[plug] Re: PLUG listing to port?

[wayne]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Leon Brooks" <leon at brooks.fdns.net>
To: <plug at plug.linux.org.au>
Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2002 12:35 AM
Subject: [plug] Re: PLUG listing to port?
>
> On Wednesday, 3 April 2002, Leon Brooks wrote:
>
> Sometimes I'm tempted to be like the social security case in Baby Geniuses
> and use a different pseudonym every week. Or just post as Anonymous
Coward.
> Then maybe people will look at the actual message content instead of
playing
> appendage-size games with names, pseudonyms, and different ways of
confusing
> root accounts with impolite ways of saying boinked, borked, porked,
bonked,
> diddled, rogered, run through with a pork sword, or... well, I'm sure you
get
> the idea.
>
> This list is as unmoderated as possible, most of us seem to like it that
way,
> and if that doesn't warm your cup of tea, then fork off
>
> a new list with you as moderator and have the time of your life.
>
> One of the facts of life is that in everything there is a balance between
> freedom and control. At heart, we all want to control what goes on around
us,
> including what is said on this list - and we all want complete freedom as
> well. Now have a little think about this:
>
> If we each went defacto moderator and shot down just 2% of the messages on
> this list (too short, too long, off topic, offends my dictionary, old
thread,
> pseudonym, uses Windows charset, meta, whatever) - that's only one message
in
> 50 each - the odds of a message surviving moderation are 0.98^Nmembers.
> Picking 100 as a nice round number of members, about one message in 7
would
> get through. Recently, that may seem like a good idea: but more than 6 out
of
> the 7 messages would be canned, and odds are you would have been
interested
> in at least some of those.
>
> The bottom line is that it's not practical to try to legislate common
sense.
> In most cases, it's a far better idea to blip painlessly over anything
that
> offends or bores you, including other people complaining about stuff on
the
> list. Good plan. In reality, some of the people reading will be tired and
> cranky, and that blipping will become correspondingly difficult.
>
> Dear old fight-o-net had an interesting solution to that one. They would
> sometimes boot off both the original offender, and the original offendee
as
> well (on a charge of too-easily-annoyed, which is exactly what they call
it,
> no kidding).
>
> It's been about 3 months since we had our last meta-discussion about this
> kind of thing. How about another one, hackles down, now?
>
> Should we moderate, or not?
>
> Should we tolerate excessive complaint, or not?
>
> What does `not' involve? A week's silence?
>
> Who arbitrates? Do we vote?
>
> Can it happen semi-automatically?
>
> Would bullying result?
>
> How say you?
>
> Cheers; Leon
>
>
>
Wayne wrote....

To Any....

The original "problem" was probably not exactly WHAT was said, but more the
UNNECESSARY WAY it was said (for some).  And that comes down to
professionalism - rather than morals.  [Scuse me, Skribe, for being (I
guess) one of the Moral Minority (or are you just trying to pin a label, or
pigeon-hole, or name-call to grab the moral high ground?)]

'Scuse me, Leon, but I thought this "directed" discussion WAS intrinically
about moderation.

Personally, Leon, I DON'T think we need A Moderator unless the "bad" stuff
gets out of control.  What I am reading is that most of you think that we
can procede a lot further with the "bad" stuff yet.  I draw particular
attention to Leon's comments.  (But ALWAYS worth a read, Leon.)

What really bothers me here is WHY some people can't keep their "unpleasant"
thoughts out of technical discussion.  Why is that?  Does it say somewhere
in the Plug Rule Book:  "Welcome to the Club!  All comments - even
unpleasant ones - are welcome?"

To be more particular, when I joined the Club I thought that gave me a right
to comment/listen on technical issues - the same as the rest of you.  And I
thought that went for each one of us - including Brett.  I also thought that
meant to keep a civil tongue for fear of offending someone.  I must admit
some of the unruly comments have been a bit of a surprise to me.  However
the response to even mild criticism by an offendee (Leon, is there really
such a word?) is even more surprising.  (Lots of footy players here!)

Leon (and others), if offended I am quite happy to take a pot-shot and leave
it at that.  The follow up crap from all and sundry seems unnecessary.  Is a
pot-shot an unsatisfactory solution?  Isn't that freedom of expression too?

Please take note:  If comments were kept to: "TECHNICAL (WITH THE USUAL
HUMOUROUS BANTER)", then there would never need to be these fire-storm
discussions.  But we can't control ourselves - CAN WE!  I guess Rodney Rude
really did take the mores limbo-bar to new lows.  But my ol' back just can't
get down that low with all the younger footy players - but I'll give it a
f*cken try if you like.  There!

Love, Wayne.