Re: Resignation of Suresh Ramasubramanian and Udhay Shankar from the india-gii moderator role

Since this started with my leaving, I'm going to respond just once before I
leave again:

When I'm attacked without reason on a group or a mailing list, it's the
fault of the person attacking. When I'm attacked relentlessly, it's the
fault of the moderators. I'm a tolerant person, and will engage in debates,
but this went beyond mere debates to consistent, unsubstantiated,
impossible to prove and false accusations, as well as insinuations and
barbs, without listening to any explanation. From a discussion, it very
quickly became an interrogation and bordered on harassment. No matter what
I say, I'm still attacked.

When such behavior continues, it's the fault of the moderators. It is also
the fault of the members who don't call out such behavior and allow the
tamasha to continue. There was a warning from the moderators, a response
from Mahesh that I remember, and the behavior continued despite a warning,
afaik.

When I chose not to respond to some of the queries (don't feed the troll,
and all that), I did so because I knew that any response would have only
let to more interrogation, and dare I say, harassment. When I came home one
day, I found that the content of that mail had become the content of a
call, and questions were being asked of my dad regarding my work with the
Delhi Wifi task force. How is he to know? Why should he answer for me? For
me, that is going much too far. I don't need this, especially when at a
time when I was putting everything I've built at risk for something I
believe in: the savetheinternet.in campaign for net neutrality. So I left
the list.

Sarbajit then sent something of a warning email to my entire editorial team
about watching over how they function. After a bit of back and forth, we
had a civil conversation, before the interrogation began again, albeit now
in a civil manner.

I've informed Sarbajit that I'm not responding to any of his communications
any more. From his last mail here, it appears that the accusatory behavior
will continue: in this case, it wasn't against me, but against Mahesh and
Pranesh. I'm relieved to find that he now believes that I'm a good egg, but
is everyone a bad egg until he believes they aren't? Mahesh and Pranesh
don't deserve this either.

To address your point Ken, if accusations are hurled consistently enough
over a period of time, without being responded to, they tend to stick.
That's how it works, unfortunately, and people who are being accused are
forced to respond and defend themselves. Not to address the accuser, but to
address those are reading the accusations.

I'm a reasonable person, but have no intention of being on a list that does
not act swiftly to address such behavior from its members, and despite
repeat infringements, does not boot them out. No good comes out of this
kind of behavior, no one gains. Such kind of behavior only stalls
proceedings and forces people to do nothing because they're afraid of being
accused of something or the other with every step they take. It also forces
people like me who, admittedly, haven't contributed much to the discussions
here, but have learned from them over the years, to leave. I'd rather spend
my time working than writing such long emails and responding to
accusations.

Thanks, Suresh, Udhay and Gautam, for taking the stand that you've taken,
but I'd request that you stay for the rest of the largely civil people in
this list. Arun and Vickram, from what it appears to me, will allow things
to go too far. Mahesh and Satish: thanks for speaking up.


On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 11:55 PM, Ram Bhat <[email protected]> wrote:

> The porn industry+gambling dig refers to Anurag Dikshit btw.
>
>
> On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 5:46 PM, ken <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>  As a proponent of free speech, I may lean even farther toward allowance
>> than even Arun.
>>
>> Hypothetically, if a member was to post something blatantly racist, would
>> we feel that such speech should be allowed here? Given that I have been
>> asked to tone down far less insulting speech, can we not agree that asking
>> the membership to keep within the topic this list is centered on is not
>> restricting free speech?
>>
>> Accusing someone of being financed by the porn industry is not discourse
>> I find useful even though it really didn't bother me - but that's because I
>> believe that every single human being is endowed with an unalienable right
>> to make a complete jackass out of themselves. This is something I feel very
>> strongly about, with the understanding that I would be lost without the
>> freedom to embarrass myself on a regular basis. ;-)
>>
>> Cordially,
>>
>> Ken DiPietro
>> Cumberland MD
>>
>>
>> On 05/18/2015 11:47 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
>>
>> Using your own analogy, suppose he beats his wife at home, but is an
>> exemplary employee at work (a brilliant programmer or something of the
>> sort, say).
>>
>>  Or perhaps he’s a suave gentleman when he goes to his club for a drink
>> and a round of golf, and a brilliant quizzer if he’s on a quiz team.
>>
>>  If you knew he beat his wife at home, you may want to avoid him
>> socially but have little or no excuse to avoid or bar him professionally.
>> Or possibly not.
>>
>>  This is an interesting case here.
>>
>>
>> http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/firing-of-shawn-simoes-for-off-duty-fhritp-video-reflects-employment-trend-1.3071919
>>
>>  I understand Arun’s sterling background in free speech and his concerns
>> that it should not be suppressed at any costs, and that a radical voice in
>> the wilderness is a useful thing to have.
>>
>>  I can even respect that.
>>
>>  However, and I hope Arun’s moderation efforts that he described will
>> resolve this, a clear line must be drawn between expressing - even strongly
>> expressing - a minority point of view, versus carrying out vicious personal
>> attacks on those who hold opposite views.
>>
>>  After Arun’s explanatory note and his proposal to moderate Sarbajit, I
>> consider the matter closed for now.
>>
>>  —srs
>>
>>
>>  On 18-May-2015, at 9:01 pm, Ratnendra Pandey <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Take an example. There is a member who beats his wife every evening.
>> Should this be enough reason to send the member out of this list.
>> This can be argued from the both sides.  Is it that a bad guy will be bad
>> guy everywhere?  Or, bad at one occasion or instance does not make the
>> person always bad?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> India-gii mailing listIndia-gii-IAPFreCvJWP2/[email protected]://lists.india-gii.org/mailman/listinfo/india-gii
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> India-gii mailing list
>> India-gii-IAPFreCvJWP2/[email protected]
>> https://lists.india-gii.org/mailman/listinfo/india-gii
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> India-gii mailing list
> India-gii-IAPFreCvJWP2/[email protected]
> https://lists.india-gii.org/mailman/listinfo/india-gii
>
>

_______________________________________________
India-gii mailing list
India-gii-IAPFreCvJWP2/[email protected]
https://lists.india-gii.org/mailman/listinfo/india-gii