Date: Sat, 30 Mar 1996 16:42:16 -0500
From: zodiac-AT-interlog.com (zodiac)
Subject: Re: lists and more lists


Jon writes:

>I liked Ken's thoughts.

blush

>I have no doubt that a moderated l*st would attract similar numbers of 
>posts--even if it didn't reach Ken's figure of 6000 s*bscribers.  But who 
>could moderate such a thing?

I suppose there are two models:

1. JOURNALISM MODEL: Like the Computer Underground Digest -- which has,
indeed, some 6000 subscribers. That is, people join, and they don't unsub.
Why? Because there is a pruning of material by the moderator (Jim Thomas).
There is plenty of room for threads, but they are interspersed with articles
-- which then generate discussion. (As to the latter, Louis P. probably did
more direct good than anyone else with his efforts at focusing discussion
around commonly accessible subjects -- like a book, or a subject -- fascism,
cuba.)

2. GATEKEEPER MODEL: The feminism groups -- they simply say "approved"
somewhere in it and weed out flamebait. They rotate moderators and discuss
internally borderline posts. Naturally, this kind of editorial decision
generates debates about the "totalitarian nature of feminism" -- blah blah
blah. That is, the decision to "run" an article often becomes more important
than the article itself. And then another endless string of meta-list
discussions begin again.

(SIDENOTE: I'd like to point out that the moment one edits one stinkin'
post, you have become an editor, and therefore you are possibly legally
responsibile for all posts. That is: If you use a wide-open, no censorship
model, the host running the list is not legally responsible for the
statements of others (see the Cubby v. CompuServe case c.1993). But: If you
prevent some posts from going out, you thereby give implied agreement to the
rest, and are probably legally responsible for libels, along with the author
(see the Prodigy case from August 1995). If Spoons is doing the moderating
(as in spooner Lisa), then I would wonder what stands behind Spoons? Is
there any university property/assets? Are you prepared to let her act as
your agent, and give implied Spoons consent to writings allowed to be posted
to marxism2?)

If Lisa's solution is the feminist group model, what would the CUD model
look like for a marxism list?

CuD is much smaller in size than marxism.moderated would be. And it comes
out weekly, whereas marxism.moderated should probably come out every day,
and be about 50-100k. It would forever kill the junk posts such as "I
disagree" or "Fuck you fat ass" after a 50-line requote.

A couple of guidelines would be set out, not based on rudeness or
ideological content -- like, if you have more quoting than comment, your
post is killed, we won't even look at what is in it; you won't get more than
one or two items a day; groups will be measured likewise, unless each member
is saying something substantially different, rather than just shooting out
the same pamphlet. Pamphlets could most definitely be posted, but not
reposted -- if you feel someone new to the list would be interested in it,
send it to them privately. Etc. 

There are people who will complain they like threads. Fine by me. You still
have alt.politics.socialist.trotsky and marxism-list. And marxism2. Go have
a blast.

The entire history of open Internet forums demonstrates a move toward
intelligence agents -- methods of searching out items that might interest
you and conserve time. Human editing remains a classic form. It is more
necessary than ever in our info age. (As many people before me have noted,
the way to control thoughts in the info age is not by denying them
information, but by overwhelming them with it.)

Jon asks the most important question: who could do all that work? I could
help give it a whirl. I've moderated some lists in the past. And spending an
hour a day packaging posts is rather productive and informative use of that
time. 

Ken.

P.S. The marxism list is currently functioning just fine, it would seem. The
list hysteronics ("listeronics," I like to call them) have passed for now.
There are substantive discussions, and a few new people have delurked to
fill the void. Seems perfectly natural and evolutionary. Jon was right about
not changing the name of the group. Much as we always think our flame wars
are Earth-shatteringly important, they signify nothing. 

But having a marxism2 is just fine by me, because the name is absolutely
meaningless, and permits a steam valve. Now people can jump between marxism1
and marxism2.

Let's see... now, flipping through the index of my _Extremely Prescient
Guide to Usenet History_... marxism2, marxism2... "creating new forums
because of a flame war in an existent forums"... page 3421... what's next in
the works... Ah! Of course! It reads: "Set up rules restricting information
and they will be tested." This is why rules for open forums are generally
structured to operate almost mechanically, mathematically, as opposed to
subjectively based on content. The Guide suggests marxism2 will eventually
experience the dreaded "newsgroup invasion" to test the dictatorial powers
of marxism2 moderators and thereby embarrass them. That could be quite
entertaining.