|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: dns based loadbalancing/failover
> > Most mailing lists I am on seem to get by fine without overt > > moderation - including this one. > you have your facts wrong. the operators of this mailing list are perfectly > capable of sending private mail to people like me who keep posting off-topic > drivel like the message i am now typing. yup - I have had one or two of those (admittedly justified too :) but there is a difference between a handslap by private email and censorship by selectively rejecting posts; there is also a much bigger difference between a handslap over something already posted (even in public) and precensorship by making sure the rest of the list never see the posts in question in the first place. > > Most moderated lists I am on seem to get by with thread killing - an > > argument is allowed to run for a few posts, then the moderator posts that > > he is officially killing the thread, and further posts on that will be > > rejected (and should be taken to email). > sure. [email protected] works that way, as an example of one such. I am not in a position to argue this one either way - I don't sub to that list, having little to contribute. If you say that namedroppers is not in the class of lists I am attacking, then I am happy to take your word for it :) > > Prefiltering to suit *any* one individuals opinion of what is or isn't on > > topic seems highly suspect for any list, and unacceptable on a list > > supposedly to define policy. > so in order for a policy-defining forum to be considered representative, it > must be open to all posts on all topics from all parties at all times? no, but it must be open to anything even *remotely* on topic, or how can you make a balanced judgement? If individual people are offensive to individual readers, they have killfilters... Meta-discussion (to a certain extent) must also be on topic - particularly discussion of the list charter. > > Note I have never read the list in question, so am arguing on general > > principles here, not this specific instance..... perhaps a parallel list > > setup (with $listname and $listname-filtered) could be set up with posts > > making it to the second list only with moderator approval? > i'm sure that if one were set up it would be used by many people. (not me.) I don't see why not - if it were reversed (and $listname and $listname-unfiltered) would that be more acceptable to you? it would even be transparent (you need change nothing, and everything will look just as it was)
|