Conference turris::womannotes-v2

    
    
    	[sigh]
    
    	Eric, Eric, Eric.
    
    	I could put some of your [unbounded] energy to great use.  
    	
    	Wanna write some letters for me?
    
    							nancy b.
    

    Re .1:
    
    I'm already occupied with letters of my own -- in the past two years,
    I've hit the NH Department of Safety, Attorney General's Office,
    Governor's Office, state legislators, Nashua Telegraph, Hudson Police
    Department, U.S. Attorney, the Drug Control Policy Director, the FBI,
    Representatives and Senators, and the President.  (I asked George Bush
    to apologize for saying atheists were not patriots or full citizens.)
    
    
    				-- edp

    Eric, are there any benefits to the community at large - IN ADDITION TO
    THE VALUING DIFFERENCES BENEFIT - you can cite for this proposed
    change?
    
    Karen

Personally, the stuff drives me batty. Which conflicts with my assumption that,
as a co-mod, I've got to read every gosh-darn word in the notesfile. So, the
truth of the matter is, I don't.
	Mez

    i'm ready to vote, but could we make a minor amendment first?
    
    When a topic is declared "shuttlecock", noters who are still
    interested in following a discussion are asked to submit their
    mail addresses for a distribution list.  Then the major players
    may continue their discussions with an audience (maybe), and 
    all others need not waste time and energy complaining that
    they are bored with hearing the same arguments over and over.
    
    When a final agreement is reached between the major players,
    this may be posted to the old topic on the conference to
    enlighten those who did not follow the entire conversation.
    
    

    RE: .5
    Are the "major players" who are supposed to continue by mail the
    ones shuttlecocking or the ones wanting to address the substance of the 
    topic?

    Re .3:
    
    The particular change I propose allows the people who wish to
    contribute and read such dialogues to do so but also moves the notes to
    another topic so that the people who do not wish to observe can easily
    skip the more intense dialogues while still reading notes in the
    original topic -- thus, all people are served.
    
    I think there are benefits to conference participants (including
    readers) in that things can get into a good bit more detail with
    "shuttlecock noting".  It may require more work to follow, but there is
    also more information to gain.  I know that a number of people do
    follow such dialogues, and I presume they are interested.
    
    
    				-- edp

    There's one error in the voting instructions (my fault, not Eric's):
    the title of the ballot response should contain either a "yes" or a
    "no" AND the number of your registration in parens (eg, I would put
    
    	XXXX (2.1)
    
    where XXXX is my vote and "(2.1)" is the index to my intro.
    
    Thanks, and apologies for the error.
    
    						=maggie

Maggie (or other moderators): are we voting on the pit bull proposal or
on the xxxxxcock proposal?

     Carol

    Well, in this string we'll be voting on Eric's proposal (the one in
    .0), Carol.
    
    There is indeed another proposal in the works, but we withdrew it for
    the moment to sort out the wording which, from the feedback we got,
    wasn't the best or most accurate in its original form.  We were hoping
    to offer it at least simultaneously (it was as you know originally the
    only one!) but that doesn't seem to be working out very well.  Perhaps
    we can still somehow offer it during the weekend, but if not then it
    will have to be held over til we know the fate of this one.
    
    						=maggie 

    re .0:  edp, who are the "we" that you are speaking for in .0?  If this
    is a sponsored proposal, who specifically are the sponsors?
    
    regards,
    Marge

    Re .12:
    
    It's an editorial "we" -- I was Executive Editor of my school magazine,
    so I'm entitled to it.  Plus, I conferred with another noter before
    posting the message.  :-)
    
    
    				-- edp

I vote NO.  This policy statement takes a judgement that shuttlecock
noting is valuable and productive, etc.  This may or may not be the
case but how it is not possible to determine this ahead of time.

