>Poster:       Robert Moss <[log in to unmask]>
 ...
>groups.  Most disturbing to me is the voiced intent to establish
>any/all Lists as moderated.  I find this highly paranoid, unreasonable
>and too restrictive.
>
>I am very interested in your thoughts.  Is it common practice to force
>lists into a moderated status?  Can you share some of the general
 
I don't know what sort of lists you have -- my answer is based on the
assumption they are academic in nature, and not for-funs.
 
You should, of course, first try to find out exactly what the reasoning of
your opposition is for making these lists moderated, and address each issue
specifically.  Perhaps, if you pass along to the group (perhaps better to
move this discussion to lstown-l, by the way, since that's the proper
venue) the nature of your lists and the nature of the objections, we could
offer more specific suggestions.
 
In general, however:
 
You might try to explain lists to your people by analogy: they are the
largely professional conversation that goes on at professional conferences
after a session.  Moderating a panel discussion or the delivery of papers
is one thing -- but one assumes that adults do not need, or want,
moderation once the formal session is over.  Indeed, it would be quite
insulting should someone try.  The (relatively rare) so-called adult who
proves to be a problem can always be dealt with on an ad hoc basis.
 
Further, if you moderate the list, you end up jeopardizing any real chance
at spontaneity, especially if the listowner is forced by pressure of other
duties to forward postings in batches instead of as they come in.  In
short, moderation is quite likely to stifle the free flow of discussion --
and the free flow and sharing of information, which is the very purpose of
the list in the first place.  And, should the moderator choose not to
forward a posting for whatever reason, the poster might take umbrage, which
can easily lead to unpleasant situations and bad feelings.
 
Moreover, the listowner's time should be factored into the equation -- and
the fact that more than one listowner would be necessary: a single person
would be unable to take even a day off for any reason without disconnecting
the list.  This is not very efficient or practical.  (Of course, any
intelligent listowner already has backups in place, but that's beside the
point ... we're emphasizing the *time* factor in this argument.)
 
If your opposition is still adamant, what I would do (unless I anticipate a
listmembership of over, say, about 500 people (after which point things get
a little hairy in terms of how much time the listowner(s) end up spending
on this), is offer a compromise: make the list private (subscription by
owner) and, as a further compromise if necessary, offer to screen potential
subscribers with a brief questionnaire (a mere "who are you, what are your
interests, and why do you want to join our list", more tactfully put, is
all you need).
 
In that way, you *know* that those who join the list are truly interested
at least in learning from the discussion; you put potential troublemakers
on notice that the listowners are actively involved in the list and care
about its quality; and you have a way to deal with truly persistent obnoxes
 -- you can unsubscribe them and refuse to allow them back on (no need for
filters).  On Arcana, we've ended up with a very well behaved and high
quality list that way -- it could so easily have become a "how I sacrificed
a virgin to the Horned One at the last full moon" bit of fluffery, which
was the *last* thing we wanted.
 
One added possibility is to set the list to reply to sender, not to list:
all parties would then have to go to extra effort to send to the list as a
whole.  Cuts down on personal conversations a lot -- but risks having
discussions move off-list where only the participants get the benefit.
Still, something to consider.
 
Finally, make sure the opposition realizes that responsible listowners do
monitor their lists and that among their responsibilities is keeping the
discussion on course.  A certain amount of list drift is inevitable and not
necessarily to be discouraged, since it can and does build group cohesion
and gives a list its character, as well as allowing more efficient
"networking" between colleagues and potential colleagues (something your
opposition might well be able to understand), but a listowner should,
indeed must, step in when things get out of hand.  In other words, the
listowner is moderating the list already in a non-technical sense.
 
Also, I've seen on various lists that most listmembers are willing to
adhere to maximum postings per day guidelines if list traffic gets too high
and the listowner calmly and reasonably explains the restriction.
 
Only with rare exception (lists with HUGE memberships, e.g. pacs-l with
several thousand people; for-fun lists that can easily degenerate into
general chit-chat) would actual moderation be necessary.
 
Good luck -- and let us know, if you can, how things work out.  This sort
of thing might end up happening to any one of us, and having precedents and
how-to-handle-this tips might come in very useful.
 
Mario Rups, co-listowner, ARCANA
[log in to unmask]