At 11:24 AM 8/15/1997 -0400, Mary Schweitzer wrote:
>people aren't banned on.  While listowners are indeed all-powerful,
>the fact is that those who already have free lists and USENET berths
>have a type of media monopoly power, and it is ethically wrong for
>them to use it for their own political gain.  But there is no
>recourse for that on Internet.

No, not wrong.  Freedom of the press belongs to s/he who owns the press.
Always has, always will.  I wouldn't expect a liberal rag like New Republic
to publish much espousing Goldwater conservatism.  I'd expect that in
National Review.  Buy either or neither, your choice.  Same with lists.
Nothing different about the net from print.  How the lists are paid for, or
IF they're paid for, has nothing to do with it.  The founder of George (the
magazine) had/has tons of money, but whether you think he's right for
insulting his relatives in print or not, he's got the right, the same as
the person who does a hundred copies of a small town newspaper.

>So -- I don't think the "listowner owns it and can do whatever
>he/she wants" is necessarily the best answer.

No matter....it is the ONLY answer.  Always has been and always will be,
just as in business of any sort.

>OTOH, I am a listowner myself and have had to deal with people who
>just won't stop flaming (and our disease can affect a person that
>way anyway).

So, BFD.  Unsub them.  Serve them off.  Counsel them.  Edit them.  Your
call, as you've got many tools to use depending on your style, your
patience, your beliefs.

>I don't use NOPOST (well, haven't yet) -- I use "review", as you
>have -- so at least the person still has a voice on the list!
>And only once in nearly a year and a half had I had to ban someone
>from a list.

So, no problem, right?

>But -- the problem is, you don't really WANT to commit actual
>"censorship" -- or more to the point, as they say with politicians,
>you want the APPEARANCE of being fair, as well as to ACTUALLY
>be fair.

It has nothing to do with censorship.  It has to do with your style and
beliefs in list ownership.  If people don't like it, they'll go elsewhere.
Doesn't even cost you money out of your pocket on a list.

>It doesn't matter that you have a "right" as a listowner to do
>whatever you want -- the list runs much better if everybody feels
>that they understand things and that you won't behave arbitrarily.

That is your style of better, not that of others.   Personally I agree with
you, however.

>The solution is an appeals committee.  Or ombudsman committee.
>Or administrative committee.

The day someone starts going for that kind of crap is the day the list
dies. Because I'll kill it.  Period.  I don't get paid for doing this, and
the day it quits being more enjoyable than painful is the day it'll end.

>That way, instead of it being a personal "thing" with the problem
>posters, it is something that truly is "in the interest of the list".
>You can say to the list -- if you want to express an opinion on this,
>write to xxxxxxx (not to the list).  I've found you can talk about
>setting people to review in the abstract on the list (though I have
>been on lists where they won't even discuss THAT) -- but if you
>talk about a specific person or incident on the list, then it is
>very difficult to keep it from descending into personal insults and
>defensiveness.

Imagine that is why you're filtering them, isn't it?

>I asked for volunteers, and it was people I already knew, and we
>told the list who was in the group and asked if there were objections,
>and it's fine.  I have found it is really quite a relief to step
>BACK and let the committee handle problems.  I have a vote on the
>committee.  But it's just a vote.  And I have been outvoted (on
>the moderated list) on whether to post something or not.  So it's
>been posted.

Even better, have the balls (yes, that is a nonsexist term....look it up)
to make a decision and get on with your life.  If it becomes so compulsive
and all-important in my life, it'll end quickly.

>It was, BTW, the request for such a committee that got the bunch
>of us kicked off ONE list, and then technicalities were used to
>kick us off the listowner's OTHER list.

Fine.  His/her choice.  Shit happens.  Nobody said democracy or committees
are easy or fun.  And if there isn't any democracy, and they don't like it,
they can leave.

>At any rate, on my lists, the three cases of "review" and the one
>case of banning were the result of a vote by the list administrators,
>not a single decision by me.

Because you didn't have the strength to make the decision yourself.  That
is NOT a flame or criticism, just a statement of fact.  To each his/her own.

>Because you don't really want to be an OWNER, you want to be a
>facilitator.  You are not doing this for your personal gain (I
>would imagine) but as a community service.  People tend to forget
>that.  If you give the community some control over what really
>should be THEIR list, then they will enforce the rules and feel
>much more satisfied about how the list is run.

A VERY different approach from that of list owners, I'll bet.  But if it
works for you, fine.

cyclops, who believes in love and forgiveness, but also believes in Tough
Love in all matters human

(check books on Tough Love if you don't know what I mean....or go to an AA
or similar meeting)


Dan Lester
[log in to unmask]
In the kingdom of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.  Erasmus, 1534