An admin wrote anonymously via the list server:
> Your subscription is to be moderated by a team of (hopefully)
> impartial moderators. Posts which are unacceptable will rejected.
>
> I truly hope you can accept that and I do look forward to seeing your
> brilliant and usually very helpfull answers on the list again.

I don't really accept this kind of sensorship, and will refrain from
responding to technical posts until this issue is resolved in a more
suitable way, such as proposed at the end of this message.

I do insist that any messages I post with this setup not be edited.
Either block the entire message or let it pass thru whole.

I am sending this single message for two reasons.  First, I have
tried to establish private communications, both via email and by
phone, with admins but have not been successful.  This is apparently
the only channel open to me.  Second, I see things being said about
me and my situation that I feel are incorrect or at least can lead
some to the wrong impression.  Since others are allowed to talk about
this subject, I don't see how I can be denied the chance to defend
myself and make my own case.

Before responding to particular statements made here, I want to
comment on my response to Engineering Info.  When I first read his
post I actually laughed out loud at my monitor.  My response was in
this spirit of letting everyone see the humor.  In hindsight, I
should have thought more about it being insulting to Engineering
Info, but at the time I guess I was laughing too hard.  Yes, that was
a mistake.  I screwed up.

Since coming back to the list in July, I had been careful not to
cross the line, at least where I thought it was.  I probably posted a
few hundred messages, and none of them elicted any feedback from any
admin except the last one.  I still believe the admins' response was
excessively harsh, and that there had been no previous evidence such
a post was out of line.


James Newton wrote:
> For the record and for the last time: I did NOT remove Olin as a
> result of Mr. Engineering Info's response. I removed Olin because he
> said the guy was stupid. Or that his comment was stupid. And that was
> the straw the broke the camels back.

I did say the statement was "dumb", but said nothing about the
person.  This is an important distinction you yourself made on 17
July 2004:

  > If you make ONE disparaging remark about someone's PERSON as a result
  > of their POST, especially if it is their first, for no reason other
  > than it being stupid, I'll hit the button without warning, thought,
  > or concern.

> Olin had been warned again and again.

I'm not sure where this comes from.  After coming back to the list in
July, I received the single general warning quoted above.  There were
no other warnings of any kind, general or in response to specific
posts, on list or off.

> I have never deleted anyone from the list for one or even two slips
> of the tounge as long as they have something to offer other than
> questions. It takes either a full on FU or a long string of put-downs
> over a period of months. Months ok? And that was after many, many
> offlist and onlist warnings.

Again, I don't feel this reconciles with my experience.  If you did
send me off list warnings, I honestly did not receive them.  I could
only find (and recall) the single on list warning quoted above.


Herbert Graf wrote:
> Tell me, aside from Olin and Mr. Eng, who else has been given a
> warning for "edgy" behaviour on the PICLIST recently (make it 6
> months)?
>
> I know, checking my logs, the number of private warnings is very very
> small.

I was only on the list for 2 of those 6 months, but this agrees with
what I've seen.  However, then please don't say that I was given
"many many offlist and onlist warnings".

> Therefore, the problem is very very small.

So then a less heavy handed means of dealing with it could be
appropriate.  Please see my suggestion at the end of this message.

> 1. Aside from "Mr. Engineering", which I think all agree should have
> been removed from the list, Olin has been the ONLY one recently
> removed.  I don't see why the removal of ONE SINGLE PERSON warrants a
> complete shift in what the piclist is.

I don't either.  I think the reason there is so much discussion about
my getting removed is that many perceived it as unfair.  Note there
is little discussion about Engineering Info getting removed, whom I
think everyone agrees blantantly and deliberately crossed the line.

> 2. People seem to forget that if we look at simply the one message
> Olin made he would NOT have been removed.

So there WAS a different standard applied.

> The decision to remove Olin
> was based on the messages from him within about a week of his
> removal. There were several instances of "on the edge".

What instances?  This is the FIRST time I've received comment on any
such messages.  Why didn't you SAY something at the time.  All this
unpleasentness could have been so easily avoided.  I wasn't trying to
push any limits, and wasn't aware of being "on the edge".  How
exactly was I supposed to know this?

> On top of
> that Olin was already on the limb. He came back without being
> invited,

And what other option to get back on the list was there?  I hadn't
been invited back in 5 months, and didn't ever expect to be.

> A third fact, which I will not elaborate on, but of which the admins
> are aware of, is the reason I feel so strongly about the decision
> still being absolutely correct.

This is very troublesome to me!  I know the PIClist isn't a court of
law, but being convicted of violating a secret rule doesn't sound
fair in any context.  Even if you don't want to explain this
publicly, why don't I have the right to know?  How am I or anyone
else supposed to live up to a rule they don't even know exists, let
alone what it is!!!?

> Now, I don't like talking about people behind their back, but in this
> case I believe I had to to get the point across.

