[MD] Where I'm at [Administrator Message]

[Arlo Bensinger]

[Krimel]
I am not at all sure what "topical boundaries" one could put around a 
metaphysics.

[Arlo]
I think we have a lot of leeway here to relate our metaphysical 
speculations to Pirsig's work, either in agreement, revision or 
disagreement. But I think ultimately, at the end of the day, at last 
call, it should find some string that ties it in with Pirsig's ideas. 
Ham does this by presenting critical alternatives (so it needn't 
always be "supportive"), DMB (and others) do it by considering 
parallel in either works Pirsig himself has found similarity (James) 
or in works Pirsig never mentions but list members feel there is a 
parallel worth discussing (Royce). Right or wrong, correct or 
incorrect, all these things tie back to Pirsig's metaphysics in some way.

But try joining the Peirce discussion list and talking endless about 
Kant's philosophy (with no relation or regard of Peirce), and see how 
long you last. The communities have boundaries, as DMB mentions, for 
very constructive reasons. If someone really wanted to do nothing but 
talk about Kant, there are better forums for his involvement out there.

While I do wholeheartedly support the social presence of people here, 
while I think its great we think of ourselves (or subgroups here) as 
friends and have genuine mutual interest in each other's lives apart 
from our discussions about Pirsig, I think that topical boundaries 
are necessary and valuable (for the reasons DMB mentioned). I do not 
think its asking too much to except that the bulk of one's 
involvement here ties in someway to evaluations of Pirsig's ideas. 
Maybe some days it's a series of social posts, and that's fine. And I 
think Horse gives ample fair warning, nor do I think (as I said) he 
feels the boundaries are some etched-in-stone non-negotiable 
absolute, and if there was one person here I think capable of doing 
this job with the most fairness, it is Horse.

[Krimel]
But I think your analogy of AA and PTA meetings is flawed. What you 
say might apply well to face to face meetings of people who are 
trapped in direct contact with each other and for whom time is an 
immediate concern. While virtual communities do mimic real life 
communities I think some of the "real" life time constraints don't 
apply here. Deleting and ignore posts is not time consuming and is 
hardly the problem it is in real world meetings.

[Arlo]
Disagree. Just because I have the ability to filter emails, does not 
mean that the forums I belong to should devolve into un-topical 
free-for-alls. What's the point of even calling it "MOQ Discuss" in 
that event? In all seriousness, if I have to filter through 1000 
emails to find 1 about Pirsig, I'd likely give real consideration to 
being on the list. I don't mind a few, as I said, but there is a line 
there, and I trust Horse to maintain it.

[Krimel]
I guess my problem with this is how is Horse supposed to enforce 
this? He can't delete a post that has already been sent.

[Arlo]
I think Horse is very open about cause-and-effect when he feels those 
boundaries are being pushed. And I would think if you made a 
legitimate appeal he would listen. I don't think posts should be 
deleted unless in extreme cases of criminal activity or fraud. And to 
my knowledge, such a thing has never happened. On the other hand, I 
have to seriously wonder about the value of the archives for some 
threads that reach hundreds of posts and do not even mention or 
relate to the MOQ in any way.

[Krimel]
People need to be more careful about what they wish for because what 
I see trends that are not conducive to community flourishing.

[Arlo]
I think Horse is trying to reign in the noise a bit, and I think 
that's a good thing. I don't see anyone being asked anything 
unreasonable. I can beg Horse all day long to remove you from the 
list (just an example, I certainly would not do this), and I don't 
see that as something Horse would do unless he himself saw evidence 
of abusive or detrimental behavior. And I am sure he would give you a 
chance to voice your view. In the end, we have to trust his judgement. I do.

(Seriously, I have seen some list moderators that would blindly drop 
people from the list for making as little as two off-topic posts a 
month. Elsewhere, I have seen a list member dropped without question 
because he made a flirtatious remark (in general, not even to a 
specific woman) because someone reported it as "offensive". Boom. 
Gone. No explanation. No saving roll.)