[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: List posting rules

From: Jean Louis
Subject: Re: List posting rules
Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2019 15:09:57 +0100
User-agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)

* Mark Wielaard <> [2019-11-03 14:58]:
> 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.

That is over-generalization and generalization is character of the
exact subject that was discussed on this mailing list in October and
now November 2019.

Generalization is the reason why RMS tends not to generalize people
and not call them criminals for reasons of being associated to
somebody who was already convicted criminal who have sent probably
entirely willing girl to a professor which honor RMS tried to
defend. RMS tried to stop generalizations in accusations.

> 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.

Oh, now is "prolific" meant to be moderated for reasons of being

* Overview of adj prolific

The adj prolific has 2 senses (first 1 from tagged texts)
1. (1) fecund, fertile, prolific -- (intellectually productive; "a prolific 
writer"; "a fecund imagination")
2. prolific, fertile -- (bearing in abundance especially offspring; "flying 
foxes are extremely prolific"; "a prolific pear tree")

I am not even sure that you wish to say what is the meaning of that

In relation to GNU governance, mailing lists like this one shall NOT
be moderate in the manner how you are doing it.

That would be one part of GNU governance that should be solved before
even attempting to solve GNU governance on a mailing list.

Constructive proposal: remove yourself as moderator.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]