From Psn-Mods@csf.colorado.edu Sun Oct 6 18:18:13 1996 Date: Sun, 6 Oct 1996 18:18:11 -0600 (MDT) From: Psn-Mods@csf.colorado.edu To: psn@csf.Colorado.EDU Subject: Self-Moderation Dear PSNers, For over a year, we have been soliciting responses from persons who have unsubbed (500+ in the last 12 mos) -- we send out a message asking former subscribers "Why did you unsub?" Typical responses have been 1. the volume of mail is too great 2. too much mail from the same parties We try to moderate with these criteria in mind, but we would like more help from frequent posters to self-moderate. To encourage the sharing of the load of moderation, we are introducing software that limits the number of posts per person. Since the inception of moderation in June of 1995, 4451 messages have been submitted ALL of which have appeared on psn-cafe. We have accepted for psn 52% or 2334 of those submissions leaving us with 2334/16 = 146 messages per month. In sep96 and aug96, however, message traffic has been 200 and 221 and postings have been strongly skewed to the most frequent posters. We would like to lower traffic volume and distribute postings among more people until the two common complaints listed above subside, and we would like help from frequent submitters in determining what they regard as ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ their most important contributions. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ We will continue to moderate, but at least some of the responsibility for deciding which messages are posted will be shifted back to the authors by using limit software. Here's how limit software works: Suppose that everyone, moderators included, were limited to posting no more than 5 of the last hundred messages. When someone posted 4 messages, the software reminds that person that they are approaching their limit. When someone has posted (had approved) 5 of the last 100 messages, the person is reminded that they have reached their limit. If the person submits yet another message, their submission is returned to the sender by the software. It is important for submitters to know how close they are to their limit so that they can decide how to "spend their limit." At anytime, any psn subscriber can send LIMITS@csf.colorado.edu the request MYLIMIT PSN and the limit software will tell them how close they are to their limit. Possible Problem: What if an interesting thread is developing and a particular author is an important contributor to that thread? Might that author hit his/her limit just when many of us would like to see a continuation of the thread? To solve this potential problem, the moderators propose to occasionally use discretionary action to suspend that particular person's limit for awhile. Suspending individual limits would need to be infrequent; otherwise, the purpose of limits would be defeated. A modest beginning: We want to bring the limit software into play gradually by starting, as of today, with a limit of 7 of the last 100 messages. We will watch the results with a modest expectation that the limit will be lowered in the future, especially as the list continues to grow (it's now over 800). Any change would be announced, of course. If limits became too tight, we would have to frequently suspend someone's limit because we think their contributions to a particular thread were too good to be missed. The ideal tightness of limits would be determined by how often we were suspending limits. If we suspended limits infrequently, it might inform us that the general limit was about right. Since this is an experiment, we would like to move gradually as the list as a whole evaluates the results. We welcome feedback about whether you would like the limit higher or lower. We feel that this will help address the complaints of unsubsribers and elicit the help of frequent posters to self-moderate. >From your Psn-Mods, Carl Dassback dassbach@mtu.edu David Fasenfest fasenfest@sozwi.sozialwiss.uni-hamburg.de Martha Gimenez gimenez@csf.colorado.edu Lauren Langman ylpsll0@cpua.it.luc.edu Jack Hammond hjlgc@cunyvm.cuny.edu Valerie Scatanburlo valeries@yorku.ca From bogard@WPOFFICE.WHITMAN.EDU Mon Oct 7 09:22:46 1996 Date: Mon, 07 Oct 1996 07:14:32 -0800 From: Bill Bogard (remote) To: psn@csf.colorado.edu Subject: Self-Moderation -Reply re: self moderation on psn... sounds like anything but "self" moderation. "limit software"??? let's keep more people on the list by limiting the contribution of discussants??? limits can be lifted at the discretion of the moderators??? so much for the free and open flow of information. most emailers have a delete button and if subscribers feel burdened with the amount of messages they should use it. some even have automatic deletes that can be set for whole classes of messages or just messages from individual persons. the point is this should be the decision of the receiver, not the sender (or the "screener" in this case). i strongly oppose the whole idea of limit software on an open forum like this. it's hardly "progressive" and if it happens, i for one will certainly sign off for good. bill bogard From mkarim@moses.culver.edu Mon Oct 7 09:52:18 1996 7 Oct 96 11:58:17 -600 7 Oct 96 11:58:04 -600 From: "" Date: Mon, 7 Oct 96 10:46:52 CST To: bogard@WPOFFICE.WHITMAN.EDU, psn-cafe@csf.colorado.edu Subject: Re: Self-Moderation -Reply I definitely agree with Bill Bogard's comment about the self-moderation policy. If the PSN moderators want to implement such a censorship, that will defeat the whole purpose of free floating, creative discourse that a forum like this is supposed to promote. In that case, the only option available to me will be to unsubscribe. I hope the other PSNers will also registar their protest. Since most of the subscribers are on the moderated PSN list, I hope the moderators will post these protests there, so that PSNers know both sides of the story. Manjur Karim From mweigand@usa.net Mon Oct 7 15:22:03 1996 Date: Mon, 7 Oct 1996 15:21:48 -0600 (MDT) From: mweigand@usa.net Subject: Re: Self-Moderation To: Psn-Mods@csf.colorado.edu, PROGRESSIVE SOCIOLOGISTS NETWORK Regarding the limiting software which would prevent participants from contributing very much to the PSN: I was one who unsubscribed to PSN-cafe, but only because I was getting duplicate messages (one from PSN and one from PSN-cafe, and sometimes the same message from REVS as well). Has anyone else had this problem? Also, would this software limit PRIVATE email or just the email sent "to all"? Perhaps we could encourage people to send more private email when replying, rather than responses to everyone. Finally, it sounds somehow odd that, just as the PSN is becoming more popular and successful, those in charge are seeking to reduce our participation!? I believe the PSN provides a valuable service, and would hate to see it "crippled" by limiting our participation. Just my opinion. Best wishes, -=MW=- From westbroo@MARSHALL.EDU Mon Oct 7 16:28:31 1996 Date: Mon, 07 Oct 1996 18:27:39 -0400 (EDT) From: westbroo@MARSHALL.EDU Subject: Re: Self-Moderation To: Psn-Mods@csf.colorado.edu How about a modification of the legislative 'minutes' system in which each subscriber is allocated postings(and pages, of course) with eh proviso that anyone may cede, yield, postings to someone else. There were some discussions last year in which I had nothing to add but enjoyed the repeated interaction of a very limited number of posters. I have a "D" button which allows me to delete any number of postings. Doesn't your "index' show the name of the 'poster'? Isn't this a for m of censorship? If you think someone is abusing his/her posting privelege, why not simply send the deviant an individual email requesting a reduction in their submissions? ( Would a housekeeping message count against one's quota?) Bill WestbrookOn Sun, 6 Oct 1996 Psn-Mods@csf.colorado.edu wrote: > Dear PSNers, > > For over a year, we have been soliciting responses from persons who have > unsubbed (500+ in the last 12 mos) -- we send out a message asking former > subscribers "Why did you unsub?" Typical responses have been > 1. the volume of mail is too great > 2. too much mail from the same parties > > We try to moderate with these criteria in mind, but we would like more > help from frequent posters to self-moderate. To encourage the sharing of > the load of moderation, we are introducing software that limits the number > of posts per person. > > Since the inception of moderation in June of 1995, 4451 messages have > been submitted ALL of which have appeared on psn-cafe. We have accepted > for psn 52% or 2334 of those submissions leaving us with 2334/16 = 146 > messages per month. In sep96 and aug96, however, message traffic has been > 200 and 221 and postings have been strongly skewed to the most frequent > posters. > > We would like to lower traffic volume and distribute postings among more > people until the two common complaints listed above subside, and we would > like help from frequent submitters in determining what they regard as > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > their most important contributions. