Consequences? OT wasFw: Royalty for Commoners

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Leo van de Pas

Consequences? OT wasFw: Royalty for Commoners

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 02 sep 2005 01:24:01

<snip>
"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1125591871.542360.300580@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
inaccurate on this, as usual. I express what needs to be said on these
matters, and in doing so spare others the chore.

I suppose village scolds used to congratulate themselves in the same
way--"I'm a pill, and I know I'm a pill, but at least I'm saving others
the trouble." But did she know for sure that the rest of the village
agreed with her?

Again, thoughtless and inaccurate: I didn't say "the rest" of the
newsgroup's readers agree with me on anything, but rather I said "others".

Of course I know what others think on the matter under discussion -
Brandon in his deep ignorance would be astounded at the remarks that are
made about him and Richardson off-list. The degradation of SGM that they
have brought about with their self-serving deceits and follies don't go
unnoticed in the wider genealogical community, that both of them once
aspired to impress.

But it's too late now.

Peter Stewart
I fully agree with Peter, it is too late. Too many worthwhile people have

voted with their feet. And I for one, am hoping that a moderated group will
be formed, not because I prefer one but we need one, they have made it
necessary. The grandstanding of one and the viscious attacks by the other
have destroyed the atmosphere of goodwill there should be. The patronizing
behaviour most just can do without. Demanding friendship and answers but not
giving them in return can last just that long, and it has lasted far too
long as far as I am concerned.
Leo van de Pas

Peter Stewart

Re: Consequences? OT wasFw: Royalty for Commoners

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 02 sep 2005 01:53:09

Leo van de Pas wrote:

<snip>

... I for one, am hoping that a moderated group will
be formed, not because I prefer one but we need one,
they have made it necessary. The grandstanding of
one and the viscious attacks by the other have
destroyed the atmosphere of goodwill there should be.

Hear, hear. The need for a moderated discussion forum is now
self-evident. This may not be always aglow with goodwill, but the
discipline of sticking to the subject & addressing pertinent questions,
or risking rejection of a post, will be salutary.

Planning of such a forum is underway, thanks to some members of this
newsgroup (not including myself, although I will be happy to submit my
contributions to their scrutiny).

Peter Stewart

Gjest

Re: Consequences? OT wasFw: Royalty for Commoners

Legg inn av Gjest » 02 sep 2005 12:49:32

Although some of the exchanges that occur here are a great pity
(entertainment value as wits are sharpened notwithstanding) it would be
a shame to lose any of the regular contributors from this list -
particularly you two.

As Donne says: "No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a
piece of the continent, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away by
the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were".

Even the loss of a clod is a loss. We can all at times, I am sure, be
clods.

Gordon Banks

Re: Consequences? OT wasFw: Royalty for Commoners

Legg inn av Gordon Banks » 02 sep 2005 17:53:02

I'm hoping it will be an open group, at least to those who can behave
themselves.

On Thu, 2005-09-01 at 17:53 -0700, Peter Stewart wrote:
Leo van de Pas wrote:

snip

... I for one, am hoping that a moderated group will
be formed, not because I prefer one but we need one,
they have made it necessary. The grandstanding of
one and the viscious attacks by the other have
destroyed the atmosphere of goodwill there should be.

Hear, hear. The need for a moderated discussion forum is now
self-evident. This may not be always aglow with goodwill, but the
discipline of sticking to the subject & addressing pertinent questions,
or risking rejection of a post, will be salutary.

Planning of such a forum is underway, thanks to some members of this
newsgroup (not including myself, although I will be happy to submit my
contributions to their scrutiny).

Peter Stewart

John Brandon

Re: Consequences? OT wasFw: Royalty for Commoners

Legg inn av John Brandon » 02 sep 2005 19:25:06

I fully agree with Peter, it is too late. Too many worthwhile people have
voted with their feet. And I for one, am hoping that a moderated group will
be formed, not because I prefer one but we need one, they have made it
necessary. The grandstanding of one and the viscious attacks by the other
have destroyed the atmosphere of goodwill there should be. The patronizing
behaviour most just can do without. Demanding friendship and answers but not
giving them in return can last just that long, and it has lasted far too
long as far as I am concerned.
Leo van de Pas

You are exaggerating as usual, Leo. Poor Leo, he can't make a sensible
assessment of anything.

I think that in a moderated group the smug self-satisfaction of the
little clique would reach overwhelming dimensions.

Peter Stewart

Re: Consequences? OT wasFw: Royalty for Commoners

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 03 sep 2005 00:17:36

"Gordon Banks" <geb@gordonbanks.com> wrote in message
news:1125676300.6323.7.camel@localhost.localdomain...
I'm hoping it will be an open group, at least to those who can behave
themselves.

I trust it will be the contributions that are moderated, not the
contributors. Anyone who has something useful or interesting to say should
be able to say it.

As to whether access will be open to everyone, or by free membership or by
subscription, I don't know - if it were my choice, it would be open, but any
nonce person like "Uriah", coming up with imaginary support for another
poster, would probably be rejected as having no information or opinion on
the subject at hand worth adding to the discourse.

A high proportion of Richardson's posts would be inadmissable without
revision, due to his deliberate misrepresentation of others and
self-promotion, falsehoods or evasions of his own. Brandon on the other hand
has not yet posted anything to SGM, as far as I can recall, that I would
find valid and also on-topic for the medieval period.

But it won't be my call: if either of them should ever appear with their SGM
habits still uncontrolled, I might of course choose to disappear, as I may
from here once an alternative is offered.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: Consequences? OT wasFw: Royalty for Commoners

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 03 sep 2005 00:31:07

"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1125685506.191877.11750@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
I fully agree with Peter, it is too late. Too many worthwhile people have
voted with their feet. And I for one, am hoping that a moderated group
will
be formed, not because I prefer one but we need one, they have made it
necessary. The grandstanding of one and the viscious attacks by the other
have destroyed the atmosphere of goodwill there should be. The
patronizing
behaviour most just can do without. Demanding friendship and answers but
not
giving them in return can last just that long, and it has lasted far too
long as far as I am concerned.
Leo van de Pas

You are exaggerating as usual, Leo. Poor Leo, he can't make a sensible
assessment of anything.

I think that in a moderated group the smug self-satisfaction of the
little clique would reach overwhelming dimensions.

What you so flagrantly miscall a "clique" doesn't need a public forum in the
first place - they can & do communicate off-list.

Leo is of course highly respected here, and Brandon isn't. It will be the
same in any forum dedicated to medieval genealogy, or in any other sphere
for that matter.

Peter Stewart

Chris Phillips

Re: Consequences? OT wasFw: Royalty for Commoners

Legg inn av Chris Phillips » 03 sep 2005 00:31:17

Peter Stewart wrote:
Hear, hear. The need for a moderated discussion forum is now
self-evident. This may not be always aglow with goodwill, but the
discipline of sticking to the subject & addressing pertinent questions,
or risking rejection of a post, will be salutary.

Planning of such a forum is underway, thanks to some members of this
newsgroup (not including myself, although I will be happy to submit my
contributions to their scrutiny).

Maybe it's worth explaining that - as announced in the July issue of its
journal "Foundations" - the Foundation for Medieval Genealogy is proposing
to reinstate its moderated online discussion forum.

This will be dependent on enough volunteers coming forward to help with the
moderation of the discussions. Anyone who is willing to help is urged to
contact the FMG at info@fmg.ac.

As far as I know, details of the moderation policy have yet to be decided,
but the proposal in "Foundations" includes this statement:
"An essential feature of such a moderated forum would be for contributors to
respect each others' views, and not to post offensive or abusive material of
a personal nature."

Chris Phillips

Douglas Richardson royala

Re: Consequences? OT wasFw: Royalty for Commoners

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson royala » 03 sep 2005 02:38:29

"Leo van de Pas" wrote:
<
< John Brandon seems to have "contributed" on American families after
the
< medieval times (which is part of gen-med) but that is about all and
it,
< again, restricts the group of people it could benefit. And then he
ruins it
< with his viscious behaviour, outdoing Spencer Hines.

