A Ban Too Far?

[Ray Bottorff Jr]

Hello Board,

As you can see from my postings here, I got placed on moderation on the Chat List by Ralf Haring, one of the list admins. As best as I can tell, Its been fully supported by one of the other two admins.

OK, here is the problem I have with being placed on moderation so far.

1) I was one digest mode. I replied to one digest posting and then got placed on moderation because a warning was issued that any further replies to this topic would result in automatic moderation. Except for me, I don't see that posting because it shows up on the next Digest posting, to which I replied to as well musing about my being placed on moderation.

2) Utter lack of rules of what can or cannot be posted, entrusted to the moderator. So far I have posted about 25 postings since then. Any post referring to my moderation has been banned by Ralf. Even though it can be posted here. Really? Is that what we were thinking to agreeing to moderation of the lists? Its capricious and arbitrary and gives too much power to the moderator. His definition of what is positive for the lists can be posted, but I am banned on anything he does not agree to be positive for the lists.

Therefore I refuse to accept that I have no recourse over the completely unfair position that I have been placed in and I demand that the Board address this issue and accept immediate discussion over this matter and I am requesting an immediate repeal of said actions. I have been on this list for 20 years and refuse to believe ANYTHING I said was worthy of being banned or moderated.

my best

-Ray

[Lionel English]

You were only placed on moderation on the chat list because that's where the thread was that everyone was asked not to post to originated.  You may post freely to any other list because you are not on moderation those lists.

That said, neither the editor nor main lists has the power to reverse your moderation, so there's absolutely no point in subjecting them to your whining.  You were not singled out for moderation, and no one else is taking it as badly as you are.  And given how infrequently you've been posting the last few months you are quite possibly the least inconvenienced of any of those placed on moderation.

If you still wish to make an issue of this, please confine the conversation to the board list, as that body is the only one with the power to override the list moderators.

--
GCD-Board mailing list - gcd-...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe send email to gcd-board+...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/gcd-board

--
Lionel English

San Diego, CA
lio...@beanmar.net

[Lionel English]

This is going just to the board.

On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 9:00 PM, Ray Bottorff Jr <carch...@aol.com> wrote:

As you can see from my postings here, I got placed on moderation on the Chat List by Ralf Haring, one of the list admins. As best as I can tell, Its been fully supported by one of the other two admins.

That would be me.

 

OK, here is the problem I have with being placed on moderation so far.

1) I was one digest mode. I replied to one digest posting and then got placed on moderation because a warning was issued that any further replies to this topic would result in automatic moderation. Except for me, I don't see that posting because it shows up on the next Digest posting, to which I replied to as well musing about my being placed on moderation.

Ralf's purpose in moderating that thread was to kill it.  By uniformly placing everyone who replied to the thread after he warned them not to on moderation, he achieved that goal.  That goal is more important than the personal inconvenience caused to you or any other individual that was moderated.

 

2) Utter lack of rules of what can or cannot be posted, entrusted to the moderator. So far I have posted about 25 postings since then. Any post referring to my moderation has been banned by Ralf. Even though it can be posted here. Really? Is that what we were thinking to agreeing to moderation of the lists? Its capricious and arbitrary and gives too much power to the moderator. His definition of what is positive for the lists can be posted, but I am banned on anything he does not agree to be positive for the lists.

By your own admission, you have been posting spitefully just to create work for the list moderators.  It does not reflect favorably on you.

Only your posts to the chat list are being moderated; you may continue to post whatever you like to the other lists.

The reason Ralf is blocking your posts to the chat list about being moderated is obviously that would defeat the purpose of killing the original thread.  The goal was to remove a conversation from the public discourse that was obviously alienating and offending people.  Talking *about* that conversation in a new thread would defeat the purpose of killing it in the first place.

The reason we have list moderators is so that they can act quickly to nip trouble in the bud.  That is something that *this* list cannot do.  Therefore, list moderators *require* a degree of autonomy in order to do their job.

