North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: [OT] Re: Banned on NANOG

  • From: Richard Irving
  • Date: Sat Dec 04 15:19:16 2004

Alex Bligh wrote:
--On 04 December 2004 17:35 +0000 Paul Vixie <[email protected]> wrote:

third and last, there are a number of principles up for grabs right now,
and the folks who want to grab them aren't universal in their motives or
goals. some folks think that rules are bad. others think that susan is
bad or that merit is bad. some say that rules are ok if the community has
visibility and ultimate control.
I'd add: if people don't like NANOG, demand a full refund for your
year's membership. Then go set up your own mail-server and work out your own moderation policies. If you do a better job, you'll win clueful
  Don't confuse historical momentum, with a fair set of rules,
base fallacy.

  Susan has been more than a touch heavy handed and biased
on occasion in the past.

  I myself won a -=>reprieve<=- from a banning, as it
was determined to have "politically motivated", circa 2001.

  And, just to be fair, I have -lost- a challenge to a Susan
originated "6 month banning", as well.

 It seems controversial subjects may trigger
suppres^^^^^suspension of speech.   :P

Dissing Bush backed agendas appear to be one of the triggers.
(See current Doonesbury, this is not a limited trend, BTW  ;)

 I seem to recall one of my/Susans trigger points was to call
the US politicians attempting to create the anti-spam
laws, "a bunch of ineffective idiots, attempting to legislate
that which needs to be solved with technology."

[ So, it has been a while after passing the laws,
look around..... Was I really that wrong ?   ]

  But, it didn't matter, it wasn't politically correct at the
time... and I only came off ban a couple months back.

  Caution -is- suggested, no matter how right you are,
it -is- their list.

 So, my suggestion, dissent with -extreme- diplomacy.

  Remember, the Kings of old weren't too keen on dissent,
and if it wasn't for the Court Jester, the opposing view would
-never- have been heard.

  Regular People kept "losing their heads" over dissent...

Only the giggling cartwheeling fool could get away with it....


 So Caution, History -has- been known to repeat itself.

 Might I suggest a really colorful jingly hat ?


< G >