Monty J. Harder wrote:
"Some people who oppose greater formal organization may consider participating in the poll to be implicitly endorsing such organization. Therefore, all people who don't respond should be considered to be "no" votes."
__THANK YOU!!!__, Monty.
In reference to whether one has the "right" to complain or not I have a problem with that. I've been trying to register with the Forum so that I can vote a "NO!" vote on the censorship of posting here in the 'news letter'. However, the system keeps knocking me out for some reason. grrrrrr!!!!!!!! (I _have_ contacted Steve about this since HE is the ONE pushing it the MOST.)
But, I feel like there should be times when meetings could possibly have a bit more structure to them. When I first started attending, I was amazed at the disorganization, but quickly adjusted and learned how to go with the flow that existed. I admit that I expected a bit more formality at the meetings in that Linux topics would be discussed by and/or taught to the group as a whole instead of the cliquish subgroups that always seem to form.
I attended the meetings to learn about Linux. I STILL want to learn about Linux, but since I can not afford to buy a laptop capable of running my chosen Distro (PCLinuxOS) I feel handicapped because I can't bring my own equipment with my own software on it to learn on and have suspended my attendance until I can procure such a laptop by whatever means I find possible.
I also completely agree with Adrian when he says:
"I've never bought into the argument that those who don't vote (whatever they election in question) have no right to complain. This claim is always completely without merit or foundation. We all have a constitutional right to complain but no constitutional duty to vote. Wishing people would vote and dreaming up a punishment of a restricted right to speak for those who don't yield to our wishes is just plain silly.
And second, we have an existing list and a subset of people on that list who want to impose a duty to cooperate with this vote on everyone on the list. Where does the authority to impose this duty come from? Do we have rules in place about this? The fact that some of the people on this list wish we would become more formal doesn't automatically create a duty for all of us to become more formal while we discuss whether or not to be more formal.
What if we only had two people voting for moderation and one voting against it? Wouldn't we reasonably have to conclude that we really didn't have much interest in the idea? We apparently have had more than three people voting, but how do we decide how much is enough to show some real interest? What principle are we using to decide if the vote is meaningful?
We had a proposal for a moderated list in addition to an unmoderated list. Surely such a proposal gives those who want moderation something without imposing additional restrictions on everyone else."
I watched the 'Off Topic' Religious debate, got tired of it and simply used my Delete Button... _Effortlessly ENOUGH!!!_
Just because of ONE instance of a heated discussion someone now wants to effect Censorship. Is Censorship what the group as a _whole_ REALLY wants??? What I have silently watched up until now is a small minority trying to effect its will upon the majority here in the 'new letter', the "Poll" set aside. What is wrong with this picture? ...AND does it remind you, personally, of another Greater Entity in this Country?
Suggestion: Why don't ya'll just drop it like adults instead of squabbling like grade schoolers or 'rumbling' like street gangs simply carry on learning from this/these "debates" that one should live to be responsible for ones own actions, etc instead of having impositions/restrictions legislated upon everone???
There's my two cents worth ... ... ...for whatever it is worth to you.
Sincerely, Julie Allen
--------------------------------- Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
NOTE: I'm not taking sides in this debate. I'm just a hitchhiker here. Also note that I'm not replying directly to Julie. She just brought up some good points. :)
Moderate: To keep within reasonable or proper limits; not extreme, excessive, or intense
Censor: To examine books, films, or other material and to remove or suppress what is considered morally, politically, or otherwise objectionable.
Those are two different things. ALL social environs are moderated. ALL. Sometimes this moderation is official and in the hands of an individual or two and sometimes it's just enforced via peer pressure. Censorship can be considered an extreme of moderation. I don't think anyone is talking about censorship. What folks are asking for is for people to exercise good judgment and manners, and if they don't, that there be some process for correcting them.
Talking about Hitler being a member of the Catholic church on a Linux user group mailing list is poor manners. There are places for that kind of discussion. Those of you who don't understand why that kind of discussion can offend people obviously don't go outside very much. I don't think people joined KCLUG to discuss such things, and when they get upset by it, they are in the right and their views should be respected. Dismissing them as wanting to "censor" is a straw man. This isn't an issue of censorship.
Sure, there's "free speech". Sure, you can say whatever you want. But saying whatever you want whenever you want regardless of what others think makes you rude and a bore. There are forums and mailing lists where people can say offensive things to each other all day long. Viva la Internet!
Anyhow, seems like what folks are asking for is for there to be some kind of standards for your general discussion list, and some way of enforcing them. That is not unreasonable, and is how 99% of the world works. That's why we have neighborhood watches, police departments, and government. Those are good things, as long as they're not overbearing.
Nobody is asking for a dictatorship. Nobody seems to be asking for a sanitized, always on-topic list. What folks are asking for is _moderation_. That is, control of the extremes. After all, I'm willing to bet that almost everyone would vocally support moderation should someone start posting racist comments... Is that censorship? No. That's _moderation_. There are White Power websites and forums all over the place where that kind of "free speech" is welcome.
Anyhow, do what you guys want, as I said, I'm a hitchhiker. Creating a separate list for folks to say random and possibly unsavory things could be a good compromise, but I must ask you all this: why in a Linux User Group? Shouldn't there be some attempt to keep relatively on-topic in a very specialized social organization like a LUG?
Good luck. Jeffrey.
