Conference 7.286::digital

    Someone HAS to watch over the content of the notes.  Though the
    views may be the personal observations of the author, there has
    to be a certain amount of decorum.
    
    Firstly, despite the fact that these conferences are *supposed*
    to be for INTERNAL USE ONLY, check on how many sales reps hand out
    copies of Sales Update, Competitive Update, DECsell, etc.  And,
    they do it with an admonition to the customer..."look what I'm giving
    you.  It's internal, but FOR YOU (I'll do anything for a sale).
    Likewise, it would be very easy for anyone to copy a note and replies
    for a customer.  It happens!  Maybe with good intentions, but yet
    it happens.
    
    Second, someone's got to assure the integrity of the conference.
    If a conference is devoted to XYZ, it should remain so.  There are
    other conferences which might be better suited to the query or comment.
    
    Third, there will always be someone who types like they speak, full
    of explitives, which must be deleted.  Someone must watch over them.
    
    Finally, read the intro note in most conferences.  This usually gives 
    one the rules of the road to which one is supposed to abide.  I'm as 
    guilty as the next in jumping into a new (for me) conference which has 
    been ongoing...and going right into the middle of the muddle to solve 
    my particular problem or add my 2 cents.  I've been "bashed" for not 
    following the rules of the road on occasion.

    Bottom line: Don't blame Tom!
    	It's a dirty job, but someone has to do it!  If no one does,
    there wouldn't be these conferences.  And, as far as I'm concerned,
    I've learned more thru them, technical and otherwise, than in all
    the other ways I've been trained in the 10+ years I've been with
    DEC.
    	
    Mark

    It might behoove the powers to be to adopt one technique from SOAPBOX:
    
    The "Hidden/Deleted" Topic, where the Mods can explain why something
    was done, or at least what was done, without the insertion of two
    or three replies in a row in a discussion saying this was done,
    that was done, now they are undone, etc.
    
    The moderation can continue, yet the various moderator messages
    can be entered, and topics would be less disjointed.
    
    As for "Take it Soapbox" - why not ? It has to go somewhere, and
    in the box, the AUTHOR may end up in topic 204  8^) 
    
    Scooter

I support the moderator. If Tom was not so open about action being taken in 
the conference we would have people asking why topic x.x was set 
nowrite and reply n.n set hidden and cluttering the conference in that way.

    Re. .0 -- totally agree ... this conference is over-moderated to
    such a point that it is hard to get points from participants separated
    from moderator's ratholes.
    
    Then again, where were the moderators when instructions were posted
    on how to write a worm program?
    
    -- B

    As .1 stated, you have to be careful about what you allow to be
    seen by the "public".  Things can be worded differently to avoid
    the possibility of offending a particular group or pointing towards
    an individual person, who may/maynot be guilty of something.
    
    I myself wrote a note in this conference a few years ago titled
    something like "A Hypothetical Situation", which genereated quite
    a few responses (including anonymous vaxmail stating that I should
    delete my entries before the boom falls).  Now, anyone with the
    IQ of an eggplant could assume that this was a *real* situation
    instead of the stated "hypothetical" one, but I think the
    "hypothetical" questions kept the note from being hidden/deleted.
    
    I personally see nothing wrong in writing about an undesireable
    situation which does/could affect the way we work at Digital.  But
    the *author* of the note has the responsibility of keeping the dirt
    out, and the moderator(s) simply enforce that responsibility when
    the author has not taken the time to do so himself.
    
    fwiw
    Jon

    Don't dump it all on DR::BLINN.  There are other moderators of this
    conference who've been excersizing a heavy hand of late.  Other than
    that, I agree with much of what you say in .0. 
                        
    While I myself have written some REPLYs which stray from the straight
    and narrow definition of the stated purpose of this conference, I would
    hope the moderators could credit us with enough intelligence to not
    degenerate to the SOAPBOX level.  (Please, no ratholes on what THAT means) 
    

    The following letter was mailed to one esteemed moderator of this
    conference about two weeks ago.   Suffice to say, that .0 is not alone
    in his assessment of the situation.  Few days ago, I had entered a
    sarcastic reply in "SAVE Suspension" topic which was strikingly similar
    in content.

    Hello,
    
    It pains me very much to write this letter to you.  I have highest
    regard for all of you as esteemed, experienced and highly respected as
    noters _and_ moderators.  I have had pleasure of being acquainted with
    almost of you in the past and have managed to continue to be on
    friendly terms.  Considering my own behavior, that is quite a tribute
    to you :-):-) 

    I would like to see more balanced coverage for this conference from its
    _all_ moderators. I am somewhat troubled to see so many patronizing and
    condescending replies from some of the moderators.  I am disturbed by
    constant barrage of apologetic notes entered on behalf of digital
    management, even though the (s)he does NOT have that authority. The
    content of most of them seem to advice employee to "call their
    congresspersons".  I especially recent that advice as that option is
    not available to some of us.  To the best of my knowledge, I am a legal
    employee of Digital Equipment Corporation and a legal resident of
    United States.  As far as I am concerned, it is the Digital Equipment
    Corporation which ultimately decides how it wants to treat its
    employee.  I am tired of constantly being reminded of how "it is
    utterly helpless" and how "it is forced by Government" to treat
    its employee in a certain way.
    
    A harsh and forceful reply entered by moderator(s) carries lot more
    weight even if claimed by the moderator(s)s that they were not acting as
    moderators.  I expect moderator(s) of a conference to be extremely
    cautious in entering anything in the conference, less if they be seen
    as acting in their moderator authority. 
    
    Please, let us have some more moderators active in this conference. 
    At the very least, do show some restraint in immediately jumping
    on a hapless noter.
    