You and Spencer used to be good friends, Leo. I trust you two are
working on resolving your issues.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

Leo van de Pas

Re: Consequences? OT wasFw: Royalty for Commoners

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 03 sep 2005 02:56:01

Pity to see this reply to Brandon's remark. He thinks I am exaggerating.
Where are Rafal Prinke, Christian Settipani, our Scandinavian friends, why
do we hardly see Brice Clagett and there are numerous more. And then all
the lurkers in fear of contributing. Why is that? Why do people reject
gen-med? We could and should have had many more regular contributors over a
much wider ground.

I am very pleased to see the interest in medieval genealogy in the USA, but
many if not most are only orientated on English and the odd Scottish, Irish
or Welsh medieval families. Lately there is a bit more on Byzantium but
there it seems to stop.

John Brandon seems to have "contributed" on American families after the
medieval times (which is part of gen-med) but that is about all and it,
again, restricts the group of people it could benefit. And then he ruins it
with his viscious behaviour, outdoing Spencer Hines.

I am looking forward to this moderated group. Not because I want it but
because we need it. Personally I prefer total free speech but, in my
opinion, free speech requires responsible handling, something lacking in
Richardson and Brandon. You cannot kick someone (verbally) in the face and
then profess we are here to make friends.

When you place yourself on a pedestal, like Richardson, you must be
_willing_ and _able_ to explain/defend statements made. Not ignore the
subject and go into attack on sometimes not even related matters. I don't
think we are here to make friends, I think we are here to help each other
and be helped. Friendships may come after respect, but how can Brandon and
Richardson expect themselves to be respected?

Leo van de Pas


----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, September 03, 2005 9:31 AM
Subject: Re: Consequences? OT wasFw: Royalty for Commoners


"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1125685506.191877.11750@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
I fully agree with Peter, it is too late. Too many worthwhile people
have
voted with their feet. And I for one, am hoping that a moderated group
will
be formed, not because I prefer one but we need one, they have made it
necessary. The grandstanding of one and the viscious attacks by the
other
have destroyed the atmosphere of goodwill there should be. The
patronizing
behaviour most just can do without. Demanding friendship and answers but
not
giving them in return can last just that long, and it has lasted far too
long as far as I am concerned.
Leo van de Pas

You are exaggerating as usual, Leo. Poor Leo, he can't make a sensible
assessment of anything.

I think that in a moderated group the smug self-satisfaction of the
little clique would reach overwhelming dimensions.

What you so flagrantly miscall a "clique" doesn't need a public forum in
the first place - they can & do communicate off-list.

Leo is of course highly respected here, and Brandon isn't. It will be the
same in any forum dedicated to medieval genealogy, or in any other sphere
for that matter.

Peter Stewart

John Brandon

Re: Consequences? OT wasFw: Royalty for Commoners

Legg inn av John Brandon » 03 sep 2005 04:16:33

Leo is of course highly respected here, and Brandon isn't. It will be the
same in any forum dedicated to medieval genealogy, or in any other sphere
for that matter.

More grandiose and sweeping statements a la Charlotte Boyle, Countess
Clifford ... huh, Pete?

Peter Stewart

Re: Consequences? OT wasFw: Royalty for Commoners

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 03 sep 2005 04:52:54

"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1125717393.941497.100380@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Leo is of course highly respected here, and Brandon isn't. It will be the
same in any forum dedicated to medieval genealogy, or in any other sphere
for that matter.

More grandiose and sweeping statements a la Charlotte Boyle, Countess
Clifford ... huh, Pete?

Charlott Boyle was Baroness Clifford, not "Countess".

And you won't get to me by infantile squibs that go astray before falling
flat.

Peter Stewart

John Brandon

Re: Consequences? OT wasFw: Royalty for Commoners

Legg inn av John Brandon » 03 sep 2005 05:22:38

Charlott Boyle was Baroness Clifford, not "Countess".

And she was Charlotte Boyle, not "Charlott," but who's keeping track?

Katheryn_Swynford

Re: Consequences? OT wasFw: Royalty for Commoners

Legg inn av Katheryn_Swynford » 03 sep 2005 05:58:09

The semi-regularly scheduled flamefests aside, I find this idea a
little worrisome.

For example, I have posted questions that not infrequently have not
received an answer (not to say that I think I am entitled to one,
incidentally), and so I am left to wonder whether my query was (a)
waaayyy too incredibly dumb, (b) waaayyyyy too incredibly obvious, or
(c) ...? I don't know what. But at least my question was never
censored, and some kind individuals have on more than one occasion
responded either on-group or privately, for which I have been
especially grateful. If I had been censored, I would have been left
wandering blind and dumb, with no avenue for remedying my deficiencies.

What happens to non-professionals like me (okay, I'm worried about
self)? I'm quite certain I don't always cite chapter and verse, but can
when required; oftentimes it's some bigger question rather than a
particular source that I don't understand.

And, of course, consenting adults can always choose to use either the
'delete' button or choose not to read posts from individuals whom they
already know they will not appreciate his/her/their contributions.

Individuals from _both_ sides of whatever divide that exists have been
kind enough to me that I would hate to see a world that exists with
only one camp or the other... especially inasmuch as I can always
choose not to read further those flamefests that I find burdonsome.

FWIW...

Judy
http://www.katherineswynford.net

Peter Stewart

Re: Consequences? OT wasFw: Royalty for Commoners

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 03 sep 2005 06:27:55

I'm not sure what you are basing these ideas on - a moderated newsgroup is
not going to be a closed shop or a mutual admiration society.

Questions will be necessary to start most discussions. Answers, as here,
will be given only if someone knows what is being sought and has time or
interest to discuss this. Sometimes questions are ignored because the matter
is covered in the archive, or the answer is so readily available elsewhere
that it is not worth the trouble of repeating. Otherwise, maybe no-one
happens to know or care about it enough to move the discussion forward, or
expects someone else can do this better anyway. This isn't a help-desk with
attendants on duty to answer the next question that comes along.

Professionalism has nothing to do with it as far as I can see. Like most
people here, I am not engaged in genealogy professionally, and this has not
affected the courtesy or help I have received in the newsgroup.

The point of moderation is to keep discussions on track and within the
bounds of commonsense & decent manners. Dishonesty, self-promotion and
personal insults ought to be rejected as outside the scope & purpose of the
forum, but this is not "censorship" in the sense of suppressing information
or opinion of the kind that people have joined the newsgroup to obtain.

Peter Stewart


"Katheryn_Swynford" <katheryn_swynford@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1125723489.461279.139850@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
The semi-regularly scheduled flamefests aside, I find this idea a
little worrisome.

For example, I have posted questions that not infrequently have not
received an answer (not to say that I think I am entitled to one,
incidentally), and so I am left to wonder whether my query was (a)
waaayyy too incredibly dumb, (b) waaayyyyy too incredibly obvious, or
(c) ...? I don't know what. But at least my question was never
censored, and some kind individuals have on more than one occasion
responded either on-group or privately, for which I have been
especially grateful. If I had been censored, I would have been left
wandering blind and dumb, with no avenue for remedying my deficiencies.

What happens to non-professionals like me (okay, I'm worried about
self)? I'm quite certain I don't always cite chapter and verse, but can
when required; oftentimes it's some bigger question rather than a
particular source that I don't understand.

And, of course, consenting adults can always choose to use either the
'delete' button or choose not to read posts from individuals whom they
already know they will not appreciate his/her/their contributions.

Individuals from _both_ sides of whatever divide that exists have been
kind enough to me that I would hate to see a world that exists with
only one camp or the other... especially inasmuch as I can always
choose not to read further those flamefests that I find burdonsome.

FWIW...

Judy
http://www.katherineswynford.net

John Brandon

Re: Consequences? OT wasFw: Royalty for Commoners

Legg inn av John Brandon » 03 sep 2005 06:44:30

A group you called censored would skim out
those nasty or stupid replies, it would remove
those that are insulting and, as a result, many
more

But who's going to be willing to volunteer for all the (boring) work
involved in moderating? I personally would rather read through a
message that contains ten curse words and three insults than be
responsible for vetoing or altering what a grown person feels he or she
wants to say.

