non/moderative musings

[Lisa Rogers <eqwq.lrogers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Prologue: this post addresses lists, this list, list history, list
behavior, list as dynamical system, list "policy", moderative /
liaison / facilitative / meta-list topics I've been pondering...


Self-moderated.  Non-moderated.  No editor.  No censor.

I've been thinking about the nature of the list, the properties of
the list, the behavior of the dynamical system which is the list.

It is a dynamical system because the output of the list is constantly
fed back into the list.  People react to that result, then react to
each others' reactions, and so on.

Of course, there is also a stream of new, different or related ideas
coming into the system, joining the spiralling, diverging, converging
threads of movement.

What determines what will happen in each, next, moment?  All the
system consists of is people writing and reading each other's stuff.
Each person may write anything, but they don't write _just_ anything.
Well, I won't go on.

What I planned to write about is discussion and the non/organization
thereof.  Or rather, I'd like to bring up the subject, to see if
anybody else wants to think or talk about it.  If this thread swells
to high volume, we can make a separate list for discussion of list
dynamics / [group psych?] / meta-list / meta-discussion ...

Are we, the subscrib*rs to marxismlist, "freely associated"?

We don't have to have _much_ in common, of course!  Isn't the
introductory notes to the list [received at time of subbing] at least
one place to give some guidance or focus to the list?

I think of this list as experimental, in a sense [don't worry, you're
not all really white mice in a psych study].  Perhaps a tiny bit of
ancient list history would clarify some of my perspective: many
months before my time onlist, the spoons collective was formed, which
now creates and runs a group of lists, including marxism.

The people who became, and called themselves, spoons collective had
been previously associated and running some lists, but in a situation
where one person had the power, and exercised it, to tightly control
list discussions, apparently in content, style, members, whatever.
[This is all oral history / hearsay / according to spoons who told
me, of course.]

Proto-spoons split, became spoons and developed into what it is
today.  Whatever that is.  I mean, lest any paranoid tendencies be
inflamed, be assured that spoons is about as amorphous, internally
contradictory / divergent, headless, anarchic as a dozen people can
be, and still make it work.  In a good way!!  Spoons are united
enough on key issues that things do get done, because people want to
do them, in order to be able to have lists, to create spaces where
people can create, where new and interesting things can happen.  Most
spooners are on one or more lists, usually as "moderators".

So, the point is that creativity is stifled by controlling editors.
The Origin story of the split signifies some personal commitments to
the open-ness of lists.  Not to say that every spoon list is run
exactly the same way, far from it.  Every "moderator" is free to do
whatever.  But none of the lists have post-by-post approval /
editing, or qualification required for joining.

The proud legacy of marxism list thus far is zero expulsions, in
terms of forced unsubbing.

But obviously there are problems with a "self-regulating" collection
of volunteers, who have somehow self-selected to join the list.  I'll
not review all the complaints that have been aired on the list, just
reference them by the concept of "list-splitting" or proposed
expulsions.  I mean, these responses indicate a problem.  I won't
list any specific problems here.

People get unhappy with the list for several reasons, but one is that
they feel the space is not "productive"; i.e. conducive to critical
thought, understanding / finding what is of use or interest in
another's statement / stimulating thought / sharing information /
practicing writing, explication, clarity / any of the things that
anyone might want from this list.

This is consonant with my spoon-vision, the desire to create spaces
where creation can take place is coupled with the desire that people
have to be self-motivated and creative.  Other people want to join /
enter / create / create within those spaces.  So, unhappy members
[including non/moderators] can be a sign that something is wrong.

Does or doesn't everybody want something from / on / in this list?
Is that why people join?  Do we come here because of some kind of
desire?

What is the nature of our desires, what kind of space do we want to
create?  How is it done?  We've been doing it for over a year now, so
the question is not really about future planning.  I just wonder what
others are thinking about these topics.

I've talked before about self-moderation of the list, the list is
what we make of it, what we bring to it, what we do on it.  Isn't the
content of the list a collective product?  Each one has equal power
to post.

Some kind of self-regulation is on-going, in the form of separate
posts by individuals who are all interacting with each other.  What
is the mechanism of regulation?  What each one wants others to think
of one?  Does it amount [at least partly] to reputation?  Does that
mean social status?  Winning friends and influencing people?  Do some
opinions mean more to one than other opinions?

I am stimulated in this thought partly by LeGuin's Dispossessed.
Anarchism on the moon - how might, how do freely associated
individuals behave in the absence of a police force, rules, bouncers?
 Social pressure?  What exactly is that, how does it work?  How is
"social pressure" embodied, transmitted, expressed or realized in
individuals' behavior?

I look forward to CBurford's comments on this when he returns from
holiday, because I think he has talked about some of the same,
although in a different vocabulary.

I haven't posted to list much this week, but I am keeping up with
reading the list.  It has been interesting to watch the list moving
through time, threads growing and shrinking, the list self-creating,
as some jostle about and each takes one's own trajectory, in groups,
pairs, solos, in improvisation.


One of the aspects of self-moderation is that there is not a
designated mommy, assigned to bandage all knees and banish the
bullies.  My greatest fear about the existence of any "government"
within the list, even the designation of a non/moderator, is that
some people will think that "regulation" of the list is "not their
job", and they will sit back and wait for someone else to fix
whatever they don't like.  This is one of the reasons that I dropped
the "title" of "moderator" when I found that this often meant {to
others} editor or post-approver, something much more controlling than
this list has ever had.

Every post affects/creates the list.

Lisa
(spoon-liaison)



     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---

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