As fluid and fast as the internet is, it is not difficult to create strong divisions. Rigidity keeps lists separate, but fluidity moves people around. It makes sense to encourage list members to start new lists, for doing so creates a 'highway' that penetrates the rigid divisions defining new lists and along which people will travel back to the list where the encouragement was offered. As the owner of Nonduality Salon, I always encouraged people to leave the list, either as a break in activity, to discover new lists, or to start new lists. Along with this encouragement came a constant increase in the membership of Nonduality Salon. To have done otherwise, i.e., to have discouraged movement away from Nonduality Salon, or to have made efforts to retain members, would not have been conducive to an increase in the membership of Nonduality Salon. One would know this intuitively.

Listcology is the study of an email list as an ecosystem. An email list may be viewed as a complex of 'spaces.'

An email list has physical space. Email space has a physical limit given by Yahoo, though we don't know what it is. I'm referring to the amount of information that can be posted to a list in a 24 hour period. For our purposes it's basically infinite. It's not an issue.  

An email list has archive space. Email space has a limit to the number of posts that can be archived. It is 32 MB for new lists in the Yahoogroups family, and 512 MB for older lists. It may be asked how the archive plays into the dynamic of list activity. The results of archive research could flow into the other spaces.

An email list has membership space. Here again, we do not know the limit to the number of members on a Yahoogroups list. This space is further divided into Contributor Space, Lurker Space, Inactive Member Space, and the gray area spaces in between.

An email list has posting space. Email space has a subjective limit to the number of posts  per day. This is a function of the limits described below. Some can send two posts per day and it is too much, while some can send seven and it's not too much.

An email list has mental space. It has a mental limit. People know to not send lengthy posts or to send material beyond most people's grasp, such as quantum equations, or languages other than English (though some know higher math and many speak other languages). Each post is sent with the mental limit in mind. Mental space is almost always respected within any given email. The mental space of the whole list may get less recognition, if any. There's only so much material a person can absorb each day. An email list has mental space.  

An email list has psychological space. Email space has a psychological limit. It has to do with the expression of personality and level of consciousness. The moderator him- or herself may (I say 'may,' as it could be another individual or small group) take up the most psychological space as well as hold responsibility for conditioning that space and thereby having an effect on how everything is perceived within the spaces, or the dimensions of space, within the list.

It's up to the moderator to define, shape and be vigilant of psychological space. Violations might occur when behavior is extreme --repulsing too much, loving too much -- and rationalized, thus forming a double bind. The difficulty for the list owner is that what is considered extreme by one, may be normal by others. Some members of the list may side with owner, others may disagree. It is the owner's list. When he or she feels a decision is going to split a list, it is advisable to recommend what could happen anyway. The advice would be to start a new list or lists. As well, the list(s) should be supported and members should be encouraged to join it. This action accords with the fluid nature of the internet and is 'very Tao' in that way.

Misjudgment of violations -- that is, misunderstanding a behavior to be extreme when an explanation would reveal it is not, therefore a misjudged violation of psychological space -- is a violation of psychological space from within. Seeing the error, the owner's corrective measures (and apology, if felt necessary) should heal the violation from within and stengthen the psychological space as knowledge and experience would have been gained. Violations of psychological space which might otherwise be tolerable, become much enhanced when they include violations of the other spaces.

There is thematic space. Email space has a thematic limit. This space is violated when contributors go beyond the theme or purpose of the list. It's bound to happen once in a while and can often fall under the category of humor. Even the occasional porn ad that sneaks in, and other strangers, may have their moment. Thematic space regulates itself and is not a big concern on lists unless it starts to take up too much posting space.  

However, analysis of members' posts and motivations could become overly picky and focused. That would be a violation of thematic space from within -- from the moderator -- as opposed to violations from the outside.  List owners who have unclear guidlines for posters and seem to arbitrarily ban members and delete messages from archives, could be violating thematic space from within.  

When a list has a lot of energy going into it from the owner or core contributing group, but membership is dropping and posting frequency is going down, the moderator might look for violations of thematic space from within. What's happening is that the interior violation affects the tone of the list and that in turn affects everything else.  

Violations of thematic space from the outside include spam that gets in, or posts that are undisputably off topic, and these violations are usually harmless. And because they are harmless, there's no sense over-reacting. Over-reaction indicates failure to see the founding of the list's integrity within the wholeness of its structure. It means the list isn't understood as an organism.

Social Space: Email lists can be places of social interaction. Lists have social space. This refers to the degree of freedom to socialize and the availability of opportunities for that purpose, such as scheduled times to socialize whether on the list or in a chat room, or phone calls or in-person meetings.. With expansive social space it would not be frowned upon to post brief two word messages, little humorous side statements, and so on. Social space is non-topic rather than off-topic. The moderator should be vigilant for off-topic material and violations of thematic space. Invariably, social space will touch thematic space either in support or violation of it. On lists with little or no social space, members will use the social space alongside the list, such as a chat room, or the social space of lists within the extended community and/or communicate offlist (offlist space).

Journey Space: This is the space over which a person may travel throughout an extended community. Within a list or an extended community of lists, space may be characterized and defined by places that cannot be visited. When setting a list up, the owner can choose what is available to members, whether it be the membership list, the message archive. Even membership could be restrictive. Members could have more journey space than non-members. It would be difficult to violate journey space, hacking being the means. Violations of journey space could jeopardize the integrity of a list. The owner has to consider restrictions to journey space in light of the fluid nature of the internet. The owner should have good reasons for restricting journey space and be prepared to explain to anyone who questions, why journeying is limited. Journy space is limited by Yahoo, by the list owner, the journeyor's hardware and software.

We could even consider 'graphic space' along with audio and video space as part of list ecology. Typically, when someone starts a list there's a choice of whether you want emails to include attachments. Period. It doesn't have to be a black or white choice. Lists are too rich and complex for such a simple choice and list owners need to see beyond the narrow offerings.  

Gene Poole suggests, "we should include Yahoo (service provider) into the listcology. Clearly, without the technical infrastructure, internet (hosted) discussions cannot occur. Listwise, Yahoo is Gaia..."

The list is one body made up of several kinds of space. Each list member is responsible for being aware of the kinds of space there are. The moderator steps-in when space is violated, not fractionally, but with with some measure. A good moderator describes the spaces as clearly as possible, brings everyone in, and notifies them they are responsible for understanding the spaces here, and holds people responsible.  

However, besides the moderator there are the keepers of spaces. Each space has one or more keepers. They interface with and may function as members contributing to list topic. The topic interfaces with the environment and each shapes the other continuously.

How many lists get started and soon die? A list needs a constant input of energy in order to survive and grow. It needs a matrix of mental and emotional energy as its bedrock, which would also color the group feel. It is changeable. Out of the matrix arise spikes of energy which attract 'members' and their posts or their spikes of energy. A weaving occurs. However, unless the matrix maintains integrity and unless jolts of energy are applied, the weaving will stop. The list will die. Further, unless the matrix holds its integrity, it will be replaced or polluted, and this will cause the list to either die or to transform beyond recognition.

My experience with lists has always been that of a community. There is a larger scale shared common experience which creates the community and then groups form within the community based on more refined shared common experiences. As long as the community leaders are effective in keeping the focus on the larger scale shared experience the community continues to exist. When the community loses sight of the larger shared experience then smaller communities form based on their more refined shared experiences and the larger community weakens. I believe this is just the natural way things happen, though, whether it be countries, businesses, lists or relationships.

If I may borrow from my AA list experiences, the larger scale shared experience is being an alcoholic. The vision of the group leader(s) is that of adherence to the principles of AA. Since most alcoholics who are now sober do not question the principles of AA, the group consciousness remains intact and the list members tend to think as a group. When an individualistic thought is introduced, such as "I don't like the way my wife mashes potatoes" an 'old timer' will usually steer the point back to adhering to the principles set forth in AA and the integrity remains whole and the list continues to function as it was designed.

There is a point, however, before an old timer returns the focus to the list's initial vision where sub groups can and do pick up the "relatively off-topic" thread and run with it. Without the gentle nudge to return to the original vision, I have seen lists disintegrate, but with the gentle nudge group consciousness can be regained and the list returns to thinking and behaving as a group.

I believe a lot of people have invested too much into their identity of being different from others or not wanting to be like others that there will probably never be a list that thinks 100% as a group, nor do I believe there should be.

I think if we ever work through all the dynamics of an email list, I may even understand why I participate in the lists I do, other than for information, which is the readily acceptable answer to me.

Jerry responds to John. Breakaway groups.

Regarding small groups that might breakaway, a list moderator can do more than simply remind the group to return to the list topic. The moderator could make space for the group AND encourage its members to start an independent list. That keeps the members on the list. And it allows a new list to form which would be populated by new people who would eventually find their way back to the original list. That kind of attitude and practice needs to work its way into the larger scale shared experience and strengthen it in such a way that should make it harder to fracture.

As spacious as the internet is, it can be kept separate from offline life. As well, separate lives can be lived on the internet. As fluid and fast as the internet is, it's easy to create very strong divisions. List owners can use that fluidity/rigidity principle. Rigidity keeps lists separate, but fluidity moves people around. It makes sense to encourage list members to start new lists, for doing so creates a 'highway' that penetrates the rigid divisions defining new lists and along which people will travel back to the list where the encouragement was offered.

Through strict guidlines and moderation can the "in group" not be allowed to form? 

