Nick wrote (I think)....
> >It is quite literally a moderating effect.
Jeroen replied.....
> EXACTLY! Which is exactly why this is a bad idea -- it goes straight
> against David Brin's wishes that this list be unmoderated.
Not all moderation is created equal. I would be opposed to moderation or
censure of topics, but having a COMPLETELY unmoderated list is like having a
nation with laws but no police force. The laws (rules, guidelines, whatever)
are only good as long as they are followed. If they are not followed, they
have to be enforced. If they are not enforced, then there is no reason to
create guidelines or rules to begin with. (oh wait, that is beginning to
sound like the U.N.!)
If the rules are enforced, then people might be less inclined to "act out"
and break the rules over and over.
I have always thought that the list administrators should have veto power if
a topic or discussion gets out of hand. The REAL challenge there is
voting/assigning the right people with that power and trusting them to
enforce the rules within the guidelines that have been established.
Until we live in our perfect world, there will always be a need for
moderators at some level.
By the way, I am not talking about anyone in particular here.
___________________________________________
Gary L. Nunn
Delaware Ohio
"When there is no enemy within, the
enemies outside cannot hurt you."
-African proverb
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
