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

Re: [Elfling] On moderation

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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.