Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.forth > #26498
| From | Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Subject | Re: Anyone else wish this was Moderated? |
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.forth |
| References | (3 earlier) <op.w4u9qlq10e5s1z@localhost> <2qidnfzksPab18fPnZ2dnUVZ8oidnZ2d@supernews.com> <op.w4v110du0e5s1z@localhost> <iN6dnbKaTfkt5sfPnZ2dnUVZ8lWdnZ2d@supernews.com> <op.w4xnyc1k0e5s1z@localhost> |
| Message-ID | <16adnT6YFOTQLcbPnZ2dnUVZ_j2dnZ2d@supernews.com> (permalink) |
| Date | 2013-10-14 03:50 -0500 |
Rod Pemberton <dont_use_email@nohavenotit.com> wrote: > On Sun, 13 Oct 2013 06:53:36 -0400, Andrew Haley > <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote: >> Rod Pemberton <dont_use_email@nohavenotit.com> wrote: >>> On Sun, 13 Oct 2013 03:21:42 -0400, Andrew Haley >>> <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote: >>>> Rod Pemberton <dont_use_email@nohavenotit.com> wrote: >>>>> On Sat, 12 Oct 2013 06:44:04 -0400, Andrew Haley >>>>> <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote: > >>>>> [moderation] >>>> That's not moderation is done right: it's moderation done wrong. >>>> >>>> [...] >>>> >>>> That doesn't sound like a well-moderated group. >>> >>> Clyde, I think you may have found a volunteer... >>> >>> You might want to ask him how and what he would moderate though, >>> first. He clearly disagrees with moderating what is required to >>> keep comp.lang.forth in compliance with it's official Usenet >>> charter: >>> >>> "Discussion about Forth." >> >> The purpose of moderation isn't necessarily to enforce charters. It >> can be used for that, but would be too restrictive for most groups. >> Sometimes, moderation can be used to keep things civil. I prefer >> light-touch moderation. >> >>> I demonstrated what should be moderated, now snipped. >> >> I don't think you did that at all. IMO, you attempted to >> construct a straw man. > > No, I didn't. I stated the facts, the truth, AISI. > > That's what should be moderated in accordance with the Usenet > charter for comp.lang.forth, which I posted for reference. > > Why do you always reject what others say? I don't. I often reject what *you* say: we tend to disagree. That's OK. > But, then again, how would _you_ really know? > > ISTM, that everything is a "straw man" argument to you. Just look > up how many times you've posted that phrase... Is anything *not* a > "straw man" argument to you? So far, you haven't used one in this posting. You proposed an insanely restrictive moderation policy and used it as an argument against moderation per se. A straw man argument is "a common type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position." [Wikipedia] I have never seen a more blatant example of a straw man argument. >> You produced an example of what might happen if the group >> were very tightly moderated in a vain attempt to show that >> moderation wouldn't work. > > No, I stated what should be moderated. A statement that contains "should" but not "because..." is incomplete. Why on Earth should c.l.f. be moderated like that? > Again, that's in accordance with the Usenet charter for > comp.lang.forth, which I posted for reference. Is there a charter for c.l.f. ? I don't think I've seen one. "Discussion about Forth" hardly constitutes a charter. > I also stated what happens when moderation is implemented: everyone > leaves... I'm not surprised, when moderation is done as clumsily as you suggest it should be. >> But you didn't show that at all: you showed that bad >> moderation wouldn't work. I agree that bad moderation >> wouldn't work. > > You haven't defined what good moderation is to you, yet. Sure I have. No abuse, flames, or grossly off-topic postings. With lots of leeway and flexibility. > I don't see why I have to presume what you mean by "bad moderation." > What was bad about it? It was far, far, too narrowly drawn IMO. So strict as to make any kind of conversation impossible. > Everything I stated should be moderated was in accordance with this > groups' charter. It clearly wasn't my personal desires. As you > well know, I'd allow anything C related. I also don't have much of > a problem with a good portion of Hugh's rants, but not the faulty > understanding of C stuff, incorrect history, etc... Sure, but you'd not block a post for being incorrect, would you? > This seems to be a standard argumentative tactic used by you. I.e., > don't define what you mean, don't provide examples of what you mean, > then declare something bad or contrary to what others expect it to > mean, without really explaining it. If you make a point that I disagree with, I'll post an argument explaining why I disagree. I don't have to post an elaborate thesis saying what I'd do instead. I might choose to do so. >> Of course, Forth vendors promoting their Forths would be on-topic. > > Yes, you missed the point. If you were moderator, you wouldn't > censor Ms. Rather or Stephen Pelc for promoting Forth products. Why would anyone block such things, should any be posted? They're not off-topic. > Personally, I doubt you'd censor either of them at all no matter how > egregious their comments might be some day. > >> Microprocessors are on topic as long as there is a connection with >> Forth, maybe even if there isn't: > > How many have had a connection with Forth in the past year? Do > you know off-hand? Is it like 10%? 