🚀 go-pugleaf

----------- Original message below forwarded by NETTRAIN moderator ------------

Date: Thu, 04 Feb 93 18:20:18 CST
From: "Michael S. Hart" <HART@vmd.cso.uiuc.edu>

Sorry. . .this is the best I am going to be able to do today.
This note is meant to encourage Jim and the evolution of NETTRAIN

So many moderated lists have gone through this process that it is
surprising it is not a heavy topic among moderators.

"Power corrupts. . .and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

This happens at some time to nearly every BBS Sysop or Listowner/
moderator:  so I don't want to point at Jim as a single example:
but will use specific events on NETTRAIN to illustrate events as
the majority of lists have gone through in the past.

Beginning:  I had a number of requests to post Project Gutenberg
Newsletters to NETTRAIN, so I did. . .and got a lot of thank-you
notes for doing do.  After October, for experimental purposes, I
did NOT post a newsletter to ANY listserver for over 90 days.

The results of that experiment are obvious.

Rather than posting an entire newsletter on New Year's, I merely
posted the index (a file containing about 500 words not counting
the header and footer).

Then came my first experience with the moderation of NETTRAIN; I
received a very lengthy set of notes from Jim, covering all of a
series of possible reasons why he might have rejected my posting
but not pointing out which one(s) might be relevant.  This was a
very obvious piece of canned boilerplate.  It gave no indication
that he had read the note at all, but suggested the note was the
equivalent of a misplaced SUB or UNSUB request, or some personal
note that had been sent to NETTRAIN by mistake, or about a topic
totally irrelevant to NETTRAIN.

Therefore, I wrote out several suggestions that might make these
notes more effective and sent them along to Jim with the queries
about whether he had actually read the note, and hadn't he found
anything pertaining to NET TRAINing in it.  At that time thought
he had read the note in question.

Jim's next note bore a few "You are right" comments, in response
to my suggestions but nothing I could interpret as thanks for an
effort to improve the performance of NETTRAIN and the relation a
moderator/Listowner has with the members.

In addition Jim admitted to not having read even the first lines
of the message, which contained the announcement of an etext the
relevance of which was plainly obvious.  (My apologies to author
of that etext. . .who felt obliged to respond.)

Now to the meat on the bone.

In the present case we have censorship. . .and responsibilities
of censorship are enormous. . .requiring at least a most casual
reading of what is censored.  If an item is made public you can
be relatively sure someone will read it and act accordingly and
thus, your responsibility is diminished.

If you choose to censor. . .your responsibility correspondingly
grows heavier and heavier until your actions become cast in the
stone and you end up carrying them on your back like Atlas with
the world on his shoulders.

All moderated lists to through this process. . .it is difficult
in the extreme for those with power not to exercise it and even
more extremely difficult for them not to show their own biases,
when exercising this power.

A moderator should be moderate. . .much like the redeeming value
statues imposed on other forms of censorship.  "Listowner" seems
to be more power oriented than "moderator," and implies a Feudal
system in which the members are more subject to the whims of the
Lord of the Manor.  I have seen the development of several nets,
and this was always an issue.

If/when an unmoderated list makes the change to a moderated one,
the change should not come crashing down like a guillotine:  but
should rather be implemented slowly. . .and with explanations or
time for adjustment, or both.

In this case the Listowner exercised his power immediately, with
harshly boilerplate feedback. . .and without taking the time for
the reading of the censored material.

OK. . .now that this has happened. . .what to do next?

I pointed out the relevance and resubmitted the note.  This time
it was posted (but I don't think Jim read it, since it seems the
note was referred to later as being too long/in the neighborhood
of 400 lines).

The note contained 502 words (not counting header/footer).

Jim then advised me that he had received a single negative note,
which he (properly) did not describe, so I don't know what it is
purporting to say. . .but even if it did suggest that guillotine
for my postings, it is hard to justify such actions on one note.

I suggested that I have people with more positive feeling send a
note to him, but that I (properly) could not forward them myself
as he could not above.

This suggestion was made around January 3.  I suggested it to an
audience of the January 31 Newsletter four weeks later.  I would
think that if Jim did not want these notes, he would have sent a
note to that effect during the intervening four weeks.

Then, of course, the electrons hit the fan.

Jim posted a "Flame" that he later apologized for, and that I am
not going to quote, and have not even reread, since he asked for
it to be withdrawn with the comment that it should not have been
posted, and would not have been if someone else had submitted it
to him as Listowner/Moderator.

Nevertheless the Flame had its desired effect, namely to "roast"
his opposition and fan the membership of NETTRAIN to send in any
nasty comments they might have.  (Jim chastised ME for asking in
my note only for positive comments. . .but that is what I said I
was going to do, and if he wanted me ask for negatives, too, his
notes should have included that request).

In response, I offered to read and respond to all this inside my
usual midmonth subjective commentary, Newsletter2, stating these
objecting and subjective newsletters should be kept separate.

Jim responded by saying he didn't want to wait for the 15th, but
wanted it all cleared up in one week.

When I agreed to the one week, he reduced it to one more day.

Thus you have something I have written more quickly than I would
like to present, but I have edited out a large amount.

I also suggested that I started reducing the newsletter length a
hundred lines per month until the newsletters were shortened for
effective flame-retardant purposes.   Also rejected.

Only the fact that I have seen lists and listowners go through a
similar process before has given me the patience not to flame at
Jim back. . .I have learned it is counter-productive.

However, I must state, for the record, that this behavior is not
what the lists and networks should be all about.

The list and networks are getting tighter instead of looser, and
this in spite of the fact that there was five hundred times more
traffic last year than in 1988.  The impact of a single person a
network might have is thus five hundred times less that it would
have been just five years ago.

Since I am sure none of you think I am sending five hundred more
notes now for each note I sent then, I am sure you understand.

However, even though 99% of the mailers will allow 27,000 bytes,
per single mail message, there is a very substantial pressure to
force notes to be short.  This pressure will still exist when in
the future the traffic is doubled again and again and again. . .
this is not technical, this is social.

The technical limits of computers double every year or two. . .I
wonder why the social limits are being tightened. . . .

Well. . .I know that answer to that. . .do you?

It isn't the length of the messages that counts.  My short notes
get as much flack as the long ones (they also are more wasteful,
as each note gets a header, footer, and unused packet or cluster
space is per message).

Therefore I resist this pressure, at least until it is official,
not by Listowners, but by the networks.

If the Listowners were serious about saving space, conversations
such as this one would not be encouraged, and notes would not be
measured by the number of LINES they contain, but by the numbers
of CHARACTERS they contain.  A 400 line file containing a 12,000
character total means the average line has only 30 characters; a
totally identical message, with margins of 80 characters makes a
150 line count, margins of 75 give 160 lines. . . .

No. . .it is not the size of the message that is the issue here,
I am afraid to say, if it were, I could just use longer margins,
and put an * everywhere I wanted to indicate a hard return.

I have more to say. . .but this is not the place to say it. . .I
apologize if this is not written or edited well, but Jim said he
wanted it today.


          If You Don't Defend The Networks, Who Will?

=====================================================

Thank you for your interest,

Michael S. Hart, Professor of Electronic Text
Executive Director of Project Gutenberg Etext
Illinois Benedictine College, Lisle, IL 60532
No official connection to U of Illinois--UIUC
hart @uiucvmd.bitnet or hart@vmd.cso.uiuc.edu

COPYRIGHT 1993 PROF. MICHAEL S. HART, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
THIS MESSAGE MAY NOT BE COPIED WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION
PERMISSION GIVEN TO POST ONE TIME ON THE "NETTRAIN LIST."


----------- Original message below forwarded by NETTRAIN moderator ------------

Date: Thu, 04 Feb 93 12:29:32 CST
From: Nancy <HILL%CMSUVMA.BITNET@UBVM.cc.buffalo.edu>

When it was first discussed about NETTRAIN changing to being a moderated
list the reasons stated where due to flaming and questions not dealing to
training. It was stated that any valid posting would go onto the list. It
was also stated that the list was for computer center and library trainers.
It seems that this has changed.
If postings which are valid for any member were to be sent onto the list,
why is there any need for a vote?


------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Response by Jim Milles, listowner:

Although I remember some of my exchanges with Michael Hart over
the past few months differently than he recounts them, I see no
point in disputing with Michael Hart over who said what to whom;
the question is what to do in the future.

Once again: updates on Project Gutenberg posted to NETTRAIN will
be limited to (A) announcements of new issues of the newsletter,
with instructions for mail or ftp access, and (B) announcements
of the availability of specific Internet training documents
through Project Gutenberg.  These postings should include notice
that Project Gutenberg information is also available through the
discussion list GUTNBERG@UIUCVMD.  Mr. Hart's comments on
Internet training issues will always be welcome.

I do not see any question of censorship here: anyone who wants to
receive the Project Gutenberg Newsletter may do so by subscribing
to Mr. Hart's own list, GUTNBERG@UIUCVMD, or to PACS-L@UHUPVM1 or
other lists where that newsletter appears.

Thank you all for your patience.  We now return to your regularly
scheduled NETTRAIN.

Jim Milles (listowner/moderator, NETTRAIN)
Head of Computer Services
Saint Louis University Law Library
millesjg@sluvca.slu.edu