On on/off topic

[Brad Goldman <brad@jimmy.harvard.edu>]

> From: WFang01@aol.com
> Irrelevant? Like the ads? I still manage to weed right past the articles I
> don't want to read, ignore the ads (that I don't like) and still enjoy the

Sure, but if you had your druthers, wouldn't you want to remove the
ads?  Every reader recognizes that the ads are a necessary evil.  If
there was a reasonable way to get rid of them, wouldn't you?

> No, that's not censorship. However, sending e-mails to people telling them
> what not to say, is.

I would argue that's not even censorship unless he's holding some kind
of threat over you, he's just exercising his free speech right to say
"Shut up."  But let's not get all lawyerly about this.

> Remember, this isn't a "newsletter", it's interactive. People aren't just
> posting information, they're discussing things, asking questions and getting
> answers. I'm a lot more interested in other people's interests, lifestyles,
> etc. than just "Who talk", which quite frankly can be boring if not tempered
> with humor and HUMAN interaction...

Agreed.  The newsletter analogy isn't perfect, it was just to get my
point across.

> gave up. If you tell me how this will successfully work and WHO will enforce
> it, I'll tell you why it won't work. Personally, I think we're all capable of
> policing ourselves...

Well it obviously can work, because I belong to mailing lists where it
does work.  Who will enforce it is a moderator, or the group
consensus.  This group does pretty well at enforcing the
no-holds-barred approach.

> >> I never got any official e-mail saying one way or the other if posts
> should be kept on topic, so why would someone assume it's a totally
> freewheeling list with no holds barred rather than a forum exclusively for
> the Who?
> 
> Defacto reasoning. One doesn't have to assume anything that one can see right
> in front of them. 

Aw c'mon.  Let's see whats really right in front of them.  Here is
what I recieved when I subscribed to this list.

	Here's the general information for the list you've 
	subscribed to, in case you don't already have it: 

	A mailing list for discussion of the band The Who and related topics. 

Gee, it sure *seems* like everyone is breaking the rules... 

> I can't say since I'm not a member, nor have any interest in them at all
> beyond Roger's "I Want It All". However, perhaps they have that rare
> individual(s) who wants to spend the time being a policeman and does a good
> job of it. 

Actually, they do.  Their moderator spends a good amount of time on
the list.  Most impressively, there's a computer filter to keep out
all those stupid "subscribe" type messages, and several other
questionable things until she can look at them. 

> OK, supposed **I** was the "moderator" (guiney pig answer). I'm sure a few
> people who are uncomfortable with my style would have a REAL problem with
> that since our personalities clash. I already don't want you to be my monitor
> as I can see we're far apart on how we view this "situation".

But if you're moderator, then you have the right to make the list that
way on your authority, and then you can legitimately tell anyone who
doesn't like it to fuck off, it's your list.  If you're just one
member of many, it's a whole nuther ball of different colored horsewax.

> No rules, no censorship, no controls, just people who want to talk. I think
> that's OK...

I agree with you.

Someone wrote me saying that they had written Paul Moriarty (the
moderator) several times.  He finally got back and said he didn't have
time to do anything at all with this list.  Also that it's free, and
you get what you pay for.

What I would suggest is this.  Since this is basically unmoderated,
does anyone know if we can change the description of the list?  (Or
shoudl we?)  Why not just say up front instead of the text I quoted
above somewhere, something like:

 Here's the general information for the list you've
 subscribed to, in case you don't already have it:       

 A mailing list for discussion of the seminal rockband The Who.
Discussions are no holds-barred and frequently stray off-topic.

Or whatever.  What do people think of that?  THen you can legitimately
say to Rich to shut up, it's in the description.

ML wrote:
> posts are their own punishment...people stop reading them and replying. I
> haven't abused RT at all...just made a few quips in what I consider a
> humorous way (if you don't, sorry. I try).

Maybe not you personally, but most of it has been posts like this:
> Nah, let's bludgeon the bastard some more.
, and variants of the "he's nazi scum who deserves whatever he gets"
theme, or the "I'm posting off topic just to piss you off, ha ha!"
theme.

To sum up my main points:
1) Rich's idea of what consitutes a good list is different that the
way this list works, but it isn't nuts, it's a perfectly workable
alternate style.
2) The official description of this group makes a newcomer expect
something more content restricted.

Therefore:
The official description should be changed?

----------------------------------

PT's b-day came and went.  I'll tell you how I celebrated it.  I was
driving back home from Cape Cod (a 2 hour drive) with 2 passengers who
sort of knew who the Who were, but not really.  Therefore, I pulled
out my Tommy tape (never very far away), and told them they were going
to experience the Who.  They loved it, they ate it up.  Barely spoke a
word from beginning to end, and a good long silence as We're Not Gonna
Take It faded out.  A pair of new converts to spread the faith.  

One of them had perfect pitch.  Which was great, I could get her to
reel off the chords I had trouble with.  I'd just tell her when the
chords was coming up, and she'd just run through all the strings.  "A,
D, A, C, F... that's a Dm7."  It was impressive, yet somehow drove me
crazy at the same time.  Hey, I have to work to figure these things
out!

-- 
- Brad Goldman
 (Brad@jimmy.harvard.edu)