20%? I know it's very little > because I keep complaining about rickman posting... I don't know. > I'd guess that at least 50% of the microprocessor posts over the > past year have been purely non-Forth. Zip, zero, nada. > >> it depends on the moderation policy. > > See the comp.lang.forth Usenet charter. The charter is the > moderation policy for moderated groups. That's why c.l.a.x. > changed their policies prior to "robo-moderation". Their policies > are much more liberal in part due to my input. But, for c.l.f., > ISTM you're espousing very liberal moderation, which is basically > what we already have without moderation. If you don't want strict > moderation, what's the point? It's be nice to be rid of the more egregious flames, but I don't think there is a point to moderation, and besides that it's almost impossible to change an unmoderated Usenet newsgroup to a moderated one. You'd have to create a new group, c.l.f.moderated, and try to persuade people to go there. >> Java and C likewise: > > See the comp.lang.forth Usenet charter. That is the moderation > policy for comp.lang.forth, if moderated. Do you plan to introduce > a new charter prior to implementing moderation? That would be > prudent given that you clearly don't agree with the Usenet charter > for comp.lang.forth as expressed by it's current three words... Three words is not a moderation policy. Of course there would have to be a charter prior to implementing moderation. But, as I said, it would have to be a new group anyway. >> comparisons with other languages are on-topic. > > off-topic? > > Seems off-topic from what I've seen for the past seven years... > > At least, everyone attacks comparisons of Forth to other languages, > even if that conversation would be fruitful. AIR, Ms. Rather > recently indirectly stated she _always_ interprets these as > "flames." The groups seems to do so too. Even if attacked, that doesn't mean they're off-topic, or should be blocked. >> "Carnal knowledge" of Forth, on-topic. > > The information may be on-topic. The phrase isn't - due to it > blatant use of sexual phrasing. I would've assumed you knew that. References, please. I think you're making this up. > A politically correct and socially acceptable phrase might be: > > "implementation specific details" > > or, perhaps an abbreviation for the phrase: ISD. > >> Closures or coroutines, on-topic. > > These have nothing to do with Forth. Sure they do. > How can these be declared on-topic if c.l.f. is moderated to > restrict conversation to: "Discussion about Forth?" Clearly, three > words are insufficient from your perspective. Well, of course. There would have to be a moderation policy. "Discussion about Forth" is hardly that. >> Dissenting viewpoints on Forth, as long as they aren't just flames, >> on-topic. > > Who decides what is or isn't a "flame?" You? The moderator. It's usually pretty obvious. > Everything is a "straw man" to you and much of the rest is a > "flame." Not everything, no. Most of the discussion here is still characterized by rational and serous discussion. Purely abusive or fallacious postings aren't so common. > If it's not those, then it's off-topic... Alex McDonald? > Everything non-Forth is perceived as an "off the chandelier" > falsehood by him. Ms. Rather? (hyper-conservative) Hugh Aquilar? > (too rant-ical) I.e., there isn't a person here who posts > frequently, i.e., cares enough to moderate, that isn't biased in > some major way. That's almost certainly true. > When are you going to accept that? Me, personally? Never. > Do you want a biased moderator or a fair one? > > People don't like dictators for a reason. John Levine has an > excellent reputation for moderating comp.compilers. He is probably > one of the best. Even so, there are 1) many people who won't post > there and 2) many people who don't like the way he moderates. Those > who won't post there won't because of #2 and because they can't post > anonymously or without a valid email address. There are many who > don't like the way he moderates. He posts little comments and > clarifications at the end of posts, changes wording to mean > something different from what the author asked or stated, perhaps to > be on-topic, and removes entire sections of posts without indicating > any censorship or moderation. Sounds awful. Andrew.
