Reasons for hall monitoring
kzak at redhat.com
Fri May 7 07:15:56 UTC 2010
On Thu, May 06, 2010 at 07:53:52PM -0400, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
> 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.
Why people in (N/2)+1 group read the thread? Masochism?
Why do you think that the thread is interesting only for people who
participate in the thread? We have many passive readers.
I think old good "Don't feed trolls!" is better than arbitrary attempt
to implement censorship.
Karel Zak <kzak at redhat.com>
More information about the devel