Bernie Cosell muttered through clenched teeth:
> [but I have to admit, that the transition from
> "list-administrator" to "list-owner" as a matter of actual policy
> and almost-property-rights, rather than just syntactic
> convenience, still sticks in my craw --- I figure I can set (and
> enforce) rules for a list as its *administrator* without having
> to make like I "own" the list]
One would hope so. Otoh, one private list I'm subscribed to
was created precisely in order to have a forum for things that
couldn't be mentioned, on the usenet group we founders had met on,
without igniting a flame war. (We even put a footer on every
message, saying:
> To unsubscribe, send a message to [the moderator] or breach the
> canons of civility that govern our interchange in this group.)
When it does nevertheless happen that two subscribers get a
tad bit less civil than the rest like, the moderator is
automatically roped in -- he usually volunteers -- to call time-out
and suggest taking the topic under the Net. (It did get so bad,
just once, that we kicked a member out. The moderator polled the
other members on that decision, and on the terms under which he
would be and eventually was allowed to subscribe again, and on the
decision to take him back.)
So there's a fine line for those to walk who recognize that
power is evil, but that some things have to be done -- and it'll be
a different line for every list and every walker, I guess.
--
Beartooth the Stubborn <karhunhammas (at) lserv.com>, double retiree,
linux hatchling w/ RH 7.2; ssh'd (DSL) to pine 4.43 on ISP's SunOS 5.8;
Opera 6.02, Pan 0.11.2, Galeon 1.2.5, & Mozilla 1.0
Neo-Redneck, Weird by Nature -- and with Gusto!
|
|
