Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [CF] Re: Moderation

Expand Messages
  • Lorenzo L. Love
    On Wed, 01 Mar 2006 03:23:29 -0800, ensignaurora ... For once I agree with Traci. We don t need another Big Brother telling us what we
    Message 1 of 10 , Mar 1, 2006
      On Wed, 01 Mar 2006 03:23:29 -0800, ensignaurora <tappants@...>
      wrote:

      > --- In CarFree@yahoogroups.com, "willtell9z" <willtell9z@...> wrote:
      >>
      >> --- In CarFree@yahoogroups.com, Simon Baddeley <s.j.baddeley@>
      >> wrote:
      >> >... Come on moderator.
      >> > S
      >> I wonder if a more on-hands style of moderation is preferable?
      >> As a matter of interest the moderator of another list I read
      >> (Carfee_Cities) reminded his members as follows:-
      >>
      >> >Do not post more than once a day unless there is
      >> >some pressing reason. (The moderators may violate
      >> >this rule with caution.)
      >>
      >> >Be ready to take discussions private, off list....
      >>
      >> >The list owner is very busy and will simply cancel,
      >> >without warning, the membership of any member whose
      >> >posts are disruptive to the purpose of the group.
      >> >Reasonable people will not fall afoul of this provision.
      >>
      >> >Initial posts will be moderated and rejected if they
      >> >do not maintain the standards of the group.
      >>
      >> Bill
      >>
      >
      >
      > Well, two things to that. First of all, I don't believe in taking
      > discussions private. If they go private, they should be dropped. Had a
      > few too many private meetings where one gets stabbed in the back and
      > therefore, I don't like them.
      >
      > Secondly, and more importantly, though. What's disruptive? Is
      > disruptive just having an opinion that is counter to the main group?
      > Start dropping people for that and carfree is just another list with
      > delusions of godhood. Is disruptive answering the question of another
      > person? I've been critisized for responding to the post of "what makes
      > me tick" but after all, I was asked to do so.
      >
      > Look, it's a controversal subject. From time to time, things will get
      > a little heated. It goes with the terriotory.
      >
      > -Traci

      For once I agree with Traci. We don't need another Big Brother telling us
      what we can hear or say. We have enough of those already.

      Lorenzo L. Love
      http://home.thegrid.net/~lllove

      "I am opposed to censorship. Censors are pretty sure fools. I have no
      confidence in the suppression of everyday facts."
      James Robinson
    • Jym Dyer
      ... =v= This is a problematic stance, particularly for one who inundates this list with kilobytes of stuff that s entirely off-topic. Even to on-topic
      Message 2 of 10 , Mar 1, 2006
        >> First of all, I don't believe in taking discussions
        >> private. If they go private, they should be dropped.

        =v= This is a problematic stance, particularly for one who
        inundates this list with kilobytes of stuff that's entirely
        off-topic. Even to on-topic messages, one might have an
        off-topic response, which is itself a very good reason for
        off-list ("private") messages.

        >> Look, it's a controversal subject. From time to time, things
        >> will get a little heated. It goes with the terriotory.

        =v= That's not the issue. The issue is that it's off-topic.
        450 people subscribed to this list to talk about something
        else. That soemthing else has been posted to the list recently
        (and sent to you privately), but just in case you missed it:

        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/carfree/

        That's the "territory" we signed up for. Not guns. Not the
        minutiae of an oversharing individual. We subscribed to talk
        about reducing/eliminating car use and analyzing/celebrating
        alternatives to the car.

        > We don't need another Big Brother telling us what we can
        > hear or say. We have enough of those already.

        =v= Not the issue either. There's no shortage of fora where
        that subject matter is on-topic. Nobody's stopping you or
        anyone from particpating in such fora. And, while it's not
        a "Big Brother" thing, excessive off-topic posting has its
        own chilling effect by prompting people to unsubscribe.
        <_Jym_>
      • ensignaurora
        ... Message ignored. I told you that if you want to talk to me, you talk in public. I will not take any messages in private. Secondly, while the gun issue was
        Message 3 of 10 , Mar 1, 2006
          --- In CarFree@yahoogroups.com, Jym Dyer <jym@...> wrote:
          > else. That soemthing else has been posted to the list recently
          > (and sent to you privately), but just in case you missed it:
          >
          > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/carfree/
          >
          > That's the "territory" we signed up for. Not guns. Not the
          > minutiae of an oversharing individual. We subscribed to talk
          > about reducing/eliminating car use and analyzing/celebrating
          > alternatives to the car.
          >

          Message ignored. I told you that if you want to talk to me, you talk
          in public. I will not take any messages in private.

          Secondly, while the gun issue was without resolution among limited
          parties, the current infrastructure would seem, IMHO, to have given it
          some purpose on this list, so we are sort of at a moot point.

          Thirdly, I said nothing about Big Brother. Who did? If it was a
          comment about "delusions of godhood", then I will expand slightly on that.

          -Traci
          ------------------------
          ("Would you gentlemen leave us alone for a minute?"--Bob Blair
          "No, don't you leave, stay with me, don't leave us alone at all."--The
          President, (wtte), "Dreamscape")
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.