I'm about to set up a discussion group of my own--focused on
antimonopoly policy and its social/economic effects in the world's 200
countries--and thus have a keen interest in the following question: How
does one go at building a discussion list that's capable of making the
largest possible contribution (to the public interest) in its field? I'm a
member of--and regularly contribute to--quite a few groups. Their rules
differ widely. Some are tightly monitored, others are essentially
free-for-alls, stills others fall in-between. As an empiricist, my
principal question is, which works best?
The 'best' list in a given area is of course the one that attracts
the best people --and succeeds in persuading them to contribute to the
discussion their best efforts. If the most knowledgeable people are made to
feel uncomfortable or otherwise unwelcome, they'll naturally vote with their
feet--go away--or remain silent, denying the group the benefit of their
facts and insights. Gresham's law: The bad drives out the good.
Distinguished people in their fields put a high premium on courtesy,
civility, graciousness.
I've run across one model that especially impresses me. Its rules,
first, simply ban name-calling, i.e., attacks on another member's
intelligence, education, mental health, character, and the like. Secondly,
though, this model includes a remedy that strikes me as eminently sensible:
An e-mail address is provided for the lodging of complaints. Any member can
point to a discourtesy. The offender is then invited to offer, onlist, an
apology that has already been accepted by the offended member. If the
name-caller declines, he is removed from the list.
On the free-for-all lists, I know the names of the ideologues and
either 'trash' their posts (unread) or automatically transfer them to my
'loonie' file--one that I review every fortnight or so for entertainment,
looking for thigh-slappers, side- splitters, and the like.
While the name-calling loonies have no just claim to the attention
of a serious list's knowledgeable members, they nonetheless have
rights--particularly the right to set up and protect lists of their own.
Suppose, for example, that a competent astronomer should somehow wander
onto a list owned and maintained by, say, the 'Flat Earth Society.' Does
this scientist have a right to disturb these good people, to persistently
attack their unconventional beliefs in their own forum, to embarrass them
before their peers with his opposing evidence? In my view, he has no such
right. He might sensibly ask them whether they've considered a few
elementary factors but, once they've made it clear that they don't want to
be disturbed in their error, the gracious thing to do is bid the group bon
voyage and leave it in peace.
This list has a couple of loonies--fugitives from a list of their
own, one I courteously left some months ago to its own economc follies--who
are apparently spoiling for a fight with me. If they do it again here, they
won't like my response. Too bad TOES has no effective ban on name-calling.
Charles Mueller, Editor
ANTITRUST LAW & ECONOMICS REIVEW
http://webpages.metrolink.net/~cmueller
