--- Alex Bligh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--On 04 December 2004 17:35 + Paul Vixie
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
third and last, there are a number of principles
up for grabs right now, and the folks who want to
grab them aren't universal in their motives or
goals. some folks think
On Dec 3, 2004, at 8:41 PM, Paul Vixie wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alex Rubenstein) writes:
... I think we all agree that RAS and Randy don't fall into the above
category of having to be gotten ridden of. ...
nope.
Perhaps the fact that even some of the longest standing, most
respected, clueful
- Original Message -
From: Patrick W Gilmore [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Patrick W Gilmore [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2004 8:50 AM
Subject: Re: [OT] Re: Banned on NANOG
On Dec 3, 2004, at 8:41 PM, Paul Vixie wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alex
... I think we all agree that RAS and Randy don't fall into the above
category of having to be gotten ridden of. ...
nope.
Perhaps the fact that even some of the longest standing, most respected,
clueful members of the list cannot agree on such things proves that a
non-technical
--On 04 December 2004 17:35 + Paul Vixie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
third and last, there are a number of principles up for grabs right now,
and the folks who want to grab them aren't universal in their motives or
goals. some folks think that rules are bad. others think that susan is
bad or
On Sat, 4 Dec 2004, Paul Vixie wrote:
first of all, who somebody is or how longstanding or how clueful are all
subjective measures at best, and actually quite irrelevant. meritocracy,
which this and all similar street-level forums must be based on, depends
on the quality of what you're saying
On Sat, 4 Dec 2004, Richard Irving wrote:
It seems controversial subjects may trigger
suppres^suspension of speech. :P
Dissing Bush backed agendas appear to be one of the triggers.
(See current Doonesbury, this is not a limited trend, BTW ;)
Indeed, my last ban was from a
Thus spake Bill Nash [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The list's AUP includes actions to be taken for users going off topic, or
abusing the list. I've seen various list members do more about making sure
things stay on topic, than anyone with moderation credentials. I'm
thinking back, and not recalling many
On Sat, 4 Dec 2004, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
I think Paul's idea is a good start: each message needs to have more signal
than noise, but we can all tolerate (or even enjoy) a small percentage of
noise so long as it's spread thin. I'd much rather the moderator(s) focus
their efforts
The complaints concerning list moderation certainly have merit (no pun
intended). There are wildly inconsistent moderation standards along with a
growing fear of being banned from a wide variety of folks. The least
possible moderation should be the goal here. We are all professionals, not
On Fri, Dec 03, 2004 at 08:31:10AM -0800, nanog gonan wrote:
I ask that the methodology of bannishment be posted to
the list, so we're all aware of the consequences of
too much OT. Is it permanent banishment or a
procedure similar to the one that William suggests?
How many warnings get
On Fri, 3 Dec 2004, Lou Katz wrote:
I was puzzled by this, since I basically lurk on the list, and
have made very few postings. I replied to Susan privately that,
among other things, I had no record nor recollection of any
previous warnings, and asked politely for information regarding
these,
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, December 03, 2004 3:31 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [OT] Re: Banned on NANOG
[snip]
This is my first post directly to the NANOG list. Ever.
I'm not sure why you chose this thread
On Fri, 3 Dec 2004, Hannigan, Martin wrote:
This is my first post directly to the NANOG list. Ever.
I'm not sure why you chose this thread as your sunshine, but
welcome.
In brief, I've never been largely concerned with where I jump into the
pool, or if my speedo matches the popular cut. Apologies
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alex Rubenstein) writes:
... I think we all agree that RAS and Randy don't fall into the above
category of having to be gotten ridden of. ...
nope.
--
Paul Vixie
From: Daniel Golding [EMAIL PROTECTED]
...
Its entirely possible for nanog-l to be self policing, or, failing
that, for users to simply use procmail on those who wander off-topic
(for some definition of off-topic). Putting an [OT] subject banner on
such posts is also nice.
i don't want
Of
Paul Vixie
Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2004 9:47 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [OT] Re: Banned on NANOG
From: Daniel Golding [EMAIL PROTECTED]
...
Its entirely possible for nanog-l to be self policing, or, failing
that, for users to simply use procmail on those who wander off-topic
On Thu, 2 Dec 2004, Joe Johnson wrote:
I wanted to say the same thing earlier, but a hands-off approach works
best on NANOG.
The question at hand is not whether procmail will work . . .
It's whether procmail should have to work.
I don't want to use procmail for nanog posts, I've long
I am going out on a limb here, and leaving lurk mode on this issue. If I
get banned, well, Randy and I can start our own mailing list. We're as
about as grumpy as each other.
I disagree with William entirely. Suspensions are idiotic, and only
detract from the usefulness of the list. S:N is
Alex Rubenstein wrote:
We're not in school, we don't need suspensions. We need to act like
adults, use this list for it's intended purpose. If someone is a dodo
for a message or two here or there, then, well, we tolerate it and
move on, maybe someone on the list sends that person an email
20 matches
Mail list logo
