Conference turris::womannotes-v1

 Interesting point,I suggest that a network works best that is
moderated the least.I further suggest a network bill of rights
to protect those with minority views within a file.
 I hold these network truths to be self evident.Every noter has 
the right to state their point of view regardless of how many people
disagree with it.The moderators and/or majority can create no policy
that singles out any group for different treatment based on race,
sex,age etc.

                      George D.

    I am angry that there has been yet another string started
    to derail this notesfile from its stated purpose.  This is just
    another policy discussion about a rather trivial point, an issue
    common to all notesfiles but which has been brought up here for
    no reason other than that we seem to tolerate pointless discussions.
    This discussion will generate heat and no light, just like the previous
    note (also started by a man) about policy.
    
    It is not true that every noter has the right to state their point
    of view.  Sick jokes about cat-torturing get deleted from FELINES.
    Unresearched notes get deleted from GATEWAYS.  Irrelevant topics
    get deleted from many notesfiles.  
    
    At least half a dozen of those how posted to the last policy harangue
    opened their replies with regrets that such a discussion had come
    up yet again.  Earlier this year, we had a poem deleted because it 
    offended 1 man; by contrast, stopping a discussion for 6 unhappy
    noters seems an easier decision to make.  The discussion remains; 
    furthermore, anyone who might wish to continue the discussion can do 
    so by acquiring the necessary disk space for starting a separate 
    notesfile just for that discussion, and then inviting participants.
    
    I'm tired of this notesfile being criticized incessantly for form
    and content, and I resent, as usual, WOMANNOTES being singled out
    as "needing" to be more perfect than anywhere else.  If this is
    simply an exercise so that the women here can feel justified in
    making policy decisions, I'd suggest we start on a more positive
    step, rather than a critical one.  And just because WOMANNOTES exists
    doesn't mean it's appropriate to discuss every noting issue that
    may occur to anyone who posts here.

    A reminder of our recent history...
    
    o	An FWO note was posted, and much discussion ensued
    
    o	The moderators received a great deal of mail from men and
    	women asking us to stop process discussions on this topic
    
    o	After much thought, the moderators decided to give FWO/FGD
    	a 3-month trial period, after which time a vote would be held
    	for all registered members
    
    o	During the 3-month trial period, process discussions on
    	this particular topic were stopped
    
    o	During this 3-month trial period, the moderators received a
    	great deal of good feedback.  A number of old members who had
    	quit in disgust returned.  There was much active and lively
    	participation in many topics by men and women.  The moderators
    	received quite a bit of mail thanking us for stopping the endless
    	processing on the subject and appreciating the emphasis on topical
        discussions.
    
    o   In May, we opened up the vote, and process discussions again
    	soared.  The moderators began to receive a great deal of mail.  A
    	number of people complained, and asked the moderators to please stop
    	the discussions again as soon as the vote was held. 
             
    o	We did.     
    
    o	It is our desire to return to a lively, open, topic-oriented
        state of affairs.  Please help us do that.
    
    (Further discussions of the recent vote and the events leading up
    to it will be set hidden.)
        
    

    Re: .2
    
    >I resent, as usual, WOMANNOTES being singled out as "needing" to
    >be more perfect than anywhere else.
    
    I suspect that part of the problem is that WOMANNOTES is trying
    to be more perfect than most notes.  As Alfred points out, this
    note is more democratically run than most.
    
    Re: .0
    
    When the majority uses their power to muzzle the minority, it's
    frustrating as hell for the minority.  In one way, that's makes
    it even more surprising that such a thing should happen in WOMANNOTES:
    since women have traditionally been on the receiving end of this
    frustration, it's odd that they should do unto others as they hate
    to have done unto themselves.  On the other hand, it makes it less
    surprising:  women, feeling themselves in the minority, are more
    anxious to protect themselves in the situation where they are the
    majority; seeing themsevles as vulnerable, they react more harshly
    to perceived or potential threats.
    
    It's a problem of finding a good balance.  Harmony is nice, but
    taken to the extreme, it's dull.  Difference of opinion is stimulating,
    but taken to the extreme, it's stressful.  I don't know exactly
    where the balance should be; my opinion changes with my mood, so
    it's hardly reliable.  I suspect "it all depends" for a lot of people,
    as well.  It's a question of how willing or able you are to tolerate
    the stress caused by difference.