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > We will continue to moderate, but at least some of the responsibility > for deciding which messages are posted will be shifted back to the > authors by using limit software. > > Here's how limit software works: Suppose that everyone, moderators > included, were limited to posting no more than 5 of the last hundred > messages. When someone posted 4 messages, the software reminds that > person that they are approaching their limit. When someone has posted > (had approved) 5 of the last 100 messages, the person is reminded that > they have reached their limit. If the person submits yet another > message, their submission is returned to the sender by the software. > > It is important for submitters to know how close they are to their limit so > that they can decide how to "spend their limit." At anytime, any psn > subscriber can send LIMITS@csf.colorado.edu the request > MYLIMIT PSN > and the limit software will tell them how close they are to their limit. > > Possible Problem: What if an interesting thread is developing and a > particular author is an important contributor to that thread? Might > that author hit his/her limit just when many of us would like to see a > continuation of the thread? To solve this potential problem, the > moderators propose to occasionally use discretionary action to suspend > that particular person's limit for awhile. Suspending individual > limits would need to be infrequent; otherwise, the purpose of limits > would be defeated. > > A modest beginning: We want to bring the limit software into play > gradually by starting, as of today, with a limit of 7 of the last 100 > messages. We will watch the results with a modest expectation that the > limit will be lowered in the future, especially as the list continues to > grow (it's now over 800). Any change would be announced, of course. If > limits became too tight, we would have to frequently suspend someone's > limit because we think their contributions to a particular thread were > too good to be missed. The ideal tightness of limits would be > determined by how often we were suspending limits. If we suspended > limits infrequently, it might inform us that the general limit was about > right. Since this is an experiment, we would like to move gradually as > the list as a whole evaluates the results. We welcome feedback about > whether you would like the limit higher or lower. > > We feel that this will help address the complaints of unsubsribers and > elicit the help of frequent posters to self-moderate. > > >From your Psn-Mods, > > Carl Dassback dassbach@mtu.edu > David Fasenfest fasenfest@sozwi.sozialwiss.uni-hamburg.de > Martha Gimenez gimenez@csf.colorado.edu > Lauren Langman ylpsll0@cpua.it.luc.edu > Jack Hammond hjlgc@cunyvm.cuny.edu > Valerie Scatanburlo valeries@yorku.ca > > > > > > From jjakopic@sso.org Tue Oct 8 07:04:28 1996 Date: Tue, 8 Oct 1996 11:57:47 -0400 From: "Julie N. Jakopic" Organization: NASCSP To: psn@csf.colorado.edu Subject: limits i am really interested in about 1/3 of what i've gotten from psn so far and really want to get it without wading through reams of other stuff. i subscribed despite having several friends who have unsubscribed because of volume because i wanted to see for my self. if the last few days are any indication, a limit is needed. thanks for the opportunity to express my opinion. From dhorne@direct.ca Tue Oct 8 07:07:26 1996 To: psn@csf.colorado.edu From: david horne Subject: Re: Self-Moderation Date: Tue, 8 Oct 1996 06:07:19 -0700 This strikes me as a not very good idea. Those of us who subscribe to multiple lists probably all suffer from the "volume of mail" problem. It does get a little overwhelming when the software tells you that there are yet another hundred messages waiting to download. But the problem is not created by by any one list, but by the lists as a group. Two hundred messages in a thirty day month translates to six or seven messages a day, surely not an unmanageable number. If people are unhappy about seeing the same names all the time they can drop their "lurker" status and join in the discussion. People are always going to unsubscribe. My partner and myself have recently dumped several lists. The volume of information was not the problem. The quality and relevance of the information was the problem. PSN is our favorite list among the current crop, and we look forward to seeing its postings. We wouldn't look forward to seeing less. One of the more important virtues of the "net" as a whole and of discussion lists in particular is the free flow of information between people. Any attempt at limiting this flow is [in my opinion] to be discouraged. David H. At 06:18 PM 10/6/96 -0600, you wrote: >Dear PSNers, > >For over a year, we have been soliciting responses from persons who have >unsubbed (500+ in the last 12 mos) -- we send out a message asking former >subscribers "Why did you unsub?" Typical responses have been > 1. the volume of mail is too great > 2. too much mail from the same parties > >We try to moderate with these criteria in mind, but we would like more >help from frequent posters to self-moderate. To encourage the sharing of >the load of moderation, we are introducing software that limits the number >of posts per person. > >Since the inception of moderation in June of 1995, 4451 messages have >been submitted ALL of which have appeared on psn-cafe. We have accepted >for psn 52% or 2334 of those submissions leaving us with 2334/16 = 146 >messages per month. In sep96 and aug96, however, message traffic has been >200 and 221 and postings have been strongly skewed to the most frequent >posters. > >We would like to lower traffic volume and distribute postings among more >people until the two common complaints listed above subside, and we would >like help from frequent submitters in determining what they regard as >^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >their most important contributions. >^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > >We will continue to moderate, but at least some of the responsibility >for deciding which messages are posted will be shifted back to the >authors by using limit software. > >Here's how limit software works: Suppose that everyone, moderators >included, were limited to posting no more than 5 of the last hundred >messages. When someone posted 4 messages, the software reminds that >person that they are approaching their limit. When someone has posted >(had approved) 5 of the last 100 messages, the person is reminded that >they have reached their limit. If the person submits yet another >message, their submission is returned to the sender by the software. > >It is important for submitters to know how close they are to their limit so >that they can decide how to "spend their limit." At anytime, any psn >subscriber can send LIMITS@csf.colorado.edu the request > MYLIMIT PSN >and the limit software will tell them how close they are to their limit. > >Possible Problem: What if an interesting thread is developing and a >particular author is an important contributor to that thread? Might >that author hit his/her limit just when many of us would like to see a >continuation of the thread? To solve this potential problem, the >moderators propose to occasionally use discretionary action to suspend >that particular person's limit for awhile. Suspending individual >limits would need to be infrequent; otherwise, the purpose of limits >would be defeated. > >A modest beginning: We want to bring the limit software into play >gradually by starting, as of today, with a limit of 7 of the last 100 >messages. We will watch the results with a modest expectation that the >limit will be lowered in the future, especially as the list continues to >grow (it's now over 800). Any change would be announced, of course. If >limits became too tight, we would have to frequently suspend someone's >limit because we think their contributions to a particular thread were >too good to be missed. The ideal tightness of limits would be >determined by how often we were suspending limits. If we suspended >limits infrequently, it might inform us that the general limit was about >right. Since this is an experiment, we would like to move gradually as >the list as a whole evaluates the results. We welcome feedback about >whether you would like the limit higher or lower. > >We feel that this will help address the complaints of unsubsribers and >elicit the help of frequent posters to self-moderate. > >>From your Psn-Mods, > >Carl Dassback dassbach@mtu.edu >David Fasenfest fasenfest@sozwi.sozialwiss.uni-hamburg.de >Martha Gimenez gimenez@csf.colorado.edu >Lauren Langman ylpsll0@cpua.it.luc.edu >Jack Hammond hjlgc@cunyvm.cuny.edu >Valerie Scatanburlo valeries@yorku.ca > > > > > > > From j9470388@wlv.ac.uk Tue Oct 8 07:41:58 1996 Date: Tue, 08 Oct 1996 14:41:19 -0700 From: Alan Harrison Organization: University of Wolverhampton,U.K. To: dhorne@direct.ca Subject: Re: Self-Moderation References: <1.5.4.16.19961008060657.224721ce@direct.ca> david horne wrote: > > This strikes me as a not very good idea. Those of us who subscribe to > multiple lists probably all suffer from the "volume of mail" problem. It > does get a little overwhelming when the software tells you that there are > yet another hundred messages waiting to download. But the problem is not > created