I'll copy a comment from near the end to the top so people who tire 10% of
the way through don't miss it :-).

Olin was talking about "compromise".

For my part - I'll see if I can act more like Olin might in any situation
where people aren't meeting the grade. If you looked at the past advice that
I've given people who you (Olin) have been "short" with you will find that I
(also) have solidly and consistently "preached" the message that you wish
them to learn - use a good search engine, think before you ask, do your
homework first, learn from the answers given and don't ignore what is said
etc. I'll see if I can do that more even more thoroughly if the need arises.
OK?

_______________________

> That's a step in the right direction.  However, we still have the threat
of
> moderation hanging over us

Moderation has always (essentially) been one of the admin tools.
I imagine it will get used less in future, not more.

(FWIW - I have NEVER placed anyone on moderation personally and have
rejected probably 3 or 4 messages ever, due to content, only 1 from Olin. On
every such occasion I've provide a comment on why).

PLEASE read the "rules" list again.
PLEASE TRY and see it as an attempt to let 99.75%* of people do 99%+++ of
what they'd typically like to do, and for 0.25% of people do about 99%+ of
what they'd typically like to do. For the 99.75% it is unlikely that they
will find any imposition on their activities. For the 0.25% (maybe only
0.1%?) the perceived limitations may feel irksome.

I'd suggest trying it and seeing how it works.
ANY system is non ideal.
No system will please everyone.

Consider - it was absolutely certain that you (Olin) were not going to 100%
agree with what the admins came up with. 100% sure. Given that certainty,
why not try it out and see if what has been arrived at actually workls.

If you read the comments over the past few weeks you will find a very strong
and important contingent who support no limitations, no "censorship",
effectively almost no administration. (Some of these don't think it though
enough to realise what they would experience if this 'freedom' was granted,
but some do).

And you'll find comments from other people who also probably don't want to
be oppressed, censored, subject to arbitrary limitations etc BUT who clearly
want a system that is different from what some others want. The differences
ALL (afair) relate to "behaviour". You (Olin) disagtree with these other
peo;le. They disagree with you.

If they admins produced a "rule set" that made you happy it is certain that
other list members would be unhappy with it.

PLEASE read the "rule" list again and try and see it from the "lets all just
get on with doing a good job of making this list a premium technical
community, not only for PIC but for EE AND an interesting place for the
technically inclined. I'd hope that if we did that with an approach that
would be what the vast majority of people would take in the vast majority of
real world face to face situations, (especially if talking to Derward's
military friends :-) ). then we'll all be rather happy.

If some people insist on trying to view what is intended to be a list of
suggested sensible behaviours as the description of a neo-fascist
police-state then I'm sure we'll have lots to talk about. BUT, why not just
give it a trial? We've had a long period where you (Olin) were dissatisfied.
This is intended to be better and different. Give it a go.


> Unfortunately you have made it clear you will apply your particular view
and deal harshly
> with those that fall outside of it.

No, *I* certainly haven't.
By all means please quote chapter and verse where *I* have done so and I'll
see if I should correct what I said.  Really.

If by *you* you means ALL the admins then you at least have the right target
group.
BUT the threat to "deal harshly" is, I think, more your perspective than a
reality or an intention..

eg you suggests a series of bans for "offences".
Why a 1 week ban is less harsh than a 1 week period of moderation is unclear
to me.
I can see that it may feel more of a "punishment" (I have been put on
moderation in the past and I know how it feels ! :-) ). But a person on 1
week moderation can either ignore it and just keep posting 99%+ of what they
might otherwise say, or self ban themselves for a week.

>> The "newcomers" 'problem' is academic. Why don't we all just wait in
>> eager anticipation of the first "problem' arriving and see how
>> maturely we can handle it between us.
>
> While you hold the threat of moderation over the whole experiment.  That's
> no experiment at all.

Threat - see above.
Moderation - see above.
Experiment - I'd expect we'd ALL be dancing carefully when the first few
":tests" arrived.

> We *have* been discussing it.  So far you haven't budged at all.

*You* is not me. See above.

> You only preach to us how your way is right.

Not quite. In a system with no absolutes there is no right. Only opinion or
desire.
I "preach" perception - not absolute rightness. So do you. Strongly.
I of course "preach" what I perceive - and in 99% of my 'belief set' it's a
"fuzzy logic" continuum.
(I'd expect that that's how all "real" engineers view most of reality :-) ).


Leaving aside absolute absolutes, which don't need to explicitly feature
here - NO view is "right" - all have various merit and perception varies
with person and their world view and path to the present.

You (Olin) only preach to us how your way is right.
Always.
Only.
My view is not what is espoused in the new rules.
My view informed them. As did others.
But you need to address ":ALL" admins if you want to talk about whose views
they are.
And, odds are most don't agree 100% with 100% of them.

> In fact the new rules seem to be
> tighter than they ever were.

They may be. I don't think so. You think so. You may be right. I don't think
so.
I suggest (see above) that you make an honest attempt to make things work
and see if we can't all be nicely surprised how well we all work together.
If you allow just a whiff of what is trying to be done to influence your
actions in the desired direction it will probably make all the difference.
If you instead decide to find every way possible to push against the
perceived restrictions then everyone will probably be unhappy.

For my part - I'll see if I can act more like Olin might in any situation
where people aren't meeting the grade. If you looked at the past advice that
I've given people who you have been ":short" with you will find that I have
solidly "preached" the message that you wish them to learn - use a good
search engine, think before you ask, do your homework first, learn from the
answers and don't ignore what is said etc. I'll see if I can do that more
even more thoroughly if the need arises. OK?

> You are killing this list.

1. You need to be sure if you mean "me" or all *admins* there.
2. Some would disagree with you. Some strongly.
3. As you will be well aware, some have said and are saying that you are
killing the list. Some for a long long long time. Some strongly.

My perception is, of course, a fuzzy logic continuum.
You MAY be right. I don't think you are.

I think that by your ongoing actions you have done much harm to the list
while being a great asset, whereas, by bending only a very very small amount
in accommodating others you could have been just a great asset. I may be
wrong. I don't think I am.
I am not saying that you are destroying the list. BUT I think the list could
be a much better community, and would have been, if you had been willing to
voluntarily compromise on the very extreme edges of what you would like to
do. Just a very little.



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