From kai@ohio.river.org Thu May 28 19:27:19 1998 Date: Thu, 28 May 1998 19:30:26 -0500 To: bkort@musenet.org From: Kai Hagen Subject: talk Barry, Please send me you home phone number and suggest a time I speak with you, soon if possible. I have been discussing and considering the options and have come to a decision. Let's talk. Kai =========================================================================== From bkort@musenet.org Thu May 28 21:19:13 1998 From: Barry Kort Subject: Our Agreement To: kai@river.org (Kai Hagen) Date: Thu, 28 May 1998 21:18:56 -0400 (EDT) Cc: bkort@musenet.org (Barry Kort) Kai, Here is my understanding of our agreement tonight, per our phone call just completed... I agree not to post in any conference, save LifeJourney, for an indeterminate period of time, pending resolution of the issues there and pending resolution of other issues not involving LifeJourney. In return, I understand you will intervene to bar the posting of of any commentary, questions, or discussions to me or about me in any all all conferences where I am silent, pursuant to the principal of Res Judicata. I understand that I may read silently in other conferences during this interregnum, and raise to your attention by E-Mail any postings directed to me or about me that would normally call for a response, and that you (or a designated host) will intervene appropriately and as effectively as practical to limit them, up to and including the possibility of hiding (but not erasing) them, notifying the poster of the inappropriateness of such postings during this interregnum, and taking whatever additional steps seem reasonable and appropriate to secure compliance both with my wishes and with the guiding principal of Res Judicata. Is my understanding of our agreement in concert with yours, Kai? Barry =========================================================================== From bkort@musenet.org Thu May 28 22:23:30 1998 From: Barry Kort Subject: Meta.30.473 Followup To: kai@river.org (Kai Hagen) Date: Thu, 28 May 1998 22:23:17 -0400 (EDT) Cc: bkort@musenet.org (Barry Kort) Kai, I just read Meta.30.473. Please post there my E-Mail to you with my wording of our understanding, and review the discrepancies between the two. In particular, it was my understanding that I was not going to lose access but only that I had agreed to read silently in all topics save LJ. Please make it clear that your imposition of an indefinite suspension of no less than two weeks goes beyond what I understood you to have said on the phone. Thanks, Barry =========================================================================== From kai@ohio.river.org Fri May 29 00:50:34 1998 Date: Fri, 29 May 1998 00:50:28 -0500 To: Barry Kort From: Kai Hagen Subject: Re: Our Agreement Barry, I don't know how you got that particular impression. I thought I was quite clear. I was going to suspend you access (remember, I even made a reference to changing your password), but altered the plan after speaking with you to accomodate your reasonable desire to participate in the mediation topic created in LifeJourney. It was for that two or three days (or so) that I would wait before suspending your access entirely for at least two weeks. I clearly told you that I would follow up with you about the precise time period any any conditions or expectations I would have about the nature of your participation after your access was re-established. Kai At 9:18 PM -0400 5/28/98, Barry Kort wrote: >Kai, >Here is my understanding of our agreement tonight, per our phone call >just completed... >I agree not to post in any conference, save LifeJourney, for an >indeterminate period of time, pending resolution of the issues there >and pending resolution of other issues not involving LifeJourney. >In return, I understand you will intervene to bar the posting of >of any commentary, questions, or discussions to me or about me in >any all all conferences where I am silent, pursuant to the principal >of Res Judicata. >I understand that I may read silently in other conferences during >this interregnum, and raise to your attention by E-Mail any postings >directed to me or about me that would normally call for a response, >and that you (or a designated host) will intervene appropriately and >as effectively as practical to limit them, up to and including the >possibility of hiding (but not erasing) them, notifying the poster >of the inappropriateness of such postings during this interregnum, >and taking whatever additional steps seem reasonable and appropriate >to secure compliance both with my wishes and with the guiding principal >of Res Judicata. >Is my understanding of our agreement in concert with yours, Kai? >Barry =========================================================================== From bkort@musenet.org Fri May 29 01:21:47 1998 From: Barry Kort Subject: Re: Our Agreement To: kai@river.org (Kai Hagen) Date: Fri, 29 May 1998 01:21:28 -0400 (EDT) Cc: bkort@musenet.org Hi Kai, > I don't know how you got that particular impression. I thought I was quite > clear. I was going to suspend you access (remember, I even made a reference > to changing your password), but altered the plan after speaking with you to > accomodate your reasonable desire to participate in the mediation topic > created in LifeJourney. When you changed your plan and asked me if I would agree not to post in any topic save LJ, I understood that you were not going to suspend my access to read, but that you would trust me to keep my word not to post outside of LJ. That's why I then asked you to enforce Res Judicata in those conferences where I would be a silent reader, and we discussed the procedure whereby I would alert you by E-Mail to postings about me or to me that appeared in those venues during the interregnum. Those terms would not have made sense to discuss unless I was being allowed to read in silence. > It was for that two or three days (or so) that I would wait before > suspending your access entirely for at least two weeks. I clearly told you > that I would follow up with you about the precise time period any any > conditions or expectations I would have about the nature of your > participation after your access was re-established. > Kai That was not my understanding, after you agreed to let retain access under the terms we discussed. Kindly, post this message in Hosts and in Meta, Kai. Regards, Barry > At 9:18 PM -0400 5/28/98, Barry Kort wrote: > >Kai, > >Here is my understanding of our agreement tonight, per our phone call > >just completed... > >I agree not to post in any conference, save LifeJourney, for an > >indeterminate period of time, pending resolution of the issues there > >and pending resolution of other issues not involving LifeJourney. > >In return, I understand you will intervene to bar the posting of > >of any commentary, questions, or discussions to me or about me in > >any all all conferences where I am silent, pursuant to the principal > >of Res Judicata. > >I understand that I may read silently in other conferences during > >this interregnum, and raise to your attention by E-Mail any postings > >directed to me or about me that would normally call for a response, > >and that you (or a designated host) will intervene appropriately and > >as effectively as practical to limit them, up to and including the > >possibility of hiding (but not erasing) them, notifying the poster > >of the inappropriateness of such postings during this interregnum, > >and taking whatever additional steps seem reasonable and appropriate > >to secure compliance both with my wishes and with the guiding principal > >of Res Judicata. > >Is my understanding of our agreement in concert with yours, Kai? > >Barry =========================================================================== From kai@ohio.river.org Fri May 29 12:48:37 1998 Date: Fri, 29 May 1998 12:52:23 -0500 To: Barry Kort From: Kai Hagen Barry, I did not renege on anything. You had an interpretation of our discussion that I didn't even recognize. I e-mailed you what I understood. That is all that transpired before you passed on my e-mail, posted my e-mail, posted in other conferences, etc. I can't stop you from send out my e-mail, obviously, but you can consider the term "suspension" insufficient if you do. I can not believe you. I can not trust you. I will not be sending you additional e-mail. In the end, that is all you gain by doing this. Kai =========================================================================== From bkort@musenet.org Fri May 29 13:28:51 1998 From: Barry Kort Subject: Peer-to-Peer and Open To: kai@river.org (Kai Hagen), gosh@utne.com (Anthony Goshko) Date: Fri, 29 May 1998 13:27:04 -0400 (EDT) Cc: bkort@musenet.org (Barry Kort), moonbeam@musenet.org (Nancy Williams), landrigan@cae.uml.edu (Dave Landrigan), royeh@pacbell.net, utne@MR.Net, tenajyebba@yahoo.com, nancyw@sassi.com, kafzali@hotmail.com, dfreid@txdirect.net, pklee@cris.com, PDLACLAIR@aol.com Hi Kai, > Barry, > I did not renege on anything. Are you concurring that we did not have a mutually agreeable understanding of an indefinite timeout while people could attend to other business and catch up? > You had an interpretation of our discussion that I didn't even recognize. I > e-mailed you what I understood. That is all that transpired before you > passed on my e-mail, posted my e-mail, posted in other conferences, etc. My interpration of our agreement was laid out carefully in my initial E-Mail to you upon completing our telephone conversation. I would hold off as long as everyone else did, and I would limit myself to the LJ mediation until the issue with Jak was resolved. Jak and I resolved it sometime after midnight last night, shortly after the Mediator retired to bed. I found Common Ground with Jak. Essentially we would be neither friends nor enemies, but would have no relationship at all. > I can't stop you from send out my e-mail, obviously, but you can consider > the term "suspension" insufficient if you do. Huh? I don't understand what you are saying here, Kai. > I can not believe you. I can not trust you. I will not be sending you > additional e-mail. In the end, that is all you gain by doing this. > Kai I can see why our trust broke down, Kai. I agreed to work with you cooperatively and jointly to solve the problems we both agreed needed to be addressed. The first one that we agreed to work on together was the problem of too much traffic in Meta. I agreed to an indefinite timeout until people there were ready to resume. I was stunned that you converted our agreement into a unilateral action and refused to post our joint agreement. I now see we did not have any such agreement, and that was not your intent. I regret that, Kai. I don't like having to go back to Unilateral Protocols when we have far superior Bi-Lateral Peer-to-Peer Protocols to work with. I thought we had reached a Higher Common Ground last night after our phone call. I regret to say I was mistaken. I will continue to meet you on Common Ground, Kai. But you control the elevation of that ground. I prefer Higher Ground. If tomorrow I find you on Higher Ground, I'll scamper back up to that level and meet you there. Regards, Barry =========================================================================== From kai@ohio.river.org Fri May 29 12:33:47 1998 Date: Fri, 29 May 1998 12:33:33 -0500 To: Barry Kort From: Kai Hagen Subject: Re: Please Post in InfoAge.61 Cc: royeh@pacbell.net, utne@MR.Net, tenajyebba@yahoo.com, nancyw@sassi.com, kafzali@hotmail.com, dfreid@txdirect.net, bkort@musenet.org, moonbeam@musenet.org, moochris.larsen@city.nepean.on.ca, kai@ohio.river.org, pklee@cris.com, dave@valley.uml.edu, PDLACLAIR@aol.com Three things: I in no way share Barry's impression that "traffic" volume is a reasonable way to convey my concerns or our discussion. I will respond here and now, but do not have the intention, and do not want one reply to convey, that I am going to participate in an ongoing e-mail discussion. Here is my recent post in Meta: Meta.30.492: aka Kai (motet) Fri, 29 May 1998 10:33:28 CDT (79 lines) Thank you! Barry's account was suspended now because, in a manner of speaking, too many straws broke the camel's back. While that may sound horribly imprecise, the fact is that it is a judgement call relating to the broader *pattern* of behavior. In the interest of maintaining an open forum, we have taken such steps no more than a handful of times since the Cafe opened. Aside from obviously extreme and/or illegal sorts of activities, one idea that has evolved is that the Cafe will take action to protect the nature of the systems and its conferences when a patron creates a *persistent, seemingly irresolvable and widespread disruption* which is deemed to have an unacceptable effect on Cafe conference. Again, while that may seem unclear, it is not the sort of thing that just happens. It is not sudden. Cafe action comes after other reasonable options are exhausted and numerous warnings have been conveyed (not to mention e-mail, phone calls, etc), I could sit here and list individual items (such as posting e-mail without permission and again after it was made clear it was not acceptable, or porting deleted topics to his server, to provide two recent examples). But the real point is only partially described by such incidents. Based on such criteria, and with the full support of Utne, I could have deleted his account permanently or indefinitely. But I am hesitant to do that, and unwilling, so far, to give up on Barry altogether. So, after discussing the issue with others, including the hosts, I decided it was best to suspend Barry's account temporarily. I thought something between two and four weeks was sufficient to serve as both a legitimate warning and a cooling off period. But, when I called him, he informed me they were just starting the mediation topic in LifeJourney, and I agreed to give him two or three days to resolve things there, *as long as* he would not post anywhere else in the Cafe. I acknowledged that he would be able to read other places duing that time. I agreed to ask that the conversation with Barry in Meta not continue in his absence. I said I would be available by e-mail or phone. I also asked him, having been burned twice already, to agree that we could exchange e-mail without my having to worry about it showing up all over the place, at the Cafe or elsewhere. He agreed, but added the proviso that he would not stick to that if I used coercion. I said that the coercion was already applied by the supension. He later e-mailed me he understanding of what we had agreed (you have my version above). It was not the same, or even very close. In spite of my clarity or thought and what I believe was my clarity of expression (I even made a light comment about what I might change his password to for the time being), he apparently believed there would no loss of access to the Cafe, only that he would not post. I replied by telling him my interpretation of the conversation, and reiterating what was, in fact, the case. Rather than accept that, or work with me to clarify it further, Barry took the opportunity (less than 12 hours after our intial conversation) to consider any commitments null and void, due his belief I had already broken it myself. He passed on my e-mail to someone who posted it. He posted it himself in LifeJourney. He posted in the Literature Conference. I honestly tried hard to be extra patient and fair. I have struggled with this when it would have been simpler to just initiate the supension last night, or something more long-term. This is the result. As of a little while ago, the post in LJ was deleted by the host, that topic was frozen for the time being, and Barry's account was suspended, meaning he can not post or read as (moulton). ----------------------------------------------------------------- At 9:24 AM -0500 5/29/98, Barry Kort wrote: >I encountered a Network Error diagnostic message while trying to post >the following in InfoAge.61. Could someone please post it there for me? >Thanks, >Barry >----------------------------------------------------------------- >In the event that I am not able to continue working constructively with >the discussants here, I urge people to go back and carefuly review the >many protocols introduced and discussed here since we began this >conversation last April. [View Postings Since April will do the trick.] >Last night on the phone, Kai explained the problem he wanted to solve. >He told me that the total volume of traffic was overwhelming. Not that >there was any one chunk of traffic that was problematic but that the >integrated sum of all traffic in an interval of time was more than he >could comfortably handle. He needed a breather, a timeout. >There is a protocol for that situation that I have posted elsewhere. I >didn't post it here because it's a Peer-to-Peer Protocol which only >works if both sides of a communication channel agree to use it. >The protocol is called Stop and Go (also called Control-S/Control-Q or >Flow Control). I posted an explanation of it elsewhere, but I haven't >found it yet. I came here looking for it. DeeJoe, do you recall where >I posted that? Its may be in Meta, but I'm not sure. >I honor the Stop and Go Protocol because it's a Peer-to-Peer Protocol. >If somebody tells me that I'm going too fast for them and they need time >to digest and process, all they have to do is say so. >The way Stop and Go works is that when the receiver is done processing >the contents of its buffer, it either sends the Go, or it begins sending >new or responsive material back to the other side. Either way, the >resumption of return traffic signals the sender that the recipient has >caught up sufficiently to resume dialogue. We could use Stop and Go >here. I honor it by default, even if there is no express prior >agreement. But for it to work in a group discussion, the whole group >has to agree to proceed no faster than the slowest participant. >Meta is an example of a conference that would benefit from a Group >Commitment to use the Stop and Go Protocol. Kai can even unilaterally >impose it there by making Meta Read-Only (or even inaccessible) during >breathers or timeout intervals, giving people a reasonable amount of >time to catch up. If Meta were like a private conference, Kai could >regulate which participants needed to be there, and which ones needed to >be excluded or granted Read-Only Status because they are not particies >to the issues. The LifeJourney Mediation Topic has a voluntary rule, >governed by the social contract, that observers may silently read during >the initial phases. >I'm surprised Kai didn't invoke the Stop and Go Protocol with me, since >I honor it by default. I am willing to remain silent as long as people >are attending to other business. When they are done attending to other >business and ready to resume discourse with me, they post traffic which >addresses me, and I resume with them. It's a very nice civil protocol >which was invented by the people who invented the whole suite of >Internet Communication Protocols. It's an ingenious protocol which works >beautifully, and all entities employ it because its the best >Peer-to-Peer Protocol in a Cooperative Network. (It doesn't work in a >Hostile or Non-Cooperative Network.) =========================================================================== From David_Landrigan@valley.uml.edu Fri May 29 13:54:28 1998 Date: Fri, 29 May 1998 13:54:49 -0400 To: Kai Hagen , Barry Kort From: David_Landrigan@valley.uml.edu (David Landrigan) Subject: Re: Please Post in InfoAge.61 Cc: royeh@pacbell.net, utne@MR.Net, tenajyebba@yahoo.com, nancyw@sassi.com, kafzali@hotmail.com, dfreid@txdirect.net, bkort@musenet.org, moonbeam@musenet.org, moochris.larsen@city.nepean.on.ca, kai@ohio.river.org, pklee@cris.com, dave@valley.uml.edu, PDLACLAIR@aol.com To Kai Hagen, I suggest that you and Barry move to impartial arbitration and seek