<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">What I would expect from the moderator each time they decide a message should not be allowed through to the list, is to contact the sender specifying the objectionable language and asking them to re-word it and re-send it so the moderator can let it through the second time around.<br><div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 12px; "><br class="Apple-interchange-newline">Brett McDowell | <a href="http://info.brettmcdowell.com">http://info.brettmcdowell.com</a> | <a href="http://KantaraInitiative.org">http://KantaraInitiative.org</a></span></span>
</div>
<br><div><div>On Nov 30, 2009, at 9:10 AM, Andrew Arnott wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite">Personally I don't like the moderation idea. If judging what is "offensive" is indeed subjective, then judging each individual email rather than an individual's tendency will force that subjective decision to be much more frequent. It of course is a burden on at least some member(s) of the community to perform moderation, and all as the result of a deviant's unwillingness to abide by rules. <div>
<br></div><div>Just my opinion, but it seems like banning is a good, cheap way to send a clear message that someone needs to "shape up or ship out". </div><div><br></div><div>But moderation would work too I think.<br clear="all">
--<br>Andrew Arnott<br>"I [may] not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." - S. G. Tallentyre<br>
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 6:00 AM, Brett McDowell <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:email@brettmcdowell.com">email@brettmcdowell.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div class="im">On Nov 30, 2009, at 8:47 AM, Andrew Arnott wrote:<br>
<br>
> It sounds to me like everyone agrees that perhaps the ideal order of handling an issue like this is "guidance -> warning -> banning".<br>
<br>
</div>Actually, the exchange between Dick and David opens up a new approach that might prove to be common ground between those that want banning and those that oppose it. What if the process is modified to "guidance -> warning -> moderating" and we take banning off the table?<br>
<br>
Our first concern with this might be the logistics of finding someone the community will trust who also has the time and energy to agree to moderating a given subscriber who has been put on this type of "probation". One way to remove the logistical concerns would be for OIDF to provide this as a service to the community. Since no one wants moderation of technical substance, I don't think the moderator need be a subject matter expert and therefore perhaps someone from the OIDF Secretariat (Global Inventures?) could take this on, on an as needed basis? This service should be invoked quite rarely... perhaps this one episode will actually be the last. </blockquote>
</div><br></div>
</blockquote></div><br></body></html>