Since I started this thread I'd like to thank all who have answered so far. You have given me some good ideas and a couple of potential new hosts. The rest of the listowners of our group and I need to mull over what  we have so far but are still open to suggestions.

As a newbie to this list I have no idea how often this topic comes up but I'd bet it reoccurs at least occasionally. Maybe I should search the archives for suggestions in the past. My appologies if it is a tired subject.

One suggestion is to limit the number of posts per day for each subscriber to cut down on the back and forth posting in flame wars. What would you consider a reasonable limit?

Another idea was to approach our host with a better defined acceptable use policy (AUP). I would love to see any policies you have for your lists but please send them to me offlist. Maybe if we had a good AUP then we could get people to agree to it or leave the list. A contract of sorts that the university could stand behind.

We were worried that a specifically outlined AUP would actually hamper our ability to use our judgement as to what posts constitute abuse and would open the door to people complaining that someone had violated a specific policy when in spirit they had not. One place on our list where this comes into play is in matters of racism. Our list is about blues music and race related topics are inevitable. But if someone says for instance "Whites can't play the blues." Is that racist? Many scream that it is and I agree to a point. But it isn't "blatant" racism and should be open for discussion. So where is the line that a person shouldn't cross? Is racism a matter of words or intentions? It
gets very complicated very fast and as most of you probably know it has to be as simple as possible for the list members as a whole to grasp. If you make it too complicated you'll be explaining it forevermore. By keeping our guidelines general we had latitude in our judgement of what was and what wasn't a violation of AUP.
--
Walter Potter

Donald Good wrote:

> Of course, none of this is necessary, legally, morally or ethically.  But we were talking about a list where the LISTSERV host service provider, a university, perceives itself to be under threat of legal action from a disgruntled subscriber (T'user).  Since the list is provided free by the university, there is no contractual obligation between the university and the list Owner.  So as a result of the complaint and threat by the T'user, the university (to avoid any legal hassle) forced the Owner to re-instate the T'user, otherwise, bye-bye list.  So how does the Owner regain control of the list so as to be able to control flaming?
> 1. Contract with the university or other provider and pay for it (not likely unless the Owner is extremely generous), or
> 2. Buy hardware and software and set up own listserv (again, not likely), or
> 3. Convince the university or other provider that the list is fair and the T'user would not have a snowball's chance ...  and any legal threat would be immediately dismissed.  The by-laws approach was a SUGGESTION to that end.
>
> Don
>
> >>> Winship <[log in to unmask]> 01/14 8:24 PM >>> wrote
> None of this is necessary, legally, morally or ethically.  Douglas
>
> On Fri, 14 Jan 2000, Donald Good wrote:
> > As long as the troublesome users can make trouble thru your host university, creating a new list will not solve the problem.  The T'user can still claim rights violation about not being able to join the new list.  You will need to do a few things first:
> > 1. Discuss a new list with by-laws proposal with the university to see if they will agree to support the list if the list abides its own by-laws.  You may need to grant the university veto power on the by-laws and any future by-laws changes.  Also discuss and get consensus on the by-laws in the current list.
> > 2. Write the by-laws to cover (in some order):
> >   a. Purpose of the list
> >   b. Election of Owner(s)
> >   c. Etiquette and penalties for violation.  Spell this out clearly, including who or how a breach of etiquette is claimed, confirmed, and penalized.  A graduated scale of penalties may be appropriate as discussed in earlier postings on this topic.
> >   d. A by-law stating that subscription confirmation indicates accepting present and future by-laws.  (Can the message sent to the subscription applicant because of the Subscription=Open,Confirm  parameter be customized to include the by-laws with this by-law emphasized prior to confirmation?)
> >   e. How a vote quorum is defined, probably simple majority of votes cast within a set number of days possibly allowing for weekends and/or holidays.
> >   f. How changes to by-laws can be proposed, voted, and implemented.  Don't forget the university in this one.
> >
> > Look at Robert's Rules of Order for ideas.  Assuming that the university agrees to back you, invite current subscribers to subscribe to the new list with the by-laws acceptance stipulation.  State that unsubscribing from the current list will be at the discretion and the responsibility of the subscriber.  You will need to allow ALL current subscribers the opportunity to subscribe with a "clean slate" to avoid any "rights violations" and then take action under the by-laws if necessary based only on compliance in the new list.  Send the invitation to the old list 2 or 3 times, and then turn the "flamin' list" back to the university or maybe over to the T'user and let 'im flame.
> >
> > This method may also make it more likely for you to find a new host if the university is still unwilling.  Sorry this is so long, but good luck.
> >
> > Don
> >