Subject: Re: Scott asked, so I answered him (long) From: "XlMeister" Date: 1999/05/04 Message-ID: Newsgroups: rec.skiing.alpine david mann wrote in message <7gkh7m$5ea$1@isn.dac.neu.edu>... >Ah... RSA. Just for the record, this week-end >produced a grant total of 1 volunteer to help >write a draft for a charter/netiquette FAQ for >the group. Add to Throck's public agreement to >chip in and that brings the tally up to...ummm... >[counting on fingers]... yeh.... two! volunteers. > >Shrug. > >The message is coming through loud clear. People >apperently like things the way they are. I'll also help volunteer, since I've had to come up with my own "guidelines" and enforce them in the face of "flame wars." I don't think the lack of volunteers means that people "like" the way things are. I suspect they have the same kind of skepticism that I do. A community "works" depending on the good will and good intent of the participants, more than on "guidelines" or "charters." The first hurdle is the most obvious. The issue isn't DRAFTING them, but ENFORCING them. Without a "moderator," guidelines end up being clubs used in a flame-war, not ways to end or prevent them. "You broke the rules!" is just another weapon. Why? Because the person saying it out loud, most often, is the "victim" ... and the "victim" is usually someone who (alone or in concert with others) egged the situation on in the first place. There's an art-form to being outside of integrity, being not of good will, and staying "just inside the rules" to provoke others, so they can whine to the moderator the person they inflamed broke the rules. Then, once a rule is broken, EVERYBODY figures they can, too. It's like the guy caught speeding, who whinies to the cop, "Why didn't you stop HIM? HE was going faster!" I remind folks that THEY are responsible for their OWN adhering to the Guidelines, whether or not someone ELSE provoked them. It usually falls on deaf ears. Then, in my own community, I have to pull posts or ban a member. It COULD work, though. In "men's groups" sometimes there's a GROUP, a GROUP of respected volunteers, charged with keeping folks on track. They never say "You broke the rules!" They will simply ask questions, inviting the man to look at himself and his own role. The guy can answer, or he can "blow them off." But then the whole group sees for themselves whether the person is willing to respect the guidelines everyone agreed to. But the MAIN tool would have to be "self-policing," just as it is now. Here are some of the common problems that ANY newsgroup faces, that the "charter" would have to address. 1. Invariably one group will seek to "dominate" the group, to be viewed by all others as "the experts." Through e-mail collaboration, maybe phone calls, and responding to each other's posts, this group will gang together to "silence" anyone disagreeing with one of them. The two strategies are "piling on" (negative feedback) and "high-5s." The impact of BOTH is to make everyone ELSE feel unwelcome. They're not part of the "in" crowd. 2. EVERYBODY wants to "be right," and to "have the last word." The best defense to a "flame war" is to simply not respond to the last attack on you. And to simply ignore anyone else who is provoking the "flame war." But Nobody ever does that, and the "flame wars" drag on and on. The consequence? All the "quiet ones" run for cover, and the entire Board is dominated by a few very vocal ones who won't let go. 3. Everyone will focus on whether OTHER people are abiding by the rules, and will not look at the impact of their OWN actions, their OWN "posting style" on others. 4. It's like little boys playing. They shout "Fuck you!" "Fuck you!" to each other, and it's all in good fun. (Or boys will rough-house, just to rough-house.) Sooner or later, someone will cross the line, although ALL have been participating, and hurt someone else's feelings. Then the war is on, and everyone takes sides. I don't know how to create a charter that addresses those problems. FWIW ... XlMeister