Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 13:04:27 -0800
Reply-To: BenT Syncro <syncro@GMAIL.COM>
Sender: Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From: BenT Syncro <syncro@GMAIL.COM>
Subject: Re: Vanagon List Moderator
In-Reply-To: <496e402b.0603420a.12c5.ffffff72@mx.google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 11:42 AM, David Beierl <dbeierl@attglobal.net>wrote:
> Hey, Ben -- I didn't know you had masochistic tendencies. <g>
Now you know.
> I suspect you'd be a great moderator. Unfortunately, I think that having
> any commercial interest *other than in the list itself and the products
> thereof* ought to be a disqualifier, which lets out you and Chris both.
Hmmm. I post some of my spares for sale often at less than what I paid for
them. Then occasionally post for my friend who owns a shop nearby often for
less than what you can get them elsewhere. I post about Van-O-Rama (cost of
event usually paid by me) & Burning Van (well we know what happens here)...
I hope you are not confusing my webpage Vanagon Cafe with Peter's highly
commercial Van-Cafe. I post things for sale more than the average member. It
could be because I have more Vanagons and related spares than your typical
Vanagon owner. If that disqualifies me, then I guess it does.
> I hadn't noticed such an awful rash, compared to other times.
You are right. This week has not been so bad. This has been the quietest
week since Jim declared he was resigning as moderator.
>
> They made and announced rulings when they deemed it necessary, they didn't
> publicly discuss said rulings.
>
This is exactly how I handle m moderating duries elsewhere. All censures are
via pmail. Often, it is not even mentioned to the member. His/Her post are
simply reviewed by the moderator before posting.
>
>
> *During *my* tenure on the list -- I came in during Coyote's rule -- two
> people were expelled. One case was clearcut -- overt Naziism put forward by
> a technical expert who I suspect had direct experience of what he spoke. He
> spoke up, the hammer fell, and he was history. The other to my mind was
> arguable (I forget the grounds exactly, being a general PIA over a long time
> comes to mind), and personally I would have suspended the offender for six
> months rather than a lifetime ban. But the judgment was clear, and clearly
> within the authority of the moderator.
>
I also came onboard during Coyote's term. In fact I am aware of the exact
situation you are referring to. I still communicate with both of those
parties on occassion. I feel the still have a lot to contribute. Moderating
their postings 100% of the time could have kept their expertise available to
the List. I took the time to get to know at least one of those people in
person. Sure he/she can be a royal PITA but as soon as you realize he/she
only wants attention, a simple editing of his/her posts would have been
taken care of the problem. Public flogging and banishment unnecessary.
> That would be an [in]excusable shame.
>
>
Whoops!
BenT
