On Sun, 2004-10-17 at 16:56, Olin Lathrop wrote:
> 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'm not going to "pollute" this list any more past this message.

So, with that said, I will ask one question:

Olin, why do you think the piclist should be changed to accommodate you?

I know you know alot, I know you are willing to offer your time to help
others on the list, I know you use the list to further your own
projects.

But why should the list accommodate ONE person?

> 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.

You can insist whatever you want, the moderators will be the ones
choosing. That said, I think their only choice is to block the message
outright, modifying the post would IMHO be simply a waste of time.

> 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.

Thank you Olin. It takes a certain person to be able to admit something
like that. Most would just shirk the issue completely.

> 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.

Very true, we didn't warn you again, we felt saying you had been given a
"final warning" would be enough. That said, that final message wasn't by
itself enough, it was a string of messages before that one that led to
that last message being the proverbial straw.

>   > 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.

Very correct, but do you think that the warnings from BEFORE didn't
count anymore? They did. Plus, even if they didn't, was there something
about James' message that WASN'T clear? "If you make ONE disparaging
remark..." sounds pretty clear to me.

> 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".

You were given many warnings, both on list and off list, before the
first ban, plus the VERY CLEAR warning after you came back uninvited.

Fine, Olin, a question: how many warnings do you think a person deserves
to get? 

> > 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.

Why? If there is only a VERY small percentage causing a problem, why
should a complete shift in the way the list is run be necessary, why
isn't removal just the more efficient solution? 

Remember, everyone on this list is donating their time, why ANY of us
should dedicate more time to handle ONE person is beyond my
comprehension.

> > 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.

Nope, it's just that it wasn't that single message that caused the
second removal. It was an addition of some earlier messages. On top of
that your prior removal and uninvited return, plus James' VERY clear
warning did mean the scale was set a little different for you.

> > 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.  

I can't speak for the others, but my reason was that would have taken
time, and frankly with the warning as clear as James' I didn't see the
need. 

> 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?

Olin, you have NEVER responded for long to warnings I've given you off
list. Yes, for a week or two after the warning you seemed to be "nicer",
but eventually you regressed. I simply decided that with the VERY CLEAR
warning James gave, I wasn't going to waste my time.

> How am I or anyone
> else supposed to live up to a rule they don't even know exists, let
> alone what it is!!!?

Well with me, the reason is the "rule" isn't solid, it changes with the
phase of the moon, the percentage of caffine in my blood, and how
annoyed I am... That said, even with this "ellusive" rule, no-one else
(save Mr. Eng) came ANYWHERE near breaching it.


> 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.

You WERE given a clear warning right at the beggining. I don't see WHY I
should increase my workload to accomodate you.

> 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.

See Olin, this is just more proof of you not "getting it". WHY should I
embarrass a person in front of 2000 people when, historically, a private
warning achieved the goal? YOU have been the only one where my warnings
DIDN'T end up working.

> 3)   When someone does cross the line, delete them but **for a fixed
>      time**.  

Why? So few have "crossed the line", and of those you are the only one
I'd actually consider bringing back. Again, WHY should the list change
to accomodate ONE person?

> 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.

Seems people are "putting up with it". Remember Olin, it's YOUR attempts
at rejoing the list multiple times, each time changing you address,
which resulted in James changing how things are done. My solution was
far less "friendly".

> 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.  

No problem. If you feel like contributing in the future the terms for
you have been clearly presented.

> Second, it will really put off newcomers.  

We'll see, so far things look like they're working well.

> 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.  

Then obviously the PICLIST doesn't offer enough to you to warrant a
small amount of "bady sitting". I'm sorry that's the case, but so be it.

> Third, the list server delays are
> annoying enough as it is without moderator delays added on top of
> that.

The list server delays are annoying, the moderator delays will be only
for a short while for new posters so will have very little impact in the
long wrong. Most new posters only lurk anyways so it won't affect them
much.

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

Well, hopefully this will be end of this thread. It's taken me 25
minutes to respond to this message. See what I mean about wasting my
time...
 
-----------------------------
Herbert's PIC Stuff:
http://repatch.dyndns.org:8383/pic_stuff/

_______________________________________________
http://www.piclist.com
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist