Re: [DNS] List rules

Re: [DNS] List rules

From: <trent§>
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 11:15:46 +1030
In theory, this would be great, but Kim, at least I assume it was Kim, 
has outlined in the first line of the policy that this list is unmoderated.

Like your own post, my point is subjective. The 'other thread' is 
history and it was self moderated to a degree. In so doing, if just one 
person took some form of education away from it, then although annoying, 
it served its purpose. That might mean fewer of these outbursts and I 
know that's hoping for allot, but I'm a hopeful kind of guy ;)

If Kim wishes to moderate, that's his decision as list manager, but it 
is a time issue, so I for one would understand if he chooses not to.
In the mean time, the list, as Sean pointed out, generally moves along 
at a dead crawl. This is indicative of the "no news is good news" 
cliché, and we can, as Vic pointed out, use the good ol' D key when 
someone won't leave well enough alone.

Having said all that, and provided you have the time Larry, perhaps a 
related list is something you feel would be in order? 'Any' list 
generates information we can potentially learn from, and I would 
definitely have a look at the focus of any new list that might assist me 
in advising clients and colleagues.


Larry Bloch wrote:

>Are there list rules? If so, can you post them to the list?
>If not, perhaps as a collaborative project, the list can agree a set of
>guiding principles you can use to rapidly bring sanity back when the odd
>individual gets cranked up (pun intended).
>I would go for some items such as:
> - postings to be relevant to the subject line and the general theme of DNS
> - restrictions on threads that are generally held to be unproductive
>jousting between two protagonists
> - one warning by the moderator prior to being banned for a cooling off
>period (24 hours)
> - moderator ability to ban a thread 
>I know some of this is subjective, but at least it gives a moderator the
>ability to apply some common sense when it is evident that none is being
>I don't think anyone wants a heavily moderated list, but lists being what
>they are, moderation is necessary to maintain relevance. This list is the
>only public resource for raising and getting feedback on DNS issues and I
>for one would like to see it become much more active. Despite the relatively
>hassle free nature of .AU at present, as those involved with auDA well know,
>there are a multitude of issues that affect this industry that pass with no
>debate for want of a well functioning forum.
>At present topics in this category include the upcoming tender for the .au
>registry, the release of geographic and names, auDA's plan
>to use the proceeds of this release to fund aspects of the
>management/operations of the community geographic names ( etc),
>the auDA Foundation which has received about $2m of auDA funds to distribute
>as grants and many many more topics.
>I would very much like to provide transparency to the .AU industry and
>community about many of these issues - after all that's part of what I stood
>for in becoming an auDA supply side representative. However, without
>adequate moderator protection, many otherwise useful and serious
>contributors will not post because of the crackpots who lack respect for the
>rest of the members of this forum.
>There have been calls for moderation before this. At this point, if nothing
>can be done to make this list relevant, perhaps we should consider creating
>a new list with stronger guidelines?
Received on Fri Oct 03 2003 - 00:00:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Sat Sep 09 2017 - 22:00:08 UTC