Re: Moderation of GZG-L (was Re: Back from SALUTE and bye bye)

Jerry Han wrote:

> Thoughts?  This shouldn't be considered a formal RFC -- this is more
of
> tossing an idea out, and seeing what people think.  If people are
> really starting to be fed up with the list as a whole, then, this is
> probably the most realistic way out.

I have to respectfully disagree.  One of the things I've always liked
about the
list is the lack of moderation, not because it allows people to vent
their
spleens in rude and unnecessary ways, but because of all the lists and
newsgroups
I've been on, this one is probably the most "grown up" in tone that I've
ever
seen.  I like being able to throw things out to the list, and get
informed
responses.  I like having a wide variety of experiences and opinions. 
The
problem with moderation that I see is that if you do implement it, it's
going to
be controlled by a group of people who are just as fallible as those
they are
moderating.  What I mean by that is to say that it's difficult for
moderators to
keep their own prejudices out of their task at times (and I'm not
suggesting that
I could do better, far from it), and I've been on the receiving end of
that at
least once to my recollection in a moderated NG that I subscribe to. 
Also Jerry,
as you pointed out, it's difficult to find someone who can do it on an
ongoing
and consistent basis.  I'm on a moderated listserv for AP History
teachers, and I
never know when I'm going to get a huge dump of messages.  It's almost
not worth
it to post a question to that list, because many times by the time I get
the
answer, it's too late.	I think what we've been seeing is an
unwillingness of
people on the list to come right out and tell someone when they've
crossed the
line.  Do I feel bad about the people who've left the list?  Not really,
because
I find that to be a somewhat extreme solution to the problem.  It smacks
a bit of
martyrdom ("I'm leaving, and you'll never see me again, and this is
why!"), and
of giving up.  By unsubbing, what those who've left are saying is that
they're
not willing to stand up to those people who cross the line, either by
telling
them to shut their pieholes or by just ignoring them.  Has the list
undergone a
change?  In retrospect, yes.  Is it too late to deal with that change
and
possibly (hopefully) reverse it?  I don't think so at all, nor do I
think that
the step of moderation is needed at this point.  Perhaps what *would* be
helpful
would be a FAQ (assuming there isn't one already) laying out some basic
ground
rules for discussion on the list, along with a warning that an offender
(be it
John, Imre, myself, or you, Jerry) can expect to be alternatively
slapped down
publically and/or ignored from that point forward.  Let's face it, we
are (most
of us) adults.	I think the tenor of the list is due in large part to
the higher
average age of people on the list than what you'll find in the typical
newsgroup.  Being that is the case, I think that moderation is neither
desirable
nor necessary, and I plan on making some killfile additions should a
little
blowup like the one seen recently appear again.  In the meantime, I plan
on
posting some more relevant topics, in the hopes that the discussion on
the group
can head in a more constructive direction.