On 12/07/2012 05:18 AM, Michael Press wrote: > In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, > quasi <email@example.com> 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. > > Exactly. > > How to extend liberty to all > while moderating one's own excesses? > > "But it isn't faaaiiiirr!" > Suck it up. Be a man. >
Yes. In organizations, when the "top dog" dies, there's always the "succession" question.
Just imagine (hypothetically) that Linus Torvalds had a stroke, became brain-damaged and couldn't act as the steward of the Linux kernel.
Who would take over?
With moderated newsgroups, there's also a "succession" question when one moderator resigns or his/her term of appointment (so many years and months) comed to an end.
With sci.math as is, it's very hard to get anyone banned or "disciplined" through applying to NNTP-service provides, Google-groups or MathForum, or the Law.
For those one posters one has no interest in reading, there are filters and other methods available in Thunderbird and other news clients.
I think sci.math, MathOverflow, arXiv, the Journals, math socities (AMS, AMA, SIAM, etc.), math departments, ... can all co-exist and they provide various degrees of editorial or Supervisor control, which is Ok by me.
In the legal world, I'd say the court of public opinion and posterity is the court of last resort, or something. For example, cases of possible miscarriage of justice, or the P*ssy Riot women in Russia, the youngster who got shot: Trayvon Martin imbroglio, as e.g. at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-17682245