On Sat, 16 Dec 2006, Jeremy Hunsinger wrote:
The cost of individual embarassment, I argue is grossly outweighed by the mutual benefit of shared communal knowledge and community building of the current settings. It is clear to me that from any individual perspective, who might feel individual harm, that the harm will always seem to outweigh the communal good, this is why we have to be wary of the argument of individual harm, it is a variation of the classic 'utility monster' problem of all arguments from utility. If someone feels so significantly more harmed or harmable than others, then the community is left with no response, in pursuit of a shared good defined in utility, than to modify their actions to the period of no harm. In fact, if harm is an issue, the slippery slide is that we should just close the list, as that is the only way of preventing the harm mentioned.
I wonder if perhaps there's not some benefit to be had from embarrassing ourselves from time to time in public? I think it reminds us that the emails are human-generated, and not computer-generated, and may help build bonds among listmembers -- not just through the causing offense, but also through the seeking and receiving forgiveness. Strong family ties are maintained, I would think, by the high level of vulnerability we share. For general discussion lists (such as this) I think individuals shold be encouraged to participate and share ideas, without fear of censure. For lists used to support specific projects (a funded grant, say) *not* having all communication shared by the entire group can actually be detrimental to the project's success. Just my two cents. Chris Hodge