North American Network Operators Group
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: [OT] Re: Banned on NANOG

  • From: Bill Nash
  • Date: Sat Dec 04 20:08:06 2004 
On Sat, 4 Dec 2004, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
I think Paul's idea is a good start: each message needs to have more signal than noise, but we can all tolerate (or even enjoy) a small percentage of noise so long as it's spread thin. I'd much rather the moderator(s) focus their efforts tracking/blocking folks with a consistently low S:N (e.g. Bandy Rush, Jim Fleming, etc.) and just send a reminder email or short suspension to folks who historically have a high S:N but slip up when the caffeine is running low.
A suspension for a slip is a bit much, I think. Again, most of us are not automata with strict logic rules. I do agree, though, more signal than noise should be the basic measuring stick for posts and threads.

suspended, whether others posting to a given thread are getting warned, why some apparently off-topic threads never die, etc. This robs us of the ability to tweak the AUP in real time or to verify the moderator(s)' good-faith interpretations match ours.

I'm not suggesting that individuals be warned in public, but if more than X people reply to an off-topic thread, it seems that an on-list reminder of the AUP is more effective at preventing future replies than going after individual posters afterwards. X probably varies depending on how clearly off-topic something is and how often it appears.
A note tacked onto an OT thread that has no apparant end in sight is easy enough to do. It's easy enough to get wrapped up in a discussion and start pursuing tangents. The moderator's job should be to keep things in tune, not punt the oscillators. This function can be performed by annoyed list members just as easily as a moderator.

As for public visibility into the application of sanctions, I do think there needs to be some mechanism for accountibility. I think any activity warranting an actual suspension will be sufficiently obvious enough to everyone on the list that a notification to the list when a suspension is made isn't inappropriate. In most cases, a public response to the offending user would be more than sufficient to encourage self-policing, through something as simple as public awareness. The list of offenses I see documented that actually warrant suspension are clear enough that simple reminders would go a long way towards maintaining a healthy forum without denuding the tree of fruit.

One thing that does bear comment on, is the political aspect of posts. Political rhetoric, in it's purest, may not be fodder for the list, but discussion of it's effects on our particular profession and work environment should not be out of place, especially in the face of pending and new legislation that will affect how our networks and services will interact, either by policy based decisions (FCC regulations, for example) or actual legislation (ala new and pending spam bills). A simple note in threads like these to remind people to stick to the effects and not their personal, or party, political agendas should be plenty to keep them on track.

The charter isn't set in stone. Susan? Can we get it ratified to reflect a more visible interaction for adjusting off topic threads, and begin using it that way?

- billn