People really do need to stop being wimps, develop a slightly thicker
skin, and ignore what they find unpleasant. At any given time, there
is usually only one flame-prone thread going. Dear Peter himself
announced that people reading his postings would have to be prepared to
"take the rough with the smooth" (a lot of rough, little smooth). But
of course he was right in this one instance.

Peter Stewart

Re: Consequences? OT wasFw: Royalty for Commoners

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 03 sep 2005 07:10:11

"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1125726270.475326.306940@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
A group you called censored would skim out
those nasty or stupid replies, it would remove
those that are insulting and, as a result, many
more

But who's going to be willing to volunteer for all the (boring) work
involved in moderating? I personally would rather read through a
message that contains ten curse words and three insults than be
responsible for vetoing or altering what a grown person feels he or she
wants to say.

People really do need to stop being wimps, develop a slightly thicker
skin, and ignore what they find unpleasant. At any given time, there
is usually only one flame-prone thread going. Dear Peter himself
announced that people reading his postings would have to be prepared to
"take the rough with the smooth" (a lot of rough, little smooth). But
of course he was right in this one instance.

The "rough" in this case is only necessary because SGM is not moderated.

The trouble with this is that people can easily impose views that may be
poisonous, like Akrogiali's inane "Greek" chauvinism recently, on readers
who are not necessarily attuned to pick up on the personal agenda or dumb
prejudice involved.

Equally, there are some who expend a good deal of time and effort before
finally seeing through the sham of Richardson's posturings about a king's
kinsman or some other similarly empty ploy to keep his name before the
public. The Vernon rubbish of the past few days is a typical example of his
stupid & subversive work - it was never more than a piece of nonsense to
impress the unwary, but it took a lot of patience from Todd, Rosie, Luke and
others to unravel the tangled mess that developed & that was stubbornly
maintained after the originator must have seen he had failed dismally.

A moderated newsgroup would have given up only a fraction of the bandwidth,
if any, to these and other such threads. They clog the SGM archive, making
searches time-consuming & often unprofitable.

The idea of SGM deserves a better outcome, but experience has shown that it
can be hijacked by people who are determined on aggrandising themselves
before readers new to the field of medieval genealogy, abetted by a few
blindly loyal followers.

In a moderated newsgroup, there is almost nothing that Richardson and I
could have to say to or about each other, since our interests are different
and he would not get away with deceits and specious logic needing to be
sharply corrected in the first place.

Peter Stewart

Leo van de Pas

Re: Consequences? OT wasFw: Royalty for Commoners

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 03 sep 2005 07:35:02

Dear Judy,

Over the years I have said several times that, according to me, there is no
such thing as a dumb question (of course there are, but that is a different
story). If you know the answer you would not ask. However there is such a
thing as a stupid or nasty reply, and we do see a fair number of those.

Why you may not get a reply could possibly have a very simple reason: no-one
knows the answer. It would be dreadful if every one should respond to every
message, even if only to say I don't know. I am sure you agree.

A group you called censored would skim out those nasty or stupid replies, it
would remove those that are insulting and, as a result, many more poeple (I
hope) will be encouraged to ask questions. Over the last few years I have
asked questions on gen-med on behalf of others who did not want to expose
themself to the bile or belittling responses of some on this list.

I believed for a long time what you suggest, use a killfile and remove those
that are useless or offensive. I hoped to remove John Brandon and Spencer
Hines's presence. I have succeeded up to a point. I still see those messages
from others replying to these two.

Personally I have come to a point that I dread to read some of the messages
on gen-med because they are aggressive, nasty, insulting, dishonest-----I am
sure a few more words could be added. The hypocracy "we are here to make
friends" is spouted out regularly.

If those few could be responsible and restrain their behaviour we would have
many more people participating but we keep on losing people who just come
and see what this list is about and then quickly disappear. I can't blame
them. With a monitored list the reasons for departure could be reduced.

This intolerant behaviour of some have created a barrier, an additional one,
the language(s) barrier is bad enough to overcome. And gen-med has tried to
become more international and attract people from other countriess but do
you think those people feel welcome in a group that seems to thrive on
character assasination?

With best wishes
Leo

----- Original Message -----
From: "Katheryn_Swynford" <katheryn_swynford@yahoo.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, September 03, 2005 2:58 PM
Subject: Re: Consequences? OT wasFw: Royalty for Commoners


The semi-regularly scheduled flamefests aside, I find this idea a
little worrisome.

For example, I have posted questions that not infrequently have not
received an answer (not to say that I think I am entitled to one,
incidentally), and so I am left to wonder whether my query was (a)
waaayyy too incredibly dumb, (b) waaayyyyy too incredibly obvious, or
(c) ...? I don't know what. But at least my question was never
censored, and some kind individuals have on more than one occasion
responded either on-group or privately, for which I have been
especially grateful. If I had been censored, I would have been left
wandering blind and dumb, with no avenue for remedying my deficiencies.

What happens to non-professionals like me (okay, I'm worried about
self)? I'm quite certain I don't always cite chapter and verse, but can
when required; oftentimes it's some bigger question rather than a
particular source that I don't understand.

And, of course, consenting adults can always choose to use either the
'delete' button or choose not to read posts from individuals whom they
already know they will not appreciate his/her/their contributions.

Individuals from _both_ sides of whatever divide that exists have been
kind enough to me that I would hate to see a world that exists with
only one camp or the other... especially inasmuch as I can always
choose not to read further those flamefests that I find burdonsome.

FWIW...

Judy
http://www.katherineswynford.net

John Brandon

Re: Consequences? OT wasFw: Royalty for Commoners

Legg inn av John Brandon » 03 sep 2005 07:36:06

In a moderated newsgroup, there is almost nothing that Richardson and I
could have to say to or about each other, since our interests are different
and he would not get away with deceits and specious logic needing to be
sharply corrected in the first place.


I guess it would be nice for you to be able to relax for once, and
cease from 'correcting' Douglas' errors ...

Katheryn_Swynford

Re: Consequences? OT wasFw: Royalty for Commoners

Legg inn av Katheryn_Swynford » 03 sep 2005 07:51:33

Dear Peter (Or Mr.Stewart, I'm uncertain of how you wish to be
addressed; sorry; you have not been rude to me and I do not wish to be
rude to you):

I am not attacking you personally, I only wish to address why I as a
nobody contributor have concerns:

You said:

"Equally, there are some who expend a good deal of time and effort
before
finally seeing through the sham of Richardson's posturings about a
king's
kinsman or some other similarly empty ploy to keep his name before the
public. The Vernon rubbish of the past few days is a typical example of
his
stupid & subversive work - it was never more than a piece of nonsense
to
impress the unwary, but it took a lot of patience from Todd, Rosie,
Luke and
others to unravel the tangled mess that developed & that was stubbornly

maintained after the originator must have seen he had failed dismally.


A moderated newsgroup would have given up only a fraction of the
bandwidth,
if any, to these and other such threads. They clog the SGM archive,
making
searches time-consuming & often unprofitable. " END QUOTE

First: what you say is that posts like the above-referenced would be
silenced, period.

My reply is that I, as one of the perhaps uninitiated, found the thread
enlightening. I, for one, except for any personal slights that may or
may not have been present, enjoyed reading the thread and following the
reasoning between two or more camps. This is what I _expect_ to read
(sans personal attacks, that is). This is why I post the occasional
post: not so much because I am convinced of such and such a thing, but
to see the opposite reasoned opinion.

Secondly, I worry about the specification against 'specious logic': a
newbie (like me!) may well honestly commit such sins of logic, seeking
education. How can we be educated if we are censored at the front? (I
see myself here, prominantly, obviously).

Is this to be a forum of professionals, who would not make such errors
of logic, or will it be a forum for all, including those who may well
make such mistakes, hoping for correction?

I am not assuming that you and others are here solely for the purpose
of educating the uninitiated. But honest seekers of truth would then
seek... where exactly? (just in case I'm about to receive _my_ walking
papers... @;-) )

I am not suggesting that this is a trivial, a priori, question. It is
a subject that I've seen raised on a few software development lists
that I'm on, and I've posted pretty much the same idea.

It really seems ( in the absence of other ideas ) to come down to this:

(1) a list for the erudite
(2) a (useless) list for everybody else.

I wish I knew what the answer was...

