[OT] Re: Banned on NANOG

Sun Dec 5 02:10:17 UTC 2004

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 tracking/blocking folks with a consistently low S:N (e.g. Bandy 
> Rush, Jim Fleming, etc.) and just send a reminder email or short suspension 
> to folks who historically have a high S:N but slip up when the caffeine is 
> running low.

A suspension for a slip is a bit much, I think. Again, most of us are not 
automata with strict logic rules. I do agree, though, more signal than 
noise should be the basic measuring stick for posts and threads.

> suspended, whether others posting to a given thread are getting warned, why 
> some apparently off-topic threads never die, etc.  This robs us of the 
> ability to tweak the AUP in real time or to verify the moderator(s)' 
> good-faith interpretations match ours.
>
> I'm not suggesting that individuals be warned in public, but if more than X 
> people reply to an off-topic thread, it seems that an on-list reminder of the 
> AUP is more effective at preventing future replies than going after 
> individual posters afterwards.  X probably varies depending on how clearly 
> off-topic something is and how often it appears.

A note tacked onto an OT thread that has no apparant end in sight is easy 
enough to do. It's easy enough to get wrapped up in a discussion and start 
pursuing tangents. The moderator's job should be to keep things in tune, 
not punt the oscillators. This function can be performed by 
annoyed list members just as easily as a moderator.

As for public visibility into the application of sanctions, I do think 
there needs to be some mechanism for accountibility. I think any activity 
warranting an actual suspension will be sufficiently obvious enough to 
everyone on the list that a notification to the list when a suspension is 
made isn't inappropriate. In most cases, a public response to the 
offending user would be more than sufficient to encourage self-policing, 
through something as simple as public awareness. The list of offenses I 
see documented that actually warrant suspension are clear enough that 
simple reminders would go a long way towards maintaining a healthy forum 
without denuding the tree of fruit.

One thing that does bear comment on, is the political aspect of posts. 
Political rhetoric, in it's purest, may not be fodder for the list, but 
discussion of it's effects on our particular profession and work 
environment should not be out of place, especially in the face of pending 
and new legislation that will affect how our networks and services will 
interact, either by policy based decisions (FCC regulations, for example) 
or actual legislation (ala new and pending spam bills). A simple note in 
threads like these to remind people to stick to the effects and not their 
personal, or party, political agendas should be plenty to keep them on 
track.

The charter isn't set in stone. Susan? Can we get it ratified to reflect a 
more visible interaction for adjusting off topic threads, and begin using 
it that way?

- billn