bsilver at chrononomicon.com
Sun Feb 10 05:02:38 UTC 2008
> On Sat, 9 Feb 2008, Bart Silverstrim wrote:
>> Second, if list police also do contribute to helping people, then if you
> Nobody has the right to tell anyone who can say or do what, except the
> REAL list moderators, leave the moderation to them, not the self appointed
> chest beaters because they are of NO MORE importance or authority on list
> then you, I or even some 5 minute newbie.
Maybe I'm not communicating clearly.
I don't care if you piss off self appointed listmoms or not.
If you have an eccentric guru in a corner office and he's the only one
that has an answer you're seeking to a problem, but you must take a pack
of M&M's and separate out all the yellow ones and give him the rest, it
may not make sense, it may sound stupid, but if you want the answer, you
sit down and pull out the yellow ones because that's the price you pay.
I'm not saying it's fair. I'm not saying it's right. I'm saying
that's the way things are done.
If the self appointed listmoms can help you, you play by their rules, or
piss'em off and disregard whatever help they may offer and hope others
can answer for you. You're hoping that by complaining about their
behavior you're going to "correct" them or shame them into doing things
YOUR way, i.e., more laid back, essentially a reverse of what they do to
other people and imposing your standard of non-standards on them instead
of them imposing their standard of pedanticism on the masses.
If the self appointed listmoms don't usually contribute anything of use,
then it doesn't really matter what they belch to the group then, does it?
>> I dislike the listmoms too, but at the same time if people are screwing
>> with the way things thread it does get annoying when trying to follow
>> requests for help. *shrug*
> Then the Ubuntu team need to appoint extra official moderators, its been
> proven countless times over the past decades self moderation fails,
> because its usually one or a select group of persons with absolutely no
> authority what so ever applying "their way of thinking" upon others and
> not the offical policies of the list, perhaps the Ubuntu team need to
> address this as a mater of priority to prevent it getting out of hand.
Blah. Self-moderation is a general form of evolution to the list, where
you're always going to see stretching of the boundaries at times but
overall the aberrant behavior will be minimized or redirected. Adding
another layer of bureaucracy will achieve more problems than it's worth,
and eventually that person or people will find it a bigger pain in the
arse than it's worth and will eventually suggest a self-moderating
approach or something that will be the equivalent.
The best approach is to just let it go.
More information about the ubuntu-users