    Lisa,
    
    I really can emphasize with how you felt about this note. I think
    I have actually started the vast majority of the process notes in
    the past - based on mail and comments I have gotten. This has resulted
    in my having developed a great deal of frustration with such issues.
    However, Alfred wrote to the moderators and we suggested that he raise the
    issue in a note in the file.. I trust him that he is asking about
    this out of an honest desire to discuss that particular issue and
    with no intention to be regarded as 'trashing' or 'attacking' the
    file. He and I have also discussed what other conferences might
    be more appropriate for such a topic. 
    Bonnie

  The idea of discussing this and other file policy issues in a
more appropriate file,sounds like an excellent one.Lets do it.

                      George D.

    Reply 2 makes me wonder if this topic would have been rated
    acceptable as a topic if a woman had raised it?
    
    Other then MODERATORS, which I am not a member of, what other
    conference would be more appropriate then this? I know of no
    others where a topic could be closed just because some people
    don't want to talk about it any more. But then, hey, I've 
    never followed more then 100 conferences at a time.
    
~Cliff

    Alfred's note feels to me more like "meta-process" than process, since
    his question is not about the FWO issue itself, but rather about
    whether we should close down topics and if so under what conditions.
    
    In suggesting that Alfred raise the question here, I was very conscious
    of how aversive repeated and endless process discussions can become.
    But what else are we to do if we cannot discuss issues such as that?
    The only two alternatives I can see from here are either to quit
    growing altogether or switch to the usual moderator-knows-best model.
    Speaking for myself, both of those seem *much* more aversive than any
    number of process hassles, but perhaps I'm in the minority.
    
    						=maggie 

    Another notes file I particpate in has a topic "comments on
    this notes file" where people can enter things like, "Why can't
    I find the old version of this file" and "I think too many
    politically incorrect opinions are being suppressed" and so
    on. 
    
    Perhaps isolating these issues in one particular note would
    let those of us who want to discuss other issues continue doing
    so while the process discussions went on unhindered.
    
    Because it seems to be largely the same people arguing process all
    the time.
    
    --bonnie 

    I have raised this issue in the MODERATORS conference as well.
    Many of you are members there I know. If there is a non-restricted
    conference were this issue is better handled then WOMANNOTES
    please let me know. I really had high hopes for a good discussion
    here though. Oh well.
    
    			Alfred

    Alfred, I would still hope that a good discussion could be had here.
    It is an important topic and one that isn't likely to be decided
    anwhere else for this community and file.
    
    						=maggie

    Certainly the number of people involved in a discussion should not
    be any indication of validity or interest.  For one thing, there's
    no way of telling how many people are reading the discussion with
    avid interest.  Or how much silent support those readers have for
    what appears to be a minority position. 
    
    Since we've already decided there isn't any free speech at DEC or
    in notes files, it would be irrelevant to add that silencing a
    minority position violates all the principles of free speech.
    
    --bonnie

  I have been doing a lot of thinking on the subject of note files
and their policies.I hope this is not getting of the track to much,
but I feel it relates to the issue of policies themselves.

   What are the purposes of having note files? If we can agree on
the purposes we would have a better chance of agreeing on the 
means to achieve those purposes.
 
 I see note files as being a means of communication between large 
numbers of people.Communication on the network resembles communication
in everyday life,it encompasses a wide range of purposes,including
passing technical information,expressing ideas,expressing beliefs,
and expressing emotional feelings.
 I think that we have different files to help people more easily
find the type and focus of communication they are interested in.
 It is my perception that moderators have the responsibility to
assist the file they are moderating to achieves its purposes.
For this reason I feel that a very clear statement of the purposes
of a file should be stated in the introduction.
 I commend the moderators for having clarified the introduction at
least once that I know of.


 OK,now I want to talk about this file in particular and what I see 
as an underlying problem,that I believe is leading to all of the 
policy questions in this file.

 Here are two statements from the stated purpose in the 
introduction to this file.

   (1) This is our place to talk with one another. 
    ----------------------------------------------
   The meaning of this statement is very clear.The purpose of this file
  is for it to be a place where women can talk to other women.I support
  the desire and need for such a file.
 
