Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2001 21:14:47 -0700
From: Adam McKenna <email@example.com>
> > Most mailing lists I am on seem to get by fine without overt
> > moderation - including this one.
You've conveniently failed to address the issue where the list
moderator of namedroppers took it upon himself to edit the
content of posts before forwarding them to the list.
You know, as the former editor/moderator of the Info-IBMPC Digest list
for a fair number of years, and not having subscribed to the
namedroppers list, I frequently edited the content of postings (if only
to make them more readable and/or to tone down rantings), rejected
others (sometimes with an explanation of how to make it more suitable
for publication, sometimes without one. Usually with an explanation
Sometimes I ran the changes by the submitter, sometimes not...
Depended on how much 'editing' I had to do.
> > Prefiltering to suit *any* one individuals opinion of what
> > is or isn't on topic seems highly suspect for any list, and
> > unacceptable on a list supposedly to define policy.
> so in order for a policy-defining forum to be considered
> representative, it must be open to all posts on all topics
> from all parties at all times? that does not match not my
> intuition on the matter.
This is a straw man. The messages that were sent clearly fell
within the list's charter, yet they were rejected and/or edited
by the moderator for what appear to be entirely personal reasons.
The moderator (editor, in my case) really has the final call on what
gets posted and what doesn't... Sorry, but them's the rules.
In any case, this is straying a bit afield of the charter for nanog...