> Ah, I'd been wondering when you'd pop up on the list with this after
> putting in your "qualifying miles" privately. Nice to see you
> again. Honest. I don't mind being bashed by someone who has paid
> their dues by at least rehearsing their lines (right or wrong)
> rather than just ad-libbing their gripes on the list anytime they
> feel like it.

Good to hear. I value to people on this list, and was worried you
would dismiss me despite following the rules.

Like I said groups.yahoo.com/group/lx200 has great people, but there
aren't nearly as many, so it's important to me to see this list
healthy and well maintained. That was all that was *ever* my goal.

> Correction: This is not a closed list. It is an OPEN list. Yes,
> any person in the world with email access (even a pager like the one
> in my pocket,) the subscription address, and the ability to type a
> 1-word subscribe message can come here and post to the list without
> any intervention on my part. Hence the need to quickly take action
> when the subscribers get unruly or even when they make innocent
> mistakes. I'm flattered that you find the list membership well
> enough behaved to assume it is a closed list.

Based on you kicking people off I thought it was closed. As you said
there is actually no point in kicking people off if the list is open.
They will just resubscribe if they want. My bad, I read too much into
your notes.

For those not in the know, the difference between open and closed is
simply whether the list admin (John) must approve subscription
requests before they go live.

My point, that the list is not moderated, still stands.

> As for being Draconian, isn't that a constellation? Actually, I've
> offered both of the 30-day suspendees and one of the 48-hour ones
> the ability to come back on immediately to lurk if they wish. I
> think the remaining one had already asked to be unsubscribed, and
> Saturday 12:01am will arrive before I can figure it all out. ;-)
>
> I also invited them to contact me privately if they feel the need to
> make an ON-TOPIC post for some reason. In that case, I'd come up
> with some excuse to allow them back on the list and only restrict
> them to staying on-topic during the original period of suspension.
>
> Not so Draconian, is it? Bear in mind that their offenses were not
> the most flagrant acts of personal aggression ever seen on this
> list, hence other offenders cannot necessarily expect the same
> treatment.

Glad to hear. Of course my comments must be based on what you had
said publicly.

> As to your charges of my insulting you or putting you down, I beg to
> differ. Your opening salvos in our private emails did nothing but
> try to do exactly that to me. I don't think I'm the one who started
> the pissing contest.
>
> So you've worked on big projects. So have I. So your
> companies/customers have had high-volume websites. So have mine.
> You started the one-upmanship game, and apparently I ended it. :-)
> What that has to do with running a hobby list like MAPUG is beyond
> me.

Nearly every adminitrative post you put on the list is an insult, put
down or threat.

Look, it's extremely poor form to post private email publicly (and I'm
bowing before the net gods for forgiveness), but I can't have you make
such bold claims without commenting back. When you wrote "But I think
you have little idea of how ISPs charge heavy users, or what a heavy
user is." what choice did I have but to defend by background (or
one-up you as you seem to have taken it. Particularly since my
background is so directly related to the issues with the list.

So, just for the record. I didn't start the game, I merely defended
Johns attack of my knowledge.

He did end the game though. I quickly grew tired of arguing with him.

> The private email I've received on this latest round is running 100%
> positive, and on the previous round, you were the only negative,
> with one or two neutral, helpful, well-thought-out contributions
> including Joe's in addition to a bunch of positive feedback.

Great. Based on the posts I've received I've done a terrible job of
expressing that I'm trying to make the list better and am finding you
an unwilling obstruction to that attempt.

The people on this list are great. The technology behind it isn't.
The unwillingness of the admin to try new things (or even acknowledge
problems in some cases) is frustrating because things could be
better.

The people on this list are great. The administrative style leaves
something to be desired. You claim I'm the only negative in private
email and that may well be true. However, there have been at least a
couple negative publicly, another round of unsubscribes *and* the
egroups list has shot up in membership by 50 or so members. That
doesn't strike me as a super bold affirmation of their love for you.

Anyway. That's the last I'll say on the subject publicly. Feel free
to have the final word if you wish (it's your list after all :-) ),
but I had to reply this once because I feel you misrepresented our
private communications.

rw2

--
Keep Manhattan,
just give me that countryside
-Vic Mizzy

View index by [date] [author] [subject]
Previous message: RE: [M]: 8x50 standard viewfinder - out of focus?, Alan Voetsch
Next message: [M]: 2" Diagonals, Bob Standifer Jr
Next message in thread: [M]: Re: OT: List management (don't read unless you are interested in petty bickering), Dave