|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: [OT] Re: Banned on NANOG
The complaints concerning list moderation certainly have merit (no pun intended). There are wildly inconsistent moderation standards along with a growing fear of being banned from a wide variety of folks. The least possible moderation should be the goal here. We are all professionals, not children. Professionals who drift off-topic may require a gentle reminder (i.e. "please refrain from political discussion, we prefer to keep this list more operational in tenor") rather than a tersely worded and frequently erroneous notice of suspension or worse. The "if you don't like it, start your own" suggestion is not a bad idea. However, many folks in the community have an investment in NANOG, and, as such, want to try and improve things. Personally, I've never been banned or suspended, but I take umbrage to these things happening to some of the most productive contributors to this list and to the NANOG conferences. I have full confidence that the community and Merit can work together to hammer things out, restoring mutual respect and an atmosphere of collegiality. - Dan On 12/4/04 9:10 PM, "Bill Nash" <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 -- Daniel Golding Network and Telecommunications Strategies Burton Group
|