[extropy-chat] Meta: List quality
sjatkins at mac.com
Tue Apr 5 02:14:19 UTC 2005
There already is some level of policy enforcement. It may not enforce
to your liking or always be all that obvious or consistent. All who
are list monitors have busy lives and sometimes let things slide a bit
too far. A little prodding usually gets things on track. But even
then it is unlikely that the general guidelines are as stringent as you
What specifically would you like to see and not see? Speaking for
myself I am not terribly unhappy with the state of the list of late.
We need to do a lot better at subject headers and some folks over post
and aren't always called on it. But overall the list feels fine even
if a lot of the subjects are not things I am particularly interested
On Apr 4, 2005, at 3:28 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 03, 2005 at 03:29:35AM -0700, The Avantguardian wrote:
>> --- Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org> wrote:
>>> Moderation is out of question, but a system of
>>> warning, temporary suspensions
>>> from the list and permanent bans probably would
>> Are you going to burn books for the junior anti-sex
>> league next, Eugen? Come on, you could tell it was
> I have no idea what a junior anti-sex league is. Please discuss junior
> anti-sex leagues somewhere else, preferrably offlist.
> This list has a focus. It's not a chitchat channel about the latest
> game results, the weather, pet grooming, or car tuning. (I know it
> might come
> as shock to some people here).
> Empirically, such lists no longer work by self policing.
> Can we have a decision, whether we will introduce a policy enforcement
>> about religion just by looking at the subject header.
> Nobody here uses descriptive page headers, in case you didn't notice.
>> If posts about religion, mysticism, metaphysics, and
>> esoterica bothers you so much, don't read them. I find
> If email bothers you, disconnect your house from the power grid.
>> little that goes by on this list to be that offensive.
>> Some posts are more interesting than others but I have
>> never been so intolerant to allow the opinion or
>> anecdote of another person offend me. Unless of course
> We have different standards, obviously. Question is, does the rest of
> list agree with the state of the list?
>> it were directly ad-hominem but even then I would
>> probably blow it off. The mystics were looking for
>> immortality long before young whippersnappers dreamt
>> of uploading their consciousness from their corpsicles
>> into the distributed AI of a nanobot swarm.
> Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a>
> ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144 http://www.leitl.org
> 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
> http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
More information about the extropy-chat