Gerhard Fiedler wrote:
> The main rule is in a way unwritten, and it is "don't create
> trouble".

Warning other people that they may be aiding a crime isn't starting trouble.
Again, do you really think that if anyone else had said the same thing it
would have even evoked a comment from the admins, let alone putting the
poster on moderation?  Even according to James' standards, I've written one
objectionable post in 8 months, yet my posts are still being censored.

This whole moderation thing is totally the wrong way to go about enforcing
rules on the list.  James has made a number of tactical errors.  First he
let the tone get out of hand (from his point of view) years ago.  He would
occasionally send someone a private message with some wussy admonition, but
since he never did anything they were irrelevant.  He was too PC to take
public and decisive action.  Then he eventually flipped around and
overreacted the other way and now uses the half-in half-out censorship
mechanism instead of again taking decisive action.

If I was running the list, I'd immediately suspend someone as soon as they
did something that I thought broke the spirit of the rules.  I wouldn't
allow people to weasel around arguing about the letter of the law.  The
suspension would be done publicly so that everyone else can see what the
enforcement guidelines are, and that action was taken.  A typical suspension
would last for a week, maybe a month for really serious cases.

The point is no long term harm is done to anyone, but the rules are clearly,
effectively, and decisively enforced.  If you never let it start, it doesn't
get out of hand.  Since some of this is a judgement call, and understanding
that everyone's judgement is different (although only mine would count), the
time-limited suspension mitigates damage from errors and inevitable
inconsitancies due to my current mood or whatever.  In other words, I will
make mistakes, but the fallout of any errors is finite.  If you don't like
it, you shouldn't have been that close to the line where the judgement could
have gone either way.  In any case, in a week it's over and we can all put
it behind us.

Censorship is just wrong, and should never be a acceptable tool.  It's a
half-in half-out weasel approach that lets the admins feel they're not being
too hard, but also lets them feel it's OK to apply indefinitely.  Deleting
someone is also bad for the same reason.  Since deleting is permanent, or at
least there is no definite stated end, the severity is essentially unknown.
This causes people to speak up and we get into these long discussions about
list policy that James hates.  I actually don't blame him for not liking
them, but they are because of his own actions.  Suspending someone for a
week sends a strong message, but it's finite so they can get over it.  You
can't "get over" something indefinite.  People would feel less inclined to
complain about something clear and finite.

I have suggested all this to James before, but he doesn't want to do it that
way.  It would be less work and more effective, so I don't understand why.

> The thing is, he probably has put himself on auto-moderation.

Then how do you explain the message that had no point other than to be a
deliberate insult to me?  He would have been all over me if I'd done
something half as bad.  Exempting yourself from your own rules is very bad
leadership style.


********************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
(978) 742-9014.  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000.
-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist