Re: [OT] Re: Banned on NANOG

["Stephen Sprunk" <stephen () sprunk org>]

Thus spake "Bill Nash" <billn () billn net>
> The list's AUP includes actions to be taken for users going off topic, or 
> abusing the list. I've seen various list members do more about making sure 
> things stay on topic, than anyone with moderation credentials. I'm 
> thinking back, and not recalling many instances in the past few years 
> where there has been a friendly reminder, much less an inspired one, about 
> list policies and what's 'on topic'. Most people know, some people clearly 
> need(ed) reminding. Sanctions at this level undermine the whole.

I've gotten a few warnings (not friendly, but professional) over the years, 
alll on the same topic.  Yes, I should have learned after the first one or 
two, but given how long some blatantly off-topic threads last either there's 
a bit of selective enforcement going on or it takes many warnings before 
action is really taken.

> Whatever the case may be, I would think the rampant intelligence present
> on this list would generally place people above petty disagreements and
> allow them to focus on the merit of a given thread.

Intelligent people aren't a guarantee of rational behavior; I'd almost 
expect the opposite...  When looking at S:N ratios on NANOG, there are many 
folks who contribute only signal, many folks who contribute both, a few that 
contribute only noise, and the vast majority contribute neither (lurkers).

Obviously the first group is good, the third group is bad, and the last 
group is neutral to good.  Are we willing to expel the second group, keeping 
in mind that they probably contribute at least half the signal?

I think Paul's idea is a good start: each message needs to have more signal 
than noise, but we can all tolerate (or even enjoy) a small percentage of 
noise so long as it's spread thin.  I'd much rather the moderator(s) focus 
their efforts tracking/blocking folks with a consistently low S:N (e.g. 
Bandy Rush, Jim Fleming, etc.) and just send a reminder email or short 
suspension to folks who historically have a high S:N but slip up when the 
caffeine is running low.

> I don't think reform is needed. Certainly, nothing drastic. The problems 
> have been pretty clearly laid on the table. A couple of minor changes in 
> the way a few people do things is a much better fix. Most of what's needed 
> is a working feedback loop to keep things in check, moderators and 
> subscribers alike. There's one spec'd in the list charter. Why isn't it 
> being used?

Since the AUP specifies dealing with violations off-list, we doesn't really 
know how sensitive the moderator is, how many warnings it takes to get 
suspended, whether others posting to a given thread are getting warned, why 
some apparently off-topic threads never die, etc.  This robs us of the 
ability to tweak the AUP in real time or to verify the moderator(s)' 
good-faith interpretations match ours.

I'm not suggesting that individuals be warned in public, but if more than X 
people reply to an off-topic thread, it seems that an on-list reminder of 
the AUP is more effective at preventing future replies than going after 
individual posters afterwards.  X probably varies depending on how clearly 
off-topic something is and how often it appears.

S

Stephen Sprunk         "God does not play dice."  --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723         "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS        dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking