[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [pct-l] Goodbye

At 05:57 AM 5/19/98 PDT, HkrTrash wrote:
>>Discussion is relatively empty if only one point of view is allowed 
>> (remember "Minds are like parachutes..."?).  Does our List Admin hold 
>> himself and Dave to the same standard that he holds BJ to?  If not, 
>> shouldn't a List Admin be more impartial than that?
>
>I dropped one other list a while back due to heavy handed list
administration,
>and now this makes #2.  This is the kind of stuff that most of us hike to get
>away from.  It is a shame when it follows us to a list that is supposed to
>allow us to air dissenting views and hold open disucussions about a subject
>that we all love.  
>Goodbye and Good Luck to all the class of '98.

Folks... this is just getting ridiculous.  People (not just Jim <HkrTrash>)
are jumping to conclusions all over the place!  I'm completely convinced
that ninty-nine percent of all the problems on a list like this are caused
by ASSUMING things about what other people MEAN.  For example, look at the
above:

>> (remember "Minds are like parachutes..."?).  Does our List Admin hold 
>> himself and Dave to the same standard that he holds BJ to?  If not, 

How do we know that Brick didn't send a message to Dave?  Nobody on the
list has said anything about it one way or the other.  The author (I've
lost exactly who) could be:

(1) asking a question
(2) using a rhetorical question to object to a possibility
(3) using a rhetorical question to protest something he or she thinks
    has actually happened.

I tend to lean to interpretation number two, but I can't really tell.

Now, look at:

>I dropped one other list a while back due to heavy handed list
administration,

Whoa! Has anyone actually been removed from PCT-L?  I'm not sure that
anyone has!  Score one for the assumptions!

There's a science fiction book I read many years ago where a huge,
floating, luxury "air liner" crashes because of a glitch.  A remotely
controlled vehicle was hooked up via a satellite relay instead of through a
direct connection.  The operator wasn't aware of the response delay caused
by the relay and lost control of the vehicle.  The vehicle crashed through
the deck, punctured one too many air bladders (shades of the Titanic) and
down went the liner.

Email conversations are a little that.  We write as if we are talking, but
all of the nuances (facial expressions, tone, etc.) of verbal conversation
are gone.  On top of that, feedback is delayed and, people being what they
are, an awful lot of assumptions get made.  Then folks get worked up about
what they ASSUME someone else meant, or did, or is going to do, and then
stuff like this happens.

When shit happens... like right about now... I think it would be awfully
easy for a list administration to say "the hell with this" and start
dropping people from the list.  After all, the administrators are doing
this for FUN, right?  And this isn't fun for anyone.  So I understand the
temptation, even though I don't think dropping people from the list is a
good idea.

Why?  I think there are a lot of "unanticipated consequences" to removing
people from a list like this.  The administrator, Brick in this case,
"knows" that he or she is a "reasonable" person... but nobody else does.
Remember the saying:

	Everyone out there is crazy except for you and me, and frankly
	I'm not so sure about you

What happens is that once an administrator starts dropping people, for
whatever reasons, people start thinking that they'll get dropped if they
say something the administrator doesn't like.  The administrator never
"gets" this, since the administrator "knows" that he or she is a
"reasonable" person.  Unfortunately, reasonable or not, people feel this
way and either leave or start censoring themselves.  Setting subjective
criteria, like "be nice" (a paraphrase) only makes this worse.  Setting
objective criteria, like "no name calling", is probably a little better.

I'd like to say that no one should ever be kept off a list, but I can't.
Mostly peer pressure works, but some folks just don't "get it".  Every once
in a while I meet someone who just can't seem disagree with someone without
demonizing them.  That kind of behavior is incredible destructive to a
forum like this.  On the other hand, dropping someone from a list needs to
be done infrequently, out in the open, with warnings, and with clearly
articulated reasons.  Otherwise the "cure" quickly becomes worse than the
disease.

Luckily, there is something all of us can do.  Whenever someone says
something that really rankles, ask the questions:

	Could that person have meant something else? 
	What is he or she really trying to say?
	Was that a joke?
	Where is that person coming from?
	Can I understand the feelings, even if I disagree with the opinions?

And then, if all else fails, don't send any messages until you stop seeing
red.  Sleep on it, and send out a really good, well thought out, and
articulate reply the next morning.  It will be more effective anyway.

Best wishes to all of you.

-- Jim Mayer

* From the Pacific Crest Trail Email List | For info http://www.hack.net/lists *

==============================================================================