Tactless sample moderating panel
cburford at gn.apc.org
Thu Nov 16 01:03:02 MST 1995
Just to be really tactless I thought I would post my sample
moderating panel, as it came into my head on 25th September.
It is of course impossible because some have been lost already. Others
have become significantly less active. Nevertheless it illustrates
the idea of retaining a strong body of culture carriers. In addition
there are stakeholders of widely contrasting tendencies, whose
negative aspects would cancel each other out, but positively would bring
wider viewpoints into the wider list.
The panel here is essentially very arbitrary, and I did not spend a lot
of time thinking about it so I hope no one will feel mortally offended.
Other people would have other names come in, but my guess is that
certain names would be likely to be broadly acceptable to many.
The idea came to me by analogy with the editorial consultative group
But it also sounds a bit like the council of Indian nobles on Vancouver
Island, described by Tom (how did I come to leave him out when I think
he is an example of an intermittent poster who is IMO a very valuable
culture carrier?). The only difference from the council of Indian nobles
is that weakness of morality would not necessarily be a bar, if
you are a representative of an interesting tendency. Total rejection
of inter-tribal laws would however be a bar. Possibly Ralph might not
qualify on these grounds.
Present moderators, and Jon
Steve as a non-marxist
Chris S as a non-marxist
Scott Marshall as a "Stalinist"
MIM (turn them into a responsible stakeholder)
Jim (for internet advice)
Some of the quieter women contributors if willing when approached
Jukka Laari from Scandinavia
Juan as a South American
Some more representatives of marxist literary approach.
This wider group could be used to sound out ideas, and as a recruitment
group to help with moderation, or even become moderators when they get
the courage up. I feel this structure would be flexible and fairly
I have probably offended or alarmed everyone, but it is only a slightly
more formalised version of a natural structure that occurs now and is
Without being too bureaucratic, it would be possible to make an entry
criterion to have been on the list 3 months. This would at present
exclude Peter despite the merits of his unusual credentials but if after
three months he was an interesting and constructive contributor to the
list, why should he not be eligible? Would this not strengthen the
creative application of marxism rather than weaken it?
I have thought of a voting system for selecting possible candidates:
the number of positive votes over the number of negative votes, so long
as it would not exclude the interesting minority stakeholders.
Maybe nothing will come of it, but at the risk of causing permanent
narcissitic damage I thought I would post a snapshot of what
names that flashed into my mind over a couple of minutes on 25th
September, to give an impression.
London. rash co-moderator.
--- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---
More information about the Marxism