Jerry responds to Benny.

The more clearly defined a list's objectives, the easier it should be to detect the arising of an "in group". If the objective is very general, e.g., a list about nonduality, you have to know who is in the group and what their agenda is. That's not always clear. If the "in group" splits off, you have no control unless you control their access to list formation. I've always welcomed "in groups," encouraged the formation of new lists, and invited the owners of new lists to recruit members from my lists. That attitude would seem to keep a list fresh and clear.

Taking a more extreme look at "in groups," consider what Gene Poole has said about list wars:

Perhaps not exactly a new phenom, but
cadres of fanatics seem to be prepping for
a 'list war'.

Recent events on several lists, including NDS,
lead me to believe that we may be looking
at an upcoming frontal attack, staged for the
purpose of eliminating 'opposition' to the
coalition of fanatics, whom for the moment
shall remain nameless.

The porn guy who posts weekly to NDS, each
time using a new identity, shows us how easy
it is to 'infiltrate' groups.

Some time ago, a similar coalition of fanatics,
mostly from Germany, 'invaded' NDS. It began
as an 'interesting' conversation, but ended when
list admin determined that abusive and anti-semitic
ideologues were behind the effort.

I may be mistaken, but my prediction is that
a similar effort is being planned right now. I
hope I am mistaken, of course.

Consider this to be both a 'heads-up' and also
on topic to 'listcology'...

Jerry's response to Gene:

This is a great topic for listcology. We have and do see examples of it. If
you sense that something in the way of a mass intrusion is simmering, then
it may be happening before the parties involved fully know it themselves.

It's a real test to keep a list open, without membership screening,
moderation or restriction. If a list is open, the list vision has to be
strong and it has to be expressed, or lived. If members are keeping a list
vision from being carried out, they're violating it, and some action has to
be taken, with reasonable restraint, waiting, explanation, warning, and so
on.

And if a gang of people is attempting to intrude upon a list vision, that's
another story. We don't see it happening, but it easily could. We did see
some 30 people sign onto NDS in one day for one purpose. I believe that was
back when we had about 300 members. Proportionately, it would be like
getting 70 people signing onto NDS in one day for one purpose. A ten percent
list population increase.

Transboundary lists? A growing number of countries - from Albania to Zimbabwe - are now linking up their parklands with protected areas in neighboring nations to make "transboundary" parks. The number of protected areas that bridge international borders has more than doubled in the last decade, from 59 in 1988 to more than 169 in 2001.

Thoughts on Transboundary Lists
Gene Poole

We _could_ employ the existing methodology
of Yahoo lists, to 'transboundary-ize' a list
into other lists, by utilizing automatic cross-
posting.

This is done now by certain posters, but I don't
like to see the exact same posting on several
lists. In fact, I think that generally, cross-posting
is rude.

I prefer to have each human digest and then
extend to other lists, thus serving as an indexing
and prioritizing factor. This method seems more
organic and also better represents our utilization
of list-space as 'massively parallel' thought-
computing. If you get my metaphor.

It may be possible to easily designate 'list families'
and by choice, a person can have the designation
of 'list family member'. This is kind of like the existing
concept of 'web-rings'.

Yahoo has already categorized (in an overly simplistic
way, IMO) lists, and thus families already exist. I
propose to discover a convenient method of creating
'list families' (list-rings?) using Yahoo groups as
they now exist.

I am still not in favor of automatic cross-posting,
though.

It would be nice that if by joining one list of a
familiy of lists, that I would automatically be
subbed to all lists in the family. Maybe we can
suggest something along those lines to Yahoo
admin.

This brings up the factor of list managment, eg,
who owns a list and/or a family of lists (the originator?)
and who has authority over those a given list family...

On lists people who feel omega suddenly become alpha. The internet
distorts and concentrates personality qualities, and Yahoo empowers.

Perhaps the alpha 'male' on an email list is the one who has a
vision out of which he dictates behavior or threatens to ban people
or do other horrific things if people don't stay in line. It doesn't have
to be the list owner, if the list owner never does anything. It could be
a forceful personality.

There are others dominant in their category or niche on a list, but they can
all be banned by the alpha list 'male'.

Joyce talks about the alpha
male being challenged. I've never felt list ownership being
threatened. I never felt people wanted to get rid of me as a list
owner.

I challenged Angelique of the Kundalini list by forming a breakaway
group. But ownership itself of another list can't be challenged.
That breakaway group was the I AM list.

Lobster was the owner of I AM. Then I challenged Lobster's ownership
of the I AM list when he threatened to close it. I started NDS.

Those were both challenges of the alpha male because at the time it
was very difficult to open a new list. People didn't know how to do
it easily. But we pulled it off.

