[Vision2020] Respect Vision 2020

[Ted Moffett]

Trying to moderate Vision2020 is like herding cats...

First, I don't delete Vision2020 posts.  No need for deleting posts with
Gmail's huge storage and free accounts available to anyone, nearly.  I
suggest, as I have before, that Vision2020 subscribers get a Gmail
account, just for Vision2020, if deletion of posts or storage is a problem.
 I have stored in my Gmail account a few years worth of Vision2020 posts,
which I can search via Gmail's e-mail account search algorithms,
sometimes very useful.

I just went through a weeks worth of posts in short order, even with
dial-up.  This might be unmanageable if there were thousands of posts in a
week... I should not even mention this possibility... Yikes.

Complaints about Vision2020 list serve conduct have never succeeded in
stopping egregious content or behavior, in the long run.  The tragedy of the
commons?  An argument against unmoderated list serves?  Sometimes, the
complaints come from those who rarely put themselves on the line, to present
content that takes on an unpopular cause, in vigorous discussion.  The voice
of Democracy is a loud, raucous, sometimes irrational, sometimes
impolite, sometimes downright insulting, voice... But it can be authentic,
in a way that polite moderated discourse is not.  Vision2020 should be
valued, I think, even for some of the content that is being complained
about... Even for content I complain about.  It may be unpleasant and
impolite, but it rings true to the nature of real human conservation.

It has been discussed before that a quick back and forth dialog between two
people is sometimes necessary to allow the creative fires of the moment to
find expression, when more than three posts a day (I thought two posts a day
was the agreed upon limit?) might provide illumination to the topic.
 Occasionally.  Certain Vision2020 list participants take advantage of this
rationale.

B. J. Swanson thinks the "Everyone Deserves Death" thread was
objectionable.  Given it explored the religious thinking behind some of the
most dangerous behavior the human race is facing at this time in history,
this thread did not even scratch the surface of exploring this issue, nor
it's critical importance in impacting everyones life.  Again, this may be an
expression of the often held belief that discussions of religion are off
limits to Vision2020, as if exploring these fundamental ideological and
ethical issues, that are entwined in every action in our lives, from the
local to the state to the national and international level, are not
appropriate.

Sometimes what is considered off limits to discussion are exactly the very
issues that are most critical to illuminating the vectors of power and
control over peoples lives.

What I find most objectionable are the personal insults...  I don't mind two
people posting twenty times in a week on one topic if this does not
degenerate into ugly personal insults.  Who can say whether or not someone
may be following this exchange, even if they do not post a response?  If
there were twenty of these discussions going on at once, it would be
difficult to follow.  But this does not seem to happen, just as a thousand
posts a week do not seem to happen, why I am not sure, given the
possibility.  I wonder why Vision2020 does not draw responses from all over
the world, given the fact, unless I misunderstand, that anyone on the
Internet globally could post?

Not keeping post content matching subject headings is a time waster.  After
all, if a subject does not interest you, you can use the subject heading to
ignore that thread.  Why complain?  Just ignore!  But if people post various
responses to a given subject heading under various and sundry other subject
headings, then it is easy to miss the full discussion, and waste time
opening posts that are discussing subjects of no interest to the subscriber.

Trying to herd cats...

Ted Moffett


On 6/16/08, Warren Hayman <whayman at roadrunner.com> wrote:
>
>  Hello again All,
>
> Now that two dogs are not vying for the attention of my hands and causing
> an inadvertent "send" click, let me begin again.
>
> My concern was neither the content nor context of postings. Rather, the
> sheer volume of what amounts to a couple of people texting each other
> multiple times quickly, and thus, from my perspective, cluttering the
> inboxes of hundreds in what seems to be minute elaborations of grammatical
> tropes, perspectives, and one-upmanship. Some of the posts make even
> Achilles and Agamemnon at the beginning of the *Iliad* appear rational.
>
> Supreme Court rulings, for example, have cogency, coherency, and relevance
> even here in Moscow. I would hesitate to call any one topic unimportant or
> irrevelant, and enjoy the opportunity to learn from all of them. I don't
> learn much at all from two or three folks engaging in vitriol-- take it
> off-list, maybe? Talk it out at a downtown venue? Or at least give it a day
> to reflect prior to reply. This may have been the operant mindset within Ms.
> Swanson's *ad nauseum* phrase earlier today-- not the topoi themselves,
> but the iteration and reiteration of minutiae directed toward not all, but
> only one or two others at most.
>
> I'm not trying to advocate censorship here. Rather, I ask for the simple
> consideration of all of the others entangled within the thread by proxy of
> the listserve itself. Think twice before posting, and consider the entirety
> of the audience?
>
> Says the guy who hit the send button by mistake,
>
> Warren Hayman
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20080621/3cf11bdb/attachment.html