On 9/6/07, Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86(a)comcast.net> wrote:
on 9/5/07 7:29 PM, John Lee at johnleemk(a)gmail.com wrote:
<snip>
Dialogue is crucial; I personally would like to engage those who fear
they
will be moderated, because I cannot think of a
reason they would fear
that
That reason is the climate and culture that has been created on the List.
unless they actually intend to contribute nothing
more than the same
things
as those presently on moderation - most of whom
are on it for good
reason.
And this is the type of cynicism that contributes to that culture.
I would also add that speaking in vague abstract generalities is not
very
helpful or conducive to a resolution of this
problem;
These were private communications; that's all you're going to get from me.
Then how can we progress? If I don't even know who to talk to, you're the
only way we'll ever find out what's these people's concerns beyond vague
ominous descriptions.
we need to know just
whats, whys, etc. of these fears.
You will have to get these from them; and as long as the culture remains
as
it is, I doubt very much that you will.
But who is "them"? Unless you tell me (feel free to drop me a private
email), I cannot engage them.
Feel free to disagree with me all you
like, but I find we're very tolerant of a lot
of crap spewed onto the
list -
even those on moderation often have their
messages approved.
Once again, you are illuminating the problem, John. You are subjectively
deciding for us all, what is "crap" and what is not. Don't you get it!?
In the most recent instance of someone being moderated, we had a crapload of
emails complaining about that person dragging the list off-topic to the
point that most of the conversations on the list had to do with one subject
alone, continually going in circles. A number of these complaints appeared
on the list, though several also complained privately to the mods. Pretty
much the same occurs every time someone is placed on moderation; a few
complaints are made, if not more.
The only exceptions, of course, are when mods are particularly alert - but
even then, it's only with absolutely uncontroversial trolling, such as
someone calling someone else a murderer. (Still, seems we've become a bit
more lenient since then, as I recall in spite of some people feeling they
had been called rapists on the list not too long ago, none of the mods took
action until the calls for moderation grew even louder.)
So, in summation, we don't place people on moderation unless what they've
said is unambiguously ridiculous (outright libel, spam, etc.) and/or the
community demands we place them on moderation. Moderation decisions are
rarely questioned, but not because we are intolerant of them; as this thread
proves, we're more than happy to discuss questionable cases of moderation.
The problem is, unless we know what these questionable cases are, there is
no way we can look at them and reconsider our decision.
It seems to me, though, that you are not bothered with challenging
individual cases so much as the whole philosophy behind how this list is
moderated. We operate on a community-governed, sort of consensual manner,
and it seems to me that there's not a whole lot of support for altering the
present moderation policy.
I'm honestly open to new ways of managing the list. But I'm not sure what
the problem is at the moment; it really looks like a philosophical and
theoretical one to me. Being rather pragmatic, I would like to see an actual
example of productive discussion (whether in your or anyone else's opinion)
that is being silenced by the present modus operandi.
Johnleemk