|
a chronological
survey of the mental state of the nettime
mailing list
|
thanks to micz
flor for providing me with the perl script for this production
disclaimer:
this
is a collage of opinions posted in nettime on the subject of nettime,
to illustrate how the list and its subscribers' opionios on what
the list's state is have changed over time. for the sake of coherence
the postings have been shortened but they all contain a link to
the originals in the nettime archives, in order not to loose that
reference. this is therefore a construct. the reader is invited
to contribute his or her own opinion on the subject(s).
(press
'reload' to update the line)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To:
nettime-l@Desk.nl Subject: nettime: het stuk From: jesis@xs4all.nl
(j bosma) Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 09:08:29 +0100
>Nettime
has a lot of members. The issues that pass the revue titillate
many minds . Yet only a very small part of its members 'open
fire', even when the battle is practically in their own backyard.
We have heard someone say he is afraid to write. Why is that?
Speaking in public is not easy, most of us know that, with
the exception of the natural performers. But is that the only problem?
From many sides the same remarks about Nettime are heard over
and over again. The texts, the announcements and the world
that seems to be hidden behind them are found extremely interesting,
but there is this enormous treshhold fear to react. And it
seems to have something to do with these same good texts.<
>Nettime
is a social entity; above all else its energy comes from its
community-oriented nature. The above is not meant as a dead-end
complaint. It is more a response to a slightly troubling and seemingly
contradictory tendency within the discussions of nettime that
have discouraged certain interesting subscribers to participate.
In the long run this may create problems, nobody likes being
an unintentional lurker. The network of subscribers is a valuable
one for all of us, and loosing good but in the world of theorywriting
inexperienced people due to inaccessability would be a damn
shame. If we are to avoid building with institutionalised
male dominated structures of theoretical discourse that existed
within the academy of old, which profitted from specialisms,
narrowing the gaze and heading for one clear goal, and we reflect
now, in practice, the diversity of this list, the threads of this
tendency might need to be unpicked and rewoven<.
*
Subject: nettime: Nettimism? No thank you!*
From: IGOR.MARKOVIC@ZAMIR-ZG.ztn.apc.org (Igor Markovic) (by way
of pit@contrib.de(Pit Schultz))* Date: Fri, 14 Mar 1997 23:15:39
+0100
>With
the growth of importance and influence of the nettime (list, circle
of people and concepts etc.) people who lived at least a part of
their lives in socialism - but not only them - can recognise emerging
of some nteresting processes. I have in mind selfunderstaindable
leadership of dominant idea, ideology, viewpoint.<
Subject:
nettime: re: Nettimism? No thank you! From: Frank Hartmann (by way
of pit@contrib.de (Pit Schultz)) Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 07:51:33
+0100
>we
really want to reflect upon the experience of "people who lived
at least a part of their lives in socialism", we should not dream
about nettime as a kind of a meta-ideological discussion space.
We should rather ask: how did the change in Eastern Europe affect
the traditional concept of "Ideologiekritik", and how did this change
compel us to approach the prerequisits for the function of ideological
structures in a new way - in the context of new media theory & practice.<
*
Subject:
Ljubljana interview with Heath Bunting*
From: Josephine Bosma* Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 11:12:59 +0200 (MET
DST)
>Q:
Lets talk about nettime now. What did nettime mean to you?
HB:
In the past? When We I first got involved in nettime it was a context
for things that I did. I seem to remember it as a small group of
people that did similar things but that now seems to have changed
into a very large group of people which I cannot really consider
my context anymore. For instance, there was somehow a bit of a restructuring,
and I think the original people have realised that they were missing
their context, so we got back together again just by sitting around
eating dinner. With my work for instance, it is very difficult to
say: what do you think is this idea?- in front of two hundred people.
But when you're with ten people and you've known them for years
you can develop your work quite a lot. Nettime has shifted from
the original, it sounds a bit strong but, its changed. It works
for the majority of people but it doesn't really work for me anymore.
So I resigned about four weeks ago.will meet regularly, we won't
have a group.<
*
Subject: moderation* From: Andreas Broeckmann* Date: Sun,
22 Jun 1997 13:11:23 +0100
>i
find the list difficult to handle at the moment, the noise is immense,
and the discussions which should be taking place in the newsgroup
are piling in ceaselessly. <
>i
want to suggest - tentatively, because i also see the interesting
dynamic of what is going on in the last months - that pit and geert
should switch on the moderator-button and filter messages before
they go out over the list. This would prevent us from some of the
rant that people should be doing in e-mail communication and then,
possibly, send to the list in a more digested form.<
* Subject: Nettime Criticism * From:
Mark Stahlman (via RadioMail) * Date: Sun, 22 Jun 1997 11:04:17
-0700 (PDT)
>So,
now, we have reached the "moderation" crossroads. This was inevitable,
>also. It is a tactic being proposed to calm the restless natives.
It is also a tactic >designed to quell nettime criticism. And,
as such it will destroy nettime if it is adopted<.
* Subject: Mark Stahlman's Challenge to Rationality *
From: Bruce Sterling * Date: Sun, 22 Jun 1997 13:40:19 -0700 (PDT)
>Here
good old Mark is finally declaring his intention to destroy the
list. And yes, this really was inevitable. There isn't any menace
to nettime -- except of course, for the minor menace of Mark himself.
Mark is always a menace to any discussion that doesn't center on
himself and his delusions. <
>Let
me tell you what Mark will do in the future. First, he'll find himself
some other list (or site). Then, he'll begin denouncing nettime
there. He'll forbid anyone to crosspost his denunciations back to
nettime. But soon, another little world in cyberspace will be regaled
with dismal terror stories about the sinister nettime conspiracy.<
*
Subject: moratorium * From: Pit Schultz * Date: Mon, 23
Jun 1997 18:45:06 +0200
>I
would propose to have a small moratorium -- only five postings a
day. If the traffic is still too much, we will have to re-think
it. Five substantial postings a day is the average number people
most likely find acceptable.<
*
Subject: Re: moratorium From: John Perry Barlow Date:
Mon, 23 Jun 1997 11:45:30 -0600
>Less
would be more. One or two long postings and two or three short ones
is my limit.<
* Subject: the we of nettime * From: nettime maillist
* Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 01:19:14 +0200
>during
the last weeks i got several mail concerning the question of moderating
nettime, basically expressing a 'clear yes' (ok, there was one 'better
not')<
>the
two channel interim model: the nettime-l mailinglist (moderated
- by Geert and me until now) and alt.nettime (unmoderated). both
are subscribable. see the how-to below. <
>If
this becomes extremely difficult, or if many of you are revolting,
we just get back into the old mode again, but i doubt that it will
work for long. <
*
Subject: Re: nettime@ars * From: diana@dial.isys.hu (Diana
McCarty) * Date: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 12:41:47 +0200
>You
are cordially invited to an informal Nettime meeting<
>Possible
Topics for Casual Conversation: Update on the moderation question,
Software solutions for the future of Nettime Publication Strategies
and the Bible Meeting@WorkSpace Future intensive meetings. <
* Subject: Re: Re: nettime@ars * From: Josephine Bosma
* Date: Tue, 9 Sep 1997 14:01:58 +0200 (MET DST) * In-Reply-To:
<199709062256.XAA00103@basis.Desk.nl>
>have
been thinking about the development of nettime a lot, and sadly
I must say I think a lot of what happened the last few months is
a direct result of the unconsciously (?) overdone declaration of
the nettime 'board' (:lets say) that nettime was in trouble and
needed fierce reorganisation. This has been a selffullfilling profecy,
as it was not so, at least not to the majority of members at that
time. I remember Geert Lovink and Pit Schulz saying things like
: You don't notice it, but we do..., back then.<
>I
suggest to have a few nettime 'babies', a webforum/magazine like
something similar to lets say C-theory (please don't execute me
straight away for giving a sensitive example again) a newsgroup
or two for those that really want them (not many people use newsgroups
generally, traffic and life on the net is just so busy lately that
few seem to have the time) and the raw mailinglist as main meetingpoint,
for die-hards and people that are not afraid to filter and sacrifice
some time/space for the benefits of what free speech can all generate.
Some parallel malinglists could be something too.<
*
Subject: First Report from Documenta Hybrid Workspace
Nettime Study Group * From: nettime maillist * Date: Sun, 14 Sep
1997 18:58:43 +0100 (GMT+0100)
>At
present, the Nettime list is in a state of dis(re)pair due to the
overwhelming volume of traffic on the list. Consequently, Geert
and Pit (the unofficial moderation group) feel unable to complete
the amount of work required to keep the list functioning smoothly.
In order to lighten the workload on them, the committee plans to
form an editorial group of around five to eight members. The ad
hoc Kassel Committee will act as the interim group until enough
volunteers from active Nettime members are assembled. Service on
the group will be short-term and will rotate so members do not face
the burnout syndrome that currently afflicts the Nettime Brothers.<
>As
we were talking about the Nettime Bible and one Nettime member's
recent experiences with publishing a Hungarian book, we decided
it would also be nice to have a lexicon of Nettime terms (such as
'gift economy,' names and abbreviations like 'V2', 'Next 5 Minutes,'
and so forth). The glossary should be collectively produced by the
Nettime community. The committee believes that a glossary would
be very helpful to newcomers<
|
|
ich
untersuche gerade die debatte in nettime über "moderation", diese >hat
sich über die jahre hinweg sehr konstant entwickelt. mit deinem >posting
"nettime moderation" vom 22. juni 97 hast du diese ja eigentlich >angefangen
: hups,
dass es diesen historischen zusammenhang gab, wusste ich nicht, obwohl
ich mich vage an die situation erinnere ... >
"i want
to suggest - tentatively, because i also see the interesting >dynamic
of what is going on in the last months - that pit and geert >should switch
on the moderator-button and filter messages before they go >out over the
list. This would prevent us from some of the rant that >people should
be doing in e-mail communication and then, possibly, send >to the list
in a more digested form." >
>wie stehst
du heute zur "moderation" in nettime?