    Thanks,
    - Vikas

    P.S. I have not been personally slammed down by any of the moderators,
    and I will NOT make a big issue over this.  Please treat it as a
    sincere suggestion.  There is no need to get defensive.  If you believe
    that you do NOT behave the way I have described, please ignore this
    message as it is NOT for you.
         

    Please, please, please don't use the word "public" to describe "Digital
    employees".
    
    When the time comes, and that day may come, when a judge or jury is
    trying to figure out whether this network is "public" or "private",
    someone will be adding up the number of times the EASYNET is referred
    to with the word "public" and the words "private" or "internal" and we
    may lose and lose big.
    
    I'd take _any_ style moderation of this conference, if only the SIGNAL
    TO MODERATOR/ANTI-MODERATOR NOISE ratio could be improved.  In SOAPBOX
    the moderators as a group insist that the specific discussion of why a
    note is hidden or deleted go through mail.
                          

    I agree with .0 and .7.  There certainly are cases where moderation is
    called for, but in this file (and ASKENET), the moderation level is
    much too high.  The ratio of obscenities and libelous statements to
    heavy-handed moderator comments approaches 0.

    Among the conferences that I follow, there are three types of moderators:
	1.  Those that stay out except in rare cases (WAR_STORIES).
	2.  Those that provide a valuable service by keeping the
	    conference organized (HOME_WORK, CLASSIFIED_ADS).
	3.  Those that annoy (DIGITAL, ASKENET).

                I don't usually get into these discussions but I must
        make an exception here. 
                
                While I have been very annoyed at the method that Mr.
        Blinn and others have chosen to do their moderating in this
        conference, I do agree (mostly - no one is ever in perfect
        agreement) with the positions taken on the issues. What I
        believe is needed here is an attitude on the part of the
        moderators that can be percieved differently by the mass of
        noters. They may be (and since I mostly agree with the reasons
        they probably are) very well meaning in their moderating. The
        problem is the perception by a number of the noters (myself
        included) that the tone of the moderating is something like
        "D##$IT, WILL YOU IDIOTS WAKE UP FOR A CHANGE!!". This
        perception can be changed with a little more thought by the
        moderators on how to word their replies/edicts. 
                
                One further comment - I know that the moderators job is
        both necessary and often not easy, and in general I have a high
        regard for their collective efforts. 
                
                /s/     Bob

Cut 'em some slack, they are doing a good job.  There simply seems
to be no style or tone that appeases everyone; what is efficiently
terse to some is brusque to others; what is patiently explanatory
to the new or notes-inexperienced employee is patronizing to the vet.

DIGITAL.NOTE discusses many sensitive topics, many of which graze
near legal, personell, and international issues ... it is to be
expected that moderation of the intervention style would be more
common here than in other conferences.

There is no concensus on many things about moderating; for example,
while some like "discussion by mail" others abhor it.

The NEXT/UNSEEN key, like the dial on your televison, is as capable
of editing the boring as well as the offensive.

- greg

    My comments are directed towards the style of moderating
    only, not the moderator(s) personally.
    
    I would expect moderation of a conference such as DIGITAL to
    be a little more "heavy-handed" than most others, but I do
    agree with .0.  For me, the moderation in this conference is
    *too* heavy-handed and incredibly CONTROLLING.
    
    
    

I'll start this out by saying that I've known Dr. Tom for about 13 years and 
we've been friends for a good piece of this.  I don't think that this will
colour my responses any :-)

I think that the moderators of this conference are doing an excelent job in
one of the most difficult places to moderate.  Gail and Tom dilligently watch
to make sure that we don't open-mouth-and-insert-foot.  Their comments as
moderators can be brusk but the job of a moderator is to mediate the
responsibilities of the corporation with the interests of the membership.
If there is something said that will hurt the corporation or an individual,
it is the responsibility of the moderators to hide the topic (explanations
are nice but neccessary) *as quickly as possible*.  Act first and negotiate 
later.  Cases (all of which I've seen in this conference) include:
	-Clear violation of Digital Policy
	-Clear violation of a law
	-Clear violation of a person's privacy
	-Discussion of unnanounced products
	-Personal attacks on individuals or the corporation  

Well, I'll tell those of you who are not moderators of conferences
how moderators make these judgement calls - they make judgement calls based
on any and all experience they have.  Then they discuss with other moderators.
Sometimes the are right.  Sometimes they are wrong and apologize (yes, 
I've seen this too).  Most of the time, they think and I think that they've
done the right thing.  When I disagree, I send mail saying "Tom, I disagree
and here's why".  Sometimes I convince Tom.  Sometimes he convinces me.

Anyway, after the issue is resolved, there is usually a discussion of what 
happened and why.  And after some thought, you may not have liked how something
was said but the right thing was done.  Something you won't find many in other
conferencfes.

I've had notes returned to me from this conference and the one I co-moderate.
Usually, my answer is that something got lost between the spoken thought and
the written word.  Re-thinking my words, I can see how they were immoderate
or inflamatory.  I take it as a learning experience.

The other thing that I think that we miss is the difference between 
Tom-the-Noter and Tom-the-Moderator.  To me, at least, the notes read very
differently.  Tom-the-Noter can sometimes be heavy-handed, didactic, 
condescending, or bullish.  If Tom is like that, I usually send Tom a note
saying "Tom that was really heavy-handed"  and he usually says "yup" and 
sometimes changes his note.

Tom-the-Moderator is very moderate.  He's looking for the good of the company
and the good of the membership.  And he's trying to do the right thing. 

What we see in this conference and the complaints about the moderation is
umpire-bashing.  "The umpire is a bum and a creep and a despot because s/he
made a call I didn't like".  Well, the other side probably liked the call a
lot.  But YOU didn't like the action or the tone or the lay of the words.
Well, I think that these umpires do a great job when there are 5000 teams on
the field.

