I wanted to say the same thing earlier, but a hands-off approach works best on NANOG. The question at hand is not whether procmail will work . . . It's whether procmail should have to work. Joe Johnson -----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On Behalf Of Paul Vixie Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2004 9:47 PM To: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: [OT] Re: Banned on NANOG
From: Daniel Golding <dgolding@burtongroup.com> ... Its entirely possible for nanog-l to be self policing, or, failing that, for users to simply use procmail on those who wander off-topic (for some definition of off-topic). Putting an [OT] subject banner on such posts is also nice.
i don't want widescale procmail to be the only way nanog@ is readable by a big subset of the netops community, simply because i know a lot of the folks here (lazy overworked disorganized bums, mostly) and if it takes way more effort to be subscribed than not, many will just unsubscribe.
There's such a thing as throwing the baby out with the bathwater. When highly clued, genuinely contributing folks are treated poorly for the occasional in-joke or comment, the S:N ratio will suffer in the longer term.
I'm certainly hoping that the network operations community will feel no need to "talk with their feet" after we all sit down with the Merit staff and let our feelings be known, but that is certainly a
nope nope nope no-no-nope. that's a subjective standard. there's no way to moderate based on "does more good than harm" without strong and formal and objective definitions of what "good" is and what "harm" is, plus an appeals process. trust me: we don't want "strong" "formal" "process". (my own system, which has produced only two warnings in about 10 years, is to make the good:harm ratio high enough in any given message that the "in" jokes are merely a tolerable percentage of the mass of THAT message; what i see some other bums doing, though, is pure-"in"-joke messages.) possibility. like the libertarians say, "use your dollar votes!" i'm comfortable with a system whereby susan occasionally turns around in the front seat of ye olde station wagon and says "you'd better stop that right now, because if i have to stop this car and come back there, you'll be sorry" and the rest of the time we just keep the fighting down to (bloodless) dull roar. but if you have a better system in mind you should propose it; and if you can't get traction for it inside nanog, there's always room for another ops list. (in Usenet days we used to say "could you move this thread to $other_group, where it will be on-topic, and where i'm not a subscriber?" and it WORKED a lot of the time, just to wake folks up and show that topic-consensus was a property both nec'y and desireable in ALL forums, digital or otherwise.)
On Thu, 2 Dec 2004, Joe Johnson wrote:
I wanted to say the same thing earlier, but a hands-off approach works best on NANOG.
The question at hand is not whether procmail will work . . . It's whether procmail should have to work. I don't want to use procmail for nanog posts, I've long enough rules already...
I think to be more fair it would be good if suspensions were not permanent but for period of time (with period doubling or tripling on subsequent suspensions if it happens). At least people will not be as upset when they are suspended and know its just a period for them to calm down and do more reading of nanog then posting... -- William Leibzon Elan Networks william@elan.net
I am going out on a limb here, and leaving lurk mode on this issue. If I get banned, well, Randy and I can start our own mailing list. We're as about as grumpy as each other. I disagree with William entirely. Suspensions are idiotic, and only detract from the usefulness of the list. S:N is important, but so is being an human being. People are people; we are not robots. This list serves a specific purpose, as does anything in life. Sometimes people do things with stuff that is out of bounds with said stuff, but, again, people make mistakes. We're not in school, we don't need suspensions. We need to act like adults, use this list for it's intended purpose. If someone is a dodo for a message or two here or there, then, well, we tolerate it and move on, maybe someone on the list sends that person an email saying, "Dude, your email was dopey, please stop." If the person continues to be a dodo, get rid of the problem. It's as simple as that. I think we all agree that RAS and Randy don't fall into the above category of having to be gotten ridden of. Again, it's all relative. So, go ahead and ask, "But, that won't work, will it?" My rebutt: It's how inet-access (people from 1993 to 2000 or so will know what this is) worked, and, well, except for the very occasional whack-job, it worked well. It was a useful list. The reason it died had nothing to do with S:N on that list; it had to do with the fact that the industry supporting that list more or less evaporated. Disagree with me, perhaps I didn't even make sense; perhaps that tells you about how much sleep I've gotten recently, or the insanity of this entire situation. On Thu, 2 Dec 2004, william(at)elan.net wrote:
I think to be more fair it would be good if suspensions were not permanent but for period of time (with period doubling or tripling on subsequent suspensions if it happens). At least people will not be as upset when they are suspended and know its just a period for them to calm down and do more reading of nanog then posting...
