On Fri, March 8, 2013 17:04, Mark Morgan Lloyd wrote: > Graeme Geldenhuys wrote: > >> Also, there as no specific person I targeted in >> fpc-devel. Almost all posts lately contain about 95% quoted text! How >> does a moderator fail to see this? > > I really don't want to prolong this and perhaps upset more people than > necessary, but has it occurred to you that that's how mailing lists work > and that possibly your expectations are unreasonable? . .
Just to add another view (to show that it is not a fight among two clearly delineated camps): - I agree to Graeme that many people don't use quoting efficiently - either always or at least sometimes (e.g. because they forget). - It is important to stress that "efficient quoting" is subjective and depends on many factors including used tools, habits and preferences (some people prefer more context than others), etc. - Pointing out good practice may be useful and accepted by others even from just one of the many subscribed people if performed in gentle way allowing others to improve themselves (without attacking them). One should probably not expect everybody else to even know what netiquette is these days (unfortunately :-( ), i.e. providing some specific reference may be useful and increase efficiency of such a message (text on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etiquette_%28technology%29 might suggest some improvement opportunities for Graeme too ;-) ). Trying to enforce the expected behaviour (e.g. by pointing it out twice within the same day) should be certainly left to moderators in my view (and if someone believes that the moderator does this job insufficiently, it is always possible to contact him directly to discuss such concerns). I fully agree to Jonas explaining how other people might feel and why such a response might have arrived. Jonas simply tried to clarify potential reasons behind a bit curt reaction from Mark and I don't see anything problematic in that e-mail from Jonas. (Being a non-native speaker, I just hope that the word "curt" just looked up in a dictionary matches my intention here - I mean something worse than "not very nice" but not reaching "inappropriate"). - I believe that the response of Graeme to comment from Jonas was clearly inappropriate (calling others idiots is always inappropriate in my view and never leads to any positive outcome) and an obvious reason for the moderation action (especially if this wasn't for the first time with Graeme). - I _personally_ dislike insufficient quoting at least as much as excessive quoting (and yes, I observe that sometimes in FPC lists too - I mean messages commenting something without providing any clue what the statement is about unless looking at the whole thread). Again, different people, different habits, different preferences. - I do not share the opinion of Mark that sending URLs should be considered inappropriate or that senders willing to share some link with others ought to spend time on creating different (shorter) URLs in cases like this (and from this point of view I don't see anything wrong on Graeme's original post). While I do not necessarily always use tools allowing me to access You Tube on all devices which I use for reading e-mails, I understand that the choice of devices (with all their advantages and disadvantages) is fully on my side. My preferred _e-mail_ client has allowed clicking on URLs in plain text e-mails (and launching these URLs in the WWW browser) since at least 14 years ago, i.e. Mark's assumption that this has to do with reading e-mails via WWW client is not necessarily correct. In any case, I believe that a response like: "Sorry, I cannot access the video when reading e-mails, can you please tell me what it is about?" might give better results and would not provide triggers for unnecessary escalation. BTW, my original reaction when reading Graeme's post was: OK, a link to some video in fpc-other, I'll see if I have time for watching it later but I can probably live happily without it too. ;-) For everybody who read up to this point - yes, I know that I'm a candidate for being moderated because I tend to express my thoughts in too much detail leading to very long e-mails (also mentioned as bad habit on the netiquette link above). If you believe that I'm a bigger idiot than Graeme, Mark and Jonas together because of this, I'm fine with that. ;-) Tomas _______________________________________________ fpc-other maillist - fpc-other@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-other