> Paul, thank you. I also agree with what you have said.
>
> The list has gotten to be very frustrating, and I have been thinking of
> leaving it. I delete most messages without reading them as it is. I stay
> because between all of the ______(fill in the blank yourself), there is
> valuable information about what is going on in the community.
>
> However, I am not sure that a list moderated by one person is the solution.
> (As Kyle has left the UC listserv, I cc¹ed him here.) Kyle, what are your
> rules of moderation?
>
> Margie
>
>
>
> Bravo. Very well said.
>
> Kimm
>
>
> On 7/29/07 3:31 PM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Neighbors,
>> As is typical for our list, people are tending to exaggerate on both ends
>> of the issue: either there is no issue (characterized by the "that's what the
>> delete button is for defense" which posits that anything goes is a suitable
>> standard of conduct) or that the new list is anti-democratic, insular,
>> opposed to debate and dissent, etc.
>> It's too bad that Ross discontinued his monthly statistical report on
>> list volume, top posters and top topics. It helped to quantify the traffic
>> and made it easier to see what was going on conversation wise. In my view,
>> the stats were a useful social control mechanism because the top 10 posters
>> were publicly identified for talking so much. I had on several occasions
>> used the stats to urge that the big talkers be more circumspect and to
>> consider that their content didn't match their contribution; more likely, it
>> was the opposite. So one problem with the list is that the volume is often
>> burdensome, and that the value of the posts is steadily dropping.
>> To those who see the delete button as the answer to volume, I completely
>> disagree. I guess you enjoy spam, junk mail and telephone solicitation,
>> since you can use the delete button, the recycling can or the hang up and
>> feel fine that you have not lost any time, or felt the need to check items
>> for lack of value before discarding them. Others have said its like going to
>> a party and seeing a jerk there who talks too much, is rude, etc and you
>> worry not as you can simply walk away. Me, I say if I keep going to parties
>> and there are 5 jerks I will likely encounter and have to extricate myself
>> from their yammering, maybe its easier to stop going to the parties, or host
>> one myself and not invite them.
>> As to content, I'm not so much opposed to disagreement and dialogue.
>> What bothers me is the lack of civility especially common among many big
>> posters. Name calling (including intentional reversal of names, use of last
>> names or diminutives as insults, gender based attacks, etc), open hostility,
>> personal attacks, etc., are included routinely in a lot of posts. It is also
>> apparent that there are pairings of people who are unable to stop themselves
>> from answering their opponents, no matter what they say or how they say it,
>> right or wrong, etc., as if they were former romantic partners who never
>> could forgive and forget.
>> This also takes the form of people ceaselessly engaged in some kind of
>> propaganda campaign to support their personal political goals, continually
>> talking, inserting their issue in every context, caring not if they are
>> boring everyone else to tears and being nasty to boot.
>> These entrenched behaviors, which resist all attempts by others for
>> moderation or change, are causing the demise of the list. One thing that
>> bothers me the most, and should bother those who view the list as a community
>> communication device, a democratic tool, and the embodiment of free speech,
>> is the cumulative impact of the big talkers and the rude: they have
>> suppressed communication from what appears to be the large majority of the
>> list. Those members, certainly with valuable knowledge and opinions, post
>> rarely or not at all, electing instead to hunt for the occasional post of
>> value, like people panning for gold. They have things to say but have
>> learned it could lead to attacks, pigeon holing, etc., which just isn't worth
>> it to them. Who misses out from that?
>> Our founding father evidently made a decision that he valued free
>> communication at any cost, so he will not do much by way of setting rules of
>> conduct or ejecting those who won't follow them. So what we have is a free
>> for all by design. People can control themselves, or yield to group pressure
>> in the absence of external controls. It appears that these efforts have
>> failed. So I don't think its about content, diversity or debate, its about
>> civility, promoting real dialogue and controlling anti-social behavior.
>>
>> Paul
>>
>> ps Wilma is not the kind of person that is the problem. She actually thinks
>> and responds. She brings her views and is capable of changing them and even
>> apologizing when she's wrong. And I doubt she's made it in the top 10.
>>
>>
>> AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from
>> AOL at AOL.com <http://www.aol.com?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000437> .
>>
>
>