-- William Leibzon Elan Networks william@elan.net
-- Alex Rubenstein, AR97, K2AHR, alex@nac.net, latency, Al Reuben -- -- Net Access Corporation, 800-NET-ME-36, http://www.nac.net --
Alex Rubenstein wrote:
We're not in school, we don't need suspensions. We need to act like adults, use this list for it's intended purpose. If someone is a dodo for a message or two here or there, then, well, we tolerate it and move on, maybe someone on the list sends that person an email saying, "Dude, your email was dopey, please stop." If the person continues to be a dodo, get rid of the problem. It's as simple as that. I think we all agree that RAS and Randy don't fall into the above category of having to be gotten ridden of. Again, it's all relative.
So, go ahead and ask, "But, that won't work, will it?"
My rebutt: It's how inet-access (people from 1993 to 2000 or so will know what this is) worked, and, well, except for the very occasional whack-job, it worked well. It was a useful list. The reason it died
Rumors of inet-access's death are greatly exaggerated. It's quieter now, but it's not dead, we had 168 posts in the past 3 months, so an average of about 2 a day. It tends to come in a bursty fashion, quiet for a few days, then someone posts a question and there is a flurry of replies.
had nothing to do with S:N on that list; it had to do with the fact that the industry supporting that list more or less evaporated.
Very true, there are far fewer ISPs (especially small ISPs) today. Subscription numbers to the inet-access list have been falling steadily since the dot.bomb. Many people who used to work at ISPs now work for vendors or other non-ISP companies and have left the list (or are just lurking these days). List subscription info at: <http://inet-access.net/mailman/listinfo/list> jc
On Dec 3, 2004, at 8:41 PM, Paul Vixie wrote:
alex@nac.net (Alex Rubenstein) writes:
... I think we all agree that RAS and Randy don't fall into the above category of having to be gotten ridden of. ...
nope.
Perhaps the fact that even some of the longest standing, most respected, "clueful" members of the list cannot agree on such things proves that a non-technical administrator with no operational experience has no chance of correctly concluding which people "fall into the above category"? -- TTFN, patrick
----- Original Message ----- From: "Patrick W Gilmore" <patrick@ianai.net> To: <nanog@merit.edu> Cc: "Patrick W Gilmore" <patrick@ianai.net> Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2004 8:50 AM Subject: Re: [OT] Re: Banned on NANOG
On Dec 3, 2004, at 8:41 PM, Paul Vixie wrote:
alex@nac.net (Alex Rubenstein) writes:
... I think we all agree that RAS and Randy don't fall into the above category of having to be gotten ridden of. ...
nope.
Perhaps the fact that even some of the longest standing, most respected, "clueful" members of the list cannot agree on such things proves that a non-technical administrator with no operational experience has no chance of correctly concluding which people "fall into the above category"?
or that regardless of who makes the conclusion, it is likely to be subjective and meet disagreement from some folks on the list. p --- paul galynin
... I think we all agree that RAS and Randy don't fall into the above category of having to be gotten ridden of. ...
nope.
Perhaps the fact that even some of the longest standing, most respected, "clueful" members of the list cannot agree on such things proves that a non-technical administrator with no operational experience has no chance of correctly concluding which people "fall into the above category"?
first of all, who somebody is or how longstanding or how clueful are all subjective measures at best, and actually quite irrelevant. meritocracy, which this and all similar street-level forums must be based on, depends on the quality of what you're saying today, not on the quality of what you've said in the past -- either by average or by peak. second of all, my "nope" doesn't nec'ily mean i agree or disagree about steenbergen and bush. only that i am directly aware of counterexamples (numerous in each case) to the assertion i was "noping". whether those counterexamples represent mature or respected opinions, or whether i am one, are not offered up as topics of further discussion. third and last, there are a number of principles up for grabs right now, and the folks who want to grab them aren't universal in their motives or goals. some folks think that rules are bad. others think that susan is bad or that merit is bad. some say that rules are ok if the community has visibility and ultimate control. the enemy of your enemy might or might not be a permanent friend when you're contemplating societal reform. -- Paul Vixie
--On 04 December 2004 17:35 +0000 Paul Vixie <vixie@vix.com> wrote:
third and last, there are a number of principles up for grabs right now, and the folks who want to grab them aren't universal in their motives or goals. some folks think that rules are bad. others think that susan is bad or that merit is bad. some say that rules are ok if the community has visibility and ultimate control.
