Thanks Dee!! :)
---- dee <d...@deetroy.org> wrote: > I go along with all that you say Mike, and appreciate your tolerance to > OT subjects. I for one am only on *this* list (and silverpets) and > because it *is* an alternative health list (when did *your* doctor > prescribe CS?) it is the only place I feel there may be someone with > enough knowledge or experience to help with other alternative health > matters. I am therefore grateful that these questions are allowed. I > also like to hear from people like Kurt because who knows what is going > on out there, and I for one like to be kept informed about what could be > happening. He does not go on about what he posts, but others do, so > whose fault is it that the thread gets carried on? I suppose the answer > is as always, moderation (no pun intended) in all things. dee > > M. G. Devour wrote: > > Hi folks, > > > > Thank you for sharing your opinions, as I requested. I hope > > that those > > that are threatening to leave will hang around long enough to see > > the > > end of this discussion and take part in forming its results. > > > > A > > number of quite interesting points are being made, and others are > > being > > demonstrated, although not by anyone's specific remarks... > > > > One of the latter > > points this discussion shows, confirming over a > > decade of experience for me, > > is that our group has been and always will > > be divided between those who > > want more free-flowing discussion and > > others who want us to remain closer > > to the topic -- and neither group > > will ever be completely satisfied with > > any compromise that I ever > > strike between the two extremes! > > > > (Yes, there > > are folks who are pretty well satisfied in the middle > > ground, too! <grin>) > > > > > > So, on this first point, please let me offer a few remarks that I hope > > > > will help everyone understand better what it takes to keep this forum > > even half-way successful in its mission... > > > > ***POINTS TO PONDER > > > > Remember, > > first of all, that I don't see messages before they go out! I > > do all my > > "moderating" after the fact. I depend on EACH OF YOU to > > regulate your own > > behavior, consistent with the list rules and the > > culture I try to instill > > in the membership by public guidance and > > private coaching. Your > > self-control is the price I demand of you for > > the privelege of staying in the group. > > > > > > Next, one of the very first things I learned when I took over ownership > > > > of the list is that I would NEVER be allowed to stop ALL off-topic > > posting if our group were going to continue to accomplish what we > > should and > > could with our efforts. Here's why: > > > > Inevitably, easily half the questions > > people will ask have a non-CS > > related component: "Will CS cure...?" "My > > friend has ... will CS help?" > > "Does anybody know anything to do for ...? > > Whether CS is useful in each > > case or not, a lot of the time there are > > non-CS-related answers that > > these people need and deserve to hear. I've never > > prohibited non-CS- > > related information that might be able to HELP somebody. > > > > Other questions people ask have no relationship to CS to begin with, > > yet > > are obviously important or urgent for them, and frequently > > interesting to > > many of the rest of us. > > > > The guideline for these worthwhile off-topic > > discussions? Make them > > fairly brief, a day or two, giving out basic information > > and pointers > > to other resources so folks can continue their research > > elsewhere. > > > > For me to re-evaluate this fundamenal aspect of the list would > > require > > some pretty convincing arguments. Many members have just finished > > saying how much valuable stuff they've learned from the group on topics > > besides CS. I would not want those questions to go unanswered. > > > > Another point to > > consider is the members' responsibility to mold the > > discussion to their > > own needs. All new members are urged (in the > > instructions they receive upon > > joining) to ASK QUESTIONS in order to > > get the conversation moving in a > > direction that will help them. When > > they do this they normally get answers. > > If they don't, the conversation > > moves on without them. > > > > This is not an > > organized lecture series, where you can sit back > > passively and have all > > your questions answered, but rather more like a > > cocktail party, with folks > > milling around and talking amongst > > themselves. Anyone who wants to pick up > > the microphone and ask a > > question about the main topic is welcome to do so, > > and they'll get > > plenty of help as long as they need it. > > > > If I demanded > > that everybody sit quietly until somebody asks a proper > > question, it would > > be