On 2/9/01 1:36 PM, "Janet Detter Margul" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't have such an effective method for dealing with the
> self-appointed list police, though. Those folks not only irritate me
> no end, but they drive off enthusiastic newbies, and I wish I had a
> good handle on this
It can be a problem. I've more or less solved it by putting a "don't do
this" in the list rules, and when they do it, I have a way to step on it
early. My current ToS is here:
<http://www.hockeyfanz.com/terms-of-service.html>, (and for the long-timers
here, it's morphed again, as I keep trying to reinvent things to fix the
problems or weaknesses I introduced in the last reinvention...). I've really
tried to get away from the nazi-list-mom schtick, since it works, but it
also pisses off the good folks unneccessarily, so I'm currently trying to
use a softer approach, avoiding as many Don't Do That! lines as I can, in
favor of a "we're all adults here, we'd rather you not do things like that,
but if you insist and do it wrong, don't say we didn't warn you..."
My bottom line on dealing with topic cops is that if they're going to act
like list admins, they should know the rules and not invent their own -- and
if they know the rules, they know one of the rules is not to be a topic cop,
so what's their excuse? They don't always like it -- but I haven't run into
one with a loophole...
To be blunt about it, if you really want to stop the topic cops, the
occasional public flogging is necessary. Honest mistakes get treated gently,
but to really stop the cowboys, or at least make them careful, you wait for
one of them to give you a good excuse, and make an example of them. It'll
make others think twice. It's important to pick your shots, though, to avoid
the nazi-list-mom stuff. But I don't have a particular problem if the people
I *wish* would go away don't like me or the way I run my list... (grin).
It's the ones I want to keep around I try to keep happy.
>> * the charmingly grammar-challenged postaholic
>
> Grammar, spelling and punctuation
"If the best you can do is nitpick her spelling, the rest of her
argument must be valid, since you can't refute it...."
I guess I have my lsits well-trained, because we don't have much of this any
more. When it does pop up, I simply point out how irrelevant and lame it is
to the discussion, and people get the hint. Have to admit, I'm not all that
nice about it -- but I don't have a lot of patience for this kind of waste
of energy.
>> * the Nine 1-Line Posts In A Row Creature
>
> Another irritant for me, and I have no effective way of dealing with
> these, either.
More meta-fights brewing... (grin)
I think this is another example of why mailing lists suck for discussion
lists. Because to use them effectively, there are these huge sets of rules
and guidelines that you have to convince people to mostly follow, or things
start falling apart rapidly. Editing included content in replies, one line
responses, keeping context, but not everyting, changing subject lines, yada
yada. If e-mail were a natural form for the discussion list, why does it
seem so much work goes into trying to keep the content readable in this
form? But I digress... (what else is new?)
Unless you really like meta-fights over how lists ought to run on your
lists, you have to pick your fights when dealing with netiquette issues,
especially subjective things like this. There are some things it's easy to
tell people ("if you're replying from a digest, fix the subject!") but also
huge grey areas. And it just lends itself to a list sidetracking itself into
examining its own navel instead of doing what it's there for.
Sometimes you have to deal with it and work to clean up the rough edges. In
general, I guess I've decided that fighting hand-to-hand combat on the
lesser subjectivities of Miss net-manners just isn't worth it, so instead I
preach tolerance. Within limits. I'll probably change my mind again some
day. Either way, I think it's a lose-lose situation.
>> * Apology Person (sorry for mentioning her/him!)
>
> ... seems to need validation, eh?
Or -- a bit intimidated and trying to proactively divert attacks. I think a
lot of this comes from folks a little intimidated by others on the list
(like, oh -- me) who aren't sure how their material will be accepted, and
are trying to avoid the "what idiot posted THIS CRAP" responses. Even if
they won't remotely get that kind of stuff, don't minimize the issues of
stage fright on a mail list...
>> * the Acronym Proliferation League [APL]:
>
> Oh yeah! My list has a number of subject line acronyms (and the list
> nitpickers to complain when someone forgets one). I find them helpful
> but please, only two or three. And this circles back to the nitpickers
> and how to handle them.
I hate them. I don't encourage them. I rarely see them work well -- with the
exception of relatively small lists with fairly static membership.
Otherwise, you spend all your time educating people to use the TLAs, and
that gets real tired. It seems like a minor improvement at best, and the
noise and hassle they cause trying to get people to use them isn't worth it.
> So how do you handle the nitpickers??
I nice, quiet "why is that relevant and why should we care?" -- if they're
nitpicking trivia, pointing out just how trivial it is can help. But it's
not easy. Sometimes, you just ignore them because fixing it is more hassle
than leaving it alone.
> How do you make newbies welcome?
I wish I knew. It sure isn't "post an intro and we'll all say hello", that's
for sure. You have to create an attitude of acceptance on the list. I wish I
knew the secret to that. I keep looking.
> How do you keep the 20 list members who post 90 percent of the posts
> from becoming the list royalty clique?
You don't. But you don't let it go to their head. These people are your
bread and butter. Without them, the list is an empty echo of dripping water
in the bathroom. I've been experimenting with ways to formally acknowledge
and honor these people (I'm toying with an idea of a council of elders, who
have certain priviledges beyond a normal user, but without responsibilities
of the admin) -- without creating a priviledged class. I have no idea if
it'll work, but the people who are the backbone of the list OUGHT to get
some goodies people who contribute little (or little constructively...)
don't get.
> How do you generate on-topic
> discussions and foster that sense of community successful lists need?
If we ever figure out how to reliably do this,w e'll write a book and retire
on the earnings.
Frankly, I believe most vibrant communities happen, they aren't engineered.
What you do is build a system you think can support the kind of community
you want to have, find ways to attract the kind of people you want in the
community, and then my flowchart has this box on it labelled "miracle occurs
here" -- you have to have the right people show up and do the right things
to spark the community. You can't force that spark -- but you can make it
more likely by creating a friendly, fertile place for it.
--
Chuq Von Rospach, Internet Gnome <http://www.chuqui.com>
[<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> = <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> = <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
Yes, yes, I've finally finished my home page. Lucky you.
I'm really easy to get along with once you
people learn to worship me.
