At 12:49 PM 7/21/2007, Greg Goodknight wrote: >Stephen Weimar wrote: >>Thanks very much for that idea. >>I have heard from others who are in favor of a list focused on >>teaching. I can see the value in having two lists or narrowing the focus. >> >>I am unfortunately setting the constraints very high in terms of >>Math Forum staff time. Successful solutions will have to involve >>equal or less time than deleting subscribers who violate group standards. >>I imagine your solution involves more than that in order to >>determine which discussion a post should go in, moving it to >>another discussion, and also handling abuse. This is complicated by >>the fact that some participate via a mailing list, rather than >>through our web-based discussion software. >> >>I don't want to bother the list with procedural or technical >>discussions so feel free to continue to discuss the details with me >>in private and I will summarize as needed. >>steve@youcanguesstherest >> >Steve, > >Thank you for bringing some attention to this list, originally >titled nctm-l and meant as discussion of the "NCTM Standards". This >was once a vibrant list, and I think it can be again. Many moderated >lists are openly hostile to those of us who have not bought into the >NCTM vision, and one reason some of us stay despite the abuse we >have received is the unmoderated nature allows our voices to be heard. > >Deleting subscribers who violate the reasonable standards of the >Mathforum and Drexel is a justifiable action that should not take >much administrative time, especially if posting via the web is not supported.
Exactly the right solution, Greg. At long last, just follow the existing rules.