zeborah: Map of New Zealand with a zebra salient (New Zealand zebra)zeborah ([personal profile] zeborah) wrote,
@ 2009-01-01 08:36 am UTC
Entry tags:rasfc
birdsedge wrote:
Who rules?

And who rules the rulers?

And there were a couple of replies there but this may be something we need to discuss more.

[Or should we just create the community already and make it up as we go along?]

Do we want to moderate?

What do we want to moderate?

Who do we want to do the moderating?


I know what I want but it may well not be what's best for the group so I need to think some more before I actually say anything.

(Read 18 comments) - (Post a new comment)
(Flat) (Top-level comments only)


[identity profile] hrj.livejournal.com
2009-01-01 03:51 pm UTC (link)
I think there are several practical reasons for having a small cabal in charge. The most important one (in my experience) is simple redundancy. Communities and mailing lists that have a single owner are in peril if Life Happens in any of its terrifying degrees. Further, if there are day-to-day tasks (e.g., if new members are being manually approved or the like), it's important to be able to trade off tasks, to go on vacation, to have a busy off-line period, etc. A cabal size of three or four is probably optimal.

If some level of moderation is applied, then having a small cabal also means that decisions can be bounced around a little before being made without getting the whole community bogged down in processing. And (as I've seen on several mailing lists with this arrangement), if there is some sort of heavy-handed action that needs to be taken, there's a certain defusing quality to being able to say "the moderators as a group decided on this" rather than "I as supreme autocrat decided on this".

Regarding possible moderation, as [livejournal.com profile] green_knight notes, the LJ context means that threads of potential or growing controversy can be moved (or set up originally) on personal blogs where "my journal, my rules" prevails as always. But I suspect the ideal would be for the format itself to encourage this practice, rather than moderators having to do anything more than perhaps occasionally provide gentle suggestions.

At least initially, I'd worry that making the community "must be a member to post" might put stumbling blocks in the path of potential new members who are exploring the community from outside LJ. I do think, however, that developing a culture of "please sign your posts if you aren't a logged-in LJ member" could be a good thing, discouraging anonymous drive-bys.

On the whole, however, I'd prefer to see the initial set-up driven by a "mission statement" rather than by a set of rules and regulations. And I think it's definitely time to set up the community and go for it. (Particularly given that there's next to no "cost" involved in setting the community up.)

As a side note, I'm planning to do a sum-up of the responses to the "what we want in a community" post on my journal, but I may not get to it for a couple days as I'm about to fly home from the east coast and then will be involved in SCA stuff all weekend.

(Reply to this)  (Thread) 



[identity profile] karinfromnosund.livejournal.com
2009-01-01 04:11 pm UTC (link)
This is more or less the comment I was going to make, so now I just say: Thank you, and Me too.

(Reply to this)  (Thread from start)  (Parent) 


ext_3246: (main)


[identity profile] brooksmoses.livejournal.com
2009-01-03 05:25 am UTC (link)
There's also, on LJ, a distinction between "must be a member to post" and "must be a member to comment on a post" which isn't present in Usenet. (The former being a requirement, actually; the latter being optional.) And, of course, the difficulty of becoming a member is variable; in particular, whether or not it's a matter of being approved or just of clicking a button.

(Reply to this)  (Thread from start)  (Parent) 


(Read 18 comments) - (Post a new comment)
(Flat) (Top-level comments only)