Be assured that the AoIR executive committee has been discussing the issue of whether to have posting guidelines for some time. While none of us condone unethical and inappropriate behavior, we do have a dilemma (or more than one, perhaps). While we can filter e-mail that comes from an individual, one can just as easily change addresses and re-post. Making the entire list moderated (so that each message is "screened" by someone before posting) is a possibility, but will make the list less synchronous than it is, and, depending on future list traffic, may require considerable effort. (For the record, I find that air-l has been relatively low-traffic). And how will someone feel about the moderator, the possibility of moderating being agenda-driven, the possibility that such a possibility will cause someone to second-guess the motives of an agenda-less moderator, etc.? My thinking about e-mail lists in general is that, without engagement, those who post inappropriately end up finding another list to bother with. Perhaps I'm wrong. But I don't think it would be hard to filter messages one's self, that is, without resorting to technological means, by looking at who they are from. An important thing to keep in mind is that there is also the potential issue of AoIR, as an incorporated not-for-profit, to in some ways become "exclusive." A condition of our gaining permanent 501(c)(3) status from the U.S. office of the I.R.S. is to not put up significant barriers to membership and to be a "public" organization, and I'd be a bit concerned that by keeping people from "speaking" we'd have another serious issue on our hands. Another way to put that is that we are not "just" a list. On the one hand we routinely engage in such exclusion, for instance by virtue of choosing which papers are accepted to our conference. On the other hand we are up front about so doing, and there is a process, involving more than one person, of determining who is invited to the conference to speak. But we don't prevent anyone from attending the conference and speaking during Q&A, for instance. These, among other things (such as attentiveness to the variety of understandings of what "guidelines" are), are the kinds of things we've been grappling with. I'll be happy to hear from anyone concerning these matters, preferably (I assume) off-list. Thanks, Sj