resolution. The issues that give rise to the contention are far too important to lose in either skirmishes or exercises of power. I am willing to arrange for impartial arbitration, though not fund that if funding is necessary. Also, I am unwilling to conduct the arbitration because I am not impartial with respect to either the issues or the people. Please let me know if you would like assistance in finding a mutually acceptable arbitrator and arbitration process. To people other than Kai, You will receive this this email as an unsolicited message, just as I received the message from Kai as an unsolicited message. I am choosing to respond because I see the issues that underly the contention between Kai Hagen and Barry Kort as central in the further evolution of our world. Each of us must become involved in the major issues, lest we suffer the consequences. The issues transcend the Utne Cafe, the United States, and even the whole of the net. They are issues of how humans do and will relate to one another. This morning I heard Ira Magaziner suggest that service providers may need to assert control over certain content (refering to porn), though the debate over aspects of net use and content, even among administration officials, continues without clear resolution. The administration is not and will not move to control content other than in the cases where current laws are violated. I also heard Kim Polese place her faith in the power of the people to decide. Kim speaks for the people. Ira indicated that the government will only intervene where people or their institutions fail and this is similar to the the judicial view expressed by Justice Breyer. While Kim and a vast number of people express faith in people acting individually and collectively, many of the captains of major industry side with the notion that they need to control and know how to do that. Perhaps the major issue in the contention between Kai and Barry is not a matter of what a user does when she or he is disatisfied nor what an administrator does when she or he is bothered. While those are important matters, perhaps the most major of the numerous issues is, who has the power to control the flow of information and how is that power exercised. Steve Case admited that AOL is still learning and has made a couple of serious mistakes in how to deal with users and their information. Steve is to be admired for recognizing and admitting that he and his company are on a learning curve. Ira and other members of the administration are to be admired for their restraint in exercising their potential power through policies, laws, and taxes. We are all on a learning curve and will err. However, some of us will learn from our mistakes the first time and others will never see. Personally, I left Utne Cafe when I saw an environment controlled by influences other than the will of the people and no potential for changing that situation. That is not an environment in which ideas flourish and it is not one in which I care to invest precious time. I chose to exercise my rights as an individual. I cannot say how other people will or will not exercise their rights. However, I share Kim's optimism that the net will reflect the will of the people over time and in most instances. It is only in such a diverse envrironment, lacking centralized control, that the creative, emotional, and intellectual expressions that bind us together can result in communitas. ========================================================= At 12:33 PM 5/29/98 -0500, Kai Hagen wrote: >Three things: >I in no way share Barry's impression that "traffic" volume is a reasonable >way to convey my concerns or our discussion. >I will respond here and now, but do not have the intention, and do not want >one reply to convey, that I am going to participate in an ongoing e-mail >discussion. >Here is my recent post in Meta: >Meta.30.492: aka Kai (motet) Fri, 29 May 1998 10:33:28 CDT (79 lines) >Thank you! >Barry's account was suspended now because, in a manner of >speaking, too many straws broke the camel's back. While that may >sound horribly imprecise, the fact is that it is a judgement >call relating to the broader *pattern* of behavior. >In the interest of maintaining an open forum, we have taken such >steps no more than a handful of times since the Cafe opened. >Aside from obviously extreme and/or illegal sorts of activities, >one idea that has evolved is that the Cafe will take action to >protect the nature of the systems and its conferences when a >patron creates a *persistent, seemingly irresolvable and >widespread disruption* which is deemed to have an unacceptable >effect on Cafe conference. >Again, while that may seem unclear, it is not the sort of thing >that just happens. It is not sudden. Cafe action comes after >other reasonable options are exhausted and numerous warnings >have been conveyed (not to mention e-mail, phone calls, etc), >I could sit here and list individual items (such as posting >e-mail without permission and again after it was made clear it >was not acceptable, or porting deleted topics to his server, to >provide two recent examples). But the real point is only >partially described by such incidents. >Based on such criteria, and with the full support of Utne, I >could have deleted his account permanently or indefinitely. But >I am hesitant to do that, and unwilling, so far, to give up on >Barry altogether. >So, after discussing the issue with others, including the hosts, >I decided it was best to suspend Barry's account temporarily. I >thought something between two and four weeks was sufficient to >serve as both a legitimate warning and a cooling off period. >But, when I called him, he informed me they were just starting >the mediation topic in LifeJourney, and I agreed to give him two >or three days to resolve things there, *as long as* he would not >post anywhere else in the Cafe. I acknowledged that he would be >able to read other places duing that time. I agreed to ask that >the conversation with Barry in Meta not continue in his absence. >I said I would be available by e-mail or phone. >I also asked him, having been burned twice already, to agree >that we could exchange e-mail without my having to worry about >it showing up all over the place, at the Cafe or elsewhere. He >agreed, but added the proviso that he would not stick to that if >I used coercion. I said that the coercion was already applied by >the supension. >He later e-mailed me he understanding of what we had agreed (you >have my version above). It was not the same, or even very close. >In spite of my clarity or thought and what I believe was my >clarity of expression (I