ich denke,
dass das irgendwann notwendig geworden ist; es gab 97 mehrere situationen,
in denen die liste ueberschwemmt wurde mit 'flame wars' und spam; meiner
meinung nach haengt das mit der anzahl der subscriber zu tun - ab 4-500
hoert so eine gruppe endgueltig auf, eine community zu sein, danach funktionieren
dann auch bestimmte soziale regeln nicht mehr (dorf/stadt ...). es ist
eine verzwickte situation, weil die dynamik der liste natuerlich zerstoert
wird - auf nettime kommt jetzt meist am nachmittag und spaet am abend
ein ganzer schwung, weil die moderatoren in nordamerika dann arbeiten
-, die abfolge, kleine schnelle schlagabtausche, auch mal ein spontaner
witz, usw., kommen kaum noch vor, die sind aber fuer so ein soziales medium
wirklich wichtig - das konnte man ja sogar schon auf dieser snm list sehen.
auf der anderen seite darf so eine list natuerlich nicht zu einer permanenten
belastung werden, und wenn es auf einer liste, die sich zB bei ca. 8-10
mails pro tag eingependelt hat, ueber mehrere tage mehr als 15 gibt, dann
fangen leute an, sich zu entsubskribieren. viele leute scheinen die listen
immer schon an der schmerzgrenze zu empfinden (ich hoere das immer wieder
ueber die rohrpost), und es brauch dann nur eine kleine intensivierung
damit das kippt. moderation bei einer liste wie nettime ist wahrscheinlich
unumgaenglich, aber sie ist auch kein community-medium mehr, sondern eine
art gemeinsamer online-info-dienst.
>die nettime
moderation >sollte ja vor kurzem (nov 99) "diversified" werden, es sollten
also mehr >frauen "moderators" werden. Das hat dann irgendwie nicht funktioniert.
>wiso nicht?
was meinst
du dazu?
ich weiss
nicht genau, was da gelaufen ist, aber die 'kultur' in der moderatorengruppe
ist wohl ziemlich stark maennlich gepraegt, vielleicht autokratisch; ich
kann darueber nur spekulieren, aber es scheint ausserdem keine aufgabe
zu sein, die frauen gerne auf sich nehmen moechten, denn es haben sich
wohl auch nur sehr wenige gemeldet; da muesstest du mal die frauen fragen,
die sich da eingemischt hatten ... ausserdem ist das gender problem bei
nettime mE nicht eines der moderation, sondern der inhalte und des diskurses
allgemein, der ja ziemlich 1:1 den maennlichen dominanzdiskurs aus anderen
gesellschaftlichen bereichen reproduziert; da reicht die entfremdung der
frauen wahrscheinlich vom unzufriedenen lurker-lesen bis zum moderations-zoegern.
aber dieses problem laesst sich, wie ueberall, meiner meinung nach nur
durch alternative kanaele fuer frauen (faces, obn, etc.), oder aber durch
forsches eindringen in maennerdomaenen ueberwinden; naja, und damit sind
wir bei der frage um die handlungsperspektiven der emanzipationsbewegungen
... >
wie macht
ihr das mit der moderation in der rohrpost?
keine moderation
- die liste ist offen fuer alle subskribenten; solange das funktioniert,
bleiben die leitungen offen.
>gibt es
eigenlich alt.nettime (die vorgängerin von nettime-bold????) >noch ?
weiss ich
ehrlich gesagt nicht; ich hab das nie benutzt. >
gibt es
nettime.free noch, oder ist sie nach oktober 98 gestorben? >ist nettime
bold eine antwort auf nettime.free? oder nicht?
ich denke
mal, dass paul garrin nettime.free schnell wieder gekillt hat - das war
ein kurzer, heftiger flop, der ihm viele leute abspenstig gemacht hat
(ich weiss nicht, ob das jemals so deutlich ausgesprochen worden ist,
aber folkloristisch weiss man, dass er diesen 'coup' gelandet hat); -bold
ist natuerlich schon eine antwort auf diese befreiungsversuche, wie auch
7-11 eine abspaltung von nettime (der net.artists, fruehling 97) gewesen
ist; darueber ist seit 97 auf treffen und per email immer wieder gesprochen
worden, wo es dann immer die 'liberalisten' gab (u.a. sandra fokky fauconnier
und josephine bosma), die fuer oeffnung waren, und eine reihe anderer
(von antiorp damals regelmaessig als korporate fascists bezeichnet, im
grunde die ganze moderatoren-riege), die sich fuer das ueberleben der
liste verantwortlich fuehlten, und dies nur durch moderation gewaehrleistet
sahen. ideologische kaempfe waren das, zum teil mit harten bandagen. auch
Rhizome, wo es schon recht frueh (auch 97?) die trennung zwischen RAW
und DIGEST gab, gehoert in diese geschichte mit rein. dazu gehoert dann
auch noch, dass es natuerlich (teilweise alte) privatfehden gibt, u.a.
