Imagine for a moment a hypothetical email list.

The moderator of the list lets it run freely and openly and pretty much to its own devices, trusting that participants, despite their varying moods and occasional differences, eventually moderate themselves, with a pinch of grace and a splash of common sense.

Occasionally things get heated and the moderator is requested to bring out the wet blanket.

Imagine an occasion where one participant made frequent comments with barbs that were felt to be a bit too pointed. Some people were hurt. Some people asked the moderator to intervene, suggesting that the list should be welcoming of contributions, even of the timid.

Imagine that the moderator did ask the list member to tone it down a bit, for the sake of creating a list with “the more the merrier” participating.

However, the list member was completely at a loss to know what it was they had said that was so unacceptable. They thought they were simply debating a concept, not making personal remarks about people. And they suspected those supposedly offended were seeking anonymity only to hide behind it for ulterior motives.

Which led the moderator to concoct a scenario pretty much as it appears above.

How the hell you are supposed to get timid people to suddenly become untimid and confront their demons, I don’t know, but I, I mean the moderator of this fictional list, left it to the list members to discuss. As was his wont in any case.

~~~

Then this:

Ok, I’ll take the bait and imagine I’m discussing this 🙂

Well, firstly, I’d be imagining that the hypothetical list moderator had every right to be offended at the implied suggestion that he’s unable to distinguish between a person with a genuine grievance and someone with an ulterior motive. Bearing in mind, of course, that the imaginary moderator can see every post and decide whether the complaint is justified.

Although accepting that this is a purely hypothetical situation, I certainly agree that this happens. That there are list members who are abrasive, and that it’s quite possible that they have no idea that they’re perceived to be that way. I may even be one of them myself, although I haven’t been approached by an imaginary list moderator recently…

But even supposing the member doesn’t understand how their words are perceived, my opinion is that openness, honesty, and a desire for self-improvement ought to operate in this hypothetical problem area. That is, that a) other list members should be able to make comments to the list moderator about anyone that they perceive to be abrasive, with reasons/examples as far as possible, b) the list moderator could then pass applicable information on to the abrasive member, having removed identifying information and/or condensing the comments, and c) if sufficient people make comments, the list member would perhaps be more convinced of the impartiality of the original grievance, and could perhaps be influenced to tone down their approach.

Of course, this puts an extra load on the list moderator, but it’s all imaginary anyway, isn’t it?

Timid people, especially in situations when they feel threatened, will only become *more* timid if forced. And on a list like this, comprised of people seeking to act on compassion and justice principles, one would hope that timid people are never put into a position where they feel even more timid, or that if they are, and we hear about it, that we seek to prevent such a thing ever occurring again.

Oh, and of course this purely hypothetical situation should also make us very grateful for the fact that insights-l has a moderator to deal with just such difficulties as he asks us to imagine 🙂

~~~

And then this:

I’ve three criteria for this. I think the Church should be about worshipping God, and building up believers, and preaching the Gospel. And I think this list helps me and others to do all three of these.

And that’s pretty cool.

Maybe the reasons the list ain’t perfect have something to do with the quality of the members, rather than just the moderator. Maybe none of us are perfect.

Maybe that’s what Church is all about.

YiCaa

~~~

And finally this:

I suggest that the hypothetical moderator has to make a final decision. It is for the moderator to decide if the mode of communication was appropriate. If the choice is that the comments weren’t appropriate then the particular protests of the offender become irrelevant and s/he should be asked to make changes or take a break for a specified period from the list.

My kids are really good for blaming someone or something else whenever I want to call them to account. Like ….. says, an appropriate response is for the person to reflect on means of communicating that will engender better outcomes. How we are perceived is as real as our actual intentions.

Being a moderator is tough but the moderator has the authority – and that authority is a bit scary in itself!