I think that we should take Paul's comments to heart.  He has hit the nail
on the head.  I wish that he wasn't leaving the list.
 
We have to decide if Conch-L is going to be a social gathering "in the lobby
of the conference rather than the hall itself".  After being gone on a trip
for one week, I came back to 400+ messages from Conch-L alone.  Some of us
aren't retired with tons of time on our hands.  I think we should give the
"Flying Pigs" and mean spirited flaming the old heave-ho.  This wouldn't
mean a restriction in our freedom to communicate, but rather simply an
exercise in DISCIPLINE.
 
Thank you,
 
Scott Jordan
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Callomon <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Sunday, March 28, 1999 10:18 PM
Subject: Conch-L itself
 
 
>I joined Conch-L to 'try it and see' for a month or so. I will jump off
>again soon, so here for what it's worth is what I think about it.
>Conch-L is a broad tent indeed; there are contributions at all levels and
>the flow is fairly even, but the absence of a moderator is a serious
>problem. Previous to joining Conch-L I was in a similar discussion forum
>for owners of the particular model of motorcycle I ride. Contributions were
>occasionally only tenuously linked to this topic, but happily a moderator
>was on hand to nudge talk back towards the sort of thing for which people
>had joined. Humour and levity were there alright, but not as an end in
>themselves. In all, the proportion of utterly irrelevant material was about
>ten per cent. This of course made the forum utterly uninteresting to anyone
>but its members, which was the idea in the first place. Flamers and
>persistent off-topic contributors were given one or two warnings before
>being excommunicated via an automatic filter on the server. Personal
>defamation of other members, however subtle, was the ticket to immediate
>extinction. I was very grateful for this regulation of the forum,
>especially as the moderator was a volunteer.
>Conch-L unfortunately is a little too anarchic for my tastes. The flying
>pigs are a case in point - I find that string extremely annoying, but the
>number of supportive messages for Art indicates that for many subscribers
>the amusement value of the forum is as important as its relevance to
>Conchology. The proportion of messages which go straight in my bin is
>consistently over fifty per cent, and this is not because I am some kind of
>snob - they simply don't mean anything in the context of the original
charter.
>I certainly would not volunteer for the job of moderator at Conch-L, but
>until someone does (and is prepared to grit their teeth and be a bit
>unpopular at times) the forum is always going to be in the lobby of the
>conference rather than the hall itself.
>There now, I've no-one but myself to blame when they burn me in effigy at
>COA.