On one of the lists to which I subscribe, the list-owner quite
frequently sets subscribers to "no-post" for minor offenses, e.g.
posting more than 2 messages per day or content which is somewhat heated
but certainly (IMO) not in the "flame" category. (This is a very active
unmoderated list with a lot of political discussion and subscribers from
far right to far left.) The list-owner never informs the subscribers
when someone is no-posted; I was unaware until I became his latest
victim just how frequent it is. Generally, the no-posted subscriber can
get back to post status by contacting the list-owner and promising to
sin no more.
Frankly, it is beginning to feel like a second-grade classroom with
demerits being handed out for talking in class. I had somehow expected
that list discipline would be enforced by the subscribers, with anyone
who makes too much of an a--h--- of himself getting what-for from the
list, and the list-owner getting involved only for major, repeated
offenses (death threats, obscenity, etc.
My questions for the list-owners/managers/etc. out there:
1. Do you use no-post status as a disciplinary tool for subscribers?
2. If so, what offenses result in no-post status?
3. Do you take the no-post initiative yourself or wait for complaints
from other subscribers (either on or off list)?
4. Do you inform the subscribers when someone is no-posted and why?
5. How does a no-posted subscriber get back into post status?
And, of course, why do you do it the way you do it, and how is your way
working for your list? (I suppose it might help in comparing responses
to know what type of list you operate.)
Thanks,
GK
Follow-Ups:
|
|
