I've asked the moderators to moderate the list more aggressively.
I've asked them to take a zero tolerance stance towards uncivil
posts and people (aka "flames" and "trolls"). Each moderator has
a different style and attitudes about this, so uncivility may be
dealt with by warning, moderation, or banning, but it is going to
be dealt with. We will have no formal rules or procedures about
this. Hopefully, once any trolls that may or may not exist are
gone, we won't need any.

Keep in mind that civility is judged by the tone and approach of
the message, not the opinion or who the sender is. It is possible
to strongly disagree with someone, yet be civil about it. In
my opinion, this is ok in small doses, and a good moderator can tell
the difference. OTOH, sometimes people simply don't want to deal
with debates of any kind after a while. When this is the case,
lighten up and let it go -- give it a break. Show some courtesy to
the rest of the list, and take it off-list. But you should not be
moderated for civil discourse, no matter how off the wall your
opinion is, unless you are beating a dead horse, which most people,
I think, feel is uncivil in a community environment.

Some people will undoubtedly philosophize that moderation is a
restriction of freedom, violates their first amendment rights,
and other words along these lines. Rubbish. Most people agree
that modern society based on order and rule of law trumps the
law of the jungle, and those that try to undermine order are dealt
with by the majority. All the intellectual headbanging aside, the
fact of the matter is that people are afraid to read mail, afraid
to post, and don't want to be here. What sort of freedom is that?

The bottom line is that my lazzez-faire approach has failed. That's
sad, and disappoints me greatly, but life goes on. Note that this
change should not affect you if you are in the habit of being
civil and not beating dead horses into the ground.

There are plenty of tips for e-mail etiquette around the net. And
there are many reasons why e-mail fails as a communication medium,
the biggest being the role of the reader internalizing the sender
and role playing him, usually as an aggressor when he was not meant
to be. This is because the human brain needs a sender of communication
to process it. This stuff is beyond the scope of this post, but I
will throw in a couple of tips --

1) Think before you send. Compose your post, if it is controversial,
wait 30 minutes, and decide how you would react if you received it.

2) Put a disclaimer at the top. "This is not a flame." "The intent
of my language is this". Corny, but it can work if you need to
use certain language. Of course, if you do that, and its still a
flame, you're still off the island ... this is for text that you think
could be misconstrued.

3) And the biggie -- IMO almost all e-mail problems result from the
second post. That is, the reader takes offense when none was intended
by the sender of the first post. The reader reacts, and the first
poster has no choice but to defend himself. Please be aware of
second post syndrome, and try to give the sender the benefit of
the doubt, and no overreact.

Hopefully the list will be a better place with some light moderation.
If not, we'll try something else. The intent isn't to run a kingdom
around here, but I'm burnt out on the systemic meltdowns. Feedback
good or bad welcome at the moderator list. Note that this is not
blanket moderation, but targeted reactive moderation of individuals
who break the rules of civility. I still have faith that the group
and the moderators can work together to define these rules as time
goes by.

BTW, if you have a dispute with moderator action or inaction, come
to me, but please try to lighten up and let it go first. Moderators
will make mistakes like everyone else. I don't want to be in the
position of god, and I'm sure the list doesn't want that either.

I'm out of time. I could write the last paragraph better. Common
sense goes along way. Lighten up goes further still. Hopefully
the list will improve.

Cheers
Randy

So if I mouth off will I get a spanking? Chinese Water Torture?
Will you hang me upside down and throw snakes at me? Because if
not, I'm toeing the line.

