[Sigia-l] list constitution, maybe? (was List Moderation)

[David Heller]

Hi Karl,
http://interactiondesigners.com/discussGuidelines.html

These are the list guidelines that were drafted for the IxD discussion list.
Is this what you mean? It does talk about moderation, monitoring and
"punishment" ... But it also talks about ettiquette and expectations for
what is a good post and bad one. I don't think all these rules would apply
to this list, but I'm just pointing it out as an example. I think the
CHI-WEB list also has an extensive guidelines as does the AIfIA. Personally
I believe that any list w/ over 100 people requires a good set of
guidelines.

-- dave
 

-----Original Message-----
From: sigia-l-admin at asis.org [mailto:sigia-l-admin at asis.org] On Behalf Of
Karl Fast
Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2004 9:35 AM
To: 'SIGIA-L'
Subject: Re: [Sigia-l] list constitution, maybe? (was List Moderation)


Has anyone proposed the idea of creating a constitution for the list?

By constitution I mean a simple set of "rules" that we can all agree to and
that will help each of us understand what constitutes useful, acceptable,
and positive discourse within the group.

I don't mean laws for doling out punishment. I don't mean moderation either.
I simply mean making some of the social conventions of the group a bit more
explicit so that when things start to slide we can use the constitution to
re-orient ourselves. Some sort of simple, lightweight, social governance
structure that gives modest shape to the discourse and lets us know when
we've gone off the rails.

I'm suggesting this as an alternative.

We need alternatives. 

The current options (moderation and explusion) are negative. They are
controversial and sit uneasily with most of us. They are sufficiently
distasteful that I fear, even if successful, they will poison the group in
subtle and permanent ways. I fear the cure being worse than the disease.

Yet we all believe that inaction is an equally unsuitable course. We agree
that we need some sort of action in order to move forward.

I suggest we look for positive alternatives, not negative ones. We need a
solution that we can look back on with a sense of pride and accomplishment,
instead of regret and self-loathing.

So I am suggesting a constitution.

I confess that I don't know how to go about doing this. I haven't looked
into any details. And maybe there are other alternatives.

I'm treading into unfamiliar water here, but the suggestion stems from
things Clay Shirky has said:

   http://www.shirky.com/writings/group_politics.html
   http://www.shirky.com/writings/group_enemy.html

Shirky argues that groups like ours *always* break down at some point
because there are no ground rules. The group says "We want to encourage
freedom of expression" and "We don't want to muzzle controversial voices" so
the forum is completely open and unrestricted. But at some point these kinds
of groups always, always, always break down.

To Shirky, what is happening to SIGIA-L is unfortunate, but also "natural"
and expected. 

We need to do something. I believe we should do something that is primarily
positive. The current options seem wrong to me.

So I suggest a constitution. There are probably other options here, but I
wanted to put that out there as a first step.



--karl
http://www.livingskies.com/
------------
When replying, please *trim your post* as much as possible.
*Plain text, please; NO Attachments

Searchable list archive:   http://www.info-arch.org/lists/sigia-l/
________________________________________
Sigia-l mailing list -- post to: Sigia-l at asis.org Changes to subscription:
http://mail.asis.org/mailman/listinfo/sigia-l