I'd add: if people don't like NANOG, demand a full refund for your year's membership. Then go set up your own mail-server and work out your own moderation policies. If you do a better job, you'll win clueful subscribers. Alex
Alex Bligh wrote:
--On 04 December 2004 17:35 +0000 Paul Vixie <vixie@vix.com> wrote:
third and last, there are a number of principles up for grabs right now, and the folks who want to grab them aren't universal in their motives or goals. some folks think that rules are bad. others think that susan is bad or that merit is bad. some say that rules are ok if the community has visibility and ultimate control.
I'd add: if people don't like NANOG, demand a full refund for your year's membership. Then go set up your own mail-server and work out your own moderation policies. If you do a better job, you'll win clueful subscribers.
Don't confuse historical momentum, with a fair set of rules, base fallacy. Susan has been more than a touch heavy handed and biased on occasion in the past. I myself won a -=>reprieve<=- from a banning, as it was determined to have "politically motivated", circa 2001. And, just to be fair, I have -lost- a challenge to a Susan originated "6 month banning", as well. It seems controversial subjects may trigger suppres^^^^^suspension of speech. :P Dissing Bush backed agendas appear to be one of the triggers. (See current Doonesbury, this is not a limited trend, BTW ;) http://images.ucomics.com/comics/db/2004/db041201.gif I seem to recall one of my/Susans trigger points was to call the US politicians attempting to create the anti-spam laws, "a bunch of ineffective idiots, attempting to legislate that which needs to be solved with technology." [ So, it has been a while after passing the laws, look around..... Was I really that wrong ? ] But, it didn't matter, it wasn't politically correct at the time... and I only came off ban a couple months back. Caution -is- suggested, no matter how right you are, it -is- their list. So, my suggestion, dissent with -extreme- diplomacy. Remember, the Kings of old weren't too keen on dissent, and if it wasn't for the Court Jester, the opposing view would -never- have been heard. Regular People kept "losing their heads" over dissent... Only the giggling cartwheeling fool could get away with it.... ;) http://images.ucomics.com/comics/db/2004/db041202.gif So Caution, History -has- been known to repeat itself. Might I suggest a really colorful jingly hat ? :) < G >
Alex
On Sat, 4 Dec 2004, Richard Irving wrote:
It seems controversial subjects may trigger suppres^^^^^suspension of speech. :P
Dissing Bush backed agendas appear to be one of the triggers. (See current Doonesbury, this is not a limited trend, BTW ;)
Indeed, my last "ban" was from a perfectly on-topic posting in an on-topic thread, with a single sentence buried inside it that was less than praising the b*sh adm*nistration. Glad to know I'm not the only one who noticed this. -Dan
--- Alex Bligh <alex@alex.org.uk> wrote:
--On 04 December 2004 17:35 +0000 Paul Vixie <vixie@vix.com> wrote:
third and last, there are a number of principles up for grabs right now, and the folks who want to grab them aren't universal in their motives or goals. some folks think that rules are bad. others think that susan is bad or that merit is bad. some say that rules are ok if the community has visibility and ultimate control.
I'd add: if people don't like NANOG, demand a full refund for your year's membership. Then go set up your own mail-server and work out your own moderation policies. If you do a better job, you'll win clueful subscribers.
It isn't we don't like NANOG, it's obvious we all do or we wouldn't be here. It's we don't want the clueful folks eliminated. It reduces the S of the list and has little effect on N. There is very little chance someone's going to start a new NOG list and get the quality of folks that're here. Folks have too much time invested here. The question is, as Paul proposed, how can we get the community more visibility into the process of banishment and more control over who is banned? How long are randy and the other cluefolks banned for? (no I don't expect an answer...) __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today! http://my.yahoo.com
On Sat, 4 Dec 2004, Paul Vixie wrote:
first of all, who somebody is or how longstanding or how clueful are all subjective measures at best, and actually quite irrelevant. meritocracy, which this and all similar street-level forums must be based on, depends on the quality of what you're saying today, not on the quality of what you've said in the past -- either by average or by peak.
