At 4:43 PM -0600 3/17/99, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
>I wrote out a rant, but my lists aren't yours and what I like or don't like
>for personal
On a theoretical level, I tend to agree with you, I think.
On a practical level, there are some lists where some things simply
aren't going to be acceptable, and you end up with three choices of
how to implement that reality. One, you can ignore it and hope it
doesn't happen. Two, you can use some version of taboo strings and
hope Igor Livshits forgives you (or spend lots of time tweaking your
taboo strings for people like Igor). Three, you can sanitize instead
of reject. IMHO, I'd prefer to reject with an explanation on most
things, so that the end-user has the option of rewording it THEIR way
instead of how my filter wants to. But with things like the
hotmail.com advertisement, I'd just as soon strip them.
But in all honesty, while retro-moderation works best for most
things, there are certain words I've found pretty much invariably
lead to the kinds of discussions that are, shall we say, less that
constructive. And you end up making the choice of either trying to
proactively keep those fights from starting, or reactively trying to
minimize the damage once they start. My list is eight words, last I
looked, and some of those are variants on a single theme (one rhymes
with duck, another rhymes with trigger).
And in reality, what's acceptable if you're doing some kind of
"Disney-blast discusion list" type thing is a lot different than
what's acceptable doing majordomo-workers or a serious techie list.
Whatever your personal thoughts are, if you're doing that
"Disney-Blast-Discssion" thing, it doesn't MATTER what you thin about
freedom of expression. Certain words will sneak through ONLY once.
Oh, and for what it's worth, since I *do*, in fact, limit the
language on my lists to reject certain rather politically incorrect
scatalogical comments, it makes it even easier for me to step on the
prudes who try to whine their way to abolishing ALL words that don't
fit their perception of "okay". By setting certain objective
standards, I make it easier for the general discussions to continue
without being sidetracked by the meta-fights that mailing lists tend
to get into (or ripped apart by)...
I wish I didn't have to do any of this stuff, personally. But the
trolls and the list-wreckers who think its fun to try to ruin lists
instead of use them make it necessary -- as do the prudes and the
intolerants who seem to think the only opinion that matters is
theirs. I wish I didn't have to lock my front door, either. But I
know better than to think I can get away with it forever... (it might
work most days; one day where it doesn't is enough....)
--
Chuq Von Rospach, Plaidworks Consulting (mailto:chuqui@plaidworks.com)
<http://www.plaidworks.com/> + <http://www.lists.apple.com/>
(Hockey fan? <http://www.plaidworks.com/hockey/>)
This just out: it has been determined that Salad Forks are not Y2K
compatible, and won't work after 12/31/1999. Until cutlery
manufacturers can issue appropriate patches for their hardware, users
are encouraged to purchase a set of chopsticks. The fallback plan,
using the dinner fork for the salad, has been rejected as tacky.
Follow-Ups:
References:
|
|
