[Vision2020] Respect Vision 2020

[Ted Moffett]

B. J. Swanson et. al.

I did an approximate count of the number of posts from May/June 2008 with
the words "Everyone Deserves Death" in the subject heading.  There were
variations on the wording introduced by different subscribers, such as
"[Idaho Atheists] Everyone Deserves Death, simply "Everyone Deserves Death"
and "Say What? Everyone Deserves Death."

There were far more posts than I suspected.  My count is probably off a post
or three: 63.  I counted 11 participants in this thread, some posting only
once or twice.  This thread was not dominated by a disagreement only between
two people.  Averaging 63 posts over 15 days, comes to 4.2 posts per day.

What is amazing is that within about the first 24 hours this "thread"
started late May 17, it generated 18 posts though late May 18, according to
Vision2020 archive times.  You are correct that this thread "exceeds 10-15
per day," as you wrote, at least for one day, though many of these posts
that first day were not directly dealing with the exact subject heading.  A
number of different topics were addressed, such as posting private e-mail to
Vision2020, Internet privacy rights, and fake identities of Vision2020
participants.

However, that one day outburst of posts included at least nine different
Vision2020 subscribers commenting... Hardly an example of Vision2020 being
used as "a personal blog for just a few." as you wrote.

In total in this thread over two weeks, some posts were insulting, some
thought provoking.  Many of the posts were explicitly educational about
religious issues based on solid research, with Ralph Nielsen and Chas both
presenting interesting facts and well reasoned arguments.   I learned a
few things.  I posted 8 times over a two week May/June period in this
thread.  Anyone can count the contributions of others.

I can understand objecting to this quantity of posts (63) on one subject
heading, that was a bit abstract and theological, and not linked directly
to only local issues, over a two week period.  And 18 posts in one day!

I often totally skip posts on a given subject heading.  Very easy.  If 15
posts on the Seattle Mariners appear in one day, I may ignore these posts,
thinking they are a waste of bandwidth.  But ignoring them does not waste
but a second or two of my time, as I scan the daily subject headings on
Vision2020.  The Mariners fans no doubt consider this topic a matter of life
and death!

Your objection to certain threads on Vision2020 was not merely that the tone
or quantity of the posts was questionable.  You objected to "unwinnable
arguments."  If all arguments that are viewed as "unwinnable" were taken
"Off List, " there would be a rather limited topic list.

Arguments on topics that could be deemed "unwinnable," that have graced
Vision2020 repeatedly, include the Iraq war, climate change, religion,
sexual and gender ethics, MSD property tax funding, local water resource
use, and local smart managed growth vs. pro-business development (it seems
these two viewpoints disagree confusingly on how to define and apply their
labels, with the pro-development crowd insisting they promote smart growth,
and the managed smart growth view insisting they are not anti-business, like
the pro-development crowd labeled them during the last Moscow City Council
election, involving the GMA vs. MCA disagreements, with "endless"
contentious discussion on Vision2020).

Perhaps a monitor would have shut the "Everyone Deserves Death" thread
down the first day, before 18 posts under this thread posted in 24 hours.

But might the quantity, and even the insults within, these posts reveal that
the topic arouses great passion; and thus was an indication of the
importance of this subject to many people? Vision2020 will inevitably
include a percentage of "junk" (in my opinion) posts.  I accept this as the
price of the freedom of an unmoderated list; and find this cost so far to be
acceptable given the benefits of unfettered discussion.  Topics arousing
great passion will generate passionate responses, some of them impolite,
given human foibles.

Those who object to Vision2020 being unmoderated are free to start their own
moderated community list serve.  In the Internet Information Age, this is
rather easy.

If only the cat herding would result in the cats keeping their posts to a 2
or 3 a day limit, except for occasional alley cat fights; and regularly
matching subject headings to post content.

B. J. Swanson wrote:

http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2008-June/054451.html

If you want to continue these unwinnable arguments, how about taking them
off Vision 2020?
------------------------------------------
Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett


On 6/21/08, B. J. Swanson <bjswan at moscow.com> wrote:
>
>  Ted,
>
>
>
> Please let me clarify again.  The only reason I objected to the "Everyone
> Deserves Death" thread along with the others mentioned was because of the
> sheer VOLUME and numerous personal insults, not the topic itself.  When the
> number of posts on a topic exceeds 10-15 per day, it's usually because it
> has degraded into disrespect including what I would call egotistical spam,
> ie "I know more than you… you're dumb, etc."  Those kinds of posts
> contribute nothing to the discussion.  That's what I find objectionable.
>   Overall, it's just asking for basic respect for others.
>
>
>
> B. J. Swanson
>
>
>
> *From:* Ted Moffett [mailto:starbliss at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Saturday, June 21, 2008 1:10 AM
> *To:* vision 2020
> *Cc:* donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com; Bev Bafus; kfreitag at roadrunner.com; B.
> J. Swanson; Warren Hayman
> *Subject:* Re: [Vision2020] Respect Vision 2020
>
>
>
> 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/20080621/13167b10/attachment-0001.html