In the same vein, outright exclusion, when other options haven't been exhausted, is hardly the way to maintain a working meritocracy. With the exception of one or two posters, I'm fairly positive most subscribers on this list are real people, with real faults and personalities. Some personalities may be suspect, but most faults appear to be real. The list's AUP includes actions to be taken for users going off topic, or abusing the list. I've seen various list members do more about making sure things stay on topic, than anyone with moderation credentials. I'm thinking back, and not recalling many instances in the past few years where there has been a friendly reminder, much less an inspired one, about list policies and what's 'on topic'. Most people know, some people clearly need(ed) reminding. Sanctions at this level undermine the whole.
second of all, my "nope" doesn't nec'ily mean i agree or disagree about steenbergen and bush. only that i am directly aware of counterexamples (numerous in each case) to the assertion i was "noping". whether those counterexamples represent mature or respected opinions, or whether i am one, are not offered up as topics of further discussion.
Your 'nope' also stood on it's own as a vague, undirected comment, and gave very little indication as to what you actually meant. My initial read of it led me to conclude that you harbor some dislike for the two aforementioned persons. Whatever the case may be, I would think the rampant intelligence present on this list would generally place people above petty disagreements and allow them to focus on the merit of a given thread. Again, since some members of this list are actual people, this may be hard, but not impossible.
third and last, there are a number of principles up for grabs right now, and the folks who want to grab them aren't universal in their motives or goals. some folks think that rules are bad. others think that susan is bad or that merit is bad. some say that rules are ok if the community has visibility and ultimate control. the enemy of your enemy might or might not be a permanent friend when you're contemplating societal reform.
I don't think reform is needed. Certainly, nothing drastic. The problems have been pretty clearly laid on the table. A couple of minor changes in the way a few people do things is a much better fix. Most of what's needed is a working feedback loop to keep things in check, moderators and subscribers alike. There's one spec'd in the list charter. Why isn't it being used? - billn
Thus spake "Bill Nash" <billn@billn.net>
The list's AUP includes actions to be taken for users going off topic, or abusing the list. I've seen various list members do more about making sure things stay on topic, than anyone with moderation credentials. I'm thinking back, and not recalling many instances in the past few years where there has been a friendly reminder, much less an inspired one, about list policies and what's 'on topic'. Most people know, some people clearly need(ed) reminding. Sanctions at this level undermine the whole.
I've gotten a few warnings (not friendly, but professional) over the years, alll on the same topic. Yes, I should have learned after the first one or two, but given how long some blatantly off-topic threads last either there's a bit of selective enforcement going on or it takes many warnings before action is really taken.
Whatever the case may be, I would think the rampant intelligence present on this list would generally place people above petty disagreements and allow them to focus on the merit of a given thread.
Intelligent people aren't a guarantee of rational behavior; I'd almost expect the opposite... When looking at S:N ratios on NANOG, there are many folks who contribute only signal, many folks who contribute both, a few that contribute only noise, and the vast majority contribute neither (lurkers). Obviously the first group is good, the third group is bad, and the last group is neutral to good. Are we willing to expel the second group, keeping in mind that they probably contribute at least half the signal? I think Paul's idea is a good start: each message needs to have more signal than noise, but we can all tolerate (or even enjoy) a small percentage of noise so long as it's spread thin. I'd much rather the moderator(s) focus their efforts tracking/blocking folks with a consistently low S:N (e.g. Bandy Rush, Jim Fleming, etc.) and just send a reminder email or short suspension to folks who historically have a high S:N but slip up when the caffeine is running low.
I don't think reform is needed. Certainly, nothing drastic. The problems have been pretty clearly laid on the table. A couple of minor changes in the way a few people do things is a much better fix. Most of what's needed is a working feedback loop to keep things in check, moderators and subscribers alike. There's one spec'd in the list charter. Why isn't it being used?
Since the AUP specifies dealing with violations off-list, we doesn't really know how sensitive the moderator is, how many warnings it takes to get suspended, whether others posting to a given thread are getting warned, why some apparently off-topic threads never die, etc. This robs us of the ability to tweak the AUP in real time or to verify the moderator(s)' good-faith interpretations match ours. I'm not suggesting that individuals be warned in public, but if more than X people reply to an off-topic thread, it seems that an on-list reminder of the AUP is more effective at preventing future replies than going after individual posters afterwards. X probably varies depending on how clearly off-topic something is and how often it appears. S Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
On Sat, 4 Dec 2004, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
I think Paul's idea is a good start: each message needs to have more signal than noise, but we can all tolerate (or even enjoy) a small percentage of noise so long as it's spread thin. I'd much rather the moderator(s) focus their efforts tracking/blocking folks with a consistently low S:N (e.g. Bandy Rush, Jim Fleming, etc.) and just send a reminder email or short suspension to folks who historically have a high S:N but slip up when the caffeine is running low.
A suspension for a slip is a bit much, I think. Again, most of us are not automata with strict logic rules. I do agree, though, more signal than noise should be the basic measuring stick for posts and threads.
suspended, whether others posting to a given thread are getting warned, why some apparently off-topic threads never die, etc. This robs us of the ability to tweak the AUP in real time or to verify the moderator(s)' good-faith interpretations match ours.
I'm not suggesting that individuals be warned in public, but if more than X people reply to an off-topic thread, it seems that an on-list reminder of the AUP is more effective at preventing future replies than going after individual posters afterwards. X probably varies depending on how clearly off-topic something is and how often it appears.
A note tacked onto an OT thread that has no apparant end in sight is easy enough to do. It's easy enough to get wrapped up in a discussion and start pursuing tangents. The moderator's job should be to keep things in tune, not punt the oscillators. This function can be performed by annoyed list members just as easily as a moderator. As for public visibility into the application of sanctions, I do think there needs to be some mechanism for accountibility. I think any activity warranting an actual suspension will be sufficiently obvious enough to everyone on the list that a notification to the list when a suspension is made isn't inappropriate. In most cases, a public response to the offending user would be more than sufficient to encourage self-policing, through something as simple as public awareness. The list of offenses I see documented that actually warrant suspension are clear enough that simple reminders would go a long way towards maintaining a healthy forum without denuding the tree of fruit. One thing that does bear comment on, is the political aspect of posts. Political rhetoric, in it's purest, may not be fodder for the list, but discussion of it's effects on our particular profession and work environment should not be out of place, especially in the face of pending and new legislation that will affect how our networks and services will interact, either by policy based decisions (FCC regulations, for example) or actual legislation (ala new and pending spam bills). A simple note in threads like these to remind people to stick to the effects and not their personal, or party, political agendas should be plenty to keep them on track. The charter isn't set in stone. Susan? Can we get it ratified to reflect a more visible interaction for adjusting off topic threads, and begin using it that way? - billn
The complaints concerning list moderation certainly have merit (no pun intended). There are wildly inconsistent moderation standards along with a growing fear of being banned from a wide variety of folks. The least possible moderation should be the goal here. We are all professionals, not children. Professionals who drift off-topic may require a gentle reminder (i.e. "please refrain from political discussion, we prefer to keep this list more operational in tenor") rather than a tersely worded and frequently erroneous notice of suspension or worse. The "if you don't like it, start your own" suggestion is not a bad idea. However, many folks in the community have an investment in NANOG, and, as such, want to try and improve things. Personally, I've never been banned or suspended, but I take umbrage to these things happening to some of the most productive contributors to this list and to the NANOG conferences. I have full confidence that the community and Merit can work together to hammer things out, restoring mutual respect and an atmosphere of collegiality. - Dan On 12/4/04 9:10 PM, "Bill Nash" <billn@billn.net> wrote:
On Sat, 4 Dec 2004, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
I think Paul's idea is a good start: each message needs to have more signal than noise, but we can all tolerate (or even enjoy) a small percentage of noise so long as it's spread thin. I'd much rather the moderator(s) focus their efforts tracking/blocking folks with a consistently low S:N (e.g. Bandy Rush, Jim Fleming, etc.) and just send a reminder email or short suspension to folks who historically have a high S:N but slip up when the caffeine is running low.
A suspension for a slip is a bit much, I think. Again, most of us are not automata with strict logic rules. I do agree, though, more signal than noise should be the basic measuring stick for posts and threads.
suspended, whether others posting to a given thread are getting warned, why some apparently off-topic threads never die, etc. This robs us of the ability to tweak the AUP in real time or to verify the moderator(s)' good-faith interpretations match ours.
I'm not suggesting that individuals be warned in public, but if more than X people reply to an off-topic thread, it seems that an on-list reminder of the AUP is more effective at preventing future replies than going after individual posters afterwards. X probably varies depending on how clearly off-topic something is and how often it appears.
A note tacked onto an OT thread that has no apparant end in sight is easy enough to do. It's easy enough to get wrapped up in a discussion and start pursuing tangents. The moderator's job should be to keep things in tune, not punt the oscillators. This function can be performed by annoyed list members just as easily as a moderator.