NotTheRev







--- In letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com, Randy Hall wrote:
>
> I've asked the moderators to moderate the list more aggressively.
> I've asked them to take a zero tolerance stance towards uncivil
> posts and people (aka "flames" and "trolls"). Each moderator has
> a different style and attitudes about this, so uncivility may be
> dealt with by warning, moderation, or banning, but it is going to
> be dealt with. We will have no formal rules or procedures about
> this. Hopefully, once any trolls that may or may not exist are
> gone, we won't need any.
>
> Keep in mind that civility is judged by the tone and approach of
> the message, not the opinion or who the sender is. It is possible
> to strongly disagree with someone, yet be civil about it. In
> my opinion, this is ok in small doses, and a good moderator can
tell
> the difference. OTOH, sometimes people simply don't want to deal
> with debates of any kind after a while. When this is the case,
> lighten up and let it go -- give it a break. Show some courtesy
to
> the rest of the list, and take it off-list. But you should not be
> moderated for civil discourse, no matter how off the wall your
> opinion is, unless you are beating a dead horse, which most
people,
> I think, feel is uncivil in a community environment.
>
> Some people will undoubtedly philosophize that moderation is a
> restriction of freedom, violates their first amendment rights,
> and other words along these lines. Rubbish. Most people agree
> that modern society based on order and rule of law trumps the
> law of the jungle, and those that try to undermine order are dealt
> with by the majority. All the intellectual headbanging aside, the
> fact of the matter is that people are afraid to read mail, afraid
> to post, and don't want to be here. What sort of freedom is that?
>
> The bottom line is that my lazzez-faire approach has failed.
That's
> sad, and disappoints me greatly, but life goes on. Note that this
> change should not affect you if you are in the habit of being
> civil and not beating dead horses into the ground.
>
> There are plenty of tips for e-mail etiquette around the net. And
> there are many reasons why e-mail fails as a communication medium,
> the biggest being the role of the reader internalizing the sender
> and role playing him, usually as an aggressor when he was not meant
> to be. This is because the human brain needs a sender of
communication
> to process it. This stuff is beyond the scope of this post, but I
> will throw in a couple of tips --
>
> 1) Think before you send. Compose your post, if it is
controversial,
> wait 30 minutes, and decide how you would react if you received it.
>
> 2) Put a disclaimer at the top. "This is not a flame." "The
intent
> of my language is this". Corny, but it can work if you need to
> use certain language. Of course, if you do that, and its still a
> flame, you're still off the island ... this is for text that you
think
> could be misconstrued.
>
> 3) And the biggie -- IMO almost all e-mail problems result from the
> second post. That is, the reader takes offense when none was
intended
> by the sender of the first post. The reader reacts, and the first
> poster has no choice but to defend himself. Please be aware of
> second post syndrome, and try to give the sender the benefit of
> the doubt, and no overreact.
>
> Hopefully the list will be a better place with some light
moderation.
> If not, we'll try something else. The intent isn't to run a
kingdom
> around here, but I'm burnt out on the systemic meltdowns. Feedback
> good or bad welcome at the moderator list. Note that this is not
> blanket moderation, but targeted reactive moderation of individuals
> who break the rules of civility. I still have faith that the group
> and the moderators can work together to define these rules as time
> goes by.
>
> BTW, if you have a dispute with moderator action or inaction, come
> to me, but please try to lighten up and let it go first.
Moderators
> will make mistakes like everyone else. I don't want to be in the
> position of god, and I'm sure the list doesn't want that either.
>
> I'm out of time. I could write the last paragraph better. Common
> sense goes along way. Lighten up goes further still. Hopefully
> the list will improve.
>
> Cheers
> Randy

First, let's recognize the thankless job Randy and the moderators perform on a daily basis at a task that pays nothing and brings much stress! Especially as of late!

Second, thank you Randy for trying to make this list a better place. We all realise that this list has gotten out of control and these new steps should help make it a more friendly place. I applaud your actions.

I posted my frustrations yesterday and as a result, have received over 25 emails from letterboxers with similar feelings. I thank them all for trusting me with their views and urge all present and past active members of this list to hang in there. This is a caring community and these new measures should go far in restoring this list back to it's original intent.

My signature tag line brings new meaning:

Have fun & let's get out there & box!!!


Mark Pepe
http://pepeanddavidow.blogspot.com/

Good day everyone,

I totally agree with the sentiment of what Mark said. I think that
Randy has taken the coarse of action that makes the most sense and is
the best interest of this group. I too received several private
emails yesterday from people expressing their feelings about what has
been going on lately and I too encourage you to stay put, brave the
storm and see what the moderators are capable of. Has Randy has
explained we have different moderators with different styles, some
will moderate, some will bad, some will send sweet little warnings
first. For those wondering what my style will be at this point, you
can pretty much bet that the first person I see name calling,
personally attacking someone, or beating a dead horse repeatedly will
be removed from the island without being voted off I will consider
it failure of a competition and disqualification in the game.