even made a light comment about what I >might change his password to for the time being), he apparently >believed there would no loss of access to the Cafe, only that he >would not post. I replied by telling him my interpretation of >the conversation, and reiterating what was, in fact, the case. >Rather than accept that, or work with me to clarify it further, >Barry took the opportunity (less than 12 hours after our intial >conversation) to consider any commitments null and void, due his >belief I had already broken it myself. >He passed on my e-mail to someone who posted it. He posted it >himself in LifeJourney. He posted in the Literature Conference. >I honestly tried hard to be extra patient and fair. I have >struggled with this when it would have been simpler to just >initiate the supension last night, or something more long-term. >This is the result. >As of a little while ago, the post in LJ was deleted by the >host, that topic was frozen for the time being, and Barry's >account was suspended, meaning he can not post or read as >(moulton). >----------------------------------------------------------------- >At 9:24 AM -0500 5/29/98, Barry Kort wrote: >>I encountered a Network Error diagnostic message while trying to post >>the following in InfoAge.61. Could someone please post it there for me? >>Thanks, >>Barry >>----------------------------------------------------------------- >>In the event that I am not able to continue working constructively with >>the discussants here, I urge people to go back and carefuly review the >>many protocols introduced and discussed here since we began this >>conversation last April. [View Postings Since April will do the trick.] >>Last night on the phone, Kai explained the problem he wanted to solve. >>He told me that the total volume of traffic was overwhelming. Not that >>there was any one chunk of traffic that was problematic but that the >>integrated sum of all traffic in an interval of time was more than he >>could comfortably handle. He needed a breather, a timeout. >>There is a protocol for that situation that I have posted elsewhere. I >>didn't post it here because it's a Peer-to-Peer Protocol which only >>works if both sides of a communication channel agree to use it. >>The protocol is called Stop and Go (also called Control-S/Control-Q or >>Flow Control). I posted an explanation of it elsewhere, but I haven't >>found it yet. I came here looking for it. DeeJoe, do you recall where >>I posted that? Its may be in Meta, but I'm not sure. >>I honor the Stop and Go Protocol because it's a Peer-to-Peer Protocol. >>If somebody tells me that I'm going too fast for them and they need time >>to digest and process, all they have to do is say so. >>The way Stop and Go works is that when the receiver is done processing >>the contents of its buffer, it either sends the Go, or it begins sending >>new or responsive material back to the other side. Either way, the >>resumption of return traffic signals the sender that the recipient has >>caught up sufficiently to resume dialogue. We could use Stop and Go >>here. I honor it by default, even if there is no express prior >>agreement. But for it to work in a group discussion, the whole group >>has to agree to proceed no faster than the slowest participant. >>Meta is an example of a conference that would benefit from a Group >>Commitment to use the Stop and Go Protocol. Kai can even unilaterally >>impose it there by making Meta Read-Only (or even inaccessible) during >>breathers or timeout intervals, giving people a reasonable amount of >>time to catch up. If Meta were like a private conference, Kai could >>regulate which participants needed to be there, and which ones needed to >>be excluded or granted Read-Only Status because they are not particies >>to the issues. The LifeJourney Mediation Topic has a voluntary rule, >>governed by the social contract, that observers may silently read during >>the initial phases. >>I'm surprised Kai didn't invoke the Stop and Go Protocol with me, since >>I honor it by default. I am willing to remain silent as long as people >>are attending to other business. When they are done attending to other >>business and ready to resume discourse with me, they post traffic which >>addresses me, and I resume with them. It's a very nice civil protocol >>which was invented by the people who invented the whole suite of >>Internet Communication Protocols. It's an ingenious protocol which works >>beautifully, and all entities employ it because its the best >>Peer-to-Peer Protocol in a Cooperative Network. (It doesn't work in a >>Hostile or Non-Cooperative Network.) =========================================================================== From bkort@musenet.org Fri May 29 14:02:49 1998 From: Barry Kort Subject: Common Ground To: kai@river.org (Kai Hagen), gosh@utne.com (Anthony Goshko) Date: Fri, 29 May 1998 14:02:01 -0400 (EDT) Cc: bkort@musenet.org, royeh@pacbell.net, utne@MR.Net, tenajyebba@yahoo.com, nancyw@sassi.com, kafzali@hotmail.com, dfreid@txdirect.net, moonbeam@musenet.org, moochris.larsen@city.nepean.on.ca, kai@ohio.river.org, pklee@cris.com, dave@valley.uml.edu, PDLACLAIR@aol.com Hi Kai, > Three things: > I in no way share Barry's impression that "traffic" volume is a reasonable > way to convey my concerns or our discussion. You said "too many straws" but no single straw was actionable in and of itself. How else can one interpret "too many straws"? I read it that -- to use a tired computer metaphor -- your "buffer was full". No big deal. Happens all the time. All one has to do is say, "Whoa, let's slow down, I can't keep up." I'm amenable to that. > I will respond here and now, but do not have the intention, and do not want > one reply to convey, that I am going to participate in an ongoing e-mail > discussion. Kai, I understand that you might want to take a break. I have no problem with that. The world is not gonna fall apart if we all take some time off. But let's just agree to that like friends. OK? > Here is my recent post in Meta: > Meta.30.492: aka Kai (motet) Fri, 29 May 1998 10:33:28 CDT (79 lines) > Thank you! > Barry's account was suspended now because, in a manner of > speaking, too many straws broke the camel's back. While that may > sound horribly imprecise, the fact is that it is a judgement > call relating to the broader *pattern* of behavior. > In the interest of maintaining an open forum, we have taken such > steps no more than a handful of times since the Cafe opened. > Aside from obviously extreme and/or illegal sorts of activities, > one idea that has evolved is that the Cafe will take action to > protect the nature of the systems