   (2) While we also generally encourage and support participation by men in
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    this space, this file does not exist to meet men's needs for education
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    or sport. 
    --------
    Here is where I see the problem .If your purpose is to have a place for
   women to talk to other women,while at the same time you are generally
   supporting and encouraging men to participate,you have I believe a
   situation that will generate conflicts.My opinion is that files should
   be open or closed not somewhere in between,because there will be an
   eternal battle between those who see it half open and those that see it
   half closed.

    P.S. I realize that the ideas I expressed in (.1) are not realistic
   for operating a network and its note files.Moderation by some means
   is of course a necessity,but I stand by my statement that
   restrictions on any group because of race,sex,age etc. within a file
   that is open to everyone on the network is at best not a good idea.

                             George D.  

A few things that should be obvious by now:

-- the participants in this notesfile try to arrive at decisions by consensus.

-- we haven't reached consensus on these issues.

-- we aren't about to, either; since there are principled stands on both
   sides.

-- the participants apparently feel that the "process" discussion is
   a "topic of interest to women."

I suspect that, if and when the participants feel otherwise, the topic will
die out by itself.

Several other alternatives suggest themselves:

1. a decision by the moderators that this discussion may not continue.
   This hasn't worked before, and would signal rejection of the "consensus"
   goal.

2. participants holding the "majority opinion" making participants holding
   the "minority opinion" feel sufficiently unwelcome here that they stop
   participating.  This has already happened.

3. same as 2. but reverse "majority" and "minority"  I suspect that this,
   too, has already happened.

4. people deciding that they won't rise to the bait, and just ignoring
   the flamers of both persuasions until they run out of things to say.
   I suspect that this is unrealistic.

I admit that the above is rather cynical and pessimistic.

What feels more cynical is that the discussion reminds me of family fights
in relationships that are going sour: "you never clean out the sink when
you wash your hair."  "Oh yeah, well how come you never help with the dishes."
Arguing about everything but the issues.

Martin.

    . . .to not get involved (again).
    
    
    
    So I won't.
    
    :-D  Steve (front runner in the race for village foole. . .)

    Any topic that appears to be emotionally charged might be set
    nowrite for a twenty-four hour cooling-off period.  That does
    not represent a permanent decision.  Also the last reply can
    be used as a mail pointer to the moderator who decided to set
    up that cooling-off period if motivation needs to be discussed.
    
    ~--e--~  Eagles_Suggest_Moderators_Support_"maybe"_Decisions

             ..._Since_What_Was_Closed_May_Later_B_Re-Opened_...

    I think the author of the base note has brought up some good
    questions and made some good points.
    
    Personally I don't like to see discussions closed.  
    
    When it happens I start to wonder what was so uncomfortable
    about the discussion that it cannot be permitted to continue.
    Is the discussion hitting some people a little too close to home?
    Is it pointing out something that some folks would rather not face,
    yet alone admit to or recognize?
    
    Whatever it is, I'd much rather see discussion encouraged.
     

    Well, in most notefiles, the reason for closing a discussion
    is most likely to be that one person (or two) is dogmatically,
    and at great length, holding to a particular position, and not
    all the efforts of every reasonable person in the notefile can
    pry up that thick skull enough to let in a little light.
    
    Other common reasons are that the discussion has wandered too far
    from the point of the notefile (let alone the base note) to be
    pertinent, or it has taken a turn that leads it naturally into
    another conference.
    
    						Ann B.

�   Should power be used to close debate in topics that are either
�   'settled', or unpopular? Or should debate continue as long as
�   individuals have new things to say or new arguments to present?

    I realise that there was a certain amount of steam that probably
    needed to be discharged around this topic, but as we're now up
    to .20, could we get refocussed around the issue that Alfred
    raised (see above)?
    
    To paraphrase Alfred in a more pointed way:  should we --Bonnie,
    Holly, Liz, and I-- close down topics in this file that still have
    some sort of life in them, even if it might only be pathological
    life?  If never, then why not?  If sometimes, then when and why and
    what should trigger our action? 
                                    
    						=maggie

    (1)  IS the topic of interest to most women?  NO = CLOSE IT !
    (2)  ARE some/most replies making many women angry = CLOSE IT !
    
    (3)  If "the community consensus" is that it should continue
       ... you can always re-open it with explanations or guide-
    lines on how the moderators intend to deal with errant entries.
    (one can always "set hidden" just those entries which they feel
    do not contribute to the central topic under discussion.
    
