Re: ASA re-visited

[Sylvain Robitaille <syl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Jim wrote:

>> In my experience, groups like this are mostly self-moderating.
>
> That's only if there isn't one person who completely ignores the social
> contract for interacting in a mixed group and guiding FAQ that was used
> in setting up the group.

Note that I did say "mostly self-moderating."  If there's an individual
(or a few) whose behaviour leaves a bad taste, and those individuals are
clearly ignored by other regulars, anyone who is coming into the group
and lurk for a while will soon see which posters provide the quality
content.

In some cases that will affect only whose advice they might follow, but
in other cases it affects whose services they might hire.  That easily
becomes incentive for self-moderation.

> If by "self-moderating, you mean that each person should govern their
> own limits to what is acceptable, ...

I mean it in a broader sense than that: the culture of the group as a
whole will settle into a state that is for the most part representative
of the personalities which are found there (or at least the perception
of those personalities that they present).

> what do you suggest should happen if one person refuses to restrain
> themselves?

Read alt.os.linux.slackware for a few weeks if you're curious as to what
can happen if the group is generally left to take its course.  You might
find the archives of the past year or two to be of particular interest,
in examining how that group adjusts to "brief disturbances of its calm
meditative state, as the pebble disturbs the stillness of the pond ..."
(bonus points if you recognize the reference! :-)

That group has a number of regular posters, most of whom can be very
helpful, though some may be perhaps opinionated, and none of whose
intelligence or general knowledge of the topic can reasonably be brought
into question.  There are also some regulars whose contributions are
more in the form of intelligent questions and an eagerness to learn.

There are also a small number of (for lack of any better term) net
"kooks" on that group.  Some show up only periodically and it doesn't
take long before their colours show through whatever false front they
resurfaced with, while others (one in particular) are completely
unrelenting and obsessed.

Most of the others have long ago decided that they have much better
things to do than to try and teach these social misfits how to fit into
the "society" of the newsgroup.  No one entering the group and reading
their messages for the first time takes them seriously for very long.

> As long as one person acts as a miscreant, it will always cause
> dissent.

It doesn't have to be that way.  If there's only one "miscreant", let
that person be perceived as they are presenting themselves.  There isn't
any reason to be dragged into the same place.  If their message leave a
bad taste in your experience, simply killfile their messages, ignore
followups to them, and get on with the better things in your life.

> In my opinion, it is then up to the group of participants to come
> together to subdue/chastise/make it evident that to all that his
> conduct is not acceptable.

I've seen that tried, and have yet to see it work.  The best examples I
can think of, among the newsgroups I read regularly, are rec.audio.pro
and alt.audio.pro.live-sound.  Both groups have a core set of regulars
that spend a not insignificant amount of time subduing, chastising, and
making it evident to each other that each other's conduct is unfit for
the group and the profession.

I find both groups to be mostly unusable for serious information
gathering because the "signal-to-noise ratio" just isn't high enough.

Contrast that with the alt.os.linux.slackware group, where the truly
obsessed are mostly ignored, and otherwise the less frequent "offenders"
are reminded (not always "in kind" thankfully) what the newsgroup is
really intended for.  It certainly isn't the Eutopia of Netnews, but I'm
sure you'll find that the signal-to-noise ratio in that group is quite
relatively high, and consequently the group is very useful when looking
for information.

Now, on that note, I seem to have had very good timing coming into this
group.  I've found the signal-to-noise ratio to be one of the best among
the groups I read, and that I've been able to get great information from
the group.  :-)

> Lacking that, chaos abounds ..... as has been evident here for years.

I'm going to have to take your word for that, as I haven't been
participating in the group myself for longer than a few weeks.  However,
if you have the time and the inclination, I'd be interested in knowing
your reaction after reading the other newsgroups I mentioned above.

At times they're all chaotic, but overall, the most chaotic are those
where it seems that what you're proposing is being attempted (I might
have said "exercised", but I doubt that the people involved are living
up to what you would hope would happen here).

> I think there's an opportunity at this point to come to an agreement
> of what should be done about people who are the cause of disruption in
> this group.

Does the newsgroup have a charter?  If so, any conduct expectations
should be laid out in the charter of the group, though even then,
without moderation (which I'm not about to recommend) the only thing
that anyone can do is to point an offender to the (periodically posted)
charter, and to ignore a repeat offendor.

Any new agreements that are reached among the regulars of the group
should be ammended to any existing charter.  If there is no such
charter, it might be worthwhile to draft one, and to gain support from
the group membership to have it adopted as the group's charter.

Failing that, you can only count on people's desires to present a
professional, knowledgeable image of themselves (which, frankly, should
be incentive enough for the participants to maintain control of their
behaviour).

> If everyone's idea of creating peace in this group is to do nothing,
> simply waiting for Bass to show up or not, to see if HE's going to
> continue it or not, is just a invitation to continue the chaos.

No one has to take the bait if he does continue "it".  If no one does,
no chaos can ensue.

> All that I've personally contributed to the chaos here, has been
> in opposition to his arrogance, and has been done in protest of
> the incredible lack of reaction about his unbelieveable conduct,
> by people here.

I do hope that you have the time to review the alt.os.linux.slackware
archives.  I'll be surprised if you have time to review it far enough
and thoroughly enough to follow all the history that group has (in fact,
I'm sure you'll find it to be mostly a waste of time unless you have
personal interest in Slackware Linux yourself), but your statement above
reminds me of one of the "periodic" types I mentioned above.

In that case, it became apparent the individual involved seems to have
"other" motives for attempting to clean up the chaotic behaviour in the
group, which I'm not suggesting is the case here, but rather that you
should keep in mind that it may begin to appear that way to others.

> It's simply the divison of numbers here, that has been the gateway
> for chaos.

I would disagree, from my experience on other newsgroups.  What I've
seen suggests that chaos ensues when someone attempts to "correct"
someone else's behaviour, but if no one says anything at all about it,
it's left with just one (or a small number of) poster(s) providing a
very clear, very unprofessional and not credible image of themselves.

> We don't have to like one another, we just have to act as if we do,

Not even that.  We need to not let newsgroup matters become personal.

If I disagree with something you say (or anyone else), it's up to me to
point out my disagreement in such a way that does not turn the discussion
into a personal attack.  If I can't do that, then my disagreement isn't
going to be very credible, and it will become obvious if I have to resort
to personal attacks just to try and "be heard" above logic and reasoning.

Now that's a lot to say for someone who has come into the group only a
small number of weeks ago and not researched the archives for the type
of traffic that you're hoping to eliminate.  However, I feel quite
confident that the experience I lack in this group in particular, I
generally make up for in other groups which may be of different topics,
but have plenty in common with the nature and intent of
alt.security.alarms.  I hope you will consider what I've written.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sylvain Robitaille                              syl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Systems and Network analyst / Newsmaster          Concordia University
Instructional & Information Technology        Montreal, Quebec, Canada
----------------------------------------------------------------------