 

Therefore I refuse to accept that I have no recourse over the completely unfair position that I have been placed in and I demand that the Board address this issue and accept immediate discussion over this matter and I am requesting an immediate repeal of said actions. I have been on this list for 20 years and refuse to believe ANYTHING I said was worthy of being banned or moderated.

How long you have been on the lists is irrelevant.  You have been on this board long enough to realize that your demand is pointless.  You're only on moderation for a week, so you'll be off moderation before the board could do anything.  And you aren't exactly being inconvenienced--you've posted to the chat list more often tonight, while on moderation, than you have in the previous six months.  Making an exception for you just because you have more weight to throw around than the others being moderated would completely undermine the authority of the list admins, and sets a bad example for the other chat list members.

[Tony Rose]

I am opposed to any moderation on the chat list.  I chose not to participate in the conversation that caused the hoo-raw.  I knew from the title of the first post that it was going to be politics and anyone who didn't know that didn't know who the two people being named were.  However, they should have figured it out after the first message or two and started deleting them unread if they didn't want to follow the conversation.  I had a migraine on Monday, so by the time the conversation had shifted around to whether or not is should be allowed, Ralf had issued his edict and anything I might have wanted to add to the mix wouldn't have made it through.

Someone has recalled George and Jerry getting shrill with one another and the great remote viewing debate and efforts at experiment.  Someone else mentioned "Ghost Rider in the Sky."  These were truly interesting threads in the old community and every one of them caused some people to howl to the moon that they had nothing to do with comics and that they shouldn't be allowed.

Lionel -- and others -- think that our...harsh...political conversations drive away list members.  If they -- the potentially driven away members -- are not being personally named and verbally assaulted, then it is strictly a personal matter and we should not presume to "protect" them from reading something they find offensive.  They don't have to read the messages.

The chat list should be monitored by the admins for personal abuse and all the technical stuff related to mailing lists (spam, hacked accounts, etc).  There should be no moderation for content (beyond personal abuse).  List members should be more conscientious about using "OT" for non-comics chat.  If moderators want to enforce labeling political chat with "POLITICAL," then I'd have no problem with that.

I'm going to go back and re-read the list purposes statements and then, probably, prepare a motion regarding the moderation of the chat list.

Oh, and by the way, Lionel, I think calling Ray's message "whining" is pretty close to personal abuse, by the standards and practices that have previously been employed.





tony

---

From: "Lionel English" <lio...@beanmar.net>
To: gcd-...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, March 7, 2012 12:09:14 AM
Subject: Re: [gcd-board] A Ban Too Far?

[Lionel English]

I  apologize for the characterization of Ray's post as whining.  In the light of morning  I recognize that that's just adding fuel to the fire rather than working towards a resolution.

On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 9:21 PM, Lionel English <lio...@beanmar.net> wrote:

That said, neither the editor nor main lists has the power to reverse your moderation, so there's absolutely no point in subjecting them to your whining.  You were not singled out for moderation, and no one else is taking it as badly as you are.  And given how infrequently you've been posting the last few months you are quite possibly the least inconvenienced of any of those placed on moderation.

[Donald Dale Milne]

I was the moderator who did not support moderating Ray, due to the
problem he relates about the notification being on Digest, and not read
until after he posted. I believe we need to address this problem.
While this likely will not come up often, I believe it is not fair to
assume someone has read something when it can be demonstrated that it
could not have been read.

- Don

[Ray Bottorff Jr]

We used to worry about the issue with asynchronicist (sp?) communication, to be penalized because of an incident and to be put into the same league as a Mark Gordon is just insanity.

 

my best

-Ray

-----Original Message-----
From: Donald Dale Milne <dond...@att.net>
To: gcd-board <gcd-...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Wed, Mar 7, 2012 12:46 pm
Subject: Re: [gcd-board] A Ban Too Far?

