good bye -> Fwd: list-moderation -> Re: KDE without gnome-shell?

[Bill Oliver]

On Fri, 8 Nov 2013, Robert Holtzman wrote:

> On Thu, Nov 07, 2013 at 06:08:47PM -0500, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 6:02 PM, Robert Holtzman wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> To you it's rude, to me blunt. This will never be resolved as it's a
>>> matter of individual taste, enviroment, upbringing, etc. You seem to
>>> have a thinner skin than I do.
>>>
>>
>> No.  I can tolerate it just fine but I shouldn't have to.  If you can't be
>> courteous to other users in this list,  you aren't following the list
>> guidelines and moderators may choose to step in and at that point, your
>> argument that it is all so very personal and subjective and hence we should
>> all tolerate any abuse that is thrown out won't work.
>
> You've stated your position and I've stated mine. End of subject.
>

Actually, I think both of you are missing the point. I think you need to look at it from a consequentialist point of view.  It *doesn't matter* whether or not Mr. Sundaram is offended and it doesn't matter that you are not offended.  Both of you will continue to participate on the user list.  Since it doesn't affect your behavior in a meaningful way, it is of no consequence.  That's not true for other kinds of users, and the moderators need to consider that.

In most lists, there are a core of contributors who post relatively frequently. They are the ones who keep the list going, keep people interested, and provide many, if not most, of the answers, suggestions, topics, etc.  As long as these core people continue to provide these services, it doesn't matter if they piss *each other* off.

However, there are two other constituencies -- the lurkers and the occasional users.  Lurkers read the list on a regular basis but rarely post.  Often they have a relatively decent level of knowledge and will provide help for a specific topic they feel confident about, but they won't engage in the everyday back and forth.

Occasional users are those folk out there who don't care about the user's list per se, but are simply looking for a solution to a particular problem.  They come to the list asking a question and will likely stop reading once the quesion is answered.  Sometimes, if the list turns out to be interesting and fun to read for the short time they are monitoring it, they may turn into lurkers or even regular posters.  For instance, I came to this list with a specific question, but have stayed as a lurker and occasional -- but not particularly active -- poster.

The important question, I propose as a conjecture, is that it doesn't matter whether someone irritates the core posters, since it won't change their behavior in any substantive way.  The question is whether or not certain responses *to the more casual readers* will drive them away.  Will it make the *lurkers* leave or make them less likely to provide an answer to a question that they feel confident enough to post about?  Will it make the casual user less likely to stay, or, worse, go somewhere else with questions?

It is useful for any open list whose mandate is primarily oriented towards support to offer answers to questions that exploit the broadest range and greatest number of knowledgeable people possible.  If the responses on the list cause others to leave in large numbers, then they are counterproductive.  If, on the other hand, they encourage others to stay and interact, then they are productive -- even if any individual post is off-topic or irritating to the core users.

Saying that "you can always hit the delete key" is a proper response to a core user.  It is a reasonable, but not optimal, response to a lurker.  It is a bad response to a casual user, because it is the functional equivalent of "go away."  Thus, were I a moderator, I would look not so much at how irritating a response is, but more to *who* the irritating response is directed at.  If a poster is dismissive towards a core user, it doesn't matter.  If a poster is insulting to a casual user, it could damage the list in the long run by discouraging the accretion of new active participants.

Or, as the saying goes, "You can't talk about my sister that way!  Only I can -- because she's family."

billo