soliciting thoughts on guidelines for rhizome raw

Hi,
i have some unclear thoughts…
in terms of RAW's "potential" - i'm not sure what that
is. it seems to me that any potential for discussion,
information sharing, etc. that RAW has is created by
those who use it, and at this point i don't see how
guidlines would increase the potential in those terms.
not that i'm against guidelines - i think moderating
the list in terms of Rhizome's mission should be
acceptable, and doesn't have to lead to censorship.
with membership required to post (is this correct?), i
don't see that much need for more rules (at least for
now).
if making the terms of acceptable discussion
(regarding new media, net.art, etc.) explicitly known
to all users is the question, sure. but deciding what
is relevant to "new media" is a different matter.
not very helpful…ryan

> hey all – this post from t.whid is from two weeks
> ago, originally stemming
> from a discussion of artbase criterion. I am stuck
> on it – I wonder what
> people think about having an acceptable use policy
> for raw… broad
> guidelines that protect an "inclusive"
> environment… not sure what the
> right frameworks or terms shoud be here. what do raw
> folks think about this?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > At 1:25 -0500 1/15/03, Mark Tribe wrote:
> >
> >
> > there is plenty of exclusiveness in the art world.
> i have always
> > tried to make rhizome an exception, to keep it
> open. that's why we
> > have not bowed to pressure to moderate raw. that's
> why our
> > commissioning program is based on a call for
> proposals (most
> > commissioning programs are invitational).
> >
>
> t.whid replied:
>
>
> > hey mark,
> >
> > moderation and inclusiveness are not antagonistic.
> you may include
> > anyone who plays fairly by agreed on rules. RAW
> has no acceptable use
> > policy, that's the problem. so anyone may use it
> and abuse it (and
> > it's members) however they wish. as long as you
> keep this imo flawed
> > policy RAW won't reach it's full potential.
>


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com

re: guidelines, top of head:

this would be a very tricky thing to implement, especially so soon
after the subscriber fee. (btw, howzit goin'? can rhizome admin share
any of the numbers?)

first, i'll make one suggestion regarding folks who can't afford the
fee. i think it would be great if rhizome could start a specific fund
that people could contribute to which could be used for folks that
can't afford the fee. i would put half my yearly donation into such a
fund. (of course there could be serious admin problems with this.
first i don't think anyone from the USA, Western Europe, or most of
Asia should be eligible. someone would have to judge the charity
cases, which may be a fairly large clerical task. and there is always
the argument that if someone has a computer and is interested in art
and connects to the internet they could prolly find the five bucks.)

as far as guidelines are concerned, i don't think any subject should
be banned. if we're talking about art and new media then almost any
subject could be of use to artists.

spam bombs should be banned all together. (they already are i suppose)

interventions should be acceptable. (this one is tricky, someone
could be very abusive and call it an 'art intervention')

people should be urged to be respectful when they have differences of
opinion. (i know, i know, i've broken that one myself)

constructive comments should be rewarded somehow.. whatever happened
to the karma system? maybe you could tie the karma system into the
fee? if one's a real asshole and gets bad karma his fee may be 500
bucks but if people enjoy one's posts and one gets good karma the
subscriber fee would be 50 cents?

if you could get the threaded posts working with karma on the web
site then some of the problems would go away as people who didn't
want to experience RAW could read the site where the trolls would be
modded off the page (theoretically).

if someone is serially abusive (covering days and weeks) and seems to
be dominating the discussion, tilting it to a very negative tone,
then the address should be banned. this is a subjective call, perhaps
you can put these questions to a vote.

there could be a system (perhaps simply an email address) to which
people could complain about serial abuse. there would be guidelines
on how to report the abuse; you must include posts to prove your
case. then a moderator would investigate the allegation and make a
decision or put it up to a vote. if someone repeatedly reports
someone who isn't abusive then the address of the person making false
reports is banned.

that's all i got for now.

>
>> hey all – this post from t.whid is from two weeks
>> ago, originally stemming
>> from a discussion of artbase criterion. I am stuck
>> on it – I wonder what
>> people think about having an acceptable use policy
>> for raw… broad
>> guidelines that protect an "inclusive"
>> environment… not sure what the
>> right frameworks or terms shoud be here. what do raw
>> folks think about this?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > At 1:25 -0500 1/15/03, Mark Tribe wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > there is plenty of exclusiveness in the art world.
>> i have always
>> > tried to make rhizome an exception, to keep it
>> open. that's why we
>> > have not bowed to pressure to moderate raw. that's
>> why our
>> > commissioning program is based on a call for
>> proposals (most
>> > commissioning programs are invitational).
>> >
>>
>> t.whid replied:
>>
>>
>> > hey mark,
>> >
>> > moderation and inclusiveness are not antagonistic.
>> you may include
>> > anyone who plays fairly by agreed on rules. RAW
>> has no acceptable use
>> > policy, that's the problem. so anyone may use it
>> and abuse it (and
>> > it's members) however they wish. as long as you
>> keep this imo flawed
>> > policy RAW won't reach it's full potential.

–
<twhid>
http://www.mteww.com
</twhid>

I very much thing that raw should mean raw. Personally, I'm feeling
increasingly troubled about the filtration factor of having introduced the
fee. I'm realizing that open access was central to what I felt Rhizome, and
especially raw were about. As I'm sure most of us are aware, the most
interesting discussions about rhizome are now going on on other lists. I
think there are plenty of filtration options with rare and digest and that
the very rawness of raw is something particular to value. And I do value
it.

Sal