Roger etc
>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) :-)
The problem of different time zones was discussed when we were figuring out the voting
procedure for the LS. To solve the problem we decided to use GMT. The voting procedure
is:
Stage 1: Topic suggestion.
day -6
Call for topics.
day -3
New moderator consolidates all topics, posts list to the
squad and reminds that voting will start on day -2.
Stage 2: Voting
day -2
Voting begins (00:01 hrs GMT)
day -1
Voting ends (24:00 hrs GMT)
day 0
Moderator counts votes and posts new topic and
subscribers begin dialog
This is published on the website under Lila Squad and it is reiterated at the
beginning of every month on the mailing list in the CALL FOR VOTES post. I think we've
exercised due diligence in informing the squad of procedures, if members can't or
won't RTFM there's not much else we can do.
If your vote was rejected before 24:00hrs GMT then it was a mistake, possibly
technical, possibly human error. It certainly should not have happened. Having a clear
and credible voting procedure is important and I would appreciate it if you would let
me know exactly when this occured so that we can sort out any weakness in our system.
>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.
I personally would like a tight and focused dialog, more so than you do apparently.
I've always wanted that and two years ago I set up a mailing list to achieve that and
I've been working on it ever since. Precisely how focused it should be is something
we're having to figure out as we go along. Initially I did not even anticipate
moderating it, but now I seee moderating is essential. Over the past few months I
feel that the dialog has wandered off on tangents too much and has distracted from the
main topic. In particular the Dynamic-static topic was way off key. The topic clearly
stated that the answers should be made with reference to the examples given in Lila,
yet the majority of the posts did not do this. That was my fault because I moderated
that month. I let the posts though thinking that the writers were merely exploring and
would return to the main stream. However by the end of the month it turned out that
they did not and that whole month was a big disappointment t!
!
!
o me as a result. It was largely because of this that I've called for tighter
moderation. The whole point of the LS is to take one question and focus on it at the
exclusion of all else. That is what we promise the members of the LS and that is what
we try to deliver. I realize that not everyone wants this kind of hi-intensity dialog,
but some of us do and seeing as we're prepared to do the work to achieve this and it
doesn't harm anyone else I don't see why we shouldn't be allowed to. Live and let
live Roger.
>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 if you would like to send comments about the editorial policy directly to the
committee then do so. If you want to know how many people get bounced then ask. Making
unfounded accusations on MD and calling me names in your posts to the LS isn't a very
mature way to get things done.
Also just because you don't like something it doesn't necessarily mean we're going to
change it. And, indeed, even if the majority of the group don't like something we
still may not change it. I'm very well aware that only a handful of people around the
world are likely to enjoy and appreciate the LS. (Good grief, If I could find people
who could manage this kind of talk in my real life I wouldn't have to use the
Internet!) We run the LS for a small group of people. It is no secret and I make no
apology for that. We're aiming at the far right of the bell curve here and and we're
always going to be a minority. I welcome suggestions but that doesn't mean the members
can dictate the way the LS is run. When our members suggest changes it's up to the
committee to decide whether or not they will take us closer to our objectives, NOT
whether or not the changes will make us more popular. David wants better question
setting. Okay, we've heard him. We want good questions too. He's right!
!
!
and we should work harder on it. Thanks for the suggestion. You want looser
moderation. Okay, we've heard you. We'll keep it in mind, but we don't think it's the
right way to go at this time. Thanks for the suggestion.
And now can I direct anyone who has questions about LS to the website. Please read it
before mouthing off about it and forcing me to waste my time reiterating what I have
already written on the Internet for the world to see. I meanwhile, am going to ponder
that other crucial Sunday morning question: pool or beach?
Diana
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]
