[76280] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: [OT] Re: Banned on NANOG
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Patrick W Gilmore)
Sat Dec 4 22:11:23 2004
In-Reply-To: <0f5601c4da5e$5c3d78d0$6801a8c0@stephen>
Cc: Patrick W Gilmore <patrick@ianai.net>
From: Patrick W Gilmore <patrick@ianai.net>
Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2004 22:10:55 -0500
To: nanog@merit.edu
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
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
