From: Josh Cheek Date: 2010-04-15T15:27:05+09:00 Subject: Re: Who maintains ruby-talk? --000e0cd112d63c1dbe04844095c6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 12:50 AM, Seebs wrote: > Might be losing. Might not. Part of the point is that you think a bit > about what you WANT from moderation -- then you set things up to get it. > And then your Frankenstein eats you ;| On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 12:55 AM, Tony Arcieri wrote: > And, oh by the way, as I referenced in the OP, the MLM is subject to some > pretty ridiculous security vulnerabilities. Anyone can unsubscribe anyone > from ruby-talk, so long as the read it via e-mail. That's silly. If that's the case, you have a legitimate point, but I see it as distinct from establishing a moderator. On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 12:57 AM, Tony Arcieri wrote: > This is precisely the case in which I feel a moderator should step in. > Relying on "the community" to police itself is silly. > > Are you people really just a bunch of anarchists? I like moderation. I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it. --Thomas Jefferson ********** I find it rather curious that in the thread Tony starts, out of concern for spammers and security holes, he posts 4 times in a row over the course of ten minutes, and links to code that can be used to remove anyone from the list. Isn't he advocating an institution which, upon it's inception, would be obligated to ban him? --000e0cd112d63c1dbe04844095c6--