Olin Lathrop wrote: > 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. No, but referring to a dirtbag without need is. I really need to refer you to Rolf's post for a good analysis of what's going on in such lists and to the collection of Jinx's posts for a good example of how to post a lot without creating trouble. (There are many others that could serve, I'm just staying with one good example for the sake of simplicity.) If you really want to participate without being moderated, studying both seems to be the way to get there. Complaining doesn't seem to be very effective in reaching this goal, whereas trying to learn from people who manage to post without creating any trouble seems to be much more effective. > 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? Yes. Not the one thing, but the same all-around history. I think somebody else without your depth of knowledge and your willingness to share it wouldn't even have been offered the possibility to come back on moderation. > Even according to James' standards, I've written one objectionable post > in 8 months, yet my posts are still being censored. That's the story about the history. You simply have lost trust; it's now taking a bit longer to get it again. That's how things go with people in general. > This whole moderation thing is totally the wrong way to go about enforcing > rules on the list. May be or may not be. It's James's choice -- take it or leave it. > 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. I think the admins take enough action to keep the list a good place where many people like to "hang out". That's the reason you want to come back, so it seems they are doing something right, or else you simply wouldn't bother. Just admit this, try to fit in (I trust you are capable of doing this once you realize that you want it), and I'm sure eventually you'll get off moderation. > 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. Maybe that's the reason (one of them) why you don't run a list... It's not trivial to run a list that has thousand subscribers in a way that suits them all. This list suits a lot of people enough to be here for a long time... anything but easy. You're free to try it out any time... it's easy to start a list. I'm sure you could announce it here, so that everybody who's interested can sign up. > 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. "Indefinitely" is probably in this case "until you are trusted again" -- which is largely in your hands, the way I think this works. >> 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? I meant he put himself on auto-moderation after sending that message. > Exempting yourself from your own rules is very bad leadership style. And I'm sure he knows that, and that's why he's put himself on auto-moderation (IMO of course; I'm not him). We know that even though he does a pretty good job as admin (even you want to come back!) he's not infallible, so I don't get all upset about him falling out of line about as much as I or any other average member does. The job as admin is not to be perfect, but to keep the peace. Which works quite well with 99.9% of the list members (as Jake has calculated :) Gerhard -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist