In message 0acc01c0ac79$eacabf70$0a00a8c0@codex, Una McCormack una@qresearch.org.uk writes

Jacqueline wrote:

...

And a request to Calle: please don't ever start something like the roll call on lysator. Being told what to post and when to post it at anyone's whim (the two times I saw it happen, it generally started with someone going "ooh, let's do a roll call again") is so offensive to me that I had to leave Freedom City because of it. So when someone (I forgot who) suggested an obligatory posting to show everyone who we are, my first thought was "oh no, please don't drive me off this list, too!"

Jacqueline sums up my only concern about it, which is that I know some people detest the idea and wouldn't want to take part.

Personally, I'm happy to post to a roll call and I love reading other people's roll call posts. But I would never want it to be compulsory.

Replying somewhat late, as I've been away from a modem for a while. I had better state up front that this is simply explaining my personal views on the subject of the roll call, and that I have no problem with other people not sharing them.

I'm one of the people who really, *really* likes the idea of compulsory roll calls on The Other List. In my case, it's *because* I'm a believer in the right to privacy. (Anyone seriously want to accuse me being a fluffy friendly bunnie-wunnie who wants a hugs and kisses list?)

The City is a private, (theoretically) unarchived list, that's supposed to provide a safe environment for people to witter on about things they might not care to talk about in a more public forum. A private club, although one where the membership is not restrictive. As part of that, I want to know who those members are. I want to know who that is who's listening to me. I think I should have the right to know who those people are. Not necessarily their Real Life names, or their Real Lives, but who the net personae are. That belief was, I understand, one of the original City's founding principles. I, and others, get pretty uncomfortable with the idea of someone who wants to listen to me talking about some pretty personal and/or controversial stuff, without doing me the courtesy of letting me know that they're there. I can understand why other people feel the opposite way, but for me, unpleasant (and dangerous) real life experience made my concerns about who's listening give top priority to the need to know who that is hiding in the corner, rather than the need to hide my own identity.

The Lyst is different. It's a very public forum, and I know that when I post. The older archives are available to anyone with web access, and until the advent of the spam trap you didn't have to be subscribed to post to the Lyst, so until recently it wasn't as if a subscription list was any use in telling you who was out there, anyway. I don't see any need for a roll call - and to be accurate about it, I don't see any need for a long, detailed response to the roll call on The Other List. My paranoia is more or less satisfied by a list of subscribed email addresses:-)

Yes, it's nice to have some idea about the other people on the lists, and on a compulsory roll call Over There I will and have made rude comments about responses that consist solely of the email address, but I don't actually want to know where you all live and how many children you have. If I want to know anything at all, it's only those things that bear upon on-topic discussion. Most of those will show up sooner or later anyway (go on, name members who do maths, physics, sociology or law for a living...), the roll call wibble is simply a quick and friendly way of keying in newcomers, and giving the shy ones an excuse to post *something*. To be honest, we could do most of that equally well on the bit of Judith's website given over to potted biographies of list members. (Hi, I'm Julia, I'm an INTx and a founding member of the RABSH, and I'm not *quite* as frightening in real life. Honest.) At least we could, if more than half a dozen of us had bothered to do so:-) Yes, I know, and since it was my idea in the first place <smacks wrist>...

In message 5.0.2.1.0.20010324190518.009f11c0@pop3.demon.nl, Jacqueline Thijsen jacqueline.lyst@jthijsen.demon.nl writes

At 15:49 24-3-01 +0000, Julia Jones wrote:

...

I'm one of the people who really, *really* likes the idea of compulsory roll calls on The Other List. In my case, it's *because* I'm a believer in the right to privacy. (Anyone seriously want to accuse me being a fluffy friendly bunnie-wunnie who wants a hugs and kisses list?)

Erm, no.

Funny, that <shark grin>. Oh, and in case anyone thinks I've come over all sweetness and light in the last few months (well, comparatively speaking) and that this is a wonderful thing, I should point out that Real Life is somewhat less pressing than it was last year, *and* I am about to be working from home with a DSL connection. I will have the time to carefully hand-craft flames, and I'm going to have to do something about not enabling automatic posting:-)

But as I pointed out on the other list before getting another roll call forced on me, there are other ways to preserve that privacy. There was even an introduction questionnaire made up for new joiners which most of us cheerfully filled in. Making such a questionnaire compulsory would give you an instant notification of who's new on the list and would also ensure that nobody you don't know about is listening in. This means only one compulsory posting that I could certainly live with, as opposed to several compulsory postings whenever some fluffy friendly bunnie-wunnie feels like asking for a roll call.

So exactly which problem do you think the roll call handles that isn't handled just as well by the above proposition? Other than keeping nasty old me away, that is...

Just to make it plain - I have no criticism of the way past or present listmistresses handle the roll call issue, I'm just talking about what I personally get out of the system.

My attitude to the roll call on FC is basically that I want a regular posting of the current subscription list. I'm happy to go along with the roll call potted biography thing, but my personal preference for handling my privacy concerns is that the subscription list be posted on a regular basis - but *not* posted on a rigorously regular basis as the FAQ is, as otherwise we'd have a lot of members who were subscribed for 29 days a month. And members who only subscribed for 1 day a month... Of course, things changed somewhat with the change in how subscribing/unsubscribing is handled - the original City list was moderated as far as *all* subscribing/unsubscribing went, even of people who were regular members but had just unsubscribed temporarily, and there was a regular roll call that amongst other things served to have a clear-out of dead subscriptions and those who refused point blank to let others know that they were listening. You didn't respond, you were unsubscribed. The admin load on the listmistress eventually made that level of moderation unfeasible, of course, and there was also a change in listbot that made it a lot easier to only have to give approval on the initial subscription. There's less of an admin need for regular roll calls now (I think, and Tiger is free to correct me on this without me biting her).

A questionnaire answered once on joining doesn't really address my concerns - it doesn't say who is on the list *now*, and past postings are of no use to the person who's joined relatively recently. I also don't actually care about the personal details bit - yes, it's often interesting and useful to have, and I think it does serve a useful purpose, but it isn't why *I* want a regular listing of who's out there on the City.

The other thing about a once-only questionnaire is that it's easy to fudge once. Maintaining a fake personality on a consistent and long-term basis is a lot harder. Since much of my concern revolves around people who are there under false pretences, even a regular, long-term posting of nothing more than an email address is less problematic to me than someone who posts once and is never heard from again.

In case I haven't made it clear - I have no problem with people using pseuds, so long as it isn't sock puppets or other *malicious* intent to deceive. Picking on one of the more obvious examples, I have no idea what Penny Dreadful's name is in Mundania, nor do I care. I know who Penny is in the context that matters to me.