Keep the list CLEAN!

Dear list,

For the past several months, mailboxes have been bombarded by purposeless dilly-dallying messages from certain individuals who
continue to wreak utter havoc on these lists. Sadly, some have too
much time on their hands to pursue said persons in the back-and-
forths. I do not have such luxury.

So frustrated am I with the barrage of inane e-mails from these
persons, let me speak my mind freely: Far from demonstrating their
competence in tuning & theory on xentonality/microtonality, these
unmentionables have shown that their sole agenda is to aimlessly
wander from topic to topic without so much as contributing something
new or original to the erudite world of tuning and music-making. It's
a shame that they have been given such berth of liberty to the
detriment of others and betters.

I am forced to block one more such person to stop the sheer load of
useless mails cluttering my mailbox. My suggestion henceforth is to
implement a quota to the number of messages a member can send per
day... I recommend 5.

Cordially,
Dr. Oz.

✩ ✩ ✩
www.ozanyarman.com

On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 11:09 PM, Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@...> wrote:
>
> I am forced to block one more such person to stop the sheer load of
> useless mails cluttering my mailbox. My suggestion henceforth is to
> implement a quota to the number of messages a member can send per
> day... I recommend 5.
>
> Cordially,
> Dr. Oz.

This seems like a bad solution.

-Mike

Ozan>"My suggestion henceforth is to implement a quota to the number of messages
a member can send per

day... I recommend 5."

Not a bad idea...so long as it's implemented on all members and no type of
members (including not moderators, PHDs etc.) are omitted. It would force
people to chose their words wisely.

It would be nice to be able to just send out messages and not have tons of
replies from the same 1-2 people (out of hundreds on the list) often not
seriously focused on trying to solve the problem in question but instead on
their own agendas. I just posted an honest message on Tenney Height in a
response to a post from Igs...and it took me a 3 message run-around just to get
my idea across...and only then did I get a "good idea, let's work on solving
this" response from it.

If people don't like my questions or anyone else's, they reserve the right
not to respond or even simply say "I don't think this is worth
answering..."...but I wish they would keep it at that. Perhaps making a quota
would force them to do this as they will realize it's much more productive to
spend those messages trying to solve problems than switch topics, crack extended
off-topic jokes, or repeatedly insult other members.

On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 11:19 PM, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 11:09 PM, Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@...> wrote:
>>
>> I am forced to block one more such person to stop the sheer load of
>> useless mails cluttering my mailbox. My suggestion henceforth is to
>> implement a quota to the number of messages a member can send per
>> day... I recommend 5.
>>
>> Cordially,
>> Dr. Oz.
>
> This seems like a bad solution.
>
> -Mike

To add to this, and I am more than willing to cut back in my posting
if the list so desires, I am not foolish enough to be unaware that I
am one of the people posting the most in the last week. The last
month, of course, I spent in Haiti, so I can't say much about that. By
a yahoo search count, the leaders of the past few days are Carl, Mike
S, Gene, Igs, and myself. But aside from the argument yesterday over
consonance, the discussion on here has been very productive and
spirited for this last week, and is the list not all the better for
it? It seems undesirable that the list get bogged down in off-topic
nonsense, but desirable that it be highly active for actual research,
which is what has been taking place in the last few days.

Is it not, then, a bit silly to try and impose a wall on productive
conversation for a list whose entire purpose is devoted to just that?
There is a daily digest feature for people who would prefer to not get
bombarded with emails all at once. Perhaps it's more appropriate for
you to do that rather than demand that everyone else curtail
legitimate on-topic conversation for the sake of your personal inbox.
Or perhaps create a filter to put tuning in a separate folder, so that
you can keep it aside from your personal stuff.

Whatever Carl or Gene or whoever the mod team is at this point decides
is fine with me, but that's my two cents. Of course, I could be the
inane figure who is apparently so incompetent with tuning that you
just blocked, so perhaps you aren't even getting this message at all.

-Mike

With all due respect, Dr. Oz, you have a variety of delivery options at your disposal to manage the quantity of incoming e-mails. I myself opt to view the List on the web, rather than sift through the storm of e-mails that come anytime there is a decent amount of activity on the list (be it focused or meandering). After all, many conversations here are not within my field of interest. On the web, you can easily view threads by subject, as opposed to chronologically. I highly recommend this approach if the volume and content of List-related e-mails are not to your liking. Or at the very least, I suggest the "Daily Digest" option, in which case you will receive one e-mail per day--no more, but possibly fewer in periods of low activity.

At any rate, I don't see why those of us who *do* have the time to read and reply to many messages per day should be forced to constrain our correspondence for the sake of those whose time is more limited.

Respectfully,

-Igs

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@...> wrote:
>
> Dear list,
>
> For the past several months, mailboxes have been bombarded by
> purposeless dilly-dallying messages from certain individuals who
> continue to wreak utter havoc on these lists. Sadly, some have too
> much time on their hands to pursue said persons in the back-and-
> forths. I do not have such luxury.
>
> So frustrated am I with the barrage of inane e-mails from these
> persons, let me speak my mind freely: Far from demonstrating their
> competence in tuning & theory on xentonality/microtonality, these
> unmentionables have shown that their sole agenda is to aimlessly
> wander from topic to topic without so much as contributing something
> new or original to the erudite world of tuning and music-making. It's
> a shame that they have been given such berth of liberty to the
> detriment of others and betters.
>
> I am forced to block one more such person to stop the sheer load of
> useless mails cluttering my mailbox. My suggestion henceforth is to
> implement a quota to the number of messages a member can send per
> day... I recommend 5.
>
> Cordially,
> Dr. Oz.
>
> ✩ ✩ ✩
> www.ozanyarman.com
>

On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 2:10 AM, cityoftheasleep
<igliashon@...> wrote:
>
> With all due respect, Dr. Oz, you have a variety of delivery options at your disposal to manage the quantity of incoming e-mails. I myself opt to view the List on the web, rather than sift through the storm of e-mails that come anytime there is a decent amount of activity on the list (be it focused or meandering). After all, many conversations here are not within my field of interest. On the web, you can easily view threads by subject, as opposed to chronologically. I highly recommend this approach if the volume and content of List-related e-mails are not to your liking. Or at the very least, I suggest the "Daily Digest" option, in which case you will receive one e-mail per day--no more, but possibly fewer in periods of low activity.
>
> At any rate, I don't see why those of us who *do* have the time to read and reply to many messages per day should be forced to constrain our correspondence for the sake of those whose time is more limited.
>
> Respectfully,
>
> -Igs

I agree wholeheartedly.

-Mike

Mike wrote:

> Whatever Carl or Gene or whoever the mod team is at this point decides
> is fine with me, but that's my two cents. Of course, I could be the
> inane figure who is apparently so incompetent with tuning that you
> just blocked, so perhaps you aren't even getting this message at all.

To my knowledge, Yahoo offers no way to implement a quota.
I wouldn't be opposed to it though.

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <carl@...> wrote:

> To my knowledge, Yahoo offers no way to implement a quota.
> I wouldn't be opposed to it though.

I would.