on 2/20/07 1:05 PM, Andrew Gray at shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
It's pretty much the definition of a moderated list; that some messages, at some point, are not let through. This is, historically, necessary so that reasonable discussion is not drowned out by a cesspool of people frantically wanking over adding photos of shit to articles.
(Literally - early-mid 2005, I think. The least erudite trolling I've seen on the list...)
Call it "censorship" if you want, but I don't see any reason we should just let people write screeds of virulent hatemail to a wide-distribution, specific-purpose discussion list. This does exist for a purpose; that purpose requires we play nice.
In the specific case in question, it doesn't help that "abusive admin" or "admin abuse" is a shibboleth - people who cry that tend, on examination, to almost invariably be talking nonsense. I don't know why, nor do I know why the people most prone to seeing VAST CONSPIRACIES against them seem to all come up with the exact phrase, but it's got a pretty good hitrate.
--
- Andrew Gray
Andrew,
I agree with you. Even the largest protest rally, community meeting or other gathering where, at times, highly emotional and controversial issues are being discussed needs to be moderated. Otherwise nothing constructive could get done: the gathering becomes a harangue.
What pushed my button was the act of censoring the words spoken at that gathering. Attacking someone personally has no place anywhere much less in a public forum. It is the refuge of cowards, and those who have no substance to their argument. It¹s blowing smoke and smoke irritates the eyes and makes it difficult to breathe. And, like all such irritants, it should be dispelled.
I simply feel the moderators (editors) need to exercise particular caution when deciding what words render a List post unacceptable.
Marc