I bid you well,
pandora{HIB}- "Pandy" of Team Chaos

That brings a very good question to mind. I mean no offense or insinuations
here, but does this mean that moderators have the power or right to ban or
remove someone from the mailing list?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------
Steve of Rayvenhaus
NLC Website: http://www.myndworx.com
Team Rayvenhaus PFX: http://www.myndworx.com/rayvenhaus
"We leave nothing but an image to mark our passage."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------

If you're happy and you know it, clunk your chains.

I agree, the very first thing I'd like to do as well, is to
acknowledge the amount of effort that goes into running a list of
this size, as well as maintaining the LbnA companion website. I am
well aware of just how much work goes on "behind the scenes" and am
loath to criticize the list owner or moderators. However, I do think
things went waaaayyyyy beyond my comfort zone as far as respect for
each other goes, and I can't help but feel, "it's about time!"

Secondly, I would like to point out the list membership is somewhere
over 1400 people and thank the overwhelming number of members who
demonstrated respect, responsibility, and dignity by refraining to
participate in the recent rash of terrible posts.


Third, I am glad to see that some additional oversight will be
instituted with regard to message posting, even though it will be an
additional burden on the list owner and moderators. I don't know if
you are aware of this, but all messages are archived... yes, even
every shameful post is stored for posterity.

When I first discovered Letterboxing, I reviewed the archives of
this list. I almost didn't join the list after reading through the
messages from August, when another flare up of this flaming was
raging. However, I understand that there are bound to be
disagreements whenever such a large number of people are involved.
I persevered .... yet I wonder how many members and potential
members have been lost due to the "tone" or "vibes" that are evident
in the archives.

Sorry to have taken up time not discussing letterboxing. I'll try to
stay on topic from now on. (But wondering if I still need to wear my
asbestos underwear when I log into this list.)


Enjoy!
---PJ
aka Bindle Babe


--- In letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com, mjpepe1@c... wrote:
> First, let's recognize the thankless job Randy and the moderators
perform on a daily basis at a task that pays nothing and brings much
stress! Especially as of late!
>
> Second, thank you Randy for trying to make this list a better
place. We all realise that this list has gotten out of control and
these new steps should help make it a more friendly place. I applaud
your actions.
>
> I posted my frustrations yesterday and as a result, have received
over 25 emails from letterboxers with similar feelings. I thank them
all for trusting me with their views and urge all present and past
active members of this list to hang in there. This is a caring
community and these new measures should go far in restoring this
list back to it's original intent.
>
> My signature tag line brings new meaning:
>
> Have fun & let's get out there & box!!!
>
>
> Mark Pepe
> http://pepeanddavidow.blogspot.com/

Thank you so much. I'd been away from the list since early June and
just came back on two days ago. Less than 24 hours later I pulled
myself back off the list, appalled at what had happened to it while I
was gone.
It's a sad fact, but a real one, that it's very hard these days
for a list to survive and be useful without moderation. It doesn't
take very many people to ruin it for everyone else. I'm sure there
will be gripes about the moderation--there always are--but most of us
will be very grateful--at least most of the time.

Steve

Personally knowing your experience with online forums and mailing
lists I find this question to be quite silly, however I am guessing
that your intent here was to educate others or to have something
clearly spelled out for the list members by having someone else
clarify.

It seems to be that the term moderator defines it all at this point
however.

Moderator:
1. One that moderates, as:
a. One that arbitrates or mediates.
b. One who presides over a meeting, forum, or debate.

Further more I think that if you read Randy's post carefully it tells
you exactly what actions the moderators may or may not take.

"I've asked the moderators to moderate the list more aggressively.
I've asked them to take a zero tolerance stance towards uncivil
posts and people (aka "flames" and "trolls"). Each moderator has
a different style and attitudes about this, so uncivility may be
dealt with by warning, moderation, or banning, but it is going to
be dealt with. We will have no formal rules or procedures about
this."