viele leute, die ted byfield problematisch finden, und das wird natuerlich
dann umso heftiger ausgetragen, wenn der auch noch nettime-moderator ist.
|
*
Subject: Relational Architecture * From: Rafael Lozano-Hemmer
<75337.1453@compuserve.com> * Date: Fr, 30 Jan 1998 09:35:53 -0500 * Content-Disposition:
inline
>apologies
for the recent severe hickups: we are currently renovating nettime to
make rotating group moderation possible /p]<
*
Subject: nettime moderation * From: Matthew Fuller * Date: Sun,
1 Feb 1998 18:15:29 +0000
>Over
the next month or so Pit will be away from Berlin and the net. During
this period, moderation of the Nettime list will be carried out by Geert
Lovink (geert@xs4all.nl) and Matthew Fuller (matt@axia.demon.co.uk). The
style of moderation will generally remain the same. At the same time however,
we want to take this opportunity of having dual moderation to invite people
involved in the list to experiment a little with it as a technical and
social form. In particular we are conscious that there is a tendency for
specific styles of writing to dominate traffic on Nettime. Increasingly
the list is being used for men to compare the length of their bookshelves.
Whilst we're hot for polemic and monumental essays of universal importance,
we also believe that other things need to be said. To this end we have
consulted the relevant tabulations and urge all nettimers to increase
productivity in the following areas: rants - 25% increase 12.8% more manifestos
a full 50% more fiction software reviews - 23.8% increase nasty weird
shit - 100%<
To:
undisclosed-recipients:; * Subject: nettime moderation * From:
Faith Wilding <74447.2452@compuserve.com> * Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 11:34:25
-0500
>
I welcome the new directions Matt and Geert are envisioning for Nettime
(though I dread the increase of traffic on my email). <
Subject:
nettime moderation * From: Stefaan Van Ryssen * Date: Tue, 03
Feb 1998 19:57:27 +01
>Who
needs soap if we've got net art critics and no net art... <
To:
nettime-l@Desk.nl * Subject: Re: nettime moderation * From:
micz flor * Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 11:43:47 +0000
i
found it very amusing to read the open invite to write *weird* stuff for
nettime. in a way the lack of weirdness and the comparison of bookshelves
(as matt described) was (or is) one of the features nettime gradually
developed (some might want to use 'emerge') 'and got widely appreciated
for. the printout (sic!) of nettime postings was always the essential
sunday afternoon read - and enough people thought it was weird already!
i am surprised to see the attempt to change the direction of the list
- instead of just assuming that there are other lists out there to supply
the *weistuff for the ones who want it.
mailinglist
should not define themselves in the dichotomy of moderated vs open, they
would have to change to job descriptions for *editors* instead of *hosts*
- which, of course, creates a completely different media environment.
To:
nettime-l@basis.Desk.nl * Subject: Servian concern... * From:
owner-nettime-l@basis.Desk.nl * Date: Wed, 04 Mar 1998 15:04:57 +0100
Of
course it's possible to have a discussion about Servian rights in Kosovo,
and about the what is allowed in resistance by etnic Albanians, but I
don't think nettime is the propper place to conduct this discussion. Or
am I wrong?
To:
nettime-l@Desk.nl * Subject: Kosovo Thread, Richard, Benson,
Simon * From: nettime.mailing.list@basis.Desk.nl * Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998
22:45:17 +0000
>Richard:
>Why not political issues on Nettime. Wasn't this net always a little
bit >about politics, reporting about different demonstrations and protests?
>Sure, but how controversial and extreem, always interesting and straight.
