[-empyre-] Re; [empyre] nettime and alan, mez, nn

[netwurker@hotkey.net.au]

At 05:38 PM 16/08/2004, jim andrews wrote:
>>
alan and mez have apparently decided that since their posts are no longer
being published on nettime and no reason why is forthcoming from nettime
mods, and since it is 'all political now' on nettime, the issue should be
raised on empyre and other lists.
>>


hi jim.

1stly, i'd like 2 say this response from alan has been in direct relation also 
2 a moderator intervention that i've been experiencing on empyre lately 
[amazing wot happens in the undercurrents and flows of mailing list forums!:)] 
+ as a co-moderator of this list i expect you have some knowledge of this [i 
have asked Christinia 2 4ward on the correspondence 2 all moderators. please 
let me kno if this has been done - if not i have logged a copy here: 
http://www.hotkey.net.au/~netwurker/]. 

i have also asked 4 a direction in regards 2 my subsequent empyre 
responses/replies in light of this so as 2 not n.flame the issue further [which 
i have yet 2 receive] which is y i haven't actually responded *at all* 2 
charlotte frosts reply 2 the moderated email [2 which she replied 2 on-list 
without my awareness].

  jim, i'm also cognisant of your personal opinion in regards 2 me + my work. 
i'm sure u're aware of the issues 2 which i'm referring + i would prefer not 2 
raise this in a public forum, as i'm unkeen to n.courage flames or threads 
that -4 me- fall into a negative, unproductive power dynamic||n.voking category 
that may not benefit the subscribers of empyre [IMHO] or n.courage any 
productive examination of the issues that u seem keen to discuss revolving 
around this? 

if, on the other hand, u see some positive discussion arising from this, then 
please, let's continue.


>>
in the interests of what or whom? what is the desired outcome(s) of this?
>>


i'll answer this in such a way as 2 [hopefully] curb flame potentials....i 
perceive that the interests of every participant in email communities 
[including empyre] r at stake here...larger issues such as power stratification 
+ control-assertion thru discourse dominance, censorship + m.plied silencing of 
positions that lie outside acceptable mainstreamic treatments are only *some* 
of the crucial areas that may be n.voked by raising this on other 
lists...questions relating 2 communication diversification + acknowledgement of 
minority perspectives + seeking 2 hi_light power perspectives that often 
deliberately mask agendas is also relevant in terms of offering + maintaining a 
forum in which a community_based arena is prevalent.... 


>>
why do you think you're getting no reply from nettime and why do you think
they're not publishing you at all anymore?
>>


jim, i have had replies from nettime, but am loathe 2 go in2 them here 4 the 
very fact that they r highly negative + ratify hierarchical power issues that 
currently plague the list. if you'd like me to post some of them in context, 
i'd be more than prepared 2 do so.

also, the nettime moderators have made it clear through x.tensive moderator 
intervention that the list [+ the intention of the list] has morphed markedly 
from its initial manifestation....it originally n.couraged collaborative 
net.art efforts [see the 95 archives] but now has shifted itself 2wards a 
vehicle that offers rationalist perspectives only...its similar 2 the right-
wing global shift in co-opting + gloss-covering any media/dialogue that display 
experimental presentations or adheres to "other" discourse metho[ology]ds...i 
find this type of morphing very questionable in terms of nettime's stated sig 
file aim:

"<nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets"

..obviously the latent nettime agenda nowadays seems biased 2wards a stilling 
approach, whereby any non-regular opinions [ie that that don't fit the typical 
reply/response/debate/argument syndrome that heavily institutionalised mailing 
lists labour under] r excluded. this x.clusion is also n.forced 
sporadically||whimsically + seemingly in accordance with moderators personal 
perspective + opinions [i c it as deliberate bias 2wards/against certain 
subscriber postings + again, can give a multitude of egs if u wish?].

4 those of us who initially n.joyed the benefits of this open-ended approach 2 
info-presentation on the nettime list [+ who helped 2 actively shape the 
nettime list ethos + the net.art genre itself] it is extremely sad 2 witness 
the n.trenched mono-forcing of multilogues in2 such exacting expressions + 
deliberate censorship of anything that the list both n.couraged + celebrated 
previously [+ n.deed, on which it constructed its reputation]. 

in seeking 2 hi-lite this situation [via suggesting alan post this 2 several 
lists] my intention was 2 n.courage an open-ended discussion of nettimes stated 
goals, either 2wards its original aims or even a partial reinstatement of them 
via list practice *or* offer a potential info-source + example via which other 
mailing lists may learn + possibility avoid the same entrenched [+ perhaps 
unconscious] bias formations.


>>
do you think criticizing them, and encouraging others to do so on several
other lists will help build the trust and respect that seems to have
disappeared for some reason? is it a matter of trust and respect? or
something else?
>>


.....n.teresting that u perceive alan's post as criticism + not as a potential 
4 discussion of the issues i've raised above, jim. also, I'd really like 2 
drawn u out here on ur "or something else" assertion...obviously u have an 
opinion on this, and i'd b more than interesting in reading [+ reacting 2] it, 
especially in light of how u see this opinion as contributing 2 the dynamism of 
the empyre list overall?

][mez][