Skip Navigational Links
LISTSERV email list manager
LISTSERV - COMMUNITY.EMAILOGY.COM
LISTSERV Menu
Log In
Log In
LISTSERV 17.5 Help - LSTOWN-L Archives
LISTSERV Archives
LISTSERV Archives
Search Archives
Search Archives
Register
Register
Log In
Log In

LSTOWN-L Archives

LISTSERV List Owners' Forum

LSTOWN-L

Menu
LISTSERV Archives LISTSERV Archives
LSTOWN-L Home LSTOWN-L Home

Log In Log In
Register Register

Subscribe or Unsubscribe Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Search Archives Search Archives
Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
Re: Moderation
From:
Mary Siegel <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
LISTSERV list owners' forum <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Sun, 27 May 2001 16:22:08 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (48 lines)
At 10:38 AM -0400 5/27/01, Tom Rawson wrote:
>
>I think the list goes far better when there are clear policies for what is
>OK and what is not, and the moderator enforces them (gently but firmly).
>My experience is that this is fairly easy because once you put it in place
>and people learn that it will be enforced, they mostly stick to it.  When
>there are not enforced policies many lists devolve from time to time into
>flame wars.  They may end up looking successful but in fact many people
>outside the circle of those who can tolerate the flames will stay away or
>leave.

Yes! That has been my experience too. On lists where policy isn't
firm in the beginning, they are very soon nothing but flames. A few
hold center stage with their bad manners and everyone else lurks in
the background, afraid to say anything, or they leave and join
another list.

>I don't buy the "slippery slope" argument that any moderation implies
>judging and taking reponsibility for everything.  I let a lot of things
>go, but if the policies are violated I step in (this would not work if the
>policies were not clear beforehand).  On the adoption-related list I run
>people express the oddest opinions and say things that I think are flat
>out wrong. I don't make an issue out of it (except occasionally with the
>list manager hat clearly off) and feel no responsibility for it.  But when
>they start calling each other names, I step in.

I tell them all in the beginning that when I am speaking as List
Admin, I will put ADMIN: in the title of the message and I will sign
it Mary Siegel, <Listname> Admin, but otherwise I am speaking as just
one of the group. It has worked quite well.

>I do realize that the net has a traditon, based in Usenet, of total self-
>moderation.  My feeling is if people like that environment there are
>plenty of places for it, but that it doesn't lead to good information flow
>or build community (or if it does, that happens in spite of the
>unmoderated nature of the venue) -- and those would generally be two of my
>goals for most discussion lists I can imagine.

I have suggested to people who insist on flaming that they should go
join a newgroup since they seem to tolerate that and I don't. We do
have a terrific sense of "family" on my lists, and I like that. The
"admining" I do is very much like being a parent of some very good
"kids" (some of whom are older than I am). They don't need correction
most of the time, but when they do, they need someone with authority
to step in and say "Hey, not here!"

Mary

ATOM RSS1 RSS2

COMMUNITY.EMAILOGY.COM CataList Email List Search Powered by LISTSERV