All posts in the topic Two Mail Limit (Short link)
Summary
- There are 16 posts — by 10 authors — in this topic.
- Latest post made by Peter Lappo at 2006 Mar 08 20:20 UTC
On 3/2/06, Glenn Williams <rollacoast@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> I already feel the 2 mail limit
> stifles real debate (did I hear cheers in the background?).
I agree, the 2 mail limit puts an unnatural cap on the expression of one's
views, particularly if more than one person is making points against you and
you want to defend your position.
It's also completely counter-intuitive the way you must reply to all and
then remove the senders address to save them from a double dose; I wonder
how many have replied privately without realising it? I certainly have and I
have received replies where I wondered if it was just for me or for the
list.
Hooray!
I was discussing this off-list with Dan while my last block was in effect -
which is another solution. Answer people privately. But that rather defeats
the point of having a forum.
The limit cripples the free flow of communication. I'm told the powers that
be in the USA have decided this is how it should be, but I can't see the
sense in it.
As this is my second post of the day and I, like Glenn, will be gagged for
the next 24 hours, I might as well rabbit on and on and try to get
everything off my chest on a variety of topics while I've got the chance!
It's not the same as a public meeting where only one person can speak at a
time and people obviously have to be limited and take turns. If, as a member
of the forum, you find some topics distasteful, or just boring, and don't
want the emails dropping into your inbox, perhaps you should consider
setting up 'rules' in your email app and filter all forum messages into
their own folder. You can then dip into it as and when you get the urge. You
can even filter messages from individuals, whose views you don't want to
hear, straight into the bin. That's much better than posting to the list to
try and muzzle what little discussion does go on. Otherwise, you can just
visit the forum on the web to monitor discussions.
Well.. I think that's all I've got to say for now. I hope so. I'll be back
tomorrow. Please don't talk about me while I'm gone.
B->
Tom Coady:
Hi guys...
I and other steering group members do appreciate your feedback on this
issue, and we have had many similar comments in the past. We will continue
to discuss it at steering group meetings, to which you are all welcome!
I should just point out though that:
1 - As well as the good reasons cited here and by Tom for disliking the
limit, there are many strong reasons for having it as well. One has to weigh
up the frustration of a few who want to post more than twice a day (and it's
great that you do!) against the frustration of the many if a handful of
people posted millions of one-track messages, which is proven to happen on
unchecked open groups. Also, the restriction ought to lead to people
considering carefully when and how they post. The group is not really
intended for back and forth chat between small numbers of people.
2 - The people who maintain this forum are a group of well-meaning
volunteers who put all their time in for free (cue violins). If this sounds
like a gripe it isn't really intended as such, well maybe just a bit, but
more just a reminder that there is no evil establishment to kick against
here, which gets its kicks killing off signs of humour and restricting
people's posts - just a bunch of people making decisions based on our
meetings, which are completely open. And whenever the post restriction issue
has arisen, it has always been decided by a vote on the side of the two-post
restriction.
None of this is to say you can't feed comments to me, or Mike Snewin, or
Mark, or anyone else - please do! And people can post onto the group itself
if they really feel strongly about it. We won't stop you - though this forum
is really intended for local issues only - but I just thought I'd put these
points in here too. And isn;t it nice that you can;t gainsay me now as
you;ve used up your limit for today :-)
To add a couple of points to Dan's comment. The posting volume limit is set
100% by your local charter. You could for example decide to allow two posts in
12 hours instead of 24, 3 in 36, 10 in a week, etc..
Why does E-Democracy.Org highly recommend this constraint:
1. It prevents two people from going back and forth all day and driving us all
nuts.
2. By slowing the conversation, it allows more people to enter into discussion
before everything has been said. It also allows the most passionate to collect
their thoughts and reply later in the day, perhaps more substantially and with
less heat
3. It is a content neutral limit - this used to be a rule that people could
violate (intentionally or by accident), but now the technology prevents you
from being removed for violating this rule because you can't post for X hours.
4. It is "reader" friendly - by limiting overall message volume we can keep
more people in one big community-wide space (versus web forums which tend to
create micro-audiences and therefore IMHO less agenda-setting power).
