Phew! Things seem back to normal on the sigia email list after a brief moment of chaos. What to do when tensions ride high in an unmoderated list? One side frowns on any type of censorship, while the other side frowns on giving free rein to (real or perceived) disruptive discussions.

Here are a couple of things that I go back and forth about. Sure, "censorship" is easy to bash. But it's easier to talk about censorship being a "bad" thing when it isn't you being harassed by a disruptive element. The other is that, all things considered, there seems to be some value in having someone, anyone, help "vet" an email or post as being worth the trouble to read. This seems to be the sentiment of an article that recently made the rounds of a few weblogs on desire and customers. Here's an interesting conclusion from the article:

I'll admit, a lot of people don't like the sound of [submitting to a higher authority]. But this trend is fueled by our greatest passion: a passion for genuine tranquility, for real peace of mind. In the model of a marketplace dominated by metabrands, consumers yearn for fewer choices, not more choices, and they will yield to a trusted advocate who will clear a path through the chaos for them. Maybe that's unimaginable. It is also inevitable.

In other words, what does the audience need or want? Some may really be into the give and take, the high traffic, the "vibrancy." Others may well be content with a bit less drama, a bit more signal-to-noise, and...a bit more peace of mind!

08:04 PM | linkme | home