by by any one list, but by the lists as a group. Two hundred > messages in a thirty day month translates to six or seven messages a day, > surely not an unmanageable number. I tend to agree with David. The traffic on this list seems very modest when compared with, say, the Anglican list, where there are frequently more than 100 messages per day - that's right, per day. (I'm currently "nomail" on that list because of pressure of work.) One thing I'm not clear about in this proposal: is it intended to apply only to PSN or to PSN-CAFE too? Having chosen to go with the unmoderated version, I don't really want to see moderation coming in through the back door. Finally, I hope that this is not aimed at one member of the list, and that Rodney Coates is mistaken or being over-sensitive. I don't have time to read all of Rodney's posts, but I would deplore a sledgehammer approach seeking to prevent him from posting. Alan Harrison (University of Wolverhampton) From sokol@jhuvms.hcf.jhu.edu Tue Oct 8 08:31:35 1996 08 Oct 1996 10:31:17 -0400 (EDT) 08 Oct 1996 10:31:15 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 08 Oct 1996 10:26:34 -0400 From: Wojtek Sokolowski Subject: Re: Self-Moderation To: psn@csf.colorado.edu Since I'm one of the more frequent contributors to this list, taking sides in this debate would be a bit disingenuous, if not self-serving. Two points seem in order, however. First, as MW correctly observed, being subscribed to both PSN and PSN_CAFE doubles the volume of e-mail, as duplicate messages are being sent out. While un-subscribing to one of these two lists is an obvious and easy solution within the reach of every member of this list -- the "unsubscribe" messages do cerate a perception of people leaving the auditorium, thus the discussion being "boring." This brings us to the second point, namely a false analogy between an internet discusion group and a conversation. While both are communicative acts, their dynamics are very much different. While leaving the face-to-face conversation in the middle by one interlocutor does send a negative signal to the other one, unsubscribing from a discussion list does not. Discussion groups are like market places, one comes there, but is not obliged to buy something from evey vendor, or even show interests in every vendor's wares. Even if one leaves the marketplace without buying anything, this does not mean anything about the vendors or the marketplace itself. Unsubscribing is not like leaving the auditorium in the middle of the lecture or a discusion, it is like leaving a marketplace. The main reason is that unlike in the auditorium, where only some have the right to talk while all others have the implicit obligation to listen or at least display rituals of attention, such as facing the speaker, refraining from talking, not sleeping, at least not overtly, etc. everyone can "talk" i.e. contribute to a discussion group, while nobody have thge obligation to "listen" (the famous "delete" key). The debates over "censorship" (actual or perceived) seem to be endemic to most internet lists I am familiar with. It seems, however, that sociologists who professionally analyze acts of communication could use that knowledge self-reflexively, to their own speech acts. PS. What is the rationale of maintaining two seprate lists that, for the most part, duplicate one another? regards, wojtek sokolowski institute for policy studies johns hopkins university baltimore, md 21218 sokol@jhuvms.hcf.jhu.edu voice: (410) 516-4056 fax: (410) 516-8233 +------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | When I hear the words 'family values,' I reach for my revolver. | | (no apologies to Hermann Goering) | +------------------------------------------------------------------------+ From CMSHARWD@UGA.CC.UGA.EDU Tue Oct 8 08:32:22 1996 Date: Tue, 08 Oct 96 10:24:44 EDT From: "E.M. Harwood" Subject: Re: PSN digest 858 To: psn@CSF.COLORADO.EDU In-Reply-To: <199610071216.GAA05802@csf.Colorado.EDU> PSN Moderators - What makes me tempted to unsub from PSN has less to do with the fact that most of the messages come from the same few people as it does with the fact that many of these messages are so LONG WINDED! Also, it seems that individuals go happily off in their own direction...on and on and on. There is a sense that there is no conversation, no attempt to _engage_ other members of PSN. Instead it seems to be a forum for venting on the favorite gripe of the day. Sometimes it's interesting. Most of the time, I don't have the time to wade through it all. It feels very "male" in this discussion group, too. My opinion, for what it's worth.... E. Harwood Eileen M. Harwood, Ph.D. Associate Fellow, Institute for Behavioral Research Research Coordinator, Survey Research Center University of Georgia, 102 Barrow Hall Athens, GA USA 30602 706 542-6090 FAX: 706-542-6064 cmsharwd@uga.cc.uga.edu From dubois@itctel.com Tue Oct 8 08:42:56 1996 Date: Tue, 8 Oct 96 09:42:55 -0500 To: PSN@csf.colorado.edu From: dubois@itctel.com (William Du Bois) Subject: Re: Self-Moderation I didn't know Ross Peroit was a member of the PSN group. Obviously the Limits Software was one of his ideas. A fascist idea for a progressive group. When in doubt, make a rule. Bill Westbrook is right. If one person becomes a problem, deal with it on a one to one basis. Don't dream of worst case scenarios. When you make rules and policies from worst case scenarios, you make bad rules and policies. Moderators should have the guts to deal with extreme individual problems on an individual basis rather than submitting everyone to rules for all. Oops... I just used up another one of my messages and it's five strikes and you're out. Bill Du Bois dubois@itctel.com From fasenfest@sozwi.sozialwiss.uni-hamburg.de Tue Oct 8 10:08:59 1996 Date: Tue, 8 Oct 96 18:13 GMT+0200 8 Oct 96 18:07:23 GMT+1 8 Oct 96 18:06:56 GMT+1 To: psn@csf.colorado.edu From: fasenfest@sozwi.sozialwiss.uni-hamburg.de (David Fasenfest) Subject: limits and cafes To PSN: As a moderator enlisted during an earlier discussion of how to maintain conversations let me offer a short bit of information based on recollection. First there was PSN...and it was unmoderated. The conversations were stimulating, the debates engaging, the flames occasional and the tone very exciting. Then, as it grew and grew it became very cumbersome, and many folks thought that there ought to be fewer "informational" posts, less "advertising" of things, events, and etc, and more "conversation" around themes rather than the open ended isolated posts as things come to people. After some discussion the solution was PSN-CAFE which was the complete flow of ideas and "noise" to which some objected and others cherished. The latter group joined the CAFE and have, to my knowledge, only themselves to deal with over the volume, content and the like. PSN became moderated by a small group who had been active and who, for the most part, agreed to screen for "problematic" posts. As any one of us can "approve" a post much of what any one of us objected still made it through the screen. Alot of energy went into the discussion--on PSN prior to moderation--about what warranted non-acceptance. I, for one, was recently surprised to learn that only 52% of the posts get through since I see everything twice--submitted to the moderators, and again as it comes through to PSN (I don't get the CAFE version!), and felt all too much got into PSN. Now comes recent events...the traffic on PSN, already half that of the CAFE, was getting large and many people (unfortunately not as a topic of conversation on PSN) felt there was no longer a core of ideas pursued and debated. Some of the reason seemed to be that, even with moderation for substance, too much passed through the filter that seemed like noise. So as NOT to censor, and since there was the unfettered CAFE still posting all messages, the option of the LIMIT software was entertained to see if people would be willing to watch their own posts. And we are talking about a small number of people...I don't recall exactly but about 5 people represented over 25% of the messages per 100, and that was not as the result of a pointed debate (the reason for the notion of suspending the LIMIT in the case of a major argument/discussion for which PSN was originally designed). That this is an experiment was explicitly part of Martha's original post; that there is an unfiltered, unlimited alternative in the CAFE makes this not such an egregious move; and that perhaps this experiment will fail is always a possiblity. But something needed doing and such was the result. The suggestions about length and the like were raised but there was no real way to implement that. The idea of "tading" limits is perhaps not that feasible from a software perspective...but we can ask the system folks to consider it. My comments are my own as a member of PSN and not the opinions or positions of the moderators. But the recent posts about the list, about why CAFE and PSN, about restrictions and the like, pointed to a lack of history--ironic as we recently had the discussion about the role of history and avoiding farce...and if we are not careful I suspect farce is what PSN will mutate into... In my humble opinion...David Fasenfest