Judy
http://www.katherineswynford.net

Peter Stewart

Re: Consequences? OT wasFw: Royalty for Commoners

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 03 sep 2005 08:23:35

Comments interspersed:

"Katheryn_Swynford" <katheryn_swynford@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1125730293.445291.246280@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Dear Peter (Or Mr.Stewart, I'm uncertain of how you wish to be
addressed; sorry; you have not been rude to me and I do not wish to be
rude to you):

You can choose for yourself which of my names you prefer to use - Peter is
fine for me.

I am not attacking you personally, I only wish to address why I as a
nobody contributor have concerns:

I didn't think you were attacking me or anyone else. SGM isn't an
adversarial pursuit for me, despite the misrepresentations of others. I
insult people on specific points at issue when I think this is deserved, but
not capriciously or for fun.

You said:

"Equally, there are some who expend a good deal of time and effort
before finally seeing through the sham of Richardson's posturings about a
king's kinsman or some other similarly empty ploy to keep his name before
the
public. The Vernon rubbish of the past few days is a typical example of
his stupid & subversive work - it was never more than a piece of nonsense
to impress the unwary, but it took a lot of patience from Todd, Rosie,
Luke and others to unravel the tangled mess that developed & that was
stubbornly
maintained after the originator must have seen he had failed dismally.

A moderated newsgroup would have given up only a fraction of the
bandwidth, if any, to these and other such threads. They clog the SGM
archive,
making searches time-consuming & often unprofitable. " END QUOTE

First: what you say is that posts like the above-referenced would be
silenced, period.

No, I didn't say that at all - moderation is not "silencing": if a post is
rejected as inappropriate, it could be revised and resubmitted. The task of
moderators ought to be no different from (but less intensive than) the work
of an editor in deciding what does and does not go into a publication. The
author remains responsible for the facts & opinions contained in a post, and
is under no obligation to change these while the moderator is under no
obligation to publish them. The writer still has the option of sending
whatever is rejected to anyone else privately, if e-mail addresses are made
known in order to facilitate this.

My reply is that I, as one of the perhaps uninitiated, found the thread
enlightening. I, for one, except for any personal slights that may or
may not have been present, enjoyed reading the thread and following the
reasoning between two or more camps. This is what I _expect_ to read
(sans personal attacks, that is). This is why I post the occasional
post: not so much because I am convinced of such and such a thing, but
to see the opposite reasoned opinion.

If you thought the Vernon genealogy proposed by Richardson had merits worth
discussing, and that this was fit to command the attention of other
contributors to dispose of the rot for your entertainment or enlightenment,
then you have a different idea of the value of other people's time & effort
in relation to your own needs than most reasonable souls.

Secondly, I worry about the specification against 'specious logic': a
newbie (like me!) may well honestly commit such sins of logic, seeking
education. How can we be educated if we are censored at the front? (I
see myself here, prominantly, obviously).

You can see through most of Richardsons' ploys and nonsense without prior
knowledge, just by commonsense, and attention to the points (and the number
of points....) that he avoids answering. Logic is not a secret to be
unlocked on SGM: the principles are universal and some familiarity is easy
enough to acquire elsewhere.

Is this to be a forum of professionals, who would not make such errors
of logic, or will it be a forum for all, including those who may well
make such mistakes, hoping for correction?

The mistakes that all of us make will still be made - Todd Farmerie, for
instance, helpfully corrected a mistaken impression that I gave recently
about Zaida-Isabella. He did this without guile and without a personal
agenda, just for the sake of clarity and understanding. I welcome this and
could have had no legitimate objection to it even if Todd had sharpened his
remarks into a direct criticism, because I was wrong.

I am not assuming that you and others are here solely for the purpose
of educating the uninitiated. But honest seekers of truth would then
seek... where exactly? (just in case I'm about to receive _my_ walking
papers... @;-) )

I don't follow the question - if there is a moderated newsgroup somewhere
else, why could you not go there with any questions that you might otherwise
(or also) raise here?

I am not suggesting that this is a trivial, a priori, question. It is
a subject that I've seen raised on a few software development lists
that I'm on, and I've posted pretty much the same idea.

It really seems ( in the absence of other ideas ) to come down to this:

(1) a list for the erudite
(2) a (useless) list for everybody else.

Again, erudition has nothing to do with it. If people want to share their
findings in a specialised study only with the initiated, they can do so in
print. Most people come to SGM, and will to a moderated alternative, in
order to learn from less formal research and sometimes from serendipity.
There is plenty of "use" in posts from people whom nobody - not themselves
indeed - would consider "erudite" on the subject at hand, but whose thoguhts
& experience can be illuminating nonetheless. I don't see that SGM
participants can be so broadly categorised anyway - some may know a lot
about part of the field, and little about the rest.

Peter Stewart

Chris Phillips

Re: Consequences? OT wasFw: Royalty for Commoners

Legg inn av Chris Phillips » 03 sep 2005 09:02:22

Judy wrote:
Is this to be a forum of professionals, who would not make such errors
of logic, or will it be a forum for all, including those who may well
make such mistakes, hoping for correction?

The policy on moderation will be up to the FMG, as it's their forum, but as
I understand it the essential idea is "for contributors to respect each
others' views, and not to post offensive or abusive material of a personal
nature".

It is certainly not intended to be a forum for professionals only, or to
exclude newcomers or the inexperienced.

Anyway, whatever happens, this newsgroup will continue to exist, and
everyone can choose whether to participate in both, only one or neither of
them.

Chris Phillips

Leo van de Pas

Re: Consequences? OT wasFw: Royalty for Commoners

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 03 sep 2005 09:20:02

See in between.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Judy Perry" <katheryn_swynford@yahoo.com>
To: "Leo van de Pas" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au>
Cc: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, September 03, 2005 4:32 PM
Subject: Re: Consequences? OT wasFw: Royalty for Commoners


Dear Leo (et al):

I'm really not so much complaining that I don't have
access to a free help desk ;-)
--------There is nothing wrong with a free help desk. We do not know in what

circumstances some people are. They may be hundreds of miles away from the
nearest library. At one stage one participant was in a wheelchair and the
nearest library did not have fascilities to enable her to enter, as it was
on the top floor of a building. I like to receive free help and I give free
help.

but rather that I have
worries about adults not being able to deal with free
speech.
-----when free speech means you are allowed to insult and lie and deceive, I

think I can do without.

I fear that, inasmuch as I'm mostly a taker
and not a giver, I'm in the 'bad people' group.
-------I think you may be wrong. Today you may qualify yourself as a taker,

and if you take long enough you will become able to give.

Yet,
where, in a smidgeon of the cases, I'm able to try to
contribute something (as in the recent Ladies of the
Garter instance), I do my best, as I assume most
others do as well.

Free speech isn't always pretty. And, yes, _I've_
been among those who have been fearful of putting toes
into the sometimes turgid waters. I honestly really
kinda cringe whenever I ask a question.
------Again if you ask your question honestly there should be no stupid

question.
Here you are one person admitting to be intimidated by nasty people, and
that is what it is all about. Free speech should mean you feel free to ask
questions without fear of insults or belittling.

Especially
inasmuch as I've experienced kindness and help from
those on both sides of the flaming fence, people who,
as far as I've been able to discern, haven't held this
against me (I'd mention them, except this might make
things uglier and personal, whereas I wish to address
issues of concerns, not named individuals).

But when it is supposed that 'moderation' (really
censorship) would remove 'nastiness' or what is
supposed to be poorly thought-out/mischaracterized/...
I have to have at least two concerns:
--------If what you call censorship removes the fear of asking questions, it

is a positive.

(a) how can it be assured that such moderators would
be of _neither_ of the two warring camps?
-----I do not know how this is going to work, but I know that more than one

person is going to be needed to be moderators. But moderators should not be
needed if people on gen-med would "moderate" their behaviour.

If you have
moderators purely of one side or the other, you've
just divided perhaps the camp by two and cast half
out.
--------I don't think so, you should be able to ask any question and reply

moderately and if you remain civilised, I doubt you will have problems.

