Re: Why some people do not post - why some people leave the list
In your quest to silence the less-equal-than-you Mr. Plato, you write,
"when people won't post questions because they have become afraid of a
possible response from one personality, that is a problem that should be
addressed."
Suzanne and others haven't been trying to get Andrew to leave. He hasn't been hounded off the list, any more than Andrew's criticisms were intended to hound those ideas from this commons, right? If you apply that logic to Andrew, that he wasn't trying to shut down ideas, then you need to apply the same to Andrew's critics.
It seems to me that most of them have been saying that they would like him to moderate his behavior, tone, and attitude, not change his ideas or stifle them, let alone leave the list. Just as folks want plenty of others--including me--to moderate their behavior, tone, and attitude. Just as Andrew, no doubt, would like others to moderate their behavior, tone, and attitude. Hitting the delete key is another way to achieve the same end.
Big Deal. That's life. While everyone is free to hit the Delete key, as Tocqueville predicted so long ago, this retreat to the privacy of your own little enclave of chosen, acceptable others can lead to a velvet-gloved tyranny. As Robert Bellah and others argued later, following Tocqueville: this kind of world, where no one judges others, where no one seeks to encourage them to behave differently, is a world in which we are "suspended in glorified, but terrifying, isolation."
And, I'll guess that this is why Suzanne has encouraged people to speak up when they're unhappy. Not so that people will get booted or be hounded off the list, but so that they will moderate themselves. I gather that Suzanne wants Eric to moderate himself because he can only do so if he has feedback from others. He may choose not to take them seriously. And that's fine. But, it's also fine for Suzanne to encourage criticism, just as it's fine for Andrew to voice it (without being assumed to be "hounding" others or their ideas off the list).
Interestingly, my recent (and admittedly far from scientific) poll on
lurking yielded not a single response claiming to fear the wrath of a
single member, even though that was one of the choices I suggested (the
option was labeled "Scared of a particular List member"). I received a
large number of replies offlist, none of which cited this reason.
Well, as an experienced researcher, let me just point out a few flaws in the methodology. For one, you are asking people to admit that they are actually scared of the ones and zeros typed at them from afar!
Two, you are asking them to identify a list member. If you feel that strongly about someone, you assume others do as well. As Christine mentioned it's a surprise to learn otherwise. Hence, you worry that others will know who you are talking about, especially since you asked about _particular_ persons, not about "fear" in general. Maybe they don't want to hurt others feelings? Maybe, and probably more likely, the question is just unfair gossip because, like Christine, at some point in their life they learned that not everyone reacts the same way to strong, argumentative list personas.
<...>
Finally, of this free-as-long-as-YOU-agree list, you say, "... complaints
to Eric from other listmembers have not changed anything. Therefore I have
no confidence left in the integrity of the techwr-l list."
In all this conversation about how Andrew sponsors the list, no one has mentioned the obvious. In my unscientific accidental ethnography of responses to my argument with Andrew--and Kelley is an Andrew-loving man as a number of posters will tell you--I'll just be blunt. There's a significant faction of people, both lurkers and posters, who are a little upset by the fact that Andrew seems to be treated slightly differently because he sponsors the list. More importantly, to me, is that they _perceive_ that Andrew is either treated differently because of that and/or that one will be moderated (or booted) because they disagreed with Andrew too much or too strongly. IIRC, I must have rec'd about 3 dozen of these sorts of comments.
If this list pride's itself on professional integrity, then that is a serious issue. It doesn't matter if it is true or not. What matters is that the perception is out there and it needs to be dealt with. Most professions try to avoid not just _situations_ of impropriety, but also _the perception_ of impropriety. If this list is a professional list, then perhaps having members sponsor the list is a Bad Idea? I personally don't think it is, but that's because I would do all that I could as owner to actually moderate the sponsor harder than others and, were I the sponsor/member, then I'd moderate my voice because I'd rather not have people think that I feel free to have a stomp on the list simply because I bought the ability to do so.
Andrew and the Rays do what they like, of course. But, none of them should be surprised that they will have to deal with the perception of impropriety.
