Oxygenating the flame in threads was Re: [extropy-chat] afuturistprediction

[Brett Paatsch]

Samantha Atkins wrote:

[Eugen]
>>> > It causes a slippery slope: everybody's standards slide. The best
>>> > contributors soon leave, because they have the least tolerance
>>> > for crap.
>>>
>>
>> I don't know that that is true.
>
> I do.  I argued over it at first too but I am convinced by the  evidence
> inside myself and watching the process in various lists more  closely.
>
>>
>> It might be. Damien Broderick and Hal have said things like that that
>> I took seriously because I consider Damien and Hal to be amongst
>> the bed quality posters.
>
> That isn't a good way to validate such a hypothesis.

Not saying it is. Just saying that I'd personally weight their input
seriously
in revisiting my own views including my current ones on this, because I
value their contributions to the list seriously. No slight on anyone is
implied.

>> I think Hal said "bad posters drive away good".  But I'm not sure
>> that even Hal or Damien are always the best judges of what is and
>> isn't going anywhere. Nor would I be and I definately don't want
>> to be.
>>
>
> Not sure I see what you meant to say.

Okay, well:

1) Just that on one occassion that seems to come to mind Hal posted
what I took to be an observation about mailing lists. That "bad
posters drive away good" was a me paraphrasing if not quoting
what he said.

2) That no-one is infallible in their judgements about what are good
posts and bad in every individual case. Not me. Not Damien. Not
Hal. And not any one of the individual moderators. Again I'm not
criticising just saying its hard to be right all the time for anyone.

3)  That I don't want to be a moderator (again). Its a tough job!

>>> This is why shunning doesn't work online.
>>>
>>
>> If one is part of the noise and one is not being read then shunning
>> isn't going to work of course. If the people you like to talk to won't
>> talk to you *maybe* there is a reason.  Maybe you've pissed them
>> off.  It is very hard to shun someone that is already not paying
>> attention to you, so that is why I suggest coupling the tactic with
>> a database. I suggest *actively* using and processing the list. Keep
>> track of the interests of people you want to talk to. Repay good
>> posts with good posts.
>>
>
> So why not track who has given up on reading your stuff?

Again, as was the case when Eugen said you, I didn't know whether
he was meaning "one's stuff" or "your" Brett's stuff. Both are fair
questions but I'd personally answer those different questions differently.

> The  feedback might be a very good thing to have.  It is hard to calibrate
> ourselves without feedback.  It seems like you are only into positive
> feedback.  But that is insufficient for a  system to self-correct.

Ah you do mean me. Fair enough. No I'm receptive to all sorts of
feedback.

For instance I'm listening to you in your capacity first as Samantha
Atkins, a person I know and like, second, in your capacity as a list
poster a frequent one whose name I recognize.

Because you haven't put your moderator hat on that I can see for this
post I'm not considering that aspect.  That would be a third available
to you if you chose to invoke it.  But I hope that you can see that as
just as yourself, you could give me feedback which I'd attend to
because I acknowledge you have multiple bases for legitimately
giving it.

You could mail me on or offlist and expect at very least my effort
to give you a hearing (I might not agree) and I'd have to be here
to see it not away somewhere, and I might be busy, but I'd try.

Ultimately, if I was being scoundrelly or behaving badly anyone
could try to take me to task onlist of off with no more authority
that that they were a list poster whose name I recognize. But
the moderators I'd give extra weight to. And ultimately, if it
came right down to it I suppose in the final analysis the Exi
Directors would have moral weigh in the event of a difference
of opinion between moderators.  And legal weight beyond the
moral I'd imagine.

Hope this clarifies at least how I see feedback to me.

I'm certainly not closed down to negative feedback. I am
political though. I don't always conceed the ground when I
think I am right just because someone else doesn't agree
with me.

Brett Paatsch