Horse and Group,
I had brain damage and subsequently missed the whole moderation debate so i'm
going to take this oppurtunity to put my two cents in...
Rules without a rational are annoying at best. If the group is going to willing
submit to some form of regulation, then it seems to follow that the group should
benefit in some way from doing so. Could some kind soul please enlighten me as
to what exactly we expect to gain from these rules? Personally I don't see that
much to object to in them, with a possible exception of #8. I haven't noticed
anybody posting message filled with 'colorful' phrases and epithets. However if
somebody does use one of the seven words you can't say on the radio, my ears
won't bleed. Are you really going to expell me from the group for submitting a
post with the word 'Shit' in it? Seems a little draconian to me. In Paul's
case his attack on Mary seemed rather sophmoric in content and execution. Paul's
inarticulatness is to some extent it's own punishment. Perhaps it wasn't nice
but of course Mary could conceiably be ignorant and a liar. I'm not familiar
with that particular thread enough to say. We're a pretty savy bunch and aren't
going to tolerate too much abusive behavior moderation or not.
I'm rather surprised that the group isn't displaying more of the dynamic spirit
that we're always going on about. This is a moderation experiment, if it
doesn't work, we can also go back to where we started.
Glen
homepage - http://www.moq.org
queries - mailto:moq@moq.org
unsubscribe - mailto:majordomo@moq.org with UNSUBSCRIBE MOQ_DISCUSS in
body of email
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:49 BST