Who maintains ruby-talk?
in [Ruby]
|
Prev: how can i add tones to my pc's sound card
Next: Undefined method `ire' with rubygems on mswin32
From: Seebs on 14 Apr 2010 14:00 On 2010-04-14, Robert Dober <robert.dober(a)gmail.com> wrote: > As a poster and quite nonconformist I will always step on some folk's > toe. If there were a moderator I probably could not. Why do you think this? A decent list moderator is not going to freak out about the normal social noise that makes a list a viable community. Good moderators don't do a whole lot; they just clip the extreme edges and nudge people towards courtesy, and the rest takes care of itself. -s -- Copyright 2010, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / usenet-nospam(a)seebs.net http://www.seebs.net/log/ <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!
From: Seebs on 14 Apr 2010 13:57 On 2010-04-14, Josh Cheek <josh.cheek(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Sorry, I do my email online, so used the wrong terminology. I just mean that > gmail will take 50 posts about ruids, and group them all together in a > single thread, so it doesn't spam my inbox. It also filters the threads out > and sets them in their own separate area, so they never touch my inbox at > all. If your _client_ ;) didn't do this, I can see how the list could spam > your inbox. You don't seem to understand. It doesn't matter whether you *see* them. If they're sent, they're taking up bandwidth for every single reader, and that is a significant cost. > Is email bandwidth even an issue these days? Yes. It's a HUGE issue. Largely because about 96% of it is spam. > I stream all of my music, all > day. Pretty sure one minute of streaming music exceeds an entire month's > worth of emails (assuming no attachments). Nope. More importantly, remember that the emails go to *every reader*. -s -- Copyright 2010, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / usenet-nospam(a)seebs.net http://www.seebs.net/log/ <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!
From: Intransition on 14 Apr 2010 15:06 On Apr 14, 10:36 am, Robert Klemme <shortcut...(a)googlemail.com> wrote: > 2010/4/14 Rich McGrath <rich.mcgr...(a)bitmob.com>: > > > Maybe this mailing list might be better suited in a forum. > > Well, a mailing list is a forum as well. :-) > > Also, please note this:http://www.ruby-forum.com/topic/207947#905025 And there is the Google Group as well. Pretty much puts all the worry about garbage in your inbox to rest. Of course, if your heart is set on using your inbox, then the trick is to black list people like thunk --of course then you'll miss it when thunk actually says something useful... well maybe not, but you get the point. I setup the Google Group archive, and I can black list people at that end if I want, I have never done so (expect obvious spam). I almost did so for thunk however. But in the end I decided just to give it a few days, and as usually the noise eventually died down.
From: Josh Cheek on 14 Apr 2010 15:08 [Note: parts of this message were removed to make it a legal post.] On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 1:05 PM, Seebs <usenet-nospam(a)seebs.net> wrote: > On 2010-04-14, Josh Cheek <josh.cheek(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Sorry, I do my email online, so used the wrong terminology. I just mean > that > > gmail will take 50 posts about ruids, and group them all together in a > > single thread, so it doesn't spam my inbox. It also filters the threads > out > > and sets them in their own separate area, so they never touch my inbox at > > all. If your _client_ ;) didn't do this, I can see how the list could > spam > > your inbox. > > You don't seem to understand. > > It doesn't matter whether you *see* them. If they're sent, they're taking > up bandwidth for every single reader, and that is a significant cost. > > Okay, but if we're going to take that route, then a moderator stopping a post removes it from every single reader's eyes. A moderator banning someone means that everyone who didn't consider it spam or trolling or inappropriate or whatever is affected. A moderator a little too happy about their power affects every single person. With this considering the net effect approach, I think the best argument would be to weigh the cost of people having to deal with spam against the cost of a moderator deciding what is spam and removing it, and the risk a moderator presents, the likelihood of finding a moderator who can be trusted and is reliable, and the avenues of moderation available, what can be done if the moderator is unreasonable, and how to decide they are unreasonable (of course, we are electing them to hide information from us, so would we even know if they were being too heavy handed?). If enough people think it is a worthwhile trade off then yeah, lets look into it. But at this point, people calling for moderation haven't even qualified their complaints. "rampant with security vulnerabilities, and in need of moderation." "recent high volume of off-topic posts" "gotten to an unusable space" "high volume of off-topic email" Not one person has given a single example. What are the issues? What if they are talking about posts _you_ consider relevant, useful, important? There have been several calls to explain "I can't see any'off topic' threads" "need to clarify specifically what their issue is" But so far, we're just taking peoples word that what irritates them irritates everyone and should be removed. Should we really be considering taking action to solve a problem we haven't identified? How do we even know a moderator will help? Maybe the moderator doesn't have an issue with whatever posts are bothering these people. Then we've created responsibilities and elected representatives to solve a problem that it either doesn't solve, or that was localized to the people calling for action. If you want moderation, please explicitly lay out examples of issues you have, and why you think a moderator would resolve these.
From: Seebs on 14 Apr 2010 15:25
On 2010-04-14, Josh Cheek <josh.cheek(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Okay, but if we're going to take that route, then a moderator stopping a > post removes it from every single reader's eyes. A moderator banning someone > means that everyone who didn't consider it spam or trolling or inappropriate > or whatever is affected. A moderator a little too happy about their power > affects every single person. That sounds like it would be a problem if it happened. I've been on a lot of moderated lists, though, and it simply doesn't. > With this considering the net effect approach, I think the best argument > would be to weigh the cost of people having to deal with spam against the > cost of a moderator deciding what is spam and removing it, and the risk a > moderator presents, the likelihood of finding a moderator who can be trusted > and is reliable, and the avenues of moderation available, what can be done > if the moderator is unreasonable, and how to decide they are unreasonable > (of course, we are electing them to hide information from us, so would we > even know if they were being too heavy handed?). Reality: The moderator probably does the same thing Usenet moderators do, and it costs almost nothing and removes almost nothing. Nearly any technical group is rich with reliable and trustworthy people. Seriously, these are well solved problems. -s -- Copyright 2010, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / usenet-nospam(a)seebs.net http://www.seebs.net/log/ <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated! |