Back to comp.lang.forth | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Anyone else wish this was Moderated? "Clyde W. Phillips Jr." <cwpjr02@gmail.com> - 2013-10-11 22:55 -0700
Re: Anyone else wish this was Moderated? hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2013-10-11 23:17 -0700
Re: Anyone else wish this was Moderated? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2013-10-12 22:43 -0400
Re: Anyone else wish this was Moderated? "Clyde W. Phillips Jr." <cwpjr02@gmail.com> - 2013-10-14 17:06 -0700
Re: Anyone else wish this was Moderated? hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2013-10-14 23:22 -0700
Re: Anyone else wish this was Moderated? "Clyde W. Phillips Jr." <cwpjr02@gmail.com> - 2013-10-15 16:36 -0700
Re: Anyone else wish this was Moderated? "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@nohavenotit.com> - 2013-10-12 05:05 -0400
Re: Anyone else wish this was Moderated? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2013-10-12 05:44 -0500
Re: Anyone else wish this was Moderated? "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@nohavenotit.com> - 2013-10-12 20:16 -0400
Re: Anyone else wish this was Moderated? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2013-10-12 21:04 -1000
Re: Anyone else wish this was Moderated? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2013-10-13 02:21 -0500
Re: Anyone else wish this was Moderated? "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@nohavenotit.com> - 2013-10-13 06:28 -0400
Re: Anyone else wish this was Moderated? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2013-10-13 05:53 -0500
Re: Anyone else wish this was Moderated? mentifex@myuw.net - 2013-10-13 06:59 -0700
Re: Anyone else wish this was Moderated? "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@nohavenotit.com> - 2013-10-14 03:19 -0400
Re: Anyone else wish this was Moderated? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2013-10-13 22:00 -1000
Re: Anyone else wish this was Moderated? "Clyde W. Phillips Jr." <cwpjr02@gmail.com> - 2013-10-14 17:17 -0700
Re: Anyone else wish this was Moderated? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2013-10-14 03:50 -0500
Re: Anyone else wish this was Moderated? "Clyde W. Phillips Jr." <cwpjr02@gmail.com> - 2013-10-14 17:19 -0700
Re: Anyone else wish this was Moderated? "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@nohavenotit.com> - 2013-10-14 22:03 -0400
Re: Anyone else wish this was Moderated? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2013-10-15 03:56 -0500
Re: Anyone else wish this was Moderated? "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@nohavenotit.com> - 2013-10-17 03:21 -0400
Re: Anyone else wish this was Moderated? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2013-10-17 03:53 -0500
Re: Anyone else wish this was Moderated? "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@nohavenotit.com> - 2013-10-17 05:25 -0400
Re: Anyone else wish this was Moderated? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2013-10-17 04:40 -0500
Re: Anyone else wish this was Moderated? Brad Eckert <hwfwguy@gmail.com> - 2013-10-18 06:43 -0700
Re: Anyone else wish this was Moderated? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2013-10-18 16:00 +0200
Re: Anyone else wish this was Moderated? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2013-10-18 08:56 -1000
Re: Anyone else wish this was Moderated? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2013-10-19 04:03 -0500
Re: Anyone else wish this was Moderated? stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2013-10-21 09:40 +0000
Re: Anyone else wish this was Moderated? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2013-10-21 11:51 +0000
Re: Anyone else wish this was Moderated? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2013-10-21 12:24 -0700
Re: Anyone else wish this was Moderated? "Clyde W. Phillips Jr." <cwpjr02@gmail.com> - 2013-10-14 17:15 -0700
Re: Anyone else wish this was Moderated? Brad Eckert <hwfwguy@gmail.com> - 2013-10-12 07:18 -0700
Re: Anyone else wish this was Moderated? "Clyde W. Phillips Jr." <cwpjr02@gmail.com> - 2013-10-12 22:27 -0700
Re: Anyone else wish this was Moderated? "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@nohavenotit.com> - 2013-10-13 06:28 -0400
Re: Anyone else wish this was Moderated? "Clyde W. Phillips Jr." <cwpjr02@gmail.com> - 2013-10-12 22:33 -0700
csiph-web