nine and sixty rules and moderation

[zeborah]

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?

• Do we want to ever be able, for whatever reasons and under whatever restrictions, to exclude entire people; or do we want to only ever exclude particular topics, or styles, or posts?
• Should it be defined or will we know it when we see it?

Who do we want to do the moderating?

• One supreme dictator, a supreme triumvirate, a group of representatives polling the mood of the tyranny of the mob?

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.

Comments

[birdsedge.livejournal.com]

I'm not against the idea of a cabal. But how do we get our cabal? Does it ever change?

If there are any 'rules' they need to be flexible and open to sensible interpretation. Even the no-politics rule may be stretched if there's something that's particularly relevant to someone's WIP. (But I do agree that 'no-politics for the sake of politics' is a great idea).

As to banning people. We all know the basic two or three people who we don't want to see on nine-and-sixty-ways, so what do we do if they follow us here? On rasfc we can each individually killfile them, but not here. It has to be a group decision. (And we mustn't go all Lord of the Flies.)

Regarding spam and posts from non-writers: technically can we limit posts to members only? And if we were to say that membership is only open to active writers, i.e. those with a WIP would that help?

The problem is that would exclude people like mjlayman who doesn't write, but who is a longstanding and valued member of rasfc, so already we're into breaking our own rules because the cabal isn't going to exclude her, is it? She might even be a member of the cabal.

[heleninwales.livejournal.com]

As hrj says below, I don't think we want to make it members only, but I do think we want to encourage posts from people who are actively writing (or have written) something fictional and discourage posts from non-writers -- unless they have anything pertinent to say about writing, but is that likely?

There have been times when I was reading rasfc when I had people that I really really like in my killfile, purely on the grounds that they never posted about writing. If I want to know about their lives and their cats etc, I'll read their LJ. The thing is, we need a bit of a social aspect to the group because it oils the wheels of communication, but if the social side dominates, it ceases to be a useful resource for writers. (At least for me.)

[zeborah]

I've been mostly reading with interest everyone's thoughts, and still processing (though it sounds like things are coming down on the side of a cabal for what I agree are very good reasons).

On this topic - I think we want to encourage posts about writing fiction, but that needn't be from a fiction writer. It might be from a knowledgeable sf fan, or an agent or editor, or whatever.

[brooksmoses]

...unless they have anything pertinent to say about writing, but is that likely?

As a datapoint, I believe that I've started on-topic threads on rasfc; I've certainly posted writing-related posts on LJ (of the "this is a shiny idea; anyone want it?" sort) more recently than that.

Thus, though I'm mostly a non-writer in any active or actual sense, I'd very much like to have the option to post something if I do have something pertinent to say!

As to the social bits, one of the nice things about LJ, as someone pointed out in one of these conversations, is that we can easily have the lives-and-cats conversations in nearby spaces.

[heleninwales.livejournal.com]

I certainly wasn't intending to exclude non-writers from contributing if they have anything to say regarding writing, I just feel that we should make sure that the social stuff stays in people's own LJs and that we shouldn't feel that because we know and like someone, they can post whatever they like. (This would also apply to writers too, of course. If they're not posting about writing, they shouldn't be posting to the nine_and_sixty community but on their own journal.

It's just occurred to me that one of the advantages of using an LJ is that the rasfc-substitute doesn't have to be busy all the time to keep people reading. The use of Friends Pages means that if there are no interesting writing topics, we keep in touch socially via our LJs, but at any point, if someone posts a writing post, it will immediately show on the Friends Page.

[pariyal.livejournal.com]

And if we were to say that membership is only open to active writers, i.e. those with a WIP would that help?

As you said, it would exclude people we do want here (as well as excluding people we don't, and who have sufficient debating skills to argue that they are active writers, so why are we excluding them?). Also, not everybody who is and active writer has a WIP all the time-- it would exclude me at the moment, for example, because everything I have is stalled.

(And I'm still more or less against doing it here: already I get flustered tracking down the various parts of this discussion.)

[birdsedge.livejournal.com]

Hamm - not that I think restricting membership is a good idea, but I should perhaps not have defined 'active writers' as 'those with a WIP' as there are plenty of active, experienced writers who are between books or - as you say - stalled. 'Those with a WIP' was shorthand for 'those who generally write with a view to (eventual) publication'. (Bearing in mind there are some people who inhabit rasfc who don't write at all.)

Even so, some of those who don't write can and do often contribute constructively. One of them is likely following this discussion with interest and she was very helpful in giving me some insight into a particular character motivation in a now completed WIS.