[WikiEN-l] Moderation on this mailing list

[David Olivier]

James Forrester wrote:
> On 21/02/07, Parker Peters <parkerpeters1002 at gmail.com> wrote:
>   
>> If Adminship were not a big deal, then losing adminship would not be a big
>> deal.
>>     
>
> Nonsense. It's amazing (and, frankly, mystifying) to me how often this
> awfully poor logical conclusion comes up.
>
> "Being a sysop is not a big thing, anyone can become one" is
> equivalent to saying "If you are judged unable to become a sysop,
> then, wow, you really must be two nuts short of a bolt".
>
> The corollary is that if you do have your sysop bit removed, you are
> now being accused of, indeed, having a shortage of bolt-fasteners.
>
> If we did hold sysops to some impossibly high standard - and, it
> should be pointed out, I personally see nothing wrong, and a great
> deal right, with holding Arbitrators and Stewards to this level, for
> instance - then, yes, being desysoped would not be such a big thing
> because people would fail the test all the time. But we don't, so it
> is, because they don't. See?
>
> [Sorry for being annoyed at yet another faulty repetition of illogic.]
>
> Yours,
>   
It's not quite that simple. It looks like your logic is true, but then 
that Parker's is true too.

Your logic: Having a Nobel prize is a big deal (hardly anyone has it); 
not having it is not a big deal. Being able to hear is not a big deal 
(almost everyone can); not being able to hear is a big deal.

Parker's logic: Being able to shape your tongue in a u-shape is not a 
big deal; not being able to do it is not a big deal either (it doesn't 
matter either way). Being happy in love is a big deal; being unhappy in 
love is a big deal too (it matters a lot, either way).

Your logic is based on how high the standard for X is. Parker's is based 
on how much X matters.

David