Olin Lathrop wrote:
[snip]
> Once we finally got rid of James, things got more reasonable.

This is debatable. What you saw as "reasonable" I often saw as unfair and 
hypocritical. However, in general, I agree with your proposal:


> I think the right way to deal with people getting out of hand is twofold.
> First and foremost, be tolerant.  Think about what harm is really done by
> what someone at the other end of the internet said.  If someone thinks
> you're being stupid and says so, does that really matter in the end?  If
> he's right, you've learned a lesson.  If he's wrong, you can rebut.  As
> long as its about the a action or the content of a message and not about
> the person, there is no reason to get upset.
>
> Second when someone does get way out of line ("FU -------") be decisive,
> immediate, public, but also temporary.  Decisive means you don't do
> something half in or wussy.  You ban the offender.  Public means you
> announce publicly that so-and-so is banned for this-particular offense.
> This is very important as it lets everyone see what line not to cross, but
> also that action is taken and there is therefore no need for anyone else
> to do anything more.  Temporary is so that everyone can recover.  It's
> very unlikely that the person that said FU is going to do it again right
> when he comes back.  Bans should last from a day or two to a week or so
> for something serious.  More if it happens repeatedly.  If you look at the
> archives, you'll see that the discussions about the list that James hated
> so much were not actually in direct response to any offense, but in
> response to his action towards one.  If such action is finite, then there
> will be little uproar because the problem will be resolved by itself in a
> few days.

I think the key to making this work, is to have clear and simple rules, and 
a simple set of consequences for breaking the rules (first offence: 3 day 
ban, 2nd: 1 wk, 3rd: 2 wks, etc).


> Anyway, there have been a number of times in the last few months where
> I've seen bad advice given, incomplete answers, or there was a
> particularly good answer I could have given.  I refrained from adding
> value to this list under the current conditions.  You can't have it both
> ways.  You don't get to treat me unfairly and still have me help you.  If
> you look back at the archives, you'll see I used to provide more help than
> most people here.  And yes, if I thought something was stupid I'd say so,
> just like it works in Real Life.

Many people would argue that given the choice between advice delivered as an 
insult, and no advice, they would choose the latter. You need to realize 
that there is a difference between "straight talk" and calling someone a 
moron. In Real Life, you can get punched in the nose, regardless of how much 
you think the victim deserves it, or how highly you think of yourself.

Nonetheless, if the rules are applied consistently and fairly, I would be 
strongly in favor of abolishing message moderation and replacing it with 
your system.


> If you want Russell's idea of sugar
> coated reality, then I'm not the guy.  Unfortunately it's not easy to
> notice missing content since you don't know what could have been
> mentioned.  I find Russell's excessively PC and wordy style quite
> annoying.  He probably finds my brief and brusk style annoying.  The
> difference is I don't take offense by that and certainly wouldn't put him
> on moderation for it.

Russell acts as a counterbalance to a certain other admin who is neither PC 
nor softspoken. And I think he would be in favor of increasing the freedom 
of speech on the PICList.

Vitaliy 

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist