I agree with Mark, we can <moderate> this forum ourselves if we
(a) do not <reply to all> to personal questions
(b) use this list for questions, information exchange and discussion on what
is going on in Foucault research.
machie karskens
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Kelly" <mark.kelly@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Mailing-list" <foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, June 17, 2006 1:56 PM
Subject: Re: [Foucault-L] request for moderation
> My two cents on the moderation issue:
>
> Back in the SPOON days, we used to manage fine unmoderated. A few
> people would send someone spammy or trolly stuff to the list, but they
> were generally ignored - at least, I had no trouble ignoring them.
>
> The previous moderation on this list saw most of my emails not allowed
> through. I feel that the list has declined in quality greatly since
> the move to foucault.info - expressing this feeling was in fact one of
> the things which got me moderated.
>
> My feeling now is that we are having teething troubles going
> unmoderated. The regular posters are relative newbies to the list, and
> are used to a heavily moderated list. I expect that things will
> quickly find an equilibrium.
>
> Rupert's argument that we have censorship either way so we should
> therefore deliberately censor posting is true in its premises but
> makes no sense as an argument. Yes, people jumping on posters is a
> form of censorship. But I have no problem with this, since frankly
> people often need to be discouraged from posting (I didn't read any of
> the emails Rupert is referring to though, so am not commenting on his
> case). I don't think assigning this function to a well-meaning elite
> and giving them power to censor by fiat is a good way to go, though;
> at least not yet. Let's see if we can't play nicely first.
>
> On 6/17/06, Mr. Rupert Russell <rhr30@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > I would personally like to see some form of moderation. I used to have
posts
> > moderated and were always fair. I didn't like having my email taken
apart
> > the other day like that which wasn't very pleasant and discourages me
from
> > posting on this list in the future - which is a form of censurship.
Rupert
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: foucault-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > [mailto:foucault-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
> > admin-foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Sent: 17 June 2006 08:19
> > To: Mailing-list
> > Subject: Re: [Foucault-L] request for moderation
> >
> > The list has been unfiltered and unmoderated for the last 2 weeks - the
> > subject line already questions this change.
> >
> > There are two positions:
> > 1. The list is able to auto-regulate itself, list members should not be
> > policed or censured, freedom of speech, mirror of the diversity of real
life
> > manners and discourses, better more messages than long silence, just hit
the
> > "delete" button or unsubscribe, etc.
> > 2. The list needs a minimal policy and moderation as defined there:
> > http://foucault.info/Foucault-L/
> >
> > Since the transfer of the Foucault-L from Spoon collective in december
2004,
> > I've been semi-moderating and filtering out:
> > - off-subject posts (no link with Foucault)
> > - messages without elaborated information (such as "i'm in holiday"
> > "thank you" and everything in the "weather is beautiful" category)
> > - polemical messages (as fully described by Foucault in the article
> > "Polemics, Politics and Problematizations")
> >
> > The majority of the members are listening in silence: they may figure
this
> > space as a public forum with an audience of +1000 people, they hesitate
to
> > grab the mike, knowing that this is also recorded and archived for good,
in
> > search engines etc. I understand this position but I also think the
ratio
> > contributor/listener is out of proportion: this is actually an issue in
many
> > lists.
> > Also note that during this last year, at least 3 members argued with me
in
> > private and unsubscribed as they disagreed with one of the 3 cited rules
of
> > filtering.
> >
> > I can no longer semi-moderate the list and I encourage the Foucault-L to
> > discuss and choose between option 1 auto-regulation and option 2
> > semi-moderation. For option 2, we'll need new volunteers to moderate.
> >
> > Camille
> > Foucault-L admin.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Foucault-L mailing list
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Foucault-L mailing list
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Foucault-L mailing list
>
(a) do not <reply to all> to personal questions
(b) use this list for questions, information exchange and discussion on what
is going on in Foucault research.
machie karskens
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Kelly" <mark.kelly@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Mailing-list" <foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, June 17, 2006 1:56 PM
Subject: Re: [Foucault-L] request for moderation
> My two cents on the moderation issue:
>
> Back in the SPOON days, we used to manage fine unmoderated. A few
> people would send someone spammy or trolly stuff to the list, but they
> were generally ignored - at least, I had no trouble ignoring them.
>
> The previous moderation on this list saw most of my emails not allowed
> through. I feel that the list has declined in quality greatly since
> the move to foucault.info - expressing this feeling was in fact one of
> the things which got me moderated.
>
> My feeling now is that we are having teething troubles going
> unmoderated. The regular posters are relative newbies to the list, and
> are used to a heavily moderated list. I expect that things will
> quickly find an equilibrium.
>
> Rupert's argument that we have censorship either way so we should
> therefore deliberately censor posting is true in its premises but
> makes no sense as an argument. Yes, people jumping on posters is a
> form of censorship. But I have no problem with this, since frankly
> people often need to be discouraged from posting (I didn't read any of
> the emails Rupert is referring to though, so am not commenting on his
> case). I don't think assigning this function to a well-meaning elite
> and giving them power to censor by fiat is a good way to go, though;
> at least not yet. Let's see if we can't play nicely first.
>
> On 6/17/06, Mr. Rupert Russell <rhr30@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > I would personally like to see some form of moderation. I used to have
posts
> > moderated and were always fair. I didn't like having my email taken
apart
> > the other day like that which wasn't very pleasant and discourages me
from
> > posting on this list in the future - which is a form of censurship.
Rupert
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: foucault-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > [mailto:foucault-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
> > admin-foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Sent: 17 June 2006 08:19
> > To: Mailing-list
> > Subject: Re: [Foucault-L] request for moderation
> >
> > The list has been unfiltered and unmoderated for the last 2 weeks - the
> > subject line already questions this change.
> >
> > There are two positions:
> > 1. The list is able to auto-regulate itself, list members should not be
> > policed or censured, freedom of speech, mirror of the diversity of real
life
> > manners and discourses, better more messages than long silence, just hit
the
> > "delete" button or unsubscribe, etc.
> > 2. The list needs a minimal policy and moderation as defined there:
> > http://foucault.info/Foucault-L/
> >
> > Since the transfer of the Foucault-L from Spoon collective in december
2004,
> > I've been semi-moderating and filtering out:
> > - off-subject posts (no link with Foucault)
> > - messages without elaborated information (such as "i'm in holiday"
> > "thank you" and everything in the "weather is beautiful" category)
> > - polemical messages (as fully described by Foucault in the article
> > "Polemics, Politics and Problematizations")
> >
> > The majority of the members are listening in silence: they may figure
this
> > space as a public forum with an audience of +1000 people, they hesitate
to
> > grab the mike, knowing that this is also recorded and archived for good,
in
> > search engines etc. I understand this position but I also think the
ratio
> > contributor/listener is out of proportion: this is actually an issue in
many
> > lists.
> > Also note that during this last year, at least 3 members argued with me
in
> > private and unsubscribed as they disagreed with one of the 3 cited rules
of
> > filtering.
> >
> > I can no longer semi-moderate the list and I encourage the Foucault-L to
> > discuss and choose between option 1 auto-regulation and option 2
> > semi-moderation. For option 2, we'll need new volunteers to moderate.
> >
> > Camille
> > Foucault-L admin.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Foucault-L mailing list
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Foucault-L mailing list
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Foucault-L mailing list
>