Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.project > #12744 > unrolled thread

A quiet reminder: please be considerate.

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.project

Contents

  A quiet reminder: please be considerate. "Andrew M.A. Cater" <amacater@einval.com> - 2022-03-25 01:10 +0100
    Re: A quiet reminder: please be considerate. Philip Hands <phil@hands.com> - 2022-03-25 09:20 +0100
      Re: A quiet reminder: please be considerate. Steve McIntyre <steve@einval.com> - 2022-03-25 13:00 +0100
        How about using moderation as a delay system for bad threads? (Re: A quiet reminder: please be considerate.) Charles Plessy <plessy@debian.org> - 2022-03-26 00:30 +0100
          Re: How about using moderation as a delay system for bad threads? (Re: A quiet reminder: please be considerate.) <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2022-03-26 08:10 +0100
          Re: How about using moderation as a delay system for bad threads? "Nicolas Dandrimont" <olasd@debian.org> - 2022-03-26 15:10 +0100
            Re: How about using moderation as a delay system for bad threads? Alexander Wirt <formorer@debian.org> - 2022-03-26 16:00 +0100
              Re: How about using moderation as a delay system for bad threads? "Nicolas Dandrimont" <olasd@debian.org> - 2022-03-26 17:10 +0100
      Re: A quiet reminder: please be considerate. Brian Thompson <brt9023@gmail.com> - 2022-03-26 16:10 +0100
        Re: A quiet reminder: please be considerate. Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2022-03-26 18:00 +0100
          Re: A quiet reminder: please be considerate. Philip Hands <phil@hands.com> - 2022-03-26 18:40 +0100

#12744 — A quiet reminder: please be considerate.

Readers of Debian-project

This is a quiet reminder that debian-project and all Debian mailing lists are
governed by the mailing lists code of conduct and the main Debian code of 
conduct.

* Please be considerate of each other: assume good faith and treat each other
  with the respect that each of us deserves.

* People can make unintentioned mistakes: we're all human. Pointing out that
  a mistake has been made need not be a finger-pointing exercise or an excuse
  for a large number of emails.

* It shouldn't need twenty people to make a point or start arguments and
  counter arguments. If someone has already written what you would have wanted
  to write, that's fine: in many cases you can safely leave it there.
  The list is moderated: the volunteers moderating the list and everyone
  reading the list will appreciate you for not providing more to read through.

  With thanks: the Community Team have recently put together some thoughts
  and considerations expanding on the Code of Conduct and giving some examples
  that may be useful.
  https://www.debian.org/code_of_conduct_interpretation

With every good wish, as ever,

Andy Cater

[On behalf of the Debian Community Team]

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#12747

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

"Andrew M.A. Cater" <amacater@einval.com> writes:

...
> * It shouldn't need twenty people to make a point or start arguments and
>   counter arguments. If someone has already written what you would have wanted
>   to write, that's fine: in many cases you can safely leave it there.
>   The list is moderated: the volunteers moderating the list and everyone
>   reading the list will appreciate you for not providing more to read through.

I'm a little concerned that this mention of moderation could give the
impression that we're filtering messages based on tone or content.

Unless I've misunderstood completely, we do not judge the content of the
messages, except that we filter out very obviously abusive trolling that
the list was suffering prior to moderation, and obviously drop
SPAM/Phishing/etc. if we see it.

As one of the moderators, I occasionally get the chance to
approve/reject messages (on the rare occasions when the other moderators
don't beat me to it).

I've only rejected a handful of messages, and they were almost all
obvious SPAM, and IIRC one trolling attempt from a throw-away address,
not otherwise involved in the discussion.

Cheers, Phil.
-- 
|)|  Philip Hands  [+44 (0)20 8530 9560]  HANDS.COM Ltd.
|-|  http://www.hands.com/    http://ftp.uk.debian.org/
|(|  Hugo-Klemm-Strasse 34,   21075 Hamburg,    GERMANY

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12750

On Fri, Mar 25, 2022 at 09:09:20AM +0100, Philip Hands wrote:
>"Andrew M.A. Cater" <amacater@einval.com> writes:
>
>...
>> * It shouldn't need twenty people to make a point or start arguments and
>>   counter arguments. If someone has already written what you would have wanted
>>   to write, that's fine: in many cases you can safely leave it there.
>>   The list is moderated: the volunteers moderating the list and everyone
>>   reading the list will appreciate you for not providing more to read through.
>
>I'm a little concerned that this mention of moderation could give the
>impression that we're filtering messages based on tone or content.
>
>Unless I've misunderstood completely, we do not judge the content of the
>messages, except that we filter out very obviously abusive trolling that
>the list was suffering prior to moderation, and obviously drop
>SPAM/Phishing/etc. if we see it.

