Klarinet Archive - Posting 001117.txt from 1999/07

From: "Mark Charette" <charette@-----.org>
Subj: Re: [kl] moderated list [long]
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 17:51:08 -0400

> Have you (and your already-signed-up-but-yet-unnamed moderator) defined
> specific criteria for moderation of the new mailing list? Fuzzy criteria
> even?

Not yet, Mitch. I'm looking for a European and Asian/Australasian moderator
to help span time zones. At that point we'll all work at it & see what's
feasable. (interested parties please send me an email).

> Will those criteria be based on your personal preferences or those of
> the community? Will they be made very clear to the list subscribers?

The personal preferences of hopefully 4 people, which would correspond more
closely with the community. Each moderator will have the power to allow a
message through, none with the power to disallow the others from letting a
message through. As owner of the list computer it is theoretically possible
that I could intercept & disallow messages; however, there's enough checks &
balances via private mails that this is a realistic impossibility.

> I've
> always thought of you as an overly generous-with-your-time and
inordinately
> competent system (and list) administrator (not to mention someone who is
> fun to buy pizza and beer for at an annual International Clarinet
> Festival), but not necessarily as the appropriate conscience of the
> KLARINET community. (Consider, for example, your recent off-topic request
> for programming support for your real-life business and your occasional
> on-list perceived attacks on flaming list members.)

That's why a moderated list doesn't replace Klarinet in any way, shape, or
manner. The new list is more of an experiment, and may augment Klarinet;
indeed, some of the requests for a moderated list come from people who'd
_like_ to be Klarinet members but don't have the time to hit that "Delete"
key or have limited email inboxes.

[snip]

> Yes, we've lost some of our most well known professional clarinetist
> contributors because of flame attacks or off-topic threads. (I suspect
that
> some of them are still lurking out there, but only they and the system
> administrator know for sure.)

Most left for other reasons - the primary one being the sheer volume and
secondarily (and linked to the primary) the signal/noise ratio. As to the
pros who are "lurkers" - I only have the email addresses, not the names, so
even I don't know in most cases.

> My point, Mark, is that KLARINET is *not* sick and dying the way FLUTE-M
> surely was three and a half years ago when FLUTE was created as an
> alternative moderated list.

I agree - Klarinet is not sick; the discussions have always been as lively
and as personal, even in the beginning (although I think the rhetoric was on
a higher plane in the 1st few years :^)

> With its vast membership, KLARINET shows no
> advanced signs of being ready to die. Nevertheless, I would welcome some
> form of moderation to reduce the flames. (The off-topic threads die
> quickly. The flames and attacks sometimes linger for days.)

Moderating flames is difficult, since you either censor postings or
unsubscribe the offender - but, what's a flame to one person isn't a flame
to all. I love listening to the repartee that goes on in the British House
of (Commons? Lords? I don't know which) - the attack/counterattack between
the parties is wonderous to hear if you haven't listened before. Flames,
heck - roaring bonfire! But rules of order prevail, and things don't get too
personal without backup documentation. Not that I'd ever want to stand in
the PM's shoes!

> I, for one, would like to read your thoughts about the future. To what
> extent do you intend to moderate? Will all messages be read before
> retransmission to the list members or will offenders be quietly but
quickly
> chastised off-line?

[pause - reading ezmlm's moderation criteria - hmmm, interesting, and well
thought out!]

When a message comes in, it gets sent to all moderators. Any moderator can
accept or reject a posting, and if the posting is rejected it will be sent
back to the sender with an [optional - but I'll make it mandatory for
moderators] message on why it is being rejected. Now, another moderator may
later see the incoming messages and do the opposite - accept a previously
rejected posting or vice versa. The list will notify the moderator right
away that another moderator has already [accepted/rejected] the message. The
moderators can then "talk amongst themselves" and clarify the issue,
possibly adding it to the charter.

Messages not acted upon for (configurable - I'll probably set 48 hours) are
deleted automatically and a message to that effect sent to the sender.

> Will the criteria be made specific or will you simply
> know an offense when you read it?

Tricky, tricky, tricky, Mitch - what, trying to trap me into the "I'll know
pornography when I see it?" :^) Some criteria can always be made specific
(no "me too" messages, no totally off-topic messages, no cussing in any
language we can recognize, that sort of thing) but others are more nebulous.
The moderators themselves will likely have some interesting discussions
amongst themselves.

> Do you expect the new moderated mailing
> list to replace the current one as the clarinet mailing list of choice for
> "serious" musicians? Where exactly are you going with this? Many of us
> contributed financially to the current host system; we deserve to know.

I don't know what lies ahead, whether or not a moderated list will become
one for the "serious" musician. I do know that a moderated list such as the
type I'm considering can easily become pedantic and fail. This generally
happens when there are only one or two moderators of like mind. I'll be
trying to avoid that. I think a moderated list will likely become a list of
choice for the "no time to deal with Klarinet" musician, and I hope that
they'd be carryover between the two lists.

There's an active BBoard on Sneezy that seems to be pretty self-sufficient
with only an occasional deletion by me when the language turns blue, and it
seems to meet a different need than the Klarinet mailing list, just as
alt.music.clarinet does in the newsgroups. I think a moderated list fills
yet one more niche. We'll see.

Note to any prospective moderators:

It will entail some work, some abuse (hate mail once in a while), some
compromise, and seldom posting your own comments.

Cheers,
Mark Charette@-----.org

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe from Klarinet, e-mail: klarinet-unsubscribe@-----.org
Subscribe to the Digest: klarinet-digest-subscribe@-----.org
Additional commands: klarinet-help@-----.org
Other problems: klarinet-owner@-----.org

   
     Copyright © Woodwind.Org, Inc. All Rights Reserved    Privacy Policy    Contact charette@woodwind.org