And, as a self-interested individual, I don't
know if I'm in the cast outs or not. And if I don't
know... what about all the others? Putting up fences
means keeping some people out. But who? and why? and
under what specific circumstances? (Okay, calling
people names is bad, etc. but what I've read
heretofore seems vague, except where certain named
individuals are specified).
-------First you have to participate and only "immoderate" behaviour would

prevent some of your messages getting through.

(b) 'moderation' that is set up just to keep some
people out makes the non-combatants wonder if they'll
be kept out as well, not so much because of their
'allegiance' but because of, well, in my case, perhaps
my _ineptitude_ for which I seek erudition and
correction: e.g., I don't know whether arms may, in
some jurisdictions, belong to the land and not the
person/family. Maybe it's a silly question. I just
don't know, that's why I ask.
------I think 'moderation' will be used to keep out "immoderate" messages

not the people sending them. If you keep on sending immoderate messages and
they keep on being rejected, surely you change your tune?

I, for one, would like to see the proposed details of
such moderation that did NOT mention individuals by
name and instead described _behaviors_ and _standards_
that spell out the conditions by which we are to
adhere.
------This is what I expect.


I have always disliked rules, bylaws, laws,
etc., that all but (or in some cases don't) mention
some named individual. Good rules/laws are based on
principles and not personality.
------Guide lines we need, in a medieval group asking about how to cook a

turnip is totally out of place. Insulting behaviour we can also do without.
To be kicked in the face one day and then to be expected to be all pally the
next is a bit too much.

I don't mind rules that adhere to this ideal. But, I
guess, I still don't like censorship, no matter what
it is called @;-) I guess maybe I need to 'grow up'
@;-)
------Censorship and killfiles aren't they the same in a way? Why is Spencer

Hines in my killfile? I dared mention a book existed and I dared mention one
aspect of that book. What happened? I was hounded because I was that idiot
who needed to provide proof what this book said. He became rediculously
nasty as though I had written the book. Thank you, I can do without that.
Now had Spencer Hines been a person who continually contributes I might have
shrugged my shoulders and forgotten about it, but go through his messages,
it is carp, belittle, insult or praise his newly found friends and that I
can do without as well.

John Brandon has been disgustingly viscious. And then I am told he treats me
like that because I forced Rosie Bevan and Peter Stewart to be nasty to
Douglas Richardson.
If I had asked either one to be nasty to DR they both would have told me to
take a hike. Richardson gives enough reasons for negative reactions as it
is.

At first I was also against a moderated group but I become more and more
convinced, thanks to Brandon, Richardson and Hines, that it is the only way
to go.
Leo


Judy
http://www.katherineswynford.net

--- Leo van de Pas <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au> wrote:

Dear Judy,

Over the years I have said several times that,
according to me, there is no
such thing as a dumb question (of course there are,
but that is a different
story). If you know the answer you would not ask.
However there is such a
thing as a stupid or nasty reply, and we do see a
fair number of those.



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

Tim Powys-Lybbe

Re: Consequences? OT wasFw: Royalty for Commoners

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 03 sep 2005 11:58:44

In message of 3 Sep, fairthorne@breathe.com wrote:

Peter Stewart writes:

The task of
moderators ought to be no different from (but less intensive than)
the work of an editor in deciding what does and does not go into a
publication.

That is what it should be - but often is not.

I moderate an Open University student conference (devoted to a small
group of students and specific to a single course)

In the last few days I have had a pair of contributors each deluging
me with emails complaining about the conduct of the other

This is not a cross you should have to bear.

To me, moderating requires a set of rules and I am not sure that the
rules can adequately cover all issues. Do you have rules? Are they
made known to the students? Can you summarise them here?

And what do you do with contributions you reject? Do you tell the
student that it has been rejected? Do you tell him which rule it
offended?

Do the rules apply also the the mail directed solely to you as
moderator? Do you take any action on such mail? What?

Do you have the power to exclude a student from the group if they
persist in breakign the rules?

Finally is there any check that you are applying the rules fairly?
(It is always possible that a moderator uses their power for their
own ends.)

--
Tim Powys-Lybbe                                          tim@powys.org
             For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org

Gjest

Re: Consequences? OT wasFw: Royalty for Commoners

Legg inn av Gjest » 03 sep 2005 12:38:02

Peter Stewart writes:

The task of
moderators ought to be no different from (but less intensive than) the work
of an editor in deciding what does and does not go into a publication.

That is what it should be - but often is not.

I moderate an Open University student conference (devoted to a small group
of students and specific to a single course)

In the last few days I have had a pair of contributors each deluging me with
emails complaining about the conduct of the other

The difficulty is that both are oversensitive and have clashing
personalities, separately they are both reasonable people

My view is that no one in their right mind would want to be a moderator for
this conference

It saddens me to read some of the postings; I'm all for vigourous
discussions and differing opinions, they are essential. It is the packaging
round them that sometimes goes OTT

Despite being a taker I've been shown nothing but kindness and help from
this conference. Despite the flaws I'd vote for the status quo (that's about
the limit of my Latin!) and also plead that none leave

cheers

Simon

Peter Stewart

Re: Consequences? OT wasFw: Royalty for Commoners

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 03 sep 2005 12:42:29

"Tim Powys-Lybbe" <tim@powys.org> wrote in message
news:372790a44d.tim@south-frm.demon.co.uk...
In message of 3 Sep, fairthorne@breathe.com wrote:

Peter Stewart writes:

The task of
moderators ought to be no different from (but less intensive than)
the work of an editor in deciding what does and does not go into a
publication.

That is what it should be - but often is not.

I moderate an Open University student conference (devoted to a small
group of students and specific to a single course)

In the last few days I have had a pair of contributors each deluging
me with emails complaining about the conduct of the other

This is not a cross you should have to bear.

To me, moderating requires a set of rules and I am not sure that the
rules can adequately cover all issues. Do you have rules? Are they
made known to the students? Can you summarise them here?

And what do you do with contributions you reject? Do you tell the
student that it has been rejected? Do you tell him which rule it
offended?

Do the rules apply also the the mail directed solely to you as
moderator? Do you take any action on such mail? What?

Do you have the power to exclude a student from the group if they
persist in breakign the rules?

Finally is there any check that you are applying the rules fairly?
(It is always possible that a moderator uses their power for their
own ends.)

I am at a loss to understand any of this - surely a moderated newsgroup is
no different from an edited newspaper in this respect, that no-one (unless
it is the owner) has a prescriptive right to have their writing appear in
it. Your rules seem to be predicated on the entitlement, all other things
being equal, of anyone to participate in a newsgroup set up and run by
someone else. Why is this?

Surely a forum is still open & public when the authority is maintained to
refuse admission. Otherwise you might as well say that a sports event is
essentially private if drunks & nuisances are kept out or ejected, or if
streakers are not allowed on the playing field.

Anyone who objects to moderatorial (is there such a word?) policy can refuse
to participate, after all. An Open University conference is a different
matter, since access might be considered a right of all enrolled students -
but then the general public would not expect to be included, so that a
swingeing pre-moderation rule is applied that keeps out most of the world's
population. Does anyone complain about this?

Peter Stewart

Gjest

Re: Consequences? OT wasFw: Royalty for Commoners

Legg inn av Gjest » 03 sep 2005 14:22:02

Dear John,
If my memory is not utterly failing me, the last plea for a
moderated newsgroup came from from your compadre Douglas who wished to
become moderator himself. Some time after that.. things got rather nasty between
yourself, Spencer and Douglas on the one side and Peter Stewart and Leo on the
other. At the time someone remarked in true primary / secondary school fashion
that no one could be friendly with both groups yet myself and I bet several
others are to an extent. I opposed the notion of a moderated newsgroup yet
perhaps if We had a panel of moderators We would not again sink into an incivil
verbal war, which stunk to high heaven on all sides.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA

Gjest

Re: Consequences? OT wasFw: Royalty for Commoners

Legg inn av Gjest » 03 sep 2005 14:30:02

In a message dated 9/3/2005 5:20:59 AM Pacific Standard Time,
Jwc1870@aol.com writes:

your compadre Douglas who wished to
become moderator himself. Some time after that.. things got rather nasty
between
yourself, Spencer and Douglas on the one side and Peter Stewart and Leo on
the
other. At the time someone remarked in true primary / secondary school
fashion
that no one could be friendly with both groups yet myself and I bet several
others are to an extent. I opposed the notion of a moderated newsgroup yet
perhaps if We had a panel of moderators


Yes I'm sure as a group we could come up with a short list of say six or
eight people who we would *not* want to moderate the group (big grin)
Will Johnson

Leo van de Pas

Re: Consequences? OT wasFw: Royalty for Commoners

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 03 sep 2005 14:40:02

Dear James,

I think the difference is that I do not demand that people on this list must
become my friends. I know, we are halfway there because we share an
interest. But in the process of becoming friends does that mean having to
accept remarks ranging from snide to viscious? Is it primary/secondary
school fashion to get fed up with this kind of treatment?
Do we just have to stand by and accept that kind of treatment?