Cut the moderators some slack.  Moderating Digital.Note is a job I don't think 
you want (I sure don't envy the Mods).

BobW

    I have found the moderator's occasional intervention to be wise,
    articulate, and helpful.

    re: .0
    
    I'd have to agree with the major premise of the base note.
    
    As for the reason, I'd liken it to teacher burn-out.
    
    When you start out, it's interesting, you're also learning, and it's an
    adventure.  I know from personal experience, though, that when you've
    taught "Intro to BASIC" for the 5th or 6th time, you get bored and even
    though you don't do it consciously, you begin to resent the fact that
    this particular class doesn't know what you've been telling people over
    and over for years. 
    
    This usually manifests itself in being terse, heavy-handed and
    inflexible when dealing with the population in question.  When what's
    new to someone else is routine to you, you can't share their enthusiasm
    and certainly won't tolerate their mistakes. 
    
    If you begin to notice yourself engaging in that type of behavior or if
    more than a couple of people point it out to you, I think it's time to
    give it up and let someone with a little less "experience" do it. 
    
    re: .8
    
>    I'd take _any_ style moderation of this conference, if only the SIGNAL
>    TO MODERATOR/ANTI-MODERATOR NOISE ratio could be improved. 
    
    You're either extremely sensitive to "anti-moderator noise" or I
    haven't been paying much attention.  This note is the only one
    in my recollection that's dared to bring up the topic in this
    conference.  I believe that the apparent hesitation with which the
    author of the base note entered it is testimony to that.
    
    -joe tomkowitz
    

re .13:

>The other thing that I think that we miss is the difference between 
>Tom-the-Noter and Tom-the-Moderator.  To me, at least, the notes read very
>differently.  Tom-the-Noter can sometimes be heavy-handed, didactic, 
>condescending, or bullish.
...
>Tom-the-Moderator is very moderate.  He's looking for the good of the company
>and the good of the membership.  And he's trying to do the right thing. 

    I hadn't considered that.  Many moderators who are active participants
    in the conferences they moderate specify when they are putting on their
    moderator hat.

    I've quickly scanned DR::BLINN's entries from note 700 on.  There's a
    lot more Tom-the-Noter than Tom-the-Moderator.  I agree that the
    moderation of this file is fairly good.

    Now, if we could just get Tom-the-ASKENET-Moderator to emulate
    Tom-the-DIGITAL-Moderator instead of Tom-the-DIGITAL-Noter...

    I think Tom does a good job -- as a fellow moderator of other
    conferences, I believe it is better to err on the conservative side
    where legal issues are at stake. 
    
    I have one request though...sometimes questions are placed here of a
    very general nature.  There may be a VAXnotes conference somewhere on
    the net devoted to the subject, populated by experts and aficionados.
    I would like to see the more general questions stand in here -- I often
    learn things from them that I would never learn if they were posted in
    a specialized conference. 
    
    Of course, if the writer needs experts, it is appropriate to point
    them to the other file.
    
    I appreciate the fact that Tom let my bar mitzvah question stay
    in here, even though he pointed out that there is a Jewish issues
    conference if I needed more info.  I'd like to see more of that
    type of moderation here.
    
    Holly

re .17:

    Uh, Holly, this is DIGITAL, not ASKENET.  I know it's easy to confuse
    the two, since DR::BLINN moderates both.

    Though Tom and I have had VAXmail contact over differences here,
    I must say here that Tom is a great moderator.  He usually suggests
    other conferences where topics can be taken.  This allows everyone
    to see that little known conferences do exist on almost any subject.
    I also have noted that Tom participates more than he moderates,
    as has been pointed out.
    
    His job is akin to walking a tightrope, and I would rather he err
    on the side of our beloved company than on ours.  Where would all
    this be without the company and its network?  For that matter, where
    would we be?
    
    So, give a hand to Tom, for doing a hard job quite well.

        Gee, what can I say?  I acknowledge that I tend to over-control
        some of the time.  I know it.  I'm working on it.  If you think
        I'm doing it, PLEASE don't hesitate to send MAIL.  (I try not
        to be an ogre.)  
        
        Yes, you see two sides, Tom-the-Moderator and Tom-the-Noter, and I
        don't always explicitly say which hat I'm wearing.  Some others do
        a better job of that.  I'll try to make it clearer when I think it
        will help.  There are probably other sides, too; I'm quite capable
        of stirring things up just for the sake of argument, some days.
        
        I'm also just as capable of human failings as any of us, although
        some may question whether I really believe that.
        
        If I really wanted to be a heavy-handed moderator (or dictator, or
        God) I could simply make this entire topic disappear.  I'm not
        going to do that (although I can't promise that none of the other
        moderators might).  I think it's healthy, to some extent, to
        discuss some of the "meta" conference issues.  But, if you want to
        sling mud or call names (which, I'm pleased to see, no one has
        been so immoderate as to do so far), please do it by MAIL instead
        of in here. 
        
        Tom
        wearing both hats

    Mea Culpa, I did forget which file I was in...
    
    But I feel the same way in both files, the example I gave
    notwithstanding...
    
    Holly

    
    As a moderator of a couple conferences, I have to admit that 
    good moderation takes a lot of judgement and often requires risks that are
    not rewarded in one's performance review. I admit at times I have
    agreed with some of the comments in .0 but would be hard pressed
    to volunteer for the job of DIGITAL moderator. A few observations:
    
    I'd hate to have to consult my lawyer before making entries in
    this or any other notes file. 
    
    I'd like to see the tone of this conference remain a little more
    detached, professional, logical, and so on than in SOAPBOX. 
    Otherwise what's the difference?
    
    erik g.