[Tony Rose]

I don't want to address this whole matter on the basis of Ray not seeing the "Ban Hammer" because he was reading the digests.  for me, that is immaterial.  The central question is why were civil, non-abusive individuals being moderated?  That requires reading outside the description of the list by a long ways.





tony

---

From: "Ray Bottorff Jr" <carch...@aol.com>
To: gcd-...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, March 7, 2012 3:55:29 PM

[Lionel English]

On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 2:04 PM, Tony Rose <tonyr...@comcast.net> wrote:

I don't want to address this whole matter on the basis of Ray not seeing the "Ban Hammer" because he was reading the digests.  for me, that is immaterial.  The central question is why were civil, non-abusive individuals being moderated?  That requires reading outside the description of the list by a long ways.

 

 

People were asked not to continue the thread.  Ralf posted a message stating that anyone who continued to post to the thread would be placed on moderation.  Civil, non-abusive individuals were placed on moderation for ignoring the moderator's warning.

 

As I noted earlier, I believe moderators are required to be empowered with a degree of autonomy in order to carry out their job.  Ralf *is* quicker to moderate than Don or I.  However, IMO, he still moderates in moderation.  Ask yourself how long we've been on these lists and on how many occaisions anyone has been actively moderated?  (and I'll remind people again that despite the subject line, *no one* has been banned--the only people who have ever been banned from the lists are Mark Gordon and spammers).

--
Lionel English

San Diego, CA
lio...@beanmar.net

[Tony Rose]

I believe that no one should be moderated because they choose to discuss a subject that makes somebody uncomfortable.  There are no provisions for it in the description of the list and I do not believe that it is inherent in the office of moderator that they be arbiters of what is acceptable subject matter and what's not.

No, it hasn't happened very often but every time it does, it's going to spin me up.

tony

---

From: "Lionel English" <lio...@beanmar.net>

To: gcd-...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, March 7, 2012 4:47:35 PM

Subject: Re: [gcd-board] A Ban Too Far?

[Lionel English]

On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 3:04 PM, Tony Rose <tonyr...@comcast.net> wrote:

I believe that no one should be moderated because they choose to discuss a subject that makes somebody uncomfortable.  There are no provisions for it in the description of the list and I do not believe that it is inherent in the office of moderator that they be arbiters of what is acceptable subject matter and what's not.

No, it hasn't happened very often but every time it does, it's going to spin me up.

 

 

I know it does.  But I'll remind you, at the risk of being offensive, that this is very similar to your belief that we only had a Mark Gordon problem because people wouldn't just ignore him, and that moderator intervention was only required after things had deteriorated to the point of abuse.

 

I believe you have since changed your opinion on that matter.  Allowing bad drama to play out in our lists causes a lot of collateral damage, and many people will just walk away if they see that kind of thing is tolerated.

 

You and Merlin both stated that you immediately jumped ship on the recent chat list thread because you could see from the subject line that it wasn't going to go anywhere good (or at least that's how I read your messages to this list).  What benefit does it provide the list to wait to throw a bucket of water on a conversation until the flames are actually flying, rather than when you can see the embers?

 

If you haven't read the thread, then you should probably read the thread.  Don may be correct that only one or two people had actually verged on name-calling, but the thread was by no means a reasoned discourse on politics, nor was it headed in that direction.  "My favored political candidate is a great guy; yours is a reprehensible enemy of our country and we're all doomed if he is [re]elected" is simply not a conversation that's going to end well.

[Alexandros Diamantidis]

Having read the entire discussion in chat, I wanted to say that even
though I dislike moderating the chat list, there are both pros and cons
to the decision of whether that discussion should be stopped, and on the
ballance, I think that the decision to stop it cold by putting everyone
replying under moderation was the right one, even though the margin is
very thin.

Yes, it's not fair to put people under moderation when they weren't
being uncivil. We're adults and this shouldn't be a problem, but it's a
fact that some people who are on the whole well-behaved react extremely
unpleasently when some themes are touched. Now, one could argue that
only those who are being unpleasant should be moderated, but - and this
is tough on the list admins who are enforcing the ban - I think that
banning the discussion completely, while unfair to those who don't
deserve it, by maintaining a neutral position will tend to defuse
ill-will and agitated spirits in the medium term. The people who are
posting the inflamatory messages won't feel singled-out, and it's better
to try keeping around people who aren't disruptive on the whole. The
people who are participating in the discussion without shouts and
attacks will hopefully be understanding about the need to maintain
civility and calm things down, and while hurt by being put under
moderation because of a technicality and of blind adherence to a
decision, won't keep a grudge against the moderators or the project.