I'll vote NO on this and the other policy to delete "pit-bull" noting.
I think the mods have enough work to do and I just hit unseen when I
see certains names lately so it's easy enough to avoid the stuff that
makes you crazy.  I'm not for censorship of notes.   This policy
seems silly to me - a reaction against the first proposed policy -
why make work for people?

john

On principle: I think less moderation is better moderation.  As a modified
anarchist I discourage the passing of *yet* *more* laws.  Unless absolutely
necessary, I don't think the majority should impose its judgements and
limitations on the minority.  Anyone wishing to discuss this is free to
contact me *off-line*.

D!

    Sounds like two cubic tons of extra work for the moderators...they have
    better things to do with their time than spend 80 hours a week
    babysitting =wn.
    
    Laura
    

    
    
    The following reply is from an individual who is known to me and who
    is registered but wished to cast their vote anonymously.
    
    Bonnie J 
    =wn= comod
    
    ________________________________________________________________
    
	I wish to vote "no" to this topic for several reasons:

	1. It's sarcastic tone is, in itself, devaluing of "shuttlecock
	   noting."  If it is seriously intended to be =wn policy, it should
	   have been made in a neutral manner that is respectful of the
	   membership.

	2. It is a mechanical response to a problem of communication between
	   two or more people.  Such responses should be made with judgement
	   and tact, preferably by off-line mail to the "combatants."  The
	   moderators are already empowered to do this, policy or no policy.

	3. The proposed mechanism limits the right of an employee to
	   participate in =wn and, insofar as it publicly labels an
	   employee's participation in a negative manner, may be seen as
	   harassing by that employee.  This labelling, writelocking, and
	   moving of responses goes against Digital's philosophy of open
	   communication.
 

    As far as I can tell, the proposal as written isn't implementable. 
    There are too many unanswered questions, such as:
    
    1) Once a string has been declared a shuttlecock topic, does it keep
    that status forever?  If not, how does it revert.
    
    2) After designation, "recent responses" will be moved.  How recent?
    
    3) Future notes of that type will be "solicited" in the new location,
    but that simply means "invited", there is no obvious requirement that
    they go there.
    
    4) "Non-shuttlecock notes may be posted to the old topic" by whom?  The
    original shuttlecock noters too?  How can the mods possibly determine
    where a note should go?
    
    As currently written, this proposal would seem to increase the workload
    of the mods by some probably large amount without actually providing
    any clear benefits to anyone.
    
    						=maggie

    Not worth the trouble.
    
    Lorna
    

    
    	Am against this policy because I don't feel that certain tones
    	of voice in this conference need "special moderation" (whether
    	this special moderation amounts to moving notes, or summarily
    	deleting certain types of notes as has been suggested elsewhere.)
    

    I also vote "NO"
    
    If the combatants would understand that just because they feel the need
    to nitpick, attack, over and over and over and over again, reiterating
    the same exact information over and over and over again, that there are
    other people in this file, hitting next unseen ignoring anything they
    have to say.  therefore their notes loose all value.  If I see a
    certain persons name on a note, I refuse to answer any of his notes.
    
    actually, all anyone who wants to pit-bull note needs to learn is
    consideration and take the bull***t off-line.
    
    vivian

    Well, I hate to go against the unanimous NO votes, but I am.  :-)
    I am voting YES for two reasons:
    
    1) This type of noting has not recurred recently.  My hope is that
       this policy (if enacted) would not have to be used.  So whether it
       is in existence or not will not matter, IF shuttlecock noting does 
       not happen.
    
    2) If this type of noting DOES recur, I want a policy with some teeth
       in it.
    
    I would like it to be possible for those noters who are NOT involved in
    the shuttlecock volley to continue to contribute their thoughts to a
    topic.  This has not been possible in past topics where shuttlecocking
    has broken out, since it's like trying to catch the ball WHILE Chris
    Evert and Martina Navratilova (sp) are fighting for match point.  At a
    VOLLEYBALL game!  (Where everyone's supposed to take turns.)  
    