5. The tragedy of the online commons is when people put too much into it and
drive away the audience. From a volunteer facilitation perspective flame wars
would escalate more quickly before we'd be able to intervene. These forums are
alway on the edge of some unexpected conflict that could drive a 1/3 of the
members away in a week.
We do realise that this posting time limit is runs completely against the grain
of expectation with online forums, particularly for the most avid posters. We
adopted this idea back in 1994 with the MN-POLITICS e-mail list along with real
names. These seem to be the cornerstones of light handed civility that can be
fostered with a volunteer-based model. However, if Brighton & Hove wants to
experiment or change their charter, your local steering committee is welcome to
do so. There may be some better mix of posts by time that work for you.
Steven Clift
Board Chair
E-Democracy.Org
P.S. I was limited yesterday on the Minneapolis Issues Forum, I used up my two
posts and said, darn, I had something else to say. I guess I'll have to wait.
We just reach 50,000 posts on our first local forum since its launch in 1998.
Although it rankles just a bit to be given a lecture on democracy by an
American, I can see some sense in your reasoning and perhaps it is the least
imperfect way to run things. One positive aspect is that it minimises the
need to have a full-time moderator - a role that can often become tyrannical
and anti-democratic.
However, I think it could be worth relaxing the restrictions a little for a
trial period to see if it inclines forum members to be less precious about
making their views known. I suspect we're all grown-ups here who won't go
berserk and turn it into a chat room just because the reins are loosened.
B->
Steven Clift:
> To add a couple of points to Dan's comment. The posting volume limit is set
> 100% by your local charter. You could for example decide to allow two posts
> in 12 hours instead of 24, 3 in 36, 10 in a week, etc..
>
> Why does E-Democracy.Org highly recommend this constraint:
>
> 1. It prevents two people from going back and forth all day and driving us
all
> nuts.
>
> 2. By slowing the conversation, it allows more people to enter into
discussion
> before everything has been said. It also allows the most passionate to
> collect their thoughts and reply later in the day, perhaps more substantially
> and with less heat
>
> 3. It is a content neutral limit - this used to be a rule that people could
> violate (intentionally or by accident), but now the technology prevents you
> from being removed for violating this rule because you can't post for X
hours.
>
> 4. It is "reader" friendly - by limiting overall message volume we can keep
> more people in one big community-wide space (versus web forums which tend to
> create micro-audiences and therefore IMHO less agenda-setting power).
>
> 5. The tragedy of the online commons is when people put too much into it and
> drive away the audience. From a volunteer facilitation perspective flame
wars
> would escalate more quickly before we'd be able to intervene. These forums
> are alway on the edge of some unexpected conflict that could drive a 1/3 of
> the members away in a week.
>
> We do realise that this posting time limit is runs completely against the
> grain of expectation with online forums, particularly for the most avid
> posters. We adopted this idea back in 1994 with the MN-POLITICS e-mail list
> along with real names. These seem to be the cornerstones of light handed
> civility that can be fostered with a volunteer-based model. However, if
> Brighton & Hove wants to experiment or change their charter, your local
> steering committee is welcome to do so. There may be some better mix of
posts
> by time that work for you.
>
> Steven Clift
> Board Chair
> E-Democracy.Org
>
> P.S. I was limited yesterday on the Minneapolis Issues Forum, I used up my
two
> posts and said, darn, I had something else to say. I guess I'll have to
wait.
Now, now, the Americans might find it rich to be lectured on democracy by us
Brits too considering they booted us out as colonialists to install the
Constitution... :-)
It's clear there's a strength of feeling on the posting restriction issue
though, from quite a few people, and that it is definitely worth trying to
relax it a little now, perhaps to two posts in 12 hours instead of 24.
We'll discuss it at the next steering group.
When we started out the principle seemed good, and it still does, but
clearly we need to respond to feedback as well and shift the parameters a
little.
In response to Bernard's comment -
"However, I think it could be worth relaxing the restrictions a little for a
trial period to see if it inclines forum members to be less precious about
making their views known. I suspect we're all grown-ups here who won't go
berserk and turn it into a chat room just because the reins are loosened."
