Events » Past Events » List Focus and Guidelines Revisited 2003
July 22, 2003
Hi All,
I’m sending this “special notice” to everyone subscribed to Sethnet, even those set to No Email, because it’s time to revisit the issue of List Focus. As many of you will recall, the last time we did this on a collective scale was 2001.
But first, I just received a wonderful letter from Rob Butts in response to a letter I sent him and Laurel back in May. So I want share some of his comments with you:
“You and your group (i.e. Sethnet) are certainly doing well—1,140 subscribers, for example. I’d like to be able to thank each one, here and abroad. It’s heartening, not only for me but for Jane—I often have the feeling that she’s here, in her own way—especially when I’m reading and answering mail. I trust you’re quite right when you and Serge [Grandbois of The Seth Journal] and many others—discuss the spread of awareness of her work in our reality, and how also the creativity of many others—Elias, for example—is also so valuable in helping all of us grow. I’ll love to look back in 100 years, say, and see how humanity is doing. And that bit of awareness will be but the tiniest beginning. Your work will also be offering its very creative insight. I congratulate you and those you work with. Please tell that to one and all …, including subscribers.” July 12, 2003, Sayre, Pennsylvania, USA.
So it’s a privilege to pass along Rob’s and Laurel’s deep gratitude to each and every one of you through email.
Second, as you know, Sethnet is an unmoderated list open to the general public. Whenever anyone signs up, they agree to abide by three basic tenets:
- Please keep your posts relevant to the ideas expressed throughout the Seth/Jane Roberts's books when sharing personal experiences.
- When posting any supporting material, please keep it relevant to the primary focus of this list - the joint exploration of the 40-plus books written by Seth/Jane Roberts.
- Aspire to treat YOURSELF with unconditional love, acceptance, and respect, and reflect these values in your posts to others (destructive criticism and flames are strongly discouraged and best taken offlist).
The list goes through natural cycles where these tenets are ignored for various reasons. Still, they have served as guiding principles for all to aspire to since they were updated in April 2001.
Sethnet opened to the public on October 1, 1998. Since that time well over 2,000 people from over 40 countries have passed through our doors. The list membership has grown over the years as shown below:
01/07/99 = 241
01/27/00 = 440
11/04/00 = 666
03/30/01 = 819
10/20/01 = 1000
12/26/02 = 1111
07/18/03 = 1152
There has been a drop off in the past two years. There are various reasons for this, including the fact that the list is unmoderated (except for occasional etiquette interventions). And that means that just about anything goes, which sometimes bothers folks who think Seth readers should “know better.” Still, those subscriber statistics also mean that the list is a healthy, spontaneous, and creative collective.
However, many posts (in terms of overall quantity over almost five years) have little or no connection to the work of Jane Roberts, one of the three basic tenets of the list agreed to by all when they subscribed. While this is normal for an unmoderated list, there ARE times when people wish there were more focused threads of conversation, and greater adherence to the three tenets.
Another interesting factor is the increase in overall Sethnet traffic this year, in terms of posts:
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
620 995 1792 2473 2818 3046
That’s also a positive because it means there have been lots of interactions and our online community continues to blossom. So even though the growth rate of new subscribers is down, the amount of overall discussion is the highest it’s ever been.
Now, my own interests continue to grow, along with my decades old passion for Seth, Jane, and Rob, I am now involved in the NewWorldView Community Forums, the Elias forum website, and Integral Institute of Ken Wilber. And my love, understanding, and appreciation of the Seth Material continue to mature.
So I hope to continue to make Sethnet a place for first-rate discussion and interpretation of the Seth material, meeting birds of a feather, a place where we’re challenged to put theory into practice, share the good and bad news, and learn from each other’s mistakes and successes.
So I’d like to propose the following questions to the group:
Do you want some type (as yet undefined) moderation on Sethnet, to help keep threads on topic and, more importantly, related to the Seth material and work of Jane Roberts?
OR
Do you want to keep things just as they are?
OR
Would you be interested in the creation of a sister-list, say something like “Sethnet Moderated” that would parallel what could become “Sethnet Classic”? (This could provide two lists, one the same old/same old, and a new one that is moderated by folks as passionate about Jane’s work as I am, but intended to ramp up the signal and diminish the noise.)
