[12522] in Public-Access_Computer_Systems_Forum
Re: No PACS-L Mail
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Public-Access Computer Systems For)
Mon Oct 26 20:10:15 1998
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 14:00:42 -0500
From: Public-Access Computer Systems Forum <LIBPACS@UHUPVM1.UH.EDU>
To: PACS-L@LISTSERV.UH.EDU
Reply-To: Public-Access Computer Systems Forum <PACS-L@LISTSERV.UH.EDU>
3 Messages; 109 LInes
*-----
From: Vigdor Schreibman <fins98@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: No PACS-L Mail
To: Public-Access Computer Systems Forum <PACS-L@LISTSERV.UH.EDU>
From: Jack Kessler <kessler@well.com>
Subject: Re: No PACS-L Mail
...
Without more attention to the more general things -- Charles
Bailey's originally - promised "projects you are engaged in",
"things you have read", "ideas", "what people think", "point of
view" -- PACS-L could lose its general readership and be left
with just a few techies who now in fact go elsewhere for their
"how to" information. That's why the postings have dropped off,
I think.
Jack is right, of course, in terms of the content one likely
prefers to see coming across PACS-L. Content aside,
engagement (or the lack thereof) is also a very important
issue. When a moderator is in control pushing their
preferred style, the control over their own expression
that a user basically wants is lost before he or she starts
to engage. With so many sources of control over a
person's existence, from Microsoft and Newt Gingrich to
the cookies that track every move, engagement is fast
becoming a loosing game.
The good moderator's role was played by Dana, who
built the list to above 10,000, by maintaining a light touch
and allowing the natural dialogue to develop around the
topic. Not the recent gang, which has found it important
to remind people that control would come from others.
Vigdor
*-----
From: Vigdor Schreibman <fins98@worldnet.att.net>
From: Dan Lester <dan@84.com>
Subject: Re: No PACS-L Mail
At 06:27 PM 10/22/98 -0500, Public-Access Computer Systems Forum wrote:
[actually Vigdor said]
The recent right wing cabal of moderators installed in PACS-L
has been right on board this savage capitalist train of behavior.
If indeed, PACS-L is dead, as the writer speculates, LONG LIVE
PACS-L!
Oh my goodness....a right wing cabal of moderators.....gee, Vigdor, if you
were correct, why did they allow such seditious content to be posted?
Good question, Dan. My quess is they wanted to show me
up and prove just how liberal they really are ;-).
Vigdor
*-----
From: Vigdor Schreibman <fins98@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: No PACS-L Mail
>Is PACS-L dead? Was is killed by moderation? It used to be one of the
>most vibrant list on the net. It seems to have died as moderation has
>increased. This is no comment on your moderation. It started to happen a
>long time ago.
A few years ago, just prior to the new cabal of moderators
there were about 10,000 subscribers to PACS-L. I checked
on the situation today, and find that the total number of users
subscribed to the PACS-L list is 11,053!
The lack of message traffic indicates a trend toward
disengagement not any loss of participants. Now this is a
problem that transcends the list but better understanding of
what is occurring may lead us to deal more effectively with the
existing situation.
Individuals are naturally motivated to engage with others
when they can exercise their own powers. However, we
are witness to exceeding heavy constraints on the
exercise of individual volition:
* monopolization of commercial activity;
* business propaganda;
* political manipulation;
* double think and double speak messages;
* group think pressures; and
* chronic info fatigue.
A moderator asserting control over the content of the dialogue
would be counter productive in normal circumstances where
the individual is seeking to exercise his or her own powers.
There is no lack of controversial issues of importance to this
community,. But under present conditions constraining
individuals, it appears that the idea of moderator control will
not bring out the best in this conference but can actually help
drive some 11,000 subscribers right into their virtual shells.
I recommend that we look for a better way to animate critical
dialogue. The opportunities for improvement, it now appears,
are at maximum leverage.
Vigdor Schreibman -- FINS
Phone: (202)547-8715; Email: fins98@worldnet.att.net; Browse
Fins Information Age Library at URL: http://sunsite.utk.edu/FINS
