[OT] Re: Banned on NANOG

Sat Dec 4 21:31:58 UTC 2004

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 today, not on the quality of what
> you've said in the past -- either by average or by peak.

In the same vein, outright exclusion, when other options haven't been 
exhausted, is hardly the way to maintain a working meritocracy. With the 
exception of one or two posters, I'm fairly positive most subscribers on 
this list are real people, with real faults and personalities. Some 
personalities may be suspect, but most faults appear to be real.

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 instances in the past few years 
where there has been a friendly reminder, much less an inspired one, 
about list policies and what's 'on topic'. Most people know, some people 
clearly need(ed) reminding. Sanctions at this level undermine the whole.

> second of all, my "nope" doesn't nec'ily mean i agree or disagree about
> steenbergen and bush.  only that i am directly aware of counterexamples
> (numerous in each case) to the assertion i was "noping".  whether those
> counterexamples represent mature or respected opinions, or whether i am
> one, are not offered up as topics of further discussion.

Your 'nope' also stood on it's own as a vague, undirected comment, and 
gave very little indication as to what you actually meant. My initial read 
of it led me to conclude that you harbor some dislike for the two 
aforementioned persons. Whatever the case may be, I would think the 
rampant intelligence present on this list would generally place people 
above petty disagreements and allow them to focus on the merit of a given 
thread. Again, since some members of this list are actual people, this may 
be hard, but not impossible.

> 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 that merit is bad.  some say that rules are ok if the community has
> visibility and ultimate control.  the enemy of your enemy might or might
> not be a permanent friend when you're contemplating societal reform.

I don't think reform is needed. Certainly, nothing drastic. The problems 
have been pretty clearly laid on the table. A couple of minor changes in 
the way a few people do things is a much better fix. Most of what's needed 
is a working feedback loop to keep things in check, moderators and 
subscribers alike. There's one spec'd in the list charter. Why isn't it 
being used?

- billn