It's unfortunate that some topics can't be discussed in the chat list
without flames, the fact is that those unpleasant replies do occur
predictably in certain discussions, and the flames leave a bad taste to
many, even if they are just passively exposed to them. Given that the
discussions don't have much to do with our common interest of comics,
I think their loss can be justified by the need to keep a positive
appearance - even if this happens by artificial means.

Alexandros

[Merlin Haas]

I bailed on the political thread because politics in the US has
turned into trench warfare, with much energy and effort expended that
in the long run leaves both sides right where they started. Each
side hates the other and nobody ever changes his mind on anything.

I hate to ban subjects, but we seem to repeat this every time
politics comes up. There was blog on Slate today that compared one
candidate's primary strategy to Galactus, complete with a reference
to the Silver Surfer. I thought it was interesting and sort of cute,
but was afraid to post a link because it might set things off again.

I'm not going to second-guess the moderators and I'm not going to
wade through the flames in this specific thread. If we vote on
something I'll decide on its overall merits, not on what just
happened.

best -- Merlin Haas

>From: "Lionel English" <<mailto:lio...@beanmar.net>lio...@beanmar.net>
>
>To: <mailto:gcd-...@googlegroups.com>gcd-...@googlegroups.com

>Sent: Wednesday, March 7, 2012 4:47:35 PM
>
>Subject: Re: [gcd-board] A Ban Too Far?
>
>On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 2:04 PM, Tony Rose
><<mailto:tonyr...@comcast.net>tonyr...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>I don't want to address this whole matter on the basis of Ray not
>seeing the "Ban Hammer" because he was reading the digests. for me,
>that is immaterial. The central question is why were civil,
>non-abusive individuals being moderated? That requires reading
>outside the description of the list by a long ways.
>
>
>
>People were asked not to continue the thread. Ralf posted a message
>stating that anyone who continued to post to the thread would be
>placed on moderation. Civil, non-abusive individuals were placed on
>moderation for ignoring the moderator's warning.
>
>As I noted earlier, I believe moderators are required to be
>empowered with a degree of autonomy in order to carry out their job.
>Ralf *is* quicker to moderate than Don or I. However, IMO, he still
>moderates in moderation. Ask yourself how long we've been on these
>lists and on how many occaisions anyone has been actively moderated?
>(and I'll remind people again that despite the subject line, *no
>one* has been banned--the only people who have ever been banned from
>the lists are Mark Gordon and spammers).
>
>--
>Lionel English
>San Diego, CA

><mailto:lio...@beanmar.net>lio...@beanmar.net

>
>--
>GCD-Board mailing list -

><mailto:gcd-...@googlegroups.com>gcd-...@googlegroups.com

>To unsubscribe send email to

><mailto:gcd-board%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>gcd-board+...@googlegroups.com

>For more options, visit this group at

><http://groups.google.com/group/gcd-board>http://groups.google.com/group/gcd-board

>
>--
>GCD-Board mailing list -

><mailto:gcd-...@googlegroups.com>gcd-...@googlegroups.com

>To unsubscribe send email to

><mailto:gcd-board%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>gcd-board+...@googlegroups.com

>For more options, visit this group at

><http://groups.google.com/group/gcd-board>http://groups.google.com/group/gcd-board

>
>
>
>
>--
>Lionel English
>San Diego, CA

><mailto:lio...@beanmar.net>lio...@beanmar.net

>
>--
>GCD-Board mailing list - gcd-...@googlegroups.com
>To unsubscribe send email to gcd-board+...@googlegroups.com
>For more options, visit this group at

><http://groups.google.com/group/gcd-board>http://groups.google.com/group/gcd-board

[Ray Bottorff Jr]

Its not unfair treating people differently, especially when the actions of what people due determine course of punishment. Its like arresting everyone in the theater because they screamed after someone shouted "fire!". The screams aided the panic of the situation but not the same as the person who caused the panic in the first place.

