Jean-Marc writes:

> I wish I could take more time and be constructive in my answer.
> In short, any attempt to censor/kick out Bob of the list through
> any kind of moderation/vote will see me leave scuba-l on the
> spot.

Members may choose to leave the list because of a revision to the
standards of conduct.  However, we have also lost members because
of the current situation.  Who we choose to favor is merely a
trade-off decision and nothing more.

It cannot be emphasized enough that it would be nice if we never
had the problem so that it wouldn't even be an issue, concern or
be prompted to consider (or implement) any such trade-off.

However, I would like to take a moment to point out that there
seems to be a lot FUD being used with the "C" word (Censorship).

First off, remember that this is a scuba-centric list by definition,
which means that this group is going to focus on scuba subjects
to the purposeful exclusion of others.  You can't routinely discuss
the local baseball/football/etc sports teams here for example.

If you want to do that, the solution is to go to a list where that's
the focus of their charter.  If you refuse to do so and continue to
"Spam" the list with box scores, yes, you will be terminated.

Is this is censorship?   Yes, if that's how you choose to define it.
Personally, I don't because I see charters as an anarchy management
strategy and absolutely necessary to prevent information overload.

Philosophically, the reason why there's thousands and thousands
of USENET groups and Listserv lists instead of just one big group
is because people have historically been willing to give up some
of their "freedom of speech" for improved topicality.  In other words,
your "freedoms" are already restricted here and this has always
been part of the contract implicit to participation in this group.
Once again, this is censorship if that's how you choose to define it.

If a newsgroup doesn't exist where for whatever topic one wishes to
discuss, a new group can be created in this medium.  However, it
should be carefully noted that current lists are under no obligation
to change who/what they are in order to accommodate a new demand.

If one nevertheless find censorship in even this form so personally
distasteful, then I have to say "the exit is thataway".  Please note
that this is the situation here regardless of if any change may or
may not occur here.

> IMO, this should only apply in case of spamming a la Jim Morris.

We already have more than one criteria for removing a person.
Spam is one.  Commercialism is another (which was Morris's actual
offense).   There are also administrative removal of members who
inadvertently 'Spam' the list due to bounced mail from server
problems, etc.  Each situation is unique in how it is addressed.

The focus is the fair consideration of the general membership who
are here to see and participate in _Scuba_ topics, which is the
stated goal of our charter.

The local community standards currently tolerate reasonable and
limited off-subject wanderings and allowing these to continue is
not being contested.  The keyword is "reasonable".   If we're
going to be unreasonable in how we define censorship, then in
calling a spade a spade, you're already "under the yoke" so those
who have such an absolute view on the subject should have never
joined the list in the first place.

-Hugh  (NTS 766)