Re: Moderated groups (Was:Re: Lebanon)

"Ian Davis" <ijdavis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:ea5u7p$88o$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In article <4ilurtF4deolU1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Yowie <yowie9644.DIESPAMDIE@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Ian Davis" <ijdavis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:ea3ri7$d5n$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

<snip>

I wonder if you would agree, perhaps that if there was an open invitation
to
the community to discuss -for example - the water shortage issue and the
merits of the proposed solutions of recycled water versus desalination
[1],
whether it would be appropriate for anyone, whether they were from the
community in question or not, to come into that meeting, and start talking
about the sexual activities. Or verbally abuse some of the people who had
come ot he meeting. Or perhaps try to sell people Multi-level marketting.
Or
just talk incessently about whatever it was they wanted to talk about. Or
hijack the meeting so that the people who had attended in good faith to
work
towards a solution were now at each other's throats. Or to start
performing
a free performance of the show _Cats_ that would otherwise cost a small
fortune to attend.

Is that sort of behaviour welcome in your view?


I get hundreds of e-mails per day that are in no way welcome. They are
in reality intensely bothersome. Does that mean that I should avoid
posting
my e-mail address here the better to avoid them. I'm pretty stubborn
when it comes to changing my ways, even if they generate unwelcome
behaviour. Is that right or wrong in your view?

*Your* choice to continue to use an unmunged addy in cyberspace, when you
know the consequences, is not wrong. How could it be?

Now, spammers who jam our inboxes and foce many of us to mung our addresses,
force us to pay for their drivel, yes, thats wrong.

<snip>

Would there be any value, knowing the freaks out there in Usenet, to have
alt.sexual.abuse.recovery.moderated as an *unmoderated* group? Can I ask
you
to perhaps browse alt.religion.wicca.moderated and then compare it to its
umoderated parent group?

Some groups should be moderated.

That is pretty much the essence of my stance. Some groups need to be
moderated. Some do better for being moderated, some dont. Moderation isn't
necessarily a bad or wrong thing, merely a reaction to those who seek to
threaten the integrity, value and meaning of the group by being disruptive,
disrespectful and abusive. Of course, *over*moderation or inappropriate
moderation, even biased moderation, well, most tools can be used in a manner
that can cause harm, even if hteir original intent was to be helpful.

I don't believe that those who have suffered
abuse should be exposed to further abuse when they seek help dealing with
that abuse. But as one who has posted on
alt.sexual.abuse.recovery.moderated
that one post now is one that while highly relevant to the subject matter
here,
might perhaps better have been one not submitted. You be the judge Yowsie.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sexual.abuse.recovery/msg/4d920ad98007f867?hl=en

I have too much of an emotional stake in tht topic to hope to give an
unbiased answer. in effect, i am his wife, having 'divorced' my ex after
years of emotional and physical abuse. I went on to remarry, this time, in a
happy healthy marriage. My ex didnt' accept our seperation or my remarriage
for 8 years. He still cannot see any of his own hand in our seperation,
laying 100% of hte blame at my feet (I am not blameless either, but its not
100% my fault that the mariage failed), but does seem somewhat more
accepting of finality of our divorce.

As I see it, there are many ways of being *unfaithful*, sexual indescretion
is actually one of the more forgivable ones, IMHO.

<snip>

There was an individual who posted here for many years. Before your time
but his name was David Christainsen.

I think I met him briefly before he left. He had appoximately the same
opinion of me - a husband leaver - as he did his ex wife. I didn't pay much
attention to him.

<snip>

Not all problems have easier answers. The most vexing, don't have
solutions
no matter what one does. I am not saying that moderated forums are wrong.
I am not saying that you are in anyway wrong to serve as a moderator. But
I am saying that fundamentally a moderated forum differs from an
unmoderated
one, and it is not an open and shut case that moderated forums are better,
and neither is it for me a simple choice for me to support a moderated
forum
on Quaker issues, at the expense of this one.

That is of couse you choice. i assume you don't have room in your life for
two Quaker forums, one unmoderated (ie, thos one) and one that is moderated?

Otherwise, I think we agree: Moderation has its place, but can and is abused
sometimes.

Yowie


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: In need of c.l.p.discussion
    ... > policy would devolve into constant crossposting between the two groups. ... Without moderation there would be no way to ...
    (comp.lang.python)
  • Re: Message rejected by the automaton in RRAM thread ...
    ... a message from the automaton on WHY the message was rejected. ... all posters, posted to this thread, are autorejected, and this rejection ... individual moderation decisions or not. ...
    (rec.radio.amateur.policy)
  • Re: an true information theory
    ... t.o is not moderated by a human, filtering out verbally abusive posts. ... It is moderated by a 'bot, which filters out excessive cross-posts, and ... monthly-posted Moderation FAQ, ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Mormons and Jews
    ... > My name is Arden Eby... ... The very next post i read through in the moderation queue? ... Jeanne's Two Laws of Chocolate: If there is no chocolate in the ...
    (soc.religion.mormon)
  • Re: Personal abuse
    ... always been understood in uk.r.c moderation. ... I've always been of the opinion that the personal abuse clause is not ... If Jeff said that then he'd be on manual as a result. ... The other thing is that manualization isn't only intended to ...
    (uk.religion.christian)
Loading