 

I also find it more than a little ironic that I ended up getting the ban hammer after I questioned why those shooting off their mouths bothered to do so anyways and how pointless it was.

 

Alexandros, or anyone here, go to that email topic and just reply, reply with anything. A hello, and "good job Ralf", "I love the GCD". DOES NOT MATTER. You too will be on moderation for a week. Go ahead and try it and you tell me if you think that is fair.

 

Anyone of you go ahead. try it.

 

my best

-Ray

-----Original Message-----
From: Alexandros Diamantidis <ad...@hellug.gr>
To: gcd-board <gcd-...@googlegroups.com>

Sent: Wed, Mar 7, 2012 6:42 pm
Subject: Re: [gcd-board] A Ban Too Far?

Having read the entire discussion in chat, I wanted to say that even
though I dislike moderating the chat list, there are both pros and cons
to the decision of whether that discussion should be stopped, and on the
ballance, I think that the decision to stop it cold by putting everyone
replying under moderation was the right one, even though the margin is
very thin.

Yes, it's not fair to put people under moderation when they weren't
being uncivil. We're adults and this shouldn't be a problem, but it's a
fact that some people who are on the whole well-behaved react extremely
unpleasently when some themes are touched. Now, one could argue that
only those who are being unpleasant should be moderated, but - and this
is tough on the list admins who are enforcing the ban - I think that
banning the discussion completely, while unfair to those who don't
deserve it, by maintaining a neutral position will tend to defuse
ill-will and agitated spirits in the medium term. The people who are
posting the inflamatory messages won't feel singled-out, and it's better
to try keeping around people who aren't disruptive on the whole. The
people who are participating in the discussion without shouts and
attacks will hopefully be understanding about the need to maintain
civility and calm things down, and while hurt by being put under
moderation because of a technicality and of blind adherence to a
decision, won't keep a grudge against the moderators or the project.

It's unfortunate that some topics can't be discussed in the chat list
without flames, the fact is that those unpleasant replies do occur
predictably in certain discussions, and the flames leave a bad taste to
many, even if they are just passively exposed to them. Given that the
discussions don't have much to do with our common interest of comics,
I think their loss can be justified by the need to keep a positive
appearance - even if this happens by artificial means.

Alexandros

-- 
GCD-Board mailing list - gcd-...@googlegroups.com

[Donald Dale Milne]

That's what I will do also, if we bring something to a vote.

Surprisingly, I just had to moderate another member who even at
this late date, wouldn't let the conversation drop.

- Don

[Ray Bottorff Jr]

I'm not going to second-guess the moderators and I'm not going to 
wade through the flames in this specific thread. If we vote on 
something I'll decide on its overall merits, not on what just 
happened.

best -- Merlin Haas

Why would you not second guess someone who has that much power? For a full week my ability to post ANYTHING on the chat list is being moderated for NO GOOD REASON. I can post something here BUT a moderator can deny that post to the Chat list for ANY reason. I have had two emails denied being posted to the chat list ONLY because I mentioned I am being moderated.

And you are OK with that? The banning of people was done to ANYONE who replied to the email topic irregardless of the reason. Merlin, if you do not wish to second guess the list moderator, then post a simple "Hello" to the email topic in question, be banned to moderation for a week and see if you enjoy having what you have to say being censored.

my best

-Ray

[Lionel English]

On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 8:44 PM, Ray Bottorff Jr <carch...@aol.com> wrote:

Why would you not second guess someone who has that much power? For a full week my ability to post ANYTHING on the chat list is being moderated for NO GOOD REASON. I can post something here BUT a moderator can deny that post to the Chat list for ANY reason. I have had two emails denied being posted to the chat list ONLY because I mentioned I am being moderated.

And you are OK with that? The banning of people was done to ANYONE who replied to the email topic irregardless of the reason. Merlin, if you do not wish to second guess the list moderator, then post a simple "Hello" to the email topic in question, be banned to moderation for a week and see if you enjoy having what you have to say being censored.

