> Also, like Peter Brandt, mentioned in regard to himself, I
>have a lot more mail coming into my box than just Veg-Raw, and I can't
>afford to read everything here anymore. There is only so much a guy
>can keep up with unless you read only one listgroup.
Is that ever true. I presently have 4oo unread messages in my mailbox,
and there are several other mailing lists I am just dying to join.
>Also, with the NFL group-mind having created a large ripple of
>foofaraw and dissension on the list, I am finding the list
>increasingly dissatisfying to read. Not only has the volume of mail
>increased,
I will be doing some moderating soon on the issue of volume. Some of
our subscribers need to limit the amounts of posts they respond to on
any given day and to use their cut & paste functions some more, so we
can slow things down to a more tolerable pace.
>I would like to respond to but ferreting out the worthwhile posts from
>the silly and hate-filled posts of these three individuals plus the
>inevitable responses that are generated is getting difficult.
This exactly is one of my main concerns.
>I have been on other groups and observed what happens when those such
>as NFL who lack any sense of common decency to others crash a list and
>won't give up: basically the bad drive out the good, and those with
>thinner skins but who may have much to contribute simply leave. Then
>what happens is the zen dharma-combat people who like to score
>crushing points and flame their opponents take over, because they are
>the only ones who can take all the heat in the kitchen....
My sentiment completely. There are too many that I am just not willing
to let go of. What some of the "supporters" of NFL seem to refuse to
face is that there is a choice to be made here and that it involves a
lot more than just letting the "kids" express themselves. The
situation is that the list will loose subscribers/active participants
no matter if I take action against NFL or not, and as a moderator my
choice will not favor the NFL side, unless somebody real fast comes up
with some really good arguments and convinces me of otherwise.
>Unless you develop a good charter for the list.
>But even then there are no easy answers. I am generally a believer in
>free speech, but most listgroups that I have been on who pass through
>a transition period like we are now going through with spiteful people
>like the NFL guys eventually find they must set some ground rules.
>What the ground rules are, are usually set down by the listowners in
>what is called a "charter." As far as I know, Veg-Raw has no charter
>yet, or if it does, I somehow missed it.
There is a charter for this list. (see after this message) The welcome
message to the list clearly spells out ground rules for participating
in veg-raw.
>What one does is set up an agreement that people agree
>to abide by when they subscribe to the list, and the receive warnings
>when they first violate the charter; then if they repeatedly violate
>the charter, they get booted.
That is exactly what it says in the charter.
>The trouble is, this means the list hosts must
>keep up with the list on a daily basis, and it can become a
>ball-and-chain around their necks.
Thanks for acknowledging this, Ward.
>But almost every large list I have ever been on has charters. The
>trick is in arriving at ground rules that don't inadvertently penalize
>the well-liked posters and all the others who treat each other
>decently by placing restrictions intended to scuttle the jerks that
>backfire on everyone. I would suggest we all continue discussing what
>kinds of guidelines might be put in place, and go through a debating
>period like we are already doing, and not be too hasty to arrive at
>hard and fast answers. But prohibiting ad hominem attacks might be a
>good start.
The charter for vew-raw I am sure could do with some improving but the
basic ground rules are already set. Again the question is are the NFL
contributions so valuable that we should make an make an exception for
them at the expense of some of our more sensitive types who just cannot
stomach or tolerate them? In my opinion no, and I feel an obligation to
protect the freedom of speech those who cannot.
>I feel a lot of sympathy for Peter Brandt and Michael Clingman right
>now as the listowners having to agonize over what to do about this.
Me too.:-)
>Anyway, this is partly just prelude to saying I am going to go back to
>lurking again for the time being. I don't mean to weasel out responses
>to challenges and questions directed at me, because there is more I
>could add tes I have jumped in on, but honestly, how do the rest of
>you feel when you're looking at the clock and it's midnight, and only
>15 minutes ago it seemed it was 10:30 or 11:00, and you really want to
>get to bed. It just doesn't seem worth it to me anymore.
Especially not if are a slow typist like I am and not that fast at
expressing your thoughts in writing.
>Time to take another break. Thanks again for the good times though and
>to those who can somehow manage to debate with respect. You have my
>admiration because it is a difficult balancing act to make strong
>points without backing down, yet not steamroll other people
>emotionally.
Very eloquent point. It is like constantly walking on a razor's edge
and I simply am not ready to put out that amount of energy all the
time.
>I apologize if I have at times done that myself--that's why I have
>respect for those of you who pull it off with more ease than I feel
>able to. Take care everyone,
Ditto. Thanks for your very sensitive & well-thought post, Ward.
>--Ward Nicholson <[log in to unmask]> Wichita, KS
Best, Peter
[log in to unmask]
|