Is it unreasonable to ask what is wrong with chat rooms / message boards as
mechanisms for civilised, democratic discussion? In my opinion, they can
deliver all the debate, without the irritation of e-mails. They can also be
more readily accessed by those of us who use more than one computer in our
daily lives.
No, it is not unreasonable to ask this - but I don't see the different
mechanisms as mutually exclusive.
The Brighton and Hove Issues Forum just happens to be an experiment to use
email as an option (although you can also take part on the web and receive a
digest).
I would think that it is well suited to some types of interaction, and
poorly to others, and that eventually there will be a mixed economy of media
and types of democratic forum.
Personal preference will enter into it as well of course, but as long as
there is choice I think there will be a part for all kinds of forums to
play.
My comment was not intended to be derogatory of chat rooms, or Americans. I
should have stuck a smiley in there to make it clear that my tongue was in
my cheek. The 'British' are hardly morally superior to the 'Americans' when
it comes to paying lip service to democracy. I can see a parallel between
encouraging democracy to take root abroad, and even imposing it by brute
force, and then insisting that they only elect leaders that we approve of -
and the idea of having a forum to encourage free speech and then setting
limits on how much people can say.
There just seems to be a fear that the forum will degenerate into a deluge
of inane and ill-thoughtout messages, as occurs in chat rooms which are
obviously a much more spontaneous and disposable medium.
As things are, I think it could be worth the risk, but it would be
interesting to know what the silent majority on this forum think about this.
B->
Dan Jellinek:
At 7:09 PM +0000 3/4/06, Bernard wrote:
>However, I think it could be worth relaxing the restrictions a little for a
>trial period to see if it inclines forum members to be less precious about
>making their views known.
I don't think that there is anything "MAGIC" about 2 posts in 24
hours. In general, I think it works pretty good and I think that most
of the long term users of the our local Issues Forum would agree.
For me, the main purpose of the 2 post per 24 hour rule IS to
encourage participation. Its to encourage quality participation from
a diverse group of participants.
Anyone who has ever participated in a "talking circle" or "circle
dialogue" that uses a "talking piece" can speak to the POWERFUL ways
that putting some limitations of discussion, can actually open it up
to more participants and increase the quality of what is said.
As a facilitator, its very clear to me, that whether online or in
person, there are some people for whom participation comes easily and
other for whom you must both encourage and allow space for their
participation. A "talking piece" is one face-to-face tool that does
that. In our Issues Forums, the 2 post per 24 hour limit is the
closest we've come.
By restricting the quantity of everyone's speech, we hope that we'll
make the space more OPEN to a larger quantity of participation. My
fear is that looser restrictions will result in a fewer number of
participants dominating the discussion even more. The more this forum
becomes about a few individuals, the less interesting it is for
elected officials and community leaders (or so the theory holds).
So - I would suggest thinking about the posting limit as a
facilitation tool designed to encourage a diversity of folks to
participate. What exactly is the ideal limit per day, half day, or
week - is still an open question. Any researchers want to help us
figure it out? It might also vary from community to community, I
don't know.
Anyway, its always interesting to get folks feedback on this. I look
forward to seeing what comes of this discussion in Brighton & Hove.
Best wishes,
You'll be telling us black is white next! At the risk of taking up too much
space, I'm starting to think this forum should be restricted to a *minimum*
of two messages a day!
B->
Tim Erickson:
On 3/7/06, Tim Erickson <tim@politalk.org> wrote:
> I don't think that there is anything "MAGIC" about 2 posts in 24
> hours. In general, I think it works pretty good and I think that most
> of the long term users of the our local Issues Forum would agree.
>
> For me, the main purpose of the 2 post per 24 hour rule IS to
> encourage participation. Its to encourage quality participation from
> a diverse group of participants.
Well we've done it "your way" for the past 12 months and frankly I
have not noticed any unusual patterns of activity such as the
liberation of the usual majority of lurkers, only frustration by
people who are also giving their time by attempting to participate in
debate only to find their messages are getting rebuffed by senseless
robots.
