This is the contents of an email posted by the list administrator, Shahrukh Merchant, to the Tango-L mailing list on 6 February 2008, as part of a [now largely successful] effort to start enforcing the list rules and the quality of the postings, and make it a more welcoming place for people to share their opinions. However, this page may evolve in the future to reflect changes in the moderation algorithm (which are not anticipated to be major).
Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2008 17:03:57 -0200
From: Shahrukh Merchant <tango-L-owner @ mit.edu>
To: tango-L@mit.edu
Subject: How the Tango-L List is Moderated
Since the subject comes up once in a while, and some people have some
misconceptions about how it works (or just plain curiosity), here is the gist of
it.
In general, it is greatly to the advantage of the moderators NOT to have anyone
on moderation status, as it just creates more work for them. There are basically
two ways people get on moderated status.
a. When anyone first subscribes to the list, he is automatically on moderated
status. This is mostly to prevent spammers from subscribing and then sending
spam, and was implemented recently on Tango-L. It has the side benefit of
catching most newbie errors as well (e.g., unnecessarily attaching the entire
content of the previous email). After a few postings (sometimes as few as one),
the person is removed from moderated status.
b. Someone is put on moderated status by the moderator for intentional and/or
severe and/or repeated list abuse or rules violations, or for a statement of
intent to do so.
c. There is actually a third category, which I use once in a while, sort of a
blend of (a) and (b), which is to get the attention of someone who has some
relatively minor violation (e.g., unnecessarily attaching the entire previous
email), but who seems to ignore the repeated emails I send to them pointing this
out. It generally gets their attention when they HAVE to read and act on the
reminder email in order for their posts to get through. This is really more like
putting someone back in category (a), since they are newbie type errors, rather
than intentional or severe rules violations.
Hence, most of the rest of the discussion will focus on category (b):
"Intentional and/or severe and/or repeated list abuse or rules violations, or
for a statement of intent to do so." (As usual in such cases, it is 1% of the
posts or posters that end up needing 90% of the maintenance effort.)
To put things into context, let me mention three points:
i. There are, at this point in time, more people in category (b) than there have
every been in the history of Tango-L, and this number is a large whopping THREE
(3). I.e., it's an insignificant problem as far as I'm concerned in terms of
list membership but a significant nuisance in terms of my time, because it's
0.3% of the list membership demanding significantly more than their share of the
moderators' time.
ii. Since I started enforcing the rules, particular the "no flames" rules, the
exodus of about 10 people per month leaving because they are sick of the
bickering and rudeness has been stemmed (and they are generally the civilized
people one would LIKE to keep in such a group).
iii. I am not prepared to devote more than 1 month of my lifetime to attending
to list-member requests (particular those that come out of intentional rules
violations), which if you take the simplistic view that 1000 people will request
some kind of assistance at 15 minutes each, well that's thirty 8-hour days right
there. (I can't imagine being on my deathbed, saying, "My only regret in life is
not having spent more time administering Tango-L ....") And I am much more
willing to push that number for people having genuine technical or other such
problems with their postings, than people who arrogantly demand my time because
they feel that they are above the rules.
So, with these preliminaries out of the way, here is the approximate algorithm
for enforcement of the Tango-L rules.
1. If someone is in category (a) (temporary or default moderation) and the
posting is fine, I let it through and generally clear the moderation flag after
a small number of good postings. If there is a problem, even a small one, I
point it out along with a summary of the rule in question and a link to the
rules page, and invite the poster to correct and resubmit.
2. Every so often, I scan the Tango-L postings and send reminders to those who
have violated the rules. Most common are "unnecessary quoting of entire previous
email," "unrelated to tango" and "1-liner trivial posting" (which for some
bizarre reason seems usually to be accompanied by "unnecessary quoting of entire
previous email"). NONE of these results in someone being put on moderation--it
is just an attempt to improve the quality of the postings a little. The usual
response I get to these is (a) none (which is fine--it's a reminder) (b) an "OK,
thanks for the reminder" or (c) some kind of justification ("I'm a Buddhist
haiku poet and MY 1-liner was replete with meaning, but fine, if you say so
...").
