Horse,
Thank you for engaging us on this topic. I only write because I care.
Horse Wrote:
Nearly all those who have posted to the MD on the LS
PROGRAM subject didn't bother to join in voting for that subject
when asked - neither did they post any suggestions - with 1
exception.
Roger:
I guess I am still a little reluctant to vote considering that the last time
I voted IT WAS BOUNCED. (To be fair, I must admit that it was my fault for
voting after midnight Hong Kong Standard time) :-)
I Previously Wrote:
> I suggest the editorial board back off and allow a little more
> dynamic freedom to the natural evolution of a discussion.
Horse Responded:
The whole point of the LS forum is that it is focussed. Wandering off
onto off-topic subjects defeats the main purpose of the forum.
Dynamic freedom for natural evolution of a discussion is encouraged
on the MD - that's why it's there.
Most of the people who have been around for a while know the
committee members. Do you think we're some sort of power-crazed
control freaks?
Roger:
My argument has not been that we should allow unrelated topics. I am NOT
lobbying for allowing posts on Expanding Bubbles, Cosmotheism, or Star Wars.
I am suggesting that tributaries to the main stream of a discussion serve to
improve the dialogue, not ruin it. Allow some of the related tributaries to
be explored. I do not think the editors are power-crazed, but I think your
good intentions are not always maximizing the results which you intend. If it
is close, let it through. Screen out the garbage and the rudeness, not every
post that strays from your preconceived notion of what is or is not on topic.
And one other concern is that I think it would be healthy to accept
criticisms of the editing within the LS. This thread actually relieved my
anxiousness on the issue. I was thinking I was the only person getting
bounced. If I was the paranoid type, I would have been pretty nervous. One
of my posts that mentioned concerns with the LS editorial policy was rejected
three times. The only way to get it through the censors was to remove all my
references to any concerns with the editor. I think the editors need to ask
for and listen to some constructive criticism, and they need to publish it.
There are several good ways to accomplish this without interupting the flow
of the discussion (use a separate subject title, only take criticism at a set
period toward the end of the month etc)
Roger
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
