Moderation of DCML and McDuck
Daniel van Eijmeren
dve at kabelfoon.nl
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
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