outside of obvious spam, their is much reserve before interjecting... usually the members must repeatedly demonstrate that...they dont get it... or that they are simply stuck in a riot and need someone to splash some water in their face.  and it happens, trust me.
anything that is occasional and marginal, at least for me, is not touched. not before long, it is lost in the flow anyway.
passivity seems to work fine here. especially when it is presumed that people will filter noise. 
the good, the bad and the ugly... swirlyvloggerlyreal ;-)


On 5/18/06, Jan <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote:
You're quite right Joshua that some recent threads here made this list a bit hot around the keyboard collar. And thanks for your considered response.
We grow as a community by identifying and solving issues, and this has been one of those growth spurts, for sure.
At what point is it appropriate to send a message off-list to a member or members who have crossed a line? When is the line crossed? What are the lines?
I tend to prefer to allow folks to work out their own issues until it becomes apparent that it can't be handled by the folks directly involved. And that's how it's been heretofore handled - perhaps a bit late to the trigger, but nonetheless, handled off-list.
In the instant situation, it was just about time to get the moderators involved when the heat died down, so...
How might the moderators have done a better job?
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2006 10:35 PM
Subject: Re: [videoblogging] VideoBloggers out to lunch

>Curious, Joshua, how - were you a moderator - you would have handled
>Who would you have written and what would you have said?

That's a fair question, Jan.

I don't think moderation is only about what a moderator writes and/or says in the moment. It's also about proactive measures to establish community guidelines.

An email list is a fragile community, one that operates according to constructed guidelines. Sometimes the construction of those guidelines is part of a very conscious process. Other times, the guidelines emerge in an ad-hoc manner.  In a well moderated community, moderation (be it one moderator, a team of moderators, or community self-moderation) represents the guidelines and values that the community has put in place.

This group has no explicit guidelines that apply to what kind of posts are appropriate, or to what action should be taken when a post crosses the line. (At least none that I could see on the group's home page). But it does have a strong culture of implicit guidelines. Given that, moderators have few tools at their disposal--only feeling for the situation.

So I can't answer your question directly, Jan, because I think moderators must work from rules and authority given by the community. I don't have that.

However, I can tell you why I posted a call for stepped up moderation.

I felt the responses in the thread I cited, ("belittling me") stepped across a line. I had no problem with the original post. People make videos and want to publicize them. Great. But I felt that the textual responses to the video would have been better posted as comments to the Paul's vlog. I didn't think the responses that launched broad attacks on national character were appropriate. They struck me as broad generalizations related only tangentially to videoblogging.

And to clarify one point: I see now that my initial post to this thread was ambiguous. I don't agree with the original poster's assertion that we should all stick to technical issues. I'm very very interested in the cultural issues of videoblogging. I just don't think that calling someone's country ugly makes our list a better place.




Fireant Individual Typepad
Use Explains


Reply via email to