Date:         Sat, 16 May 1998 00:07:01 EDT
From: "where angels fear to tread..." <mbarker@MIT.EDU>
Subject:      [WRITERS] FILLER: A Background of Confusion,
              a Foreground of Profusion?

Ah, me oh my...

I've been given to understand that there may be some confusion about
just who's running things around here, and what the difference is
between tink removing privileges to post or read and jester (or
others) deciding not to read things, and what is this list for,
anyway, and why don't people just delete stuff if they don't want to
read it, and so on...

Let me try to clear up some of the confusion.  What else would a
listowner be doing at midnight on a Friday night, right?

1.  Who's the listowner?

First of all, in case it isn't clear, Mike Barker (aka tink)
<mbarker@mit.edu> is the listowner.  If you'd like to verify that, you
can send mail to writers-request@mitvma.mit.edu (the listowners' address
for EVERY listserv list--take the name of the list, add -request to it,
send mail to it, and you are in touch with the owners).  I'll try to
answer you fairly soon (don't forget, I'm a volunteer who does this in
my "spare" time).

If by any chance you kept the original documents that were sent to you
when you joined, you'll find the information about writers-request in
there, I believe.

You can also ask the members of the list who have been around a while.
Heck, you could even watch to see who spends their time cleaning up,
posting FAQs and so forth, and who takes care of disruption and other
problems on the list.  I think in a short time you'll be able to
figure out what I do.

Or you can check out http://web.mit.edu/mbarker/www/writers.html and
look at the pages and pages of writers postings that I have archived
there.  Even the most prolific might find it difficult to throw together
such a collection overnight (although they might organize their's
better, I will grant you).

Oh, and there are some parts which you really should just take on
faith...for example, if you insist on personal attacks, harassment, or
other disruption, I'll be the one who removes your privileges.

In short, I'm the listowner.

There are a few other listowners.  Basically, they have been asked to
help out--for example, if the list stops, it's better if there are more
than one of us who can start it again.  Also, when people have problems
they really can't solve (you've already left that ISP, so you can't send
mail with that address, but you really need that membership stopped...)
it is better if there are several people who can help.

2.  tink said he was removing privileges, then jester said he was going
to kill all the newbies--so we've all been kicked off the list, right?

Well, no...some people refuse to play by the fairly lenient rules that
we have developed for this workshop of writers.  I remove their
privileges to participate and let the list know what has happened.
That's one level.

On the other hand, someone like Jester cannot remove your membership.

What he can do (as can any of you--and as several recent posters have
strongly urged that we all do) is to choose not to read postings from
some addresses, certain types of postings, etc.  He (or anyone else)
can use the topic filtering of listserv to pick between (properly
labelled) SUB:, CRIT:, TECH:, EXER:, WOW:, FILL:, or INT: postings.
In most modern mailers, he (and you) also has various kinds of
filtering abilities.  For example, you can choose to put all postings
from mbarker@mit.edu into a separate folder, into the trashcan, or
whatever.  You can also choose to route postings with [WRITERS] in the
subject line to a specific folder.

(I believe jester has chosen to have "known" and "unknown" folders,
with authors that he knows going into the "known" stack while all
others go into the slushpile...er, ah, "unknown" folder.  And like
most editors, he reads from the known stack first, and looks at the
slushpile if he has time.  This kind of prioritization, whether
deliberate and automated or unconscious and sloppy, is pretty old,
really.)

Or, of course, you can do the old manual trick of looking at the subject
lines and from fields (usually available in some kind of an index in
your mailer) and deciding which pieces of mail to open first (or which
to delete first) from that index.

So--when people say they aren't reading you, that means just
that--they are ignoring you.  It doesn't stop your posting and
participation in the list, although you may want to consider what lead
to them taking that radical stance.  It's especially surprising given
that most of the members here are the kind of people who read the
ingredients on boxes while standing in lines rather than just stand
there with their mouths open--i.e., they tend to read EVERYTHING if
they possibly can.

When tink says you can't post to the list, you'll know it.  You'll also
know what you can do to rejoin, because I tell every person who loses
the privileges of membership what they need to do to rejoin the list.