Let me state up front that I recognize I'm not a dispassionate observer in this conversation, given that I'm a list moderator myself.  If any actual motions come out of this conversation, I'm going to ask that Lou wield the gavel.

I've probably already said more than my fair share, so I'll try hard to make these my final words on the subject, barring direct questions or an actual motion of some kind by someone.

Firstly, to Ray, I think you're spending way too much time on how this affects you personally.  In part, because your situation is not particularlly unique--you aren't the only one under moderation, and you aren't the only one who's participation was relatively tame.  Your particular participation is not much different than Juan's, for example.  If we must have this conversation, I think it should be focused on the general, rather than on you in particular.  I'm really not even sure what you think you're going to get out of this--as  I already pointed out, you'll probably be off moderation before we even agree on a motion to vote on.  And even if I'm wrong about that, you'd certainly be off moderation well before any kind of vote would be completed, making the entire exercise somewhat pointless.  

Secondly, I think your response reflects poorly on you.  You bring up your board membership and length of time on the lists as though they somehow entitle you to special consideration.  I think that is a bad message to send.  If anything, I think that as a board member you should set a better example, taking the high road and waiting out your week patiently.  Instead, you are the most vocal complaintant, cross-posting your grievance to multiple list, demanding immediate action, and deliberately ramping up your output to the chat list twentyfold in a fit of pique just to publicly show your contempt for Ralf, ignoring the fact that your actions actually burden *all* the list admins, not just the one.   I think you set a very bad example with your public contempt of one of our appointed administrators, who was just doing his job as he saw fit.  if you or any other board member has a problem with one of our administrators, I think those problems should be discussed here rather than on one of the other lists.

On a more general note, and this is addressed to the board as a whole, I admit that I am disturbed that the board feels the need to second guess single incident in which a list member gets moderated.  The whole point of having list admins is so that the board *doesn't* need to do this.  Because, honestly, what's the point?  We take too long to do anything about any specific incident for our actions to matter.  That's why we *have* the list admins.  If we feel a particular list admin routinely abuses their authority, or makes bad calls, then I think a discussion about removing/replacing that list admin is probably warranted.  If we feel a particular rule needs revisiting, then we can do that.  But second guessing specific incidents seems to me like a general waste of time.  Every one of the moderated individuals will be off moderation before any kind of vote could be completed, and probably before a vote would even be formulated.

I generally believe--and again, I recognize that being a list admin myself makes me somewhat biased--that if we appoint admins to do a job--particularly a job like list admin that is inherently unrewarding--then we should generally try to back them up when their authority is called into question, rather than rush to throw them under a bus.  If you feel one is doing a bad job, you should consider replacing that individual; otherwise you have to accept that you may not agree with every single one of their individual decisions, but you should generally attempt to show your support if you don't want to send mixed signals to our constituents.

[Alexandros Diamantidis]

* Lionel English [2012-03-07 22:32]:

> if we appoint admins to do a job--particularly a job like list admin
> that is inherently unrewarding--then we should generally try to back
> them up when their authority is called into question, rather than rush
> to throw them under a bus. If you feel one is doing a bad job, you
> should consider replacing that individual; otherwise you have to
> accept that you may not agree with every single one of their
> individual decisions, but you should generally attempt to show your
> support if you don't want to send mixed signals to our constituents.

I strongly agree with this.

* Ray Bottorff Jr [2012-03-07 19:58]:

> Alexandros, or anyone here, go to that email topic and just reply, reply with anything. A hello, and "good job Ralf", "I love the GCD". DOES NOT MATTER. You too will be on moderation for a week. Go ahead and try it and you tell me if you think that is fair.

I won't, but as long as the moderation queue is run in a timely manner,
I'd be OK with being put under moderation in that case. As I said, I
don't like blocking subjects of discussion in the chat list, but given
the predictable responses by a few people leading to negative sentiments
all over, I think the ban of this specific thread is justified, and
drawing attention to the ban afterwards is counterproductive. I agree
that it is unfair, but while I personally wouldn't do it if I were list
admin, I think it's a legitimate response and that it's possible it
will leave less of a bad aftertaste. No way to tell in advance how it
would play out...

