Conference turris::womannotes-v2

See the various responses in the other ping-pong proposal.

Martin.

    Gee, Martin... you didn't wait for the polls to open and you didn't put
    your intro note identifier in *parentheses* behind your vote...
    
    RTFM! :^) :^) :^)
    Marge

    
    It's already Tuesday 13th in Australia so I'm voting now

    Discussed and supported in 15.990.
    
    DougO

    I'm in support of this proposal.  1) It comes from the moderators; 2)
    It gives them another tool in their toolkit should they need to use it;
    3) Womannotes is increasingly being viewed as "the other Soapbox"; I
    think this is a sad trend and this proposal may help to slow the trend;
    4) Under the proposal, each conference contributor still has the right to
    speak to the topic at hand; they simply do not have the opportunity to
    turn the topic into a verbal duel; 5) There is an escape clause (see
    .0) wherein the conference participants can clear the flag on a topic
    previously designated a ping-pong topic which should account for the
    situations where it is clearly a barrier to further, enlightening
    discussion.  I believe the proposal supports "more light than heat".
    
    Thanks for the proposal,
    Marge

    This vote is being cast anonymously.  The voter is a registered member
    of our community.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
	 
    	 My vote for the "Ping-Pong" Proposition.


	 Definitely not.  It advocates censorship of ideas thru
	 moderator deletion of notes.

	 I don't feel the moderators of =wn= have any right to censor
	 another noters opinions, no matter how outrageously annoying
	 it is.

	 I would, however, vote a resounding YES to having the
	 moderators put a stricter hold on such notes.  Returning
	 personal insults (REGARDLESS of whether there is a complaint
	 agains them or not)....  After all, PP&P is there for a
	 reason, and while I don't feel =wn= is ammune to it, I also
	 cannot agree with censorship.

	 Feel free to post this mail if you wish to make my vote
	 public.

    I find it very odd that anyone could equate limiting frequency with
    censoring ideas.  But perhaps there are notes that have no meaning
    apart from their existance.
    
    						=maggie

    While I'm opposed to censorship, the 300 line/day limit also strikes me
    more as a brevity/conciseness requirement than as censorship.  I, too,
    intensely dislike the acrimonious, repetitive end-game into which
    PitBull/ShuttleCock noting often descends.  
    
    What finally decided me in favor of this proposal was (a) it was made
    by one of those who have taken on the responsibility to implement it,
    and (b) there is a reasonable expectation that the policy can be
    enforced with the help of a tool.  Far be it from the readership to ask
    the mods to take on yet more work to "keep this sandbox clean."  
    
    If we can lessen the incidence of behavior that I, for one, find
    unpleasant, and do it with only a modest increase in the mods' labor
    (perhaps the tool, and its use, will actually *decrease* their
    workload?  Dare one hope??) then I support 1022.
    
    Cheers,
    Dan_who_values_different_noting_styles_(but_whose_patience_has_limits
    at_2400_baud! :-)

Same logic as in 1015.  As much as I hate pit-bull noting, and as much 
tempting as this proposal is (it does sound like it would increase the 
light:heat ratio), I will stand by my principles that the fewer restrictions
on exchange of ideas the better, and that in most cases, the majority
does not have the right to impose its will on the minority.

D!

    
    was that you Marge...who said =wn= is getting more like soapbox???
    
    i agree, and to that end will vote YES to anything which will 
    hopefully calm the waters, reduce the volume of 'junk' (my opinion)
    and let in more light.
    
    so, YES, restrict the banter.
    
    deb
    

The problem has been clearly demonstrated, over and over again.  It definitely
reduces the value of the conference to *this* participant, at least.

I regard =wn= as a service provided to its participants by its moderators,
rather than as a naturally occurring free forum.  Consequently, I believe
that the moderators absolutely have the prerogative of regulating that
service, subject only to the "free market" constraint that the participants
will turn elsewhere if they do not approve.  

	-Neil

    As a former librarian, I'm opposed to censorship.  However,
    I feel that this proposal does not keep opinions from being
    expressed: noters need only practice the discipline of batching
    ideas into fewer replies per day.  
    
    Jane

It amazes me that it takes this much structure to get adults to
stop dominating conversations.

Like some other noters have mentioned, the behavior in this file
by the pit-bull noters (of both sexes) has reminded me of children
who need to be sent to their rooms.

I think this proposal provides a playground for the pit-bull noters
to battle things out and leaves room for other people to contribute
to the conversation.

    worth a try...
    

	While the tactic in question causes me to skip possibly good 
information, and has gone so far as to cause me to post a general "put a 
sock in it" note, I don't feel I can, in good concience, vote either way.


						--Doug

    I've changed my YES vote in 1015 to a NO vote, so I can vote YES on
    this one.  
    
