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

Re: [Elfling] On moderation

Expand Messages
  • Patrick H. Wynne
    In Elfling message #27951 Elimloth, Elfing moderator, wrote ... exclaiming their dismay, they have also asked for clarification of the moderation policies of
    Message 1 of 4 , Dec 29, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      In Elfling message #27951 Elimloth, Elfing moderator, wrote
      regarding my banning from that forum:

      >Several people have commented on this event and, along with
      exclaiming their dismay, they have also asked for clarification of
      the moderation policies of elfling. I chose to close pending
      postings on these related threads because most of the pending posts
      were similar to those that were already sent to the list. Some of
      those posts also contained a bit of grand-standing that does not
      serve much more than to start a flame war.

      I noticed that the flurry of posts expressing concern over my
      ban ended rather abruptly, and suspected that moderatorial
      intervention may have been responsible. This was an unfortunate
      decision, since it merely reinforces the impression of bias and
      suppression of dissent that lies at the heart of this matter.

      > Pat's banishment was short lived, just three days. He is presently
      not banned from elfling. Whether he appears in this list from this
      day forward is his choosing.

      I can't in good conscience rejoin Elfling. I have no other choice,
      considering that the party responsible for my ban in the first
      place, David Salo, continues to maintain complete silence on
      this matter. David has never explained _why_ I was banned
      without prior warning, he has offered no admission that his
      course of action was inappropriate, and he has offered no
      assurance that the same thing won't happen again. Fool me
      once, shame on me -- fool me twice, shame on you.

      While I often disagree with Elimloth both publicly and in private,
      I do appreciate the fact that he, unlike David, at least makes
      an effort to explain his thoughts on these issues.

      -- Patrick H. Wynne
    • Hans
      ... My point exactly! Nonetheless, I have to agree that the policy of sweeping all under the rug is almost a guarantee that such things will happen, again.
      Message 2 of 4 , Dec 29, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In elfling-d@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick H. Wynne" <pwynne@g...> wrote:

        > While I often disagree with Elimloth both publicly and in private,
        > I do appreciate the fact that he, unlike David, at least makes
        > an effort to explain his thoughts on these issues.
        >
        My point exactly! Nonetheless, I have to agree that the policy of
        "sweeping all under the rug" is almost a guarantee that such things
        will happen, again. Moderation is not a bad thing per se, it works
        well at Lambengolmor and provides a very low noise level (100%
        tattoo-free, indeed :) BUT (as I made clear both in a post and in
        private email) there have to be transparent and fair rules binding for
        all, not arbitrary decisions made by anonymous people acting behind
        the scenes. Let's hope Elfling will return to such a policy.
        Otherwise, I won't waste my time with it ("boycot" is a strong word
        for a matter of course reaction).

        Hans
      • elimloth
        ... I find it prudent to avert a flame war. I have no doubt if someone decided suppression of disent was occuring that he/she would find many other outlets to
        Message 3 of 4 , Dec 29, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In elfling-d@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick H. Wynne" <pwynne@g...>
          wrote:
          > I noticed that the flurry of posts expressing concern over my
          > ban ended rather abruptly, and suspected that moderatorial
          > intervention may have been responsible. This was an unfortunate
          > decision, since it merely reinforces the impression of bias and
          > suppression of dissent that lies at the heart of this matter.

          I find it prudent to avert a flame war. I have no doubt if someone
          decided suppression of disent was occuring that he/she would find
          many other outlets to express that concern.

          BTW,the 'flurry' was as follows (I may have missed some):
          12/26/2003 11:55 am ales_bican Bounced post: No plain text parts
          12/26/2003 12:02 pm williamwelden Accepted post: "Pat Wynne banned
          12/26/2003 12:04 pm ales_bican Accepted post: "what is going on? (w.
          12/26/2003 12:17 pm maethorgalad Accepted post: "Re: Pat Wynne bann
          12/26/2003 12:27 pm pengolodh_dk Moderated post: "Re: Pat Wynne ban
          12/26/2003 1:34 pm percival64 Accepted post: "Re: Pat Wynne banned.
          12/26/2003 1:40 pm hurtigpil Moderated post: "Re: what is going on?"
          12/26/2003 2:04 pm enee_b Moderated post: "Re: Pat Wynne banned..."
          12/26/2003 2:44 pm chaijk2000 Accepted post: "Re: Pat Wynne banned.
          12/26/2003 6:08 pm watergirlouthere Moderated post: "Re: Pat Wynne b
          12/27/2003 1:32 pm amrod@... Moderated post: "Re: Pat
          12/29/2003 12:23 am elimloth <draco@...> Accepted post: "On m

          Elimloth
        • Carl F. Hostetter
          ... Hm. But not their causes, of course.
          Message 4 of 4 , Dec 29, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            On Dec 29, 2003, at 4:52 PM, elimloth wrote:

            > I find it prudent to avert a flame war.

            Hm. But not their causes, of course.
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.