When you start out on a Phoenyx list, you're moderated, as a lot of new guys (hi, everybody) have noticed. Once the first post gets passed through, you're generally no longer moderated. This keeps down the number of "I DIDNT ASK FOR THIS GET ME OFF THIS NOW!!!1!!!1!!" posts from confused persons. The list owner can change the number of posts that get held for moderation, but on GMAST it's a default 1, the "just so we know you meant to post here" level. Occasionally, I temporarily set non-newbie posters back to moderation, as I just have with "cra2." It has nothing to do with the fact that he's argued with Carl, other than that Carl is a longtime (pre-Phoenyx, even) GMASTer and thus rates a little more respect than someone who hasn't even hit his first anniversary here. If anybody (besides cra2) thinks Carl somehow "started it," they're welcome to point out where and how, and I'll happily moderate him, too. Heck, he's moderated me before. Fair's fair. Anyway. Carry on, all. Just lighten up on the carrying-on, okay? -- Karen J. Cravens (silver@phoenyx.net) ---------------------------------------------------------------- GMAST Home Page: http://www.phoenyx.net/gmast/
Yes. I think you should moderate Carl. I think he was just as much responsible for this level of discussion. In fact, I think your posts on the issue were partisan in his favour. I don't believe that you're being fair, at all, by moderating Cra2. Not that I subscribe to his position, or even Carl's. And, I certainly don't think that the amount of time someone has been on a list merits any kind of 'respect'. That, it seems to me, is merely a rationalisation of nepotism. Karen Cravens wrote: > When you start out on a Phoenyx list, you're moderated, as a lot of > new guys (hi, everybody) have noticed. Once the first post gets > passed through, you're generally no longer moderated. This keeps > down the number of "I DIDNT ASK FOR THIS GET ME OFF THIS > NOW!!!1!!!1!!" posts from confused persons. The list owner can > change the number of posts that get held for moderation, but on > GMAST it's a default 1, the "just so we know you meant to post > here" level. > > Occasionally, I temporarily set non-newbie posters back to > moderation, as I just have with "cra2." It has nothing to do with the > fact that he's argued with Carl, other than that Carl is a longtime > (pre-Phoenyx, even) GMASTer and thus rates a little more respect > than someone who hasn't even hit his first anniversary here. If > anybody (besides cra2) thinks Carl somehow "started it," they're > welcome to point out where and how, and I'll happily moderate him, > too. Heck, he's moderated me before. Fair's fair. > > Anyway. Carry on, all. Just lighten up on the carrying-on, okay? > > -- > Karen J. Cravens (silver@phoenyx.net) > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > GMAST Home Page: http://www.phoenyx.net/gmast/ ---------------------------------------------------------------- GMAST Home Page: http://www.phoenyx.net/gmast/
On 14 Dec 2000, at 8:53, Whispercut wrote: > And, I certainly don't think that the amount of time someone has been on a > list merits any kind of 'respect'. That, it seems to me, is merely a > rationalisation of nepotism. So, you're saying I should take everyone equally seriously, even if they're nonsubscribers posting from icqmail? What about spammers? GMAST gets a lot of spam addressed to it. I'm disrespecting and "censoring" those guys, too, by not passing all that along. More nepotism? -- Karen J. Cravens (silver@phoenyx.net) ---------------------------------------------------------------- GMAST Home Page: http://www.phoenyx.net/gmast/
Karen Cravens wrote: > On 14 Dec 2000, at 8:53, Whispercut wrote: > > > And, I certainly don't think that the amount of time someone has been on a > > list merits any kind of 'respect'. That, it seems to me, is merely a > > rationalisation of nepotism. > > So, you're saying I should take everyone equally seriously, even if > they're nonsubscribers posting from icqmail? What about > spammers? GMAST gets a lot of spam addressed to it. I'm > disrespecting and "censoring" those guys, too, by not passing all > that along. More nepotism? > You asked for opinions. Are you asking a question, or offering more of your sarcastic vitriol? I've given my opinion, and posted it off the list. Do what you want with it. But, please, try to stay on the point. ---------------------------------------------------------------- GMAST Home Page: http://www.phoenyx.net/gmast/
On 14 Dec 2000, at 9:25, Whispercut wrote: > You asked for opinions. Are you asking a question, or offering more of your > sarcastic vitriol? I'm asking a question, that being "Should the opinions of non- members count?" Since you haven't answered it, I'm going to: nope. I'm not passing through any more nonsubscriber emails, whether they're yours or a spammer's. Go set this address as an alternate, a la http://www.phoenyx.net/help/alternate.html, for your ihug one. You'll be able to post from rainbowlord@icq.com, but the system will know you're Jim, and behave accordingly. > I've given my opinion, and posted it off the list. Do what you want with it. Posted it off the list? > But, please, try to stay on the point. Which was? -- Karen J. Cravens (silver@phoenyx.net) ---------------------------------------------------------------- GMAST Home Page: http://www.phoenyx.net/gmast/
In a message dated 12/14/00 10:00:36 AM Eastern Standard Time, silver@phoenyx.net writes: > So, you're saying I should take everyone equally seriously, even if > they're nonsubscribers posting from icqmail? What about > spammers? GMAST gets a lot of spam addressed to it. I'm > disrespecting and "censoring" those guys, too, by not passing all > that along. More nepotism? Lemme throw my two cents in here... 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. 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 _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. 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. 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. Lucifer >:} Lucifer >:} -- "The mind is its own place, and in itself Can make a heav'n of hell, a hell of heav'n" --Milton, Paradise Lost, Bk. 1 Homepage: http://members.aol.com/noctifer/index.html Lucifer's DJ Webpage: http://members.aol.com/noctifer/private/DJ/index.html Lucifer's Vampire Webpage: http://members.aol.com/noctifer01/private/VampHome/index.html ---------------------------------------------------------------- GMAST Home Page: http://www.phoenyx.net/gmast/
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/
