Bon Matin to all,

I guess this question is rather philosopic but I would like to know the
opinions of expert list-owners on moderation.

First, full-moderation is not an issue there is no volunteer for it. In
the last months we lost a couple a reknowned and estimeed Blues figures
the idea is to create a place with a little more respect for those
figure. And maintain a minimum level of intervention at the same time.

What I plan to propose to BLUES-L members is that a few volunteers are
listed as quiet: owners and have the right to set REVIEW for flamers and
can set NOPOST for a month for chonic unruly behavior (rude posting,
off-topic posts) in short constant breach of netiquette. Those members
will also do active education on BLUES-L etiquette.

I am under the impression that it can only help the signal/noise ratio.
There are the "voicy few" that pretend that the "law of jungle" is
preferrable. They let's post anything and chase offending posters with
flame.

BLUES-L has 741 subscribers or rather sub'ed addresses :-) and a
turnover of 200/month (they visit for a week or less) We also have a
news gateway.
It is a free list with musicians, agents, DJ, historians and fans (like
me :-) and is dedicated to discussion of the Blues. It started in spring
1993 and incidents and runaway off-topic posts seem to be increasing ...
I know, we are lucky: no trolls or vicious users, I guess it reflects
popularity of the Blues :-/ ... (The 80-120k daily digest and 60-80 msg
a day average help in keeping non-dedicated Blues lovers
away ;-)

So is there anybody that was on list that went from unmoderated to some
level of moderation ? If so, was te move beneficial ?

If you answer, please indicate if I can quote you and indicate members
count and approximate volume if possible.

Sorry to bother you with this non-technical thing ...

--
Eric Paul-Hus , BLUES co-owner