Concerning the proposed "Welcome to alt.comp.freeware" message

[Henk de Jong]

Based on my suggestion in an other thread in here, a discussion
followed around a proposed draft-message, titled "Welcome to
alt.comp.freeware".

In the discussion that followed after the posting of the
welcome-message, it came very clear to me that consensus about
publishing the weekly message cannot be reached. I notice a lot of
distrust about the group becoming 'moderated' and the status of the
message in the future.

When I suggested this weekly message, and wrote the first draft, I
could not imagine this mistrust. I suggested this only to service new
readers and contributers in here, and you'll have to believe me that I
had no wrong intentions in mind when I wrote this. But probably some of
you will never believe me in this.

I also didn't write this with the intention that some folks feel
uncomfortable with this message. But I noticed they do.

Therefore it might be the best solution to withdraw the proposed
message, and to stop the discussion about this. I think that this
discussion won't do any good to this group.

With kind regards,

--
Henk de Jong
The Netherlands
(e-mail address removed) (Remove _NO_SPAM_)
'Links to Freeware'
http://www.linkstofreeware.nl/
http://www.linkstofreeware.vze.com/
http://home.hccnet.nl/hmdejong/

 

[jo]

When I suggested this weekly message, and wrote the first draft, I
could not imagine this mistrust. I suggested this only to service new
readers and contributers in here, and you'll have to believe me that I
had no wrong intentions in mind when I wrote this. But probably some of
you will never believe me in this.

I also didn't write this with the intention that some folks feel
uncomfortable with this message. But I noticed they do.

Therefore it might be the best solution to withdraw the proposed
message, and to stop the discussion about this. I think that this
discussion won't do any good to this group.

Perhaps you should concentrate on writing a FAQ?

Sorry... couldn't resist; the voices made me say it.

 

[Susan Bugher]

Based on my suggestion in an other thread in here, a discussion followed
around a proposed draft-message, titled "Welcome to alt.comp.freeware".

In the discussion that followed after the posting of the
welcome-message, it came very clear to me that consensus about
publishing the weekly message cannot be reached. I notice a lot of
distrust about the group becoming 'moderated' and the status of the
message in the future.

Therefore it might be the best solution to withdraw the proposed
message, and to stop the discussion about this.

Hi Henk,

I agree. I think it's been a good discussion. It doesn't look as if we
will reach a consensus on a "welcome" nessage in the foreseeable future.

Susan

 

[bambam]

Hi Henk,

I agree. I think it's been a good discussion. It doesn't look as if we
will reach a consensus on a "welcome" nessage in the foreseeable future.

I find it interesting that the "anti moderation" group have successfully
moderated the group. Maybe the welcome message will just get posted
anyway, from a non-official source of course.

 

[Mark Carter]

I find it interesting that the "anti moderation" group have successfully
moderated the group.

Ah yes, social dynamics is never boring.

I will argue, though, that the weekly message is not an attempt at
moderation of the group.

I had indicated in a previous message that I would be willing to change
the message to an alternative that obtained a majority vote. No-one
objected to this stance, so I take it that we're all agreeable to it.

 

[Roger Johansson]

I agree. I think it's been a good discussion. It doesn't look as if we
will reach a consensus on a "welcome" nessage in the foreseeable future.

(And bambam said something a few minutes ago.)

I did not intend to stop a message from being published at all.
I just wanted to somewhat influence the composition of it.

I think Susan, and Mark Carter, are sensible persons who are capable of taking all views in consideration and formulate something
which can be accepted by most participators.

With some luck it might not cause too much criticism, and if it does it can be adjusted later.

 

[James]

I find it interesting that the "anti moderation" group have successfully
moderated the group.

How true!

 

[Mark Carter]

With some luck it might not cause too much criticism, and if it does it can be adjusted later.

"A week is a long time in politics", as they say. My prediction is that
all debate over its contents will evaporate quickly, as regulars will
simply ignore it, and tire of debating it.

It demonstrates that consensus is very difficult to achieve; a lesson
that we perhaps could have learnt more cheaply from the recent threads
about Pricelessware.

My experience with the SOUL postings is that it generated some flack
initially (especially since it had its teething problems), which has now
died down. I occasionally get comments, which I generally note down for
future possible enhancements. This taught me that it is probably better
to keep going despite criticism, and that you can't keep all of the
people happy all of the time.

 

[Henk de Jong]

bambam wrote on 28-8-2004 :

I find it interesting that the "anti moderation" group have successfully
moderated the group. Maybe the welcome message will just get posted
anyway, from a non-official source of course.

An interesting point. But, the same could be said by the 'anti
moderation' group' when the message was actually posted. Whatever was
chosen, the choice was never a good one.

With kind regards,

--
Henk de Jong
The Netherlands
(e-mail address removed) (Remove _NO_SPAM_)
'Links to Freeware'
http://www.linkstofreeware.nl/
http://www.linkstofreeware.vze.com/
http://home.hccnet.nl/hmdejong/

 

[Tramp]

|Whatever was
|chosen, the choice was never a good one.

I agree. Like this group needs more posts that have nothing to do with
freeware.

 

[James]

An interesting point. But, the same could be said by the 'anti
moderation' group' when the message was actually posted.

No so. Quite the opposite. To agree anyone or group can post something is
not to moderate. To disagree so strongly to a posting to the point where
the suggestor withdraws it is to moderate.