and its conferences when a > patron creates a *persistent, seemingly irresolvable and > widespread disruption* which is deemed to have an unacceptable > effect on Cafe conference. Kai, I take exception to the term "disruption". That's not a fair characterization of what happened. It's an unfair and unnecessary negative spin. Please don't do that. It lessens my opinion of you and strains our friendship. > Again, while that may seem unclear, it is not the sort of thing > that just happens. It is not sudden. Cafe action comes after > other reasonable options are exhausted and numerous warnings > have been conveyed (not to mention e-mail, phone calls, etc), I don't get the "warnings" business, Kai. You're a seasoned referee. You can blow the whistle and call a Referee's Timout in Meta at any time, without having to cast it as "warnings" and "too many straws" and find someone to blame it on. There's always going to be some #1 poster by volume. If not me, then Keith or Janet or someone else. > I could sit here and list individual items (such as posting > e-mail without permission and again after it was made clear it > was not acceptable, or porting deleted topics to his server, to > provide two recent examples). But the real point is only > partially described by such incidents. And it would be a disservice to try to find the three or four biggest individual straws in the bale and cite them. > Based on such criteria, and with the full support of Utne, I > could have deleted his account permanently or indefinitely. But > I am hesitant to do that, and unwilling, so far, to give up on > Barry altogether. It would not be wise to do so, Kai. It sets a bad precedent. > So, after discussing the issue with others, including the hosts, > I decided it was best to suspend Barry's account temporarily. I > thought something between two and four weeks was sufficient to > serve as both a legitimate warning and a cooling off period. Again the "warning" business. What's wrong with a simple Referee's Timeout in Meta? Most of the traffic in Meta was addressed to me. Given that, and given that I try to respond as best I can, I generate more responses than most other people. So what? Most of the traffic in Loose Canon is addressed to Jay Walljasper. No one is on his case for stimulating traffic. Vijay posts some stimulating material in Spirit, and he get jumped on. What's going one here, Kai? > But, when I called him, he informed me they were just starting > the mediation topic in LifeJourney, and I agreed to give him two > or three days to resolve things there, *as long as* he would not > post anywhere else in the Cafe. I acknowledged that he would be > able to read other places duing that time. I agreed to ask that > the conversation with Barry in Meta not continue in his absence. > I said I would be available by e-mail or phone. And I kept that commitment. I posted nothing else until Jak and I resolved our issue. > I also asked him, having been burned twice already, to agree > that we could exchange e-mail without my having to worry about > it showing up all over the place, at the Cafe or elsewhere. He > agreed, but added the proviso that he would not stick to that if > I used coercion. I said that the coercion was already applied by > the suspension. I rest my case. "Coercion was already applied." Had you stuck to a peer-to-peer agreement, there would have been no coercion. > He later e-mailed me his understanding of what we had agreed (you > have my version above). It was not the same, or even very close. > In spite of my clarity or thought and what I believe was my > clarity of expression (I even made a light comment about what I > might change his password to for the time being), he apparently > believed there would no loss of access to the Cafe, only that he > would not post. I replied by telling him my interpretation of > the conversation, and reiterating what was, in fact, the case. What I wrote you was the mutually agreeable terms of an indefinite TimeOut, jointly agreed to, and jointly announced, to achieve a mutually agreeable goal. I can't fathom why you reverted that to a unilateral suspension, against my will. What were you thinking, Kai? > Rather than accept that, or work with me to clarify it further, > Barry took the opportunity (less than 12 hours after our intial > conversation) to consider any commitments null and void, due his > belief I had already broken it myself. You can't have it both ways. If it's an agreement, a commitment, then it's not a suspension, but a mutually agreed upon timeout, with the groundrules we discussed. The Res Judicata principle. > He passed on my e-mail to someone who posted it. He posted it > himself in LifeJourney. He posted in the Literature Conference. I passed it to Nancy Williams, a Professor of Ethics at Utah State University. She counsels me on matters ethical. > I honestly tried hard to be extra patient and fair. I have > struggled with this when it would have been simpler to just > initiate the supension last night, or something more long-term. Fair? I hand you an agreement that perfectly matches your needs and you chuck it in favor of a unilateral suspension? What were you thinking, Kai? > This is the result. Yes. The result is that we both went to back to Unilateral Protocols, because that's where we are again on Common Ground. > As of a little while ago, the post in LJ was deleted by the > host, that topic was frozen for the time being, and Barry's > account was suspended, meaning he can not post or read as > (moulton). I unilaterally reposted it. http://www.musenet.org/utnebury/betrayed.txt > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > At 9:24 AM -0500 5/29/98, Barry Kort wrote: > >I encountered a Network Error diagnostic message while trying to post > >the following in InfoAge.61. Could someone please post it there for me? > >Thanks, > >Barry > >----------------------------------------------------------------- > >In the event that I am not able to continue working constructively with > >the discussants here, I urge people to go back and carefuly review the > >many protocols introduced and discussed here since we began this > >conversation last April. [View Postings Since April will do the trick.] > >Last night on the phone, Kai explained the problem he wanted to solve. > >He told me that the total volume of traffic was overwhelming. Not that > >there was any one chunk of traffic that was problematic but that the > >integrated sum of all traffic in an interval of time was more than he > >could comfortably handle. He needed a breather, a timeout. > >There is a protocol for that situation that I have posted elsewhere. I > >didn't post it here because it's a Peer-to-Peer Protocol which only > >works if both sides of a communication channel agree to use it. > >The protocol is called Stop and Go (also called Control-S/Control-Q or > >Flow Control). I posted an explanation of it elsewhere, but I haven't > >found it yet. I came here looking for it. DeeJoe, do you recall where > >I posted that? Its may be in Meta, but I'm not sure. > >I honor the Stop and Go Protocol because it's a Peer-to-Peer Protocol. > >If somebody tells me that I'm going too fast for them and they need time > >to digest and process, all they have to do is say so. > >The way Stop and Go works is that when the receiver is done processing > >the contents of its buffer, it either sends the Go, or it begins sending > >new or responsive material back to the other side. Either way, the > >resumption of return traffic signals the sender that the recipient has > >caught up sufficiently to resume dialogue. We could use Stop and Go > >here. I honor it by default, even if there is no express prior > >agreement. But for it to work in a group discussion, the whole group > >has to agree to proceed no faster than the slowest participant. > >Meta is an example of a conference that would benefit from a Group > >Commitment to use the Stop and Go Protocol. Kai can even unilaterally > >impose it there by making Meta Read-Only (or even inaccessible) during > >breathers or timeout intervals, giving people a reasonable amount of > >time to catch up. If Meta were like a private conference, Kai could > >regulate which participants needed to be there, and which ones needed to > >be excluded or granted Read-Only Status because they are not particies > >to the issues. The LifeJourney Mediation Topic has a voluntary rule, > >governed by the social contract, that observers may silently read during > >the initial phases. > >I'm surprised Kai didn't invoke the Stop and Go Protocol with me, since > >I honor it by default. I am willing to remain silent as long as people > >are attending to other business. When they are done attending to other > >business and ready to resume discourse with me, they post traffic which > >addresses me, and I resume with them. It's a very nice civil protocol > >which was invented by the people who invented the whole suite of > >Internet Communication Protocols. It's an ingenious protocol which works > >beautifully, and all entities employ it because its the best > >Peer-to-Peer Protocol in a Cooperative Network. (It doesn't work in a > >Hostile or Non-Cooperative Network.) Barry =========================================================================== From kai@ohio.river.org Fri May 29 16:45:21 1998 Date: Fri, 29 May 1998 16:48:42 -0500 To: Barry Kort From: Kai Hagen Subject: Re: Peer-to-Peer and Open Cc: kai@ohio.river.org (Kai Hagen), gosh@utne.com (Anthony Goshko), bkort@musenet.org (Barry Kort), moonbeam@musenet.org (Nancy Williams), landrigan@cae.uml.edu (Dave Landrigan), royeh@pacbell.net, utne@MR.Net, tenajyebba@yahoo.com, nancyw@sassi.com, kafzali@hotmail.com, dfreid@txdirect.net, pklee@cris.com, PDLACLAIR@aol.com At 1:27 PM -0400 5/29/98, Barry Kort wrote: >Hi Kai, >> Barry, >> I did not renege on anything. >Are you concurring that we did not have a mutually agreeable >understanding of an indefinite timeout while people could >attend to other business and catch up? I am saying that your version of our discussion was unrecognizable to me. I shared my interpretation with you. And that was all that happened before you started sending my e-mail to others, started posting, etc. >> You had an interpretation of our discussion that I didn't even recognize. I >> e-mailed you what I understood. That is all that transpired before you >> passed on my e-mail, posted my e-mail, posted in other conferences, etc. >My interpration of our agreement was laid out carefully in my initial >E-Mail to you upon completing our telephone conversation. I would >hold off as long as everyone else did, and I would limit myself to the LJ >mediation until the issue with Jak was resolved. Jak and I resolved it >sometime after midnight last night, shortly after the Mediator retired >to bed. I found Common Ground with Jak. Essentially we would be neither >friends nor enemies, but would have no relationship at all. You may have laid out your interpretation carefully, but it proved to me once again how fruitless it is to make an effort, as I did, to compromise with you (in order to ennable you to finish up in LifeJourney). Not for one moment did I think or imply that you would continue to have read-only access after the LJ process was complete. >> I can't stop you from send out my e-mail, obviously, but you can consider >> the term "suspension" insufficient if you do. >Huh? I don't understand what you are saying here, Kai. I am saying that one of the reasons you have had your access suspended is your continuing insistence that it is appropriate for you to send one-to-one email to others and post them in public conferences. That you continue, still, among other things, gives me pause to wonder why you should have your access restored at all. >> I can not believe you. I can not trust you. I will not be sending you >> additional e-mail. In the end, that is all you gain by doing this. >> Kai >I can see why our trust broke down, Kai. I agreed to work with you >cooperatively and jointly to solve the problems we both agreed needed >to be addressed. The first one that we agreed to work on together >was the problem of too much traffic in Meta. I agreed to an indefinite >timeout until people there were ready to resume. You keep suggesting that "traffic in Meta" was a significant issue here. It was not. I did not say or imply that it was. >I was stunned that you converted our agreement into a unilateral action >and refused to post our joint agreement. I now see we did not have any >such agreement, and that was not your intent. I regret that, Kai. I >don't like having to go back to Unilateral Protocols when we have >far superior Bi-Lateral Peer-to-Peer Protocols to work with. >I thought we had reached a Higher Common Ground last night after our >phone call. I regret to say I was mistaken. >I will continue to meet you on Common Ground, Kai. But you control the >elevation of that ground. I prefer Higher Ground. If tomorrow I find >you on Higher Ground, I'll scamper back up to that level and meet you >there. Barry, I think almost anyone reviewing your interactions and statements on the Cafe over the last few weeks and months would have a very difficult time accepting the notion that you stick to the high ground. =========================================================================== From bkort@musenet.org Fri May 29 17:32:42 1998 From: Barry Kort Subject: Re: Peer-to-Peer and Open To: kai@river.org (Kai Hagen) Date: Fri, 29 May 1998 17:29:55 -0400 (EDT) Cc: bkort@musenet.org, gosh@utne.com, moonbeam@musenet.org, landrigan@cae.uml.edu, royeh@pacbell.net, utne@MR.Net, tenajyebba@yahoo.com, kafzali@hotmail.com, dfreid@txdirect.net, pklee@cris.com, PDLACLAIR@aol.com, mlobato@apc.net Hi Kai, > At 1:27 PM -0400 5/29/98, Barry Kort wrote: > >Hi Kai, > >> Barry, > >> I did not renege on anything. > >Are you concurring that we did not have a mutually agreeable > >understanding of an indefinite timeout while people could > >attend to other business and catch up? > I am saying that your version of our discussion was unrecognizable to me. I > shared my interpretation with you. And that was all that happened before > you started sending my e-mail to others, started posting, etc. That's a good reason to take up Dave's suggestion of bringing in a mediator or arbitrator, who can independently assess whether you and I are on the same page when we undertake a negotiation, and who can craft the language of an agreement that we both recognize as what was just agreed to. > >> You had an interpretation of our discussion that I didn't even recognize. > >> I e-mailed you what I understood. That is all that transpired before you > >> passed on my e-mail, posted my e-mail, posted in other conferences, etc. > >My interpretion of our agreement was laid out carefully in my initial > >E-Mail to you upon completing our telephone conversation. I would > >hold off as long as everyone else did, and I would limit myself to the LJ > >mediation until the issue with Jak was resolved. Jak and I resolved it > >sometime after midnight last night, shortly after the Mediator retired > >to bed. I found Common Ground with Jak. Essentially we would be neither > >friends nor enemies, but would have no relationship at all. > You may have laid out your interpretation carefully, but it proved to me > once again how fruitless it is to make an effort, as I did, to compromise > with you (in order to ennable you to finish up in LifeJourney). Not for one > moment did I think or imply that you would continue to have read-only > access after the LJ process was complete. Why did you not convey your true mind to me, Kai? Were you seriously planning to deny me even read-only access to my own work? > >> I can't stop you from send out my e-mail, obviously, but you can > >> consider the term "suspension" insufficient if you do. > >Huh? I don't understand what you are saying here, Kai. > I am saying that one of the reasons you have had your access suspended is > your continuing insistence that it is appropriate for you to send > one-to-one email to others and post them in public conferences. That you > continue, still, among other things, gives me pause to wonder why you > should have your access restored at all. Kai, suspending my access is insufficient leverage for you to prevail in that policy. Moreover it smacks of abuse of power to deny someone a constitutional and civil right. Insofar as it's 1) ineffective, 2) unethical, 3) unwise, and 4) coercive, I'd recommend that you abandon that failed tactic in favor of one that's 1) effective, 2) ethical, 3) wise, and 4) non-coercive. I am more than happy to negotiate with you terms of participation in which you get everything you want and then some, in return for granting me something I value more highly than gold or special favors. > >> I can not believe you. I can not trust you. I will not be sending you > >> additional e-mail. In the end, that is all you gain by doing this. > >> Kai > >I can see why our trust broke down, Kai. I agreed to work with you > >cooperatively and jointly to solve the problems we both agreed needed > >to be addressed. The first one that we agreed to work on together > >was the problem of too much traffic in Meta. I agreed to an indefinite > >timeout until people there were ready to resume. > You keep suggesting that "traffic in Meta" was a significant issue here. It > was not. I did not say or imply that it was. What did you mean by "too many straws"? Is not a "straw" a metaphor for a Speech Act, an act of information transmission via the Internet? > >I was stunned that you converted our agreement into a unilateral action > >and refused to post our joint agreement. I now see we did not have any > >such agreement, and that was not your intent. I regret that, Kai. I > >don't like having to go back to Unilateral Protocols when we have > >far superior Bi-Lateral Peer-to-Peer Protocols to work with. > >I thought we had reached a Higher Common Ground last night after our > >phone call. I regret to say I was mistaken. > >I will continue to meet you on Common Ground, Kai. But you control the > >elevation of that ground. I prefer Higher Ground. If tomorrow I find > >you on Higher Ground, I'll scamper back up to that level and meet you > >there. > Barry, I think almost anyone reviewing your interactions and statements on > the Cafe over the last few weeks and months would have a very difficult > time accepting the notion that you stick to the high ground. How about John Perry Barlow? Let's ask him, Kai. I don't want to ask almost anyone. I want to ask someone who's actually thought seriously about the issues. Have you read his article? You might find it both germane and enlightening. http://www.eff.org/pub/Publications/John_Perry_Barlow/HTML/idea_economy_article.html It's a terrific article. But Barlow omits a very interesting point too. What of those who contribute so overeagerly to the information landscape that they get thrown out of site for the crime of dominating it? Imagine the opposite problem from the one Barlow describes, wherein everyone *but* the contributor has access to a large corpus of work by one individual. Kafka would have loved it. But to answer your barb, Kai, I used to stick to higher ground, and it wasn't working. Then I adopted a new policy, to meet people on Common Ground, on *their* ground, be it high, low, or in between. It's an odd protocol to adopt, but in an environment where cooperative bilateral protocols aren't supported, and where we must fall back to unilateral protocols, the higher ground protocols simply weren't working. There still may be a better way -- I have no doubt I'm far from optimality here, but I learned from you that a suboptimal feasible strategy works better than an optimal infeasible one. I may be a fool, Kai, but I'm no dummy. I can learn from people even if I disagree philosophically with them on their policies, goals, and strategies. Barry