Re: [ga] "Moderating" the GA list./bigotry

[eric@hi-tek.com]

I am very glad you posted this to Alejandro Pisanty because he is well
aware that his country has a long a fantastic history of fighting such
one man censorship and that he could in no way agree to such acts.
TR you have absolutely no authority to do this "moderating".
The arrogance to even think that one chancellor should have the
authority to ban and censor is reminiscent.
The two lists and any monitoring chased away some of the best and
brightest members of the IIC. Due to Alexander's hands off they have
started to
return.
You have not even seen fit to appoint list monitors which is your
mandate.
Let me guess; the first three that would be filtered would be; a Texas
American/International business man that is Jewish, the second a Western
Philosopher that is a lay minister that works with Latin Americans and
SouthEast Asians and the third a man that runs an inclusive dotGOD.  Hum
didi Dum sounds familiar again. Thank goodness that the Internet does
not require the actual burning of books, the pictures would go right to
CNN.
You are not an "adult supervisor" I would dare leave with young
children, lest they wake up with hatred and bigotry in their hearts.
You have been doing a decent job running the GA - because you have been
forced to and have otherwise done nothing but your revisionist history
in your non summaries.
Please keep it that way.

Eric

Thomas Rooster wrote:

> Any "moderation" of the GA list will have to meet some basic
> requirements, besides improving readability and reducing noise.
>
> In particular, every posting sent to a General Assembly mailing list
> MUST be available to the public.  That's what we currently achieve
> by having ga-full on the one hand and the monitored GA list on the
> other.  The effect of this kind of transparency is this: While undue
> censorship becomes provable, unproven assertions of such censorship
> become moot.
>
> Also, it MUST be possible for members of the GA to get quick access
> to postings.  This may be considered solved by having a ga-full list
> on the one hand, and a moderated main GA list on the other - but I
> believe that we can do better.
>
> A possible improved approach would be to make a traditionally
> moderated version of the list available IN ADDITION to what we have,
> and look if people would actually accept it.  One of the problems
> with this approach is that it adds considerably to the complexity of
> the whole GA thing - possibly beyond the point where it's still
> reasonable.  Also, it would duplicate some of the list monitoring
> efforts we already have.
>
> The interesting question is, of course, what the list coming out of
> this would look like.  I've made an experiment and taken the GA
> traffic from weeks 22 and 23 of this year (the first two weeks of
> June).  I have then deleted the things I'd probably have rejected as
> far as a moderated list is concerned (and, of course, all the things
> I'd have just ignored for a summary).  The result is available in
> web archive form at
> <http://does-not-exist.org/ga/filtered/0206/maillist.html>.
>
> When I did this, I noticed that there were some list members whose
> postings (and even threads they started) I collectively deleted.
> With some other list members, I frequently deleted postings because
> they were off-topic or idle chatting. Finally, there were many
> members of the list whose postings I collectively approved.
>
> Thus, a very similar result could have been obtained by making the
> list unmoderated by default, but turning on moderation for a couple
> of individuals.
>
> If you want to put it like this, this would mean that list
> monitoring would intervene much more quickly, and, for instance,
> "block" people for mere off-topic posting.  This "blocking" would,
> however, be soft (as opposed to what we currently do): It wouldn't
> imply that messages don't go to the list at all, it would only mean
> that the individuals in question would be subject to some kind
> "adult supervision" - after having proven that they can't do
> without.
>
> Actually, I'd like to give this approach a try immediately after
> Bucharest - it's not clear to me that it will actually work as
> intended, in particular given the fact that the approach will
> probably require frequent changes to list filter definitions, and
> will have to withstand the usual attempts to game the system by
> some.
>
> Comments?
>
> --
> Thomas Roessler                         http://log.does-not-exist.org/
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html