Your concept of integrity in this case seems to be tied directly to
whether you agree with certain other members of this list, some of whom
apparently are more equal than others. Personally, I think the list itself
is fine, but I've had my faith in the integrity of some of its members
lowered considerably this week.
Evidence from Suzanne's post? I see nothing in Suzanne's post that would suggest that this is the case.
Again I'm an Andrew-lovin' member. However, I have to say that parting shots are a common--albeit manipulative--tool in the arsenal of debate. It is not unlike those who contemplate committing suicide in order to gain some enjoyment out of their fantasy of self-destruction that isn't self-destruction at all. In the context of a list, parting shots are a fantasy of being able to commandeer others to fight for you on your behalf, to feel shame for how badly they've hurt you, and to focus the energies of the list on you and your redemption. It's not surprising that people "mourned" the loss of Andrew and felt they were eulogizing him! He commited symbolic suicide, by immolating himself publicly while telling others that it was _their_ fault. I'm glad someone else called that for what it was.
But, Andrew is still alive and is probably still saying, "Get back to work, you." He's probably causing tiny tornadoes with his comments, getting everyone in an uproar, occasionally going to far and then feeling ashamed and giving people a gift by entertaining them with a story or by telling them that they need some "Snorky, snorky, snorkies"!
I'll agree with Elna Tymes that it is rather silly to expect members of this list to advertise and sponsor the list. Why? Most people here do not own a business, they work for one. Those who do own a techwriting business, would not see advertising as particularly worthwhile since tech writers aren't their audience. (Not to mention that we've known for quite some time that banner ads aren't the most productive investment of advertising dollars. They're about image and branding. How many small consulting businesses can actually afford to brand? Not many!)
So, why don't folks start sending Eric and Deborah contributions here and there, sort of like Dick Margulis suggested awhile ago. You can pay for your sins! :) You can pay because you are grateful. You can pay because you want to donate to a good cause. Whatever!
Paypal has been used on other lists I belong to.
The contributions of the Bruces, Arlens, Andrews, Goeffs, Elnas, Dicks, Annamarias, Danas, Janes, Keiths, Jans, Bryans, John, Kats, Kims--the list goes on and on because I value _everyone's_ contribution at some point or another--make this list what it is. Their different styles and opinions make this list what it is, no less than the money that comes from sponsors. Without these people and the countless others, there would be no list. Money matters in all this, but to suggest that someone should get special consideration because somehow he or she paid good money is an insult to those who have no reason to actually sponsor the list the way Andrew did.
This list is part of a business. It may have started and may continue to be a labor of love. But most businesses are no different. The list is part of what evolved to become an aspect of the business model of Raycomm--the very business model that most corporations use the web for: they build a community of members who post on topics, read useful articles, and so forth. Our firm just purchased a site and we'd love for for something like this list to host! I hope we have such a community and I hope I've learned from this exchange just how counterproductive it is to complain about the very people who, in part, make your business run--the members of this list--is a bit counterproductive, isn't it? Sounds like sysadmins who complain about "dumb lusers" as if somehow life would be better without them. Echoing Arlen Walker, if it's gotten that bad, maybe it's time to stop torturing yourself, unless you enjoy the pain/enjoy your symptom?
Kelley
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Are you using Doc-to-Help or ForeHelp? Switch to RoboHelp for Word for $249
or to RoboHelp Office for only $499. Get the PC Magazine five-star rated
Help authoring tool for less! Go to http://www.ehelp.com/techwr
Free copy of ARTS PDF Tools when you register for the PDF
Conference by April 30. Leading-Edge Practices for Enterprise
& Government, June 3-5, Bethesda,MD. www.PDFConference.com
---
You are currently subscribed to techwr-l as: archive -at- raycomm -dot- com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-techwr-l-obscured -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com
Send administrative questions to ejray -at- raycomm -dot- com -dot- Visit http://www.raycomm.com/techwhirl/ for more resources and info.
Previous by Author:
Re: What to use when analyzing text?
Next by Author:
RE: Who needs or uses technical writers?
Previous by Thread:
Re: Goodbye TECHWR-L (and lurking)
Next by Thread:
ADMIN: Rules
Search our Technical Writing Archives & Magazine
Visit TechWhirl's Other Sites
Sponsored Ads