[OT] Re: Banned on NANOG

Sun Dec 5 03:10:55 UTC 2004

On Dec 4, 2004, at 7:05 PM, Stephen Sprunk wrote:

> Since the AUP specifies dealing with violations off-list, we doesn't 
> really know how sensitive the moderator is, how many warnings it takes 
> to get 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.

It is true we do not know how many people have been warned.

But we do have a non-trivial sampling of people who have at least 
claimed to have been warned, and why.  And I know about both of my 
warnings.  We also can easily see people who continually post what 90+% 
of the list would call "off-topic" and clearly have not been banned, 
and we can easily look up the posting history of, say, Steve & Richard.

So, yeah, we don't know how sensitive the moderator is.  But we have 
CLEAR PROOF the moderator is highly subjective in her judgment and AUP 
enforcement is amazingly inconsistent.  I do not believe anyone here 
would argue either of those points.

I also think that makes it nearly impossible to run a good, informative 
list.  Certainly FAR more difficult than just leaving the list 
completely unmoderated.  I do not believe anyone here would argue those 
points either (besides, obviously, the moderator herself).

-- 
TTFN,
patrick