Klarinet Archive - Posting 000716.txt from 2002/07

From: "David C Kumpf" <dkumpf@-----.com>
Subj: RE: [kl] Time for a moderated list?
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 16:30:05 -0400

Bill Wright wrote:
> I agree with Walter that moderation is not desirable, and if we were
> having a vote, I'd vote against it.

Here's another vote against moderation. I belong to some moderated lists
- unfortunately, even obliquely related topics that might have
significant import to the primary topic are often zapped by an
overzealous moderator.

> But I also agree that the focus and the quality of prose has slipped
> during the last few months. Among other people, we've lost
> Ed Lacy in
> part because of it.

There may be more "noise" in the past few months. I would suggest that
the noise can be directly attributed to either:

- a *very* few individuals whose postings have certain characteristics
(e.g. posting in response to every post, asking questions without doing
research in the archives, asking relatively inane questions, failing to
write in a structured and meaningful way, or failing to review, edit,
and proofread posts in even an minimal way before hitting send)

Or

- topics that had a tangential or oblique relationships to the clarinet
or relationships between life and music, of which some might have gone
on longer than was deemed appropriate by readers

For either case, one can simply delete the posts actively, or let the
email client handle it by programming in rules.

For the first case, we have to be careful to distinguish between a
continuous stream of inane messages and those who are simply unaware of
the resources or approach to take. If the latter, a few well-constructed
replies should address it, and probably will enrich everyone. If the
former - an infinite number of replies probably won't address it, and
that's where the email rules are a wonderful tool.

For the second case, I think the list simply has to self-moderate, with
increasingly firm suggestions to "take it outside." It's a judgement
call, and some may have lower or higher tolerances for off-topic
discussions.

As an aside, I'm wondering if we have (temporarily?) lost Dan Leeson
also - which, in my opinion, would be a significant loss.

> None of us are completely innocent ---
> witness the
> discussion on censorship in education to which most of us contributed
> (and which I regretfully started).

This fits my second category above, but I certainly didn't find the
start of the discussion irrelevant to this list by any means. It just
went on longer than I cared to read at the time, so I finally used the
delete button for the last few posts on the topic.

> On the other side of the coin, too narrow a focus is also undesirable
> (imo). When it comes to quality prose, I think all of us enjoy an
> occasional word from Shadow or Dick Vigorous, for example.

Agreed. I believe that there are some posts in the archive about the
relevance of other topics to that of playing clarinet effectively; when
it's appropriate to introduce those topics, I think they add
significantly to the richness and value of the discussion.

> Perhaps it's best for all of us to recognize the trend, and to keep it
> in the back of our colective mind.

Agreed.

Dave Kumpf
dkumpf@-----.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------