> 100 / day - PLEASE READ

Chris, London 100423.2040 at compuserve.com
Thu Feb 29 00:28:53 MST 1996

More options have come to light, none of which involves introducing
censorship. No option is ideal.

1. Do nothing = Affirm the present environment which some think
rewards quick fire flaming.

2. Distribute Marxism as digest only

3. Distribute Marxism as digest with individuals having to opt out
for individual mailing. (Objection - this could allow flamers
to remain ahead of the game - Counter objection, their privilege
could be withdrawn if it was being manifestly abused. They would
still not be censored.)

4. Keith's proposal
>>Simply change the reply to address in majordomo to the
original poster! Other lists that have done this have cut the banter
by 50-75%.<<<
(Sounds wonderful. Objection - I for one don't understand it.
Please explain  very slowly. What is a return address and what is it
there for?)

5. A current l'st configuration option allows us to set an upper limit
for size on any one mail, which gets diverted to admin to process, and
can be sent back to the mailer. This of course does
not address the number of mails as such.

6. If a technical person is willing to tweak the majordomo
l'st-configuration software, a range of other options become available
which could apply to Marxism but need not affect other l'sts.
eg. There could be a limit on the number of posts per person per day.

7. Rejected posts could be sent not to Spoons admin but elsewhere
for sifting, providing there was no censorship of content.

8.  There could be a time lag, delaying the sending out of posts by
a uniform length of time eg 6 hours, 12 hours, 24 hours.

None of these options is ideal, including do nothing.

IMO there have not been a massive number of protests, on l'st or in private,
objecting to some change.
>From where I sit the passion/flak ratio is looking
quite strongly in favour of doing something to improve the jewel/drek ratio.

In many ways a remarkable self-regulating community.
The problem seems to me, that a small number of abusive, intolerant
regular subscribers can interact in an unfortunate way with the
stream of newbies who do not know the culture of the l'st. This sub-set
of subscribers can greatly influence the tone of the whole l'st in
a way that swamps the interests of the 300 plus who want to be able to
access it for pieces that may well be polemical as well as informative,
but are not simply trivial abuse.

I am prepared to try to quench some flames. I am not prepared to try to
be a non-stop water canon. It is up to the l'st to take responsibility for
its constructive internal environment. Part of that is to realise the
technology is not god-given but is potentially under our control, and can
influence how we communicate with each other more constructively.

London, Co-moderator

     --- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---


More information about the Marxism mailing list