me thinks one wants to put order to chaos...do I sense the static wanting to
control the dynamic...bethatasitmay, all are good suggestion...
----- Original Message -----
From: <oisin@o-connell.net>
To: <moq_focus@moq.org>
Sent: Saturday, December 22, 2001 9:59 PM
Subject: MF Points and Principles
> Howdy.
>
> I have not downloaded any posts for over a week, trying to catch up on
posts
> from the previous three, God help me.
>
> Some observations first, and then some suggestions if I may, please:
>
> 1.) Not everyone on the planet has flat-rate ISP access. Emailing for us
> barbarians is done in batches, not in real time. The chatty nature of MD
and
> it's tendency for email inflation, is thus a serious problem for the
> intellectual digestion and interaction of us poor plebs.
> 2.) Not everyone, believe it or not, necessarily even knows what the hell
> you old farts are always talking about, even if we have read ZatAMM and
Lila
> <Thpthhht!>
> 3.) Even if we were hermits, we would still not have enough time to
> research the archives properly. Most of us are not hermits ("we have jobs,
> you hippies!"), and barely have enough time to READ the current emails,
let
> alone past ones.
> 4.) Even if we had the time to read the archives - and this is not to
> disparage the impressive archives - the dynamic, unmoderated nature of MD
> means that the Subject titles are not always an accurate reflection of
what
> the emails/threads actually contain.
> 5.) The challenge with an unmoderated forum, is that everyone brings
their
> own expectations,
> a.) of MoQ,
> b.) of what the forum is there to achieve
> c.) of how the forum should proceed/operate
> With no clear way of how to resolve these issues
> 6.) Related to the above: in an unmoderated forum, there seems to be a
> slight tendency to "survival of the fittest", not on an intellectual, but
on
> a social level (and bordering on the Biological). I am referring to "macho
> flashing", insult inflation, bitchiness, hissy fits, cliquishness,
currying
> favour etc. In other words, an Intellectual forum is in danger of
> degenerating into a Social forum.
> 7.) Related to the above: Where are the women? Perhaps they are all off
> ironing instead of using computers, but methinks they are mostly put off
by
> repeated macho posturing and verbal scrums... Men-Only Quality? Maybe I
have
> not discerned them hidden in cryptic email-names, I don't need to know
> aliases, just a thought.
>
> Some suggestions/thoughts:
>
> A. The idea of lesser quantitites of higher-quality posts is favourable
(to
> moi). In this vein:
> i) One Big Forum. Moderated, or with some sort of "Rules of Order", or
> both
> ii) 2 forums (as now), one is completely open (as MD is now), but the
> second is actively, as opposed to passively, chaired/moderated. Some
> examples:
> 1) A chairperson (can be rotating) receives suggestions, but s/he
picks
> the topic. Democracy is fine when it is not simply majoritarianism.
Perhaps
> the current system of voting is alienating to those whose topics 'don't
get
> in' that month. Perhaps the feeling is that it is not simply a topic for
> discussion that is being voted _on_, but rather the value of the topics
> themselves that are being decided socially. Once a topic 'wins', it seems
> the discussion stops... did someone say this already? Forgive me for any
> unwitting plagiarism. The sincerest form of flattery you know.
> 2) A chairperson drives the topic by making statements/posing
questions.
> 3) More than one chairperson, and more than one topic. Chairs can be
> rotated by order, picked at random (lottery style), voted in.
> iii) 2 forums (as above), but one or more adopt a 'constitution' or
rules
> of procedure for the forum. A preexisting set of rules (eg Roberts rules
of
> order) or another compiled/suggested by members, could be adopted.
> iv) Even a participatory chairperson should be bound to encourage equal
> participation and provide equal opportunity to all members that conform
> properly to the forum rules.
>
> B. A FAQ or "For Dummies" fact sheet should be provided for Newbies, to
> familiarise us with wrinklies'/oldies' ideas/metaphysics etc.
> i) This could be done in conjuction with Members Bios, or seperately
(and
> allowing for anonymity) under philosophical headings
> ii) A format could be decided on how members present their info, this
> would include questions about their Metaphysical outlooks, attitudes
toward
> ethics etc.
> iii) Perhaps a web form-mail could be set up to aid the above?
> iv) Perhaps people could submit their metaphysics/ideas/essays this way
> for "peer review", so to speak?
> v) perhaps we can display in our member info, or on a links page, URLs
for
> philosophy/articles/info that we each think is important to our own
> arguments/worldviews. Or we can display a URL for our own webpages that
> display the above?
>
> C.) Regardless of how many lists there are, may I make a suggestion
> concerning Subject titles of posts, please?
> Could we institute some sort of system for this, that will allow
variation
> on a theme/thread, in an orderly and accurate fashion? What comes to mind
is
> the structure for URLs: "Domain/secondaryDirectory/WebPage".
> Could this be adapted to: "MainSubject/SecondaryTopic/MyIdea" etc. in the
> Subject of emails? Even if everything else remained the same, it could
> enhance the Quality experience of the discussion if we were able to zoom
in
> on those threads that were of particular interest to us personally, rather
> than having to wade through all of them all the time in the dynamic
deluge.
> For example, I personally would not need to read an email titled
> "Subject: Does MoQ suck?/No U suck/No YOU suck/No You BOTH suck/etc.".
> This systematic titling would allow for individual moderation.
>
> Perhaps the Focus list could use that kind of system. The MD list could
> still be Quality hovering over the waters of chaos, but the Focus list
would
> require people to follow such protocols... that would allow for the
dynamic
> of the MD, but with more order...
>
> D.) May I make the request please, that an official rule of protocol be
> adopted, where ad-hominem attacks are permitted only if they are
> sufficiently witty enough.
> A procedure could be instigated whereby if a majority votes that an
insult
> falls below acceptible levels of wit, the offending person shall
> thenceforward referred be to as "JACKASS" for a period of one month, as a
> requisite for remaining a member of the list. If there is more than one
> offender, there shall be a list of alternative names, such as SHMUCK,
> GOBSHITE, WEENY and broad selection of other, ethnically-diverse insults.
>
> Or maybe not. Never mind, doesn't matter.
>
> Thanks for your time, and Good night.
>
> Take care y'all.
>
> - Oisín
>
>
>
> MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:33 BST