nanog mailing list archives
Re: [OT] Re: Banned on NANOG
From: Richard Irving <rirving () antient org>
Date: Sat, 04 Dec 2004 15:22:07 -0500
Alex Bligh 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 isbad or that merit is bad. some say that rules are ok if the community hasvisibility and ultimate control.I'd add: if people don't like NANOG, demand a full refund for youryear'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 cluefulsubscribers.
Don't confuse historical momentum, with a fair set of rules, base fallacy. Susan has been more than a touch heavy handed and biased on occasion in the past. I myself won a -=>reprieve<=- from a banning, as it was determined to have "politically motivated", circa 2001. And, just to be fair, I have -lost- a challenge to a Susan originated "6 month banning", as well. It seems controversial subjects may trigger suppres^^^^^suspension of speech. :P Dissing Bush backed agendas appear to be one of the triggers. (See current Doonesbury, this is not a limited trend, BTW ;) http://images.ucomics.com/comics/db/2004/db041201.gif I seem to recall one of my/Susans trigger points was to call the US politicians attempting to create the anti-spam laws, "a bunch of ineffective idiots, attempting to legislate that which needs to be solved with technology." [ So, it has been a while after passing the laws, look around..... Was I really that wrong ? ] But, it didn't matter, it wasn't politically correct at the time... and I only came off ban a couple months back. Caution -is- suggested, no matter how right you are, it -is- their list. So, my suggestion, dissent with -extreme- diplomacy. Remember, the Kings of old weren't too keen on dissent, and if it wasn't for the Court Jester, the opposing view would -never- have been heard. Regular People kept "losing their heads" over dissent... Only the giggling cartwheeling fool could get away with it.... ;) http://images.ucomics.com/comics/db/2004/db041202.gif So Caution, History -has- been known to repeat itself. Might I suggest a really colorful jingly hat ? :) < G >
Alex
Current thread:
- RE: [OT] Re: Banned on NANOG Joe Johnson (Dec 02)
- RE: [OT] Re: Banned on NANOG william(at)elan.net (Dec 02)
- RE: [OT] Re: Banned on NANOG Alex Rubenstein (Dec 02)
- Re: [OT] Re: Banned on NANOG JC Dill (Dec 02)
- Re: [OT] Re: Banned on NANOG Paul Vixie (Dec 03)
- Re: [OT] Re: Banned on NANOG Patrick W Gilmore (Dec 04)
- Re: [OT] Re: Banned on NANOG Paul G (Dec 04)
- Re: [OT] Re: Banned on NANOG Paul Vixie (Dec 04)
- Re: [OT] Re: Banned on NANOG Alex Bligh (Dec 04)
- Re: [OT] Re: Banned on NANOG Richard Irving (Dec 04)
- Re: [OT] Re: Banned on NANOG Dan Hollis (Dec 04)
- Re: [OT] Re: Banned on NANOG nanog gonan (Dec 06)
- RE: [OT] Re: Banned on NANOG Alex Rubenstein (Dec 02)
- Re: [OT] Re: Banned on NANOG Bill Nash (Dec 04)
- Re: [OT] Re: Banned on NANOG Stephen Sprunk (Dec 04)
- Re: [OT] Re: Banned on NANOG Bill Nash (Dec 04)
- Re: [OT] Re: Banned on NANOG Daniel Golding (Dec 04)
- Re: [OT] Re: Banned on NANOG Suresh Ramasubramanian (Dec 04)
- RE: [OT] Re: Banned on NANOG william(at)elan.net (Dec 02)
- Re: [OT] Re: Banned on NANOG Patrick W Gilmore (Dec 04)
- Re: Banned on NANOG J.D. Falk (Dec 04)
- Re: Banned on NANOG Bill Nash (Dec 04)