Organization Poll on the KCLUG Forums

[Jeffrey Watts]

Ah, this could explain some of the confusion.  Well, I wouldn't
suggest moderated _posting_.  That only works well on announcement
lists.  Most lists like these simply have people who are designated as
"moderators" that simply remind folks, on or off list that they're out
of bounds.  If someone becomes unmanageable, you remove them.  People
can find ways around that, but it's rare that it needs to get to that
point, anyway.

Usually "moderation" comes from someone of some authority saying on an
out of line thread: "hey guys, this thread is getting out of hand, can
we change the subject?"  On KULUA someone would just post "Hitler" and
usually the invocation of Godwin's Law was sufficient to get the
thread to move on, though in retrospect that wasn't advisable as
there'd be some newbie around that'd get really confused.  :)

Anyhow, I don't think active moderation is needed.  I don't think
special software is needed.  Just appoint some even-tempered person
like Adrian to remind folks when they're being naughty. It's a social
problem, handle it socially.  Hehe leave it up to geeks to try and
find a way to use software to solve it.  ;)

Jeffrey.

On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 3:58 PM, Adrian Griffis <adriang63 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>  The next question is, regardless of whether or not the proposed solution will
>  do any good, how likely is it that the proposed solution will do harm.  I think
>  a rather subtle kind of harm can be done by any moderation scheme that exercises
>  a high degree of control.  As an example, I think it impedes
>  discussion, somewhat,
>  to delay each new message until a moderator approves it.  Personally I
>  would rather
>  suffer the occasional off-topic post than suffer the effect that sort
>  of positive control
>  moderation would have on discussion.
>
>  Even with the least restrictive forms of moderation, we would have to have some
>  sort of enforcement mechanism.  Ultimately, that enforcement mechanism would
>  have to control who is allowed to post to the list.  My experience with other
>  moderated lists is that there are complications some people end up
>  complaining about
>  when they are faced with list management software trying to control who has the
>  right to post to lists.  People who are unhappy to be shut out can find creative
>  ways to re-enroll on the list as a phony new user, and such tactics force list
>  management software filter incoming email in some interesting ways.
>  These filtering
>  methods can be similar or identical to the filtering techniques used
>  to fight spam.
>  My own opinion is that we'll have to deal with some kind of filtering
>  sooner or later
>  just to address spam, if we don't already, so I'm not opposed a kind
>  of moderation
>  where we advise people after the fact when their posts are inappropriate and we
>  ban them if they prove themselves unwilling to listen.  I'd still like
>  us to construe
>  the acceptable range of topics to be very large rather than very
>  limited.  The harm
>  done by very relaxed, after the fact moderation could be relatively minor.
>

-- 

"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy
from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a
precedent that will reach to himself." -- Thomas Paine