Okay?  Let's see if I can come up with an analogy...well, suppose
WRITERS is a newspaper, with each person who posts being a reporter
(of sorts).

One level--jester deciding not to read some people's postings--is just
someone deciding not to read the sports section of the newspaper.
That's their choice, and doesn't directly impact your ability to post
and participate (although if you get enough people ignoring you, it'll
be kind of boring, but nobody promised you readers...you've got to
provide enough reason for them to start reading and keep reading).

The other level--tink removing privileges--is the editor-in-chief
deciding that there isn't going to be sports section any more (and
you, unfortunately, are the sports writer).  Specifically, it's the
listowner making sure that individuals are not misusing the privileges
of list membership.

3.  Isn't this list just for interesting or entertaining writing?
Can't people just post anything that they like?

No, not exactly.  This list is a workshop for writing, not simply a
place for anyone to post whatever they like.  For example, original
writing (fiction, poetry, the occasional essay or non-fiction piece)
is sent to the list as a SUBmission (with SUB: in the subject line).
Other members then CRITique or comment on the writing (with CRIT: in
the subject line).  We also exchange TECHnique pieces (with TECH: in
the subject line) discussing aspects of the techniques or technical
side of writing.  We sometimes post EXERcise (with EXER: in the
subject line) pieces, written to provide others with a chance to
exercise their writing.  We post World Of Writing (WOW:) pieces
sharing information about the world of writing "out there" beyond the
workshop.  We also exchange some FILLer pieces, usually focusing on
experiences, ideas, or other background to writing which doesn't fit
so easily into the other topic areas.  Finally, we sometimes have
INTeractive (guess where to put the INT: ) series, either the standard
kind of round robbin stories with multiple authors adding new segments
or other multiple member participatory threads.  Shared worlds, etc.

In other words, while it is true that we do share interesting or
entertaining writing, there is an etiquette or protocol for doing so.
The BIO or INTRO pieces are intended to be autobiographical, not
fiction.  (And yes, I am well aware that there is some fiction in all
writing--but let's not attempt to get bogged down in minor points,
let's work together to understand, all right?)

4.  What does it matter whether the life stories and experiences are
true or not?  Who knows what is real on the computer, anyway?  If we
tell a good story, and people enjoy what they are reading, where's the
problem?

Ah, me.  And all life is but a tale told by a madman, hovering in the
mists of memory...and if the butterfly sneezes, who will dream us
again?

There is, of course, at least one person who always knows whether you
are telling the truth or not.

And that person is your judge, jury, and possibly executioner...or at
least warden of the prison.

That person is yourself.

If you tell a story well enough--and people know it is a story, and
enjoy it in the reading--indeed, there is no problem.  This is working
within the social framework that supports writing and fiction.

If you insist on telling stories when those about you are expecting
truth, and from time to time pull the rug out from under them and
laugh at their discomfort--no, that really isn't acceptable.  This is
using the social interactions as a way to trap and hurt people.

5.  Look, just don't believe everything you read, and enjoy life.  If
you don`t want to read it, use delete.

Excellent advice.  And, oddly, exactly what Jester proposed to do,
which upset several people very much...

Of course, there is also the point that this list is NOT available for
anyone to post anything that they like.  In fact, members of this list
should not have to use delete very much to avoid things they don't
want to read.  That's really the point in having a list--to try to
make sure that most of the postings ARE "on topic."

What this advice to use delete and let people do whatever they want
actually suggests is that after spending five years or more working on
this list, collecting the members and getting a level of communication
built up, I (as list owner) must allow anyone to use that membership
collection in any way that they like?

I'm sorry to be the one to burst the bubble, but that isn't the way
this works.

Feel free to start another list.  But on this list, there are some
rules, some guidelines, some ways of doing things which we all obey.
They aren't as onerous as you might expect--mostly, they amount to
common sense and a bit of respect for the other members.

I will point out that deliberately deceiving your readers when they
are expecting truth or fact (and on this list, the members are also
readers) seems...well, pitiful, to be honest.

If you want help learning how to work with this list, just ask.

You might be surprised at how much fun it can be.

tink