From gimenez@csf.Colorado.EDU Tue Oct 8 11:52:53 1996 Date: Tue, 8 Oct 1996 11:52:50 -0600 (MDT) From: Martha Gimenez Reply-To: Martha Gimenez To: PSN@csf.Colorado.EDU Subject: Self-Moderation Dear PSNers, It seems clear that, when calling for the need for self-moderation, we should have reminded everyone that they are free to select the unmoderated version of the list, PSN-CAFE. We've often explained how to subscribe to PSN-CAFE but if anyone has missed the instructions, please send LISTPROC@csf.colorado.edu unsub PSN sub PSN-CAFE Yourfirstname Yourlastname if you wish to receive *ALL* messages. All lists have unsubs, but several years of empirical evidence on PSN and other CSF lists have shown repeatedly that the level of unsubs is strongly related to the volume of traffic, which is exactly what hundreds of unsubscribers have told us in their responses. We are taking the hundreds of responses from unsubs seriously. The moderators have conferred and have agreed that the limit of 7 of the last 100 messages should not be retroactive. Therefore, as of this time, the software has been tricked into thinking that none of the last 100 messages were written by any subscriber. If anyone sends LIMITS@csf.colorado.edu the two words mylimit psn they will be told, at this time, that they are 7 messages below their limit. In solidarity, Martha E. Gimenez PSN Founding Editor From akrhodes@knet.flemingc.on.ca Tue Oct 8 13:10:39 1996 Date: Tue, 8 Oct 1996 15:11:31 -0400 To: psn@csf.colorado.edu From: akrhodes@knet.flemingc.on.ca (Adrian Rhodes) Subject: First of Five...Self-moderation... I can recall reading somewhere...I can't remember who said it but the quote is: "The answer to the problem of technology is.... .....more technology." I rather have a feeling it was a feminist critic who said it, regarding abortion, but I am not sure. I *will* be the first to admit I run on at the keyboard, but I have not posted much of late as I have been too busy. Working on a paper regarding the technological control of civil society, as luck would have it. Thanks, you just gave me some more ammunition. It is hardly self-moderation when a computer decides that I have said too much. It's also a short step from the computer deciding I've said too much to the computer deciding (On behalf of its *capitalist master* of course) that I shouldn't be allowed to say anything at all. So if we have limiting software, then this means that our "freedom" (I use the term loosely) of access will have been curtailed at some distant point in the future. Note the way I put that. My point here is that it is hardly self-moderation if a computer's software and algorithms decide that I cannot say anything more. And we are seeing more and more examples of this in our society all the time...just look at the internet in Ontario Canada, when iStar (Ontario internet provider- private company) quietly axed access to some of the newsgroups without telling their subscribers. People would only be told which groups had been axed if they asked about it. So much for democracy on the web. The corporate result of this action by iStar in July 1996 was that iStar lost subscribers by the dozens. Other companies immediately made a pledge that they would not act with such a heavy handed manner to their subscribers. One lives in hope. The degradation of democracy part the second: Singapore, a corporatist state, has now made it illegal to be a private internet provider and not be registered with the government. And the government decides for you what you are going to see or not see. Period. The same action has also taken place in China, where people now must register with the government there as well if they wish to get on the internet. Keep in mind that Singapore is (in theory still at least) a democracy, according to some. I submit to you that it is only a matter of time before other governments quietly make the same moves; and then we will not have democracy on the web; the internet will become the leash for us sociology dogs held by the capitalist influenced powers-that-be. They don't like us "communists"? Quietly pull the plug. Now, I do agree with self-moderation on the web. Use your head, there are a lot of people out there. So don't spam everyone. But that's everyday (brace yourself) common sense. Eight hundred people on one e-mail list is an awfully big number, but let's face it. Most of us have a life. I qualified that because I'm really not too sure whether I do or not. *wink* But I am further confused by this mediaton of technology on my freedom of access to this group: Will someone clarify for me? Do I have only five opportunities to say something? Or do I have five with a time limit, i.e. a month to say five things? And then I'm free again the next month? Or do I only have, like the nun in the fabled joke of old, a specific time to say things, and then people will say halleleuja when I decide to leave? Now I have not written this in any way to be a slam personally against the maintainers of this site; they are doing a great job. I think this group is fantastic and I have made some friends here. I do understand how thick the information can get at times and I can see the logic of this move, but: Make no mistake you are limiting freedom of speech through access. I suggest that instead of complaining about this (As I am doing, sorry), do not do the kneejerk middle class reaction and leave the list. Figure out as I am now, if you have something to say. And then say it. And do subvert against the system; I don't think limits on things like the net are any good anyway. I made the point that the advertising on the internet will turn the net into nothing more than a glorified stimulus/response interactive television set with absolutely no communicative value at all. This is not the case with psn; I love being able to rub shoulders (virtually, at least) with people who are more experienced and qualified than I and I have learned a tremendous deal, both about others' sociology and my own. I think however, we cannot overstate the situation: this *is* a limit on freedom of speech through freedom of access; a reflection of the macrocosm of the web itself. But I really don't like being told to behave when a) I've done nothing wrong and b) People know damn well I can regulate myself appropriately. I refuse to have machinery decide what my actions will be with regard to my freedoms. I won't forget the machinery is there, but I won't ignore it either. I agree that there is a delete button on most e-mail systems, so why can't we decide when we want to use it? I do understand that there is a strain on sifting and sorting, but funny enough, I thought that this was done electronically anway... Thanks for reading this... Adrian Rhodes tiltin' windmills.... From vvinson@cwis.unomaha.edu Tue Oct 8 14:00:22 1996 Date: Tue, 8 Oct 1996 15:00:10 -0500 (CDT) From: VALERIE VINSON To: Martha Gimenez Subject: Re: Self-Moderation In-Reply-To: Hi Martha and other PSNer's Of those who decided to unsubsribe from this list was the question asked, How many other lists they were on? Sometimes we subsribe to more than one list and the mail becomes overwhelming or we go a day or two without reading our mail. I personlly do not feel that we should have a limit to the number of post but who am I? Just one person who is on several lists and can find the time to read all of my mail. Valerie Vinson On Tue, 8 Oct 1996, Martha Gimenez wrote: > > Dear PSNers, > > It seems clear that, when calling for the need for self-moderation, > we should have reminded everyone that they are free to select > the unmoderated version of the list, PSN-CAFE. > > We've often explained how to subscribe to PSN-CAFE but if anyone > has missed the instructions, please send LISTPROC@csf.colorado.edu > unsub PSN > sub PSN-CAFE Yourfirstname Yourlastname > if you wish to receive *ALL* messages. > > All lists have unsubs, but several years of empirical evidence on PSN and > other CSF lists have shown repeatedly that the level of unsubs is > strongly related to the volume of traffic, which is exactly what > hundreds of unsubscribers have told us in their responses. We are > taking the hundreds of responses from unsubs seriously. > > The moderators have conferred and have agreed that the limit > of 7 of the last 100 messages should not be retroactive. > Therefore, as of this time, the software has been tricked into > thinking that none of the last 100 messages were written by any > subscriber. If anyone sends LIMITS@csf.colorado.edu the two words > mylimit psn > they will be told, at this time, that they are 7 messages below > their limit. > > In solidarity, > > Martha E. Gimenez > PSN Founding Editor > > > > From susanp@osprey.csrv.uidaho.edu Tue Oct 8 17:02:44 1996 Date: Tue, 8 Oct 1996 15:46:15 -0700 (PDT) From: Palmer Susan Subject: self moderation To: psn Thanks to Bill Bogard for opening the dialogue in protest of the proposed limit software. I post infrequently (maybe twice a year) on the list, but I am a (loosely) faithful follower/lurker. I am also one who unsubscribed for a period after tiring of one PSNer's saturation of the Bell Curve discussion, but I returned because I missed the server--so I learned to use my delete key more often and