As for public visibility into the application of sanctions, I do think there needs to be some mechanism for accountibility. I think any activity warranting an actual suspension will be sufficiently obvious enough to everyone on the list that a notification to the list when a suspension is made isn't inappropriate. In most cases, a public response to the offending user would be more than sufficient to encourage self-policing, through something as simple as public awareness. The list of offenses I see documented that actually warrant suspension are clear enough that simple reminders would go a long way towards maintaining a healthy forum without denuding the tree of fruit.
One thing that does bear comment on, is the political aspect of posts. Political rhetoric, in it's purest, may not be fodder for the list, but discussion of it's effects on our particular profession and work environment should not be out of place, especially in the face of pending and new legislation that will affect how our networks and services will interact, either by policy based decisions (FCC regulations, for example) or actual legislation (ala new and pending spam bills). A simple note in threads like these to remind people to stick to the effects and not their personal, or party, political agendas should be plenty to keep them on track.
The charter isn't set in stone. Susan? Can we get it ratified to reflect a more visible interaction for adjusting off topic threads, and begin using it that way?
- billn
-- Daniel Golding Network and Telecommunications Strategies Burton Group
Daniel Golding <dgolding@burtongroup.com> wrote:
The complaints concerning list moderation certainly have merit (no pun intended). There are wildly inconsistent moderation standards along with a growing fear of being banned from a wide variety of folks. The least
Well, for example, Randy seems to have been banned soon after he substituted the more usual "North American Noise and Offtopic Gripes" with "ops sheep willing to be censored by a non op" in a nanog post that was otherwise operational in content (nanog thread "anycast stability experiment") https://www.ripe.net/ripe/maillists/archives/routing-wg/2004/msg00183.html
The "if you don't like it, start your own" suggestion is not a bad idea. However, many folks in the community have an investment in NANOG, and, as
cf Bugtraq readers forking to start full-disclosure@lists.netsys.com? srs
On Dec 4, 2004, at 7:05 PM, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
Since the AUP specifies dealing with violations off-list, we doesn't really know how sensitive the moderator is, how many warnings it takes to get suspended, whether others posting to a given thread are getting warned, why some apparently off-topic threads never die, etc. This robs us of the ability to tweak the AUP in real time or to verify the moderator(s)' good-faith interpretations match ours.
It is true we do not know how many people have been warned. But we do have a non-trivial sampling of people who have at least claimed to have been warned, and why. And I know about both of my warnings. We also can easily see people who continually post what 90+% of the list would call "off-topic" and clearly have not been banned, and we can easily look up the posting history of, say, Steve & Richard. So, yeah, we don't know how sensitive the moderator is. But we have CLEAR PROOF the moderator is highly subjective in her judgment and AUP enforcement is amazingly inconsistent. I do not believe anyone here would argue either of those points. I also think that makes it nearly impossible to run a good, informative list. Certainly FAR more difficult than just leaving the list completely unmoderated. I do not believe anyone here would argue those points either (besides, obviously, the moderator herself). -- TTFN, patrick
On 12/04/04, Patrick W Gilmore <patrick@ianai.net> wrote:
I also think that makes it nearly impossible to run a good, informative list. Certainly FAR more difficult than just leaving the list completely unmoderated. I do not believe anyone here would argue those points either (besides, obviously, the moderator herself).
...who has been silent during this whole debate, which only serves to feed the flames (and the flamers) as we all make wild guesses regarding motive and intent. -- J.D. Falk okay, what's next? <jdfalk@cybernothing.org>
On Sat, 4 Dec 2004, J.D. Falk wrote:
On 12/04/04, Patrick W Gilmore <patrick@ianai.net> wrote:
I also think that makes it nearly impossible to run a good, informative list. Certainly FAR more difficult than just leaving the list completely unmoderated. I do not believe anyone here would argue those points either (besides, obviously, the moderator herself).
...who has been silent during this whole debate, which only serves to feed the flames (and the flamers) as we all make wild guesses regarding motive and intent.
My last email contained an explicit request for a responst. I expect to see one. - billn
participants (16)
-
Alex Bligh -
Alex Rubenstein -
Bill Nash -
Dan Hollis -
Daniel Golding -
J.D. Falk -
JC Dill -
Joe Johnson -
nanog gonan -
Patrick W Gilmore -
Paul G -
Paul Vixie -
Richard Irving -
Stephen Sprunk -
sureshï¼ outblaze.com -
william(at)elan.net