    
    Without taking either position, and seeing a "highly visible" noter
    in another notes file for comparison, my *FIRST* impression of the
    high signal-to-noise-ratio that appears in this conference was that
    there were person(s) trying to gain high visibility by making *lots*
    of entries, commenting on almost *every* topic, etc.
    
    In this *other* notes conference it is almost like *that* noter is
    begging to be noticed. What better way to get your name known than
    to have something to say in almost every instance. (I do not personally
    know if this other noter is a moderator of the *other* conference,
    so I prefer to make no judgements beyond those stated here).
    
    This behaviour can be viewed in a positive way or negative way.
    Example:
    
    	Your local police officer(s) start taking a *personal* interest
    in who/what/when/etc. of the "beat" they are on. In so doing they
    become more visible. Some view this as good, others bad. You judge
    for yourself whether this behaviour is good/bad/etc.
    
    In the case of the moderator's of this conference I am undecided.
    
    I would like to point out however, that there were *many* replies
    to this topic before a moderator made their presence known. That
    took restraint.
    
    Keep up the good work, taking the good points of this topic in
    consideration and pressing on.
    
    						Warren

    Seems like some people (not only moderators) spend so much time
    writing lengthy notes, that I wonder what their REAL job at DEC is.
    

    An inference can be drawn from .24: he wonders if writing lengthy
    replies comes from time paid for by Digital. 
    
    We have no way of determining a person's productivity, and no way to
    determine how many waking hours/day is actually spent "on the job" vs
    noting. I don't believe assuming 9-5 for working hours is reasonable.
    
    If I've missed .24's concern, perhaps he would care to restate it.

    I have never taken issue with the moderation policies here or on
    ASKENET (which I rarely read).  About a year ago I would have
    cheerfully assaulted one of the moderators of the MARKETING conference.
    Luckily, a continent separated us.
    
    karl

    In general I agree with .0.  It is interesting though, that I have
    great respect for the job Tom has done.
    
    I have read topics that he has pointed to other places adn wondered why
    he did not let people talk.  I dis-agreed with him.  On others he has
    done an excellent job of pointint the fire hose at the fire.
    
    In summary, he has done an excellent job (pat yourself on the back),
    but if you are not sure about it, let it ride for a day or two.
    
    	- mark

    The moderators of this conference are suspiciously quiet here.  

    It's unfortunate that there seems to be no good place to discuss 
    the rights of the note'rs.   Although, one good sign is that this 
    topic has yet to be set /write_lock, deleted, labeled inappropriate, 
    or told to take it to SOAPBOX by one of the moderators.  

    If any of you are members of the MODERATORS conference note 59.* 
    "Are we the 'Star Chamber'?" makes interesting reading.  Although 
    it's purely from a moderators point of view.  I'm no longer a member 
    since I refuse to participate in a conference that is set members 
    only for no good reason.  

    True anyone can join MODERATORS, but remember if you don't play 
    by the rules your out!  And believe me this conference has one of 
    the longest list of rules in existence.
    
    Sorry I forgot it's one of the unwritten rules in *this* conference 
    not to talk down about other conferences.  Even if they no-longer exist.

    /Bob

re .28:

>    The moderators of this conference are suspiciously quiet here.  

A moderator has replied to this topic. Go back 20 and miss a go.

>I'm no longer a member since I refuse to participate in a conference
>that is set members only for no good reason.  

There are good reasons, what you mean is, you don't agree with them.

    Re: .28
    
>    It's unfortunate that there seems to be no good place to discuss 
>    the rights of the note'rs.   
    
    "Rights of the noters"?  What rights?  I maintain that noters have no
    rights.  I am being quite serious here, and not attempting to be
    inflammatory.
    
    I frequently see people moaning about "freedom of speech" and "rights"
    in regard to noting at Digital.  Sorry, t'aint no such thing.  I
    believe that noting is a benefit, even a privilege, NOT a "right".
    Show me the corporate policy that says you have a right to noting.
    
    Often I get asked if Digital pays me to be a moderator, or how I got
    chosen for this job.  (I'm not a moderator of DIGITAL, but am of some
    of the other conferences mentioned in this topic.)  What many people
    don't seem to understand is that being a moderator is, in almost every
    case, a volunteer effort, a labor of love.  Volunteers start
    conferences such as this one, and they choose to spend copious
    quantities of time, energy and emotion in keeping the conferences
    running.  Without such a grass-roots base, noting as we know it would
    not exist.
    
    Think about this the next time you bash a moderator, who is most likely
    trying to balance the desires of the noters with the needs of Digital.
    If you don't like what a moderator did, send them mail - bitching about
    it in the conference will only make you an enemy.  You'd be surprised
    how effective a calm and well-reasoned complaint about a specific
    action, devoid of personal attacks, can be.
    
    And I am one who firmly believes that discussions about how the
    conference is run, such as this one, are extremely damaging to the
    conference as a whole.  I do not allow such meta-discussions in any
    conference I moderate.  And it works well.
    
    Moderators are people too, and they have emotions, which can sometimes
    get away from them.  I believe that the moderators of this conference
    have been doing a fine job, understanding that people whose fingers get
    stepped on will naturally complain.  It is true that sometimes the way
    in which some moderators express themselves could be improved, and
    I believe that recent data shows such improvement.
    
    If you really are so upset about the way a conference is run, just find
    some disk space and some spare CPU cycles and start your own.  Nobody
    has a monopoly on conferences.
    
    					Steve
    

       When moderators assume an air of arrogance, the noting community
       suffers.  The suggestions that the needs of Digital are guarded by
       the moderators (because, implicitly, the noting proletariat either
       doesn't care or doesn't know how to), that noters have no rights,
       and that moderators ought not be criticised all seem a bit
       paternalistic and condescending. 
       
