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

Groups > comp.lang.forth > #26492

Re: Anyone else wish this was Moderated?

Show all headers | View raw

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?

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?

> 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.  Again, that's in
accordance with the Usenet charter for comp.lang.forth,
which I posted for reference.

I also stated what happens when moderation is implemented:
everyone leaves...  I also told why: censorship is disrespectful.
I also pointed out that it's not just the "worst of the worst,"
or those temporarily "gone bad," but the "regulars" who will
leave too.  That's what happens when you can't get your entire
point across due to "moderation."  I.e., most don't really
like it, even if they supported it initially for valid reasons.

> 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.
I don't see why I have to presume what you mean by "bad
moderation."  What was bad about it?  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...

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.

> Your list of what would be blocked was a bit preposterous.

Why?

See comp.compilers still moderated by John Levine.

See comp.lang.asm.x86 (c.l.a.x.) before Charles Crayne passed away.

etc.

> 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.
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'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?

> 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...

> 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.

> "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.

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.  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.

> Dissenting viewpoints on Forth, as long as they aren't
> just flames, on-topic.

Who decides what is or isn't a "flame?"  You?  Everything is
a "straw man" to you and much of the rest is a "flame."  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.  When are you going to accept
that?  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.


Rod Pemberton

Back to comp.lang.forth | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

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