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

[EGO.II-1]

On 11/09/2013 08:23 AM, Bill Oliver wrote:
> 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

Interesting topic, What about the person who WAS once a devoted 
person....but due to the responses he was getting....left....and after 
trying a slew of other distros...couldn't find anything that compared to 
this one?..so he came back, a bit subdued, and hoping his return goes 
un-noticed.....what category would he fall into?....lurker?....core 
user?...casual user?...(and I MAY be opening myself up to "attack" from 
certain people here....but guess I'll just take my lumps and bear it! LoL!)


EGO II