Theos-Talk Archives (August 2010 Message tt00122)

I'm getting really curious about these posts - will someone post them!
Cass


>
>From: Govert Schuller <schuller@eMIUnimZWF7vpqq0--X5TjfZsHIEmZ_Z6uzMTDv5rShQD_yJk6X0V5Z7auAEC-T0CD8Z6NMLFBQ5TMI0wTU.yahoo.invalid>
>To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
>Sent: Mon, 9 August, 2010 2:27:28 PM
>Subject: Re: theos-talk I've retired and Ramadoss is doing the work
>
>Â 
>Sorry, correction on the date: The relevant posts were on April 15, 2008.
>
>----- Original Message ----- 
>From: Govert Schuller 
>To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
>Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2010 8:47 PM
>Subject: Re: theos-talk I've retired and Ramadoss is doing the work
>
>Dear Eldon,
>
>Thank you for the overview of the history and policies of this group. 
>
>>From it I understand that you were co-administrator with Ramdoss till last 
>month. 
>
>
>Can you then give us here an explanation for the disappearance of the July 16, 
>2008 posts ## 43528-43531?
>
>Govert
>
>----- Original Message ----- 
>From: eldon_tucker 
>To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
>Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2010 12:44 PM
>Subject: theos-talk I've retired and Ramadoss is doing the work
>
>Hi Everyone,
>
>Last year, I enlisted Ramadoss to help with the administrative functions of 
>theos-talk, since I had less time to devote to it. We've seen him around since 
>November 1995 on the predecessor list theos-l and then on theos-talk when it was 
>started.
>
>In July, I fully turned over the list to his management. Currently, he is the 
>only list owner, and I am a regular subscriber to the list. Over the past year, 
>he has been on a learning curve, so there's always the change an occasional 
>mistake made be made, but I'm confident that he has the best of intentions and 
>is a dedicated advocate of free speech.
>
>I'll comment on the current policy of the list, which should still be in effect 
>until differing circumstances arise and Ramadoss decides in his best judgment 
>that it's time for change.
>
>New subscribers start off as moderated, but they get an initial email that tells 
>them the moderation will be in effect only for a short while, during which they 
>can read and observe the operation of the list. If they make an initial 
>inappropriate message or turn out to be a spammer, they can be filtered out at 
>that point. They're still free to post to the list, but their postings will be 
>reviewed and they may possibly get feedback on them before the postings go out. 
>Previous subscribers would be exempt from this; their subscription requests 
>would be recognized and they would be unmoderated right away.
>
>When a new subscriber is ready to fully participate, they're asked to post to 
>the list a description of who they are and what their background is. This is 
>because the only cause for removal, apart from troll-like behavior where the 
>list is flooded with messages and many people are offended and driven off, is to 
>pretend to be someone else on the list. The only exception would be if someone 
>lived in a country where if they fully identified themselves, they might be 
>subject to persecution, in which case they could use a pseudonym if they just 
>explained that to the list owner.
>
>Any subject relevant to theosophical inquiry is open for discussion, but 
>spamming, flooding the list with unrelated content, or otherwise trying to take 
>over the list for some other purpose would be unacceptable. If a thread is 
>repetitive, inflammatory, and only serving to anger people, and complaints are 
>being received, it's up to the best judgment of the person managing the list to 
>change the subject or end the stuck discussion. Personal emails to the 
>participants may be appropriate, but if some individuals won't respond, 
>temporarily putting them on moderated status may be appropriate until they stop 
>posting on the tread. This is not to say that the same issues may not arise 
>again in the future in some other discussion, but sometimes it's necessary to 
>say, "Enough, let's move on." The persons wanting to get in the last word on the 
>subject may be unhappy if they're the ones told to move on, but there's no point 
>in any discussion where everyone equally gets the last word.
>
>If there is something going on and someone wants to know what's really 
>happening, the most accurate approach is to get information from the source. 
>With Skype, it's possible to call anyone in the world for free (if they have 
>Skype) or inexpensively if they don't. There's no excuse for someone not to 
>simply clarify things by getting in touch with Ramadoss directly. I'm confident 
>that he's operating with the best of intentions. The only thing he may be guilty 
>of is having too strong an opinion on issues regarding theosophical politics, 
>but I don't think that a participant should think that he or she isn't given a 
>fair chance to share their differencing views because of that. 
>
>
>Which the exception of what I've mentioned - newbie moderation until they're 
>identified themselves and temporary moderation of a participant if he or she 
>won't stop on a thread that has been closed for further discussion by the list 
>owner - I don't believe there are any existing controls, and these two controls 
>are necessary on any functional list that wants to preserve free inquiry.
>
>Any questions about the operation of the list should be directed to Ramadoss. I 
>wish him success in his role as list owner, and hope that everyone will help him 
>as he completes his learning curve and comes to do an excellent job at keeping 
>the list free and fully functional.
>
>Eldon
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>I


      

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]