James Newton wrote:
> Olin, how much time did you spend, collecting quotes out of context,
> building your case, to put out that one email?

I put some effort into it because I was trying to present a well
reasoned case why doing things a little differently would be better
for ALL of us, which includes reducing the workload on you.  I was
hoping you would see it as a sincere effort to resolve this issue to
everyone's benefit, and would at least give it some consideration.
I'm sorry that my attempt seems to have irritated you further.  That
was NOT my intention.  James, I'm not your enemy and am not trying to
make trouble for you, although I sometimes feel you treat me that
way.

> Newbies will be moderated for the first few posts and anyone who has
> been on the list for a while can post directly.

What problem is this intended to address?  I don't remember a rash of
problem posts from newbies.  It seems to me like a lot of extra work
for the admins without much return.  What am I missing?  (That's not
a rhetorical question.  I really would like to understand your
thoughts on this.)

Also, how does a newbie graduate from moderated to unmoderated?  Is
this done automatically by number of posts, or a time limit?  Do you
do this manually when it "feels" right?  Does someone have to
explicitly ask for this, then the record gets reviewed and decision
made?


Herbert Graf wrote:
> 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 didn't ask for that.  The suggestions I made were intended to be
equitable to all and SAVE time for the admins.

> Plus, even if they didn't, was there
> something about James' message that WASN'T clear?

But I **did** stay within the bounds of James' warning:

> 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.

I did NOT make any remark about the person.  Even though I was not
paying the attention I should have been, I was at least careful not
to do that.

I stayed away from the list for a number of months.  When I came back
I made sure not to do any of the things that you objected to
previously.  I was back for two months and probably a few hundred
posts.  None of them were contrary to James' warning.  Yes, in a
moment of excessive mirth I did make a mistake, and I'm sorry about
that.  Then I was off the list again for a few weeks.  So what does
it take to get past this?

> 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?

I didn't think I was proposing a complete shift.  The only difference
I proposed for the admins is sending warnings publicly instead of
privately, and telling people "You have been banned for XX days",
instead of "You have been banned".

> 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.

Again, I'm sorry it came accross that way, but that was not at all
what I was proposing.  I tried to explain how my proposal would SAVE
you time.

> > 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?

Not one person.  I tried to point out how this would have saved you
considerable time.  We wouldn't be having this discussion if I had
been banned for a a week or two.

Anyone can make a mistake.  If EI was told he was banned from the
list for a month, do you really think he'd say what he said again?
As a list member and the target of his remark, I would have no
problem with him being allowed back.  Life's too short for grudges.
If nothing else, it's too much trouble to keep track of whom you're
supposed to have what grudge against ;-)

> 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.

I only ever subscribed to the list with a different address once, and
posted exactly one message.  It was strictly technical with nothing
anyone could possibly find offensive.  You guys weren't responding to
my attempts at off list communication, so that was to find out if I
would get deleted even for that.

> 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.

Please put yourself in my shoes for a moment.  Would you not find
that insulting and degrading if done to you?

You seem to be viewing this as an adversarial relationship.  It feels
at this end like you are going out of your way to make things
difficult for me.  Yes, I made a little mistake, and I'm sorry.  You
guys came down on me very hard.  It's been a few weeks, may I crawl
out from under the ton of bricks now?  I'd really like to get along
with you guys.


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