On 3 January 2018 at 17:28, Chase Peeler <chasepee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think self moderation still solves this. If the person is disruptive > enough, eventually enough people will block them and there won't be many > instances of them getting quoted or poisoning the thread. > > If certain people decide to engage them, then others will start to block > them as well. That all sounds like a lot of wasted effort. If we're not careful, endorsing that behaviour would end up with people sharing mail filter definitions, proxying the list through a shared filter, or just setting up a rival discussion forum. All of which just distract us further from making PHP better. > Maybe, maybe not. Either way, I don't want you making that decision for > me. I should be allowed to determine at which point someone's negative > contributions outweigh their positive ones to a point that I no longer feel > they are productive. > I think maybe we have a different view of what a list like this is. To me, it's a forum where we're collaborating to a common aim; it has an existence in its own right, and we collectively shape that existence. I may be misunderstanding, but it sounds like you view it more as a public space where you can find individuals to communicate with, and you retain the right to shape those communications. Does that sound a reasonable characterisation? I'm not seeking to criticise, only to understand where this idea of "making the decision for me" comes from, because to me, moderation doesn't seem like a personal decision which is being taken away. Regards, -- Rowan Collins [IMSoP]
