Conference 7.286::digital

    RE:.0
    
    	DTL no longer works for DEC. 
    
    							mike

>    	DTL no longer works for DEC. 

    I know ! Is that all you have to say ?
        
    k moeller

    Re .2:
    
    Well, I for one miss him.
    
    re .0:
    
    True, though 1.0 was written before 1.11.  Conditions change or
    refine.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

Use common sense.  Write what you want.  But don't write something, which, if
presented in court, could cause us to lose a lawsuit involving a competitor.

/john

Message-class: DECMAIL-MS
From:	NAME: SCHWARTZ
	INITLS: ED
	FUNC: LAW
	ADDR: MSO/M6
	TEL: 223-5500 <4232@DECMAIL@CORMTS@CORE>
Posted-date: 31-Jul-1987
Subject: WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS

To:	See Below

  
 The practice of preventive law - helping Digital avoid costly legal 
 problems - is an important element of the Law Department's function.  As 
 part of that effort, I am providing this brief reminder about the legal 
 risks that can be created when employees are careless about the content of 
 their written communications.
 
 Digital's growth and corporate success make it an increasingly attractive 
 target for litigation.  Over the past several years, the Company has been 
 involved in significant securities, patent, antitrust and product cases, 
 and we must recognize that the potential for additional litigation is 
 always present.  The pretrial discovery process in such cases allows our 
 adversaries wide latitude to request the production of internal Digital 
 documents in their search for evidence to support their claims.    
 
 Not everyone appreciates that even documents marked as "Company 
 Confidential" or "Internal Use Only" are subject to being produced to an 
 adversary in litigation.  In fact, nearly every document that is written by 
 a Digital employee is capable of being introduced into evidence at a trial.  
 
 If documents are not carefully written and are capable of being 
 misconstrued, they may significantly increase the cost and risk of 
 litigation.  In some circumstances, an employee's uninformed statement 
 about the reasons for a corporate practice or decision could even be held 
 to be an admission of corporate liability.  It is, therefore, very 
 important that everyone takes care to avoid inaccurate, misleading, 
 speculative, emotional or overzealous statements in whatever documents they 
 create. 
 
 There are several publications which give our employees guidelines in this 
 area, including DEC Standard 197-0, Legal Requirements and Guidelines for 
 Digital Publications and Software and Digital's U.S. Antitrust Compliance 
 Guide.  In addition, however, all employees should remember the following 
 general rules for careful writing:
  
   o Be accurate, clear and concise and avoid speculation, generalization 
     or exaggeration;
  
   o Accentuate the positive aspects of programs, technologies and 
     products for our customers and avoid speculation about their 
     potential impact on customers or competitors;	
  
   o Never draw conclusions about the legality of the Company's policies 
     or practices or our liability to a third party;
  
   o Avoid statements that could be misconstrued to suggest an intent to 
     injure any competitor, or to dominate or control any customer or 
     market; and
  
   o Remember that any document relevant to an issue in litigation may be 
     produced to the opposition and used at trial.
  
 This memorandum was drafted for a broad audience, and I suggest that it 
 be distributed throughout your organization.

 		  
[Distribution list removed]

    RE: .2
    
    You didn't lead me to believe you knew that in your original topic.
    So, yes, that's all I have to say.
    
    Back to the original topic.
    
    							mike
    
    

    To further the "what not to do", don't NOTE anything that you wouldn't
    write in a memo (and not the Ollie North kind, either). And don't NOTE
    anything about anyone else that you wouldn't want to read about
    yourself. 
    
    I believe the "don't" list is much shorter that the "can do" list.

I think that this topic is important enough to discuss seriously. [maybe
    the authors of the short-shots could delete those?]
    
    RE: .0 What can we discuss - There is a difference between

        > -< Employee Statements as Evidence of Corporate Intent >-
	>...
        >speculation by employees about the reasons for Digital's practices

    	and
    
   "... discussion of Digital's policies and practices...?
           
    First note that we are talking about COMPETITIVE PRACTICES AND POLICIES
    and HIRING DECISIONS not about internal administrative policies. [Yes?]
    
    Therefore you may discuss the relative merits of the policies
    and practices but you must not speculate on nor reveal their intent.
    
    An example of a "bad" statement would be "... price the xyzzy01
    to drive the FooBaa Corp. out of the customer site!" Another one
    would be "...keep the flubbus closed so that others can not...".
    
