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

[Dave Woyciesjes]

Cybe R. Wizard wrote:
> 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

	So... if I read this right, you agree with the destination/intent 
(keeping this list on-topic); but disagree loudly with how to get there.
	Right?

-- 
--- Dave Woyciesjes
--- ICQ# 905818
--- AIM - woyciesjes
--- CompTIA A+ Certified IT Tech - http://certification.comptia.org/
--- HDI Certified Support Center Analyst - http://www.ThinkHDI.com/
             Registered Linux user number 464583

"Computers have lots of memory but no imagination."
"The problem with troubleshooting is that trouble shoots back."
  - from some guy in the internet.