    I just want *something* to be done.
    
    This proposed policy -- of deleting notes in a ping-pong topic beyond 2
    per day per person at a total of 300? lines -- is
      a) cleaner
      b) easier to maintain
      c) more powerful
    than the proposed policy in 1015 of moving replies in a ping-pong topic.
    AND people like myself who read extracted notes in mail don't have to
    page through reams of notes that are ... unproductive.
    
    I don't think this is "censorship" because views can be expressed quite
    easily and quite concisely in 300 lines a day.  I personally feel I am
    able to make my views known adequately, and I don't think I've ever put
    in more than 2 notes a day in any one topic.  (so there!)
    
    Pam
    
    P.S.
    Now if we could only figure out a way to deal with "bear-baiting" when
    it starts up, =wn= would be safe for real exchanges of real ideas...it
    looks like it's the keen new sport since ping-pong noting is about to
    be controlled...

    With the understanding, of course, that this may be purely
    self-serving, as I cannot imagine it ever being applied to *me*.
    
    I've never written 300 lines in a day for *anything*.
    
    							Ann B.

    I vote no...
    
    I understand the need to control the bit-bull action, but am still
    leary of possible attacks to moderators by angry noters.  
    
    vivian

    
    
    
    if a person needs more than 300 lines to explain a point to one person
    (or maybe two people?) in particular, why can't the explainer do it off
    line, in e-mail?
    
    

    
    courteously
    (as usual, i support the moderators in whatever they choose to do)
    

    1) This style of noting seems to chase interest away from the topics it
    takes place in.
    
    2) Although fairly new writing to the conference, I've read almost the
    whole thing.  I can't remember getting any great insights from this
    style of noting (other than reassurance that personal combativeness
    can come from both sexes and all political points of view).
    
    3) Full freedom of speech is tremendously important to me, but that
    doesn't make it part of the =wn= charter.  I don't want special legal
    restrictions on porn either, but that doesn't mean that it has to be
    included in every Digital conference.
    
    Ray

    I vote NO emphatically. I too, feel it is a form of censorship because
    it places time and quantity lengths on replies. Being a new (sort of)
    participant in here, I find that I am enjoying immensly, the number of
    strongly voiced oppinions and ideas expressed in some of the longer
    replies. I also think that someone's oppinions and answers quite often
    need to be expressed immediately, before they either cool down or
    perhaps lose track of what they might want to say.
    
                                       Phil

    I'm 2.something, and I am also abstaining...

    I'm also sick and tired of all these votes, I'm confused as to what is
    being voted when and where and how...

    Why can't this just be a *normal* conference? I'm tired of seeing the
    unseens mount by hundreds just to see that its a fight between two
    people one who is having fun baiting the other, the other not smart
    enough to just walk away because it takes two to fight, and then having
    a processing topic that has hundreds of replies saying "Please quit it"
    And then a vote to support your favorite noter's position... I thought
    we all left middle school ages ago!!!!
    
    Geezz... this *used* to be a nice conference!!!

    In hopes that group conversations will return to being conversations
    where everyone has a right to be heard rather than debates between two
    or three participants drowning out all other voices.
    
    Karen

Even though I find a lot of the recent notes and sequences irritating,
I vote NO because:

1)  It could cut off useful discussion.
2)  It seems like a lot of work.
3)  It is a workaround.  I'd like to see the real problems addressed.
4)  There is always the NEXT UNSEEN key.

john

The one thing I got out of the informal survey we had a while ago was a wish
for the decrease in the sort of noting we're discussing here. I have yet to see
such an interchange not result in some sub-set of the following: personal
attacks, hidden notes, deleted notes, complaints to the mods from the
participants, complaints to the mods from non-participants. I find those
evidence of some sort of problem, and this proposal as one tool to see if it
helps. And if we vote it in, I hope you tell us how it works.
	Mez

    If this will cut down on the frequency of a few argumentive noters
    bickering back and forth, I'm all for it.
    
    If any noters _do_ find themselves in a heated discussion, they should
    settle it off line.

    	My vote is "no" against any policy that puts limits on what women
    	may say in defense of our ideas.  There are too many forces trying
    	to stifle what women say in our culture already.
    
    	When people are discussing those who engage in heated debates, all
    	sense of valuing differences go right out the window (while people
    	stumble all over each other to see who can launch the most amusing
    	cheap shot, whether it be coining terms that describe their fellow
    	Digital employees as animals, or outright calling them children.)
    
    	Having women characterized as animals and children is not original.
    	The fact that people are carefully stipulating that they are making
    	these characterizations for a few people of both sexes doesn't make
    	it any less cheap or shoddy (as a tactic meant to devalue others.)
    
