Dear James, What about the non-Buddhist groups, what do you think is an optimum number to block? Is there an absolute number (i.e., there will always be 3-4 pests irrespective of number), or does this tend to be proportionate to the number of members in the group? Logically, it should be directly proportionate to the number of people in the group, but I can see a counter-intuitive argument for inversely proportionate.
I am a bit confused about the philosophy of blocking, as well. I would earlier have said that the only people who should be blocked were those who sent sanctimonious private mails scolding you for top posting, but I have been thinking this through, and this does not seem to go with what Voltaire summed up so succinctly. I am not as familiar with Buddhist doctrines as I should be, so what's your view on blocking anf Buddhism? On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 5:33 AM, James Bonilla <[email protected]> wrote: > Dear Listers and Udhay, > > Comments below. > > On Mon, Sep 7, 2015 at 11:11 PM, Udhay Shankar N <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 10:57 AM, James Bonilla <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > But there is one more thing: don't forget to watch out for the hashtag > > > #silklist_intro on the Buddhist forums. Those forums have a clearly > > defined > > > set of rules. And those rules have worked well. That is why I plan to > > stick > > > to those forums, where I know quality, non-abusive discussions can be > > had. > > > About this list and its politics, I frankly know very little. > > > > > > > As a quick reminder, the most important rule of silklist is "Assume > > goodwill". This means that you expect the listmembers to be acting in > good > > faith as a default position, in the absence of other evidence. > > > > I'd encourage you to keep that in mind. Also, keep silklist discussions > on > > silklist, please. > > > > Udhay > > > > I have seen all too often that one can never assume goodwill. I will do so > -- since you request me to do it. > > But I am going to have to do one thing right away: I am going to publish a > list of people I am going to block/filter out. Even on Buddhist groups, I > generally publish a list of people who I have blocked. I am quite open > about the people whose opinions I have filtered out. One mustn't assume > that one's emails are going to be appealing to all. Generally speaking, > blocking one or two people is sufficient on most Buddhist groups. Somehow, > it works. There is always one or two people who need to be blocked. After > that, things really settle down. (I know why this happens, and it has to do > with the sociology of the Internet, but I won't bore you with the "High IQ" > reasons). > > In fact, I think it is good practice to just go ahead and block someone. > This way, you have at least told the other person that you have blocked > them. Following that idea to its logical conclusion, I think I should > publish a list of people I shall plan to block. Before I even made the > first post on this List, I went through some of the earlier discussions. > > Based on this, I have decided that I am going to block the following > people. This list seems to generally have goodwill, so perhaps, that is why > I don't have to block a lot of people. To all these people I am > blocking/filtering out, I will simply say that there is no reason to assume > that one is going to be compatible on the Internet with everyone, and > blocking is often the right thing to do. Good luck with the rest of your > life! > > - Eugen Leitl > > - Double O Seven > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > ((Udhay Shankar N)) ((udhay @ pobox.com)) ((www.digeratus.com)) > > >