I don't feel this was talking behind my back at all.  In any case, I
think much of the trouble regarding this issue could have been
avoided with a little more communication.  I am glad that some of
your thoughts are now in the open, and hope you will continue to let
us know what you think in the future.


And now for my suggestions:

The admins' stated objective in policing the list is to keep the
signal to noise ration high, and to eliminate flame wars and reduce
bandwidth talking about admin decisions like someone getting kicked
off.  I agree with these objectives.  Since they are volunteers, the
overall workload on the admins must also be taken into account in
deciding on a mechanism to meet these objectives.

The primary tool for dealing with objectionable posts lately has been
simply deleting the poster.  I submit that this has not worked very
well when measured against the objectives stated above.  Yes, it is a
simple method in the immediate term, but leads to much wasted
bandwidth and admin time responding to it when the action is
perceived (rightly or wrongly) to be unfair by many list members.

Therefore, a better solution:

1)   Clear communication by the admins when they see something they
     don't like on the list.  A message when a post is "on the edge"
     may seem like a small bother at the time, but it will more than
     pay back in fewer bigger bothers later.  It is better to comment
     about a message that is not actually out of line but close, than
     to be forced to deal with one over the line later.

2)   Warnings should be public, not off list.  One public warning
     gives 2000 people a better idea of what is acceptable.  This in
     itself will reduce the need for future warnings.

3)   When someone does cross the line, delete them but **for a fixed
     time**.  I suggest appropriate times to be a few days to a
     month, depending on the level of the offense as judged by the
     admin doing the deleting.  For example, a deliberate FU would
     get a month, something like my post calling a statement dumb
     (but not the person) maybe a week.  This recognizes that nobody
     is perfect and anyone can slip up on occasion, but still allows
     the admins to make a strong statement to objectionable posts.

     I imagine the list server does not have a mechanism to delete
     someone for a specific time period, but that is not necessary.
     When someone is deleted, they are told they are not allowed to
     come back for XX days.  If they do, then they can be permanently
     banned.  However I doubt that would ever happen.  If I had been
     deleted and told I couldn't come back for a week, I would have
     accepted it quietly.  In the end it's not that big a deal, but I
     would not want to be banned for a week on a regular basis, and
     would be more careful to make sure it didn't happen.

     Since this is also a more proportional and non-permanent
     approach, people will be less upset if they don't think it's
     fair.  After all, the problem will fix itself in a while.

While this may seem like I'm asking the admins to do more work, it is
actually less work in the aggregate.

The current case is a good example.  I made one post pointing out
something was dumb.  Mr EI responded with a blatant obscenity.  There
were a few posts telling EI that he was out of line, but those died
down when it became clear he was delted.  If I had not been deleted,
a few more posts would probably have told me I was being a bit rude
to EI, and then that would have died down too.  What caused the large
amount of messages, and therefore admin time to read and sometimes
respond to them, was my getting deleted.  I think this was because
many perceived it as unfair.  If I had called EI an idiot and asked
if his mommy knew he was using the 'puter again, I doubt there would
have been much discussion about the issue since most would have felt
my getting deleted was justified.

Granting that the admins have the right to set the rules, the ruckus
was therefore caused by many people having an incorrect perception of
the rules coupled with the severity of the punishment.  My
suggestions above would have avoided the ruckus in several ways,
while still protecting the list from unwanted posts.  First, a
warning from Herbert to whatever post he felt was close to but not
over the line would have given everyone a better idea of where the
line was.  This would have eliminated much discussion if I later did
cross over that line.  Second, I would have known I was getting near
the line and would have tried to avoid crossing it.  Third, even if I
did post the same message without thinking and some people still felt
it was unfair I got deleted, they wouldn't be all that upset knowing
that the whole incident would be over in a week.  I doubt there would
have been much if any discussion on the matter.

In the above scenario, the list would have been protected, a strong
statement would still have been made about the objectionable post,
little if any discussion would have ensued, and much less admin time
and aggrevation would have been spent.  In other words, I think it
would have been a win for all.  I honestly don't see a downside.


On another issue, forcing some people and newcomers to be filtered
thru moderators is a bad idea.  First, that type of "babysitter"
attitude is insulting and I can't imagine anyone putting up with it.
Like I said, I'm only posting this one message because I have no
other means, and will not answer technical questions under these
conditions.  Second, it will really put off newcomers.  If I was new
to the PIClist, and was told "we're assigning you a baby sitter until
we're convinced you're not a jerk", I probably would have thought to
myself "F this", and walked away.  Third, the list server delays are
annoying enough as it is without moderator delays added on top of
that.

Anyway, this is meant as a sincere and serious suggestion, and I hope
it will be considered as such.

My apologies to whatever moderator had to read thru all this blah
blah.

*****************************************************************
Embed Inc, embedded system specialists in Littleton Massachusetts
(978) 742-9014, http://www.embedinc.com
_______________________________________________
http://www.piclist.com
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist