To: Vision2020
De: Sam Scripter, Moscow
Please read, below ....
-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Lamar <tlamar@moscow.com>
To: Moscow Vision 20/20 <vision2020@uidaho.edu>
Date: Thursday, May 28, 1998 11:47 PM
Subject: Two concerns
(Big snip Tom's by Sam Scripter ...)
[Tom Lamar wrote ...]
>This list server has been useful in the past. I would like the steering
>committee to consider disallowing anonymous posts. I also suggest
>individual members of the steering committee examine their own willingness
>to allow gossip on this list server. I wonder about the limits of
>liability of individual steering committee members and Moscow Vision 2020
>as a whole in a libel or slander case.
>
>Tom Lamar
Sam Scripter [Moscow, ID] says:
I have managed an email list for about 150 "large runners" (Clydesdale Virtual
Racing Team) for over four years. We all enjoyed each other's company and we
had a fine time with no disputes, until recently.
Early this Spring, a new person joined and immediately brought ill will to our
list. Some old time members unsubscribed.
I felt compelled to take this remedial action:
- I "closed" the list to wide-open posting. Now one must be a subscriber to
post to the list.
- I made subscribing by "approval". This means that each subscribe request is
routed to me, as "list owner/manager". I in turn forward the request on to the
Majordomo email software when I am satisfied, which is almost always.
Many email systems provide a real first and last name along with an individual's
email address. Hence I see that apparently real name as part of the request to
subscribe to my list. Ordinarily, I then forward the request to the Majordomo
software and the individual's first and last name become part of the "list"
along with the email address.
When I get a subscribe request which does not display the requestor's real name,
I first email them a request for their first and last name. Perhaps two-thirds
of these individuals do not respond to me; I never hear from them again!
Apparently they choose to remain disguised and anonymous in cyber space, even
though they could "fool" me with a fake name?
My running list is not a full analog for Vision2020 because we "Clydesdales"
have never championed ourselves as a public forum for all views. We just
presumed that decency, good fun and respect for others would prevail. It has
except for the one individual who caused me to restrict access to the list.
The corrective measures I took as a list "owner" seem to me to be "heavy handed"
for a list such as Vision2020, which I believe we all expect to be a public
forum.
An extreme case would be to actually "moderate" the posts to Vision2020, which
has been mentioned before, and ruled out. To "moderate" a list means that each
post to the list is evaluated by at least one individual for its appropriateness
for the list, before it is forwarded on, to be posted to the list at large.
While that really would "control" content of Vision2020 postings, that would
comprise a form of censorship which I perceive as highly offensive.
I believe that what is "appropriate" for Vision2020 content may not be a
universal tenet.
How do we maintain the openness of Vision2020 for the expression of thought, but
also maintain a manner of decency and respect for others? Dale Goble addressed
that well. Is the "Golden Rule" an appropriate underlayment for Vision2020 list
practice, or is it too "old fashioned"?
Sam Scripter
AKA MoscowSam
Moscow, ID