Well, I have some thoughts on moderation based on my experience with a
fully moderated list (Quaker-L) for about a year and a half, and a
minimally moderated list (Noses-L) for the last couple of months....
A fully moderated list, especially depending on style, can be a lot of
work. My best advice is to:
1. Use administrative messages to the *list* to focus - in other words
define your focus publically and clearly because most subscribers will be
willing to abide by this. It will cut your individual moderation work
down.
2. Develop some tolerance for different styles and approaches - in other
words, choose your battles, because some subscribers will see being
moderated as a negative. Be sure the change you are asking for is worth
the correspondence time. Lots of times, off topics and slightly off tone
resolve themselves naturally on the list - and are not worth moderating.
3. In moderating, don't haggle. Just tell folks what you object to, ask
them to change it, and leave it up to them to respond appropriately. It's
a lot of work to edit.
On Noses-L, the list is not intended to be moderated at all, but all new
users are set to review initially. This gives you a few messages - you
decide, since you set them to noreview - to check out how they do with the
list. It gives you a chance to help out newbies with technical errors, and
to correspond a bit with those who come in with really off-topic postings.
I always preface my moderation of new subscribers with a note that
explains that we do this in order to guard against spammers, etc... "but I
noticed that you sent a message on XYZ subject. This list is for owners of
hounds, and we really try to focus on that...."etc...
Dave Hendrikson, the alpha of Noses-L and Basset-L, set the lists up this
way - I'm just subbing for him - but I like it a *lot* as a system....
Well, hope this is helpful. Anyway you cut it, moderation is a lot of work
- I think a big decision to think through before implementing.
Take care,
Sylvie McGee
[log in to unmask]
seattle wa
|