    
    RE: 1.11 "internal documents are Discoverable" - we need to police
    those internal documents regularly to discover any bogus ones planted
    by [highly unlikely] disgruntled employees or [more likely] by
    misinformed employees.  The response would be to reply with
    corrections [not to "shred" them :-) ].
    
    	Rick
    	Merrill
    
    
    

    Re a few back; but what can we note about?  If we have a gripe about
    something, is it legal/possible/frugal/etc to state that gripe in
    a public forum such as NOTES to get other's opinions?  I'm not talking
    about trade secrets or unannounced products which are obviously
    taboo, but in many conferences such as this one, questions/problems/
    and yes, *gripes* about something.  And how about something that
    does not involve a competitor, but *could* involve some personnel
    thing if someone gripes about a particular group who is not following
    the normal Digital "do the right thing" attitude?
    
    My reason for asking is that I'm probably on the fringes as far
    as this particular item, not so much from my entries in here, but
    from some of the less-than-tactfull comments I've made in the
    DECWORLD_87 notesfile.
    
    So back to the original question, what are the opinions on this?
    
    Jon

    I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that NOTES have had their
    day. 
    
    I made a comment in another conference recently that I felt that
    due to these legal overtones people no longer told the truth in
    NOTES. The moderator of the conference first set my note hidden
    and then VAXmailed me to say that I shouldn't accuse the noting
    community of lying, and furthermore to avoid unfounded allegations
    and 'inappropriate heat'. That is, the moderator was stricly adhering
    to the chilly legal guidelines laid out in 1.11 and others. I made
    the point that I'd said 'no longer told the truth' and that in a
    court of law (since we were now splitting hairs anyhow) that it
    is called 'lying by omission'. 
    
    So if you know something, short of disclosing unannounced product, 
    and you see a subject raised in a conference, and you press 'next
    note' because you're afraid to tell what you know, you are lying
    by omission. And there's been a LOT of nonparticipation in these
    conferences lately.. very little true and free exchange of ideas
    and (GxD forbid) opinions (unfounded allegations?).
    
    there's more, but why belabor it. 
    
    karl moeller sws tucson az

    You are of course free to express any idea you wish, provided that
    is isn't negative, controversial, disloyal, or distasteful to the
    moderator of the conference.
    
    And bear in mind that if any part of your idea could be construed
    (in or out of context) to be harmful to the best interests of the
    Company (whatever those interests are) then you could be subject
    to disciplinary action (as opposed to reprisals, which are illegal).
    
    And you thought Russia was bad?

    Gee, .11, I think that that's taking a terribly negative view of
    things :-).  But I'm not a moderator, so you're still safe.
    
    In any case, I try to use one policy whether I'm NOTEing, MAILing,
    or speaking.  I try to think before I express myself, keep my
    expression to myself if it doesn't contribute something to the
    discourse, and don't say anything I wouldn't say in front of my
    mother, my father, my boss, or Ken Olsen himself.
    
    As I've said elsewhere, those who know you know that the third part
    of my policy doesn't limit me very much, but I've rarely gotten into
    real trouble using this philosophy.  That's not to say that everybody
    likes me, but that's okay too.
    
                                            Atlant

    re: .11
    
    I also believe that one should think before one NOTEs, just as one
    should think before he speaks, etc.  But how far is one expected
    to carry this ideal?
    
    If I had to consider every word I uttered in conversation by the
    same criteria as every word I write in a memo to my boss, then I
    think I would quickly become estranged from just about any normal
    conversation.  People have learned to accept and adjust to those
    annoying little blunders, stupid remarks, and so forth.
    
    Why is the written word any different?  Because of archaic laws
    that date from the middle ages, where the written word was produced
    only at great effort and expense.  If it was written, it was assumed
    that *someone* was serious about the content.
    
    Today, things have moved on from that standard.  The written word
    is just about as easily generated as the spoken word, and this company
    is among those who are trying to make it even easier.  The voicewriter
    of the future has arrived, it just hasn't been packaged well enough yet.
    
    So the real question is, will the laws and customs change?  Or will
    we be followed relentlessy by an omnipresent machine that will record
    our every interaction with other human beings, so that someone may
    at some future time take advantage of our mistakes ...

    As a Moderator of a few conferences, including this one, I tend toward
    the belief that every Digital employee should count themselves
    responsible for their actions and should acquit themselves accordingly.
    
