Draft Discussion List Guidlines/subscriber review

[IsisInform at aol.com]

Hi Everyone --

I agree that the response to Robin's comments on the propsed guidelines 
seemed like an attack on her right to express an opinion.  People concerned about 
hostility may want to send comments privately to the Board.  Their email 
addresses are listed at http://www.gcna.info/contact/

BTW I found a great Website on flaming, which is what we have been 
experiencing on this list and what brought us to the necessity of guidelines.  It's 
hilarious and informative.  

http://www.flayme.com/

Thanks,

Katherine

**********************************************************************

 vcampo1 at cox.net vcampo1 at cox.net 
Fri Sep 29 13:42:41 PDT 2006 



This proposal was sent to the list for comment.  Robin sent her comments.  
Now, it appears, she is being criticized for sharing those comments because (a.) 
she could have joined the committee but didn't and (b.) she offered comments 
without suggestions.  

I don't get it.  




---- Jo Clute <josepi at doitnow.com> wrote: 
> Roobin,
> 
> What were your specific suggestions?
> 
> Please share those with us also..
> 
> Everyone was invited to be on the committee.
> 
> This proposal incorporated EVERY single suggestion we, the comittee, 
recieved from everyone who provided input
> 
> we also sent the proposal out and again asked for futher input. And refined 
it again.
> 
> The result is what we have shared with everyone in "public" everything has 
been disclosed.
> 
> thank you for your input........?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
>   From: roobin 
>   To: Central City Discussion 
>   Sent: Friday, September 29, 2006 10:33 AM
>   Subject: Re: Draft Discussion List Guidlines/subscriber review
> 
> 
>   Observations:
>   1. This proposal is very similar to the existing system.
>   2. The Delete key is still your only control.
>   3. There are no provisions for enforcement.
>   4. Some of the most strident opposition to Moderators were on this 
guideline committee, and without enforcement self-moderation equals no moderation.
>   5. Those on the listserve any amount of time have seen many numerous 
posts to "play nice" with one another.  If past requests for self moderation were 
unsuccessful, why would this one be?
> 
>   R.
> 
>   PS: If the committee is receiving comments on this proposal in private, 
please share them.
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/central-city-discuss_gcna.info/attachments/20060930/99776120/attachment.html