       In .30, Steve brings back memories of the 20-year old "America --
       Love it or Leave it" bumper stickers with the idea that people who
       don't like the moderating style of a conference should go away and
       start their own conference.  I'd suggest the obverse -- that if a
       moderator is sufficiently upset with the time, effort, and heat
       deflection that it takes to moderate a conference, then it's time
       to step down as moderator and let someone else handle the job.
       (It would be rare, indeed, to find a conference where no one would
       be willing to serve as moderator.) 
       
       Overall, just about all moderators try to do a good job at
       moderating; some seem to lose perspective, though, especially when
       they have been closely associated with a conference for an
       extended period.  When a moderator nurtures a conference from the
       beginning, it's natural for the mod to come to feel [overly]
       protective.  In general, I think that people should moderate
       a conference for a specific term -- somewhere between 6 and
       18 months, probably -- and then automatically be required to
       step down. 
       
       Ultimately, the success and content of any conference are
       dependent on its contributors, not its moderators.  And it should
       be all the contributors to the conference, not just the
       moderators, who ought to determine what's best for the conference
       and how the conference can best serve Digital and its employees. 
       
       --Don Topaz 

        re "moderators...are suspiciously quiet here" - I'm one
        of the moderators of this conference.  Is there anything
        anyone would like to say to me or ask of me specifically?
        Either here or by MAIL is fine.
        
Jim Stratton

Hey you fellow Americans over there! Face the facts:

1) It's a privilege, not a right, to participate in 
   a conference. Just like it's a privilege, not a right,
   to work for DEC.

2) On the flip side of the coin it's also a privilege to be a
   moderator of a conference. A bad moderator should be removed.

On the whole, I don't find any major problems with moderators of
this conference. They're doing a great job with no incentive and 
little reward...

Regards from the land of the Vikings,

Geoff Rummel
Copenhagen, Denmark

I am quite pleased with the moderators performance in this conference.  
Although I my not be a contributor, I do read DIGITAL every day and have 
enjoyed the discussions until recently.  The moderator bashing is beginning 
to aggrevate me and I just might DELETE/ENTRY for a month or two before I 
re-open.  I try to make use of the NEXT/UNSEEN but with the bashing mixed 
with other notes I have read more than I want to.  
I read and contribute to some other conferences but do not moderate any nor 
wish to have this thank-less task.  To Tom and others GOOD JOB !!

Jilly

    re .33
    
    Where have you been?  Don't you know there's no such thing as a
    privilege anymore (except on computers), everything now is a
    GOD GIVEN right.  :^)/2
    
    Tom

re .30:

>    And I am one who firmly believes that discussions about how the
>    conference is run, such as this one, are extremely damaging to the
>    conference as a whole.  I do not allow such meta-discussions in any
>    conference I moderate.  And it works well.

    I disagree.  First of all, I think this topic has become a discussion
    of moderator behavior in general (not just in DIGITAL), and is an
    appropriate topic for DIGITAL, particularly since most participants
    aren't members of ATSE::MODERATORS.

    I think HOME_WORK is an example of the best in moderating.  There
    is extensive discussion of moderating issues there, and it has
    strengthened the conference.

    How do you know that preventing such discussions works better than
    allowing them?

    If 90% of the participants in a conference think the moderators
    are jerks, but there's valuable information in the conference,
    doesn't it make more sense to change moderators than to start
    a new conference from scratch?

          <<< HUMAN::DISK$HUMAN_WRKD:[NOTES$LIBRARY]DIGITAL.NOTE;1 >>>
                          -< The DEC way of working >-
================================================================================
Note XXX.0                    Moderator Elections.                    16 replies
BISTRO::WLODEK "Runnig fast to stay at the same pla" 23 lines  10-MAR-1989 10:24
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Lets give our moderators a mandate, just as it happened few months
     ago in our local conference, Valbonne. This is a very efficient way to
     stop unproductive rumblings about moderators position.

    	Lets elect moderators !!

    How about a month of casting votes, then a quick count and 5 first
    ones get elected ??


    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


    		Tom Blinn for moderator of Digital Conference !

    		my nomination and vote 
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    		Wlodek Stankiewicz
    		European Area Field Support, Comms .
    
================================================================================
Note xxx.1                    Moderator Elections.                       1 of 16
EXIT26::CREWS "What we have here is failure to commu" 3 lines  10-MAR-1989 11:25
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    RAINBO::CHIMENTO my nomination and vote.
    
    -- B
================================================================================
Note xxx.2                    Moderator Elections.                       2 of 16
SHAPES::KERRELLD "and without utensils"               3 lines  10-MAR-1989 11:29
                                    -< :-) >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

re.0:

Wlodek Stankiewicz for moderator of the Digital Conference !
================================================================================
Note xxx.3                    Moderator Elections.                       3 of 16
HAMER::JILSON "Door handle to door handle"            0 lines  10-MAR-1989 11:36
                             -< Blinn's my choice >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

================================================================================
Note xxx.4                    Moderator Elections.                       4 of 16
COOKIE::WITHERS "You know you can't memorize Zen"     0 lines  10-MAR-1989 11:47
                                   -< BLINN >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

================================================================================
Note xxx.5                    Moderator Elections.                       5 of 16
ODIXIE::SILVERS "Onsite at Monsanto-Pensacola,FL"     2 lines  10-MAR-1989 12:12
                                -< blinn agin' >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DR::BLINN
    
================================================================================
Note xxx.6                    Moderator Elections.                       6 of 16
BTO::GREENE_K "Will John Tower drink now?"             1 line  10-MAR-1989 12:14
                                -< GAIL KOSKI >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    
================================================================================
Note xxx.7                    Moderator Elections.                       7 of 16
JOET::JOET "Question authority."                      4 lines  10-MAR-1989 12:58
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The longer I'm in this company, the more it seems like junior high
    school.  Now we're holding Student Council elections.
    
