** Sometime around 11:29 -0500 12/27/97, Ed Price said: >Wow !! 20% Who ever thought that one up ? I've seen nothing of the kind >and would not encourage its use. Even if invoked I doubt that 20% would >respond unless it was a very small and active ML. A recent vote on our ML >to choose a symbol resulted in 9 votes total out of 1000+ subscribers. Yes, I found that to be somewhat odd, as well. Even on issues that directly affect the members of the mailing list, I've found that 15% is about the best I can hope for on my discussion lists (they number in the 800 to 1200 range). Just out of curiosity, Kathleen, how did you (or whoever) arrive at the 20% figure, and have you really seen that kind of response when conducting polls? ** Sometime around 15:38 -0500 12/27/97, Dan Lester said: >I've never heard of such rules, but my philosophy is a bit different than >yours, I believe. I'm in charge of the rules, I make them, I enforce them, >I interpret them. The rules may not be discussed on list, though I'm >always glad to have input by private email. Well, I've been in BLOFH (bastard list owner from hell) mode lately with one of my lists -- but even given that, I feel that my job is to target the list to the will of the majority (as I perceive it -- and I simply work on the assumption that if I'm too far off the mark, I'll start hearing about it). I think that discussing the rules on the list -- from time to time (certainly not every week) -- is good for the list, and helps the members feel as if it really is working for *them*. Overall, you'd be surprised how *rarely* these discussions surface -- and they are usually brought on by my own actions. For example, I once set someone to REVIEW for using profanity on the list. This led to a discussion of what the majority wanted to allow -- which, in turn, led to a list-wide decision to simply ban all forms of profanity on the list. Now, when someone uses profanity on the list, I can simply state that we have discussed its use, and have decided that it is not appropriate on the list. The majority of the list's members -- not merely the listmom -- has spoken. In the end, discussions such as these serve to make my job as a listmom *easier*, not more difficult. ** Sometime around 8:19 -0500 12/27/97, LYDIA FISH said: >After all, people who don't like the way you run your list can always start >their own. Vwar-l has several spinoff lists that started that way. When a >member would become too much of a problem child I would politely suggest that >he/she really should start his/her own list and several times my advice was >taken. Now when someone becomes particularly obnoxious I just suggest that >he/she would be *much* happier on list X or list Y. I do this with my "announcement"-style humour list, since there are so many other humour lists from which to choose. On my discussion lists, though, I reserve suggestions like that for those subscribers who are clearly in the minority *and* won't take "No" for an answer. The rest of the time, I think that it is important to be open to list members' suggestions -- otherwise, they are left with the impression that the list's custodians are accountable to no one (which is not a good scenario for most discussion lists). __________________________________________________________________________ Vince Sabio Boy & His Sabre: <http://www.insane.net/TSC/Vince/> [log in to unmask] Stop Internet Spam! <http://www.cauce.org/> Behind every successful man Behind every successful man is a is a surprised woman woman with expensive taste -- Maryon Pearson -- Vince Sabio