Nowadays people just start lists if they're sick of the list owner,
and list members are so accustomed to moving from list to list that
a challenge to a list owner is laughable. If someone got on NDS and
said, "We're sick of Jerry and Gene, let's all get together and
start a NEW LIST!", it would be a joke, because of the nature of
Yahoogroups and the nature of NDS itself.

But in '98 it was serious and even a little crazy to make a
statement like that, and it was a real challenge of the alpha male
who would want to hold onto their vision and membership.

Yosy responds to Jerry

dear jerry, the whole issue of ownership, challenging leaders etc is
entirely new for me. i quess i am totally ignorant in matters of
listology... i never looked at it as power game. for me lists are
gathering of people sharing a common love/interest of a subject. the
owner/moderator's role imo is generally to introduce/give a direction
to the group, with more or less clarified objectives, usually stated
at the list commencement; and as the name implies, to moderate it
if/when the tones of the discussions etc overstep defined or common
sence dictated bounds. other then that the list developes naturally,
and the great thing i see (in internet in general) that it is sort of
a round table, where everybody has right to voice his/hers view or
belief, and defend it. do not see leaders as such - there are
naturally autority figures on any particular subject, due to
experience, scholary knowledge etc. but i do not give shit and would
stand up to anyone, be it jesus, mohammad or god himself, if what
they say would not ring right in my heart... there are occasionaly
people trying to intimidate others and force them into intelectual
submition, or enforce their particular point of view - but in my
experience they are brought back to right proportions quite fast. and
this type usually leaves the group seeking greener pastures... on
the other hand, i was kicked out from some ortodox sufstic americal
list, mainly for expressing and defending my views. they were very
similar to idris shah's, who i found out was considered an
abomination on that particular list...

and what's the big deal about ownership? to me it seems mainly
providing a space in which one can gather with friends sharing common
interest and have a good time, introducing one's ideas, (and
incidentally learning and expanding one's views), and having an
opportunity to confront various new and different opinions... while
retaining the right (and responsibility) of taking whatever measures
are necessary to enable smooth operation and maximizing the desired
objectives.

Jerry responds to Yosy

On rare occasions decisions are made that change things totally. When you look back at
those moments they could be described as the power influence involving a list owner. When
in the midst of it, it's not seen in that way. The stuff I wrote above about challenging
list owners, I had never thought of until I wrote it. It's not as though I was
consciously aware of challenging anyone or about the listcology of what was happening. We
were all flowing with the moment, not thinking about classifying the nature of our
actions.

There's no big deal about list ownership until big decisions are made. For example, the I
Am list was totally dead for a long time, for over a year. Then one day a guy named Shankar
shows up and starts posting translations from Tamil regarding Ramana. I thought this
guy's work was important enough to build the entire list around what he was doing. And
the result is that I Am is, to me, one of the best, most controlled and pristine lists
around.

There's a lot going on around the ownership/moderator side of list activity. When NDS started,
the group of advisors was a list unto itself. There was a lot of behind the scenes stuff
going on with that.

My experience has been that list ownership is an involvement and the power issues aren't
really seen as such when you're in the midst of them. They're not seen as such until some
time later when a clear effect is seen as the result of a decision. For example, the I Am
list. There is a very dramatic distinction between the 'before Shankar' and 'after
Shankar' days. But the decision itself to build the list around Shankar wasn't as
dramatic or major. It was probably hardly noticed.

Joyce responds

Thank you both for what you've written on this. I have seen and
experienced what Jerry describes on some other lists a couple of
years ago. In theory, many/most lists are a round-table sort of
environment that functions smoothly and democratically, but in
practice some lists have subtle issues of "list politics" that
directly impact the listigencia/intelligencia. In many cases, there
is an alpha wolf on a list, and even if that individual has not ever
done anything overtly resembling a power play, the list members may
regard him has a "leader" and they can or do follow his lead on which
threads to pursue, which to drop... that sort of thing. This person
may not be the list owner or moderator, but posesses a certain
charismatic list personality and people may be drawn to follow his
lead. Some lists have seen attempts by (usually new) a member to
hijack the list, and in cases like this the interloper is making a
subtle power play and is subtly challenging the alpha on the list in
order to further his own agenda. A *negative* example of this
happened this summer on Mazie & b's list, with the evangelical
contingent and their friends moving in on the list membership while
Mazie & b were out of town. In that example, the list owners purged
the membership of the outsiders. In the example Jerry cited about the
iam list, more different outcome resulted when Shankar's postings
realigned the list's direction.

I spent a little bit of time googling for writings on this topic
related to email lists or online forums and came up empty, which
surprised me. Maybe my search criteria were faulty. I did find a 200
page doctoral dissertation that included an interesting aside about
the possibility of creating electronic *chat avatars* to help people
get around the missing elements of online connections - the body
language, facial expressions, vocal inflections, etc... Not sure if
it is interesting enough to read all 200 pages though...