AND
Would you personally be willing to make the commitment to become a moderator, either part- or full-time?
You see, the List Focus issue is not really about censorship, free speech, or any of those red herrings oft-slung by well-meaning but misguided voices. It’s about helping to make these ideas available to a larger audience WHILE ALSO seeking increased depths of understanding and practical application.
Still, this all occurs in the larger context of the now dozens of additional conscious creation related discussion lists that give people a wide array of online communities to explore. There have also been a handful of splinter lists from Sethnet to date, though many go the way of the dodo for various reasons, chiefly because it’s a part/full-time job to run these things. Still, this is a natural, spontaneous, and healthy process.
With this in mind, I’d like to do the same thing I did in 2001 when we made a significant update to the Sethnet charter, namely, get your feedback and then possibly run a series of non-binding polls in the next week or two.
But first, before you respond please revisit the summary of the 2001 polls on List Focus. This will orient you to the some of general issues involved and how you might contribute to the future of Sethnet in some way:
List Focus & Guidelines Revisited
And next, take some time to dream, meditate, pray, or dance in contemplation of how your participation can add to the group’s value fulfillment. Then respond either in private to me or in public to the list.
Which us? Which world?
As always, our choice.
Paul H.
List Admin
P.S. Please forward this to anyone you know who has unsubbed from Sethnet or anyone else who you think might be interested.
To unsub from Sethnet: sethnet-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
[ Go to the top ]
August 8, 2003
Hi All,
This is the second special notice regarding the issue of list focus on Sethnet. When we last left our hero, I had sent out a request for anyone interested to review the 2001 list focus webpage to review some of the subtle issues involved, and then respond either privately to me or publicly to the list.
Here are the results of initial email feedback:
- 40 folks responded (just over 4% of the total of 936).
- The percentages below don’t add up to 100% because there were five basic types of response and some folks expressed more than one. They were:
- In favor of some kind of moderation on Sethnet = 20 (50%)
- In favor of leaving Sethnet as is = 19 (48%)
- In favor of creating a moderated sister-list = 11 (28%)
- No clear preference expressed with regards to moderation = 7 (18%)
- Willing to serve as moderators = 7 (18%)
The word “moderation” obviously triggers many belief systems, and as always, this feedback process provides a valuable exercise in recognizing beliefs, motivations, and desires.
So what do I really mean by “some kind of moderation”? There is actually a spectrum of possibilities.
The most extreme form of moderation requires all posts to meet guidelines in order to be approved before they get posted. Though this is on the table, it is less probable given the nature of the material and the group. I will state that in its favor, as several have pointed out privately, there is a rich tradition and precedent in cyberspace of newsgroups and email lists that have strict moderation and still produce high-level interactions and debate.
The other general area involves a set of approved guidelines intended to focus the list, reduce banter, text clutter/attachments, reduce viruses, improve readability, stay on topic or show the change in the subject, noncommercial posts, copyrighted material, etc.
So we’re really exploring what acceptable tradeoffs there may be to a majority.
With this in mind I’d like to propose the following. There are three main probable paths:
- Keep Sethnet as is.
- Moderate Sethnet in some as yet determined way.
- Create a moderated sister-list, AND keep Sethnet as is.
Therefore, I’ve created a twelve-question poll that will be open for the next three weeks (closing date is August 29, 2003, 9 PM. Pacific Time):
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sethnet/polls
All votes will be anonymous, and the totals will also be hidden until the poll closes so as not to bias those who come in the middle or end. And while it is likely that many of the votes will be cast in the first 5-7 days (as in 2001), there are always folks on business trips, vacation, sick, etc. who deserve an appropriate period of time to be proactive. Note that you can change your vote at anytime during the three weeks if you are so inspired.
The first five questions relate to demographics to help discern level of interest in Seth/Jane, and use of the cafemuse.com resource website. The last seven deal with list focus issues.
Suggestion: try and read all the questions and consider ALL of the options BEFORE you vote.
Please participate in the future of your Sethnet. I realize that we’re all very busy and have important things to do. But as Margaret Meade said, “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.”
Which us? Which world?
As always, our choice. Please exercise your right to vote!
Paul H.
