Date: Tue, 8 Oct 96 18:13 GMT+0200
    8 Oct 96 18:07:23 GMT+1
    8 Oct 96 18:06:56 GMT+1
To: psn@csf.colorado.edu
From: fasenfest@sozwi.sozialwiss.uni-hamburg.de (David Fasenfest)
Subject: limits and cafes
To PSN:

As a moderator enlisted during an earlier discussion of how to maintain
conversations let me offer a short bit of information based on recollection.

First there was PSN...and it was unmoderated.  The conversations were
stimulating, the debates engaging, the flames occasional and the tone very
exciting.  Then, as it grew and grew it became very cumbersome, and many
folks thought that there ought to be fewer "informational" posts, less
"advertising" of things, events, and etc, and more "conversation" around
themes rather than the open ended isolated posts as things come to people.

After some discussion the solution was PSN-CAFE which was the complete flow
of ideas and "noise" to which some objected and others cherished.  The
latter group joined the CAFE and have, to my knowledge, only themselves to
deal with over the volume, content and the like.  PSN became moderated by a
small group who had been active and who, for the most part, agreed to screen
for "problematic" posts.  As any one of us can "approve" a post much of what
any one of us objected still made it through the screen.  Alot of energy
went into the discussion--on PSN prior to moderation--about what warranted
non-acceptance.  I, for one, was recently surprised to learn that only 52%
of the posts get through since I see everything twice--submitted to the
moderators, and again as it comes through to PSN (I don't get the CAFE
version!), and felt all too much got into PSN.

Now comes recent events...the traffic on PSN, already half that of the CAFE,
was getting large and many people (unfortunately not as a topic of
conversation on PSN) felt there was no longer a core of ideas pursued and
debated.  Some of the reason seemed to be that, even with moderation for
substance, too much passed through the filter that seemed like noise.

So as NOT to censor, and since there was the unfettered CAFE still posting
all messages, the option of the LIMIT software was entertained to see if
people would be willing to watch their own posts.  And we are talking about
a small number of people...I don't recall exactly but about 5 people
represented over 25% of the messages per 100, and that was not as the result
of a pointed debate (the reason for the notion of suspending the LIMIT in
the case of a major argument/discussion for which PSN was originally designed).

That this is an experiment was explicitly part of Martha's original post;
that there is an unfiltered, unlimited alternative in the CAFE makes this
not such an egregious move; and that perhaps this experiment will fail is
always a possiblity.  But something needed doing and such was the result.
The suggestions about length and the like were raised but there was no real
way to implement that.  The idea of "tading" limits is perhaps not that
feasible from a software perspective...but we can ask the system folks to
consider it.

My comments are my own as a member of PSN and not the opinions or positions
of the moderators.  But the recent posts about the list, about why CAFE and
PSN, about restrictions and the like, pointed to a lack of history--ironic
as we recently had the discussion about the role of history and avoiding
farce...and if we are not careful I suspect farce is what PSN will mutate
into...

In my humble opinion...David Fasenfest