[WikiEN-l] Who's moderated?

[Marc Riddell]

> On 9/5/07, Rich Holton <richholton at gmail.com> wrote:
>> * I prefer the moderators to use moderation sparingly. I'd rather that I
>> make the decision of who I should ignore. Of course, pure spam should be
>> moderated. And abusive posts as well. But I would rather not see someone
>> moderated for simply being disliked and persistent.

> on 9/5/07 4:30 AM, Steve Bennett at stevagewp at gmail.com wrote:

> It's a fine line. IMHO we're there to keep discussion moving along. If
> every post from a certain user is causing a flurry of indignant "how
> dare you use language like that", "oh sorry that's just the way I
> talk, no offence caused", then they can really clog up a list and
> reduce the signal to noise ratio.

You are using the reactions of the members of the group to decide what to
allow to be said; instead of focusing on the substance of what is being
said? What I hear you saying is "This person is upsetting people, they've
gotta go." That's rather paternalistic isn't it?
> 
Steve, managing a group discussion requires a great deal of objectivity,
patience and skill. To silence someone in that discussion simply because the
other members of the group are getting upset, or you, personally, find them
irritating is amateur, arbitrary, and counter to the purpose of an open
discussion.

Steve, please rethink your criteria for what, and whom, you choose to censor
out of the discussions on this List.

And, as as a member of these group discussions, please allow me the right to
decide what upsets me or not. If I don't like what's being said, I can
simply move on to another discussion.

Marc Riddell