    	Considering how often we've seen it done to women in our culture,
    	one would think that we would hesistate to use the tactic ourselves.
    	I guess it seems different to be *doing* characterizations of people
    	as animals and children (and it's easy to forget what it feels like
    	when it's done to you.)
    
    	Defending one's ideas by way of heated debate is a time-honored
    	tradition in our culture (except when it is being done by women,
    	it seems.)  Standing up for what one believes in has always held a
    	place of honor among men, but allowing attacks to stand unanswered
    	(being "smart enough," as someone said, to ignore emotionally violent
    	verbal assaults against women) is the "right thing" for women to do.
    
    	There are others who fight just as hard at the idea of women using
    	guns to defend ourselves (because they think we'll only end up hurting
    	ourselves.)  The idea of women being armed in our own defense is a
    	frightening thought to some people, it would seem.  It goes against
    	their ideas of what women are supposed to do, and supposed to be.
    
    	In our culture, women are taught that they will suffer less damage
    	if they just take violent blows quietly (without any attempt to
    	retaliate.)  I was given personal lessons about it as a child when
    	my brother would pound on me, telling me that he would pound on me
    	10 times harder if I tried to hit back in any way.  My own husband
    	later brought the point home to me when he broke my nose for pushing
    	back on him in an argument (instead of just accepting his view of
    	things as "law" because he had a fist strong enough to cast a blow
    	to the side of my face that would both break bones *and* permanently
    	damage the hearing in one of my ears.)
    
    	Fighting back is not an abomination for women, whether any one else
    	has the capacity to value it or not.  Perhaps women will be less
    	appealing as targets when it becomes more fashionable for us to
    	defend ourselves.

    The use of "may" is meant only to allow mods the leeway to ignore
    "hammer and tongs" exchanges that have a larger number of participants
    and draw no complaints from the rest of the community.
    
    As always, if after a trial of this policy (should it pass) the
    community feels it isn't working, there is nothing easier than to
    rescind or replace it.
    	
        					=maggie

    
    Nanci
    

    All in favor of discussing issues rather than policy vote to hit
    next unseen. 
    
    

    Hell NO! 
    
    I vote a resounding NO to both inane policies.

    I find both policies far more restrictive than the accusations of the
    Ping-Pong/badminton games. To impose limits on a person to not more
    that 300 lines per day is preposterous. To set aside a separate topic 
    for games is even more ridiculous. First you take away the right of a
    person to speak freely in terms of length of notes. What next? 

    As much as "the games" are a nuisance, they are a necessary nuisance.  
    The people who are complaining about "the games" should hit next unseen
    like the rest of the noting world.  It is still a free world.  There is
    nothing unique about Womannotes as a notesfile. The rest of the noting
    world puts up with the necessary evil - and it is a necessary evil if
    we believe so proudly in freedoms and free speech - what makes
    Womannotes so different?  The world is not perfect.  

    This is a valuing difference conference.  Value the people who have to
    go back and forth.  Don't try to suffocate them. 
    
    Gee, I'm embarrassed to see what this conference has come to now.

    Suzanne Conlon's reply and some other recent notes make me think that
    this proposal is a "socially acceptable" way to attack a more specific
    but harder-to-deal-with problem.  To keep my "Yes" vote in would be
    hypocritical.  Don't suppose I could just delete it quietly, eh?  (: >,)
    
    I still don't see the light generated by this style of noting, but
    maybe it's true that heat is enough sometimes.  Ask me in a few more
    years, if any of us are still around and interested.
    
    Ray
    

        Somehow this reminds me of the seatbelt law and how I felt about
        it and how I voted.

        I think that individuals should be able to control their own
        destinies - if someone whats to look like a real jerk in notes
        I don't want to deny them the opportunity BUT I really do dislike
        having to read all the "stuff" that gets thrown back and forth.

        Maybe it would be better if we (as in any noter) did not lower
        to the bait and get hooked into the sludge.  I believe that we
        all (all noters) have some degree of intelligence - or we would
        not be able to figure out how to use notes.  Why don't we all
        just agree to use it more often!  If you think that you are
        being baited contact another =wn= to do a sanity check before
        you get really hooked.

	_peggy
		(-)
		 |
			The only constant is change
			and the only rule is there are no rules
			Chaos is real

    			NO (2.never_registered)

    I believe that, in the end, the community must deal with each case
    on its own.  Any restrictive policy is liable to result in multiple
    topics ending up 'trashed' by the disagreement, with additional
    topics opened simply to pursue the argument.
    
    As individuals, off-line, we are perfectly within our rights to
    correspond by mail with those engaging in the behavior requesting
    them to abstain.  This leads to accusations that there is a cabal
    of women seeking to stifle dissenting viewpoints, but it is also
    a charge that has been proven false in the past.  To those doubting
    it, reread both this file and V1 in toto.
    