"Moderate": to qualify, to temper, to restrain, to reduce, to keep within
bounds, to lessen, to repress, to regulate, to limit

 

[Susan Bugher]

I find it interesting that the "anti moderation" group have successfully
moderated the group. Maybe the welcome message will just get posted
anyway, from a non-official source of course.

LOL - The "everyone should be free to post whatever they want to without
objections from others" faction doesn't follow their own advice. If they
did they couldn't/wouldn't object to objections. . .

Acting on the consensus of the group is a much more tenable position.

In the past that's been easy. We had a climate of good will. Thoughtful
objections were made to the content of the message. They might have been
resolved. *Other* objections were designed to stir up trouble. . .

the times are not good. . .

Susan

 

[Henk de Jong]

James wrote on 28-8-2004 :

No so. Quite the opposite. To agree anyone or group can post something is
not to moderate. To disagree so strongly to a posting to the point where
the suggestor withdraws it is to moderate.

"Moderate": to qualify, to temper, to restrain, to reduce, to keep within
bounds, to lessen, to repress, to regulate, to limit

When you have followed the thread about the proposed message, you have
seen that some people had problems with the message, because they
thought that the group should become moderated, just because of the
posting of that message. Several times there was said by me, Susan and
some others, that 'moderating' this group wasn't the intention. The
*only* intention is and was to service new visitors (lurkers and
probably contributors), by providing 'interesting' links for them,
*and* telling them that this is an unmoderated newsgroup. In spite of
telling this over and over, the 'anti-moderating' group held on to
their ideas. That's why I said that in my answer to bambam.

With kind regards,

--
Henk de Jong
The Netherlands
(e-mail address removed) (Remove _NO_SPAM_)
'Links to Freeware'
http://www.linkstofreeware.nl/
http://www.linkstofreeware.vze.com/
http://home.hccnet.nl/hmdejong/

 

[Susan Bugher]

I had indicated in a previous message that I would be willing to change
the message to an alternative that obtained a majority vote. No-one
objected to this stance, so I take it that we're all agreeable to it.

I disagree. IMO voting should be our "last resort". Voting is divisive
by nature. Group decisions need broad support from the community.
Discussion often leads to a consensus. When it does no vote is needed.
When it doesn't a vote may not help.

The Pricelessware "ware" ballot worked well last year - there had been
endless discussion without resolution. Decisions were necessary - the
group accepted the proposal of a ballot and the results of the vote - as
they accept the results of the Pricelessware vote.

*Sometimes* a vote is a good thing.

Susan

 

[James]

When you have followed the thread about the proposed message, you have
seen that some people had problems with the message, because they
thought that the group should become moderated, just because of the
posting of that message. Several times there was said by me, Susan and
some others, that 'moderating' this group wasn't the intention. The
*only* intention is and was to service new visitors (lurkers and
probably contributors), by providing 'interesting' links for them,
*and* telling them that this is an unmoderated newsgroup. In spite of
telling this over and over, the 'anti-moderating' group held on to
their ideas. That's why I said that in my answer to bambam.

I am not disagreeing with your analysis, I am simply agreeing with bambam,
the so called "anti-moderating group" whilst saying they are against
moderating the group, are actually succeeding in moderating the group.

 

[Mister Charlie]

I am not disagreeing with your analysis, I am simply agreeing with bambam,
the so called "anti-moderating group" whilst saying they are against
moderating the group, are actually succeeding in moderating the group.

Yes, that was how I read it as well, not a knock against the perceived
moderators but those who so strongly protest moderation.

I agree with the point, and find it an interesting twist. Not
necessarily purposeful, just fallout from the discussion.

 

[Mark Carter]

Mark Carter wrote:

I disagree. IMO voting should be our "last resort". Voting is divisive
by nature. Group decisions need broad support from the community.

Discussion often leads to a consensus.

I'm not sure that the current text of the post represents the consensus
view of the group. I'm thinking that some noses have been put out of
joint. Admittedly, though, I haven't been following this thread in detail.

When it does no vote is needed.

Sure. If everyone agrees to the course of action, then obviously a vote
is a waste of time. But what if consensus can't be achieved? The only
way to resolve it is by vote.

 

[bambam]

Yes, that was how I read it as well, not a knock against the
perceived moderators but those who so strongly protest moderation.

Good, that is exactly what I meant.

 

[Vic Dura]

I disagree. IMO voting should be our "last resort". Voting is divisive
by nature. Group decisions need broad support from the community.
Discussion often leads to a consensus. When it does no vote is needed.
When it doesn't a vote may not help.

Very true.

 

[Susan Bugher]

Sure. If everyone agrees to the course of action, then obviously a vote
is a waste of time. But what if consensus can't be achieved? The only
way to resolve it is by vote.

*Sometimes* a vote resolves conflicts. We could have a vote on the Ware
types that may be discussed in ACF. Would that resolve the conflicts and
flame wars relating to this issue? IMO it would not. Voting is not a
cure-all for divergent opinions.

I think Henk withdrew his proposal of a "welcome" message out of respect
for the opposing viewpoint that emerged during the discussion. IMO
sometimes that is a better course of action than a vote.

IMO most people in ACF respect the wishes of the majority *and* an
individual's right to hold dissenting opinions. IMO that's one of the
reasons ACF is a great newsgroup.

Susan