The Background of Mailing Lists
Gene Poole

Yahoo groups are mailing lists which happen to
appear on the web, on web pages dedicated to
those (this) list.

Originally, mailing lists were strictly by email,
by use of mailserver software called 'mail exploders',
which simply sent to all members, any letter sent to
the email address of the mailserver assigned to the
mail exploder. Many mailing lists still work that way,
with no involvement of the WWWeb; the software is
called 'majordomo'.

The WWWeb is an application which runs on
the 'net (internet). Its protocol is designated
'HTTP'.

Mail uses a different protocol,
POP or SMTP or IMAP.

Nowdays, with the advent of portable devices
(wireless PDAs and web/email enabled cell phones
(3G protocol), the lines between use and application
protocols are becoming even more blurred.

Soon, this and other groups will be delivered to your
refrigerator door and bathroom mirror, via wireless
home LAN connected to WWAN.

The time is coming when small ubiquitous wearable
computers will feed eye-glass mounted mini-LCD
projectors; we will be able to read email lists on the
web while walking in the park... or (Jerry?) driving
the car, as the images are projected directly on
the retina.

So with all this in mind, I strongly suggest that
we get our list-shit together, soon

Concerning Yahoo groups, I continue to wait
for the other shoe to drop.

I consider it a small miracle that Yahoo is able
to exist and function as it does. And I do not
have any sense of entitlement, in regard to
the services they provide.

While I have thoroughly enjoyed (and exploited)
the use of Yahoo groups, I am aware of the
major trouble and expense it is, for those that
give us this online functionality.

I sincerely hope that things continue as they
are, and that Yahoo is a blazing success, so
that our lists can go on into an indefinite future.

Such hopes often prove unfounded, however.
To that end, those of us with the 'moxie' to do
so, will be looking around for alternatives,
including home-based list servers, which include
email management software, etc.

And there is always USENET... (shudder)

In any event, it is my intention to carry on here,
on Yahoo lists, and to also research and obtain
alternatives so that this sort of threaded
communication can be carried on with minimal
impedance.

I think we should include Yahoo (service provider)
into the listcology. Clearly, without the technical
infrastructure, internet (hosted) discussions cannot
occur.

Listwise, Yahoo is Gaia...

Jerry expands on list background

While list spaces can be identified, described, and monitored, it is done by observers and list participants whose perception of list content is subject to manipulation.

Please tell me... what is this 'thing' about bemoaning 'rules'? Who, what, when and where
has idealized the 'rule-less' as best, better, or preferrable?

Good grief... look at it... 'life' is nothing but rules!

It seems that 'rules' are seen as somehow a bad flavor, a party spoiler, a turd in the
punchbowl.

The spate of protests over the most recent demise of n0by, while minor, is one of the
most ridicules ones.

I think the real 'issue' is that the rules are not adminstered by a machine, but instead,
by an actual person. This person has to deal with 'infallibility', an impossible standard
to attain. Any 'rules decision' will be taken poorly by a certain percentage of people,
and cheered by others. But what of the common mourning for the necessity of rules? What
is up with that?

Is it that 'rules' give license to abuse of power?

Is it that the personal ideal, is to not need rules?

Is it that we are all, everyone, so darned wise and fair, that we just know in our
hearts, that nothing will ever occur, which needs be resolved by 'authority'?

Can we depend, that any poster who becomes troublesome, is amenable to reason? I think
not.

Rules are part of any game. Any game with no rules is not a game; in other words, there
are no games without rules.

Just because someone can't see the rules, does not mean there are no rules.

Life is about rules, and those rules begin with rules that are impossible to break. Later
rules, manmade rules, can be good or bad rules, and they can be enforced wisely or
stupidly. But please... consider your attitude about rules.

Joyce and Jan B. dialogue:

Joyce:
it is interesting watching the assorted different attempts by people to
fill the silence, too, by reposting the same material on
many/multiple lists.

Jan:
Could be a flag of universal importance attributed by the poster as well.

Joyce:
It fills up the mailbox and the mind, and blurs the distinction
between the lists until there is this homogeneity...
...
Yes, it could be something the poster feels is universally needed as
a message... That brings up the topic (again) of why people post what
they post and where... I have a friend (actually about 3 of them) who
use the lists as places to pour out their emotional stuff; let's say
that something happens in their world, and they have an *emotional*
reaction to it... They do *writing therapy* to deal with it, pouring
out their reaction (anger/angst/pain/rage/starvation/whatever) and
then post it to the lists... They end up feeling a sense of
catharsis, but what they've done is to pass off that stuff onto the
readers. Sometimes that can be toxic to the readers. I think they
don't realize that. But it's all a give-and-take, in the *best* sense
of *that's what friends are for* - the mutual sharing and
listening... One of the beauties of being alive, that ability to
connect.

Jan:
Not a bad idea, combining lists would eliminate multiple posting at the cost
of receiving other posts (of no interest). A kind of "bitten by the cat or the
dog" issue.

Joyce:
And even if the material is good, do we want to see the same post(s)
by the same people in 3 or more places?

Jan:
No , who wants to receive a post with 300k in graphics thrice but if the cost of
separation would be subscription to many lists, the
"bitten by the cat or the dog" issue as 30 posts of 10 K take roughly the same
downloading time.

Joyce:
i prefer the many lists approach because i hate getting a
125k digest 2/3 full of material that does not resonate. I mean, i
want the posts that are the *gems* but not the dross... But it's like
a yard sale - one person's junk is another person's treasure. Who am
i to say what is or is not a treasure? Heaven knows i've posted more
than my own share of what turned out to be drivel...

But the posts with the enormous graphics (and yes, i've done that
myself)... A few weeks ago, someone posted a post that was about
485k... and they posted it on at least 3 lists (probably more)... The
Yahoo and Hotmail mailboxes are small, and to receive more than a meg
from ONLY ONE PERSON is an inconvenience, at best. I finally wrote to
the person and explained how to compress the jpgs.

I think people should post those sorts of messages in only 1 place,
and then if they want to share to a wider distribution, just repost
the url on the other lists. Broadcast posting (and i've done it, too)
is almost like spam.

Jan:
The more specialized a list, the fewer the number of posts.
Like with everything, finding the balance.
Perhaps Yahoo could extend the service by inserting a little
program so a member doesn't receive the same post even when
it's send from every list: the member would have to specify the
preferred list the post is received from.

It is 'interesting' being moderator of NDS,
and in the carriage of those duties, to encounter
unreasoning responses from persons who should
'know better'.

One big factor in all of this, is the issue of
a person _being able_ to have personal
boundaries;

_1 The moderator can suffer from being
in a 'double-bind'; that is, being held
accountable by all 'sides' in any conflict,
for judgments made, and being unable to
present a universally 'acceptable' persona;
and being held _personally_ accountable
by various aggrieved parties, instead of those
parties taking account of a _person_ acting
as moderator.

An example, is the 'n0by affair'; this complex
and messy story is not yet ended, but has
resulted in 'n0by' erecting web pages which
compare the NDS moderator to Hitler, and
this in pictures, as well as by verbal accusation.

It is clear, that n0by may be a mentally ill person;
but whatever his disposition may be, it is also
clear that he grossly violated the TOS of NDS,
which came to a 'head' in regard to Jeff Brooks
('Poppajeff'). My action as moderator, to remove
and BAN him, led to gross acting-out on the
part of Melody, who confronted Gene the person,
expressing her distaste, in a manner which
transcended a critique of moderation;

It also led to the arrival of 'celtic moon dance',
who attempted to influence, in a political manner,
the outcome of the moderator's decision. This
'CMD', who is a regular in the 'n0by group', was
also BANNED by the moderator.

In an attempt to plumb deeper into this n0by
effect, I joined his group; and he has been
conspicuously absent, since my joining. CMD,
after being called a 'stupid bitch' by n0by, seems
to have reconsidered her position, and now is
friendly with Gene.

CMD has sincerely petitioned n0by, to take down
his punishing and slanderous web-pages, which
are certainly an attempt to punish and humiliate
me; only time will tell, the outcome of her attempt.

Listcology NEEDS to have this, and other similar
accounts, in order to derive certain vital information;
we need to be able to understand, the dynamics of
such blowups, for prevention, and also, to mitigate
any damage, which may occur, on any level, for any
Being.

The conduct of several members of the n0by group,
highlights the GOOD that a moderator can do; his
group is 'totally unmoderated', and there being no
means of control or ejection of offending members,
all members suffer equally, the abuses imposed by
a few. n0by remains true to his promise of 'totally
unmoderated'; he may try, from time to time, to
shame or humiliate a member into shutting up or
leaving, but he will not take responsibility as
moderator, apparently for fear of being seen as
a 'bad guy' of the same sort that he reviles, attacks,
and slanders in public.

I can say, that unless other means of quality assurance
are employed, that moderation of groups is a real
and vital necessity; my experiences in USENET and in
the n0by group, clearly point this out. Without a means
of controlling quality, the group becomes first a circus
and waste of time, and then, everyone leaves. The group
loses its purpose, unless the group itself, has an 'ego'
or better stated, an 'immune system'.

There can be endless debate, on the issue of just how
to identify ''toxic invaders', and how to handle them;
I will not address that now. Now, I want to present, the
whole picture of how even the best and most rational
of moderation, can still elicit a veritable shit-storm,
which as we have seen, and can 'bring down' otherwise
stable members, who may misunderstand what is
really going on.