List Admin
[ Go to the top ]
September 2, 2003
Hi All,
This is Part 1 of the final “special announcement” to the entire Sethnet email list with the results of the recent “list focus” polls, in which 118 total people voted. Some questions had multiple choices, so it’s difficult to affix an exact number of voters. But it’s clear that Question 1 had the greatest number of single votes, and so that’s what I’m using for the total number of voters.
Part 1 – The Results
(The following are demographics questions and tell us about usage patterns and preferences. All percentages have been rounded off.)
Question 1 - How many Seth/Jane Roberts books have you read/do you own? (Pick one.):
Total votes = 118
10% 1-5
33% 6-15
38% 16-30
17% 31-plus
Conclusion: while 17% have read most or all of Jane’s books, over 88% have read and own more than 6 books.
Question 2 - I am MOST interested in exploring the following work of Jane Roberts. (Pick all that apply.):
49% Seth
14% Jane’s Fiction (OS7, Emir).
14% Jane’s worldview books (James, Cézanne, Rembrandt).
17% Jane’s Aspect Psychology.
07% Jane’s Poetry.
Conclusion: interest and focus is largely on the words and ideas of Seth, much less on Jane.
Question 3 - I prefer to do most of my reading and responding (Pick one.):
Total votes = 105
57% On the Yahoo! website in my web browser (No Email, Web Only)
43% Downloaded to my computer email (Individual or Digests)
Conclusion: web-based email lists are here to stay.
Question 4 - I use the Sethnet resource website at http://www.cafemuse.com/sethnet (Pick one.):
Total votes = 100
10% weekly
19% monthly
45% a couple of times a year.
25% Never (or I didn’t even know there’s a resource website).
Conclusion: while a disappointing 25% never use it, 74% do!
Question 5 - My favorite resources on the Sethnet website are (Pick any):
12% New & Updated (Calendar of Events, New conscious creation related books, tapes, music)
11% Sethnet Basics (Survival Guide, List focus, FAQ)
25% Seth Library (various compilations and essays on the Seth material)
08% Online Events (chats, group energy exercises, interviews)
03% Past Events (online events on Sethnet)
19% CCSearch (database of free web articles, pictures, quotes/exercises, indexes, events, FAQs)
21% Gems (random Seth quotes)
Conclusion: Random quotes, CCSearch, and the Seth Library are the most widely used resources on the Sethnet website.
(This section begins the section on potential new guidelines.)
Question 6 - Which of the present guidelines to promote list focus (three tenets plus commercial post policy) do you support? (Pick any, all, or none.):
25% (77 votes) Please keep your posts relevant to the ideas expressed throughout the Seth/Jane Roberts’s books when sharing personal experiences.
22% (70 votes) When posting any supporting material, please keep it relevant to the primary focus of this list – the joint exploration of the 40-plus books written by Seth/Jane Roberts.
28% (88 votes) Aspire to treat YOURSELF with unconditional love, acceptance, and respect, and reflect these values in your posts to others (destructive criticism and flames are strongly discouraged and best taken offlist).
22% (69 votes) It’s OK to post information on any commercial product or service as long as it has something to do with the work of Seth/Jane Roberts. (For example, a book, tape, CD, seminar, etc.)
01% (3 votes) None of the above.
Conclusion: fairly even approval of all four tenets. Less than 1% disapprove of all four.
Question 7 - If Sethnet OR a sister-list were moderated, I would support the following new tenets while recognizing the subjective nature of interpretation by any moderator. (Pick any, all, or none.):
13% (69 votes) Use only constructive criticism (i.e., criticize the logic, veracity, motives, ethics, or interpretation) but not destructive criticism (i.e., personally attack any individual, perceived flaws, writing style/spelling, use scat invective, post private emails without permission, etc.)
05% (25 votes) Have a moderator approve all posts before they go to the list (with the intent of meeting the yet to be determined tenets agreed upon to focus threads, minimize unrelated banter, and untrimmed posts, etc. to make the list easier to read).
>01% (2 votes) There are other tenets I’d like to see added that aren’t mentioned here (I will post them to Sethnet or privately to Paul H.).
13% (68 votes) Trim off unnecessary text and tag lines before sending a response.
13% (66 votes) Ensure what I post relates to the subject header in the original post, or be willing to change the subject header to reflect a new direction.