    -joe tomkowitz
================================================================================
Note xxx.8                    Moderator Elections.                       8 of 16
LACV01::NEEDLEMAN "flagillate a deceased equine "      1 line  10-MAR-1989 12:59
                                    -< tom >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Tom has my vote
================================================================================
Note xxx.9                    Moderator Elections.                       9 of 16
MANFAC::GREENLAW                                       1 line  10-MAR-1989 13:07
           -< I see a consensus building for the good DR::, me too! >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    
================================================================================
Note xxx.10                   Moderator Elections.                      10 of 16
SPENDR::CLIFFORD "No Comment"                        20 lines  10-MAR-1989 13:14
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Alfred Thompson
    Mike Zaharee

    Best moderators I know.

    Not that it matters though. After all this ballot has no power. When
    it gets down to it control over a conference belongs to the owner of
    the system that it lives on. The owner of the system has the
    responsibility for what goes on. If they don't approve of the
    moderators then the moderators or the file (or both) are gone. So
    you either have to convince the owner of the system to change the 
    moderators or give up the conference. I suspect that the latter would
    be easier then the former.

    Unless and until you get the accent of the current owner of the file
    and the moderators you would be better off just starting your own
    conference. This has been done before and usually after a time the
    'right' one lives and the other one fades away. Competition works.

    ~Cliff
================================================================================
Note xxx.11                   Moderator Elections.                      11 of 16
COMET::BARRIANO "choke me in the shallow water..."    4 lines  10-MAR-1989 15:22
                              -< HOMECOMING KING >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    re .7
    I cast one vote for Joe tomkowitz for Homecoming King ;-)
    
    Barry
================================================================================
Note xxx.12                   Moderator Elections.                      12 of 16
MPGS::MCCLURE "Why Me???"                             5 lines  10-MAR-1989 15:34
                    -< Tom the noter or tom the moderator? >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Holy Cow, Tom goes away on a short trip and the whole conference
    goes down the tubes. Man is he going to be busy when he gets back.
    8-} 8-}
    
    Bob Mc
================================================================================
Note xxx.13                   Moderator Elections.                      13 of 16
FSADMN::REESE                                        47 lines  10-MAR-1989 16:03
                            -< Vote for status quo >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Before this gets out of hand, how can you suggest other people
    as moderators without any idea if _they_ would be interested?
    
    The guy's name escapes me for the moment, but remember The Old
    Smothers Brothers Show....had that one dude....every 4 years
    at election time:
    
    	"If nominated I will not run, if elected I will not serve" :-)
    
    Sorry if I seem facetious here, but if you all have problems
    with the moderators, why not address it with them directly?  Earlier
    this week, Tom Blinn set one of my notes hidden.  He kept in
    constant touch with me by mail explaining his reasons, he also
    kept the readers advised in that note as to the status. 
    
    I chose to delete my original note because *I* chose to do so
    after re-thinking the entire matter.  Tom did not ask me to delete
    it, nor did he suggest that I re-word it; his mail to me did raise
    some valid issues. I did not feel he was censoring me!           
    
    In my mail back to Tom I did express my opinion that sometimes
    the moderation appears to be heavy-handed; Tom seems to have
    accepted my criticism with good grace.
    
    This is a very large conference; even reading at a rapid pace,
    nights and weekends, it has taken me weeks to reduce the notes
    read down to approxiamtely 3,000 to go.....  Although I too feel
    that some of the pointers to newcomers have come across as rather
    abrupt, I am impressed that the moderators can stay on top of
    such a large conference so well that they _can_ point to where
    a topic has been previously discussed.                
                
    Also, as someone who has been consistently reading all the notes
    in chronological order, plus checking current topics, one thing
    _stands out_ very clear; the moderators are by no means the
    only people abruptly pointing to other notes or abruptly inform-
    ing that thus and such a topic is not suitable for this conference.
    
    Unless you are willing to submit your own names and systems, why
    not do the moderators the courtesy of addressing your concerns
    directly with them.
    
    Karen
    
    PS:  Pat Paulsen = Smothers Brothers
    
    
================================================================================
Note xxx.14                   Moderator Elections.                      14 of 16
DPDMAI::AINSLEY "Less than 150 kts. is TOO slow!"     4 lines  10-MAR-1989 16:34
                        -< Is it something in the air? >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Is this an annual rite of spring?  One of the other conferences
    I frequent is also having a very similar discussion right now.
    
    Bob
================================================================================
Note xxx.15                   Moderator Elections.                      15 of 16
SCARY::M_DAVIS "Coffee, please. Irregular."           4 lines  10-MAR-1989 16:58
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ...a lousy, thankless job that should never be awarded to anyone who
    volunteers for it since they certainly cannot be considered fit!
    
    Grins
================================================================================
Note xxx                Moderator Elections.                      16 of 16
MARVIN::COCKBURN "Craig, PhaseV & FCNS"               5 lines  10-MAR-1989 17:29
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'll put in another vote for Wlodek - If he's busy moderating this 
conference he might not give me so much <expletive deleted> work to
do :-)

	Craig.

    re: .37
    
>< Note 743.37 by BUSY::KLEINBERGER "Disic Vita Lux Hominum" >
>                   -< Moved by moderator for consolidation >-
>
>          <<< HUMAN::DISK$HUMAN_WRKD:[NOTES$LIBRARY]DIGITAL.NOTE;1 >>>
>                          -< The DEC way of working >-
>===============================================================================
>Note XXX.0                   Moderator Elections.                    16 replies
>BISTRO::WLODEK "Runnig fast to stay at the same pla" 23 lines 10-MAR-1989 10:24
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    Gee, thanks for taking the time and effort to extract that note, mask
    the original numbers and move it over here.  God knows what might have
    happened if you hadn't used up those precious Moderation resources we
    hear so much about to prevent wanton untidiness from taking over this
    Corporate Document.
    