I have tried various approaches in NDS, to the job of
moderation. It is probable that not many observers
realize how systematic I have been. I have estimated
and now employ the best and 'safest' methodology,
while I continue to deliberately make public, my
thinking and judgments, understanding perfectly well
what that means, as to possible consequences.

One favorable consequence, which I hope will occur,
is that each member of every group will be able to
more easily and perfectly understand, the dynamics
of groups, and how moderation (in its various forms)
is a natural part of this whole picture. This understanding
will not occur, unless someone takes the trouble to involve
'anyone' who cares to pay attention. I hope, very sincerely,
that will include any and all who may otherwise take umbrage
with 'moderation'; if you see what I am getting at, that only
if 'moderation' becomes known as an expected 'norm', can
general users know what to expect, and thus, what to avoid.

Running a list means setting limits, and the article below by Pema Chodron distinguishes between
boundaries and barriers as limits. It is part of a general discussion on running a list. --Jerry

Let me address this question of: What's the difference between dissolving the barriers and setting good boundaries?

This came up in some of the discussion groups, and this question also comes up - you won't be surprised - in many of the places where I do this teaching. I've given this some thought - and I've heard a lot of other people's views on this too, so I've been educated by other people's thinking on this. Currently, this is my answer, and I'm sure it's a work in process.

I feel that setting boundaries, good boundaries - the intention of that - is to allow for communication to happen. And, barriers are shutting down communication.

To set good boundaries takes a lot of courage. And you have to be going through this process of acknowledging your pain, and also what triggers you, and acknowledging how much you can handle and how much you can't handle. Theres already a lot of courage that's gone on in coming to the place of setting boundaries. But, the intention is to make communication clearer.

For instance, the classic situaton of you're in a relationship where you're beaten. And, all your friends are saying, "Why do you stay in that relationship?" Well, it's because of barriers, and turning away, and all of this stuff. Because, why do you to allow this to happen to yourself again and again? Well, it's very complicated, and it has to do with the ego structure and how we are afraid to actually to go into this, and we're hoping that this time the happiness that I'm seeking will come from staying in this destructive relationship.

A barrier is this turning away and staying stuck. There's ignorance involved in barriers. Maybe that's one of the main ingredients of the ego and the self-centeredness, or the barriers, cocoon - however you say it- is ignorance: not really looking at what's going on. So, then, usually with a lot of help from other people, and your own reservoir of courage beginning to come up, and your own reservoir of clarity and sanity and self-compassion getting stronger, you get to the place where you actually say: If you hit me again, I'm leaving, and I'm leaving for good, and I'm not coming back unless you do some work with a therapist, or whatever, around the fact that you keep hitting me. But, from my side, I'm out of here. And then you do it. That's an example of setting good boundaries. But it takes a lot of courage to do that, because that may mean the end of this relationship, which represents a lot of things.

Setting good boundaries is actually pushing you more and more towards going into it. And it's clarifying the situation. It is the most compassionate thing you can do for the other person and for yourself, because it's frightening because the other person is often not going to want to hear-- your boss, your spouse, your child, or whoever it is, is not going to want to hear your boundaries, and they're going to get angry with you.

If you've ever been on the receiving end of someone setting their boundaries, and it provokes you and makes you angry, but at least you know what you're working with. And you can even say, This doesn't work for me, I have to go-- or you decide to stay and work with it. But, at least, there's clarity.

Whereas, with barriers, and the whole way ego works, it just causes a lot of confusion - mixed messages are a sign of barriers - and so the suffering just escalates with barriers.

The idea of setting good boundaries is to provide clarity, communication, and it takes a lot of bravery to do it.

- Pema Chodron from Transforming Confusion into Wisdom, City Retreat, Berkeley Shambhala Center, Fall 1999


What I have noticed...
by Gene Poole

I have noticed that persons subscribed to
lists, generally object to 'moderation'...

This seems to be true, not universally, but
generally...

Is this the same, as licensed drivers,
who generally object to the patrolling
of police, who look for violators?

Or, is it more similar to some other
group of persons, who participate in
some other venue?

I am curious about this.

Jerry states, that lists need boundaries;
and this observation of his, depends on
his practical experience, instead of on
any ideal. In other words, Jerry has like
I, noticed the need for some form of
moderation; and this, based upon experience
gained from actual list participation.

Does anyone have experience, to the contrary?

If all subscribe to a list are indeed 'saints', then
no moderation is needed; does this ever occur?

And if some are not 'saints'... what is the best
way to proceed, for all involved;

-----> subscribers who care

-----> list owners

-----> rowdy, hell-raising members

What is your response?

Is it possible, to evolve a list membership,
which will take the care, to regulate themselves?

