Re: list moderation

[Alexandre François Garreau]

Le mardi 5 novembre 2019, 11:59:18 CET Ludovic Courtès a écrit :
> silenced the rest of us.

How’s that?  Pre-moderation were off, afaiu.

Also, what likely best silenced some people is likely the previous hours and 
timezones and the sleep that commonly occurs for them during them.

> In [24 hours] we got ~100 messages, the majority of which were written by
> the same 3 people.

Cannot we have long discussions on details (that will interest a few) if we 
dare? most of it was nitpicking trying to make people realize the outcoming of 
their languages, and let’s recall ~100 message absolutely doesn’t mean ~100 
messages going the same direction… actually, it’s pretty much the opposite: a 
high amount of messages in a short time is much more likely to represent 
opposing and differing views in a (possibly constructive and enriching) debate 
or arguing.

Furthermore, as said, it was by night in Europe.  Not all can be active by the 
same timezone.  Reasoning by times as short as 24 hours on an such 
international list (and containing people not running by the same sleeptimes 
as most people) is not really relevant, maybe even meaningless.

Note also all these messages were (as it is common with subject deviations) in 
the same sub-sub[-etc.]-threads.  With subject changing.  So it’s easy to fold 
and ignore with most MUAs…  While it’s much less easy for most people to 
automatize counting of messages number and different people number who were 
emitting them (with a commonly said “user-friendly” MUA, as the KMail I’m 
currently using (be Gnus config back quickly)).

> Worse, many of those messages were personal attacks,

Only the first messages were personal attacks (against all sides, actually).  
Hence, this issue is totally separate from the quantity of message, and you’re 
misrepresenting things by presenting facts grouped that way without relations.  

Putting the accent on the quantity of messages, you’re even putting in 
question that, proportionally “many” were attacks, there were maybe a few 
indeed.

Also note that’s why it made so much messages going forth in response for such 
behavior.  To hatred, attacks, defamation, accusations, etc. I prefer positive 
reaction (explanation, discussion, learning and mutual understanding) rather 
than to negative ones (censorship, moderation).  Not all agree, though.

> and many others were off-topic for this list.

Define topic then.  You could say “GNU”, but then, let’s add “GNU governance” 
then “GNU governance people” then “GNU governance current chief” then “GNU 
governance current chief attacks” then “GNU governance current chief attack 
response” (which was personal attack).  So I guess until then everything is 
univoquely on-topic.  But then, if you say something as “this is an attack / 
insult”, “attacks / insult should not be done” it doesn’t really regards GNU, 
does it?  or maybe *the later* does because it regards “GNU lists kindness  
objectives”… but then the former doesn’t, and also discussion about “what is 
an insult / attack” is off-topic…

But, when discussing about anything on-topic, we might use tools… such as 
softwares, but also language, expressions, words… some might be insulting, 
attacking, etc. But however, if any tool we use (including words and their 
meaning, definitions) for anything on-topic lacks a central and connected place 
for discussing (for instance a collective dictionary that would define most 
terms and whose definitions would be voted on and modified by users (most 
dictionaries don’t agree this and even wiktionary actually follows the 
former)), isn’t it useful to discuss its internal (and definitions) in the same 
place? hence doing sometimes off-topic discussions?

I’ve not seen *one* message concerning what’s topic.  I tend to keep stuff 
public whenever possible so people can know, participate, answer if they 
believe we talked of them or of something or some behavior concerning them, 
but would have gladly moved the ~100 messages off-list if any did