wisely. I, too, add my voice to the protest of this form of "moderation". Some of my favorite contributors (Wojtek and TR) have posted frequently in the past, and I don't want to be deprived of selecting which posts to read and which to delete. My two cents, Susan *---------------------------------------------------------------------* | | | Susan Palmer Education Programming | | Phone: 208-885-6616 Coordinator | | FAX: 208-885-9494 Women's Center | | E-mail: susanp@osprey.csrv.uidaho.edu University of Idaho | | Alias: Auntie Nuke Moscow, Idaho 83844-1064 | | | | "People convinced against their will, hold the same opinion still" | | | *---------------------------------------------------------------------* From bogard@WPOFFICE.WHITMAN.EDU Tue Oct 8 17:22:18 1996 Date: Tue, 08 Oct 1996 15:12:45 -0800 From: Bill Bogard (remote) To: psn@csf.colorado.edu Subject: limits i hope psn subscribers can appreciate the irony of devising a quantitative, technical solution to the problem of having serious discussions on the list. and it *is* a question of the seriousness or quality of posts, not just the amount of clutter or noise on the list. technical fixes like limit software obscure the power relations and value systems involved in controlling information (e.g. the system operator on our campus can effectively bar access to certain "offensive" newsgroups by appealing to hardware limits, without having to claim he's censoring anything). i think limit software is a particularly impersonal and in the end quite arbitrary method of regulating speech, and it works in ways totally disconnected from judgments about the value or the seriousness (or the playfulness!) of speech. it's true, even with limit software, anyone can still post anything to psn-cafe. but it's a bad precedent for psn, and it suggests that the control of quantity can somehow fix shortcomings in quality. bill bogard From mdr@borg.evms.edu Tue Oct 8 17:27:03 1996 08 Oct 1996 19:26:35 -0400 (EDT) 08 Oct 1996 20:02:24 -0400 (EDT) 08 Oct 1996 20:02:08 -0400 (EDT) 08 Oct 1996 20:02:06 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 08 Oct 1996 19:25:16 +0000 From: Steve Rosenthal Subject: Proposal to limit messages To: PSN@CSF.COLORADO.EDU Several PSN'ers have strongly objected to the plan to limit messages by individuals to 5 in 100. I am somewhat in favor of the plan. If the internet is supposed to provide an egalitarian setting for communication, I see some value in regulations that encourage wider and more equal participation. I know that I can delete messages with a keystroke, but I value PSN and do not like to delete a message without at least skimming part of it to see what it is about. After all, it might be very interesting. It is disappointing when a message is only more of the same old same old. PSN'ers should be regulated in a way that encourages self-restraint. I post an average of two or three messages a week on PSN and try to keep them to no more than 500 words in length. I recently posted a message based on NYTimes columnist Tom Friedman's assertion that "family values" prevented a revolutionary uprising in Mexico, after the U.S. "bailout" forced down the standard of living of Mexican workers. I got a few responses discussing the entire Marxist analysis of the role of the family under capitalism at great length, but no concrete discussion of how to build revolutionary values to defeat bourgeois family values. If the proposed regulations encourage wider participation, shorter messages, and better discussion, debate, and struggle, then I am for giving them a try. Steve Rosenthal From reratcli@mailbox.syr.edu Tue Oct 8 19:28:51 1996 Date: Tue, 8 Oct 1996 21:28:07 -0400 (EDT) From: "Richard E. Ratcliff" To: Alan Harrison Subject: Re: Self-Moderation In-Reply-To: <325ACA7F.B0@wlv.ac.uk> Goshes, the claim that the new system of semi-limits (the limit of 5 exists in the software but can be overriden in some instances, as when a person is at the center of an active discussion) is "fascist" reminds me of how marvelously irresponsible some of the arguments on this lively list can be. I am inclined to agree with this new innovation. The limit seems fairly generous, especially since it is dependent on the volume of traffic and not on any set time (that is, as the traffic on the list moves through cycles of 100 messages, the ability of high volume contributors to send messages is continuously replenished....During active times, a high volume contributor could still probably write 10 or even 20 or more times during a week). I sense that many of us have a tendency to see the world as more in need of our thoughts and insights, as well as our calls to action than is in fact the case. It would be good if we all will, individually, keep in mind that a few more thoughtful (though not "long-winded") contributions add more to the quality of the discussion than numerous off-the-cuff repetitions of well-known positions So, for what it is worth, I endorse the experiment. Richard Ratcliff From fasenfest@sozwi.sozialwiss.uni-hamburg.de Thu Oct 10 05:57:22 1996 10 Oct 96 13:55:43 GMT+1 From: "FASENFEST.DAVID" Organization: Univ. Hamburg, Dep. of Social Sc. To: PSN@csf.colorado.edu Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1996 13:53:36 GMT+1 Subject: rights, speech, ideas More on limits and its aftermath: Several posters object to the limit idea on the grounds that it supresses freedom of speech...others that they might miss posts from their favorite contributors...others that technical controls cannot take the place of thoughtful moderation...others that we are allowing machines to do our work...and once again we are reminded we have a delete key. One person even wondered if PSN could split into a document section and a discussion section so that person could pull down information only and skip the discussion! Several support the limit idea for reasons which include that it may provide greater room for participation, limit the flow of pure information which will perhaps stimulate discussions, induce some to be more judicious concerning what they post, and in the end point out that being limited to 5-7% of the total flow of messages is not so onerous a limitation especially when this is not applied in the course of a thread or discussion on the list. I am a bit baffled by all those who feel they will be missing something (as poster or receiver) since no one seems to think about going to the CAFE for their uninterrupted flow of messages...is it somehow bad unless they can expound in all outlets less someone miss their missive? Bill Bogard points out that the real issue (and rightly) is quality not quantity...but it is quantity that drives out quality on some level, and it is a desire to get people to think about what they are writing which motivates a system which is out of moderator hands (and as an aside, the discussion of how to get 'quality' is going to be even more problemmatic than quantity of posts). And Susan Palmer tells us she agrees that the idea is draconian, but then tells us she unsubbed because one person drowned the discussion on the Bell Curve (and ironically, that would still occur if that person's ideas were central to the thread under this scheme!). She can get her favorite posts (plus thousands of others we do not reject) on the CAFE. Steve Rosenthal has provided several points in the past which warrant discussion, and none have been picked up by others (his most recent one of family values in the midst of the single most significant shift in the social and political economy of our society is but the latest example). And Richard Ratcliff has argued that not only should we have limits, but people should also limit how much they write (I am now in violation of this!). Perhaps I am a dinosaur, but I feel the notion of 'free speech' as some propose on this list a luxury if that means unfiltered flows of information. I would rather see limits which require a form of self-censorship and selectivity rather one in which the moderator gets to decide. And I do not want to see some things on this list if there are other outlets (for example, I don't think anyone subscribing here would agree that we should see hundreds of posts a day advocating the importance of the religious right's pro-life, pro some homophobic and mysogynist view of the family, and anti-labor program in the name of free speech...nor would I want endless sectarian posts cluttering the list--Bob Avakians railroad has long ago left the station!). Finally, unlike a classroom there is no way to see 'hands' raised and no way to quietly encourage the silent to participate...so, yes, limits need to be imposed when an unlimited alternative is offered--and I would rather it be mechanical than trust that someone can sift through posts and decide which amoung them is not worth it! Based on several posts over the last few weeks, and my own ideas, I suggest any or all of the following as topics of importance for this list (or any other topics which may encourage discussion)...and if the energy spent on limits was turned to these it would once again be an exciting list: 1) In the current political season, how is it that the current Democratic agenda has managed to claim 'the middle' when it is to the right of the Rockefeller Republican agenda of the 60s? 2) How has race, family and sexuality been used to alter the basic fabirc of US social welfare, and at the same time build a seeming concensus around the failure of the poor to help themselves and not of society in providing adequate opportunites? 3) How is it that a rhetoric of globalization and competition unsupported by data or evidence has managed to drive wages down locally and globally, and has caused the dismantling of social welfare and the redefinition of citizenship throughout the industrialized world? 4) What is to become of cities and local political economies as national and regional governments increasingly beg their responsibilities by shifting the burden downward...to the detriment of those in most need least able to afford the social costs! And, like most people on this list, I can go on (some might say I have gone on and on already!). It is time to act like a critical intelligencia and not just proclaim our role as one... Humbly (and on my own behalf)...David Fasenfest From 088520@newschool.edu Thu Oct 10 09:30:10 1996 Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1996 11:24:55 -0400 From: "Warren S. Goldstein" <088520@newschool.edu> To: psn@csf.colorado.edu, csf.colorado.edu.Psn-Mods@newschool.edu Subject: Self-Moderation - Put it to a Vote! Dear PSNers, Personally I am opposed to numerically limiting the amount of submissions. Despite my lack of interest in some of the discussion, my finger is not that strained by hitting the delete key. However, I think if we are truly "progressive," than why not put this question to a vote rather than having a few decide for the rest of us. Are there any seconds on the motion? Sincerely, Warren Goldstein From sokol@jhuvms.hcf.jhu.edu Thu Oct 10 09:45:45 1996 10 Oct 1996 11:44:55 -0400 (EDT) 10 Oct 1996 11:44:38 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1996 11:39:53 -0400 From: Wojtek Sokolowski Subject: Re: Self-Moderation To: Arthur Wilke Arthur, IMHO, the attempts to "censor" some of the voices on the net have less to do with the perception of the content of the speech, but with the perception of the space where the act of speech is taking place. If the space is perceived as "public" -- people automatically turn their "filter mode" on and become very selective in what they even pay attention to. Two examples illustrate that. Venice Beach in Los Angeles is walkway filled by aspiring performers, peddlers, pan-handlers etc. Assuming that art, including commercial art, is a form of speech, most of what is being "said" by those characters is kitschy, if not obnoxious. Manhattan streets are also filled with speakers of different sorts -- from pan-handlers, to peddlers, to to people distributing commercial leaflets, to political speakers regularly featuring on the Times Square. What those two places have in common is that nobody seems to mind what is being said there. Since both the Venice Beach and Manhattan are public spaces par excellence, nobody wants to exclude or silence anyone. People simply pass by the "obnoxious" forms of speech, and pay attention only to those very selectively perceived as "worthy." For some reason, however, some people do not seem to perceive the net, or at least parts of it, as public space. Whether consciously or not, they tend to view discusion groups or chat rooms as semi-private spaces or virtual communities with its usual boundaries and rules of exclusion. This seems to be ubiqiutous on the net, although I am not sure why. This attenmpt to create a virtual community explains, in my view, the ubiquity of the debates on who should be excluded form the least, that appear to be endemic to most lists I subscribed to. People tend to view internet discussion groups not as communicative acts but as virtual communities or groups. Everyone can participate in a conversation, but what makes groups is boundaries. Not everyone is let in, some are excluded. The attempts to exclude some subscribers from the list has less to do with the content of what they have actually said, althought that may serve as the rationalization of the attempt, but with the simple fact that in order for a group, real or virtual, to maintain a distinct identity -- someone has to be excluded, otherwise the group will become an amorphous public gathering. Who is excluded is less important at this point --although it becomes the central issue of identity politics -- what really matters is that someone has to be. I am not quite sure at this point whether the ubiquity of this sort of behaviour is the testimony to the so-called "human nature", perhaps the tribal instincts embedded in it or, more along the Marxist and Durkheimian traditions -- a proof that the form of social organization determines the content of individual consciousness. The fact that our society is built on the inclusion/exclusion principle inscribes that principle, so to speak, in the minds of the individual members. So when they have an opportunity to what seems as acting on their own, they in fact reproduce the distinctions embedded in their consciousness by the form of their social organization. My own preference is, of course, for the second explanation, but who knows... wojtek sokolowski institute for policy studies johns hopkins university baltimore, md 21218 sokol@jhuvms.hcf.jhu.edu voice: (410) 516-4056 fax: (410) 516-8233 +------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | When I hear the words 'family values,' I reach for my revolver. | | (no apologies to Hermann Goering) | +------------------------------------------------------------------------+ From mweigand@usa.net Thu Oct 10 14:53:00 1996 Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1996 14:53:08 -0600 (MDT) From: mweigand@usa.net Subject: Re: limits and cafes To: fasenfest@sozwi.sozialwiss.uni-hamburg.de, PROGRESSIVE SOCIOLOGISTS NETWORK Thanks for your comments on the history of the PSN. As a relatively recent member, I was not aware of the original intent of the PSN. So here is one more suggestion. Many computer systems have an opening screen with a menu of topics listed from which callers may choose. For example, the PSN might have a menu with sections such as: [] Marxism Discussion Group [] Meeting Announcements and Calls for Papers [] Job Announcements [] Teaching Methods and Techniques [] Textbooks, Videos, and Other Resources [] etc. This kind of menu would keep each section relevant and limited to the topic at hand. I hope this is helpful. -=MW=- From roper@csf.Colorado.EDU Fri Oct 11 10:10:20 1996 Date: Fri, 11 Oct 1996 10:10:14 -0600 (MDT) From: Don Roper To: psn@csf.Colorado.EDU Subject: Limiting Excessive Postings Dear PSNers, Should we vote on limits? Sounds like a fine idea if the issue is clear but I think that critics of the idea (with the exception of Bill Bogard, see below) are often arguing, at least implicitly, against any restrictions. I will argue that the underlying issue is often about moderation itself, and that differences around moderation arise from the views of whether posting is a free good or a resource to be conserved and cared for, and that the debate over limits has become a surrogate for these other issues. The critics, by and large, are not the most frequent posters so limits would likely not affect them. So we/I must do them the service of not imputing narrow motives in their campaign against limits. This message is not to impugn their motives in any way, but to look at the logic of the criticism. I'm the founder and general manager (and bill payer) of CSF, and on list after list (of our 30 public lists) cries of freedom of speech emerge when moderation and/or limits are employed. Central to these ubiquitous cries is peoples' beliefs that we are denying them access to a free good. It's supposedly like sunshine -- my enjoying the sun doesn't infringe on your enjoyment of the sun so any denial of access to sunshine is socially wrong. I will to argue that it is not a free good and I will use the criticism of limits to support my argument. Why isn't the presence of Psn-Cafe sufficient to overcome the criticism of limits? All messages make it through to the Cafe and the instructions for subscribing to Psn-cafe (and unsubbing Psn) have been repeated sufficiently often that one can't explain the fact that Psn is 16 times as large as psn-cafe as resulting from a shortage of information. (In the last few days of this heated discussion, only 3 or 4 people have migrated.) So why hasn't unlimited access to psn-cafe been sufficient to alleviate the demand for less restricted access to psn? The answer seems pretty obvious, viz., postings appearing on psn reach 16 times as many people. Unlimited access to psn-cafe isn't nearly as valuable of right-a-way access to psn. But why is psn 16 times as large as psn-cafe? Because 1. people have chosen to not migrate to psn-cafe. One might explain the behavior of a couple of hundred psn subscribers to inertia, but one can't explain the bulk of the subscription difference to inertia or to the lack of information -- one must acknowledge that most psn subscribers are deliberately selecting psn over psn-cafe. 2. psn has grown considerably since moderation began because unsubs fell from over 10%/month to less than 