The Logic Off Topic list

mercutio <mercutio@...> writes
> As it turns out, I am interested in the "moderation" debate... 
> of course, since it has nothing directly to do with Logic - am 
> I to assume that messages on this thread are merely being 
> tolerated? or are they really "ok"?

I never meant to imply messages here had to relate to Logic... just 
to music in general. E.g. message about politics that *directly* 
relate to music would be just fine IMO, such as messages talking 
about new laws that might get passed that would directly effect the 
music industry, etc. I thought that it was always implied that this 
list was still music related, though upon further inspection I see 
that was never stated in big bold letters for all to see, it was just 
something many of the admins assumed was known by everyone. We should 
of had a clearly visible list policy/guidelines for all to see over 
here, like we do on the LUG. 

> Here is my definition L is for logic user - that would be all 
> of us. OT is for off topic - which can mean anything.

As I mentioned above, the definition to me and many of the other 
admins, was that this list was to still be focued on music somehow. 
Not Logic specifically, but still loosely related to music in 
general. 

> Anyhow: here is a question Jeremy could answer: How big is the 
> L-OT list?

The main "Home" webpage for all groups say the size of the list. 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/logic-ot/ says we have 608 members 
right now (and 9265 in the LUG).

> From my observation - this list does not seem to have very many 
> members, perhaps much less than the main LUG. If this is the 
> case... I would say that fewer participants = less need for 
> moderation.

I agree completely. However each mailing list has a topic it's about, 
and it was my understanding that this list's topic was "musical 
issues that are too off topic for the LUG, but still of interest to 
the large number of musicians in this community". Not "anything and 
everything LUG members want to write about over here"... 

Hendrik writes
> Jeremy, you're treading on dangerous ground here imo. 
> Whether something equates to something else is a value-judgement, 
> and thus by definition subjective. In general this is no good 
> ground for a discussion, and even worse for behaviour that affects 
> individuals (Dennis in this case, and in the long run the entire 
> list).

I agree - I shouldn't have rejected that particular post. It was 
written during the time that many people were still posting many more 
political mails (contrary to arguments made by some that the 
political thread was ending on its own and didn't need to be 
moderated), so I probably was a little to "reject happy" at the time, 
trying to force this list to return to its normal state. Sorry about 
that!

Jeremy