These are excellent guidelines, and you have my vote as well. I know
that I have been the source of a lot of the current angst, and spoke of you
rather rudely, for which I apologize, and I have promised to restrain myself
in the future and do so now as well.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric Entemann" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, July 02, 2007 4:56 PM
Subject: Re: Should I replace George as co-owner?
> You have my vote.
> ----Original Message Follows----
> From: Michael H Goldhaber <[log in to unmask]>
> Reply-To: Science for the People Discussion List
> <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Should I replace George as co-owner?
> Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2007 13:39:45 -0700
> Dear SftP list members,
> If you approve, I am willing to take on the task of list "co-owner."
> George Salzman, who did so much to found this list and increase its
> membership has asked twice now to be relieved of the burden as "co-
> owner," which means, in essence moderator. I am grateful he has
> reinstated Michael Balter, though I was critical of the way he removed
> him in the first place.
> A while ago, in response to George's first request, I offered to be
> moderator, but most who responded did not want a moderator. In the light
> of that, and subsequent events, I want to make clear that I would try to
> avoid censorship of any sort, unless a clear consensus forms that someone
> is doing great damage to the list. The only exception would be clear
> I am forwarding my original moderation guidelines unchanged, but want to
> make clear these would only be guidelines, not rules. If I note
> violations, I would suggest to the violator(s) that maybe they could
> modify their posting habits accordingly. I would be open to further
> suggestions as to how to improve these guidelines, of course.
> Herb Fox is willing to be a more passive (yet) co-owner, ready to jump in
> if I flag overmuch.
> Anyone else who wishes to be a candidate should let us all know.
> Begin forwarded message:
>>From: Michael H Goldhaber <[log in to unmask]>
>>Date: June 5, 2007 11:56:45 AM PDT
>>To: [log in to unmask]
>>Reply-To: Science for the People Discussion List <SCIENCE-FOR-THE-
>>[log in to unmask]>
>>I am willing to be one of several people taking turns moderating, but I
>>would rather start my turn in about three weeks.
>>Here are the ground rules I would propose to use:
>>1. A maximum of four posts per person per day, of which no more than two
>>can be on the same topic or thread. (This will allow for the Phil's posts
>>2. Respect for other's viewpoints in replies. If one can find no basis
>>for respect, either one is very far out on a limb or enough others will
>>feel the same that no reply is required.
>>3. Germaneness to the list. Does this post have to do with science? Does
>>it have a connection with a left perspective, loosely defined?
>>4. Originality. Does the post say something that has not been said within
>>the last couple of months, at the very least?
>>5. Some respect for the intelligence and knowledge of the average group
>>member in each post.
>>6. No blanket condemnations or personal attacks.
>>7. No posts whose point is to argue that one's particular version of
>>leftism is better than someone else's.
>>8. An urge that everyone exercise self-restraint. Despite the limits of
>>four post per day, most people should post far fewer, probably no more
>>than one every few days.
>>9. Moderators should encourage the practice that each post should try to
>>offer a constructive alternative to what is being criticized, for example
>>a sounder policy about vaccinations or how drug innovation should
>>10. Moderators should encourage the practice of humility in the form of
>>posts. It is an open question as to what would truly constitute "science
>>for the people" or even how to bring about a better, fairer world. We
>>have more questions than answers, and that is appropriate to acknowledge.
>>If no one else is willing to co-moderate, I would urge everyone to try to
>>follow these suggestions (perhaps a smodified by others) for the time
>>(In the meantime, for those who find the last few days entertaining, I
>>suggest somene start a new list:Vituperation for the People. Each post
>>would at least have to explain why the poster deserves to be on that list
>>but someone else does not. )
> Need a brain boost? Recharge with a stimulating game. Play now!