On 14 Dec 2000, at 9:48, Noctifer@aol.com wrote: > I wouldn't go so far as calling it nepotism, but moderating an individual who > is interesting in GMAST-L and subscribed to the list is a little different > than keeping out those who don't subscribe and spammers. GMAST-L has gone > through much, much worse (though few were as nonsensical...I still can't > figure out where cra2 was coming from...maybe irony or something...I don't > really know) without the need to kick anyone off...typically, someone truly > annoying will eventually get bored of the constant harassment and quit or > they'll calm down when they realize that even their serious posts are getting > ignored. For the record, I haven't kicked anyone off. I almost never do that, on the Phoenyx as a whole (even on lists that are a lot less free-for- all than GMAST) unless it's something like trying to hack in (benignly or otherwise). (Heck, I think JMU is still blocked from the entire website on account of that Russian kid.) > Personally, I think moderating cra2 was going a bit too far. He was an > annoying twit, and would likely be even more annoying if he rejoined the > discussion, but GMAST-L has, historically, been a very self-moderated setting > (in situations such as this). Anyone who doesn't like that sort of thing Historically, yeah. But right now GMAST isn't a terribly unified community. > _should_ leave the list. While I'd like to see a high number of people > running around in here, I wouldn't want to give up the "feel" of GMAST-L to > do it. Unfortunately, I think GMAST's feel has flickered and died. We're trying to rebuild here, so I think slightly more draconian tactics are in order once in awhile. > Since I'm on the soapbox right now, I also don't think that Carl was out of > line in his responses, though his initial response could have been a bit more > informative. I almost replied to Cra2's post as well, but I figured ignoring > him would have a better affect. And yes, I do think Cra2 lied like a dog > when he suggested he was getting fan mail over his supposed bashing of Carl. As Carl said to me, he was terse mostly because he was typing one-handed with Nathan in his lap. And, well, silly responses don't rate extensive counter-responses. I mean, it was kind of obvious... we *didn't* agree with Bob, and had managed to say so signaliciously. There wasn't any need to try to cheapen the whole conversation by saying "it's all just agreement." > Anyways, that's my 2 cents (with a bit of change left over, perhaps). I > don't object to there _being_ a moderator...merely that Cra2's posts weren't > something that needed to be moderated. Other than avoiding such moderation > in the future, I don't really have a suggestion as to how to fix the current > situation. I disagree, but I can't say why without going into administrative stuff that shouldn't be publicly aired, so I'll leave it at that. But yeah, I'd really like to avoid such moderation in the future. Get GMAST back to a reasonable conversation level such that this kind of noise is drowned out by signal like it was in The Good Old Days, and it won't be necessary. Hurrah. -- Karen J. Cravens (silver@phoenyx.net) ---------------------------------------------------------------- GMAST Home Page: http://www.phoenyx.net/gmast/
