> > All of those messages were censored in a biased impartial way, as they > > allowed other side to talk, but not the opposition. > > Please actually count how many mails actually got to the list for each > person.
Right. There are just ~3 people who write more messages to the list each day than everybody else combined. High volume in itself isn't reason for rejecting messages. But when sending just one or two messages a day to the list they will all be accepted. The problem is that precisely the highly prolific writers also often sent messages that are clearly unkind and non-constructive. When I write email, I queue it up -- that means I can "send" several messages to a list in one day -- even if they are written over the period of a week. How much people write, or do not write is not a good metric for deciding on moderation, we all do our computing differently, we all communicate differently. I am not sure what the best solution to that is. No, or minimal moderation -- as has always been the case for GNU lists. It is better to let a off-topic message through, and communicate to the user of the case than to reject it. It is better to ask the person to use a kinder tone than to reject a message. Moderation is hard, it is annoying, but the general rule is to always let messages through. Spending the extra effort in creating a kind environment, a hard, and long process, is a worth while goal -- even if that means sometimes accepting messages that might "break the rules"...
