[WikiEN-l] Stick this in your music theory and smoke it.

[Carcharoth]

On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 3:15 AM, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 8:34 PM, Surreptitiousness
>> I think perhaps I'd ponder if we needed to be told on-list that someone
>> was going on moderation.
>
> Yep, it's a good question, and I did ponder it. FYI, at around the
> same time, I placed another user on moderation, and didn't announce
> the fact.
>
> Arguments for announcing it:
> - re-iterates policy for other users
> - sometimes seems to produce a "thank god for that" effect from other
> annoyed list members

You can add to the advantages that it can also produce a "why did you
moderate *him*?" response from list members. I got an e-mail from the
other user you placed on moderation, and I was puzzled as to why he
had been placed on moderation. I think that if the person you moderate
objects to it, and wants it announced on the list, you should do so.
If they are prepared to stay under moderation without it being made
"public", then that is fair enough.

You can also add "increases transparency".

I have no idea how many people are on moderation on this list. Some
numbers might help there. I would also ask how many people are
subscribed to this list, but that might be rather a low figure. Are
there public stats anywhere for this list?

> Arguments against announcing it:
> - tends to create further off-topic discussions like this one
> - can feed trolls (ie, giving more attention to them in a public forum)
> - can hurt feelings

None of those are that convincing. It is too easy to label people
trolls when they might merely be difficult.

I agree with Thomas (Dalton)'s points as well.

Carcharoth