As a current listdad for a bunch of high-volume lists, I don't censor or use any "X post per person" rule...I'm not opposed to moderated lists (what some might call censorship) but in the latter case I think that posting quotae run counter to the concepts of "information freedom" (sic), responsible adult behaviour, and stifles legitimate discourse, not to mention places the list admins in the perpetual "you can say something only ONCE more today!" mode -- thereby turning them into glorified babysitters who constantly end up shushing people and subsequently appearing to many to be on a permanent ego/power trip. However, such a rule could have its place somewhere -- perhaps in a very specific venue -- but I wouldn't endorse it myself, and certainly not here in a forum where one of its key goals is the discussion of Internet communications theory. That said, on nearly every list I've ever run, participated, or lurked on, the underlying principle is that if you're perceived as 'dominating' a discussion and if your comments are viewed as noise, very quickly you'll become viewed/treated as such by subscribers and their individual "mental filters" will come into play, if not also technical ones in their MUA if they really want to avoid you. (Of course, I am referring to those who are trolls and not just any type of frequent posters.) I agree with Jeremy...on my lists, if someone gets too far off-topic or keeps breaking the list rules, I pull them aside to warn them. If it continues, they get removed straight away -- that's the only time I exercise my "iron hand as listdad." (That has rarely happened, as most folks tend to be respectful and responsible when warned, at least on my lists.) Frankly, AOIR-L is one of the better-managed lists I've encountered and the folks participating generally are responsible and keep on-topic and on-charter. Certainly, there are a good number of high-volume threads here that I ignore and skip, but as long as periodic spikes of traffic (even what some might perceive as trolling) don't evolve into a perpetual flame-fest or recurring trollage, I don't have a problem, because normalization/equilibrium will return fairly soon either through the list admin's actions directly or after a large number of complaints sent by other subscribers. (Compare that with some of the security lists I'm on where the admins refuse to do anything when folks troll or otherwise significantly stray from the list charter, which leads often to a horrendous signal-to-noise ratio and overall lower utility of the list for many participants/lurkers, even after we complain in droves.) Just my .04 this evening. -rf On 9/13/06 6:52 PM, "Jeremy Hunsinger" <jhuns@vt.edu> wrote:
Having been a listmom for quire some time, I think that in regards to list behavior, people should get appropriate hints, and when hints fail, they should be warned by list management and when warnings are insufficient, they should have a forced break, of 2 weeks where they can't post, and then if they continue after a 2 weeks break, then they should be removed. That would be what i would currently argue for.