    This means no phone calls to Charlie Matco, no worldwide  pre-         
    announcements in any fashion, via Notes, Mail or mouth.
    
    After that, it's common sense, hopefully.
    
    As a general rule, if you have doubts about what you are writing, DON'T
    DO IT! Consult with whoever told you and/or your friendly local
    Manager.
    
    `{o}^{o}'

�>FRGATE::DTL                                  10 lines   2-MAR-1985 15:54
�>And remember, noone has never been fired out of DEC because he/she tells what 
�>he/she thinks.
�>Didier, moderator.
�
�   No, but you might be because of what you TYPE.
    
    	Ironically, Didier was was to first one to allegedly be fired
    	for what he wrote in a Notesfile. Sure, there was much more
    	to it, but that's what did him in. If you miss Didier, come
    	and have lunch in the Mykonos here is Valbonne some day! He
    	is a regular there (or at least used to be. I haven't been 
    	there lately because the food went fro bad to worse and the
    	prices from moderate to high.)
    
    Hein.

    OK, I give up.  This has to be the tenth notesfile I've seen some
    reference to "DTL" being fired for something he wrote in a note.
    The reason is never stated - it's as if it were common knowledge.
    
    What, pray tell, did he write?

    Re .16
    
    It could be that my saying what he wrote could cause the same problem
    as he had.....
    
    
    I'll send you some mail (unless else someone wants to write up his
    "offence").
    
    Jc

    I can't be sure the note being referred to is the same one I'm thinking
    about, but here is my recollection:
    
    Didier got a traffic ticket in Merrimack, NH.  In a conference he
    asked what he should do about it, and unfortunately used the word
    "fix".  In English, with reference to traffic tickets, that word
    has a very negative connotation.  Didier's native language is not
    English, so I took his question at face value: what does one do
    in Merrimack with a traffic ticket?  I've lived in Merrimack for
    17 years, and I wouldn't know what to do with a traffic ticket,
    so I can understand that someone recently arrived from another culture
    might not know what to do.
    
    Whatever Didier's intent, some people put the worst interpretation
    on what he wrote, and he ended up departing.
    
    Moral: watch your words, particularly when using a foreign language.
        John Sauter

    
    This is a rathole. Fly to Nice and see DTL in Valbonne sometime
    to get the story.
    
    I won't set this note /nowrite, but will set hidden and request
    the author to delete any further references to DTL.
    
    Andy
    
    Co-Mod.

    re: .19
    
    Why is this situation/topic considered a "rathole"?  If there is
    the possibility of learning from someone else's mistakes, why should
    we be denied the opportunity to know the facts?
    
    Most of the employee acts that would precipitate disciplinary action
    are spelled out concisely in the P&P manual.  You steal from the
    Company, or fellow workers, and you get fired.  You drink on the
    job, or take drugs, and you get fired.  You harass a coworker, or
    customer for that matter, and you get fired.
    
    As far as the use of NOTES is concerned however,  the P&P manual,
    and other statements from management start to get sort of vague.
    The words "inappropriate" and "contrary to Company interests"
    start showing up with regularity.  These are terms with a wide
    variety of interpretations, and I for one would not like to stake
    my job and career on how the terms and circumstances get interpreted
    on any particular day.
    
    Far better, in my opinion, would be to completely prohibit the use
    of NOTES and other printed conversational methods, than to have
    these inanimate tools cost some hapless fellow worker his job.
    
    Geoff Unland

    re .20:  I am not a moderator of this conference (these days), but let
    me offer my opinion.  The discussion of what might be the "facts"
    surrounding the departure of a former employee could degenerate into a
    rathole, particularly as it is difficult to determine what all the
    facts were. This case is part folklore, and only part fact, and I don't
    wish to dwell on it. 

    What can we learn from the example, whatever the facts be? 

    Beware of cultural differences.  Some subjects are not mentionable in
    public, and this varies from one culture to the next. 

    You have the right to remain silent.  Anything you "note" can be used
    against you.  You are not obligated to communicate everything in your
    head to notes, nor everything you experience. 

    One bad note is not grounds for dismissal, unless it is obviously a
    dismissable offense.  Notes aside, there are other factors that can
    predict how long you stay at your job.  Those, but not Notes alone, are
    what you should be learning from. 
    
