[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Next #d-women forum; topics anyone?

Ar 28/12/2004 am 01:44, ysgrifennodd Dabian - TMPEMAIL valid 2004dec20 + 8 days:
> tir, 2004-12-28 kl. 01:07 skrev Erinn Clark:
> > * Dabian [2004:12:28 00:38 +0100]: 
> > > man, 2004-12-27 kl. 14:14 skrev Helen Faulkner:
> > > > Thanks very much for allowing yourself to be volunteered to take the job, 
> > > > Matthew!  :)
> > > 
> > > Is it really nessesary to +m the channel?  I thought we did fine without
> > > moderation on the last meeting?  I agree its nice of you to volunteer 
> > > though.
> > 
> > Eh? We had a moderator at the last one -- Helen. I think perhaps you don't
> > understand what moderating is.
> To be frank, it seems to me that translated to IRC, this goes very well 
> with RFC1459.  However, I guess that lack of tradition with english 
> put up a hindernes that hides the true meaning of "moderation" from me.
> At any rate, thanks for clearing up that I got this wrong,
> I'm sorry if this mail is a bit messy, but its getting late here, and
> I'm on my way to bed.

I think the problem is that you are confusing two things:

 - A technical means to prevent people from talking on IRC by using
   certain privileged commands on a channel.

 - The practice of having somebody direct discussion.

The latter is what Helen and Erinn were referring to. Both the IRC
meetings have been moderated in the second sense, and moderation in the
first sense has not (to my knowledge) been used on the channel.


Reply to: