Reasons for hall monitoring
oget.fedora at gmail.com
Thu May 6 23:53:52 UTC 2010
On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 6:26 PM, Karel Zak wrote:
> On Thu, May 06, 2010 at 05:46:21PM -0400, Brian Pepple wrote:
>> On Thu, 2010-05-06 at 23:22 +0200, Matěj Cepl wrote:
>> > Dne 6.5.2010 12:28, Karel Zak napsal(a):
>> > >> Thank you for pointing out yet another undemocratic policy passed by one of
>> > >
>> > > +1 The Hall Monitor Policy is cancer.
>> > +1000 it feels to me like in a bad old Communism when the open debate
>> > was allowed only when it didn't touch the leading role of the Communist
>> > Party. I really don't think anybody in this thread said anything so
>> > sacrilegious that the thread should be terminated.
>> Normally, I'd be against it killing a thread, but the thread that
>> started this discussion had already been done awhile back and this new
>> thread added *nothing* new to the discussion. Frankly, it was more
> This all is your subjective opinion. There is not objective and
> unbiased way how evaluate any discussion, it's unmeasurable.
I don't agree. There are logical ways to measure this. e.g.
N people participate in a thread.
-> (N/2)+1 of them complains to the moderator
-> the thread gets closed.
But since the number of complaints in this case was 3 only, closing
the thread did not make any sense.
More information about the devel