Note: These rules supplement Netiquette, the generally established rules governing acceptable behaviour on the Internet. I.e., members of this list are still expected to have read and to follow those guidelines. They may be obtained from a number of Internet souces, including RFC1855 at IETF or Wikipedia. While the rules have been stable for many years, constructive suggestions for improving are welcomed and may be sent to tango-L-owner [@] mit.edu (specific suggestions and rewording are more useful than general or vague ones).
Since this rule is enforced strictly and often without second chances, posters are advised to heed well the following:
| Any point that you wish to make or contradict about what a person said can be done by referring to the idea that person conveyed and not the person himself. Be particularly aware of this if you mention someone by name; however, including more than one person in a flame, or referring generally to "all you people who ..." does not automatically shield you from what would otherwise be a flame if it were directed at one named individual. | |
| Generally mean-spirited or divisive posts, or rants (e.g., negative or complaining posts with no other redeeming content), are also prohibited even if no individuals are identified. | |
| Swearing and hard language is not permitted (use a string of asterisks to convey the equivalent sentiment if you feel it is necessary to make your point). | |
| Hate-posts against groups or individuals (e.g., based on race, national original) are explicitly prohibited. | |
| No trolling (from Wikipedia: "someone who posts controversial and usually irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the intention of baiting other users into an emotional response or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion) or straw man arguments (attempts to be inflammatory by intentionally attaching meaning to a previous post that was clearly not intended (for example as a vehicle for then attacking that "opinion"). | |
| If you meet the spirit of the
"4(a) Be courteous"
and "4(c) Be aware of
cultural differences" rules below, you should be
fine. |
| The full name and Tango community (city or metropolitan region) of the poster must be identified. The intent of this requirement is to avoid anonymous postings or postings under unverifiable pseudonyms. There should be enough identification information that people from that community can verify the identity of the poster. (While there may be a legitimate argument for anonymous negative reviews, its potential for abuse is too great and so it is not permitted.) | |
| The person or event being reviewed must be a public figure or event in Tango, i.e., one that advertises or is advertised or otherwise promoted, even if on a limited scale. | |
| The poster should not be a competitor of the person about whom he or she wishes to post the negative review, or affiliated with a competitor or acting on behalf of a competitor (i.e., there should be no conflict of interest or ulterior motive). | |
| The poster should have had direct and personal experience of the teacher or event in question (i.e., not just based on hearsay). | |
| Specific details must be included to back up the
negative opinion. The focus needs to be on objective items (even if it has a
subjective component), and not on entirely subjective opinions. E.g., "The organizer is a jerk." Not acceptable (even if it is true). "I felt cheated because half the teachers advertised for the festival were not present and no refunds or other compensation was offered." Acceptable. | |
| The above rules apply even if the teacher is not
identified by name if it's clear that the negative comments apply to an
identifiable person or group. The following (similar to a real example
posted on Tango-L by a teacher with an obvious conflict of interest) would
not be permitted: "There's another couple in our community that have
taught for years, but they've yet to produced a single successful student
by themselves." |
| Copyright ownership remains with the article's author(s), whose permission must be obtained for use beyond "Fair Use," even if there is no explicit copyright notice. | |
| Casual electronic distribution (e.g., to friends) and reposting to related electronic forums, archives, etc., are acceptable, as long as this is done with attribution and for no monetary or other tangible consideration. If this is done in a systematic or regular way (such as creating archives, gatewaying to a local newsgroup, etc.), the permission of the list administrator must be obtained first. | |
| It is common practice to quote back to the list in a followup article, portions or all of an article originally submitted publically to the list, with ones own comments interspersed (however, to avoid annoyingly long repetition, only the bare minimum of the original article should be requoted and only if necessary to reprovide the context | |
| For non-electronic media, paid subscriptions, etc., limited
excerpting for reviews, summaries, etc., such as would be permitted
under the "Fair Use" doctrine for any other Copyrighted work, is
permitted, as long as the intent of the author is not distorted or
misrepresented. The outright copying of an article for
re-publication is almost always in violation of copyright statutes,
unless you have obtained the permission of the author first.
Publishers often use a "300-word limit on works quoted without
permission"[2] as a maximum excerpting allowance for large
works--although this sets a precedent, it is not part of the
Copyright laws, so adhering to it does not guarantee that you are
within the scope of "Fair Use." In particular, it is unlikely to be
considered "Fair Use" for the sort of articles posted to Internet
mailing lists, where 300 words may well be a large fraction, if not
the entirety, of the work in question. It is suggested (but not
guaranteed to be "Fair Use") that you use no more than 300 words
or 10%, whichever is SMALLER, on works quoted without permission
in non-electronic media, paid subscriptions, etc.
[2] Paul & Sarah Edwards in "Publish, Don't Plagiarize," Home Office
Computing, February 1996. |
| Send an email to the administrator at tango-L-owner @ mit.edu pointing out the violation (if you feel strongly enough about it) | |
| Delete and ignore | |
| Write up a nasty letter to the originator, to get it out of your system, and then delete both the letter and the original e-mail (or send it to the INDIVIDUAL if you must, but it will probably bounce or go to the wrong person) | |
| Send a nice letter to the service provider from which site the mail originated, requesting that the offender be disciplined, permanently denied access, etc. | |
| Join one of the discussions on net abuse on some OTHER suitable list or newsgroup, where such things are discussed ad nauseum | |
| As far as this list is concerned, anything else, as long as it does
NOT involve the entire list. |
You may wish to read the
contents of an email
sent by the list administrator to the list in February 2008
explaining how the Tango-L list is moderated.
Note that while the moderators or list administrators
will generally try to guide otherwise well-intentioned posters, they are
not obliged to provide an explanation or justification for their actions
to posters who abuse the list rules. In all cases, they will exercise their
judgement and their decision is final.
If you have any questions, comments or suggestions about the operation of Tango-L, please send e-mail to <tango-L-owner [@] mit.edu>.
Shahrukh Merchant
"Tango-L" co-administrator
tango-L-owner [@] mit.edu