Your concern about what you are calling terrorism is based upon a very
nationalistic opinion. Which unfortunatelly excists in Servia, but I don't
want to read about on the nettime list; it just doesn't belong here. If
this list is open for the protection of the joys of nationalism I don't
want let my mailbox be a waste box, and will sign off. (This is another
call towards the owners...)<
To:
nettime-l@Desk.nl * Subject: Nettime Moderation * From: Matthew
Fuller * Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 20:34:44 +0000
>This list exists only as it is used. The negotiation of what is and
what is not suitable for inclusion on the list has been acheived by the
list itself in this case. Hopefully it works more effectively because
it doesn't give all power to the decision making of the moderator which
can never be informed as to the suitability of all messages. This is perhaps
a case in point. Matthew forwarded the initial message to the list. He
hadn't got much of an idea what it was about - certainly not enough to
make a decision to delete it. Not wanting to base a decision on ignorance,
he based it on a generalised -rather than specific - trust that people
would not overly abuse the list. We believe that adopting this approach
pays off because list-members who are more informed - or at least more
engaged - with the situation were able to provide a cluster of texts which
provided a context to the initial post, and pointers outwards.<
To:
Nettime * Subject: a modest proposal * From: t byfield * Date:
Tue, 17 Mar 1998 23:50:56 -0500
>In
keeping with Mr. Fuller's most excellent innovation--demanding better,
more diverse content--I will make the following requests: list- subscribers
should please submit LESS cross-posted rants from other lists sloppy formatting
and encoding masculinity by default pissing matches MORE obsolescent genres
(epic, pastorals, sonnets, doggerel, etc.) material about open source
development and developments practical ideas for integrating "new" and
"old" media bibliographies, orderly compilations, useful pointers<
To:
nettime-l@Desk.nl * Subject: media, art, economy? * From: Pit
Schultz * Date: Wed, 1 Apr 1998 01:26:51 +0100
Responding to Andreas Broeckman in four steps nettime escaped from its
oedipal vectors. 1. The wired ideology exhausted itself and declined intellectually
with the end of the net.hype, as you can see if you still buy this magazine.
2. A modest democratization of nettime through a rotating group moderation
(which is still not standard even if others already learned from it) 3.
A certain continuity and 'reliable instability' through a number of long
term planning and resisting ideas which step by step are tested/ implemented
(first of all the nettime book). 4. A continuity, especially regarding
the basis as a non-commercial project, which in many ways gives the project
a higher sustainability and working economy of content.
To:
nettime-l@Desk.nl * Subject: z8578i575 * From: humanzsuk@ultra.com
* Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1998 16:57:52 +0100
>v2
- 1 > fasc!zt \+\ pozer++ .krap || .org <
To:
nettime@Desk.nl * Subject: [madre, (someone), antiorp, madre]
* From: "nettime's_digestive_system" * Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 04:32:16
+0100
>moderation
has to go<
To:
nettime-l@Desk.nl * Subject: ...a sigh of relief (ADMINISTRATIVA)
* From: Nettime_moderators * Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1998 13:33:22 -0100
>we're going to experiment with turning the moderation up slightly:
that means nettime's_digestive_system will gather together more stuff,
and fewer things will be approved. it's not that we don't love you--we
do. but a high-traffic list that no one reads doesn't make much sense.
so please be patient if you send something and it doesn't appear. there
are ~850 subscribers now, and they really are everywhere; so we'll try
to make choices based on the logic that fact suggests.<
To:
nettime-l@Desk.nl * Subject: sighs and whispers: on moderation
* From: "nettime's_digestive_system" * Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1998 10:36:53
+0100
To:
nettime-l@Desk.nl * Subject: gated communities * From: Josephine
Bosma * Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1998 11:39:07 +0100
>This
mail is a protest against the removal of antiorp from the three mailinglists
this mail is going to. At the same time it is a contemplation of what
these lists mean to me and maybe to others. What is it, that people get
so uptight over having to delete mails. I am sure they delete most of
the other postings too without ever reading them. Do we have the lists
we have like we have 'the right newspaper' or magazine? Just to give ourselves
the idea we are on the right track, because at least we know the headers
of the latest thread that was produced by some people that know what is
best for us?<
To:
nettime-l@Desk.nl * Subject: gated communites [grancher, bosma,
greene and galloway, byfield] * From: "nettime's_digestive_system" * Date:
Sat, 10 Oct 1998 02:12:25 +0100
>josephine
is all right, I agree with her: We don't have to throw away someone like
"antiorp" whithout good reasons. I said to "antiorp" to moderate his spam,
it is really different than throwing someone from this list. <
>I'm
really shocked to see "antiorp" excluded from these list, and to see some
serbian fascist still staying on the smae list !!!! <
To:
nettime-l@Desk.nl * Subject: immoderate * From: calin@euronet.nl
(Calin Dan) * Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1998 11:06:57 +0100
>when
this shifts to moderation, i will have a problem posting there, because
i am not interested in having that expectation chill: will I get through
or not? after all, publishing on nett. is a voluntary job, right?<
To:
Multiple recipients of nettime-free * Subject: many questions!