    As a community, nothing will stop the aggravating noter(s) so quickly
    as totally ignoring input from the individual(s) in question.  Simply
    continue the conversation as if the intervening note(s) had not
    happened.
    
    Alison

    I have trouble understanding how this could be construed as
    objectionable censorship.  It seems more like a ruling that people in a
    theater may not generate noise to the degree that the play/movie cannot
    be heard.
    
    		- Bruce

    I think a number of issue are complex enough to warrant detailed
    interaction.
    
    Sometimes one person will write notes that express their view and
    another person will write notes that express a different view.  That's
    a well and good, but sometimes it seems to me like the notes are ships
    passing in the night.  They are going in different ways, but they don't
    get in touch with each other.
    
    If several noters want to interact more closely, I think there are
    useful things to be gained.  Instead of viewing each other's notes from
    a distance, they are having a close-up examination.
    
    
    				-- edp

After much thought, I have concluded that the policy probably isn't 
necessary.  

If the discussion is violating existing rules of courtesy and procedure,
it can be ended on those grounds; if it's not in violation of those rules,
the debate should probably be allowed to continue.  I don't enjoy sifting
through acrimonious exchanges devoted to the scoring of debater's points
rather than to the illumination of the issue, but I'm not required to
participate, either.  A time or two it has spoiled a topic for me, but
in general I find it more of a nuisance than a problem that needs a whole
new set of rules.

--bonnie, the anarchist

    I believe the moderators have the right already to tell people to
    "take it off-line" or to stop a particular discussion. NOw if we could
    just get people to respect that. liesl

    If my V1 note registration number isn't good enough, I'll re-register 
    in this version.  Would a mod let me know by mail?
    
    CQ

    
    Often it looks to me as though the ping_pong noters aren't
    taking the time to read what was actually written...or maybe
    give benefit of the doubt.  I'd hope the notes/day limit would
    provide enough time for people to cool off and think about whether
    they're reacting to what they expected to see instead of what's
    there.
    
    Kathy

    When "do the right thing" is not enough....
    
    								-mr. bill

    What's wrong with the NEXT UNSEEN BUTTON?

    Not a vote, just a comment -

>        What's wrong with the NEXT UNSEEN BUTTON?

    Hitting Next Unseen effectively abandons the topic to the combatants.
    Anybody else's contributions are effectively lost (and hence they are
    effectively silenced) because the majority of readers hit Next Unseen to
    avoid the one-upsmanship contest.

    I honestly tried to look and see if I was registered, but I only
    got 120 replies through 2.xxx before I tuckered out.  :)
    
    
    Actually, the simple act of proposing these proposals seem to have
    stopped the behavior proposed against, at least for the nonce. 
    I think common courtesty, respect above all for divergent opinions,
    no matter how polarized from your own, and generally, behaving like
    an adult should prevent ping-pong noting.  Even given the emotional
    hotbeds that about in some topics, same noting application, and
    viola -- discussion, polarized like hell maybe, but discussion,
    not slamming.
    
    ---kim

    Hint:
    
    Notes> dir 2.*
    
    will get you the whole list.
    
    dir 2.150-2.last         or        dir/author=apodaca 2.*
    
    will get Kim what she lacked the time to scan.
    
    dir 996.1234-996.last
    
    will tell you whose precious gems you'd be missing if you hit KP,
    (but I never use it).
    
    						Ann B.

    
    Nerdier still.
    
    Dir .-.l
    
    								-mr. bill

    where <mumble> < 10

I prefer to see such situations handled on a case-by-case basis, at the
moderators' discretion.  Complicated rules like the one proposed here can
only serve to stifle participation by all.

Though I have certainly witnessed this particular form of abuse in conferences
I moderate, I have not found it necessary to invent an arbitrary rule to
regain control, and don't believe such a rule is necessary here either. 

				Steve

    Changing my mind on this one.  (Voted NO before.)
    
    I feel a YES vote would be in favor of censorship, which I'm not.  I
    *am* in favor of self-control.  On the other hand, I'm tired of hitting
    "next unseen" and missing some really interesting or at least different
    ideas because a few are monopolizing the air time.  
    
    Let's face it, this is not a real conversation here.  We don't have the
    opportunity to immediately respond, to necessarily feel like we're
    being listened to.  What's the point of hammering home an idea if it
    doesn't get across in your first few notes?
    
    NT

   
    The results of this ballot:
    
    Votes cast: 	60
    In favor: 		39
    Opposed:   		21
    
    As only 65% were in favor, the proposal failed of acceptance.
    
              
    Statistics:
    
    Women in favor:    23          Women opposed:	10
    Men in favor:      12          Men opposed:		 7
    Unknown in favor:	4          Unknown opposed:	 4
    ---------------------          -----------------------
    Total in favor:    39          Total opposed:       21