Alexandros

[Daniel Nauschuetz]

For me, this isn't a question of Ray, or trust in our List Admins.  The two relevant bullets that describe the responsibility of a List Admin approved by the Board:

* Monitoring the GCD lists resolving conflicts "flame wars" and disruptive behavior.
* Moderating accounts when necessary

It seems that the Board's only real discussion here is whether these bullets need to be expanded or left alone. 

If gcd-chat is for any discussion, then what specifically will result in a moderation?  I agree that List Admins have autonomy to make the necessary calls, but under what guidelines do they use to judge a situation?

Daniel

[Tony Rose]

I trust that everyone has recognized that my objections to moderation on the chat list are not centered around this incident.  Further, I have stated and will again state that I accept that we need to take action when personal invective starts to fly. 

I know that Lionel did not name me in this post, but he did in another, reminding me that I was initially opposed to taking action with Mark.  My opposition evolved.  Initially, I WAS of the opinion that Mark should have been ignored.  I felt that a couple of individuals were too...sensitive.  When I learned that Mark was harassing people off-list, I became much less accepting of his behavior but continued to object to taking action until some rules for list behavior were drawn up.  I was outvoted and Mark was suspended.  When Mark violated the terms of his board-authorized suspension, I made the motions to expel him.  I'm...sensitive... on the Mark matter and go to lengths to clarify my position because I feel that we -- the board -- made an initial mistake and I don't want to see it repeated.

In many ways, when we moderate the chat list, we're making the same sort of mistake.  Ralf decided and Lionel concurred in stopping a conversation that is explicitly allowed.  Did they have reason to believe that if the thread went on that someone would start making personal attacks?  Oh, yeah.  Before I started reading the thread I made a bet with myself about how long it would be before the trigger was tripped -- I lost.  I happened two or three messages later than I expected.  But, in principle, I oppose telling people that they can't discuss a topic.  Do I KNOW that within ten posts of the start of political chat that someone is going to call the president a socialist and then a threat to America and then a Muslim then a Manchurian candidate?  Yes.  Does that justify telling people on a list that exists for the explicit purpose of allowing non-comics blather that they can't discuss something because more than one person is going to get very agitated (or assume the pose of one agitated)?  Nope.  Not without a direct, specific change to the nature of the chat list.

And, by the way, the first personal attack I saw was EXACTLY what I consider Mark's most serious sin:  suggesting that someone leave the list.




tony

---

From: "Lionel English" <lio...@beanmar.net>
To: gcd-...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Thursday, March 8, 2012 12:32:00 AM

Subject: Re: [gcd-board] A Ban Too Far?

[Ray Bottorff Jr]

* Ray Bottorff Jr [2012-03-07 19:58]:
> Alexandros, or anyone here, go to that email topic and just reply, reply with 
anything. A hello, and "good job Ralf", "I love the GCD". DOES NOT MATTER. You 
too will be on moderation for a week. Go ahead and try it and you tell me if you 
think that is fair.

I won't, but as long as the moderation queue is run in a timely manner,
I'd be OK with being put under moderation in that case. As I said, I
don't like blocking subjects of discussion in the chat list, but given
the predictable responses by a few people leading to negative sentiments
all over, I think the ban of this specific thread is justified, and
drawing attention to the ban afterwards is counterproductive. I agree
that it is unfair, but while I personally wouldn't do it if I were list
admin, I think it's a legitimate response and that it's possible it
will leave less of a bad aftertaste. No way to tell in advance how it
would play out...

Alexandros

The Alexandros, if you are OK with me being on moderation, then you should be OK with putting yourself on it to so you can understand how it feels like to have someone else tell you what can or cannot say.

 

my best

-Ray

[Lionel English]

Week's up.  Everyone who was moderated is now off of moderation.

--

GCD-Board mailing list - gcd-...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe send email to gcd-board+...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/gcd-board