Re: [DNS] List rules

Re: [DNS] List rules

From: <info§>
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 12:27:01 +1000

I agree with everyone who thought the issue of the allegations
initiated by Adam against Planet Domain, in reply to Jim's original
post seeking help on a domain issue took too long to resolve.

( Due in part originally to the number of posts it took Adam
to provide more specific information to support his allegations
when invited to do so. )

Let us remember that it was Adam, not I, who, at the mere
mention of the 2 words

"Planet Domain"

in Jim's long email seeking help, chose to make the very first
post as a reply to Jim's request for help.

Did Adam's reply to Jim's post offer any help? No, it didn't.

It was criticisms / allegations directed specifically at Planet Domain,
"their technical support team" and Adam even went on to criticise
Murray Kester, the Manager of Planet Domain, personally by name!

It was at this point that a new issue was raised.

Making criticisms / allegations against a Registrar is a serious matter
and is messing with the livelihoods of all the people who work there
and the people who are Resellers for Planet Domain also.

Looking back now its a little sad that, overall, more time was spent by some people on
debating procedural type issues like relevancy to a thread, than whether it was fair
or just, to publicly criticise a Registrar, "their technical support team" and Murray Kester,
the Manager of Planet Domain, and even arguing whether or not allegations like that
should go unquestioned, and you Larry, by saying, and I quote,

"Adam - he simply recounted his experience"

implied those allegations were true.

That serious allegations can be made which then start being referred to as
though they were true, is a recipe for a truly unfair DNS list, were this list
to be moderated to stifle 2 sided debate.

As Trent pointed out

"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."

Proposals of moderation need to be very carefully thought about
as moderation can easily become censorship in practice.

I submit that 2 sided debate is always preferable to 1 sided negative
allegations - where the person making those allegations goes unquestioned
and / or unchallenged and supporting facts sought.

A useful guideline for this list would be that if anyone is going
to make a criticism of any person or company at anytime in the future
it should be based on facts only, and they should be prepared to present
those specific facts, or for example a link to a news article, to support their criticisms,
and present them in a timely manner, so that debates are efficient, productive,
and provide useful information.

If any moderation included banning all non .au domain issues
even Jim's original request for help would have been culled out
as it regarded a .com domain only.

As there is not a TLD list where people such as Jim can seek help
and anyone can discuss TLD specific issues, perhaps a separate TLD
list could be started.

Barry Armstrong

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Larry Bloch 
  To: dns&#167; 
  Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2005 12:03 PM
  Subject: RE: [DNS] List rules


  Moderating a list is a thankless task - definitely.

  I'm not so sure that "no news is good news" in this list's case. I think its
  probably fairer to say no news is an indication that the real issues are not
  being raised in this forum, and that is a pity. Why are the issues not being
  discussed here? Because the list lacks credibility as a place where useful
  debate happens, and that’s an historical fact.

  This list has been over used for outbursts (as we have seen yesterday),
  vitriolic personal attacks, loony conspiracy theorists, hatchet jobs and the
  like. You only have to go back and see Chris Disspain's written comments on
  his attitude to posting to this list to see a reflection of that reality.
  His frustration with the manner and tone of postings is shared by many of
  the professionals in this industry who as a result lurk but steer clear of

  If all of us subscribed want to get something more that the odd bit of news
  out of the list, then as a community we need to have some sort of acceptable
  use standards - formal or otherwise. And I take your point that the recent
  episode did resolve in a 'natural order' way. Its just a little inefficient


  > -----Original Message-----
  > From: trent&#167; [mailto:trent&#167;] 
  > Sent: Tuesday, 22 March 2005 11:46
  > To: dns&#167;
  > Subject: Re: [DNS] List rules
  > Larry,
  > 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.
  > Cheers,
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