Agreed, that's exactly the policy. It just takes more time to check
more messages, and I think that's all that Andy was suggesting.

-- 
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.                                steve@einval.com
"When C++ is your hammer, everything looks like a thumb." -- Steven M. Haflich

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12752 — How about using moderation as a delay system for bad threads? (Re: A quiet reminder: please be considerate.)

Hello,

Le Fri, Mar 25, 2022 at 11:54:02AM +0000, Steve McIntyre a écrit :
> On Fri, Mar 25, 2022 at 09:09:20AM +0100, Philip Hands wrote:
> >
> >Unless I've misunderstood completely, we do not judge the content of the
> >messages, except that we filter out very obviously abusive trolling that
> >the list was suffering prior to moderation, and obviously drop
> >SPAM/Phishing/etc. if we see it.
> 
> Agreed, that's exactly the policy. It just takes more time to check
> more messages, and I think that's all that Andy was suggesting.

How about we make that a feature and introduce a delay of a couple of
hours between all messages in threads like this one ?

Have a nice week-end,

Charles

-- 
Charles Plessy                         Nagahama, Yomitan, Okinawa, Japan
Debian Med packaging team         http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-med
Tooting from work,           https://mastodon.technology/@charles_plessy
Tooting from home,                 https://framapiaf.org/@charles_plessy

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12753 — Re: How about using moderation as a delay system for bad threads? (Re: A quiet reminder: please be considerate.)

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Sat, Mar 26, 2022 at 08:10:39AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> Le Fri, Mar 25, 2022 at 11:54:02AM +0000, Steve McIntyre a écrit :
> > On Fri, Mar 25, 2022 at 09:09:20AM +0100, Philip Hands wrote:
> > >
> > >Unless I've misunderstood completely, we do not judge the content of the
> > >messages, except that we filter out very obviously abusive trolling that
> > >the list was suffering prior to moderation, and obviously drop
> > >SPAM/Phishing/etc. if we see it.
> > 
> > Agreed, that's exactly the policy. It just takes more time to check
> > more messages, and I think that's all that Andy was suggesting.
> 
> How about we make that a feature and introduce a delay of a couple of
> hours between all messages in threads like this one ?

This sounds seducing. What I don't like about it is that it is somewhat
manipulative.

Cheers & nice week-end too :)
-- 
t

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12756 — Re: How about using moderation as a delay system for bad threads?

Hi,

(adding listmaster to Cc: as I don't know how flexible our mailing list software would be)

On Sat, Mar 26, 2022, at 00:10, Charles Plessy wrote:
> How about we make that a feature and introduce a delay of a couple of
> hours between all messages in threads like this one ?

The OSM foundation seems to have a feature in its mailing list software, where, in contentious situations (e.g. during board elections campaigning periods), posters are throttled to one message every 24 hours.

https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/2021-December/008248.html

At the time, it seemed to me like an interesting idea that we could be experimenting with to keep flamewars somewhat more contained.

Cheers,
-- 
Nicolas Dandrimont

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12757 — Re: How about using moderation as a delay system for bad threads?

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Hi, 

> (adding listmaster to Cc: as I don't know how flexible our mailing list software would be)
> 
> On Sat, Mar 26, 2022, at 00:10, Charles Plessy wrote:
> > How about we make that a feature and introduce a delay of a couple of
> > hours between all messages in threads like this one ?
> 
> The OSM foundation seems to have a feature in its mailing list software, where, in contentious situations (e.g. during board elections campaigning periods), posters are throttled to one message every 24 hours.
> 
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/2021-December/008248.html
> 
> At the time, it seemed to me like an interesting idea that we could be experimenting with to keep flamewars somewhat more contained.
You are a bit too late, we have such a system for one or two decades. We can throttle mails down
based on everything procmail can choose. We usually do this from time to time to throttle down
threads based on subject. 