11% (56 votes) Respond in private, rather than the entire list with typical banter = “I agree.” “What s/he said.” “Way cool.” etc.
15% (77 votes) Refrain from personal attacks of anyone on or off the list.
14% (73 votes) All moderators agree not to censor unpopular viewpoints, including those they disagree with.
13% (69 votes) If a subscriber blatantly disregards (yet to be determined) new tenets, they should receive appropriate cautions by private email first. Then, if blatant disregard continues, be put on moderated status.
02% (12 votes) None of the above.
Conclusion: all tenets in the 13-15% range are approved. Anything less than 13% are not approved (needed at least 60 votes of 118 total voters for a majority).
Question 8 - How do you feel about Sethnet’s current list focus and/or the potential for some kind of moderation (to be determined by question 7). (Pick one):
Total votes = 98
54% I would consider some kind of as yet determined moderation guidelines (I voted for those I support above in question 7).
09% I don’t care one way or the other.
37% If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
Conclusion: a clear majority approves adding tenets approved in Question 7 for moderation.
Question 9 - If the majority decides to keep Sethnet as is (Sethnet Classic), I’d still be interested in a moderated sister-list dedicated to (Pick any, all, or none.):
19% Sethnet for Newbies: focus on Seth Speaks, The Nature of Personal Reality = most popular books.
40% Sethnet Symposium: put theory into practice, focus on interpretations AND the exercises, what works/what doesn’t, etc.
29% Sethnet II: implement new moderation tenets for higher signal, less noise.
12% None of the above (I will post any to Sethnet or privately to Paul H.).
Conclusion: there are many possibilities for new splinter lists that focus on the three themes above. I will note here that there have been five splinter lists seeded by Sethnet subscribers during the past five weeks. (Since July 22nd, Cyndi, Tom B., M.Blake, Serge G., and Kristin K. have all began their own Seth-related lists and put in the time and effort to build vital, healthy, online communities. I applaud their efforts and wish them well).
Question 10 - I am willing to volunteer to moderate part-time for a three-month stint (requires @5-10 hours per week). (Pick one.):
Total votes = 85
16% Yes (14 people)
84% No (71 people)
Question 11 - If you answered “yes” to question 10, would you be willing to…? (Pick all that apply):
27% Work with multiple moderators in shifts (for ex., 3-4 moderators in 2-day shifts per week, or 1 weekly shift per month, etc.).
23% Participate in a private moderators forum to discuss governance issues, list tenets, scheduling, moderation activities, etc.
16% Promote the resource website, particularly Sethnet Basics (FAQs, List Focus, etc) and CCSearch engine (searches entire website and related websites).
34% Personally welcome all new subscribers who introduce themselves.
Conclusion: if you voted yes in Question 11, and can handle the four basic conditions, you are eligible to become a Sethnet moderator.
Question 12 - How important is it that the results of these polls be binding? In other words, if a majority of people, as defined by at least a 51% margin, wish to change the rules governing this list, should these polls be the final means to make a decision even if a “silent majority” of list subscribers doesn’t vote? (Pick one.)
Total votes = 90
41% It is very important that these polls SHOULD be binding.
22% It is very important that these polls NOT be binding.
37% I don’t care one way or the other.
Conclusion: “Should” be binding is favored 2:1, but is not in a clear majority. If the 37% who don’t care one way or the other were added to “Should” OR “Should Not,” that would give each a majority.
Part 2 will follow with more details about what comes next.
As always,
Paul H.
List Admin
P.S. Please forward this to anyone you know who has unsubbed from Sethnet or anyone else who you think might be interested.
To unsub from Sethnet: sethnet-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
[ Go to the top ]
September 2, 2003
Hi All,
This is Part 2 of the last “special announcement” to the entire Sethnet email list with the results of the recent “list focus” polls. Part 1 featured a review of the twelve questions.
Part 2 – So What!?
Only 118 out of 936 (13%) people voted. In terms of a typical election that’s a relatively low number. But those are the people who made an effort and took action to shape the future of this list. So their votes (along with others’ public and private email feedback) are very important.
Questions 6 - 11 are clear in terms of supporting existing tenets plus approving new tenets as a basis for moderation.
