Alberto Monteiro wrote:
>
> Since I have seen lots of people complaining about other
> people's messages and styles and that this diversity of
> opinion is dooming the list to extinction, and since I haven't
> read any serious proposition to fix this, I took the initiative
> to propose the following rules:
Thank yo ufor the effort, but is there really a problem right now, other
than the polarization of a few individuals feelings?
> (a) We will vote on what are the acceptable ideas that
> may be defended and the ideas that can't be defended here.
> I propose that this votation be proportional to the number
> of messages in the past 5 years.
Negatory - you've just leaned the entire voting process towards people
who are verbose, have more time on their hands, and have tenure. If
this was ever instituted as a policy on a list I belonged to, the first
thing I would do is fire up a nice perl script to flood the list so I
could have the most votes :)
> (b) We will elect a moderator that will enforce (a) using
> his own judgement to suspend the right to post of the
> offenders for a given period [say, 1 day], doubling the
> suspension if the offense is repeated
>
> (c) If, at any moment, we feel that the moderator [elected in
> (b)] is not moderating correctly, we may vote his/her
> impeachment. If the proposer of the impeachment succeeds,
> then he/she becomes the next moderator. And the loser
> of the impeachment votation is forever forbidden to post to
> the list
Look, we can propose all the rules we want, but we got alon gfine for 5
years without them, and I really doubt strangling the freedom of
expression in this forum is the solution to this imaginary problem.
"Doing something about the problem" might make you feel better, but I
think you're destroying the village to save it.
-jeffrey "if it ain't broke don't fix it" miller-
