Should a community listserv be moderated?

[Mary B.]

Here's an interesting comment from Christine Johnson at Stone Curves (Tucson) on listserv moderation: lists.cohousing.org/archives/cohousing-l/msg39727.html

Stone Curves is a 15-minute walk away from where I live, Sonora Cohousing. At first I thought, we don't have a moderator, and I like it that way! But then I remembered an incident from last year.

At the time, we were all discussing recent laundry room break-ins and the possibility of posting a camera in or near the laundry room. The conversation was polite, congenial and professional until one woman broke in to complain that discussing things by email was "sucking the life out of the community!" Personal insults and chaos followed. Two weeks later, after everyone else had been shouted down, the same woman began chatting about a subject of interest to her via the listserv, from her cellphone. Apparently, when she's the center of attention, it's permissible; when she's not, emails signal the destruction of community and civilization.

I'd like to think that if we'd had a moderator in place, this meltdown might never have happened--that someone would have warned the woman not to "shout down" a discussion, that as long as a discussion is moving forward and is congenial, it would be permitted. Although in Christine's coho, no discussion is permitted at all. However, Stone Curves is quite a bit larger than Sonora, so I think the size of a coho may also be a factor. Another factor is that we often have residents who are traveling or away (caring for elderly relatives, sailing in the Maldives) and I think that being able to include these very energetic, vital residents in important community decisions is important to our community and our discussions.

Another solution we've discussed (but not adopted) is having a separate listserv email for OT (off topic) discussions. With a separate email loop, anyone who wants to chat about non-community issues can do so by subscribing to that list, or conversely choosing to opt-out. Right now, residents can send an email to the general list if they start the subject line with "OT:" signalling that it is not on-topic about community. But that doesn't work, because for instance, we have one woman who is so rabidly anti-GMO and email-chains propaganda so frequently that I've had to block her--which means I can now not see anything she has to say about anything--not an ideal solution.

Your thoughts?

[JasminaJ]

This is an interesting question. Where I live, we're still just a condo association, but since we all share community spaces anyway and most of the residents are friendly to each other, we're talking about adding community gardens, playspaces, etc. and two members have proposed that we become a cohousing community. We've been looking at cohousing.site but that doesn't answer a lot of our questions. I'm not on the team that's doing the research and planning, but of course I'm interested in details like this. How DO people in a cohousing communicate? It seems like email is a good choice because a lot of us travel for work or fun and so often a third of our population is not present. But how do you keep everyone else's inconsequential chatter out of your inbox?

[hesterkw]

It seems like overkill. It's another job to do, it delays information spreading to the availability of the moderator(s), and it can be a source of argument as much as it can avoid them.

If one argument might have been prevented, how many arguments would have been started by rejection of something someone thought was legitimate? Accusations of personal bias? Complaints that an email sent 12 hours ago hasn't go up because someone was busy, and is no longer relevant?

It seems like part of the point of cohousing is stuff should be self-enforcing. Something like a OT discussion seems much more in keeping with finding consensual solutions while allowing people to express themselves.

[JasminaJ]

May 18, 2016 3:59:23 GMT -8 hesterkw said:

It seems like overkill. It's another job to do, it delays information spreading to the availability of the moderator(s), and it can be a source of argument as much as it can avoid them.

If one argument might have been prevented, how many arguments would have been started by rejection of something someone thought was legitimate? Accusations of personal bias? Complaints that an email sent 12 hours ago hasn't go up because someone was busy, and is no longer relevant?

That seems like an awfully tight definition of moderation--having to approve every post first. I don't know of anybody who actually does that. I would think 'moderation' would be just having a set of expectations (rules) and having someone step in if tempers get hot to just smooth the waters and remind everyone of the expectations.

[Mary B.]

Agreed, Jasmina. Moderation should be, well, moderate. I also agree with Hester that much of coho life should be self-enforcing, but that does not work well when tempers flare. People actually bend over backward to avoid conflict, so in a firestorm, those not involved would rather run for the hills than step forward and be a voice of reason--unless there's an assigned moderator.

Another reason to have a moderator, as I said before, is to keep threads straight and separate business stuff from OT. I'd estimate 90% of people using email for group communication don't bother to change the email subject line when they change the topic.

[garyronstadt]

There been times I wished we had a moderator. We have a few people who are very politically-minded, and had to put the kibosh to anyone posting political commentary at all. Which of course made those few feel singled out, even though they're the ones who were being intrusive. Then there was the whole flap over pets. And so on. We eventually worked things out in meetings, but not before there were some bridges burned on email. A few of us piped up and suggested that things should be moved offline, but sometimes folks just won't listen when they're deep in an argument.

[JasminaJ]

Jun 3, 2016 7:22:31 GMT -8 garyronstadt said:

A few of us piped up and suggested that things should be moved offline, but sometimes folks just won't listen when they're deep in an argument.

If that's the case, would people listen to a moderator?

[Mary B.]

Jun 3, 2016 8:52:24 GMT -8 JasminaJ said:

If that's the case, would people listen to a moderator?

I think so. People tend to listen to someone in an official capacity or the-person-in-charge even when they won't listen to their neighbors. Although there may be no way to impose moderation technically with just open email. A listserv, I believe, can be set to "send immediately" or "hold for review" and a moderator could say that until tempers cool down, he/she is setting the listserv to hold for a day or two.

Having options is one of the reasons I advocate using a discussion forum (like this one) for cohousing. You can lock a thread temporarily if it gets too contentious, and people can edit or delete their responses if they want, which you can't do with email. You can set up separate sections, so OT stuff could have its own space, and people can subscribe to only the threads they're interested in. Also, if you want to make sure everyone gets a communique, there's a way to email announcements directly from the board.

[JasminaJ]

Are there forums or forum software just for cohousing? I'm not sure how to ask the question, but I mean something like this but just for private use?

[Mary B.]

I know the cohousing.site software includes a discussion forum. I'm not sure how advanced it is, or what the features are, though. You could find out more by contacting Sean Davey at cohousing.site.