From: Peter Hickman on
[Note: parts of this message were removed to make it a legal post.]

As annoying as thunk was he appears to have gone. I had forgotten about him
already.

If thats your worst example then I think we can live without a 'posting
czar'. Same with spam, there is very little of that on the list.

Chill, it's not as bad as you think.

From: Robert Klemme on
2010/4/15 Dylan Northrup <docx(a)io.com>:

> If you believe having a moderator (or group of moderators) will
> make the list a tool of control by the dictator(s) at the top, your belief
> goes against the vast majority of historical examples of moderated e-mail
> lists.

Maybe I want to continue to believe that the Ruby community is special
- at least in some ways (for example, because it does not need
moderation). You might call that "romantic" (which I believe I am
generally not) but you would have to concede that it has worked out
remarkably good for the longest time. If you argue with a recent
hiccup in favor of getting rid of a tradition then this is a weak
argument in my eyes.

Kind regards

robert

--
remember.guy do |as, often| as.you_can - without end
http://blog.rubybestpractices.com/

From: Robert Dober on
On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 7:45 AM, Robert Klemme
<shortcutter(a)googlemail.com> wrote:
<snip>
>> As a poster and quite nonconformist I will always step on some folk's
>> toe. If there were a moderator I probably could not.
>
> That should make you wary of moderation, shouldn't it?
Honestly I really do not know. I have this tendency to see everyone's
arguments, I see Tony's I see your's, I guess I need a mind of my own,
anyone having one to spare ;).
Seriously I believe much in liberty of expression thus I kind of like
my second thought to have a filtered condensed version rather than a
moderation.

Cheers
R.

--

The best way to predict the future is to invent it.
-- Alan Kay

From: Aldric Giacomoni on
Robert Klemme wrote:
>
> Maybe I want to continue to believe that the Ruby community is special
> - at least in some ways (for example, because it does not need
> moderation). You might call that "romantic" (which I believe I am
> generally not) but you would have to concede that it has worked out
> remarkably good for the longest time. If you argue with a recent
> hiccup in favor of getting rid of a tradition then this is a weak
> argument in my eyes.

I have the same point of view as Robert. I like 'us'. Ruby-talk, in my
eyes, does not need moderation. There is a difference between:
- holding back a joke because it is inappropriate
- holding back a joke because one would get banned

I also realize it's not -exactly- the kind of moderation you meant, but
there's a small step from one to the other.

I gave thunk his own forum. All he wanted was a place to write stuff on
the internet. He can yell as loud as he wants over there; he is even the
admin. He is not evil, just misguided. Ever notice how the worst
children will suddenly become great kids when they get a toy they like?
(damn - my analogy breaks down again. When they get bored, they become
'terrible' kids again!)

When ruby-talk grows further, there may be a need for moderation - but
without a pattern, I think we may be jumping the gun.
--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

From: James Britt on
Peter Hickman wrote:
> As annoying as thunk was he appears to have gone. I had forgotten about him
> already.
>
> If thats your worst example then I think we can live without a 'posting
> czar'. Same with spam, there is very little of that on the list.
>
> Chill, it's not as bad as you think.


Indeed.

Threads about spam/troll problems tend to overwhelm the actual
spam/troll problem.




--
James Britt

www.jamesbritt.com - Playing with Better Toys
www.ruby-doc.org - Ruby Help & Documentation
www.rubystuff.com - The Ruby Store for Ruby Stuff
www.neurogami.com - Smart application development