I hope you have seen from Peter's message in regards to Spencer Hines's
misunderstandings what we are confronted with. I ignored Spencer's jibes for
quite a while and then killfiled him. What else could or should I have done?

Do I have to accept blatant lies from Richardson "that while he was away
Peter Stewart, Tim Powys-Lybbe and myself were fighting with everyone all
the time" to the extend that Richardson was feeling sorry for those
_victims_? And then he apologises for using the primary/secondary school
term _bloopers_ in regards to my website and then I am expected to treat him
like a long lost friend?

I have never turned people away when I could help, and I help most of the
time unasked and then to get the "Brandon" treatment _senile old fool_. And
Brandon and Richardson do they now think a moderated group is not necessary?
If Brandon, Richardson and Hines "moderated" their behaviour we would not
even be discussing one. I hope you agree.
With best wishes
Leo van de Pas

----- Original Message -----
From: <Jwc1870@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, September 03, 2005 10:20 PM
Subject: Re: Consequences? OT wasFw: Royalty for Commoners


Dear John,
If my memory is not utterly failing me, the last plea for
a
moderated newsgroup came from from your compadre Douglas who wished to
become moderator himself. Some time after that.. things got rather nasty
between
yourself, Spencer and Douglas on the one side and Peter Stewart and Leo on
the
other. At the time someone remarked in true primary / secondary school
fashion
that no one could be friendly with both groups yet myself and I bet
several
others are to an extent. I opposed the notion of a moderated newsgroup yet
perhaps if We had a panel of moderators We would not again sink into an
incivil
verbal war, which stunk to high heaven on all sides.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA

Leo van de Pas

Re: Consequences? OT wasFw: Royalty for Commoners

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 03 sep 2005 14:43:01

Dear Will,
We only need three to behave moderately now wouldn't that be something.
Leo

----- Original Message -----
From: <WJhonson@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, September 03, 2005 10:28 PM
Subject: Re: Consequences? OT wasFw: Royalty for Commoners


In a message dated 9/3/2005 5:20:59 AM Pacific Standard Time,
Jwc1870@aol.com writes:

your compadre Douglas who wished to
become moderator himself. Some time after that.. things got rather nasty
between
yourself, Spencer and Douglas on the one side and Peter Stewart and Leo
on
the
other. At the time someone remarked in true primary / secondary school
fashion
that no one could be friendly with both groups yet myself and I bet
several
others are to an extent. I opposed the notion of a moderated newsgroup
yet
perhaps if We had a panel of moderators


Yes I'm sure as a group we could come up with a short list of say six or
eight people who we would *not* want to moderate the group (big grin)
Will Johnson


Gjest

Re: Consequences? OT wasFw: Royalty for Commoners

Legg inn av Gjest » 03 sep 2005 14:55:02

Dear Leo,
No, It is not behaving in primary /secondary school fashion to
object to vicious statements another makes about you. the Assumption by
(whomever it was) that No One could be friends with persons on both sides of an
argument was the part I percieve as primary / secondary school behavior.
Sincerely,
James W
Cummings
Dixmont,
Maine USA

Leo van de Pas

Re: Consequences? OT wasFw: Royalty for Commoners

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 03 sep 2005 15:00:02

Dear James,
I think the term friends is the wrong one. We are all, well most, people
willing to consider others and support others in their endeavour. This may
be friendly, but is it friendship?
The proof is in the eating, when people ask questions and I am able to give
replies, I do I even have tried quite recently to steer Richardson into the
right direction with some of his questions. I may not do it as friendly as I
would with others, but that is to be expected.
Leo

----- Original Message -----
From: <Jwc1870@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, September 03, 2005 10:52 PM
Subject: Re: Consequences? OT wasFw: Royalty for Commoners


Dear Leo,
No, It is not behaving in primary /secondary school fashion
to
object to vicious statements another makes about you. the Assumption by
(whomever it was) that No One could be friends with persons on both sides
of an
argument was the part I percieve as primary / secondary school behavior.
Sincerely,
James
W
Cummings

Dixmont,
Maine USA

Gjest

Re: Consequences? OT wasFw: Royalty for Commoners

Legg inn av Gjest » 03 sep 2005 15:12:02

Dear Leo,
Perhaps friends is not the proper term. Not so very long ago
the term pen pals was in vogue and may yet be for all I know. We are fellow
contributors to the same Newsgroup at least and some of us act as monstrously
toward each other as some families are wont to do. Either that or Capulets and
Montacutes.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA

Tim Powys-Lybbe

Re: Consequences? OT wasFw: Royalty for Commoners

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 03 sep 2005 17:48:43

In message of 3 Sep, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote:

"Tim Powys-Lybbe" <tim@powys.org> wrote in message
news:372790a44d.tim@south-frm.demon.co.uk...
In message of 3 Sep, fairthorne@breathe.com wrote:

Peter Stewart writes:

The task of
moderators ought to be no different from (but less intensive than)
the work of an editor in deciding what does and does not go into a
publication.

That is what it should be - but often is not.

I moderate an Open University student conference (devoted to a
small group of students and specific to a single course)

In the last few days I have had a pair of contributors each
deluging me with emails complaining about the conduct of the other

This is not a cross you should have to bear.

To me, moderating requires a set of rules and I am not sure that the
rules can adequately cover all issues. Do you have rules? Are they
made known to the students? Can you summarise them here?

And what do you do with contributions you reject? Do you tell the
student that it has been rejected? Do you tell him which rule it
offended?

Do the rules apply also the the mail directed solely to you as
moderator? Do you take any action on such mail? What?

Do you have the power to exclude a student from the group if they
persist in breakign the rules?

Finally is there any check that you are applying the rules fairly?
(It is always possible that a moderator uses their power for their
own ends.)

I am at a loss to understand any of this - surely a moderated
newsgroup is no different from an edited newspaper in this respect,
that no-one (unless it is the owner) has a prescriptive right to
have their writing appear in it. Your rules seem to be predicated on
the entitlement, all other things being equal, of anyone to
participate in a newsgroup set up and run by someone else. Why is
this?

There are two types of moderation: First, Type 1, controlling who may
participate, which basically means excluding offenders to some rules and
Second, Type 2, controlling messages by checking every message before it
is published and not publishing those that are against the rules.

The second is what I am (trying to) talk about. If you are going to
have on-line moderation of every message then you have to have on-line
moderators around the clock who will process messages immediately. So
you need to have several moderators, I would guess at least 6 for a
busy group similar to this.

These moderators need to operate in a similar way. So they need to
agree some rules of acceptability. You can't have one moderator with
one set of rules and another with another set.

Having defined some rules, you need to make them known otherwise
contributors will not know what is acceptable.

Surely a forum is still open & public when the authority is
maintained to refuse admission. Otherwise you might as well say that
a sports event is essentially private if drunks & nuisances are kept
out or ejected, or if streakers are not allowed on the playing field.

You are talking (I think) of Type 1 groups, where the sole control is
who is excluded and there is no control of individual messages. But
the FMG group that was originally discussed was, I believe, of Type 2.

My view is that Type 2 groups are infeasible for fast exchanges of
views.

Anyone who objects to moderatorial (is there such a word?)

Doubt it but new words are being coined all the time, so why not here.
It rhymes with gladiatorial which seems apposite.

policy can refuse to participate, after all. An Open University
conference is a different matter, since access might be considered a
right of all enrolled students - but then the general public would
not expect to be included, so that a swingeing pre-moderation rule is
applied that keeps out most of the world's population.

