[Volunteers] Ideas for list policies
rick at linuxmafia.com
Mon Jul 18 13:01:47 PDT 2005
Quoting Karsten Self (kmself at ix.netcom.com):
> As Rick noted, if the enforcement/chiding is centralized, then there
> must be pains made to see that the enforcement _does_ happen.
> I don't see how a gentle reminder to not top post, to start new threads,
> or to wrap lines, goes too far astray, particularly if made in the
> context of a relevant response.
In fact, SVLUG has historically come down like a ton of bricks on anyone
who even makes an extremely mild and indirect reference to standards of
behaviour, and (by contrast) has done nothing, zip, nada in relation to
whatever behaviour _occasioned_ that reference. The impression it
thereby gives is one of rabid hostility towards those _standards_.
Ironically, this doesn't do the poor guy who posted huge HTML
attachments, or asked Windows questions, or crossposted to five LUG
lists, or top-posts one original line above 150 quoted ones, any
favours. He/she slowly becomes aware of being shunned, but nobody tells
him/her why: Nobody's allowed to.
This is why I've long classified SVLUG's main list as hostile to
technical discussion, and (where appropriate) advise people to post such
discussion elsewhere where it is more welcome.
(Your point about the non-sequitur nature of claims that allowing
anyone to address such matters inescapably results in multiple people
angrily piling on offenders is noted in passing. But the policy isn't
actually looking to the users' benefit, just to the _appearance_ of
If those who advocate this approach would bother to lurk on a few of the
larger LUG lists elsewhere, they're realise that it's neither useful nor
necessary, and that a lighter hand results in both a less oppressive
general atmosphere and in less listadmin work. But I fear that the
faction is sufficiently inbred that it isn't willing to think past
their well-worn "It's intended to help new users" justification.
More information about the volunteers