a very different place, and I think we'd lose a > > whole lot more people > > than we probably do when things get too noisy for > > too long. > > > > Who's to > > say what's the right balance? Ummm... Well, me, I'm afraid. > > Which is why > > I'm asking questions. > > > > *** DEFINING THE PROBLEM > > > > Now, as I consider > > specific actions or possible changes in policy in > > response to the present > > complaints, I think we might all benefit from > > some analysis to see just how > > things really look. > > > > I've surveyed list traffic for the first 23 days of > > August. Here are > > some statistics: > > > > *** Posts per day: > > > > average 24.26 > > mean 22.04 > > min 8 > > max 50 > > stdev 10.68 > > > > There've been 5 days over 30 messages > > and 8 days under 20. > > > > *** Counting threads and posts: > > > > Threads ranged from > > single unanswered posts to multi-day 40-post > > behemoths. For this analysis > > I looked at Subject: lines and samplings > > of posts, but did not account > > for subject drift within threads or count > > threads with "Unidentified Topic" > > or "Silver Digest" titles. > > > > On topic threads have a significant CS > > component. Threads for Other > > Questions offer information not related to CS but > > relevant to health- > > related questions raised by members. Off topic counts > > everything from > > Kurt's polemics to computer questions to humor and > > chit-chat. > > > > On topic: 44 threads; 194 posts > > Other questions: 32 threads; 198 > > posts > > Off-Topic: 30 threads; 136 posts > > > > Frankly, I'm not willing to analyse > > and rate each of the 554 posts in > > the sample in detail, if it's okay with > > all of you. I do need to get to > > bed sometime this morning! <grin> > > > > ***SUGGESTIONS? ANALYSIS? > > > > As I see it, lately we've averaged about TWO DOZEN > > posts per day, and > > between a third and half of them are the usual lower > > quality, for a > > variety of reasons. But, then, the percentage of CS-related > > questions > > people ask that get answered and discussed is very high. > > > > It's > > my normal practice to ask for OT threads that drag on too long to > > be ended, > > but it's been weeks since I've needed to, as most such > > threads have ended > > of their own accord within a (mostly) reasonable > > timeframe and total list > > traffic has averaged low to moderate. Self- > > regulation does seem to work, > > after a fashion. > > > > So, I'm open to specific suggestions or ideas. In light > > of the points > > I've made above, please tell me: > > > > How much traffic is too > > much? Off topic versus on-topic? > > > > Do you feel my basic policies need to be > > changed or updated? > > > > Should I do a better job of enforcing them? How, > > specifically? > > > > Should we stop answering non-CS-related health questions > > entirely? > > > > Should we ban *all* politics-related posts, no matter their > > importance? > > Or is the existing policy (brief, occasional, little or no discussion) > > > > good enough if it's enforced? > > > > Should I more vigorously police the > > "style" of certain messages so as > > not to scare new people off or annoy the > > regulars? > > > > Any other points you think I've not covered yet? > > > > Reply to me > > privately or to the list, as you prefer. Even if you've > > already "said your > > piece" I'd appreciate your reflection on my thinking > > thus far and how (or > > if!) I'm addressing your concerns. > > > > There's more for me to say, and I > > will. I've seen some very nice points > > being made and suggestions offered that > > I'd like to comment on, but I'm > > going to stop for now and get some sleep. > > <Yawn!> > > > > Thank you for your patience, ladies and gentlemen. It's not a bad > > thing > > to air grievances and sound each other out every once in a while, > > though I *will* get riled if folks make a habit of spouting off their > > objections on the list instead of privately! <scowls at David!> > > > > <grin> > > > > Ultimately I alone have to decide how things will be run, but your > > feelings > > and thoughts are important to my thinking. > > > > Peace, > > > > Mike Devour > > silver-list owner > > > > [Mike Devour, Citizen, Patriot, Libertarian] > > [mdev...@eskimo.com > > ] > > [Speaking only for myself... ] > > > > > > -- > > The Silver List is a moderated forum for discussing Colloidal Silver. > > > > Instructions for unsubscribing are posted at: http://silverlist.org > > > > To > > post, address your message to: silver-list@eskimo.com > > > > Address Off-Topic > > messages to: silver-off-topic-l...@eskimo.com > > > > The Silver List and Off Topic > > List archives are currently down... > > > > List maintainer: Mike Devour > > <mdev...@eskimo.com> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
