Re: [DMCForum] CENSORSHIP

[Jon Heese <dmcforum@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Eh, I don't know.  I just think that if the people who were not 
interested in the conversation didn't participate in the conversation, 
the problem would correct itself and the whole point would be moot.  The 
so-called "antagonists" obviously don't mind discussing the topic(s), so 
I don't see any logical reason why they would stop.

To me, "screaming" at someone because of what they're saying sounds more 
like a punishable offense than saying something arguably objectionable 
in the first place.  Either way, deciding on a case-by-case basis what's 
"punishable" shouldn't be solely in the hands of any subset of the 
list's population.

In my experience with successful online forums and mailing lists, when a 
member does something objectionable (obvious trolling, off-color 
language, violates standards of etiquette, etc.), the resolution is 
doled out by the community, not any appointed Leader body.  If someone 
flames needlessly, that person gets flamed.  It's this self-correcting 
nature that makes it all work.  Looking at the way some members of this 
community get their shorts in a bunch over stuff like this, I wonder how 
low of a tolerance these people actually have.

It's my opinion that the current system here is off-balance and needless.

Regards,
Jon Heese

timnagin wrote:
> I think you are absolutely correct.  Most people, I believe, know when to
> say when.  For example, when several people on the list start screaming back
> at someone to please stop and they don't, that is probably past the point.
> 
> Greg
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: DMCForum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:DMCForum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
> Of Jon Heese
> Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2005 4:04 PM
> To: DMCForum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [DMCForum] CENSORSHIP
> 
> It's unfortunate that Walt used a subjective word like "moderation" 
> there (of course, he meant "in moderate amounts", not "via a moderated 
> format").  It's subjective because it doesn't specify explicitly the 
> degree of censorship that he considers "moderate".  Taken out of 
> context, anyone could interpret this one line to mean any degree they 
> wish.  Digested with the whole post, it's more clear that he didn't 
> intend for people to be banned when they discuss arbitrary topics, even 
> if the majority of the group's active members seem to indicate that they 
> want that.
> 
> Regards,
> Jon Heese
> 
> timnagin wrote:
> 
>>I just re-read those posts.  This one line stuck out to me...
>>
>>"Censorship in "moderation" is a good thing." - Walt
>>
>>... the group is not being censored, though.
>>
>>Greg
>>
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: DMCForum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:DMCForum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
>>Of Jon Heese
>>Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2005 10:09 PM
>>To: DMCForum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>Subject: Re: [DMCForum] CENSORSHIP
>>
>>Hmmm.
>>
>>Are you saying that 10 to 12 people unsubscribed from the group in two 
>>days time?  Greg, can you list the YahooIDs of these people?  I don't 
>>know think there's any way for a regular user to see this information 
>>via Yahoo.
>>
>>Regarding the intent of the group, these messages are very enightening:
>>
>>http://autos.groups.yahoo.com/group/dmcnews/message/27085
>>http://autos.groups.yahoo.com/group/dmcnews/message/27119
>>
>>Regards,
>>Jon Heese
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
>

SPONSORED LINKS

Dmc	Dml	Dmc fz10
Dmc fz1s	Delorean part	Dml forte

---

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

•  Visit your group "DMCForum" on the web.
   
•  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
   DMCForum-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
   
•  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

---