    Why, left unchecked, people might get the idea that they can express
    their opinions here freely.  Nothing like putting people/things in
    their "proper place" to remind the masses who's in charge.
    
    -joe tomkowitz

        To everyone who is not happy with the way this conference
        is being moderated:
        
         1.  What, specifically, would you do or not do that you
             have seen one or moderators not do or do?
        
         2.  Would you like to volunteer being a moderator of this
             conference?  If not, why not?
        
Jim Stratton

    Re .-1
    
    My cut at your questions:

    Re:
        
    >     1.  What, specifically, would you do or not do that you
    >         have seen one or moderators not do or do?
    
    First I draw a distinction between 'technical' conferences and
    'comment' conferences. My remarks here refer to 'comment' conferences.
    I define a 'technical' conference as one where an engineering group
    (or any other group for that matter) runs a conference on a product
    or product set. The prime purpose of those type of conferences is
    to disseminate information and for noters to gather information
    from the conference on the product set.
    
    A 'comment' conference is one like this or marketing where the people
    moderating the conference have no control over the conference subject.
    Ie DIGITAL the company or MARKETING in general. On to my remarks
    about this sort of conference:
    
    	- A moderator should not comment on a notes appropriateness.
    	  If a noter says something that is against company policy then
    	  it is up to his line management to institute corrective action
    	  not some self appointed moderator.
    
    	- A moderator should not pass judgement the actions of noters.
    
    	- In summary a moderator should do absolutely nothing except
    	  maybe rearrange notes so that information can more easily
    	  be found.    

    Re:
    
    >          2.  Would you like to volunteer being a moderator of this
    >             conference?  If not, why not?
    
    No I would not volunteer because as stated above I don't believe
    that a conference such as this should have a moderator. The only
    useful moderation function would be note rearrangement and quite
    frankly I'm not interested in doing that.
    
    In summary a conference should lice or die on how its writers deal
    with it. If they fill it up with drivel then sensible readers will
    go away. If they put useful information in it it will keep an informed
    clientele. A moderator only serves to muddy the waters.
    
    Dave    

 38>    Why, left unchecked, people might get the idea that they can express
.38>    their opinions here freely.  Nothing like putting people/things in
.38>    their "proper place" to remind the masses who's in charge.
    

    Excuse me?  I see nothing wrong with consolidating the two notes.
    I'm glad she did.  Now I don't have to look in three notes for this
    garbage, I only have to look into two of them. The other two should
    be consolidated also, so that its all in one place and I only have
    to hit the next unseen key once if I choose.

    Where do you think that consolidating two notes stops opinions
    freely?  It SURELY didn't stop yours did it? I doubt that it will
    stop anyone else's either.  
    
    I'm glad the notes were consolidated.

    re:  .39  "the survey"
    
    Overall, I think this conference and most others on the network
    are moderated well, especially considering the fact that NOTES is
    on the cutting edge of interpersonal communications, and there are
    no clear precedents to follow.  We have to make up the rules as we
    go along, and there's a little suffering that will always accompany
    the process.  Mistakes will be made, and we have to learn from them.
    
    So much for platitudes.  NOW, there are two problems that I see
    rampant in the NOTES community, and only one of them concerns the
    moderators.
    
    Moderators seem to have taken on the aspect of editor, rather than
    as referee.  The "pre-emptive strike" tactics of some moderators
    leave the impression that the moderator is going according to his
    own tastes, rather than by the will of the participants.  More than
    once I've had a note returned that no one other than the *moderator*
    had any complaints about.  And most of the time, these notes were re-
    posted, once I had explained them to the *moderator's* satisfaction,
    and gained his *permission* to re-post them.
    
    The other problem (which often incites moderators) is the inability
    of the noting community to understand the differences between their
    RIGHTS under the law, their PRIVILEGES under our social and cultural
    structure, and their RESPONSIBILITIES under the rules of the Company.

    Very often I see noters who invoke the "right" of free speech to
    justify writing something, or who say it's their "right" to use
    Notes because they are company assets rather than the personal
    property of the moderators.  And very often they are neglecting
    the bigger picture, which include their responsibilites, not just
    their "rights".  The moderators often react to people who push the
    limits of their "rights".  This is great, because it usually saves
    the company lots of legal expenses, and sometimes even keeps the
    noter from losing his job or from other possible disciplinary actions.
    But sadly, it also deprives the rest of the community from some sort
    of "negative example" from which to learn the hard facts of life.
    
    I saw a note in here somewhere from a person looking for "horror
    stories", examples of people who had been disciplined or fired for
    something they had put in a notes file.  I haven't seen any.  Is
    that really good or bad?

    Now that I've made my dissertation,  to answer the specific questions
    of Jim Stratton in .39:
    
    1.  Your doing a fine job, perhaps too well.  But, unless disk space
    is a real problem, try to lighten up on the "not relevant discussion"
    warnings, and let someone in the user community blow the horn first.
    
    2.  If I ever get transferred to the Greater Maynard Area, I'd love
    to participate as a moderator in this or some other high-visibility
    conference.  As it is, I'm Tail-End Charlie on a none-to-reliable
    network link out in the Field (Austin, TX), and I don't feel that I
    could fulfill the responsibility at this time.
    
    Geoff
    

	In principle I agree with Dave Garrod's rules for "comment"
	conference moderating. There are very few instances, like 
	real personal attacks, incitement to illicit activities,
	or anonymous notes when swift moderator action is necessary.

	My idea is that conferences moderate themselves, ignorant and
	stupid notes get simply ignored, which is much more painful
	and punishing then any moderator action.
	At one instance of rather rude exchange in our local conference
	( I'm a co-moderator elect ), I've even explicitly pointed out
	that the few rude notes will not be deleted and for eternity witness
	of authors good taste and wit. Some of which were deleted by authors
	afterwards

	Reposting my note was a minor error, that I hope to explain in
	next topic ( or it will get reposted here under .-) .

				
				Wlodek

				co-moderator elect of Valbonne
				moderator dictator of Comms_info
				moderator  usurper of Digital
	

    

Re: .43  Wlodek

>	My idea is that conferences moderate themselves, ignorant and
>	stupid notes get simply ignored, which is much more painful
>	and punishing then any moderator action.


The problem is that (a) most people *don't* ignore ignorant and stupid notes;
instead they get angry and write ignorant and stupid notes of their own, and
(b) at some point people complain to personnel or management, and suddenly the
moderators have to scramble to keep the conference alive.

In general I like moderators who keep a low profile, but they should know
when to step in before things get out of hand.

>	At one instance of rather rude exchange in our local conference
>	( I'm a co-moderator elect ), I've even explicitly pointed out
>	that the few rude notes will not be deleted and for eternity witness
>	of authors good taste and wit. Some of which were deleted by authors
>	afterwards

Reminds me of this little exchange from "Fast Times At Ridgemont High":

	Mr. Hand (Ray Walston):  I'm going to leave this on the blackboard,
				 for *all* my classes to see!

	Jeff Spicoli (Sean Penn): All right!

				-- Bob

    Leaving all the unreasonable or digressive notes in the conference
    drags the conference down to the lowest common denominator. It subjects
    the conference to disruption, intentional or not. I prefer moderators
    make a reasonable attempt to keep the conference going smoothly without
    disruptions. 
    
    The person who owns the resources gets to make the rules as long as
    they don't conflict with stated Digital policy. If readers feel that is
    "over moderation", then they are free to not participate or to find
    some resources and start a conference of their own. Let the fit
    survive.
    
    I have no problems with the moderation of this conference.

    It seems to me, that the role of moderator took on a heavier
    responsibility after a past incident in NOTES that did cause a specific
    NOTES conference to close and caused Digital management to take a
    very close look at what goes into NOTES conferences in general.
                                                       
    
    Although I read mostly and write infrequently, NOTES are important
    to me and I'd rather have the moderators doing their human best
    than lose NOTES altogether. 
    
    Like it or not, there are LEGAL implications surrounding everything
    we write in these NOTES conferences.                 
    
    I may not always agree with what a moderator does, but I respect
    that fact that they are doing a tough job, VOLUNTARILY. All NOTES
    conferences have the proper rules, or etiquette, posted and, as
    others have said, if you don't like them, you are not forced to
    participate. 
    
    I think the moderators do a fine job, even if I don't always agree
    with them.
    
    Joan G.
    
    
    

    Whenever the social sciences can't solve a problem, let the technocrats
    at it!  I have the solution!
    
    Notes need merely be modified so you can WRITE a REPLY!  In other
    words, when someone makes a comment that is off the subject, and you
    want to pursue it without disturbing the thread of the topic, use a
    command like REPLY/NEW that tacks a new decimal place onto a
    discussion!
    
    Now you have listings like:
    
    		324        FRED		HOW WE MODERATE NOTESFILES
    		324.1      BILL		I think its good!
    		324.2	   BOB		I think its bad!
    		324.2.1	   JOHN		Bob you're a jerk anyway
    		324.2.2	   BILL		Gee, I always liked BOB
    		324.2.2.1  JOHN		Bill, you're a jerk too!
    		324.2.2.2  BILL		Your mother!
    		324.2.3	   BOB		Bill, lets take this offline
    		324.3	   FREDA	I think its good too!
    		324.3.1	   MARY		Hi Freda, good to see you!
    		324.4	   JOE		I think it could use improvement
    		324.4.1	   ED		This isn't an approppriate topic
    		324.4.2	   JOHN		Of course it is!
    
    Of course, filters could be specified to ignore all replies below a
    certain threshold (i.e., number of decimal places).
    
    And moderators could easily move rathole replies from the main-stream
    to a sub-stream at anytime!  And I suppose set limits on the nesting
    level (SOAPBOX would either be one, or infinity).
    
    In this way, you can have meta-meta-meta replies on any subject,
    without messing up the primary thread.
    
    We *HAVE* the technology!
    
    Jim
    

    I'm only up to .15 in this note, but I think that Joe T has
    a point here... what is really happening is teacher burn out.
    Sometimes it is easy to forget that the nth person who makes
    x mistake  hasn't read the file very much and hasn't seen the
    n-1 examples of why he/she shouldn't do this. Yet to the moderator
    who has been writing the same thing over and over and over again,
    it gets to feel like "is NOONE listening?". There were times when
    I was teaching college that I also felt that way.
    
    One possible suggestion as to how to deal with this, is to write
    a number of generic letters, all of them nice and polite and formal.
    Then they can be used each time the same problem comes up without
    the danger of personal exasperation coming into play.
    
    Bonnie 
    
    p.s. and yes I realize that by answering such a long note so early
    in the string I run the risk of repeating something already suggested
    mea culpa.

    re: .48 Generic replies and messages are under development, Bonnie.
    
    
    Andy

    re: .49
    
    Make sure you let us know when phase0 starts.  I am sure many of us
    will show up! :-)
    
    	-mark

What happened to note 1906 (or 1908)? The topic was, in essence, "what would
you change to fix Digital?" As I recall there were a few replies, thus even
the author deleting the basenote would have still left a string of replies...

Thanks-

Lee

    
    re: .51 by CSOADM::ROTH
    
    That note was moved to the "If you were KO for a day" note, number 749.
    
    -Joe