> Anyone who has ever participated in a "talking circle" or "circle
> dialogue" that uses a "talking piece" can speak to the POWERFUL ways
> that putting some limitations of discussion, can actually open it up
> to more participants and increase the quality of what is said.
I'm not sure I am familiar with a talking circle and think anyone
would be brave to admit to having participated, but in any case I
can't see how this might be analogous to what we are discussing.
> As a facilitator, its very clear to me, that whether online or in
> person, there are some people for whom participation comes easily and
> other for whom you must both encourage and allow space for their
> participation. A "talking piece" is one face-to-face tool that does
> that. In our Issues Forums, the 2 post per 24 hour limit is the
> closest we've come.
Again I am not really familiar with talking pieces, but are you really
saying that people feel intimidated of stepping in to a debate with a
relatively high rate of exchanges in relation to the passage of time?
> By restricting the quantity of everyone's speech, we hope that we'll
> make the space more OPEN to a larger quantity of participation. My
> fear is that looser restrictions will result in a fewer number of
> participants dominating the discussion even more. The more this forum
> becomes about a few individuals, the less interesting it is for
> elected officials and community leaders (or so the theory holds).
Well I think the past year has proved that you can't change the
fundamental laws of nature that appear to lead to the majority happy
to participate in a debate as spectators, and I should add that there
is nothing wrong with that if that's their wish.
> So - I would suggest thinking about the posting limit as a
> facilitation tool designed to encourage a diversity of folks to
> participate. What exactly is the ideal limit per day, half day, or
> week - is still an open question. Any researchers want to help us
> figure it out? It might also vary from community to community, I
> don't know.
For my sins I belong to a huge number of lists. I suspect that many
people are similar. None of these lists put an arbitrary limit on the
volume of messages, and most are dominated by about 5% of the list's
population. And I haven't seen a proper inflammatory exchange for
about 3 years now.
Actually I think there is a lot of self censorship, not just from
lurkers (whatever their motivation), but for example I know that if
anyone attempted to discuss whether the council should switch from PCs
to Macs would simply never get started now.
I suspect that you are basing your experiences on the usenet flamewars
of old that have actually moved on since. It's good to have a living
memory of these as people should still be aware that there are areas
that are likely to cause more heat than light, but I still fail to see
how you can control the content of the message simply by limiting its
volume.
I agree with the two mails a day limit. It allows me to keep in touch with
the broad debate without having my inbox swamped.
If people really want to get into so much detail or continue all day
unhindered they can of course continue their discussion off-line if they
find it that restrictive.
Personally I cannot find the time.
Chris Todd
Well, Tom Coady's obviously right about one thing - you can't "control"
content simply by restricting its quantity.
But that's fine because "controlling" content was never the point of
restricting the number of posts each person can make per day. If the link
between restrictions on posting and quality seems troublesome try thinking
of it in terms of time - not everyone has the same amount of time to spend
reading & posting.
Restricting the number of postings reduces the chances of the place filling
up with junk, encourages people to apply some thought to what they say
before posting, and evens things up a bit between those with loads of time
to spend on the forum & those with other calls on their time, whether they
are carers, or have demanding jobs, or don't have full-time access to a
networked PC, whatever.
It's worth emphasising again that the restriction applies to *everyone* -
there aren't people running rampant with zillions of messages while denying
those opportunities to others.
I started enthusiastically as a member of this forum, but found the limit
incredibly frustrating because I only became aware of the problem AFTER I had
gone to the trouble of typing the contribution. It may have been bearable
(although I think not) had the bar come in before the entry had been typed.
Having the rejection after the event definitely put me off the forum - I hardly
ever read it anymore - this policy should be re-thought.
It's ironic the e-democracy website doesn't have a voting facility,
otherwise the forum members could have voted on this issue.
Peter
Mark Collins wrote:
>I started enthusiastically as a member of this forum, but found the limit
incredibly frustrating because I only became aware of the problem AFTER I had
gone to the trouble of typing the contribution. It may have been bearable
(although I think not) had the bar come in before the entry had been typed.
Having the rejection after the event definitely put me off the forum - I hardly
ever read it anymore - this policy should be re-thought.