Well...

Moderation always implies some subjectiveness...

As for "out of topics" : don't forget the fractal sciences story, for
example:

Fractals (& "chaos", or "mathematical monsters") were first observed by
ancient greek scientists, then by several scientists all along 20th
century (math, physics, meteorology, computing, etc.).
But they were understood as universal only in the 1980's when
researchers working in different sectors began to exchange views on
"their" problems...

Too much partition kills innovation. The Internet is exactly the
opposite of that.

As a french netizen, I'm concerned with what happens in Australia, as
well as everywhere on the Net. Aussies and others are welcome in
european and froggies lists, too...

David Keegel wrote:

> My suggestion is that if you see postings which are off-topic (and I'm
> happy to leave that up to individuals' discretion or somebody else to
> define) THEN DO NOT REPLY.  Especially where the author is repeating
> something (s)he has already said.

THAT seems a good view, isn't it ?

-- 
Jean-Christophe PRAUD - LUDEXPRESS  http://www.ludexpress.com
http://www.nicwine.net     http://www.nic.wine     3:213 WINE
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu n'gah Bill R'lyeh Wgah'nagl fhtagn


Larry Bloch wrote:
> 
> To all list members
> 
> I would like to initiate a _serious_ debate about ways in which this list
> can "moderate" itself without causing concern about "freedom of speech" or
> "censorship".
> 
> I think that there is a critical need to ensure that this list sticks to
> the important topics at hand. I have no idea how the issue can be resolved,
> but there seems to be a consensus opinion that the work of this list is
> compromised by side issues repeatedly raised by individuals who clearly do
> not have a professional and cooperative approach to participation.
> 
> Without wanting to steer this debate in any particular direction, I can
> offer a number of suggestions:
> 
> 1. That a means be established to determine consensus.
> 2. That participants to the list acknowledge and agree to a set of simple
> listiqette guidelines that they are therefore loosely bound by. This I
> envisage to include things like
>     a. No comments of a personal derogatory nature.
>     b. No replying to postings that are obviously going to generate
> orthogonal noise.
> 
> Please note that these are just suggestions.
> 
> My feeling is that there are important issues to debate on this list and
> that this list is crippled by posting from individuals that the majority of
> this list find vexatious or at least boring and irrelevant. The only reason
> why this situation is allowed to continue is that the will of the majority
> of list members is not heard.
> 
> Is there a cooperative, non-"big brother" means of ensuring that the
> attention of the list is directed to debating and moving forward rather
> than endless noise? Can we achieve that level of cooperation?
> 
> Perhaps list members can respond to a simple question with a Yes or No:
> 
> Consensus 1: DOES THIS LIST SUFFER FROM AN EXCESSIVE NOISE PROBLEM?
> 
> Your votes:
> Larry Bloch: NetRegistry: YES
> 
> _____________________________________________
> 
> Larry Bloch
> Chief Executive Officer
> NetRegistry Pty Limited
> email:  larry§netregistry.au.com
> Office: +61-(0)2-9555 6299
> Fax:    +61-(0)2-9555 5808
> 
> http://www.netregistry.au.com
> Domain House, PO Box 2088, Sydney, NSW 1043
> _____________________________________________