July 2007


Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Jonathan Campbell <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Science for the People Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Mon, 2 Jul 2007 20:52:24 -0400
text/plain (127 lines)

     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.

Kind Regards
----- 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 
> emergencies.
> 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.
> Best,
> Michael
> 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]
>>Subject: Moderation
>>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 
>>of articles.)
>>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 
>>properly occur.
>>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 
>>being anyway.
>>(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!