In Question 12, if we add 10% (of the DON’T CAREs) to the 41% SHOULD be binding, that would provide a majority. If we add 29% (of the DON’T CAREs) to the 22% SHOULD NOT be binding, that would also provide a majority.
What stands out is the 2:1 ratio in favor of SHOULD vs. NOT, and the 3:1 ratio of DON’T CAREs required to provide a majority either way.
Also, 54% of voted FOR moderation based upon the tenets in Question 7.
Therefore, after much consideration I’ve come to the following conclusion: it seems clear that a significant enough number of folks want a change on Sethnet. I will also mention the 40-plus private emails I received during the five-week process, the majority of which expressed the private desire for some kind of sane moderation policy to help focus the conversations, reduce clutter, and eliminate flames.
There is one catch, however. Though I have time to be List Admin, I don’t have the time to be the sole moderator. Thus, for moderation – a sane, compassionate, and healthy moderation – to work, I need to rely on those of you who wish to volunteer your time as moderators.
Moderation will only work if enough of you volunteer to help out on an ongoing basis (“Ask not what Sethnet can do for you, but what you can do for Sethnet.”) Those interested in power trips need not apply, the idea is to help this online community grow and flourish. And that requires frequent behind the scenes, and occasionally thankless tasks, often out of the spotlight.
The biggest change in my beliefs about moderation has to do with the idea of self-moderation, the stance I’ve promoted for almost five years now on Sethnet. That idea was to pick and choose those folks who interest you, and if something or someone offends you, use the delete key or mail filters. It’s become clear that this doesn’t work systemically, and on occasion lends energy to a climate of fear and regressive behavior.
Though the word “moderation” triggers many belief systems, it is defined here as a set of approved tenets intended to help focus the list, reduce text clutter/attachments, reduce viruses, improve readability, help stay on topic or show the change in the subject, and eliminate flames. It’s an acceptable tradeoff if it creates an online community where greater numbers of people are encouraged to constructively participate.
Previously there were four tenets (see Question 6). With a little finessing, I’ve combined the newly approved guidelines into six tenets:
- Please keep your posts relevant to the ideas expressed throughout the Seth/Jane Roberts's books when sharing personal experiences.
- When posting any supporting material, please keep it relevant to the primary focus of this list: the exploration of the ideas in the 40-plus books written by Seth/Jane Roberts.
- Refrain from personal attacks and abusive language = use constructive criticism (for example, criticize the logic, veracity, motives, ethics, or interpretation), not destructive criticism (for example, personally attack any individual, their writing style/spelling, use scat invective, post private emails without permission, etc.)
- Please trim off unnecessary text and tag lines before sending a reply. It makes posts easier to read and reduces clutter.
- Use the subject line to indicate the actual content of your post. Ensure that your REPLY relates to the subject header in the original post, or else CHANGE the subject header to reflect a new direction.
- It’s OK to post information on any commercial product or service as long as it has something to do with the work of Seth/Jane Roberts. (For example, a book, tape, CD, seminar, etc.)
This marks only the beginning of the next chapter for Sethnet. But one thing is clear to me after ten years of online community building – membership in Sethnet is a privilege, not a right. And that privilege is fueled by a sense of responsibility to the collective Self, as well as the individual self. Everything else follows from there.
Now, there will be a shakedown period in the coming weeks. It will take time to refine things and there is likely to be an initial backlash and testing of the new waters. I would ask those of you interested in becoming moderators to send me a private email so we can begin hashing out the specifics.
In closing, remember that Sethnet is the only public Seth-focused email list to have ever surpassed the one thousand subscriber mark. Many of you have contributed to that success over the years. Sethnet is also five years old now, and it’s clear that there’s ongoing need for occasional adjustments, and even shake-ups.
For those who don’t find this acceptable, I hope that you enjoyed your time on Sethnet and thank you for your contributions. I hope that you’ll consider forming your own Seth-related email list and make it one that you find fulfilling. You are always welcome to return and share your new insights in the context of the revised list etiquette.
As a dear friend once mused, “You share an existence with others who are experiencing their own journeys in their own ways, and you have journeying in common, then. Be kind to yourself and your companions.”
As always,
Paul H.
List Admin
P.S. Please forward this to anyone you know who has unsubbed from Sethnet or anyone else who you think might be interested.
To unsub from Sethnet: sethnet-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com