<scan for content>
2 seconds
</scan>
<redirect to bit bucket>
click
</redirect>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: info&#167;australianwebsites.com 
> [mailto:info&#167;australianwebsites.com] 
> Sent: Thursday, 24 March 2005 1:27
> To: dns&#167;dotau.org
> Subject: Re: [DNS] List rules
> 
> 
> Larry,
> 
> I agree with everyone who thought the issue of the 
> allegations initiated by Adam against Planet Domain, in reply 
> to Jim's original post seeking help on a domain issue took 
> too long to resolve.
> 
> ( Due in part originally to the number of posts it took Adam
> to provide more specific information to support his 
> allegations when invited to do so. )
> 
> Let us remember that it was Adam, not I, who, at the mere 
> mention of the 2 words
> 
> "Planet Domain"
> 
> in Jim's long email seeking help, chose to make the very 
> first post as a reply to Jim's request for help.
> 
> Did Adam's reply to Jim's post offer any help? No, it didn't.
> 
> It was criticisms / allegations directed specifically at 
> Planet Domain, "their technical support team" and Adam even 
> went on to criticise Murray Kester, the Manager of Planet 
> Domain, personally by name!
> 
> It was at this point that a new issue was raised.
> 
> Making criticisms / allegations against a Registrar is a 
> serious matter and is messing with the livelihoods of all the 
> people who work there and the people who are Resellers for 
> Planet Domain also.
> 
> Looking back now its a little sad that, overall, more time 
> was spent by some people on debating procedural type issues 
> like relevancy to a thread, than whether it was fair or just, 
> to publicly criticise a Registrar, "their technical support 
> team" and Murray Kester, the Manager of Planet Domain, and 
> even arguing whether or not allegations like that should go 
> unquestioned, and you Larry, by saying, and I quote,
> 
> "Adam - he simply recounted his experience"
> 
> implied those allegations were true.
> 
> That serious allegations can be made which then start being 
> referred to as though they were true, is a recipe for a truly 
> unfair DNS list, were this list to be moderated to stifle 2 
> sided debate.
> 
> As Trent pointed out
> 
> "The 'other thread' is history and it was self moderated to a 
> degree. In so doing, if just one person took some form of 
> education away from it, then although annoying, it served its 
> purpose."
> 
> Proposals of moderation need to be very carefully thought 
> about as moderation can easily become censorship in practice.
> 
> I submit that 2 sided debate is always preferable to 1 sided 
> negative allegations - where the person making those 
> allegations goes unquestioned and / or unchallenged and 
> supporting facts sought.
> 
> A useful guideline for this list would be that if anyone is 
> going to make a criticism of any person or company at anytime 
> in the future it should be based on facts only, and they 
> should be prepared to present those specific facts, or for 
> example a link to a news article, to support their 
> criticisms, and present them in a timely manner, so that 
> debates are efficient, productive, and provide useful information.
> 
> If any moderation included banning all non .au domain issues 
> even Jim's original request for help would have been culled 
> out as it regarded a .com domain only.
> 
> As there is not a TLD list where people such as Jim can seek 
> help and anyone can discuss TLD specific issues, perhaps a 
> separate TLD list could be started.
> 
> 
> Regards
> Barry Armstrong
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>   ----- Original Message ----- 
>   From: Larry Bloch 
>   To: dns&#167;dotau.org 
>   Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2005 12:03 PM
>   Subject: RE: [DNS] List rules
> 
> 
>   Trent,
> 
>   Moderating a list is a thankless task - definitely.
> 
>   I'm not so sure that "no news is good news" in this list's 
> case. I think its
>   probably fairer to say no news is an indication that the 
> real issues are not
>   being raised in this forum, and that is a pity. Why are the 
> issues not being
>   discussed here? Because the list lacks credibility as a 
> place where useful
>   debate happens, and that’s an historical fact.
> 
>   This list has been over used for outbursts (as we have seen 
> yesterday),
>   vitriolic personal attacks, loony conspiracy theorists, 
> hatchet jobs and the
>   like. You only have to go back and see Chris Disspain's 
> written comments on
>   his attitude to posting to this list to see a reflection of 
> that reality.
>   His frustration with the manner and tone of postings is 
> shared by many of
>   the professionals in this industry who as a result lurk but 
> steer clear of
>   posting.
> 
>   If all of us subscribed want to get something more that the 
> odd bit of news
>   out of the list, then as a community we need to have some 
> sort of acceptable
>   use standards - formal or otherwise. And I take your point 
> that the recent
>   episode did resolve in a 'natural order' way. Its just a 
> little inefficient
>   sometimes.
> 
>   Larry
> 
> 
> 
>   > -----Original Message-----
>   > From: trent&#167;sos.net.au [mailto:trent§sos.net.au] 
>   > Sent: Tuesday, 22 March 2005 11:46
>   > To: dns&#167;dotau.org
>   > Subject: Re: [DNS] List rules
>   > 
>   > 
>   > Larry,
>   > In theory, this would be great, but Kim, at least I assume it 
>   > was Kim, 
>   > has outlined in the first line of the policy that this list 
>   > is unmoderated.
>   > 
>   > Like your own post, my point is subjective. The 'other thread' is 
>   > history and it was self moderated to a degree. In so doing, 
>   > if just one 
>   > person took some form of education away from it, then 
>   > although annoying, 
>   > it served its purpose. That might mean fewer of these 
> outbursts and I 
>   > know that's hoping for allot, but I'm a hopeful kind of guy ;)
>   > 
>   > If Kim wishes to moderate, that's his decision as list 
>   > manager, but it 
>   > is a time issue, so I for one would understand if he chooses 
>   > not to. In the mean time, the list, as Sean pointed out, 
>   > generally moves along 
>   > at a dead crawl. This is indicative of the "no news is good news" 
>   > cliché, and we can, as Vic pointed out, use the good ol' 
> D key when 
>   > someone won't leave well enough alone.
>   > 
>   > Having said all that, and provided you have the time 
> Larry, perhaps a 
>   > related list is something you feel would be in order? 'Any' list 
>   > generates information we can potentially learn from, and I would 
>   > definitely have a look at the focus of any new list that 
>   > might assist me 
>   > in advising clients and colleagues.
>   > 
>   > Cheers,
>