The OU conferences are restricted to paying students of their subject,
which is perfectly legitimate. I get the impression that the moderator
also vets every contribution before it is made public - this is where is
gets complicated and needs some rules.

Does anyone complain about this?

This little exchange started, above, with the moderator writing of the
large numbers of complaints to him about other course members. Sounds
like complaints by several people.

--
Tim Powys-Lybbe                                          tim@powys.org
             For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org

Tim Powys-Lybbe

Re: Consequences? OT wasFw: Royalty for Commoners

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 03 sep 2005 17:56:55

In message of 3 Sep, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:

In a message dated 9/3/2005 5:20:59 AM Pacific Standard Time,
Jwc1870@aol.com writes:

your compadre Douglas who wished to become moderator himself. Some
time after that.. things got rather nasty between yourself, Spencer
and Douglas on the one side and Peter Stewart and Leo on the
other. At the time someone remarked in true primary / secondary
school fashion that no one could be friendly with both groups yet
myself and I bet several others are to an extent. I opposed the
notion of a moderated newsgroup yet perhaps if We had a panel of
moderators


Yes I'm sure as a group we could come up with a short list of say six
or eight people who we would *not* want to moderate the group (big
grin)

I suspect there would be a vast problem in finding (a) moderators that
most would agree on and (b) would take on the labour of quickly vetting
every message before publication.

I think the only type of moderation that is feasible is solely by some
means of excluding people. And this, to remind those who may have
forgotten, is simply not possible on a newsgroup.

--
Tim Powys-Lybbe                                          tim@powys.org
             For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org

Katheryn_Swynford

Re: Consequences? OT wasFw: Royalty for Commoners

Legg inn av Katheryn_Swynford » 03 sep 2005 21:02:31

Chris,

I'm sorry I was not clear. I was referring to any possible plans for
this group to regroup itself. I am a member of the FMG and have the
highest respect for their endeavors and would probably pop on in and
ask away there as well.

Judy
http://www.katherineswynford.net

Gordon Banks

Re: Consequences? OT wasFw: Royalty for Commoners

Legg inn av Gordon Banks » 03 sep 2005 21:16:02

I've been on moderated groups before and usually they work out well.
People know that if they flame their post will not pass the moderator.
None of the ones I've been on have had people censored for anything
except flaming or being overtly disrespectful.

Now I also have been on private lists where only certain people have
been invited, and if someone flames too much they are then disinvited.

I'd prefer the first type for two reasons. First, I am still a student
of genealogy and would probably not get invited into a club of experts.
Second, I philosophically prefer being more democratic vs. aristocratic.
I guess I shouldn't say this is a place where perhaps monarchists still
lurk.



On Fri, 2005-09-02 at 21:58 -0700, Katheryn_Swynford wrote:
The semi-regularly scheduled flamefests aside, I find this idea a
little worrisome.

For example, I have posted questions that not infrequently have not
received an answer (not to say that I think I am entitled to one,
incidentally), and so I am left to wonder whether my query was (a)
waaayyy too incredibly dumb, (b) waaayyyyy too incredibly obvious, or
(c) ...? I don't know what. But at least my question was never
censored, and some kind individuals have on more than one occasion
responded either on-group or privately, for which I have been
especially grateful. If I had been censored, I would have been left
wandering blind and dumb, with no avenue for remedying my deficiencies.

What happens to non-professionals like me (okay, I'm worried about
self)? I'm quite certain I don't always cite chapter and verse, but can
when required; oftentimes it's some bigger question rather than a
particular source that I don't understand.

And, of course, consenting adults can always choose to use either the
'delete' button or choose not to read posts from individuals whom they
already know they will not appreciate his/her/their contributions.

Individuals from _both_ sides of whatever divide that exists have been
kind enough to me that I would hate to see a world that exists with
only one camp or the other... especially inasmuch as I can always
choose not to read further those flamefests that I find burdonsome.

FWIW...

Judy
http://www.katherineswynford.net

Gordon Banks

Re: Consequences? OT wasFw: Royalty for Commoners

Legg inn av Gordon Banks » 03 sep 2005 21:24:01

That sounds great, Chris. That's just what we need. There is no reason
anyone's view needs to be sheltered from criticism, and I expect to see
lively debates. Just without the personal attacks which we can do
without. I'm looking forward to it.

On Sat, 2005-09-03 at 09:02 +0100, Chris Phillips wrote:
Judy wrote:
Is this to be a forum of professionals, who would not make such errors
of logic, or will it be a forum for all, including those who may well
make such mistakes, hoping for correction?

The policy on moderation will be up to the FMG, as it's their forum, but as
I understand it the essential idea is "for contributors to respect each
others' views, and not to post offensive or abusive material of a personal
nature".

It is certainly not intended to be a forum for professionals only, or to
exclude newcomers or the inexperienced.

Anyway, whatever happens, this newsgroup will continue to exist, and
everyone can choose whether to participate in both, only one or neither of
them.

Chris Phillips


Peter Stewart

Re: Consequences? OT wasFw: Royalty for Commoners

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 04 sep 2005 01:56:51

"Tim Powys-Lybbe" <tim@powys.org> wrote in message
news:e231b0a44d.tim@south-frm.demon.co.uk...

<snip>

If you are going to have on-line moderation of every message then you
have to have on-line moderators around the clock who will process
messages immediately. So you need to have several moderators, I
would guess at least 6 for a busy group similar to this.

Why? Again, I simply can't understand the premise of entitlement, that you
now extend to IMMEDIACY of messages apeparing. What is the problem of
once-a-day checking by a single moderator, releasing all the appropriate
messages on a subject? How will the moderated newsgroup be as busy as this
one, given that people will know not to waste time & bandwidth with OT
posts, genealogically contentl-free messages of "thanks" etc, and glib
nonsense. SGM in any case has only around a dozen worthwhile messages on an
average GOOD day. A moderator hear could save a lot of further whole threads
just by sending a form notice "look it up in the archive" to people raising
questions. The threads and messages of substance are only a proportion of
the activity.

<snip>

Having defined some rules, you need to make them known otherwise
contributors will not know what is acceptable.

One rule will do for me: "Stick to the subject". This means keeping to the
topic generally, and specifically addressing points raised by respondents to
your own previous post/s. Evasions and stubborn repetitions of questioned
points would not be acceptable. Trying to control other posters and telling
them what the newsgroup is for would not be acceptable. Advertising,
boasting, demanding "credentials", enquiring into off-list activities, etc,
would not be acceptable.

You are talking (I think) of Type 1 groups, where the sole control is
who is excluded and there is no control of individual messages. But
the FMG group that was originally discussed was, I believe, of Type 2.

My view is that Type 2 groups are infeasible for fast exchanges of
views.

"Fast" is relative. 19th-century correspondence in journals, 'Notes &
Queries' and so on, could take months for the next round of exchanges to
materialise. They still got through. I am talking always about your Type 2,
where the individual messages are read by a moderator and passed on to the
newsgroup if these are appropriate contributions to the discourse. Vetting
of participants would not be necessary or desirable if the forum is to
thrive. The only circumstances where I would even participate in a Type 1
group is if it was confined to members of a particular association - and
this only because I would not remain a member of any association that
accepted membership applications from certain other deniznes of SGM.

<snip>

This little exchange started, above, with the moderator writing of the
large numbers of complaints to him about other course members. Sounds
like complaints by several people.

I meant complaints about access to the group, not content based on the
moderator's decisions. In the case of FMG, I presume there would be a
mechanism for complaints about moderation and/or appeal against the
exclusion of a message. Adrian has also made a good point, that people can
continue elsewhere if unhappy about a decision.

I understand that the FMG proposal involves several separate subject areas
with different moderators for each, and this will also help to keep them
less stretched. I pity whoever takes on the English nobility & gentry of the
Plantagent era. But I won't be looking at that site very often or troubling
the moderator/s on topics discussed there.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: Consequences? OT wasFw: Royalty for Commoners

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 04 sep 2005 02:01:53

"Tim Powys-Lybbe" <tim@powys.org> wrote in message
news:27f2b0a44d.tim@south-frm.demon.co.uk...

