People being removed from the list and such
It has come to my attention that recently several people have been censored from posting to the nanog@ list. I find it a bit unusual that from such an open discussion list that membership would be censored without notice and reason to the rest of the membership. I wouldn't normally be the one to post this, but the people who have been censored in some cases I believe to be extremely valuable people to the list. My question is this: When people are removed/censored, be it temporary or permanent, could we have a notice posted to the membership as to the person, reason, and duration? Also, I realize that this sounds odd, could we add an appeals process? The idea of a single person with unilateral control over such a group, without taking into consideration the needs and desires of the group, does not seem fair. I believe that there is need for recourse in this community for a person who is removed or censored unfairly. Regards, Chris Malayter TDS Telecom - Network Services Network Management and Operations chris.malayter@tdstelecom.com Phone: (608) 664-4878 FAX: (608) 664-4644
uh oh - i think that may have been chris's last email 8-) -marc. On Mon, 18 Oct 2004, Malayter, Christopher wrote:
It has come to my attention that recently several people have been censored from posting to the nanog@ list.
I find it a bit unusual that from such an open discussion list that membership would be censored without notice and reason to the rest of the membership.
I wouldn't normally be the one to post this, but the people who have been censored in some cases I believe to be extremely valuable people to the list.
My question is this: When people are removed/censored, be it temporary or permanent, could we have a notice posted to the membership as to the person, reason, and duration?
Also, I realize that this sounds odd, could we add an appeals process? The idea of a single person with unilateral control over such a group, without taking into consideration the needs and desires of the group, does not seem fair. I believe that there is need for recourse in this community for a person who is removed or censored unfairly.
Regards,
Chris Malayter TDS Telecom - Network Services Network Management and Operations chris.malayter@tdstelecom.com Phone: (608) 664-4878 FAX: (608) 664-4644
pfui! unless someone has gone so far off the deep end as to be seriously impeding any other discussion on the list (google for "plonk":-), people should not be censored, period. we all can filter mail as we wish, just as we can bgp announcements. i submit that this discussion itself should be so unnecessary that we should be able to severly minimize our indulgence in it. randy -- "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" is widely attributed to Voltaire, but cannot be found in his writings. With good reason. The phrase was invented by a later author as an epitome of his attitude. It appeared in The Friends of Voltaire (1906), written by Evelyn Beatrice Hall under the pseudonym S[tephen] G. Tallentyre. Censor, n. An officer of certain governments, employed to supress the works of genius. Among the Romans the censor was an inspector of public morals, but the public morals of modern nations will not bear inspection. -- Ambrose Bierce, The Enlarged Devil's Dictionary, 1967
On Mon, 18 Oct 2004, Malayter, Christopher wrote: > When people are removed/censored, be it temporary or > permanent, could we have a notice posted to the membership as to the person, > reason, and duration? Also, could we add an appeals process? Oh, god, I hate myself for doing this, but: Two wrongs doesn't make a right. We can't solve the problem of off-topic postings by adding gratuitous administrative off-topic postings. For which, mea culpa, I'm sorry. -Bill
On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 19:31:37 -0700 (PDT) Bill Woodcock <woody@pch.net> wrote:
Oh, god, I hate myself for doing this, but:
Two wrongs doesn't make a right.
We can't solve the problem of off-topic postings by adding gratuitous administrative off-topic postings.
although one is inclined to wonder if there actually is a venue for discussion these offtopic administrative questions. i have a couple that are now approaching several years old that i've refrained from asking because i've been warned about offtopic postings a couple of times, and have been concerned about whether i was going to cross the offtopic threshold by bringing up the subject of what the offtopic threshold really was and how it was judged. richard (anticipating that this may be my last nanog posting for some time to come) -- Richard Welty rwelty@averillpark.net Averill Park Networking 518-573-7592 Java, PHP, PostgreSQL, Unix, Linux, IP Network Engineering, Security
Who fucking cares. Fuck the world. Fuck Susan. Fuck Nanog. Have a nice day. -- Matthew ----- Original Message ----- From: "Richard Welty" <rwelty@averillpark.net> To: <nanog@merit.edu> Sent: Monday, October 18, 2004 11:51 PM Subject: Re: People being removed from the list and such
for discussion these offtopic administrative questions. i have a couple that are now approaching several years old that i've refrained from asking because i've been warned about offtopic postings a couple of times, and have been concerned about whether i was going to cross the offtopic threshold by bringing up the subject of what the offtopic threshold really was and how it was judged.
On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 09:28:45PM +0700, Dr. Jeffrey Race wrote:
On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 01:35:24 -0400, Matthew McGehrin wrote: Who f***ing cares. F*** the world. F*** Susan. F*** Nanog.
Sir your English usage displays a serious lack of elegance
elegance? perhaps not. - but he is using a classic literary metre... but this is not a list devoted to literary analysis, is it? --bill
Although I have not yet been censored, I have been warned more than once. I think, generally, Susan tries to do a good job, and, has a tough task trying to balance SNR, AUP, and, the general tendencies of this crowd of engineers. However, while I don't know the names of all the recent "victims", the ones I know lead me to believe this is a legitimate request on both counts. Now, Susan, before you decide that I am off topic, let me point out that I believe, in good faith, that this is an issue requiring coordination. Further, I believe that it is an issue affecting the future of the NANOG list, and, that, the viability of NANOG as a forum _IS_ an operational issue. Owen --On Monday, October 18, 2004 21:20 -0500 "Malayter, Christopher" <Christopher.Malayter@tdstelecom.com> wrote:
It has come to my attention that recently several people have been censored from posting to the nanog@ list.
I find it a bit unusual that from such an open discussion list that membership would be censored without notice and reason to the rest of the membership.
I wouldn't normally be the one to post this, but the people who have been censored in some cases I believe to be extremely valuable people to the list.
My question is this: When people are removed/censored, be it temporary or permanent, could we have a notice posted to the membership as to the person, reason, and duration?
Also, I realize that this sounds odd, could we add an appeals process? The idea of a single person with unilateral control over such a group, without taking into consideration the needs and desires of the group, does not seem fair. I believe that there is need for recourse in this community for a person who is removed or censored unfairly.
Regards,
Chris Malayter TDS Telecom - Network Services Network Management and Operations chris.malayter@tdstelecom.com Phone: (608) 664-4878 FAX: (608) 664-4644
-- If this message was not signed with gpg key 0FE2AA3D, it's probably a forgery.
participants (9)
-
Bill Woodcock -
bmanning＠vacation.karoshi.com -
Dr. Jeffrey Race -
Malayter, Christopher -
marc van hoof -
Matthew McGehrin -
Owen DeLong -
Randy Bush -
Richard Welty