Re: [ga] Message from the Chair - List Rules
As can be seen through this post, the sublists need to resolve to the ga-full and we need to be able to post only to the ga-full should we desire. This new round from the chairs for further censoring is disgusting, but then no one cares! But somewhere at sometime without a vote the chair changed the listing rules and so now we have a completely censored list. http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc03/msg01219.html Sincerely, EricTitle: Re: [ga] Message from the Chair - List Rules [Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [ga] Message from the Chair - List Rules
Kent, My opinion is that Michael raises a matter of principle. The question basically is: "Is the GA-list now 'monitored' or is the GA-list unmonitored, and the 'monitored' list provided as an additional service?' To correctly answer this question, the details underlined by Michael are important. The answer is: "The GA-list is now 'monitored', and the 'unmonitored' list is provided as an additional service, with added value vs. the past of allowing posting from non-members (therefore, more open than before), and including also posts otherwise rejected (with the exception of what may happen for strictly technical reasons)" Personally, I have also problems with this approach, but I feel I have to choose between the "perfect" theoretical solutionm and an acceptable "least evil" that will guarantee better participation. In a perfect world, we should be able to deal with what you call "people who aspire to be disruptive assholes" without the need to invest resources for monitoring. But I just have to acknowledge that this world is not perfect. Note that, IMHO, in a perfect world, you would need no laws, because people would act nicely independently from the fear of sanctions, which are in itself a thing that makes this world "imperfect". Regards Roberto >On Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 12:23:32PM -0500, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote: >> >> As you well know, the issue is not posting rights, it what feed people >> get as a matter of default. Arranging posting addresses is a trivial >> computing matter. > >Sorry -- I misunderstood your point. I understand now -- you want it to >be the case that people who aspire to be disruptive assholes don't have >to do anything, but that those who prefer politeness and decorum must do >something special. Is that correct? > >-- >Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be >kent@songbird.com lonesome." -- Mark Twain > > > |