* From: eon@autono.net (eon) * Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1998 20:10:46 -0400
>>
Once again, there is an OPEN LIST for Nettime, free of > any unwanted
censorship, hidden agendas, personal tastes, > anal-retentive book editors/librarians,
respiratory diseases, > and other information-hostile elements that have
corrupted > the intial mission of the nettime list as established by the
> founders of Nettime in Venice, June, 1995. <<
>A
deep sigh of relief... and many thanks to those who took this initiative.<
To:
nettime-l@Desk.nl * Subject: on moderation and spams * From:
Luther Blissett * Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1998 16:48:55 +0100
>Or is antiorp an "info-warrior"? Right. S/he declared war upon...
whom? Me? So why can't I counter-attack? And even if antiorpisms were
worth reading, why post them on Nettime? I'm sure there are more suitable
contexts. Antiorp fans want us to be open-minded - antiorp tried to tear
our nervous system apart. Two different beasts, I daresay. Any attempt
at describing such annoying behaviors either as "performances" or as "mind-challenging"
dunno-whats will always provoke my fierce resistance.<
To:
"Multiple recipients of nettime.free" * Subject: Re: many
questions! * From: scotartt * Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1998 17:56:23 +1000
>please
remove me from this list. i didn't ask to be on it. this is highly rude,
not good net.manners.<
* Subject: Re: on moderation and spams * From: "cisler" * Date:
Mon, 12 Oct 1998 14:47:01 +0100
>I'm
sticking with nettime (classic). I find the moderation as it has been
carried out to be desirable and not heavy-handed. I don't mind that someone
is starting a splinter group with a similar name, but I think it is bad
net etiquette to take a mailing list and automagically sign everyone up
as has happened with nettime free.<
*
Subject: Re: on moderation and spams * From: Stefan Wray * Date:
Mon, 12 Oct 1998 17:48:20 +0100
>For
moderators: how did they get the list of subscribers??? Was this not a
private list? Can you make it so no one can copy nettime-l addresses again?<
To:
nettime-l@Desk.nl * Subject: Re: on moderation and spams * From:
"David S. Bennahum" * Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1998 20:13:16 +0100
>I
received a series of idiotic posts from nettime.free, and prompty unsubscribed
while making a point of calling them assholes.<
To:
nettime-l@Desk.nl * Subject: Re: on moderation and spams (several
messages) * From: nettime@desk.nl * Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 08:58:48 +010
>I don't know beyond guess who are the frustrated behind that nettime.free
spam, but reminds me of a technique that I hoped not to encounter again:
opressing people in their own privacy with arrogant lectures about freedom.<
>If there are dissatisfied nettimers, by all means start a new list,
cross-post its address and doxas widely, and encourage the like minded
(and even more important, dissenters) to sign up.<
>This
is not "free" - I did not freely choose to be here. Call a spade a spade,
its a prison, not a "re-education camp" and we're all in detention. It
should be properly named - nettime.spam.<
To:
nettime-l@Desk.nl * Subject: a brief piece on nettime free *
From: Pit Schultz * Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 04:59:55 +0200
>the
atmosphere of 'electronic disturbance' is growing on several mailinglists
at the moment, but it is yet not clear if it is just a temporary phase,
and what it has to do with what happens outside of the net, particulary
the situation at the stock markets and various conflicts around ethnic
and religious faultlines. some are calling it a millenial hysteria.<
>another
context is clearly the name.space project paul garrin started, and which
went into a final crisis. the demand of paul garrin to send out promotion
material about his own project is not new, and it was a flame war he was
mainly involved in which led into moderation of the nettime mailinglist
in autumn 1997. the so called nettime-free is based on Paul Garrin's server.<
*
Subject: Re: on moderation and spams (several messages) * From:
nettime@Desk.nl (nettime's_digestive_system) * Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998
21:58:48
>I
should start by declaring myself to be a virtually full-time, unrepentant
and chronic LURKER.<
To:
"Multiple recipients of nettime.free" * Subject: Matthew
Fuller and Peter van der Pouw Kraan Comment * From: eon@autono.net (eon)
* Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 21:05:33 -0400
>Hello
from Nettime.Free. There have been some requests to unsubscribe from some
of the people who have received messages from this list and did not wish
to do so. If you are one of them and would still like to stop your subscription,
please send the message: unsubscribe nettime.free to To those who wish
to remain and support an open, self-regulated list, this list is what
YOU make of it. If you don't want it to become a "spam camp" then please
be considerate of what you post. The recommendation is, post openly, post
thoughtfully, post sparingly...and take your flames, pouts, and personal
conflicts offline, or at least, offlist. This is YOUR list to serve YOU!
Enjoy!<
To:
nettime-l@Desk.nl * Subject: Re: on moderation and spams (several
messages) * From: "nettime's_digestive_system" * Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998
09:50:26 +0100
To:
nettime-l@Desk.nl * Subject: Surprise Attack: Re-Routing Nettime
* From: MediaFilter * Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 05:42:16 -0400
>Re-Routing
Nettime: An Exercise in Electronic Disturbance Surprise "Columbus Day
Outing" By Paul Garrin Personal note: My sincerest apologies to anyone
who was offended or inconvenienced by this exercise. It was not intended
in any way to be malicious or aimed at any specific persons or groups
in any way other than in comedic parody. <
To:
nettime@Desk.nl * Subject: this time non-competetive split?