    Since (in the past) pleas to stop have been ignored until they reach
    insult status (which is equally bad, and I've probably done it myself),
    I support MOVING of shuttlecock replies to a new topic, where the
    debate of who said what when can continue to rage publicly WITHOUT
    making it difficult/impossible for other noters to say what they wish
    in the original topic.
    
    Sorry moderators, for voting to give you more work!
    Pam

    I didn't put my intro number down--2.13
    

    I don't find "shuttlecock noting" absorbing or cathartic.
    (Did the author intend a ;-)?)  I belong to the
    "Let's take this off-line" school.  
    
    I use a command procedure that downloads unseen notes for me each night, 
    but I haven't figured out how to make it skip a particular topic or 
    author. It wouldn't matter where shuttlecock notes were moved: I still 
    have to page through them.  The solution proposed in .0 wouldn't help
    me any and it sounds like far too much work for the moderators.
    
    Jane
    

    as described.
    						Ann B.

    My no vote to this question is not an endorsement for nor agreement with 
    either "shuttle-cock" or "pit bull" noting.  
    
    Karen

    								-mr. bill

    I vote no on the shuttlecock model; the battle door we have now
    is enough ;-)

    I vote no out of concern for the mods and the issues =maggie raised.
    I sincerely hope a more feasible model will soon be proposed as I
    strongly agree with those who feel that *something* needs to be done.

    Sorry, I couldn't get in from my system!  No. .34 is from EGYPT::SMITH
    who "signed in" in 2.93 as MUMMY:SMITH!
    
    Nancy

    	
    Andy.
    

    
    i do not consider the writer of .0 to have the authority to call
    for a binding ballot.
    

    
    re:-1
    i am advised that the moderators have approved this ballot.
    as for myself, i approve of any rule that gives our dear moderators
    more authority.
    

I find most of the recent squabbles range from distasteful to distressing,
and if my kids were behaving like that I'd send them to their rooms for a
time-out period, until they felt they could come out and behave like 
adults.  However, I also believe in free speech, and if it amuses some
people to see how many subtle gratuitous insults they can pack into one
note, so be it.

I wish there was a way to let these noters enjoy this free speech without 
getting in the road of other discussions and derailing the thread of 
argument, but this policy won't do it.   

--bonnie

    3.13  No. Don't like censorship.
    
    However, if two people find themselves dominating a topic
    it would be appreciated if they took their irreconcilable 
    differences offline voluntarily. Point-by-point arguments,
    refutations and couterarguments may be interesting to the
    debating club members, but a two-way game of IGYNYSOB is
    tiresome at best.
    
    (For a discussion of the game IGYNYSOB see 'Games People Play',
    name of author forgotten, Berne maybe ?)
    
    

    I vote No, I find little value to the public bantering between two
    contributors. I would really like to see the notes of public bickering
    sent back to the contributors, resolved off line and possibly the
    results posted for those who care. I even think that would be an
    unrealistic task. 
    
    Each time I see such topics, I tend to hit next unseen. pity anyone
    that has something of value to contribute to the topic, I'll bet
    they feel muscled out of the topic because of the "personal" fights
    going on. 

    Gail

		NO

		_peggy

			(-)
			 |
				"I smell bear in the honey."
				Quoth Piget.

	Although this activity that spawned this particlar vote does make me
wish Notes had the concept of a kill file....

						--D

    readalways/writerarely's can vote too, huh?

    All I can think of regarding 1015.46 is an ad parody that some college
    friends of mine were fond of -
    
    Announcer: "Mrs. Jaransky, mind if we borrow your son for a moment?"
    
    Mrs. Jaransky:  "Nah, go ahead."
    
    Announcer (whispering): "We're frying this half of Mrs. Jaransky's
    child in pure Wessox oil."
    
    (Noise of chainsaw.)
    
    Mrs. Jaransky: (*scream*)
    
    Announcer (jocularly): "It's to prove a point."
    
    
    Ray

    I like 1022.0 much better.
    
    DougO

    I also prefer 1022.
    
    Marge

I am changing my original "yes" vote to "no", and so as to vote in favor of
the proposal 1022.  The text of my original affirmative response .32 is
reproduced below.

	-Neil

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I believe that there is an intermittent, but serious problem.

I believe that the proposed "ping-pong noting" policy would have been
a better solution; but I believe that this policy is better than none
at all.

The proposed policy would certainly create additional work for the 
moderators; the moderators of a conference are, after all, the
sacrificial goats who suffer that the value of the conference to
the noting community may be enhanced.

Unlike Maggie, I do not believe that the policy is unimplementable.  While
it does have vague or unspecified details, I believe that they can be
resolved or inferred by reasoning from the language and intent of the policy 
and of other conference policies.  

My vote in favor of the proposal is not without reservations.  I find the
first paragraph of the rationale in .0 to be utterly specious.  I am also
concerned about the use of the word "we" in the second and third paragraphs,
which, whether regarded as plural or editorial, must be taken as referring
to the author of .0, despite the fact that the proposed policy itself 
empowers the moderators of the conference, and not the author of .0.

However, disregarding the rationale, I do believe that the proposed policy 
itself would be of benefit to the conference, and therefore I feel compelled
to vote "yes".

	-Neil Faiman

I prefer 1022.

    But I'll watch for proposals that I think would bring the
    shuttlebull/pitcock topics under control without curtailing real
    discussion.
    
    	Andrew.

    I'm changing my vote in note .25 to a NO, with this note.  I have
    changed the title in note .25 accordingly.
    
    I only voted YES because I would have voted YES to ANY proposal that
    attempts to deal with this problem.  I am tired of opening =wn= and
    being irritated to see a series of baiting exchanges...
    
    However, I like the proposal in 1022 much more.  More teeth, and
    sharper ones, too!!  :-)
    
    Pam

    Since even its author voted NO to this proposal, in my view it is moot.
    
    I believe it to have been a rhetorical point, not intended for actual
    implementation.

    We don't need to go on to another note, just because a few argumentive
    folks can't take issues off line.

    
    Nanci

    Hell NO! 

    I see a real problem, but this solution seems to add much too much
    to  the  mods  workload.  There  must  be a better, better defined
    solution.

--David

    Although I truely wish we could leave tit-for-tat noting behind I can't
    bring myself to believe this policy would help. 

    I too suspected edp's motives after reading the bru-ha-ha in SOAPBOX to
    see what was happening. At first I thought he was just laughing at us
    for not being able to see it. Now I have no idea what he wishes to
    accomplish. liesl

    p.s. maybe we could just make a rule that the first person to leave  a
    fight with "lets agree to disagree" is the winner. Then everyone
    should try and NOT have the last say.

	After giving this proposal much thought, instead of writing long
notes explaining my feelings on the subject, I have a counter-proposal.


	For those of you who read the "Far Side" comics.....

There is a place in Minnesota where the sun don't shine.


				KBear

    Untrue, Kbear, I come from Minnesota and I know.
    
    You're thinking of Alaska.
    
    						:-)

    I'm voting 'yes', since I like having only one or two places
    that I know I can avoid, when response time to -WN- is slow.
    
    Conversely, I like the idea of knowing what Notes I can turn to,
    when I want my blood pressure raised.
    
      Alan

    Is it me or does .0 sound like another note in here......
    
           REK 69 and 138

    Just what we need - yet ANOTHER barrier to participation in this
    conference.  Yeesh!
    
    				Steve

Seems to be too much fuss and work, as proposed.

   
    The results of this ballot:
    
    Votes cast: 	48
    In favor: 		 1
    Opposed:   		47
    
    As only 2% were in favor, the proposal failed of acceptance.
    
    
    Statistics:
    
    Women in favor:	0          Women opposed:	28
    Men in favor:  	1          Men opposed:		15
    Unknown in favor:	0          Unknown opposed:	 4
    ---------------------          -----------------------
    Total in favor:     1          Total opposed:       47