On 2001.12.10, Lee Daniel Crocker <email@example.com> wrote:
> Absolutely, but that's still 100 times better than leaving human
> judgment out of the loop entirely.
I don't think anyone's disagreeing with you. However, there's
a cost-value proposition you're ignoring, or at least appear
to be ignoring.
Exercising judgement requires effort. Effort isn't cheap -- who
has the time? Those who do should volunteer their time and effort
to ExI. Then, that volunteer that is willing to dedicate time and
effort to policing the mailing list can then offer judgement, and
also get singled out and blamed when the consenus is that poor
judgement was made.
In the long run, it's more cost effective to simply create a
no-tolerance rule for ad hominem.
If you disagree (that it's not cost effective) then perhaps
you could explain why you feel that way?
Me, personally, I'll kill-file messages from people who I don't
care to hear from regardless of their subscription to mailing
lists I'm on; I can't be bothered to try and get a position with
authority to remove them from the list. Perhaps if others
were as self-enabling, perhaps a rule like this wouldn't even
Perhaps this off-topic discussion should be taken offline,
before someone exercises the zero-tolerance for off-topic
conversation rule, which I'd probably be the first to
violate, anyhow ...
-- Dossy Shiobara mail: firstname.lastname@example.org Panoptic Computer Network web: http://www.panoptic.com/ "He realized the fastest way to change is to laugh at your own folly -- then you can let go and quickly move on." (p. 70)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:25 MDT