Ric Moore wrote:
> Avi, would you agree that your are actively participating in an
> off-topic non-technical thread because the topic matters to you?
> Sure, you can "justify" it from your set of perspectives, while
> someone else might tag is as objectionable noise.
Yep. I'm somewhat justifying it to myself because it's entirely in a
thread whose subject is both from a list admin and noted as off-topic,
but on-topic (sort-of) to that subject. Anyone who isn't interested
will just ignore the thread, since it's obviously not a support one.
> Yet, no one calls you on this, as you are respected and quite often
> come up with something useful and you try to help others. An
> "over-zealous" moderator might have already pulled the plug on you.
> And me, and n00p and Go Lip and anyone else that pursues a topic that
> is off-topic, just for fun.
As they should. But, were this list to actually be moderated, then this
conversation would be here in the first place
> Quite a few humans will resist the notion that we become answer
> spewing automatisms (the process of objectification) as that would
> suit you. Trained seals bark for fish. How are we being paid? It's
> not in money, it's in a sense of community. Good neighbors know their
> neighbors. They talk over the fence. Here, we enjoy writing.
> Otherwise, we wouldn't be here. If you figure we should all SHUT-UP
> until a question of merit comes across, spew an answer and then
> SHUT-UP again, that's a rather joyless proposition.
I don't. I sit somewhere in the vast middle ground between the mess we
have at the minute and this dictatorial nightmare you and Cybe are
> But, here I am, responding to an off-topic thread, in order for you
> to see another perspective. We have just participated in a very human
> exchange of ideas and perspectives. Heavens forbid we've offended
> another's sensibilities and rigid (read controlling - shoulds- my way
> or the highway - failure to live up to my expectations, all part of
> the over 100 elements of criminal thinking) mindset that explodes
> when given responsibility that they are not trained by temperament,
> experience or schooling to handle. Anyone truly qualified for the job
> wouldn't want it. And that leaves... ?
I've done it before. I've been told I was rather good at it, and I
wasn't particularly opposed to doing it. Perhaps they were just
peculiarly good communities?
Like I say, only appointing good moderators isn't *hard*, and demoting
less good ones even less so. And moderators don't need to make sure
that nobody ever says something that isn't a support question or answer.
I'd *like* to see some moderators who basically act as coercion to keep
threads on-topic to their subject line. I've no desire to get rid of
all OT, and I don't think Canonical do either; so long as it's easy for
the people who don't want OT to avoid it.
Sure, perhaps I'm wrong here. But then I'd appreciate it if the
opposition was to that, not to the broader concept of moderation at
all. It doesn't always need to be the dictatorial regime you appear to
believe it must turn out to be.
ubuntu-users mailing list
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users