Re: List posting rules

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

   > > 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. 

When I write email, I queue it up -- that means I can "send" several
messages to a list in one day -- even if they are written over the
period of a week.  How much people write, or do not write is not a
good metric for deciding on moderation, we all do our computing
differently, we all communicate differently.

   I am not sure what the best solution to that is.

No, or minimal moderation -- as has always been the case for GNU
lists.  It is better to let a off-topic message through, and
communicate to the user of the case than to reject it.  It is better
to ask the person to use a kinder tone than to reject a message.

Moderation is hard, it is annoying, but the general rule is to always
let messages through.  Spending the extra effort in creating a kind
environment, a hard, and long process, is a worth while goal -- even
if that means sometimes accepting messages that might "break the
rules"...