On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 9:20 AM, Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.org wrote:
Please note that moderation is not a punishment: it is imposed as a measure to avoid future posts within a certain pattern of expectation when there are reasonable grounds to do so.
Absolutely correct. Moderated posts stand a good chance of continuing on to the list, so long as they aren't furthering whatever caused their sender's posts to be held.
I think many people will agree that Russavia has been uncivil on quite a few occasios - I would even go as far as that I'm not surprised any more if (s)he is uncivil on this list. Therefore, I think there is a reasonable expectation that the pattern will continue - and I find it acceptable to moderate a person in such a situation to ensure future posts will be posterboys of civilty (well, or at least somewhat moderate).
I'm confident that the list moderators will moderate timely, will let through decent posts that approach civilty and that they will remove the moderation once the expectation of uncivil posts has been reversed (for example, when Russavia stopped making them).
I think the note Richard sent about the action unintentionally drew too much attention to one particular word, when the reality is that it was the result of a pattern of behavior that we finally deemed to be "too much." And while he remains on moderation, the one message I've seen Russavia send since was allowed to be posted, because—as Lodewijk points out—moderation is not a punitive ban.
I do second the insinuated requests by Tomasz and Fae that other people should be held to the same standards in the future, and they be moderated too when a pattern of uncivil behavior develops.
It's true that there have been periods where this list hasn't been watched as closely as at other times, and I understand that this can seem downright unfair. I will say that at least the default is to err on the side of leniency, but we'll do our best to continue with even-handed oversight.
Austin