From: Seebs Date: 2010-04-15T04:35:49+09:00 Subject: Re: Who maintains ruby-talk? On 2010-04-14, Josh Cheek wrote: > Okay, but if we're going to take that route, then a moderator stopping a > post removes it from every single reader's eyes. A moderator banning someone > means that everyone who didn't consider it spam or trolling or inappropriate > or whatever is affected. A moderator a little too happy about their power > affects every single person. That sounds like it would be a problem if it happened. I've been on a lot of moderated lists, though, and it simply doesn't. > With this considering the net effect approach, I think the best argument > would be to weigh the cost of people having to deal with spam against the > cost of a moderator deciding what is spam and removing it, and the risk a > moderator presents, the likelihood of finding a moderator who can be trusted > and is reliable, and the avenues of moderation available, what can be done > if the moderator is unreasonable, and how to decide they are unreasonable > (of course, we are electing them to hide information from us, so would we > even know if they were being too heavy handed?). Reality: The moderator probably does the same thing Usenet moderators do, and it costs almost nothing and removes almost nothing. Nearly any technical group is rich with reliable and trustworthy people. Seriously, these are well solved problems. -s -- Copyright 2010, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / usenet-nospam@seebs.net http://www.seebs.net/log/ <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!