* From: Joerg Heiser * Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 13:47:39 +0100
>A
suggestion for a, this time non-competetive split of nettime into three
seperate lists: nettime.d: debate, news nettime.e: essays, interviews
nettime.w: weird stuff everybody is free to subscribe to one, two or all
three lists. When you're subscribed to more than one, you can easily see
from the subject heading to which list the message belongs<
To:
nettime-l@Desk.nl * Subject: intro of readme! * From: Geert
Lovink * Date: Thu, 19
>Welcome.
Bienvenue. Guten Tag. This is an anthology of Nettime, an internet mailing
list-an attempt to transform thousands of emails, articles, and comments
into book form. But what is "Nettime"?<
|
|
nettime-l
= kosovo-l or serbia-l or nato-l ? From: "felipe rodriquez Date:
Thu, 22 Apr 1999 00:01:52 +0200
>75%
of messages on Nettime these days are about the war in Serbia. I'm
wondering if that is the purpose of the nettime list, and wondering
if the nettime list is slowly but surely be converted to the serbian/kosovo
war information centre.<
To:
nettime-l@Desk.nl Subject: Re: nottime-l etc: attempt@purpose-summary
From: Josselien Janssens Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999 23:59:51 +0200
>Yay!
Good questions, Felipe, Fred et all! Here's my thoughts as a Communications/Media/PR
person: Felipe, you don't create a whole new newspaper for a specific
war, no? Nettime-L is like a intl 'newsforum' for the target group
"people like us". I.e. those people who have as only solid unifying
criterium that they are on Nettime-L; are ruffly divided up in all
the grey areas between the categories "artist", "activist", "geek",
"designer", "freak" or a combination of any or all of those. I would
not dare to generalise more than that about this group. The forum
Nettime-l is used to exchange news and views on stuff that interests
us (if it is politically correct to speak of the Nettime group as
"us") and keeps our minds busy otherwise we wouldn't be on it. EVERY
list I'm on is mainly talking about Kosovo. Every newspaper spends
70% of their front page on it. At work 70% of the conversations
pretty much are about the war as well. In that sense, Nettime comes
as close as it can to reflecting the 'normal' world... There IS
an actual WAR on you know, with people dying. I don't intend to
sneer, I know you all are aware of this, that is why we're all so
pre-occupied with it. Wars DO tend to disrupt whatever passes for
normality on every level. You NEED to communicate about them in
every circle. So my plea is, don't try to categorise communication
too much. Because then you have to 1) memorise all the categories
and 2) decide which message falls under which category and 3) what
to do with ones that just won't fit any category, etc. etc... <
To:
nettime-l@Desk.nl * Subject: Re: nettime-l = kosovo-l
or serbia-l or nato-l ? * From: Pit Schultz * Date: Mon, 26 Apr
1999 19:22:54 +0200
>in
such moments it becomes clear that a list like nettime is not an
"independent" media as all, that it corresponds to the priorities
set by bigger media, which depend from but also construct the attention
of recipients given to "present" topics. the urgency of the event
status homogenizes all media, so it gives also small media the chance
to keep up with the big guys for a moment, and even by chance stay
upfront, open for more experiments in such a situation, with but,
i agree with you in terms that i do not have any interest to be
part of the invention of a new type of journalism or opinion production
in times of crisis. (the net as cheap CNN?) the problem is indeed
the weired mix of pseudo-objective news fetishism with the sincere
worries of people with the propaganda machine of both sides. so
people should have the right to be lurkers, and do not have an opinion
in times where it seems that everyone has to admit on which side
they stay. there were a few messages indeed which switched on the
meta level and i am sure that also other people experienced mailinglists
as a useful media last weeks.<
To:
nettime-l@Desk.nl
Subject: RE: nettime-l = kosovo-l or serbia-l or nato-l
? From: "felipe rodriquez" Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 01:47:23 +0200
>I
do wonder if Nettime is the place to continue a discourse about
this topic. My worries have nothing to do with the topic of Serbia
or Kosova, but with the persistence of the topic on the list. In
my relatively long history as a net addict I've witnessed the evolution
of lists over and over again. Every list or newsgroup has an evolutionary
process; it is initiated, it grows into something the readers enjoy,
then it grows further into a heavy traffic and limited topic environment,
and eventually the initiators leave in disgust because what is left
is something very remote from what was intended. Currently Nettime
is moving into the phase where topics are limited, and traffic grows.