10% per month, and that fall, over 15 mos, accounts for a net increase of several hundred. The basic point is that the presence of psn-cafe doesn't satisfy the demands for more open access because psn is so much larger and the reason that it is so much larger is because access has been restricted. The advocates of more open access can't have it both ways -- that people must be free to post on psn since it's a free good while admitting that it's so much more valuable than posting on psn-cafe. Frequent postings cannot be regarded as "excessive" unless there is a social cost and I'd like to look more closely at the cost. Throughout CSF we are taking the complaints of unsubscribers seriously. On lists with unsubs that run at the modest rate of 5%/month, we hear lots of different reasons for unsubs. But for lists with unsub rates closer to 10%/mo, the reasons are dominated by 1. too much volume 2 too much mail from too few people According to this feedback, frequent posters keep the unsub rate up. And with high unsubs, psn becomes less valuable as a place to post. It's the standard commons problem of overgrazing or overfishing -- each individual who uses the resource excessively lowers the value of the resource for others. I interpret both of the complaints above to be, implicitly, about quality. With sufficient quality, no one would complain about volume -- they would start deleting other mail automatically, not PSN mail. More on the social cost of excessive posting: When printed journals require a submission fee, is that interfering with freedom of speech? Perhaps for those who can't afford the fee. But we presumably all know that part of the reason for a submission fee is to make sure that the author is making a serious and not a frivolous submission. Everyone understands that access to printed journals is not a free/public good since it takes real resources to print and deliver journals. The distribution of email is a lot less costly than printed journals, but it's still not a free good -- the scarce resource that needs to be preserved is the right to stuff subscribers' mailboxes, and if we abuse that right, they remove it. So, if high frequency postings often undercut this valuable resource, why haven't the moderators taken care of the problem and denied excessive access? As Bill Bogard put it: it [software limits] suggests that the control of quantity can somehow fix shortcomings in quality. The argument is that it takes time to read so many submissions -- now exceeding 300/month. When one gets pounded by so much mail, it becomes tempting to grease the squeaky wheel. I believe that heavy submitters get more posted partly because they wear down the moderators, not because they always have more interesting, thoughtful contributions. It's natural to be overcome by the relentless pounding of submissions all of which one doesn't have time to study that closely. With longer hours and more resolve to read all submissions critically PSN moderators can indeed raise the quality and distribute the postings more broadly until complaints (1) and (2) subside. But it's a lot of work. If, as I have argued, the underlying issue for most critics is the general issue of all restrictions to post on psn, then that issue is resolved, not by voting on anything, but by discussing the reasons why that access is so important given the presence of psn-cafe. If the most arguments against limits were articulated in a way that explicitly accept the need for serious restrictions on postings to psn, then the issue is, indeed, over whether software will genuinely help the moderators and moderation process. That's an empirical question and the sorts of information that one would examine are a. Do the high frequency posters that the moderators let through (and those posters change every few months) uniformly reflect some of the most sociologically interesting dialogue on psn? b. Would a poster, when approaching their limit and having to make a decision about how to spend the remainder, submit to PSN a better contribution than otherwise? I've seen little discussion of (a) or (b) by the critics of limits. It makes no sense for critics to vote against limits if their real issue is with moderation itself. And for those who don't want any restrictions on posts to PSN, ask yourself why Psn-cafe is such an inferior place to post. don roper From 34LPF6T@CMUVM.CSV.CMICH.EDU Sat Oct 12 09:40:09 1996 Date: Sat, 12 Oct 96 11:20:15 EDT From: "T R. Young" <34LPF6T@CMUVM.CSV.CMICH.EDU> Organization: Central Michigan University Subject: Self-mortification on the Internet To: ALL RECIPIENTS OF PSN I suppose I am one of the most frequent posters on PSN...and felt considerable embarrassement when I found that such unreflexive posting might be a problem for the network as a whole. I can live with the 5-post/100 guidelines. I don't want to but I can do it. The network is new; norms are yet to be worked out...progressives, radicals, critics and other feisty groups are not likely to take kindly to limits placed upon us by others...yet the Roper/Gimenez team does have our best...collective...interests at heart and their hearts are large indeed. I have a suggestion/question which may be helpful...is it possible to have the reminders of how many we post without the automatic rejections...most of us, I do think, would be responsive to such cues...most of the time. On occasion, when we do have more than 5/100, we then could make a judgment about the urgency of the post. ....and given less than real urgency, simply wait a day or so to fit ourselves to the quota/guidelines. Whatever happens, we do owe Don and Martha a considerable debt for their unpaid labor in helping us create a network...it has become very important to my own work...and to a considerable degree has replaced the university as the chief medium in which I learn and gain from colleagues...so let's do try to work with the beast even as we continue to fashion user-friendly norms for it... Finally...I hadn't thought about the costs of PSN other than presuming that U/Colorado supported PSN as a public service. I do think that out-of-pocket costs for PSN should be socialized among those of us who can afford a share of the costs. I would gladly pay a share...say 1/100th of the cost...since there are some 800 of us on PSN...we should be able to take some of the financial burden from Don/Martha. Note to Don: Would you let us know what your monthly costs amount to??? ...and would you allow us to chip in now and again??? In solidarity, TR From HOUTS@TWSUVM.UC.TWSU.EDU Sat Oct 12 11:28:00 1996 From: HOUTS@TWSUVM.UC.TWSU.EDU Date: Sat, 12 Oct 96 12:20:51 CDT To: psn-cafe@csf.colorado.edu Subject: TRYoung follow-up I am an infrequent poster who more often replies directly to posters, but then, those are infrequent, also. So, I enjoy lurking. I have my favorites among the more frequent contributors and there are those I automatically delete. Both sides of the issue are understandable; I would be disappointed if my particular favorites are limited but support limiting... none of us can be pleased with any attempts to add external censoring. But, I certainly appreciate the awful dilemma the moderators find themselves because individual contributors have not apparently been willing to self-censor. A number of you are known to one anothe r and it would appear that the moderators are well known. I'm amazed at some of the sentiments that have been aired that have not considered this. Max Weber referred to it as vershehen--we call it empathy. Would the moderators resort to this action were the situation not considered serious? TR Young's post was a lovely, civil response that deserves attention, in my estimation. Sandra Houts, Wichita State From dhm@best.com Sat Oct 12 13:11:12 1996 Date: Sat, 12 Oct 1996 12:09:19 -0700 (PDT) From: Daniel Myers Reply-To: Daniel Myers To: PROGRESSIVE SOCIOLOGISTS NETWORK Subject: Re: Self-Moderation In-Reply-To: I'm a passive member of the PSN list, and much more active on the csf Homeless list. I posted here only a couple times, and stopped posting when it seemed people didn't want to discuss too much what I had to say. I have a tight time schedule which makes me filter PSN posts. When discussioneers push an agenda repeatedly, I move to the next post rather quickly. I nonetheless try to skim for objectivity. I've unsubbed from other CSF lists, because the posts are simply too hard to keep up with or too esoteric. Like PKT. I enjoy most of Woj's PSN posts who I find to be scholarly, even though he posts often. I enjoy a smaller percentage of Shawgi's, who seems to be pushing the agenda button. Others fall in-between somewhere, in terms of either content or frequency. I don't have a problem Woj's long posts, but I can't seem wade through Shawgi's with patience. In the Homeless group where I do post, I always hesitate before pressing the "send" button, because I don't like the idea of dominating discussions with repeated involvement, even though I might have something to say. I guess this is a form of unsolicited self-moderation. This means not expressing opinions on certain discussion topics (or people), or delaying my responses so that others might have a chance to post before I might influence the