Theos-Talk Archives (August 2010 Message tt00113)

Dear Doss,

Congratulations for assuming the list. Though I must confess that I am kind of 
disappointed with you.  

There has been some questions regarding missing posts that you never addressed. 
Remaining silent on such question, will just drive members away from the forum. 
The forum will lost its credibility. It is a pity that things are taking this 
direction. 


Erica





________________________________
From: eldon_tucker <editor@-mZu9wAtaSXDi2HHm4AcHH-LNifCm8ebBLeYN1zYPqk2LlpDQ2stRLutzV8qIPxxQ8fCMX71OEIpAVE.yahoo.invalid>
To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sun, August 8, 2010 8:44:02 PM
Subject: theos-talk I've retired and Ramadoss is doing the work

  
Hi Everyone,

Last year, I enlisted Ramadoss to help with the administrative functions of 
theos-talk, since I had less time to devote to it. We've seen him around since 
November 1995 on the predecessor list theos-l and then on theos-talk when it was 
started.

In July, I fully turned over the list to his management. Currently, he is the 
only list owner, and I am a regular subscriber to the list. Over the past year, 
he has been on a learning curve, so there's always the change an occasional 
mistake made be made, but I'm confident that he has the best of intentions and 
is a dedicated advocate of free speech.

I'll comment on the current policy of the list, which should still be in effect 
until differing circumstances arise and Ramadoss decides in his best judgment 
that it's time for change.

New subscribers start off as moderated, but they get an initial email that tells 
them the moderation will be in effect only for a short while, during which they 
can read and observe the operation of the list. If they make an initial 
inappropriate message or turn out to be a spammer, they can be filtered out at 
that point. They're still free to post to the list, but their postings will be 
reviewed and they may possibly get feedback on them before the postings go out. 
Previous subscribers would be exempt from this; their subscription requests 
would be recognized and they would be unmoderated right away.

When a new subscriber is ready to fully participate, they're asked to post to 
the list a description of who they are and what their background is. This is 
because the only cause for removal, apart from troll-like behavior where the 
list is flooded with messages and many people are offended and driven off, is to 
pretend to be someone else on the list. The only exception would be if someone 
lived in a country where if they fully identified themselves, they might be 
subject to persecution, in which case they could use a pseudonym if they just 
explained that to the list owner.

Any subject relevant to theosophical inquiry is open for discussion, but 
spamming, flooding the list with unrelated content, or otherwise trying to take 
over the list for some other purpose would be unacceptable. If a thread is 
repetitive, inflammatory, and only serving to anger people, and complaints are 
being received, it's up to the best judgment of the person managing the list to 
change the subject or end the stuck discussion. Personal emails to the 
participants may be appropriate, but if some individuals won't respond, 
temporarily putting them on moderated status may be appropriate until they stop 
posting on the tread. This is not to say that the same issues may not arise 
again in the future in some other discussion, but sometimes it's necessary to 
say, "Enough, let's move on." The persons wanting to get in the last word on the 
subject may be unhappy if they're the ones told to move on, but there's no point 
in any discussion where everyone equally gets the last word.

If there is something going on and someone wants to know what's really 
happening, the most accurate approach is to get information from the source. 
With Skype, it's possible to call anyone in the world for free (if they have 
Skype) or inexpensively if they don't. There's no excuse for someone not to 
simply clarify things by getting in touch with Ramadoss directly. I'm confident 
that he's operating with the best of intentions. The only thing he may be guilty 
of is having too strong an opinion on issues regarding theosophical politics, 
but I don't think that a participant should think that he or she isn't given a 
fair chance to share their differencing views because of that. 


Which the exception of what I've mentioned â newbie moderation until they're 
identified themselves and temporary moderation of a participant if he or she 
won't stop on a thread that has been closed for further discussion by the list 
owner â I don't believe there are any existing controls, and these two controls 
are necessary on any functional list that wants to preserve free inquiry.

Any questions about the operation of the list should be directed to Ramadoss. I 
wish him success in his role as list owner, and hope that everyone will help him 
as he completes his learning curve and comes to do an excellent job at keeping 
the list free and fully functional.

Eldon


 

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