Alex
 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12759 — Re: How about using moderation as a delay system for bad threads?

On Sat, Mar 26, 2022, at 15:43, Alexander Wirt wrote:
> Hi, 
>
>> (adding listmaster to Cc: as I don't know how flexible our mailing list software would be)
>> 
>> The OSM foundation seems to have a feature in its mailing list software, where, in contentious situations (e.g. during board elections campaigning periods), posters are throttled to one message every 24 hours.
>> 
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/2021-December/008248.html
>> 
>> At the time, it seemed to me like an interesting idea that we could be experimenting with to keep flamewars somewhat more contained.
> You are a bit too late, we have such a system for one or two decades. 

Thanks for pointing it out, this is useful to know. Is this documented somewhere
that I c/should have found ?

> We can throttle mails down based on everything procmail can choose. We usually
> do this from time to time to throttle down threads based on subject.

Ack. I must admit I've stopped being familiar with procmail for a while. Could
you confirm that enacting a limit of 1 message per sender per day on a given
mailing list (or thread) would be doable without too much extra development?

Is this something that you would consider doing if the Community Team, or DAM,
or other members of the project, were to ask for it?

Thanks again for your work as listmaster,
-- 
Nicolas Dandrimont

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12758

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

-- 
-Brian

On Fri, 2022-03-25 at 09:09 +0100, Philip Hands wrote:
> "Andrew M.A. Cater" <amacater@einval.com> writes:
> 
> ...
> > * It shouldn't need twenty people to make a point or start
> > arguments and
> >   counter arguments. If someone has already written what you would
> > have wanted
> >   to write, that's fine: in many cases you can safely leave it
> > there.
> >   The list is moderated: the volunteers moderating the list and
> > everyone
> >   reading the list will appreciate you for not providing more to
> > read through.
> 
> I'm a little concerned that this mention of moderation could give the
> impression that we're filtering messages based on tone or content.
> 
> Unless I've misunderstood completely, we do not judge the content of
> the
> messages, except that we filter out very obviously abusive trolling
> that
> the list was suffering prior to moderation, and obviously drop
> SPAM/Phishing/etc. if we see it.
> 

The biggest problem of moderating troll posts is that the definition of
trolling varies broadly across individuals.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12760

Brian Thompson <brt9023@gmail.com> writes:

> The biggest problem of moderating troll posts is that the definition of
> trolling varies broadly across individuals.

Agreed, and the moderation of debian-project is very sensitive to that.
We're addressing this by erring on the side of approval and only rejecting
the messages where there's essentially unanimous agreement.  In practice,
this has only been spam (95% of what's been rejected), direct and obvious
personal attacks along the lines of the reason why we put the moderation
in place originally, and a very small handful of messages that were so
incoherent and off-topic that we couldn't make heads or tails of them (and
were probably actually spam).

This is all done somewhat ad hoc since we don't have moderation software
that lets us implement this more mechanically, but in practice it seems to
have worked.

I have also checked all messages to the moderation queue since March 11th
and can't find any messages from Norbert, so whatever is going on there
seems to be happening upstream of moderation.

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org)              <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12761

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> writes:

...
> I have also checked all messages to the moderation queue since March 11th
> and can't find any messages from Norbert, so whatever is going on there
> seems to be happening upstream of moderation.

His mail was both to me and the list. I didn't notice this and replied
assuming that I was seeing his mail via the list, rather than the one
that arrived direct to me.

It turns out that he's been barred from debian-project for some time,
apparently, so people on the list will have seen only my reply.

Of course, if he's blocked, the mails won't get through, and they will
also never get as far as being moderated, so that explains everything.

I presume he was told about the block.

[I'm Bcc-ing this to him to ensure that he definitely knows now]

Sorry to everyone for any confusion arising from me replying onto the
list -- I hope at least that the stats were faintly interesting.

Cheers, Phil.
-- 
|)|  Philip Hands  [+44 (0)20 8530 9560]  HANDS.COM Ltd.
|-|  http://www.hands.com/    http://ftp.uk.debian.org/
|(|  Hugo-Klemm-Strasse 34,   21075 Hamburg,    GERMANY

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.project

csiph-web