[ExI] Moderation on the ExiCh list

[Lee Corbin]

BillK, Stefano, and David make some good points

BillK first:

 > It is not possible to specify an exact list of what subjects should
 > not be discussed on the Exi-chat list.  Who knows what some new
 > visitor might want to write about?

Yes, and obviously an exact list of what should not be discussed
isn't possible (if we want to be reasonable), and likewise, I claim
neither can there be a list of what reasonably *should* be discussed.

Therefore I have a problem with BillK's suggestion that we
try to limit what is said by the making of some list which
might include

 >  1) - Does it involve transhumanism at all?
 >  2) - Does it help the transhumanism movement to make progress either
 >       by interesting discussion of technology, etc. or by spreading
 >       knowledge and becoming more well-known and accepted by the general
 >       public.
 >  3) - Does it help bonding within the tranhumanist group?

Think of the countless times weird things that seem to come
out of nowhere are simply striking, or informative in some
unexpected way. Should we never mention Scientology?  Math?


Stefano writes

 > I think that both the moderation when in doubt should err on the side
 > of the freedom of speech (and be very vigilant with regard to its own
 > personal and ideological biases) AND that a moderation should exist.

I think that that's very wise. Each single one of Stefano's phrases
right here deserves commendation.

 > This not only as a matter of ideological or aesthetical taste, but for
 > very practical reasons which have to do with its continuing viability
 > and success.

You said it!!

Now Stefano then takes what is to me a very different tack
when he tries by example what "off-topic" to him is:

 > The real point of moderation and the real (and only) cardinal sin
 > in mailing lists is IMHO Off-Topic. Flames are off-topic. Spam is
 > off-topic. Ad hominem are off-topic. Tireless single-issue evangelism
 > is off-topic. Bilateral chit-chat is off-topic.

Right: those items (and doubtless more) make moderation
necessary. But describing them as "off-topic" doesn't
seem quite accurate! How are wanderings into atheism vs.
religion exactly germane to supposed functioning of the
list? How indeed are technical arguments about global
warming germane? Some may think these "off-topic", and
that's why I claim that the whole concept of *off-topic*
ought to be avoided.

The spam, flames, ad hominem, ceaseless evangelism, etc.,
are merely... unwanted.

And the most important word there is "etc.".


David, long time reader, writes

 > In regards to this whole moderation debate, if making the moderation
 > rules explicit is what it takes to keep Mr Bradbury on the exilist,
 > then I am very much in favour of doing so.

But making moderation rules totally explicit seems impossible, (as I argued above).

 > The recent return of the "heavyweight" thinkers and posters is,
 > from my point of view very welcome.

Absolutely! Lists die when you discourage your best contributors.
As Stefano said, moderation should err on the side of freedom
of speech.

 > I read this list because it is one of the few places where ideas are
 > promulgated and discussed based on science and reality rather than
 > politics and personality... Welcome back Robert, I hope you stay.

And David is doubtless speaking for countless others!

For all of you who are always sending Spike emails denouncing
certain posters and wanting to suppress them, please inhale
deeply and try to remember the often unseen and totally unanticipated
benefits of liberty and freedom of speech. Why does it just kill you
to hear someone say something totally outrageous once in a while??

Lee