Searching \ for '[ADMIN] PICList Content' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/microchip/devices.htm?key=pic
Search entire site for: 'PICList Content'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[ADMIN] PICList Content'
1999\09\28@211648 by Eric Oliver

flavicon
face
Friends,

I've been following the debate regarding OT messages. In fact, I've been
terribly busy of late and the debate is the only thread I've been watching.
Why ? Because I care what happens to the PICLIST.  I even considered
unsubscribing to eliminate the traffic in my inbox, but can't bear to do so.
I won't always be this busy, and I hope to return to a list that is the same
as when I left it.

We live in an imperfect world.  This list is comprised of over 1800 members
at last count. On any given day, you can almost gaurantee that someone will
mess up.  Forget to put [OT] on the subject, flame because they're having a
bad day, reply publicly when they intended to reply privately, and the list
goes on.  This is life.

As humans, we seem to be driven by the need to fix things.  Trouble is,
sometimes "broken" is a matter of opinion.  I agree that the PICLIST is not
perfect and there are messages that _I_ find annoying or unnecessary too.
Know what ? I delete them. BOOM ! 1/2 second later, they're gone.

What really disturbs me is that, if we "fix" the PICLIST, we will break it.
Possibly permanently.  As an analogy, consider well meaning public
officials. How many times have we all seen this ?  A leader, or group,
perceives there is a problem in our society. So they fix it.  Trouble is,
the "fix" produces undesirable ramifications. Possibly worse than the
original problem. Rather than admit that they made a mistake, they simply
attempt to fix the new problems. Before long, they have destroyed or
rendered what they were trying to fix as useless.

Creating a newsgroup, moderating the list, or splitting the list up all will
produce negative side effects.  I'm willing to bet on it.  Valuable members
will leave the list. Valuable content will go unpublished.

So I say again. Tolerance and self restraint will cure this list. And only
you can make it happen.

P.S. Mark, you once suggested using topics like the one in my subject line
to aid in filtering. Only problem is, there's never been any official
guidlines.  If you could post some guidlines, I'll be more than happy to
follow them.

Eric

1999\09\28@214007 by Sean H. Breheny

face picon face
AMEN! I think we would all be happier if we exercised the delete key more
often when there is excess content that we don't want to read! I agree,that
there should be fewer WAY-OT messages,but I do not think that any radical
solution will produce a better situation than we have.

In addition, I want to BEG Bob and Tjaart not to leave the list. I have
found both of them very helpful and I feel that the piclist would not BE
the same if they leave.

Sean


At 07:48 PM 9/28/99 -0500, you wrote:
>Friends,
>
>I've been following the debate regarding OT messages. In fact, I've been
>terribly busy of late and the debate is the only thread I've been watching.
>Why ? Because I care what happens to the PICLIST.  I even considered
[SNIP]
|
| Sean Breheny
| Amateur Radio Callsign: KA3YXM
| Electrical Engineering Student
\--------------=----------------
Save lives, please look at http://www.all.org
Personal page: http://www.people.cornell.edu/pages/shb7
spam_OUTshb7TakeThisOuTspamcornell.edu ICQ #: 3329174

1999\09\28@215521 by Peter van Hoof

flavicon
face
This list is already (on a small scale) moderated.
Didn't it surprise you that, on the last extremely off topic and religious
topic there where NO REPLY'S , at least not on the list!

(I WAS ONE OF THE POSTER'S OF A REPLY)

Peter


> Creating a newsgroup, moderating the list, or splitting the list
> up all will
> produce negative side effects.  I'm willing to bet on it.
> Valuable members
> will leave the list. Valuable content will go unpublished.

1999\09\28@235702 by Andy Kunz

flavicon
face
At 09:53 PM 9/28/1999 -0400, you wrote:
>This list is already (on a small scale) moderated.
>Didn't it surprise you that, on the last extremely off topic and religious
>topic there where NO REPLY'S , at least not on the list!

Maybe not after a while, but early on there were.  I got several of them,
to which I always replied private.

Andy

==================================================================
Eternity is only a heartbeat away - are you ready?  Ask me how!
------------------------------------------------------------------
.....andyKILLspamspam@spam@rc-hydros.com      http://www.rc-hydros.com     - Race Boats
andyspamKILLspammontanadesign.com  http://www.montanadesign.com - Electronics
==================================================================

1999\09\29@011033 by Mark Willis
flavicon
face
Nope;  Moderation specifically means that each & every message anyone
posts to the list, has to be approved by a moderator before any other
PICList members view it.

Think of it like, "Every message starts off deleted, unless one of the
moderators feels like undeleting it."

You'd know how busy the moderators were by how many messages they
released daily, in bursts when they were available online, and the huge
lags when they were busy.  It'd take about 10 people to make it work,
I'd guess?

Moderation is like customs:  An impassable choke point.  Not what *I*
want here <G>

What we have is a list full of people who (mostly) exercise
SELF-control, more or less <G>, and 2 admins who have the ability to
read all messages posted to the list eventually, and delete users who go
way out of line (I think I've deleted 2 whole users for that, maybe 3?)
- OTOH, I've deleted about 80 users at their request, when their ISP
changed (for example, .....userKILLspamspam.....isp1.com suddenly had to re-subscribe to
EraseMEuserspam_OUTspamTakeThisOuTnewmail.isp1a.com due to a merger, etc. - or they changed ISP's due
to an ISP closing or changing jobs - etc.)  Maybe more 'n 80;  With 2
lists, it'd be 150 deletions, give or take.  (Wild Guesses, I can go
count but'd rather not!)

 Mark

Peter van Hoof wrote:
{Quote hidden}

1999\09\29@055201 by Peter van Hoof

flavicon
face
Ok , then let's call the beastie by it's real name
My message was censored.

I think my reply was short, to the point, and reasonably courteous and for
the ones interested I can send it to you.

The original I replied to is archived on
www.infosite.com/%7Ejkeyzer/piclist/1999/Aug/2051.html
You will find a link to my reply , but not find the reply itself, nor any
other reply's to this very unacceptable post (to 92.4 percent of readers
anyway)

I know my message went out to the list, because I had a reply to it, not
from anyone reading the Piclist or the archive , but from the poster of the
original. I guess it was forwarded by one of the
censors/moderators/whateveryoucallit's.

And don't get me wrong, I do understand why it was done. The noise level
would have been high. Accept that this was probably the best way to deal
with this.

I wonder if there where others that posted to this thread.


Reply's in private please, enough said already.


Peter


> {Original Message removed}

1999\09\29@074040 by Max Toole

picon face
In a message dated 9/28/99 9:17:21 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
ericspamspam_OUTKEDCOENT.COM writes:

> Friends,
>
>  I've been following the debate regarding OT messages. In fact, I've been
>  terribly busy of late and the debate is the only thread I've been watching.
>  Why ? Because I care what happens to the PICLIST.  I even considered
>  unsubscribing to eliminate the traffic in my inbox, but can't bear to do
so.
>  I won't always be this busy, and I hope to return to a list that is the
same
{Quote hidden}

will
{Quote hidden}

Well said, Eric.  I agree whole heartedly.

By the way, are you in politics?  If not, maybe you should be.  I just might
vote for you  :-)

Max

1999\09\30@190721 by Mark Willis

flavicon
face
Far as I know, the *list* echoed your message - you're talking about
censorship of the ARCHIVE, not the list - Infosite may've censored your
message;  The PICList admins have little say over Infosite's behavior,
AFAIK.  Bet it's still in my inbox here.

 Mark

Peter van Hoof wrote:
{Quote hidden}

> > {Original Message removed}

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 1999 , 2000 only
- Today
- New search...