There are several moderators on the list Steve and I think each on
will be handling things currently in the way they most see fit. I do
know that for several of us, our tolerance for the ridiculous, the
instigating, and the callous have long passed and I think at least
temporarily you will be seeing a very heavy hand from a few of the
moderators.

I really don't think anyone needs to be worried about being moderated
or banned though, quite honestly I think if anyone has a concern that
their topic, words or attitude might get them "dealt with" by a
moderator they should hit delete before hand or just stay silent on
the list, save us all the trouble of getting our rulers out and hand
slapping.

I bid you well,
pandora{HIB}

IF you want moderation you must be on the list & click off all the rest.

STAR:W+S=DRR


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Thank you for clarifying it to me pandora.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve of Rayvenhaus
NLC Website: http://www.myndworx.com
Team Rayvenhaus PFX: http://www.myndworx.com/rayvenhaus
"We leave nothing but an image to mark our passage."
------------------------------------------------------------------------

"PEACE, n. In international affairs, a period of cheating between two
periods of fighting."

Steve,
Moderators have always had those powers. That's how we manage to get
rid of the occasional weirdo who thinks this list is interested in
porn photos. :)

We used good judgement then, and we still will.

Autumn

--- In letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com, "Rayvenhaus"
wrote:
> That brings a very good question to mind. I mean no offense or
insinuations here, but does this mean that moderators have the power
or right to ban or remove someone from the mailing list?
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> Steve of Rayvenhaus
> NLC Website: http://www.myndworx.com
> Team Rayvenhaus PFX: http://www.myndworx.com/rayvenhaus
> "We leave nothing but an image to mark our passage."
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> If you're happy and you know it, clunk your chains.


PS ...
(falling over laughing at the clunk your chains ... *giggle*)

Some people need to lighten up. This is a list for families
and persons interested in letterboxing. Trust me, it is not
as good as the Jerry Springer show :-)

In my opinion, a discussion of postal boxes on this list
is better than a flame war about whether postal boxes should
be discussed on this list. But that is just me. Obviously,
certain individuals think differently. I am at a loss to
understand the thought process of these persons.

I personally don't care what is discussed on this list, so
long as it is moderately related to letterboxing -- even related
off-topic is ok within reason (such as what brand of backpack
to buy, for example). Postal boxes would certainly fall into
here. I give the moderators and members wide reign in interpreting
this. The reason for this is simple and two fold. 1) This list,
historically, HAS ALWAYS BEEN PART OF THE GAME OF LETTERBOXING,
and the handful of old-timer(s) left who help create this place
want it that way, and who is a moderator (or anyone else, for that
matter, to judge who is gaming), and 2) I believe freedom,
self-moderation, and distributed, social pressure trump centralized
rule by diktat.

But this list always disappoints me in the abuse of the freedom
I give it, because a handful of folks just don't get it. I'm not
going to give yet another speech on how it is generally the
receiver that misinterprets tone of the sender of e-mail that
leads to flames. The archives are replete with my opinions on
how to behave over e-mail, as is the net at large. Some people
simply do not care, and these would be the target of such speech
anyway.

I am considering turning on full moderation (and thus having the
few punish the many), and I solicit (off-list to me only) opinions
on this prospective action. At the end of the day, I want this
to be a better place, and if people think full moderation for
everyone to prevent future outbreaks of uncivility will get that
done, then a few clicks will make it so (and SpringChick, I'd
love you as a moderator if this happens, because once again,
the inconsiderate actions of a few will cause more volunteer
time wasted for everyone, because certain people just don't have
the self-control to moderate themselves, and do their share to
pitch in to the collective effort of making this a better place
(classic example of "tragedy of the commons"). Take a poll if
you want, otherwise I'll make a call based on what I see in my
inbox over the next few days. (Yes, I've threatened this before,
and it wasn't (and isn't) idle. Last time, people wanted things
the way they are).

And no matter what is decided, the next flame war that erupts,
I may just turn it on without asking the list.