  --Simon
    

    RE: .21 - Very well put Simon.... thank-you!

>I won't set this note /nowrite, but will set hidden and request
>the author to delete any further references to XXX. 
>Andy Co-Mod.

    We've come a LONG way, baby. From fairly free and open discussions
    regarding life and work at Digital all the way to ... what ?
    
    paranoid moderation ? or -moderators ?
    
    self-censorship in the guise of 'common sense' ?
    
    futile railing against the 'new DEC' ?
    
    "I ain't blind and I don't like what I think I see" -
       'Taking it To the Streets', Doobie Brothers
    
    k moeller

    RE: .23
    
    	Please try to understand Mr. Moeller, that moderation of a 
    	notes conference is not an easy task. For example, a moderator
    	is charged with the duty of making sure that anything written
    	in a notes conference is "ok" in the eyes of those who make
    	the rules. If a moderator chooses to ignore that fact then
    	that moderator better be prepared to take the heat.
    
    	Life and work EVERYWHERE has changed. Things aren't as simple
    	as they were ANYWHERE today.. That is just the fact of our
    	society and not Digital. Sure, I'm a DECcie and not a "Digital
    	Employee" ad I don't want to see many aspects of the "old DEC"
    	change but change is always inevitable. How much we change
    	is up to us tho.
    
    	Please Mr. Moeller, try and give us moderators a break too..
    	We don't get paid for this and we DO try to do the best we
    	can at all times.. We are, after all, only human.
    
        $notes_conference = "SINGLES,SF,NETPARTY,etc.."
    
    				mike
				Moderator of 'notes_conference'

    re: .21
    
>   You have the right to remain silent.  Anything you "note" can be used
>   against you.  You are not obligated to communicate everything in your
>   head to notes, nor everything you experience. 

    My point also.  NOTES has been touted both internally and externally
    as a "revolutionary" method of communicating in the electronic world,
    but the "real world" may end up negating any advantages that NOTES
    may have had over conventional memos, e-mail, etc.

    I even have more comments on the subject, but as they might end
    up being termed as "remarks on the marketability of a Digital
    product", and henceforth taboo under the rules of notesfiles,
    I will reserve them for private mail.
    
    Geoff Unland
    

>	For example, a moderator
>    	is charged with the duty of making sure that anything written
>    	in a notes conference is "ok" in the eyes of those who make
>    	the rules.
    
"Those who make the rules"?  I thought they were us.
    
>       How much we change is up to us tho.

That's what I thought.
    							Larry

    Those who make the rules are not "us". Theye are the folks who write
    the P&P manual. Please see Section 6.54 of your P&P manual for the
    latest rules that apply to use of Digitals network.

  Re:  < Note 355.25 by AUSTIN::UNLAND >
>>         I even have more comments on the subject, but as they might end
>>    up being termed as "remarks on the marketability of a Digital
>>    product", and henceforth taboo under the rules of notesfiles,
>>    I will reserve them for private mail.

    I suspect that you're being sarcastic, but you've actually touched
    on the truth!  A notesfile is no different from a newspaper; you
    are free to say whatever you like, but your rights end where another's
    begin.  That is, you should not say anything that is:
          - known to be not true
          - purposely injurious to another
          - showing malice or bias
    
    Also bear in mind that no matter how open Digital is, this
    notesfile (and all others) is hosted on a computer owned by 
    Digital, accessed by a network owned by Digital.  Thus, like it
    or not, Digital is responsible for *everything* contained in all
    notesfiles.
    
    Bruce

This is a reply to the general topic. I've been following the notes-files
for some time and I've had numerous times when I really wanted to reply,
but held off for any number of reasons.

I'm concerned about the type of "railing" as it has been said, about this
company and the practices etc..... then again I look at it another way
and say its okay,  that its healthy.  

If there are those of you that have negative thoughts on the company as a
whole, you should understand that we are a community of individuals trying
our best to what we think is right! I think this company allows us more
opportunity to do that. We are human and we do make mistakes. There are 
those in this company that do not do as well as others - just like in the
real world outside this company. My wife is currently involved in a merger
takeover - in a totally different industry. The new owners - which are
very well respected in the community and by their customers,  are the pits.
There is no communication whats so ever - good or bad. I've been here for
10 years or so, and have told my share of stories at home. The one comment
that shes mentioned to me recently that I think applies to this whole
notes-file is this.... " You people at DEC are spoiled - you think you're 
bad because your always talking about your problems. Your no different
from anyone else - except that you demand the right to judge each other."


