> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On > Behalf Of J. van Baardwijk
... > I must disagree with this. Off-list offenses are a private matter between > the sender and the recipient, and therefore it is for the recipient (and > only the recipient) to decide how to deal with it (kill-filing, flaming > back, filing an abuse report with the offender's ISP). As an off-list > offense by definition does not take place on-list, it is not for the > listowners or the community as a whole to punish the offender. I have a real problem with the idea of member punishment, as opposed to list regulation. I don't think it is ever the list manager's job to *punish* anyone for their behavior on the list. Our role is only to retrict peoples' access to the list if they don't comply with list policies. That might *feel* like punishment to those who are restricted, but I think there's quite a difference. Punishment, in my mind, would have to go further, such as continuing to restrict someone's access even after they recognize why they were restricted and indicate that they'll do their best to comply in the future. In other words, list management isn't about modifying the behavior of the participants, it's about regulating the list content itself. Although the latter may affect the former, the purpose is different and the goals differ. If I aim to regulate the list content, I'm satisfied when the list is operating as its policies call for. But if my goal is to use punishments, rewards, etc., to persuade everyone who subscribes to adhere to the policies, then I'm not satisfied until any offenders change their behavior. So, while wearing my list manager hat, I don't care if an errant list member changes their behavior. They just won't have full access to the list if they step far enough outside of our (rather generous, IMO) policies. I hope that explains the distinction well. Nick _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
