In article <email@example.com>, quasi <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Tonico wrote: > >quasi wrote: > >>amzoti wrote: > >> > >>>Leave the cesspool that is sci.math. > >> > >> Sorry you see it that way. > >> > >>>See a real math newsgroup. > >> > >>>http://math.stackexchange.com/questions > >> > >> math.stackexchange is _not_ a newsgroup. > >> > >> It's fine for what it is -- questions and answers, but > >> > >> not much good for back and forth discussions -- it's > >> > >> not designed for that. > > > >Almost agree with that. As it is now, sci.math is a dumper where > >many of us come to have a little fun, to let steam out, etc. > > Sure, you can have fun here if you want to -- nothing wrong with > that, but of the non-crank, non-troll sci.math participants (of > which I would estimate that there are currently about 40 regulars > and perhaps 100 or more less regulars), most do not participate > in the mode you describe. > > >It doesn't serve almost for mathematics, > > I disagree. > > Math _is_ done here, and sci.math's free-form, multi-way > discussion format makes the interaction very easy. > > >but only for trolls, cranks, or any other bored cyberscum (WM, > >Archimedes P., Musatov, Herc = Cooper, Julio, etc.) to live > >without any fear of being kicked out at once. > > Cranks and trolls are no big deal -- they are easily ignored. > > >These poor characters wouldn't remain active more than a few > >minutes in SE, Physics Forum or any other more or less serious > >site, and they'd have to dedicate their lives to make up new > >nicks and to have several IP numbers in order to avoid complete > >eviction. > > sci.math has free speech, so yes, cranks and trolls are part of > the environment, but as I said, it's no big deal -- that stuff > is easily ignored. It's a small price to pay for the luxury of > true free speech. > > >Nevertheless, it'd be nice to have a site that, besides maths, > >could accept open discussions, > > It exists -- it's called sci.math. > > >as long as the people involved in them are minimally serious. > > In a democratic environment, you can't have everything go the > way you want. > > >Too bad the intentions of 3-4 years ago to have such a > >moderated site here didn't work out... > > In the end, the moderated site concept fails precisely because > of the moderation. It would create a barrier to entry, slow > down the interaction, and leave an anti-democratic stigma of > censors and censorship.
How to extend liberty to all while moderating one's own excesses?