[OT] Re: Banned on NANOG
On 3 Dec 2004, Paul Vixie wrote:
on the one hand, thank you for your kind words.
You're welcome. I appreciate you helping raise the clue level of the list.
on the other hand, susan's warnings to me were absolutely called for, as i was off in the weeds a little bit TOO often.
That's fine. Many of us have been warned and stopped the activity that prompted the warning. Permament bannishment of you would not be fine. This is what I'm talking about.
feels that there are presently too many rules, and too high an "S", and not enough "N", then they'll presumably "vote with their feet" (or cause the rules to become more relaxed.)
No one is saying lower the S and raise the N. In fact I was saying the opposite. Removal of the clue-heavy is lowering the S in concert with the warnings which lower the N. Simple math tells us that the overall effect isn't to increase the S/N ratio. 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. This is a good idea for the N crowd ;-) for some measure of N. However it doesn't fit folks like randy and Paul. randy almost always keeps his posts short (to the point of too short) and on topic. (I keep referencing these two because they're the only ones I'm aware of. I'm absolutely sure there're more). I ask that the methodology of bannishment be posted to the list, so we're all aware of the consequences of too much OT. Is it permanent banishment or a procedure similar to the one that William suggests? How many warnings get one banished? Is it a certain number of warnings over a time period or for all time? Are the rules set in stone or do they change with time to adapt to the situation at hand? I ask this because I, like many others, value this list's information greatly and don't want to see those that I've learned so much from over the years have to go elsewhere. Thank You. __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today! http://my.yahoo.com
On Fri, Dec 03, 2004 at 08:31:10AM -0800, nanog gonan wrote:
I ask that the methodology of bannishment be posted to the list, so we're all aware of the consequences of too much OT. Is it permanent banishment or a procedure similar to the one that William suggests? How many warnings get one banished? Is it a certain number of warnings over a time period or for all time? Are the rules set in stone or do they change with time to adapt to the situation at hand?
Who knows? A while back I posted a single brief note regarding my perception of privacy and security issues with Gmail, after a flurry of 'I have Gmail invites, if anyone wants one' posts. Others responed to my single post, but I did not add any further posts to this (or any other topic). I got a stern message that was called my 'third' warning, and that any further off-topic posts would get my posting privileges revoked. I was puzzled by this, since I basically lurk on the list, and have made very few postings. I replied to Susan privately that, among other things, I had no record nor recollection of any previous warnings, and asked politely for information regarding these, since I seemed to have used up my warning limit. To this day I have received no replies to that query message whatsoever.
From this incident I can only conclude that all posts are equal, but some are more equal than others.
I ask this because I, like many others, value this list's information greatly and don't want to see those that I've learned so much from over the years have to go elsewhere.
Thank You.
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today! http://my.yahoo.com
-- -=[L]=-
On Fri, 3 Dec 2004, Lou Katz wrote:
I was puzzled by this, since I basically lurk on the list, and have made very few postings. I replied to Susan privately that, among other things, I had no record nor recollection of any previous warnings, and asked politely for information regarding these, since I seemed to have used up my warning limit. To this day I have received no replies to that query message whatsoever.
This last part seems to be the worst part of the recurring theme. This is my first post directly to the NANOG list. Ever. I generally simply read the list, sometimes skip entire threads of little interest to me, and use nanog as someone decent daily disaster barometer. In the same light that scientists are more and more loathe to publish their findings for fear of prosecution or persecution in current political climates, the overall tone of posts here has changed, perceptibly, in the past months. In almost every thread I've seen whiz by about folks being banned or sanctioned, the common element has been, overall, the moderator's complete lack of regard for list participants in explaining the why's of a removal. A post earlier this week even showed one use attempting to escalate past Susan. Until someone explicitly identified Susan inside the past six months, as the moderator, I'd never even *heard* of her, and I've been lurking on this list for years. While this may be due to my own inattention, I think it's a significant problem that the moderator is a largely invisible entity and is apparantly as accountable as sicherheitspolizei. Long and short: I'm not a routing engineer for a major provider, but I'm a customer of more than one and the usefulness of this list in monitoring and maintaining my networks has significantly decreased as posters of various cluepower have been either removed, or simply discouraged from posting. This needs to change if nanog-l is to remain a viable entity. It's great that Merit hosts all of this, but frankly, none of us exist solely to give some faceless moderator power. I know I don't. I hope this will be one of the matters addressed in Vegas. - billn
participants (3)
-
Bill Nash -
Lou Katz -
nanog gonan