Re: [Vo]:REMOVING RULE2 VIOLATORS, 'subscribe' blocked. SUGGESTIONS

2012-01-24 Thread Terry Blanton
> I'd not have handled this the same way, but, to be sure, Mr. Beaty owns this
> list.

Vortex operates by an automated remailer.  Moderation is not a feature
of this type of list.

T



Re: [Vo]:REMOVING RULE2 VIOLATORS, 'subscribe' blocked. SUGGESTIONS

2012-01-24 Thread Abd ul-Rahman Lomax

At 04:48 AM 1/23/2012, William Beaty wrote:

Vtx thoughtcriminals.  "Scoffing" and anti-fringe behavior, but 
didn't leave in disgust as suggested.  Ungood!  Time for Periodic Cleansing.


removed:

  "Mary" "Yugo"
  effwivakeef
  Dusty Bradshaw
  Shaun Taylor

Vortex traffic temporarily suspended.  Getting everyone's attention.

I'll leave "subscribe" turned off for weeks/months, "unsubscribe" 
remains active.  Email me directly for problems, suggestions.


I'd not have handled this the same way, but, to be sure, Mr. Beaty 
owns this list.


I'd have put questionable participants, if it's at all marginal, on 
moderation. That could create a burden for the owner, so I'd have 
multiple moderators. And there is another path which means that, in 
effect, the list isn't exactly censored.


Any user may send any other subscriber to the list -- and if you have 
been receiving the list, you have direct email addresses for active 
subscribers -- a post, and the subscriber may forward that post *on 
their own responsibility.*


I'd consider this on request, but do be aware that I can get very 
busy and might not get to it quickly.


I was one who had noted that posts had gone "beyond the pale." I 
would not forward such posts. However, some posts by some of those 
removed were of interest and valuable.


I do recommend, for the future, that a list moderator warn users 
before excluding them. Putting a user on moderation is a form of 
warning. In my opinion, when a list is actually serving a community 
rather than the owner as an individual, such things should be done 
openly. (As Mr. Beaty's action was open.)


Complaints by those involved in disputes with a user are not 
effective as warnings, they are readily discounted. Rules should be 
clear, and when rules are ignored for a long time -- as they were -- 
enforcement should begin with care so that people have a chance and 
some time to alter their behavior, if that's what they choose.


The archive should not be redacted, except for illegal posts. If we 
want a "cleaned" archive, that should be done through a mirror of the 
list. (Or the position can be reversed, there is a mirror which has a 
full archive, and the main list has a redacted archive.)