People - think about a world that doesn't allow the right to think diffently.

Someone did a book on it a while back - who says 1984 has happened?


These are just a few rambling comments - not ment to sting anyone or praise
them. Just observations and comments. I am not a very intellient man or an
articulate one, but I believe that every one needs a philosophy for life.
Some say thats part of the maturing process - I won't judge that. But our
corporate life depends on our business success. We have time on our hands 
to be philosophical because we've been successful at our business. I plan to
keep my priorities in order - in order that I don't have to be 100% 
philosophical and 0% on work.


After all there really is no freedom or lack of it unless we believe it so!


Mike.

    I have been following this notesfile for quite awhile now,
    and I am getting quite concerned by what seems to me to be
    a rather large shift in moderation-style in the very recent past.
    I am a software specialist in the field - Santa Clara, to be exact;
    which isn't important, except in that I am a continent away from
    "Dec-central".  I feel that I must work extra hard to pick up on,
    and keep in touch with dec culture.  It just doesn't exist in the
    same way out here.  That is why some of us get panicky when we see
    our "life-line" being threatened. I need to know what's going on
    in Digital, and this has been the best source for that up to now.
    That doesn't mean just the good things. If you want a conference
    restricted to the good stuff, you might as well rename it "pollyana".
    It also doesn't mean endless b&tching and moaning about all the
    things that didn't go right for you; I need a balanced picture.
    
    I do appreciate the job that the moderators are doing in a big way!
    I know that its not easy to keep up with a conference of this size
    in your spare time, and to coordinate the efforts of several
    co-moderators.  Without your efforts, I would be out in the cold.
    And I do recognize the need to protect company-confidential
    information, as it is vital to the continuation of our livelyhood.
    
    I do not agree with the explanation that it is all being done to
    "make sure anything written in a notes conference is 'ok' in the
    eyes of those who make the rules".  Witness the number of topics
    set/hidden/nowrite just within the last couple of weeks with comments
    like "this belongs in SOAPBOX".  Maybe it does. I will never know,
    because I was prevented from seeing it.  On the other hand, even
    if it does not apply exclusively to Dec, maybe it has significant
    impact as an issue that we have to deal with as Dec employees...
    maybe the discussion could be turned to a productive resolution
    of the issues, which would benefit all of us...  Maybe in among
    the flames about dealing with this or that beaurocratic department,
    we will get an insight on an approach that might work...
    
    I guess what I'm trying to say is to the moderators: keep up the
    good work, but PLEASE take it easy and don't set precedents that
    will hamstring NOTES forever, and to my fellow noters: please have
    the maturity and judgement not to force such an action.
    
    Thanks for listening,
    Kevin
    

    Re: .30
    
    Thanks for your support.  
    
>>    I guess what I'm trying to say is to the moderators: keep up the
>>    good work, but PLEASE take it easy and don't set precedents that
>>    will hamstring NOTES forever, and to my fellow noters: please have
>>    the maturity and judgement not to force such an action.
       
    The precendents have already been set; witness note 111.  What I
    do as a moderator is similar to what I do as a supervisor - monitor,
    guide, and occasionally control.  This conference, as all conferences,
    has a purpose and a scope.  It is the moderators' job to maintain
    these, and also to monitor the content of individual entries.  We
    have assumed a certain amount of responsibility to become moderators
    - if anything goes wrong, it is our necks on the line as much as
    the author of a "bad note".
    
    Noone has disagreed with the *content* of most of the hidden notes,
    just their appropriateness in this conference.  It would bepas
    if people started putting classifieds or personals here or started
    discussing Australian rules football.  It's not "illegal", just
    in the wrong place.  These notes are hidden just to avoid ratholes.
    
    Bruce

    RE: .-1	"These notes are hidden just to avoid ratholes."
    
    If you want to just avoid ratholes, why not make your
    comments and then set the note NOWRITE.  This alleviates
    readers' curiosity about the topic as well as preventing
    another person from subsequently bringing up the same topic.

    Yes but it also lessen's the implied degree of
    omniscience that some moderators feel is necessary
    to maintain their ego's.

    

    note 355.33 is purposely left unhidden.

