On Sun, 2019-11-03 at 11:52 +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote: > Jean Louis, le dim. 03 nov. 2019 11:02:38 +0100, a ecrit: > > All of those messages were censored in a biased impartial way, as they > > allowed other side to talk, but not the opposition. > > Please actually count how many mails actually got to the list for each > person.
Right. There are just ~3 people who write more messages to the list each day than everybody else combined. High volume in itself isn't reason for rejecting messages. But when sending just one or two messages a day to the list they will all be accepted. The problem is that precisely the highly prolific writers also often sent messages that are clearly unkind and non-constructive. I am not sure what the best solution to that is. Currently we moderate everything, because emergency moderation mode is on. And I think that was a good decision given how heated some of the debates have been. But it does give the impression of arbitrary "censorship", even though it only impacts a very low number of (highly prolific) posters (which would have been put on moderation anyway after having been warned) We could go back to only moderate "new list member postings" and add a "member verbosity threshold" to place only prolific posters on moderation. But then we need list members to help out more making sure to point out unkind and non-constructive messages. Cheers, Mark