[ExI] META: (was Re: LA Times: Rehabbing militants in Saudi Arabia (Meta))

[Eugen Leitl]

On Sat, Dec 29, 2007 at 09:07:16AM -0500, Gary Miller wrote:

> I agree 100% Eugene, but how about we don't wait until we're 10 or 15 posts

There is no wta-politics equivalent for extropy-chat yet.
Given that a sink for noisy discussions has worked well for
other communities (ccm-l, etc.) there perhaps should be one.

Do y'all agree? Yea or nay, to me privately, please.
(I don't promise there's going to be one, in fact I don't 
have sufficient admin rights nor the final authority to make
that decision, but at least we can sample the public opinion
space).

> into it and only the anti-American sentiments have been expressed.

Shouldn't that fact give us reason to worry?  
 
> Such one-sidedness creates a strong impression in the reader and potential

It is curious what you perceive as one-sided in a geographically
and nationally diverse list. Perhaps the apparent bias has been due
to a previously sheltered discussion environment. Perhaps, just hypothetically,
the local view does differ from global view, and due to legitimate reasons? 

But I do agree, political threads should not be tolerated on the list.
There many online communities to cover that particular area of interest,
but there are very few watering holes for transhumanists. Let's keep
this one clear of excrement. 

> donor's mind that such topics are allowed as long as they are sufficiently
> Anti-American.  And that by presenting a counterpoint that they are subject

Perhaps my ridicule was not adressed at the counterpoint, but at how
poorly it was presented. I do believe you're well-meaning, and a potentially
valuable contributor, but I would try to put more effort into your posts.
The style is fine, but the idea part is a bit lacking. 

> to ridicule or moderation. Intelligent reasonable disagreement does not

I'm all for intelligent and reasonable. Unfortunately, in our current
forum incarnation, this is getting increasingly rare. Especially, among
political threads. 

> require ridicule and aggression. 
> 
> I also feel that moderators should hold themselves to a higher standard and
> make their points without attempting to ridicule or berate contributors.  By
> creating a hostile environment readers are not encouraged to contribute or

No offense, but my job is to create an environment in which particular posters
do not feel welcome. I don't mean you particularly. 

> become more deeply involved with the organization.

Which organisation?
 
> I suspect that that the ratio of lurkers to contributors is very high for
> just such reasons!

Possible. If any lurkers are reading this, don't be afraid to post. I won't
kill you. (Well, not immediately).
 
> And once you decide that a thread is to be discontinued or moderated, I
> would suggest that it be done in a neutral fashion so as to not give the
> readers the impression that you are trying to get the last one-sided word
> before the topic is banned.

I don't think we're due to a politics ban yet. At least, as long as there's
no alternative venue where people can vent, uncensored.

-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE