[ADMIN] Additional moderator(s) sought for ubuntu-users list

[Cybe R. Wizard]

On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 15:46:01 -0400
Dave Woyciesjes <woyciesjes at sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> Cybe R. Wizard wrote:
> > On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 19:41:18 +0100
> > Avi Greenbury <lists at avi.co> wrote:
> > 
> >> I'm having trouble understanding your opposition to this, really.
> > 
> > I despise the, "momma spank," mentality, no matter where, when or
> > how. It is /always/ oppressive in the end.  There are many very
> > effective and more appropriate ways to handle 'moderation,' which
> > is really a misnomer for, "excessive authority."
> > 
> 
> 	I can't speak to how moderation is done here; but I find it
> hard to believe that it would be considered "oppressive". That is
> such a strong word. Also quite subjective.
> 	Along with Avi, I myself am having trouble understanding your 
> opposition. Please try to help us understand.

First, I understand the desire to have a more technically-oriented list.

That would be great, yes, but I dispute the moderation cost as not worth
it /and/ not worthy of us Ubuntuers in our role as caring human
beings. 

In multi-person moderation wherein each is individual and
equally-empowered one may be made a moderator, then have a Bad Day, take
hir troubles out on folks on the list who, no matter their on-topicness,
may have riled or otherwise irked said moderator. It can happen.  It
has happened. It /will/ happen.  That's just one example.

Moderation by panel is marginally better but harder to effect as the
panel will likely not be online at the same time nor all the time.
Even if online together, world-wide panels take up valuable time in
discussion, often make non-desirous decisions due to 'majority input'
and/or 'play favorites' where some may get away with greater
off-topicness due to greater perceived usefulness to the list, personal
attractiveness, pity, etc. ad nauseum.

_Much better_ would be a strict list with hard and fast rules that were
regularly and publicly posted (on the list, not on some website that,
like the fictional Isla de Muerta, can only be found by those who know
where it is, and not evanescent and subject-to-vast-interpretation
'suggestions' such as may be found in the CofC [1]) and that would deal
out moderation with machine-like impartiality.

I would fully and completely support that kind of list if off topic
postings are such anathema to us (hard for me to imagine, but there it
is).

Heck, it isn't that hard to actually say what you mean, especially to a
bunch of total strangers in a mailing list.  List the things allowed
and the things not allowed. Give distinct categories and examples.

The list, itself, could make that set of rules in just a couple of
days if asked.  Everyone would probably like to, anyway.

Notify once, then ban those who don't comply, temporarily at first
strike, forever thereafter. That would be far better and much more fair
than to give vaguely-worded suggestions, then allow and encourage hidden
moderation with all its faults.

That way everybody knows from the get-go what is expected of
them, what is disallowed and what gets you the boot.

Hey, here's a stray and random thought; get everyone to sign said hard
and fast rules /before/ being allowed on the list!  Its much easier to
get folks to abide by rules to which they have already agreed.

[1] From the Code:
...we should...  ...we expect...   we encourage...  ...it is important
that we resolve...  ...we ask...  

Cybe R. Wizard -probably gonna be moderated away
-- 
When Windows are opened the bugs come in.
	Winduhs