'Tone of the list' discussion

[Brian McKee]

On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 1:15 PM, Lorenzo Taylor <daxlinux at gmail.com> wrote:
> In saying that obscene language is grounds for moderation, one must then define
> obscene language.
[...]
> In the same way, there are varying
> degrees of acceptable profanity, differing based on culture as well as personal
> taste. I, for example, feel that words that others feel are obscene are just
> words, unless they are directed at me personally. Another person on this list
> may feel that simply writing the word damn in an email is punishable by eternal
> hell fire. Whose definition do we apply when determining whether or not a
> message with a "bad word" in it is grounds for moderation of the poster?


*This community* has as a founding principle the Code Of Conduct.
Have you read it?  Please do so now!

That document guides what *This Community* feels is acceptable *on this list*.

Off this list, do what you like.  On this list, abide by the agreement.
We don't care if you agree with it - that discussion does not belong
on this list!
Here it's agree or leave!

You will note that document makes no attempt at defining obscenity,
profanity or what have you.
It asks you to treat others with respect and refrain from personal attacks.
It's hardly calling for censorship.

The occasional freakin' swear word (inserted for shock value or as
personal preference :-) is not grounds for banning.

Personally I think the moderators should have precisely two 'powers'

1 - The right to warn people that continued behaviour like 'xxx' as
shown in message 'yyy' will result in banning.
2 - The right to then ban that email account.

There is no power three.

Brian