If not... why not?

If so... how so?

So, if you are one of those, who object
on 'principle' to list moderation; on what
basis do you object, given the 'reality' of
the above, by your own reading and responses?

Joyce:
If a list has archives that are open to be read by "anyone," the list
is PUBLIC.

If, however, a person must "join" the list (that is to say become a
member of the list) in order to read the archives, then the list is
not a PUBLIC list.

It is very simple, really. (I know some will disagree...)

Think of yahoogroups as real estate.

It is like a strip mall (in cyberspace), where there are businesses,
and the businesses use the amenities from the mall in return
for "something."

In the case of a strip mall, that "something" is rent moneys. In the
case of yahoogroups, that "something" is paid not in rent moneys but
in the currency of "advertising" - you set up a business in the yahoo
strip mall in exchange for letting yahoo send advertising from their
clients to your members. So, advertising is the currency of
yahoogroups.

Now, my local strip mall has some restaurants and shops - all open to
anyone who walks through the door, no questions asked. They are
businesses open to the PUBLIC at large.

It also has a health club. The health club requires that a person
become a member before a person is allowed inside to access the
facilities. The fitness club requires membership and as such is NOT
open to the PUBLIC at large.

In the case of yahoo groups, just because someone puts up their list
in the yahoo strip mall does NOT mean that it is open to the public.

If they choose to set it up with archives that are open to anyone
without membership being required, then it is a PUBLIC list.

If they require membership, it is not PUBLLIC.

And if they "moderate" members, including new memebers, then it is
even more PRIVATE.

Everyone here as far as i can tell belongs to at least one list that
requires membership and that moderates members posts (even if only
posts from "new" members). A PUBLIC space would do neither of those.

There is no guarantee of free speech on a private list, but i imagine
there would be in a truly PUBLIC list. Everyone here as far as i can
tell belongs to at least one list where the moderator can remove
members. For exapmple, Mazie wrote here last year of how she removed
people from Adyashanti because of their postings. Adyashanti is not a
PUBLIC list, it is a PRIVATE list. It is not open to totally "free"
expression by the PUBLIC at large.

NDS is not a public space. Listcology, on the other had, is a truly
public space.

In the issue of the right to review lists that are not PUBLIC, i
think someone talked about freedom of the press... I think i am the
only one here who went to Journalism School... A person would need
approved press credentials to be able to legitimately argue freedom
of the press.

Well, that's a start.

The thing is that i am all in favor of inclusiveness on lists. I am
also in favor of small intimate places where one can speak one's
heart. Remember JPs erotic nonduality list? How many people were shy
about posting from their "real" IDs there? Not everyone, but some
were.

There is a need on the internet for both sorts of lists, PUBLIC and
PRIVATE, in my opinion. And for people to enthusiastically embrace
them both... and to respect them both... and that is what has been
missing - respect for the nonpublic ones.

Jerry:
Notes on list privacy.

Private: Not listed on yahoogroups. Membership is by invitation. Existence
of the list is not generally revealed. Archives are for members only or
non-existent. No information volunteered on the Yahoogroups home page.

Semi-private: Restricted membership; members must meet certain
qualifications in order to join. Perhaps they have to fill-out an
application. Archives for members only. Listed or unlisted in Yahoogroups.
Some information volunteered on the Yahoogroups home page.

Semi-public: Anyone may join, though list may be restricted and new members
may be moderated in order to screen for spammers. Archives for members only.
Only members may post.

Public: Anyone may join though list may be restricted and new members may be
moderated in order to screen for spammers. Archives open to public. Only
members may post.

Extremely Public (not realistic, but mentioned in order to demonstrate the
extreme condition that is possible and to show that there's a measure of
privacy in all lists): Anyone may join, including spammers. Anyone may post
whether or not they are members. Archives and membership list open to the
public. All members automatically become moderators with powers to delete
the list.

In my opinion, any of these categories is open to being reviewed. Reviewers
must use discretion when reviewing lists that are private, semi-private and
semi-public. If list owners request in the list description that a list not
be reviewed or not become part of a compilation of email lists, reviewers
should respect that.

Now, what is meant by a 'review'? A review would include a statement of
fact. Such a statement would include whatever is on the home page of the
list.

A review also states opinions and makes comparisons to other lists. In
private, semi-private and semi-public lists, members' names and their
writings shouldn't be revealed. The tone of the list, the general topics and
threads, how the list compares to others, could all be discussed. The main
consideration is to respect the privacy of the members.

However, the owner/moderator is the first line of protection. It shouldn't
be left to a list reviewer. In my opinion, to protect privacy, do not reveal
the name of the list to outsiders and do not volunteer any information on the
Yahoogroups home page. Invite people to join and don't talk about the list.
Take efforts to make it "Private" according to the description above.