    RE: .30
�   I guess what I'm trying to say is to the moderators: keep up the
�    good work, but PLEASE take it easy and don't set precedents that
�    will hamstring NOTES forever, and to my fellow noters: please have
�    the maturity and judgement not to force such an action.

    
    	On the contrary, we do our best NOT to set precedents. Some
    of us try very hard to keep things status quo. We're Noters too
    and don't want to see what has become a way of life in DEC dissappear.
    Now don't read into that as "Oh God, noting is going away! Foley
    said so!" or ANYTHING like that.. It's NOT. We just try to keep
    things status quo or better.
    
    	"Hamstring NOTES".. Naaaa.. Just those noters who try to do that..
    	:-)
    
    							mike

       Any conference is only what its participants make of it; the
       content and scope of the conference is set by those who contribute
       to it.  Inevitably, when one or more moderators try (for whatever
       benevolent/paternalistic/maternalistic reasons) to assume this
       function, the conference devolves into a discussion of whether the
       moderators are overstepping their bounds. 
       
       Except in those cases where the content of a note is an obvious
       problem (e.g., inappropriate disclosure of information or ethnic
       slurs), it is the readership of a conference, not the moderators,
       that ought to be the agency to either accept or hoot down a topic. 
       
       --Don

I strongly agree with .36. I have noticed quite a change in the way this 
conference is moderated. I have kept up-to-date on it for quite a while and
occasionally reply to something of interest. Its almost as if the moderators 
are trying to "out-moderate" each other. First I think there are too many 
moderators for this one conference (7 too many to be exact). Secondly, if the 
moderation techniques continue as thay have been, I'd like to make a motion 
that we have no moderators for this conference (this should light a few 
fires).

Jim

    While I have noticed that there has been a more cautious approach
    to censoring in this conference since the 'gang came into power'
    I cannot agree that it has been too terribly conservative.
    
    I suspect that they have censored some things that were not too
    far out of bounds.  However, it's one of those things where one
    must err a bit on the side of safety.
    
    I hope that the 'gang' can allow the conference to become a bit
    less censored but I'm still quite happy with it as it stands.
    
    I feel that having a group of moderators is an excellent approach
    in a conference as active as this one.  It makes it more likely
    that the virtual moderator can take action soon enough to do some
    good.  I am a moderator on a moderately busy conference and several
    times we have had bad notes which have not been caught soon enough
    for any moderator action to help other than to try and cool the
    flames.
    
    I hope that we can reduce the amount of moderator bashing that we
    do and get on with making Digital even better.
    
    Keeping the faith,
    
    Don

    Re: < Note 355.36 by CALLME::MR_TOPAZ > and several others...
    
�          ...  it is the readership of a conference, not the moderators,
�       that ought to be the agency to either accept or hoot down a topic. 

    In the words of a CC manager I know, "Anyone who belives this cost
    center is a democracy can start looking for another job."
    
    In Womannotes, the readership adopted a "Trashnotes" policy giving
    the moderators permission (as policy) to hide/delete any note they
    considered a "Trashnote".  The vote was over 70% in favor.
    
    Human_Relations ran without a moderator for some time before a certain
    well-known noter cried and screamed loudly that (s)he had a right to
    know who the moderator was, only to discover that there wasn't one.
    It now has three and though the file has been threatened with
    extinction at least once that I know of, it still survives, mostly
    through the intervention and hard work of the moderatores.
    
    I moderate THEATRE.  I never expected to have to hide a note there,
    but I got one the other day that I felt was questionable under company
    policy. It was hidden and re-worded by it's author at my request.
    
    In short, I don't tend to find the moderation in here excessive
    although I will admit to being an on-again, off-again reader of
    this file.
    					--Doug

    Speaking as "one" of the six moderators of this file, the following
    is the opinion of "me", and not the owner of the file :-)....
    
    First off, a few notes back said there were seven too many
    moderators...well, if that author had its way, this conference would
    be soapboxIV... which it isn't...
    
    I know I for one read topics late at night, whereas, I have only
    once set a reply to a topic hidden, and after consulting with the
    other moderators, let it stand, but we (as in another moderator)
    finally had to say something about the way the topic was headed.
    