P.S. Julie makes a good point about taking responsibility for one's actions, but the problem here is that sometimes people don't, and they need to be moderated by others. Much as in real life.
On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 12:30 PM, Julie betelgeuse67stang@yahoo.com wrote:
Monty J. Harder wrote:
Just because of ONE instance of a heated discussion someone now wants to effect Censorship. Is Censorship what the group as a _whole_ REALLY wants??? What I have silently watched up until now is a small minority trying to effect its will upon the majority here in the 'new letter', the "Poll" set aside. What is wrong with this picture? ...AND does it remind you, personally, of another Greater Entity in this Country?
[... snip ...]
Suggestion: Why don't ya'll just drop it like adults instead of squabbling like grade schoolers or 'rumbling' like street gangs simply carry on learning from this/these "debates" that one should live to be responsible for ones own actions, etc instead of having impositions/restrictions legislated upon everone???
Jeffrey,
First, thanks for the constructive input. It gives us all a more constructive focus for the conversation.
To the group as a whole (including Jeffrey),
My concern can, perhaps, be illustrated with our latest email storm. Frankly, I'm not all that troubled by the occasional off topic thread. I prefer keeping a relaxed atmosphere on this list. The initial off-topic post really didn't bother me, but the storm of messages about what the rules should be seemed to be the real source of discomfort to many of us. And therein lies the problem. Whatever line we establish as the boundary between acceptable posts and unacceptable posts, there is likely to be some gray area. What do we do in cases where gray area posts provoke email storms? Are we to declare that discussions of what is on or off topic are, themselves, off topic and not allowed on this list? If we decide that such discussions are permissible, then the bulk of the problem we just experienced may not actually be addressed by the solution we are proposing.
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.
In general, whatever we choose to do, I would like to see this list attempt to be welcoming to anyone in the area who has a interest in Linux. To accomplish this, I would like to see the list tolerate brief tangents into non-Linux topics. I would not, myself, welcome protracted discussions of religion, but I would rather see those discussions rather than see topic police pouncing on every mention of something non-Linux related.
Finally, whatever restrictions we endorse, they should be crafted as clear principles. The moderation standards should not be dependent on the popularity of the speaker. They should not vary depending the mood of the most irritable members on any given day. They should be spelled on, on line, and it should be easy for anyone reading them to know what's okay and what's not okay.
Adrian
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@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.
On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 7:06 PM, Jeffrey Watts jeffrey.w.watts@gmail.com wrote:
Hehe leave it up to geeks to try and find a way to use software to solve it. ;)
How about: a new mailing list subscription mode where you get notification of new threads daily, and the opportunity to subscribe/reject on a per-thread basis.
This would be handled entirely server-side, for those who object to deleting things unread after the things in question have made the arduous journeys to their MUAs.
On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 12:30 PM, Julie betelgeuse67stang@yahoo.com wrote:
We all have a constitutional right to complain but no constitutional duty to vote.
As I understand it, there is a fine imposed on Australians who don't show up to participate in national elections.
I am in favor of instituting such a system in the u.s.
Your troll,
Dave
On Wednesday 19 March 2008, David Nicol wrote:
On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 12:30 PM, Julie betelgeuse67stang@yahoo.com wrote:
We all have a constitutional right to complain but no constitutional duty to vote.
As I understand it, there is a fine imposed on Australians who don't show up to participate in national elections.
I am in favor of instituting such a system in the u.s.
Why? The elections are just a scam anyway. There's one party posing as two and even if another party DID manage to get votes (which will never happen because nobody thinks it's possible), the main party can easily cover it up and make it look like they didn't.
US elections exist to give us a false sense of control over things.
On Wednesday 19 March 2008, James R. Sissel wrote:
Funny, I'm in favor of making them take a test on US History and the Constitution BEFORE they can vote.
Why would this country do that? The Civil War was fought by the federals to overturn the Constitution, and unfortunately they won. If we were to go by the Constitution, it would still be legal for any state to secede from the union.
Also, anyone taking money from the government (employee, welfare, social security) can't vote. It's a conflict of interest.
You'd need to be careful how you define "taking money". Probably the most reasonable way would be along the lines of "money from government to individual is greater than money from individual to government (taxes)". Of course, that definition has flaws too-- should someone who has got off welfare need to pay it all back before they can vote again?
If 'social security' was what it claimed to be (mandatory savings for retirement, more or less), it would certainly be unfair to punish someone for making withdrawls from that savings once they're allowed to.
On Mar 19, 2008, at 12:30 PM, Julie wrote:
Just because of ONE instance of a heated discussion someone now wants to effect Censorship. Is Censorship what the group as a _whole_ REALLY wants??? What I have silently watched up until now is a small minority trying to effect its will upon the majority here in the 'new letter', the "Poll" set aside. What is wrong with this picture? ...AND does it remind you, personally, of another Greater Entity in this Country?
Censorship is so 20th-century. I prefer boiling oil and beheadings. Any time someone posts something off-topic, the rest of the list simply hunts the individual down and "goes medieval" on him. We drink some Boulevard Wheat out of the idiot's skull while shouting a toast to RMS. Then we all go home and brag about it on the IRC channel.
Did I mention I think Linux is pretty cool (I don't want to be the first to contribute my head, after all)?
Matthew Copple mcopple@kcopensource.org
-
Adrian Griffis -
David Nicol -
Jeffrey Watts -
Julie -
Luke -Jr -
Matthew Copple