Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2004 15:12:33 -0500 (EST)
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <kfl at KeithLynch.net>
To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at WSFA.org>
Subject: [WSFA] Re: Watchmen
Reply-To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at WSFA.org>

"Barry L. Newton" <bnewton at ashcomp.com> wrote:

> I felt that the thrust of that discussion was for everyone, or at
> least some significant number, to object to attacks when they happen,

Yes, that was the thrust of the discussion.  But I think that would be
a mistake.  People objecting to messages tend to cause the problems to
escalate.  It just throws gasoline on the fire.

I strongly recommend that everyone review the list archives (at
http://www.wsfa.org/list/).  Especially the April 2002 event, which
was the ugliest it has ever gotten on this list.  It started around
April 20th of that year.

Of course I may be biased, since I was one of the participants, but
my take on what happened that month was that Lee Gilliland viciously
attacked me for no discernable reason, several people tried to politely
defuse the situation, Lee strongly objected to anyone continuing the
thread, and then left the list.  At this past Friday's meeting, she
said that that event had caused her to break down crying, to lose her
lunch, and to come close to permanently kicking WSFA out of her home.

As I said, I may be biased.  Everyone should view the archives for
themselves and come to their own conclusions.

My fear is that if Lee thinks the list has been reformed, she will
re-subscribe, something will set her off, and we will lose our First
Friday meeting place.

Please don't forward this message to her, as I fear she would become
upset by it.  Thanks.  My goal here is not to upset people, but to
figure out how best to keep people from getting upset.

For anyone who doesn't read the WSFA Journal, here are my comments
about the list in the latest issue.  I didn't make it clear that my
intention was for the rule to be self-policing, i.e. an honor system,
with *nobody* telling anyone else that they were getting out of line.

  Some WSFA members are unhappy about the several recent arguments on
  the email chat list.  It was strongly suggested (offline) that we
  need to establish a set of formal rules for content, and either
  moderate the list (appoint a moderator, and hold each message for
  the moderator's inspection and approval before it's shown to the
  other subscribers) or empower someone to suspend the list membership
  of anyone deemed to be abusive.

  I hope we don't have to resort to either.  Moderation really slows
  down a list, and changes its character.  Also, the moderator would
  inevitably be perceived as being biased and taking sides, especially
  if he is party to the debate that gets out of hand.  There's no
  polite way to say "I'm kicking you off the list for two weeks".

  It's important to remember that email doesn't have the body language
  and tone of voice cues that moderate face-to-face communication.  To
  avoid "flame wars," if an email seems offensive, try re-interpreting
  it with a different tone of voice.  Could it have been intended
  lightheartedly and offhandedly?  Could it have been intended as
  a joke?  Even if it's phrased "you did this task wrong," try
  interpreting it as a constructive suggestion that the task might
  better be done another way.  If it makes you angry, please wait
  until you are no longer angry before replying.  If you feel you
  simply have to write some kind of response, go ahead and write
  something, but don't send it.

  If there's one person whose messages consistently annoy you, see if
  your email program will let you selectively block all messages from
  that one person.

  Before sending any message try reading it out loud in the gruffest
  and rudest voice possible, and consider that your recipient may
  interpret it in that light.  And don't forget that discussions of
  politics and religion are especially hazard-prone, as is any message
  which can be interpreted as personal criticism.  Please phrase any
  suggestions as "perhaps it would work better if we did things this
  way" instead of "the way you did it is wrong, stupid, and bad".
  Best of all, if you have an idea for how to do something better,
  volunteer to do the task yourself.

  Obviously, a message which says "you are a bad person" or "you are
  lying" or "you are a criminal" will lead to nothing but trouble,
  even if you replace "you" with the name of another WSFA member, e.g.
  "WSFA member Joe Fhan is dishonest".  Such messages have long been
  off limits in the WSFA Journal, and I hereby declare them off limits
  on the WSFA chat list as well.  Criticize ideas, not people.  (Ok,
  the list is WSFA's, not mine, so I can't unilaterally make this
  declaration, but I will make a motion at the next meeting, and I
  will be astonished if it doesn't pass.  Until then please behave
  as if it had already been passed.  Thank you.)

  I'm not going to ask that politics be banned from the list, but please
  keep in mind that there are plenty of better political pundits than
  anyone in WSFA, and if they haven't caused someone to change his mind,
  you're not likely to.  Also, by the time you read this, the election
  will be over, so nothing you say to anyone can have any effect on
  whether Bush or Kerry wins in 2004.  (We can worry about 2008 later.)

  Unless your message is obviously innocuous, or is urgent, consider
  letting it sit unsent for a few minutes or hours, then look at it
  again before sending.

  If you've been exposed to the rough-and-tumble verbal interchange of
  the rec.arts.sf.fandom newsgroup, or, far worse, the alt.peeves or
  alt.flame newsgroups in which more than half the messages are insults,
  please keep in mind that many WSFA members are not comfortable with
  that sort of discourse.

  If you sincerely believe a WSFA member is dishonest or criminal,
  discuss it in private with WSFA officers whom you trust.  Any such
  person not only shouldn't be on the email list, but shouldn't be in
  the club at all.  There is a mechanism to expel members, though as
  far as I know it has never been used.  I hope it never has to be.

Personally, I am always open to constructive criticism.  And even
non-constructive criticism such as calling me a "complete, thoroughly
obnoxious fool" doesn't particularly bother me, as I'm accustomed to
the level of discourse on the newsgroups.  But I do tend to give as
well as I get, so please don't dish it out if you can't take it.

What does very strongly set me off are any allegations of dishonesty
or criminality.  The allegations in 2002 nearly caused me to leave
WSFA forever, except that several people went to considerable effort
to talk me into staying.