Moderation of DCML and McDuck

Daniel van Eijmeren dve at
Sun Jul 30 00:44:27 CEST 2006

My request to block an email with a wrong link is a good example of benefits 
of moderation. The wrong link opened a new topic, and that would have caused 
confusion at DCML and McDuck.

What I would like to know is what to expect from the current DCML 
moderation. Is it just a safety-net for technical problems and last-minute 
corrections, or is there censoring involved? What are the rules?

On the webforum McDuck International there's mostly just technical 
moderation. This happens afterwards. Removing of spambots, closing of double 
subjects, etc. And if a message gets censored by the McDuck maintainer, it's 
really past the borders. I've seen some examples like short submissions 
solely about certain minorities getting certain deathly diseases. These are 
a few exceptions, and to my knowlegde they have been the worst so far. In 
that light, I have a lot of trust in minimal moderation and humanity.

At DCML messsages get logged after being approved. And then they can never 
be changed. In contrary to a webforum. This way I can understand moderation, 
but not if it limits the liberty of speech in uncertain ways. I think 
obvious rules are important, including a discussion about what those rules 
should be.

On the technical side, I think the moderation includes concern about the 
"scrubbed" messages, which are now left out of emails and digests. There are 
many programmers around, so I guess there could be help from them, if 

I think DCML isn't old-fashioned in comparison to webfora. Both media have 
pros and cons. The way I see it, only the principle of one or two volunteers 
doing all the maintaining should be something from the past, as it often 
results in bottle-neck problems. I think DCML could benefit from having more 
volunteers joining forces together.

I'm curious for comments.


More information about the DCML mailing list