From:        White Wolf, ranma@tendo-dojo.ranma.net

On Sat, 13 Jul 1996, Andy Skuse wrote:

Thanks for the information Jeanne. I guess Saf and I can get started on the
FAQ, and everyone on the list knows what is what now. I'm sure WW would have
got to informing us all sooner or later, but I do know that he has been
very busy of late. Thanks again for the info :)

I've decided to take Jeanne's advice.  However, I need to rewrite the list
software to do it.  So, until I finish that, the list is back to the old
way.

I'll let you know when I figure out how to do it.

I have to admit, what I'd like to see more than anything is the 
Fidonet-style moderation I talked about before. One person (or more if 
needed) who reads the entire list and is trusted by pretty much everyone 
will: 

* Keep an eye on list traffic

* Step in and notify offenders when off-topic posts *get out of hand*

   * Most notifications done by private mail

   * Public notifications done when necessary (such as when the problem 
is a group of posters rather than just one or two, or when the moderator 
thinks an example needs to be set)

   * "Gets out of hand" is a deliberately vague standard; basically 
anything that disrupts the list. The definition one of my favorite 
moderators uses is "Anything that is more trouble to suppress than 
ignore" -- in other words, sometimes it's simpler to answer the question 
in a single off-topic post while noting that the question is off-topic, 
instead of wasting several messages debating whether the question should 
be on the list at all. But when an off-topic issue grows beyond a simple 
question and into a debate, then it's time for the moderator to step in 
and stop it.

* If an offender repeats, put him on probation; if he persists, 
temporarily remove him from the list; if he persists when allowed back 
on, then ban him permanently. 

This has some definite advantages: there's no "moderation bottleneck" on 
messages waiting to go on the list, and no need for the moderator to 
individually approve each message, meaning less work for the moderator; 
the discussion control is less rigid, so the chances of a sterile or 
"squelched" list is much smaller, and the atmosphere is (IMHO) more 
relaxed and less strained; and there's no need for fancy ML software. The 
disadvantage is that because so much is left up to the moderator's 
discretion, it's easier for moderation issues to develop into flamewars, 
especially if the moderator isn't widely respected; also, if the 
moderator doesn't have time to follow the list for an extended period of 
time (a couple of days is usually OK), things have a chance to spin out 
of control until he gets back.



Travis Butler
(The Professor, formerly of Myth and Magick!, Lawrence, KS;
 tbutler@tfs.net, now from the Wandering Powerbook;
 <http://www.tfs.net/personal/tbutler/>;
 Mac page <http://www.tfs.net/business/tbutler/>)

...Cats are the proof of a higher purpose to the universe.