Here are my thoughts on the recent incident, FWTW --

* Despite the open list charter, a majority have decided that
postal boxes are better discussed elsewhere. That's fine, and
shows the open charter is working. An example of local self-
organization rather than centralized diktat. That is a Good
Thing, and persons or moderators are allowed to use their
judgement in enforcing it or not.

* I don't think it is a crime that someone posted about a
postal box, despite this rule. Perhaps they didn't know it.
Perhaps they hit the wrong line in their address book. It
is better to assume an honest mistake than self-righteous
assumption of malicious violation of the list charter, and
the resultant flame war.

* Lori's message. Lori has been around here long enough that
she should know you absolutely have to walk on eggshells if
you want to say something. People apparently feel it is
interesting to debate whether Lori's message was polite or
not. Only Lori knows that, and everyone else is engaging
in personal interpretation. I'll interpret and guess that
those who like postal boxes thought it was impolite, and those
who dislike them thought it was polite. But then again, I
am a student of Umberto Eco, semiotics, and the principle of
the role of the reader. If you don't get it, nevermind (but
I recommend some of his fiction (the non-fiction is
pretty tough ...). And I'm just guessing like everyone else
anyway. The best interpretation is one that GIVES
THE POSTER THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT (but I said I would not
lecture on e-mail etiquette ...). That's not saying I think
the message was polite, its just better in the long run to
not to follow with another 100 clearly impolite ones. If
you feel it is moderator malfeasance -- send to me directly --
don't start a flame war.

That said, a better wording of Lori's message might have been --

"The group in the past has decided that postal boxes are off
topic for this list. It is understandable that you may not
have been aware of this decision, especially if you are a newbie,
and that's ok, its not the end of our world. Postal boxes
are discussed at http:// ..." [but then again, I can see where
people will construe this message as impolite, especially if
they really like postal boxes. Just goes to show the truth
of what I say, because I'm trying to be polite].

It could have been off-list also, but there is value in
reiterating cultural values on-list for others who may not be
aware. But it has to be for that purpose -- not some self-
righteous I'm smarter than you because I know the rules.

* What goes on off-list. Someone posted 4 messages alleging
flames being sent off-list. That is totally inappropriate.
Hearsay off-list is not admissible on-list, and even if it
was, I'm not going to touch it (except perhaps to ban the
person who brings this hearsay). What goes on in the
kindergarten down the hall has no bearing on our fine pre-school.

* Moderators vs members. Moderators are allowed to post as
members. When I post as list manager, I generally sign it as
such, when I post as a member, I generally don't. I'd like
all moderators to follow this convention, tho I've never asked
them to, as I'm not big into rules. For the most part, they do.

That said, moderators are held to a higher standard. We've had
to dismiss moderator(s) in the past because in my judgement they
were using moderator authority to sanctify personal opinion.
Moderators have to be more neutral than the rest of us when they
are doing things that look like moderator things, and I watch
it. I am also getting feedback from several different sources
that I trust about moderators and I am watching that also. I
have passed these concerns onto the individuals in question.
We'll see if everyone is able to lighten up. But I've
dismissed moderators before, and I'll do it again if I think
that is best for the list (but then I may have to deal with
six months of personal flame mail and editorials on other
letterboxing sites a year after the fact -- some people do take
this _way_ to seriously ... :-))

Randy
List Manager

Randy has posted a well-reasoned treatise on his thoughts about the talklist and I support his views on this subject.

Please read his post twice.

Next, find another subject and let the recent PLB & personality issues die on the list. I will support the removal of further posts regarding this unfortunate incident as a way to preserve our more common goals of enjoying letterboxing in all it wondrous variations.

Susan

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com, Randy Hall wrote:
> Some people need to lighten up. This is a list for families
> and persons interested in letterboxing.


This list,
> historically, HAS ALWAYS BEEN PART OF THE GAME OF LETTERBOXING,
> and the handful of old-timer(s) left who help create this place
> want it that way

Thank you Randy.

How soon Ye all forget!
http://www.letterboxing.org/BoxView.php?
boxnum=14466&boxname=Geogeorgia's_April_Fools_Letterbox

GeoGeorgia