    With six people moderating, this allows us (as the moderators) to
    know that this conference is looked at, checked over, and within
    the corporate guidelines, and the conference guidelines. When it
    is not, the "usual" course is to set something hidden, confer, and
    then decide.  All that takes time.  We have your best interest at
    heart also... If we didn't take the time, this conference could
    go the way of some other conferences (in the bit bucket)... Instead
    of bashing the six who try their hardest, if you have a gripe, use
    personal mail, and let us work with you to try to straighten out
    the situation as you see it, and as we see it. If you use the command
    send/members - the mail will go to all six of us. We will confer,
    and one of us will get back to you. Thats the luxury of having six,
    one of us will have the spare time to confer and get to you, I promise!
    
    I hope this helps clear up any question in your mind... if not,
    please feel free to send me mail at BUSY::KLEINBERGER, and I'll
    do my best to help clear what isn't...
    
    Gale
    co-moderator

    I think part of the problem - at least MINE - is that when I come
    across a note that has been set hidden or deleted I immediately
    think:
    
    1.  It MUST have been a GREAT note!
        
    2.  It MUST have exceeded somebody's truth quotient!
    
    3.  It MUST have been something "THEY" don't want discussed!
    
    Consequently, it usually is the one that piques the curiosity,
    particularly if there were a bunch of replies to a base note that
    got creamed.

    Since I never see the hidden notes before they get hidden I don't know
    whether or not I agree with the moderators about their choice of what
    stays and what goes, but I sure don't want their job.  And if having
    them excercise judgement means the difference between having this
    notes file and not having it...

    D 

    Normally, hidden notes make negative comments about an identifiable
    person or persons or make reference to an unannounced product.
    And usually, on edit, the same information can be discussed but
    the specifics can be masked.  No great mystery.
    
    grins,
    Marge

        Lots of people say "I never see the notes that are hidden before
        they are hidden". How do you know? Do you go back and make sure
        that every note you've read is still there and still visisble?
        
        The ones that are hidden before you see them are very obvious.
        The notes that are hidden or deleted after you see them take
        real effort to notice. The notes that get unhidden because the
        issue was resolved in their favor are similar. If you
        encountered it while it was hidden, it is marked as seen and
        unhiding it doesn't mark it as unseen, so you never see it
        unless you go back. If it was both hidden and unhidden and
        unhidden either before or after you encounter it you never know.
        
        JimB. 

RE: .43
Many issues that get hidden are replied to by people who haven't seen them
asking "Why was this hidden?" and therefore if you were a person who already
saw the hidden note before it was hidden, and then you saw the reply to
the hidden note asking why it was hidden, you would know what was said in
the hidden note. Got it? ;-)

        Yeh, I got it. But I still don't understand why they hid my
        note. 
        
        JimB.

    re .30 and others:
    
    Thanks for the vote of confidence. DIGITAL is such a popular conference
    that moderating it is not an easy task. In particular, from time
    to time a particularly hot topic arises and sometimes prompt action
    is necessary to maintain the conference on an even keel. From what
    I have seen, when a co-moderator has a concern about the wording
    of a note, they are prompt to notify the author of their concern
    and copy the other co-moderators. After an offline discussion, either
    the original is restored (/NOHIDE) or is rewritten by the author.
    I have seen no cases that the author complained about the questions.
    
    During most of August, I was on vacation, so was unable to read
    this conference for a period of about six weeks leading up to, during,
    and catching up from the vacation. I am very appreciative of the
    quality of the moderating during my absence. During these six weeks,
    some 700 notes were added to the conference, averaging over 25 per
    working day! As the "owner" of the conference, I feel a special
    responsibility to the Corporation for adhering to the formal policies
    of computer usage--I am very pleased with the way others have covered
    when my attention was on vacation (or my regular job).
    
    This conference is also very popular for readers. During the day,
    there are normally over 20 links into the conference. Assuming a
    ten minute duration (to read those 25 notes a day!), that means
    well over 1000 users a day are reading this conference. It is in
    all of our interests that all authors recognize that their writing
    is being read by such a large audience. Although we never censor
    the thoughts, we occasionally will suggest improvements to help
    the readers. This is especially true if the topic is diverging into
    an area (or tone) more appropriate to another conference. We
    occasionally move a topic back as a reply if someone mistypes the
    command.
    
    This conference has a long, and somewhat varied history. I hope
    that it continues to mature along with the Corporation as we learn
    how to communicate via this new medium. Some of its discussions
    have directly led to improvements in training and documentation.
    Others led to improvements in the policy on computer use. We invite
    you all to continue to participate.