List,
I'm not advocating this, I'm just tossing it out
there.
In light of the recent unsubscriptions of longtime
members of the list, and the current of
disgruntledness going around in general, what does the
list think about flame moderation?
It's when you get two people who are obviously sniping
at each other, or engaging in a personal attack, and
the list moderator (that's me right now, although
others can co-moderate if they wish at any time) puts
the offending parties on moderation until the attack
stops. So the moderator would approve on-topic emails
from them and stop mail that was purely an attack from
going out to the list.
Some violently disapprove of this (it is, after all,
censorship). Some like the fact that personal,
off-topic squabbles get quashed quickly and don't turn
into list-wide flame wars.
I myself have no opinion on the matter. It's no extra
work for me, since I'm online for work during the day
anyway. I tend to think that all good lists should
censor themselves, but I don't have anything morally
against a flame-free list. It was standard policy on
the old Vocalist, and this latest flare-up has cost us
Barbara and Les, which is why I'm bringing it up.
Let's take a poll. Don't send your responses to the
list, because it creates an extra clutter of one-line
responses (unless you have thoughts you'd like to
share on the matter -- in which case, please send
those to the list). For simple votes, please email
me, ibracamonte@y... and I'll tally it all up.
If there's a significant majority in favor of putting
off-topic personal flames on moderation, we can do it.
Isabelle B.
=====
Isabelle Bracamonte
San Francisco, CA
ibracamonte@y...
ibracamonte@y...
__________________________________________________
|
