accounts are deleted. Right now there is some policy on how posts are moderated, but no policy explaining why an account might be deleted. John Gabriel recently had his account deleted and still doesn't know why it was deleted. The initial response that he got when he emailed PJ was "It's not a bug. I have deleted your account. You know perfectly well why."

The community here (including PJ) needs to stop discounting these long-time Groklaw contributors as Astroturfers and trolls. People that have spent a long time building and helping out the Groklaw community deserve to be treated better than PJ is treating them.

01:40 PM EDT

Yahoo! posters value Groklaw, and that's why it's public


October 29, 2004

You misunderstand the quoted text entirely. There is no logical fallacy here.

If you are unhappy about some decision PJ has made, carrying out a public smear
campaign and distracting Groklaw's readership is not the way to have your
concerns addressed. Causing dissention here can only work to SCO's benefit--to
oppose SCO what we need is cooperation.

02:12 PM EDT

Yahoo! posters value Groklaw, and that's why it's public


October 29, 2004

Perhaps you could let us know what *is* the way to get concerns like this

02:57 PM EDT

Yahoo! posters value Groklaw, and that's why it's public


October 29, 2004

I'll answer that.

1. Write to me privately.
2. Don't publish my private response on the Internet.
3. Accept it when I don't agree with your suggestion without causing a hurricane.
4. Learn to accept that most here don't want the changes the Yahoo crowd have proposed. Try to fit in.

I surely need and want all the help I can get, but I need members here to act in a way that helps and who bring honor to Groklaw. We're not writing software here. The GPL isn't the license. Even Richard Stallman has written that there is a difference between an appropriate license for books and other writings and software. So things will be different here in some respects compared to writing the kernel.

I usually have reasons for what I do, often based on legal advice I am given. I can't always explain everything in public because of obvious reasons, or reasons that ought to be obvious.

I don't have time to be dealing with OT stuff day and night. Understand that it is nothing personal, but if someone acts like a jerk persistently, and shows by his or her actions that he cares nothing about my safety or the welfare of Groklaw, I really don't want them as a member. That is the bottom line. The public can comment still, and they can sign their names in text if they like, but membership is by invitation, so to speak. I've explained this many times.

Groklaw is like my home. I want to keep it up a certain way. It may not be your way. But it's my house. I don't tell you how to be elsewhere. Do what you like and be whatever you wish. But here on Groklaw, I ask you to respect Groklaw, me, one another, and the law, and follow some common sense guidelines. You don't get to pick those guidelines, though I listen to all suggestions. And understand that when my decision is final, it's final and repeating the same arguments again and again after that is annoying to all of us who do want to be here and like it the way it is. That is what causes us to question your loyaties or your good judgment. There is no good reason for the moderation issue to become such a big deal. Nothing anyone said or did has changed anything and it never will, because I disagree with the "loyal opposition".

While I'm happy to have help, understand clearly that the problems with the yahoo crowd (obviously that doesn't mean all of them, but they know who they are) are of long standing. I really don't want that small subset here. I do want them to leave. They are welcome back, if they have a change of attitude and are willing to cooperate. You don't have to be SCO troll or astroturfer to be a problem, you know. And if not, I wish them well elsewhere.

06:12 PM EDT

Copyright 2004