3. If it's a flame I see on Tango-L, then it depends on the nature of the flame
and and posting history of the poster. Recall that it has been stated strongly
in the rules and in postings by me to the list that flames are the most strongly
enforced rules and that my limited time does not allow me to be subtle in my
response to them (i.e., expect a sledgehammer approach). Even so, if it's a mild
flame, "OK, who died and made you Tango God?" or "Is your tango as bad as your
postings?" from someone who has stepped out of line the first time, but is
generally a good contributor, he or she gets a warning. Anonymous or possibly
anonymous posters get treated more strictly in this regard as they are,
intentionally or otherwise, hiding behind their anonymity. If it's a full-scale
rant against someone, or a repeat offence, they get put on moderation
immediately. I.e., they get put in Category (b) above: "for intentional and/or
severe and/or repeated list abuse or rules violations, or for a statement of
intent to do so."
4. If someone is in category (b), it is because he either (i) posted a vicious
flame (or a repeated one) or (ii) have declared that they don't consider the
Tango-L rules valid (or applicable to them) and don't intend to follow them
(i.e., a future flame-thrower or nuisance).
In all these cases, he would get an email that says that before posting any more
to Tango-L, he would need to do all the following steps:
- Read or reread the Tango-L rules;
- Send an email stating that they have done so, and intend to follow the rules
henceforth;
- Actually follow the rules henceforth.
Most people who just stepped out of line "in a moment of passion" do so, and get
taken off moderation (not necessarily immediately depending on their history of
violations), but their legitimate posts get through meanwhile.
Those who refuse to send the mail (saying they agree to abide by the Tango-L
rules), or send a mail stating that they don't intend to, or are above them, or
consider them illegitimate, or consider such a request patronizing, or that
their pride is hurt or whatever, don't get any more mail from me, nor do their
postings get through anymore. It was stated quite unambiguously what they need
to do to get off moderation, and this is nothing more than what all list members
have agreed to implicitly by joining the list, except they have been asked to
state it explicitly since they have violated the implicit trust. That offer
remains open more or less indefinitely, but since they have by then used up
their lifetime supply of "15 minutes of moderator's time that he's willing to
spend with problem or arrogant members," they don't receive any more
communication from me, but they know what they need to do (send the mail or
unsubscribe).
What about "MY RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH?" (visualize trumpets, halos, Statues of
Liberty ...) It is rather puzzling that someone would interpret this as applying
to Tango-L ("A victim of an incompetent high school civics teacher," chuckles an
attorney friend, but more likely just an attempt to appeal falsely to a higher
ideal to justify boorish behaviour.) When I see that kind of response as an
excuse for violating the Tango-L list rules, I instantly translate it to, "I
want to post what I want, without regard for the rules," sort of like wanting to
spray-paint graffiti on someone else's building ("It's free speech, isn't it?").
Answer: You'll have to find a different place to do so.
As the creator of the list, I fully realize that the list is the sum total of
the contributions by its members. And that some leeway in interpretation and
enforcement of rules is warranted and beneficial in instilling a welcoming
ambience and one open to discourse. But anyone who thinks that it is a forum for
them to say what they want and behave as they will without regard to the list
participation rules is doomed to frustration on most Internet mailing lists or
discussion groups, and certainly on Tango-L.
A far better model for Tango-L (than a soapbox to demonstrate ones "Freedom of
Graffiti") is perhaps a party--let's say a Milonga, for even easier
identification. No admission charge for the Milonga. You can even leave your
flyers at the designated flyer table (Tango-A). As with any party, there are
rules of behaviour that are expected. The host takes a light touch with
enforcing them since he wants to be welcoming, and besides he wants to dance a
few tandas too and doesn't want to spend the whole time watching (or having to
watch) to see how people are behaving. Besides, he wants a lot of people to come
to the Milonga (any party is, after all, the sum of the presence of the guests,
with the host just enabling it and perhaps setting the ambience to some extent),
even those who dance different style of Tango than he does. He doesn't want it
to be like one of those uptight Milongas he's heard about where everyone gives
you dirty looks if you do anything that hasn't been done for at least 20 years
in Buenos Aires. But of course it has to be done respecting other people at the
Milonga, the venue, etc.
But every so often someone comes in and insists on dancing against line of
dance, colliding into people, reserving tables for 16 people even though they
never show up just so he can spread out, tracking mud into the dancehall, ...
The host knows that this diminishes the enjoyment of others, and that the
regulars are going to stop coming if this antisocial behaviour continues, and
certainly are enjoying themselves less as a result, and that people are looking
to him to control it. It takes away time from his own dancing, sipping champagne
and socializing, but he knows that he needs to do it to keep the Milonga from
spiralling downwards into a place that only the boors come to, because only they
can put up with each other. So he reminds the errant guests of their
obligations, and most apologize and accept (they had just got carried away with
the energy of the Milonga, as it turned out). But one or two refuse, claiming
that, "No one owns Tango and it belongs to the world and hence I can dance the
way I want. And no one owns my soul and hence I can behave the way I want."
They proceed to start insulting people and acting like they owns the place,
forgetting that they are really guests. They spit at people and pinch the
women's (and men's) bottoms and laugh when they shriek. And even if they don't,
they insist that they have the right to do so, and that they will whenever they
feel like it. So the organizer tells the person at the desk not to let them in
until they have agreed to observe all the rules of the Milonga and of acceptable
social behaviour. One chooses to do so, the other stops coming ... no one misses
him and after a while people start to comment on how the Milonga has become more
pleasant recently ... One or two say, "Well, actually I do kind of miss him in
some ways, obviously not for his behaviour, but some of his jokes were funny,
but true, we'd have lost 50 other regulars if he'd continued the way he did."
Perhaps the one who doesn't come back will start his own Milonga (he can even
put out his flyer on the table if he does). Perhaps it will wither away or
perhaps it will be successful and cater to a different, more "in you face,"
crowd. Perhaps the original Milonga will wither away and the new one will become
the dominant one (the "boor" turned out to be a "visionary"--who'd have
guessed?!). Who knows? Diversity and Darwinism will ultimately prevail.
Returning to the Tango-L world ... So what happens if someone doesn't agree with
the list rules? Well, they have a right to leave the list; in fact they have an
obligation to do so. As stated in the list rules, "Any members subscribing to
this list agrees to unsubscribe immediately if they do not agree with all the
usage rules stated here, and agree to seek help in unsubscribing if they cannot
do so themselves by sending an email to tango-L-owner@mit.edu requesting such
assistance." They are also free to send an email proposing changes in the rules
to tango-L-owner@mit.edu, but the rules have served the list well for 10 years
now (an eternity in Internet time) and while some fine-tuning still gets done to
cover the occasional new situation that comes up, whole-scale changes are
unlikely.
Shahrukh
tango-L-owner @ mit.edu
Tango-L and Tango-A home page: http://www.tango-L.com/
Tango-L rules: http://www.tango-L.com/tango-L-rules.htm
P.S. This email is not written for the benefit of the errant few (it is usually
a waste of energy to do so)--it is written for the benefit of the majority of
the list members, so they understand the process I go through in moderating the
list. I would hardly claim it's a perfect process by any means, but it's the one
we have. There was a time when there were three moderators and an "appeals"
process for those whose posts were rejected by one moderator. There was perhaps
ONE posting where this process resulted in a reconsideration, but this fell
apart, mostly because most of the time was spent on clearly inappropriate posts
that didn't merit the time spent on reconsidering them, given the limited time
availability of the moderators.