The content of the list is slowly moving away from the initial intention
and diversity of the nettime list, and within weeks or months people
will start unsubscribing from the nettime mailinglist and moving
towards other communities. The future of nettime is at stake. And
I'd like to make sure that we move into that phase with our eyes
open. Because Nettime is a moderated list, the moderators have a
chance to change the course of development on the list. And I believe
some strategy or action by the moderators would be appropriate at
this moment, or in the very near future.<
To:
nettime-l@Desk.nl Subject: administrativa: Nettime/Kosovo
From: "nettime's_mod_squad" Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1999 19:23:31 -0400
>the
open war in Yugoslavia and Kosovo is now more than five weeks old.<
>Initially, there was considerable confusion around as to where
to find independent information and nettime served also as a redistribution
channel connecting many different initiatives. As these independent
information providers become better known, the need to function
as a relay decreases. For the moderators, this means not forwarding
from other e-mail list on a regular basis. Those interested in this
information can subscribe directly to the lists (see below); information
about new or other resources is a big help, of course.<
To:
nettime-l@Desk.nl Subject: Re: RE: nettime-l = kosovo-l
or serbia-l or nato-l ? From: "K.Patelis" Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1999
12:20:19 +0100 (BST)
>n
the same way as customising news channels really really pisses me
off, for the same reason for which specialisation in early education
ennoyed me in school , I think that this idea is absolutely out
of the question.<
To:
nettime-l@bbs.thing.net * Subject: moderation rotation
* From: "nettime's_rotating_moderators" * Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999
13:29:39 -0500
>[1]
Scot McPhee [2] Sebastian Luetgert [3] Geert Lovink [4] Ted Byfield
[5] Felix Stalder [?] moderators temporarily out of orbit<
To:
nettime-l@bbs.thing.net * Subject: Re: moderation rotation
(3x) * From: "nettime's_digestive_system" * Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1999
09:51:35 -0500 (EST)
>I do not really get this rotation business, nor do I really
agree with the idea that identity has anything to do with moderating
well, besides I kind of feel there is something going on here that
the rest of the Nettimers are not priveledged enough to find out
about ( a joke? not a joke?).<
To:
nettime-l@bbs.thing.net * Subject: diversifying the moderation
* From: nettime * Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1999 09:51:53 -0500 (EST)
>We
encourage women who are interested in the nettime list to volunteer
their time as moderators. Please get in touch with us and we can
talk about the details.<
|
|
|
To:
nettime-l@bbs.thing.net Subject: Dear Nettime From: Paul
Garrin Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 04:30:37 -0500
>Dear
Nettime Yes, I mean the subscribers of this list, not the "censorship"
board who controls it. In the event that this message even makes
it to the list, I invite those who are interested in a reasonable
and open discussion on Name.Space and some of the issues of late,
to post your comments to the RepoHistory "RECLAIMTHE.NET" forum
located at http://RepoHistory.ReclaimsThe.Net.<
>Nettime
is not the appropriate forum to carry on any discussion on DNS,
Name.Space, or related issues because the "moderators/ censors"
control the content of this list to suit their own personal agendas.<
* Subject: RECLAIM NETTIME (was Re: Dear Nettime) * From:
"scotartt" * Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2000 08:56:51 +1100
>I
am glad this debate is being set up from the outset in such a civil,
interesting tone. There is a difference between 'moderating' a list
and 'censoring' it. As I recall having to send you several excoriating
emails to your 'nettime-free' ahhh -- effort -- which you forced-subscribed
everyone to some years ago, in order to stop recieving the junk
mail that was being sent to that alleged 'list', it doesn't seem
to me that you are in any position of moral or technical authority
to start public debate on this or any other list or forum about
the nature of moderation.<
* Subject: nettime, dear nettime... * From: "nettime's_autoimmune_system"
* Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 22:35:46 -0500 (EST)
Subject:
[Nettime-bold] Nettime offers new flavours*
From: Michaël van Eeden * Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 13:55:23 +0100 *
Importance: Normal* List-Id: the uncut, unmoderated version of nettime-l
>Nettime
offers new flavours
Hello,
We have added new channels for nettime content. New is nettime-bold,
the *unmoderated* version of the nettime list. It contains everything
that is sent to nettime-l regardless of it being approved by the
moderators or not. It is also possible to sent messages directly
to nettime-bold.<
* Subject: Moderation Madhouse, Adieu! * From: k.jacobs@beatmail.com
(Katrien Jacobs) * Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 01:17:52 -0500
>What
Matters (A look behind the scenes) Nettime moderation has gone beserk.
It was never an easy effort to create friendships or establish communication
with the nettime moderators, but it boiled and exploded (again)
in the last couple of days.<
>My
last idiotic attempt would have been to post an announcement for
more female moderators (eight male moderators right now) but I was
told that my music was starting to sound very irritating.<
To:
nettime-l@bbs.thing.net Subject: Re: Moderation Madhouse,
Adieu! From: "geuzen" Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 16:36:20 +0100
A plea for equal representation is never idiotic, it is imperative.
I am sorry to hear that there will be one less woman moderating
nettime.
|
|
|
|