From: Hal Finney (hal@finney.org)
Date: Tue May 28 2002 - 19:37:13 MDT
Lee Corbin writes:
> Well, Dictionary.com suggests
Come on, guys, duelling dictionaries is a waste of time here. Who cares
what the word censorship means? The meaning of a word has no bearing
on what our policies should be with regard to topical focus.
> Having far less on-line experience than you, let me ask:
> has it in fact been a common problem on lists with people
> engaging in discussions that by their own admission have
> nothing to do with the obvious theme of a forum?
Well, yes and no. That is, it is a common problem for off-topic threads
to be created and to continue. However in almost all cases once someone
points out that they are off-topic and asks them to take it elsewhere,
the threads stop. So it is a common problem but not usually a big one.
>
> > Don't you agree that it makes sense to organize discussion forums
> > by topic? And that it follows that some things are off topic?
>
> Oh yes, no doubt about that. My question is always "who decides?".
> Some people might, for example, argue that the subject of infanticide
> *would* be on-topic for Extropians, since it's interwoven with the
> extropian topics of freedom and sentience. Others, naturally, would
> find the alleged tie-in far less persuasive. So who decides?
First you seek consensus. If not possible, then the list owner may
step in. Ultimately if there can be no agreement, lists sometimes
fragment as multiple other lists are created to cover many of the same
topics but with different moderation policies.
We have had a big problem on this list in the last few years with debates
about gun control. Those threads became extremely long and angry.
Finally these debates were ruled off-limits (I think by the ExI board).
At least one other list was then created as a place for Extropians to
discuss guns.
> If I saw a topic that struck me as totally unrelated to this
> forum, and for some reason I lurked it awhile out of general
> curiosity, then I might finally post to it and say, "What has
> this to do with this forum's theme?". If the response was, in
> effect, "nothing, really", then I'd suggest they go elsewhere.
That's what usually happens! Honest, 90% of the time that's all
there is to it.
> But the hard cases won't turn out that way, of course.
I've been wanting to write a thread on "hard cases make bad law" and how
it may apply to our recent discussions. But I haven't had the time to
develop it fully. I'll just say now that hard cases don't occur very
often in practice.
> So *my*
> own choices would reduce to continuing to debate its relevance
> with them, or plonking them, or ignoring them. What would you
> do? What should anyone do?
Lists do have owners, and ultimately they have to act as referees.
It's part of the responsibility of setting up a mailing list. Anyone can
start a new list, as a last resort.
Hal
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:14:27 MST