I suspect there would be a vast problem in finding (a) moderators that
most would agree on and (b) would take on the labour of quickly vetting
every message before publication.

I think the only type of moderation that is feasible is solely by some
means of excluding people. And this, to remind those who may have
forgotten, is simply not possible on a newsgroup.

Once again, as assumption of rights that I don't agree with - why should the
intending participants have a say in who may moderate a group?

I don't expect to have any input on this. If I see a name as moderator that
I am not prepared to accept, I could always pull out of a discussion or
decline to join it. Participation is not a necessity of life, or a basic
human right, to me at least.

The proposed discussion forum is not MINE, and so it's not for me to appoint
or screen the people who volunteer to look after it.

Peter Stewart

Douglas Richardson royala

Re: Consequences? OT wasFw: Royalty for Commoners

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson royala » 04 sep 2005 03:44:34

We've heard this before, Leo. Can we please move on? Thanks!

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

"Leo van de Pas" wrote:
Dear James,

I think the difference is that I do not demand that people on this list must
become my friends. I know, we are halfway there because we share an
interest. But in the process of becoming friends does that mean having to
accept remarks ranging from snide to viscious? Is it primary/secondary
school fashion to get fed up with this kind of treatment?
Do we just have to stand by and accept that kind of treatment?

I hope you have seen from Peter's message in regards to Spencer Hines's
misunderstandings what we are confronted with. I ignored Spencer's jibes for
quite a while and then killfiled him. What else could or should I have done?

Do I have to accept blatant lies from Richardson "that while he was away
Peter Stewart, Tim Powys-Lybbe and myself were fighting with everyone all
the time" to the extend that Richardson was feeling sorry for those
_victims_? And then he apologises for using the primary/secondary school
term _bloopers_ in regards to my website and then I am expected to treat him
like a long lost friend?

I have never turned people away when I could help, and I help most of the
time unasked and then to get the "Brandon" treatment _senile old fool_. And
Brandon and Richardson do they now think a moderated group is not necessary?
If Brandon, Richardson and Hines "moderated" their behaviour we would not
even be discussing one. I hope you agree.
With best wishes
Leo van de Pas

----- Original Message -----
From: <Jwc1870@aol.com
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Sent: Saturday, September 03, 2005 10:20 PM
Subject: Re: Consequences? OT wasFw: Royalty for Commoners


Dear John,
If my memory is not utterly failing me, the last plea for
a
moderated newsgroup came from from your compadre Douglas who wished to
become moderator himself. Some time after that.. things got rather nasty
between
yourself, Spencer and Douglas on the one side and Peter Stewart and Leo on
the
other. At the time someone remarked in true primary / secondary school
fashion
that no one could be friendly with both groups yet myself and I bet
several
others are to an extent. I opposed the notion of a moderated newsgroup yet
perhaps if We had a panel of moderators We would not again sink into an
incivil
verbal war, which stunk to high heaven on all sides.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA

Leo van de Pas

Re: Consequences? OT wasFw: Royalty for Commoners

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 04 sep 2005 10:52:01

We seem to be moving on----to a moderated news group. Thanks for making it
necessary.

----- Original Message -----
From: <royalancestry@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sunday, September 04, 2005 12:44 PM
Subject: Re: Consequences? OT wasFw: Royalty for Commoners


We've heard this before, Leo. Can we please move on? Thanks!

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

"Leo van de Pas" wrote:
Dear James,

I think the difference is that I do not demand that people on this list
must
become my friends. I know, we are halfway there because we share an
interest. But in the process of becoming friends does that mean having to
accept remarks ranging from snide to viscious? Is it primary/secondary
school fashion to get fed up with this kind of treatment?
Do we just have to stand by and accept that kind of treatment?

I hope you have seen from Peter's message in regards to Spencer Hines's
misunderstandings what we are confronted with. I ignored Spencer's jibes
for
quite a while and then killfiled him. What else could or should I have
done?

Do I have to accept blatant lies from Richardson "that while he was away
Peter Stewart, Tim Powys-Lybbe and myself were fighting with everyone all
the time" to the extend that Richardson was feeling sorry for those
_victims_? And then he apologises for using the primary/secondary school
term _bloopers_ in regards to my website and then I am expected to treat
him
like a long lost friend?

I have never turned people away when I could help, and I help most of the
time unasked and then to get the "Brandon" treatment _senile old fool_.
And
Brandon and Richardson do they now think a moderated group is not
necessary?
If Brandon, Richardson and Hines "moderated" their behaviour we would not
even be discussing one. I hope you agree.
With best wishes
Leo van de Pas

----- Original Message -----
From: <Jwc1870@aol.com
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Sent: Saturday, September 03, 2005 10:20 PM
Subject: Re: Consequences? OT wasFw: Royalty for Commoners


Dear John,
If my memory is not utterly failing me, the last plea
for
a
moderated newsgroup came from from your compadre Douglas who wished to
become moderator himself. Some time after that.. things got rather
nasty
between
yourself, Spencer and Douglas on the one side and Peter Stewart and Leo
on
the
other. At the time someone remarked in true primary / secondary school
fashion
that no one could be friendly with both groups yet myself and I bet
several
others are to an extent. I opposed the notion of a moderated newsgroup
yet
perhaps if We had a panel of moderators We would not again sink into an
incivil
verbal war, which stunk to high heaven on all sides.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA


CED

Re: Consequences? OT wasFw: Royalty for Commoners

Legg inn av CED » 04 sep 2005 17:05:09

"Leo van de Pas" wrote:
We seem to be moving on----to a moderated news group. Thanks for making it
necessary.

Leo:

I assume that, if we had a moderated group, netiquette would be
enforced - as follows:

'netiquette [from "network etiquette"] n The conventions of politeness
recognized in discussion forums, such as avoidance of cross-posting to
inappropriate forums and refraining from commercial pluggery outside
the business forums.'

CED
----- Original Message -----
From: <royalancestry@msn.com
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Sent: Sunday, September 04, 2005 12:44 PM
Subject: Re: Consequences? OT wasFw: Royalty for Commoners


We've heard this before, Leo. Can we please move on? Thanks!

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

"Leo van de Pas" wrote:
Dear James,

I think the difference is that I do not demand that people on this list
must
become my friends. I know, we are halfway there because we share an
interest. But in the process of becoming friends does that mean having to
accept remarks ranging from snide to viscious? Is it primary/secondary
school fashion to get fed up with this kind of treatment?
Do we just have to stand by and accept that kind of treatment?

I hope you have seen from Peter's message in regards to Spencer Hines's
misunderstandings what we are confronted with. I ignored Spencer's jibes
for
quite a while and then killfiled him. What else could or should I have
done?

Do I have to accept blatant lies from Richardson "that while he was away
Peter Stewart, Tim Powys-Lybbe and myself were fighting with everyone all
the time" to the extend that Richardson was feeling sorry for those
_victims_? And then he apologises for using the primary/secondary school
term _bloopers_ in regards to my website and then I am expected to treat
him
like a long lost friend?

I have never turned people away when I could help, and I help most of the
time unasked and then to get the "Brandon" treatment _senile old fool_.
And
Brandon and Richardson do they now think a moderated group is not
necessary?
If Brandon, Richardson and Hines "moderated" their behaviour we would not
even be discussing one. I hope you agree.
With best wishes
Leo van de Pas

----- Original Message -----
From: <Jwc1870@aol.com
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Sent: Saturday, September 03, 2005 10:20 PM
Subject: Re: Consequences? OT wasFw: Royalty for Commoners


Dear John,
If my memory is not utterly failing me, the last plea
for
a
moderated newsgroup came from from your compadre Douglas who wished to
become moderator himself. Some time after that.. things got rather
nasty
between
yourself, Spencer and Douglas on the one side and Peter Stewart and Leo
on
the
other. At the time someone remarked in true primary / secondary school
fashion
that no one could be friendly with both groups yet myself and I bet
several
others are to an extent. I opposed the notion of a moderated newsgroup
yet
perhaps if We had a panel of moderators We would not again sink into an
incivil
verbal war, which stunk to high heaven on all sides.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA


Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»