discussion. http://www.best.com/~dhm (formerly http://www.catch22.com/~dhm) From mweigand@usa.net Sat Oct 12 13:40:42 1996 Date: Sat, 12 Oct 1996 13:40:51 -0600 (MDT) From: mweigand@usa.net Subject: Re: limits To: bogard@WPOFFICE.WHITMAN.EDU, PROGRESSIVE SOCIOLOGISTS NETWORK In-Reply-To: Thanks Bill for your comments about limits on the PSN. Here Here! I am a relatively frequent contributor to the PSN (not sure how to define frequent now). Although I have debated many issues with others here, no one ever made me feel unwelcome or that my comments were "noise". To date I have had no complaints from anyone regarding my participation, but after the limits discussion, I am wondering if others feel a "cold chill" settling over the PSN? -=MW=- From bashi@pop.upenn.edu Mon Oct 14 08:55:39 1996 Date: Mon, 14 Oct 1996 10:55:35 -0400 () From: bashi Reply-To: bashi To: PROGRESSIVE SOCIOLOGISTS NETWORK Subject: Re: Limiting Excessive Postings X-X-Sender: bashi@psci.sas.upenn.edu Dear PSNers, I want to say to Don Roper and T.R. Young that I really appreciated their comments. I just have a couple of observations I'd like to bring out to the list. (1) Early on in the self-moderation discussion, I heard complaints that many people are subscribed to lists which post more frequently than PSN, so, in essence, "What's the big deal?" Well, I subscribe to one list which posts nearly as much as PSN, and other lists which post much less frequently than PSN, so, to me, the volume of mail is a very big deal. Plus, I've now been on for over an HOUR, just looking at my email. (And this is the only message I sent out, so no, I haven't been reading personal mail today.) I don't know who has that kind of time every day, but I really can't afford it! (2) In response to arguments like (1), I have heard complaints that the delete key is available to all. This is true, but I am one uses it so often, without even opening PSN mail (especially when it comes from the most frequent posters), that I almost became one of those who unsubscribed. I think deleting everything without reading it is an unfortunate but necessary response, but possibly preventable with a different kind of moderating system. (3) I think that to limit frequency (which I would call "to moderate") is very different from "to examine in order to supress or delete anything considered objectionable" (my dictionary's definition of "to censor"). So, I disagree with those who call the moderators' proposal "censorship." I also do not think that the moderators' intentions were ever to censor--especially since the PSN-cafe option exists with unlimited access. (4) I thank the moderators for explaining the PSN-cafe option. I agree with Don: if the -cafe exists, why is there a problem with limiting the frequency of any one person's submissions to PSN? That is something to think about. (5) I was somewhat intrigued by the menu option offered by MW. I wouldn't mind seeing that used in conjunction with the limits on posting frequency. I enjoy many of the postings on PSN. I am glad I remained a subscriber long enough to hear this issue being discussed. I am also glad to hear that the moderators are working so hard to keep the list lively and keep the subscribers they have. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Vilna Bashi Postdoctoral Fellow Population Studies Center University of Pennsylvania bashi@pop.upenn.edu 215 898 9633 From bb05246@binghamton.edu Tue Oct 15 01:30:21 1996 Date: Tue, 15 Oct 1996 03:39:08 -0500 To: psn@csf.colorado.edu From: bb05246@binghamton.edu (John Hollister) Subject: In praise of moderation SHAWGI TELL writes: >Issues surrounding philosophy, theory, and ideology are most >important at this time. ... Actively participating in changing >the world is the kernel of the response of modern Marxist-Leninist >philosophy to the greatest problems of today. I guess I should actively participate in changing this little corner of the world, psn, and speak in support of the proposal to limit frequent posters. There should be a special circle of cyber-hell where those who shriek about freedom of speech must spend eternity pressing the delete key as all the hundreds of lurkers take up as much space as the main drivel-mongerers, along with endless MAKE MONEY FAST chain letters, junk mail advertising the latest porn websites, urban legends, the GOOD TIMES virus, the Neiman Marcus cookie recipe, Craig Shergold's wish for more mail, and so on and on and on. I don't want to leave psn because the calls for papers, job postings, conference announcements, and occasional analysis of some major event make it indispensible. When I left psn-cafe for psn, I had hoped for a "best-of" compilation, a distillation of the list. But I still spent a good part of my mornings nursing the delete key (yeah, ok, I subscribe to a few other lists as well). I wondered if there really was any moderation at all. The percentage of posts by the same 5 or 6 people looks like the land distribution ratio in Central America. Let's have the internet equivalent of a land reform. John Hollister bb05246@binghamton.edu From gimenez@csf.Colorado.EDU Thu Oct 17 08:51:29 1996 Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1996 08:51:25 -0600 (MDT) From: Martha Gimenez To: PSN@csf.Colorado.EDU Subject: psn@csf.. and psn-cafe@csf.. go to the same place Dear PSNers, Some of you are sending messages to BOTH psn and psn-cafe. This is misguided. Why? Members of PSN-Cafe will get your message twice because EVERYTHING submitted is AUTOMATICALLY posted in the CAFE and psn moderators get notified twice about the same message. Messages mailed to either PSN or PSN-CAFE go to both lists -- it doesn't matter which address you use. Both lists get the same incoming mail and the only difference is that one is moderated and the other isn't. If you wish to switch from the moderated (psn) version of the list to the unmoderated (psn-cafe) version of the list or vice versa, send a two line request to LISTPROC@csf.colorado.edu like unsub psn sub psn-cafe Firstname Lastname or unsub psn-cafe sub psn Firstname Lastname Some of you are subscribed to both PSN and PSN-CAFE. If you want to receive most messages twice, that's your choice. But remember to post your messages to only one address, PSN or PSN-CAFE, it doesn't matter which. Bureaucratically yours, Martha From BOGARD@WPOFFICE.WHITMAN.EDU Thu Oct 17 14:13:40 1996 Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1996 13:24:59 -0800 From: William Bogard To: psn@csf.colorado.edu Subject: a question about limits a question about limit software, that perhaps the list owners/moderators can answer. if such software is indeed utilized on psn, what are the chances that at least some"serious" posts (by the moderators standards) that also happen to go over the limit will be posted *only* to psn-cafe? do the limits automatically kick in and have to be overridden? or will messages be screened first by moderators--for importance, quality, the unity and coherence of the discussion, etc.--and then checked against the limit? i know the intentions of the moderators of psn are good and (as TR says) they have big hearts, but i see some real contradictions between quantity and quality in this whole issue, which are complicated, not necessarily resolved, by the existence of psn-cafe as an alternative to psn. bill bogard From gimenez@csf.Colorado.EDU Thu Oct 17 20:57:26 1996 Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1996 20:57:22 -0600 (MDT) From: Martha Gimenez Reply-To: Martha Gimenez To: PSN@csf.Colorado.EDU Subject: Re: a question about limits In-Reply-To: On Thu, 17 Oct 1996, William Bogard wrote: > a question about limit software, that perhaps the list owners/moderators > can answer. if such software is indeed utilized on psn, what are the > chances that at least some"serious" posts (by the moderators standards) > that also happen to go over the limit will be posted *only* to psn-cafe? > do the limits automatically kick in and have to be overridden? or will > messages be screened first by moderators--for importance, quality, the > unity and coherence of the discussion, etc.--and then checked against the > limit? Limits come first and, if necessary, are overridden, to allow for the continuation of an interesting thread or to allow for yet more posts from the same person which seem particularly useful or valuable. The standards used to judge the first submission by someone are lower (looser) than those used for their tenth submission of the month. We welcome/encourage new virtual faces on the list, but if you find us allowing someone to post 30 of the last 100 messages, just know that we think Karl has returned :) Yours, Martha ps. Here is a relevant paragraph from our first message about self-moderation posted last week. Possible Problem: What if an interesting thread is developing and a particular author is an important contributor to that thread? Might that author hit his/her limit just when many of us would like to see a continuation of the thread? To solve this potential problem, the moderators propose to occasionally use discretionary action to suspend that particular person's limit for awhile. Suspending individual limits would need to be infrequent; otherwise, the purpose of limits would be defeated.