Search All of the Math Forum:
Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by
Drexel University or The Math Forum.
|
|
|
|
re Enough already
Posted:
Jun 5, 1995 5:39 PM
|
|
msouth/suggestions/1
a few suggestions in regards to annie's post (below). To combat similar
problems on another list I was on, we adopted the following policies:
First line of each message contained author/subject/number (as in number
of messages by the author on this topic). Then, rather than including,
one could just refer to "the stupid ideas presented in msouth/suggestions/1",
for example. However, without archives available this is less useful, unless
everyone saves copies of all of the messages.
Until archives make the above practical, another good time saver (for the
reader) is to include the original text _after_ the comments. Especially
if you are on a slow modem, this saves a lot of slow, exaperating paging
through old (practically memorized) messages, while still allowing those
that don't remember the original post or want to refer to it for wahtever
reason the ability to do so.
I don't know how "moderated" this list was, but the best newsgroup I
ever participated in was one that had a fair-but-heavy-handed moderator
who rejected every off topic post and flame. If the person that wrote
the post wished to rewrite and resubmit, fine. If the moderartor at
least agrees to post everything that directly has to do with, for example,
teaching math, then there won't be much of a problem with the question
of censorship--all that will be filtered out will be personal attacks
and debates about free speech, etc. My experience (some moderators
make available in a single file all of the rejected posts for the
week so people can see what isn't getting through) is that the quality
of the discussion improved tremendously.
Sometimes it is best to use an "old text interlaced with new comments"
format. In these cases, it is nice if people at least mark the spot
in the text after which no new text has been added.
mike
(no new text after this point)
From usenet@forum.swarthmore.edu Mon Jun 5 10:42 CDT 1995
>X-Sender: fetter@forum.swarthmore.edu
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Date: Mon, 5 Jun 1995 10:50:10 -0400
>To: nctm-l@forum.swarthmore.edu
>From: annie@forum.swarthmore.edu (Annie Fetter)
>Subject: Alright, people. Enough.
>Okay, boys and girls. Enough. Talk about the Standards. Talk about the
>math classroom. We're not anymore. We're talking about baseball and who
>said what on the list last year and repeating over and over again that we
>have a right to say whatever we want. Let's all try to refocus and see if
>we can keep the quality of the list at a high level.
>Yes, there is a such a thing as free speech. But when a (for the most
>part) back-and-forth argument generates 50 messages, it's often not
>evolving any more, and has long since passed the point of productivity.
>Let's all try to state our cases clearly, and we won't have to run around
>in circles for days.
>Also, as a help to others, when you're replying to a post, please try to
>delete the unimportant parts of the message to which you're replying. Five
>new lines and 50 old make things difficult to read. It also makes the
>digest really long and difficult to manage.
>And we're obviously going too fast for some people - today I had to
>unsubscribe three people whose mailboxes have been full for a week and
>can't receive any new mail!
> -Annie
From msouth Mon Jun 5 11:06:12 1995
|
|
|
|