    ~--e--~  Eagles_Would_Move_Nonsense_Replies_2_a_Graffitti_Topic

    I think we need to distinguish between the general case, and the
    case where, in this notesfile anyway, we have put an issue to vote
    and decided it democratically.
    
    In political life, you can sit around and do post-mortems on an
    election for as long as you like.  In my mind, though, the right thing
    to do is get on with one's next steps.  If what was voted on turns out
    to be especially bad or wrong, steps can be taken later to correct
    the situation after people have lived with it for a while.
    
    Holly 

    re: .22	with all due respect, Holly ...

    It appears this topic intends to discuss a more assertive role
    for moderators than simply asking for a vote by the community.

    Assume an angry male enters frequent base-notes and replies of
    the general form "women are bad/evil/lazy because/for example"
    and clearly the =womannotes= community finds them distracting.
    
    ~--e--~  Eagles_Trust_Moderators_2_B_More_Assertive_+_Protective
             ..._and_Suggest_This_Topic_Is_About_Firmer_Moderation_!

    �   Should power be used to close debate in topics that are either
    �   'settled', or unpopular?
     
    I think the only topics that can be considered 'settled' are 'voting'
    topics, and ones that are clearly non-sequiters. Topics that are
    clearly becoming purely argumentative, beligerent, and repetative
    should be closed for a period of time for 'cooling off'.
    I don't think a topic should be closed simply because people are
    'tired' of it.               
    
    � Or should debate continue as long as
    � individuals have new things to say or new arguments to present?
                                 
      The key here is "new", as long as _new_ things are being said (and
    they are within the bounds of decorum) I don't see any reason to
    close a topic.                          
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /

    RE: .22 How can a decision be ruled a mistake if debate on it
    is closed? Yes, people can still believe it has turned out poor
    but if no one can say so how will it get changed? That is the
    problem with closing debate after a vote.
    
    RE: .23 Actually I had less moderation (actions by moderators)
    in mind rather then more or stronger moderation. I am a firm
    believer that more conferences are ruined by too much moderation
    then are ruined by too little. There is a balance, highly dependent
    on the character of the membership of the conference, to be reached.
    There are no firm rules of thumb but the less moderators have to
    do to enforce rules the smoother conferences seem to run. You can
    argue that I have that backwards but I believe it works both ways.
    
    Too much moderation can upset the balance. I've seen it happen
    time and again.

    		Alfred _the_other_Thompson_

    ... a constant problem for women is the balance of power ...
    between not having the power to control discussion in this
    conference and over-control to the point where discussion
    becomes formal debate and then maybe even ceases altogether.

    The feeling for the last year has been that some men define
    the agenda for women by domination of the conference.  Even
    some women find other women tend to "dominate" discussions.
    Isn't this topic about the moderator process of control of
    the conference by closing some discussions sometimes in order
    to allow cooling-off intervals and to keep the content of
    the conference within the bounds dictated by good judgement?
    
   /~~e~~\  Eagles_Still_Live_With_the_Aftermath_of_a_Trashnoter_!

    re:.21
    
    �(1)  IS the topic of interest to most women?  NO = CLOSE IT !�
    
    OK, so what if it's of interest to "many" women, but not "most"
    women? Should it be closed?
    
    OK, so what if it's of interest to "some" women, but not "most"
    or "many" women? Should it be closed?
    
    My answer to both would be "Of course not."
    
    There are many topics in many conferences that are not of interest
    to most of the contributors to that conference. In some cases, they
    are of interest only to the person who started it. That doesn't
    mean they aren't valid topics for the conference and shouldn't be
    left open.
    
    --- jerry

    --- jerry,

    Let's assume that something about the start or growth of a topic
    has caused moderators to see it as negative within this vaxnote!

    Let's further assume that it is negative enough to raise some
    doubt about closing it and the moderators decide to close it.

    This is a reversible decision and the process might be to allow
    a moderator to close a topic with a final reply that suggests to
    whom to send mail if you disagree with the closure decision.

   ~--e--~  Eagles_See_Decisive_(Reversible)_Action_As_a_Powerful_Tool

    re:.28
    
    That's a good point, but it's one that is covered by your point
    2: "ARE some/most replies making many women angry".
    
    --- jerry