[plug] Re: PLUG listing to port?

[Paul Wilson]

Leon Brooks wrote:
> 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).

I've seen a similar approach in the past. When queried about it, the
moderator referred to the process as "Darwinism" and justified it on the
grounds that the survivors would be the more tolerant members, and the list
could progress happily.  AFAIK it worked, although I'm not a member any more
(voluntary, I assure you :-) ).

> 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?

Maybe, dunno. However, I do know that here, as everywhere else, people all
have different thresholds where the "you shouldn't be doing that/saying
that/behaving like that" response kicks in. I very rarely find language a
problem - I just tune out the bits that I don't want to pay attention to.
OTOH, I *do* have a problem with people who assume that anyone who doesn't
behave exactly as they want has faulty ethics, or isn't professional. But
that's just me.

The plug list is pretty restrained in 'net terms, particularly for an
unmoderated list. If it's decided that there ought to be a moderated list,
then another one is a better solution than moderating this one. That way,
everyone has a chance of being satisfied.

In the meantime, lets get back to cd-writers, securing our internet gateways
and learning about linux.

Regards,

The Hooker