[Dixielandjazz] List Policemen etc.

[Steve Barbone]

Bob Ringwald wrote (polite snip)

>>Steve Wrote (Snip)
 
>>"The biggest negative that I see is when someone tries to be a list
>> policemen because he/she doesn't agree. And then tries to inhibit messages
>> under the guise of speaking for "many". Speak out, that's what a chat list is
>> for. And speak for yourself because there are 500 + people, (most of whom we
>> do not know) on this one.

>Well, since I am the list moderator, I suppose that comment is directed at
>me?  I am in a sense the List Policeman.  However, I never sensor anyone on
>the grounds that he/she has a different opinion than I do.  When I feel that
>a thread has gotten out of hand, either has turned nasty, or has become
>off-topic, then I ask that it stop.

>In how long has it been, maybe 13 years, only two people have been
>intentionally unsubscribed from DJML.  One was posting under a fake name and
>address and saying things that could potentially hurt people's career and
>the other was extremely abusive with fowl language.

>I have made many comments and suggestions on Netiquette privately to
>members.  But I have never given any one person an order of what to post or
>not to post when it comes to subjects relating to Jazz.  And, I try to never
>embarrass anyone publicly.

Dear Bob (and 563 list mates)

Heck no, that comment WAS NOT DIRECTED AT YOU. It was directed at those who
feel they speak for "everyone else", or "many" people on this list. It was
also directed at those who because they dislike an opinion, feel they must
go after the messenger, not the message. That is CERTAINLY NOT YOU.

How many times have I posted over and over for years that you are a great
moderator, should be lauded for what you do, and thanked you? After all
those posts, why would you think I would refer to you as a list policeman?
Damn, I've repeated my praise of you in your DJML capacity more than I've
posted about how to revitalize Dixieland, (which you describe below as
annoying) And, in fact, said the same thing less than a year ago when you
thought, in error, that I was referring to you as a list policeman.

You also wrote:

>IMO, the ideas put forth were very good.  But they were very good the first
>fifty times they were posted.  After that, they became repetitive and
>annoying.

>Contrary to your above statement, No one was resisting the ideas or were
>complaining because the ideas were not good.  They complained because
>they were posted over and over for years.

Same posts 50 times? Nah. Plus there were lots who resisted. For example:
You know that from my public posts about the Sacramento Jubilee of several
years ago, before the management of that event was changed for the better.
There was fierce resistance to my ideas (not from you) but  from quite a few
folks who swore the Jubilee was doing just great, when it was, in fact, on
its heels, deep in debt, suffering declining audiences and facing the
possibility of folding. Resistance from folks both on the Sacto Board, and
on the DJML. 

The writer of the post I was responding to,  who wanted us to get pro
active, was obviously unaware of what has been posted, by me, in very
positive terms, over previous years.

And, at the time they were posted there were about 250 members on the list.
That means, according to your latest count, the majority of list members ,
313 people probably never read them either.

BTW, how many times have you and I seen the same ideas/opinions posted on
the list by others, year in and year out? But when a newbie asks what
mouthpiece he should use, or what styles are there in Dixieland, or What is
Trad Jazz?, those questions deserve an answer without somebody saying "we've
discussed that before and its annoying".

Bottom line is, ever since I posted that band leaders and musicians should
take some measure of responsibility for the dreadful state of OKOM these
days, some folks living in denial and blaming everybody else but themselves,
got really annoyed. Some also took it to heart and got pro active.

You also said:

>Without naming names, the people who were pointing this out were pointing it
>out over and over and over, infinitum  It had become very annoying to a
>great many DJML members.

Really? How many? Once before someone said that "many people were annoyed"
and so I asked folks on the list who were annoyed to please write me off
list and let me know how and when I annoyed them with subject matter. I got
a grand total of 7 responses saying I was annoying. Plus, 9 responses saying
tell it like you've been doing. I can't wrap my brain around a phrase like
"a great many people are annoyed at you" with no factual back-up. Speak for
yourself and let every one else speak for him/herself. My address is public
knowledge. Again, I ask those who are annoyed at me want to write me off
list and tell me what I said that was annoying. I would be happy to talk
about issues with anyone in same spirit that the incoming mail exhibits.

Failing that, everyone with a computer has the ability to censor my posts by
extending the middle finger to the "delete" key. The DJML and JAZZ are very
similar communications. Those who don't like someone's music don't have to
listen. Those who don't like someone's posts, don't have to read them.

You also said:

>Note: We are now up to 563 members.  We have been close to 600 several
>times.  But every time we get close, an argument starts here on
>DJML and we lose 50 to 75 members.  Let's not have this happen again.

Why do people join this chat list in the first place? Certainly not to find
us all in agreement. People join and leave for a variety of reasons. Perhaps
some give and take is what makes people want to join this list. Perhaps
that's how it got so large by comparison to other trad lists. Until we know
just why this list is more successful than other trad lists, it may be
destructive to make assumptions. It is what it is and if the list gets
boring, we may lose a lot more that 50 or 75 members.

Cheers,
Steve Barbone