On 9/7/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Earlier: "... I receive ... private emails from Members of this List
Community ... persons ... NOT banned or moderated ... but who fear ending up that way [anywhere] if they voice their opinions ..."
Ditto. Some of my most valuable correspondents are off list. I'm even maintaining a connection with one moderator (of another list) who banned me for actions not on the list - another Zen Cohan if ever there was one!
FYI: It's [[Koan]] rather than "Cohan". I doubt that the Buddhists would have been big advocates of Yankee-Doodle Dandyism. :-)
The most disturbing thing about that exchange was that the person proposing a more open distribution of information understood the nature of privacy and confidence, while at least one opponent did not believe that the discussion could move forward unless these trusts were broken.
Excuse me? What is the point of posting a vague alarmist description of apparent terror imposed on the list by ostensibly totalitarian mods, and then refusing to disclose any details, or provide any means of obtaining details from or otherwise engaging in conversation with those who fear retaliation? Is there any other way to approach the issue? If there isn't, then why broach it if there is no feasible way to address it?
I'm not even asking that I see the specific emails or for the names of those worried to be revealed publicly. They can contact me or any of the other mods with their concerns; we never place people on moderation for off-list incidents.
If these people have no intent of seeking to address the problem, but instead find someone else to make a vague explanation of the problem on the list, while refusing to come forward (at least to the mods or a mod) to aid resolution of the issues at hand, then how do you expect *anything* to move forward?
Johnleemk