At 11:15 AM -0700 5/24/97, Andy C wrote:
>Unfortunately the vocal elements of the list is roughly
>split in two, those that want more idle chat and those that want less
>hard core Forteana.
Have you considered two lists? One for core discussions and one for
side discussions? If the topics can be split fairly objectively, this
sort of thing works nicely (we do it with some of our hockey lists,
with a "game/team only" list, and a "chat" list for other aspects of
. Sadly every three months or so one group will turn on the
>other and a flame war will ensue.
This is why I always have a "don't play list mom, dammit" rule in my
rules. Because when people start this up, I step in and tell them all
to shut up, to contact me iwth problems privately, and let *me* deal
with it. And those that won't -- get tossed, like anyone who won't
follow the rules.
By making it clear from the start that problems come to me and I deal
wtih them, I can generally keep things under control, and I keep one
(or a small group) of users from dictacting policy behind my back. I
had a problem this week on one list where a guy posted something *with
my permisstion*, since he wasn't sure if it was appropriate, and one
user decided to step in and tell him he shouldn't be doing things like
that. By the time I stepped in, that one guy had generated 15 posts in
a back-and-forth fight over this, and couldn't understand why I was
upset at him for doing this to the list....
Sigh. But if you make sure that it's clear *you* run things and people
who have problems come to *you* to resolve them, you can step in and
moderate and work towards compromises while minimizing these kinds of
in-fights, and also have a rule to slap the yahoos who want to play
control queen, and if necessary, kick them off the list...
Chuq Von Rospach (chuq @
com) Apple IS&T Mail List Gnome
Plaidworks Consulting (chuqui @
(<http://www.plaidworks.com/hockey/> +-+ The home for Hockey on the net)