Re: [OT] Re: Banned on NANOG

[nanog gonan <banned_on_nanog () yahoo com>]

--- Alex Bligh <alex () alex org uk> wrote:
> --On 04 December 2004 17:35 +0000 Paul Vixie
> <vixie () vix com> wrote:
>
> > third and last, there are a number of principles
> > up for grabs right now, and the folks who want to
> > grab them aren't universal in their motives or
> > goals.  some folks think that rules are bad. 
> > others think that susan is bad or that merit is
> > bad.  some say that rules are ok if the community
> > has visibility and ultimate control.
>
> I'd add: if people don't like NANOG, demand a full
> refund for your year's membership. Then go set up
> your own mail-server and work out your own
> moderation policies. If you do a better job, you'll
> win clueful subscribers.


It isn't we don't like NANOG, it's obvious we all do
or
we wouldn't be here.  It's we don't want the clueful
folks eliminated.  It reduces the S of the list and
has
little effect on N.  There is very little chance
someone's going to start a new NOG list and get the
quality of folks that're here.  Folks have too much
time invested here.  The question is, as Paul
proposed,
how can we get the community more visibility into the
process of banishment and more control over who is
banned?

How long are randy and the other cluefolks banned for?
(no I don't expect an answer...)


                
__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today! 
http://my.yahoo.com