I agree with Erik. Having some moderators with a light touch would make this list a more pleasant place. -- Michael Moore On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 10:58 AM, Erik Anderson <erikerik at gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 1:56 PM, Rick Tanner <rick at real-time.com> wrote: > >> Anytime there has been an issue or problem, the list has moderated >> itself. >> > > I think this works the vast majority of the time. However as we've seen in > the last months (years?), there are several instances where certain users > are creating more harm than good, and are driving people away from the > list. It is for these specific instance that come along once or twice a > year, where more heavy-handed moderation is required. > > >> Do you, as list subscribers, want a person or people in charge of >> moderating content? >> > > I *do not* advocate full moderation of the list, nor do I advocate a > situation where new list subscribers need to be "approved". > > What I *would* like, would be the ability for list moderators to put > problem users into a penalty box of sorts, by setting enabling moderation > for their account. > > >> If so, then the list needs to agree on what is acceptable and not >> acceptable to post in the list and a course of action to take when the >> unacceptable happens. And another thing to keep in mind, any policy >> creation will need to retroactively apply to all subscribers on the >> list now. How well is that going to be received? >> > > I think it will be received well. I don't think anyone is suggesting > anything drastic. Rather, just giving the tools to a few community members > to help mitigate issues that pop up from time to time. Every single other > mailing list I'm on (technical or otherwise), has some form of moderation > that can be imposed on problem users, or to be enabled on a very short-term > basis list-wide to halt flame wars or the such. > > >> If this should proceed, then how are moderators chosen? >> I.e., nomination and voting or strictly volunteer or some other >> method? How many are allowed? >> > > I think we can put together a list of 2-3 people, bring their names > forward to the list, and see if there are any strong objections. If there > are, then perhaps we'll need to use a more formal voting process. > > And the "other duties" such as: (to name a few) >> >> * How are tasks tracked between moderators to make sure one does not >> undo the work of the others? >> * Is there a need for any kind of audit trail for moderators and >> their moderation actions? >> * Is there a chain of command between moderators? >> * How are disagreements and policy discussion between moderators >> handled? >> * What course of actions can a subscriber take dispute a moderation >> ruling? >> * How is such a dispute handled? >> > > My hope is that any group of moderators would be able to interact with > each other in a mutually-respectful manner, not requiring all of the above > questions to be fully sorted out, at least initially. With the very low > moderation load anticipated, things like task tracking will hopefully not > become an issue. With regards to an audit trail, I presume that mailman > keeps a log of moderation actions, though I haven't fully looked into it to > see if this is true. If some sort of log is required, it could take the > form as something as simple as a Google Spreadsheet (perhaps with a web > form front-end) that moderators use to log moderation actions. > > -Erik > > > _______________________________________________ > TCLUG Mailing List - Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota > tclug-list at mn-linux.org > http://mailman.mn-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/tclug-list > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mailman.mn-linux.org/pipermail/tclug-list/attachments/20140401/36ac3693/attachment-0001.html>