a chronological survey of the mental state of the nettime mailing list



thanks to micz flor for providing me with the perl script for this production


this is a collage of opinions posted in nettime on the subject of nettime, to illustrate how the list and its subscribers' opionios on what the list's state is have changed over time. for the sake of coherence the postings have been shortened but they all contain a link to the originals in the nettime archives, in order not to loose that reference. this is therefore a construct. the reader is invited to contribute his or her own opinion on the subject(s).

(press 'reload' to update the line)




To: nettime-l@Desk.nl Subject: nettime: het stuk From: jesis@xs4all.nl (j bosma) Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 09:08:29 +0100

>Nettime has a lot of members. The issues that pass the revue  titillate many minds . Yet only a very small part of its members  'open fire', even when the battle is practically in their own  backyard. We have heard someone say he is afraid to write. Why  is that? Speaking in public is not easy, most of us know that,  with the exception of the natural performers. But is that the only problem? From many sides the same remarks about Nettime  are heard over and over again. The texts, the announcements  and the world that seems to be hidden behind them are found  extremely interesting, but there is this enormous treshhold fear  to react. And it seems to have something to do with these same  good texts.<

>Nettime is a social entity; above all else its energy comes  from its community-oriented nature. The above is not meant as  a dead-end complaint. It is more a response to a slightly troubling and seemingly  contradictory tendency within the discussions of nettime that  have discouraged certain interesting subscribers to participate.  In the long run this may create problems, nobody likes being  an unintentional lurker. The network of subscribers is a valuable  one for all of us, and loosing good but in the world of  theorywriting inexperienced people due to inaccessability would  be a damn shame. If we are to avoid building with institutionalised  male dominated structures of theoretical discourse that existed  within the academy of old, which profitted from specialisms,  narrowing the gaze and heading for one clear goal, and we reflect  now, in practice, the diversity of this list, the threads of this  tendency might need to be unpicked and rewoven<.

* Subject: nettime: Nettimism? No thank you!* From: IGOR.MARKOVIC@ZAMIR-ZG.ztn.apc.org (Igor Markovic) (by way of pit@contrib.de(Pit Schultz))* Date: Fri, 14 Mar 1997 23:15:39 +0100

>With the growth of importance and influence of the nettime (list, circle of people and concepts etc.) people who lived at least a part of their lives in socialism - but not only them - can recognise emerging of some nteresting processes. I have in mind selfunderstaindable leadership of dominant idea, ideology, viewpoint.<

Subject: nettime: re: Nettimism? No thank you! From: Frank Hartmann (by way of pit@contrib.de (Pit Schultz)) Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 07:51:33 +0100

>we really want to reflect upon the experience of "people who lived at least a part of their lives in socialism", we should not dream about nettime as a kind of a meta-ideological discussion space. We should rather ask: how did the change in Eastern Europe affect the traditional concept of "Ideologiekritik", and how did this change compel us to approach the prerequisits for the function of ideological structures in a new way - in the context of new media theory & practice.<

* Subject: Ljubljana interview with Heath Bunting* From: Josephine Bosma* Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 11:12:59 +0200 (MET DST)

>Q: Lets talk about nettime now. What did nettime mean to you?

HB: In the past? When We I first got involved in nettime it was a context for things that I did. I seem to remember it as a small group of people that did similar things but that now seems to have changed into a very large group of people which I cannot really consider my context anymore. For instance, there was somehow a bit of a restructuring, and I think the original people have realised that they were missing their context, so we got back together again just by sitting around eating dinner. With my work for instance, it is very difficult to say: what do you think is this idea?- in front of two hundred people. But when you're with ten people and you've known them for years you can develop your work quite a lot. Nettime has shifted from the original, it sounds a bit strong but, its changed. It works for the majority of people but it doesn't really work for me anymore. So I resigned about four weeks ago.will meet regularly, we won't have a group.<

* Subject: moderation* From: Andreas Broeckmann* Date: Sun, 22 Jun 1997 13:11:23 +0100

>i find the list difficult to handle at the moment, the noise is immense, and the discussions which should be taking place in the newsgroup are piling in ceaselessly. <

>i want to suggest - tentatively, because i also see the interesting dynamic of what is going on in the last months - that pit and geert should switch on the moderator-button and filter messages before they go out over the list. This would prevent us from some of the rant that people should be doing in e-mail communication and then, possibly, send to the list in a more digested form.<


* Subject: Nettime Criticism * From: Mark Stahlman (via RadioMail) * Date: Sun, 22 Jun 1997 11:04:17 -0700 (PDT)

>So, now, we have reached the "moderation" crossroads. This was inevitable, >also. It is a tactic being proposed to calm the restless natives. It is also a tactic >designed to quell nettime criticism. And, as such it will destroy nettime if it is adopted<.

* Subject: Mark Stahlman's Challenge to Rationality * From: Bruce Sterling * Date: Sun, 22 Jun 1997 13:40:19 -0700 (PDT)

>Here good old Mark is finally declaring his intention to destroy the list. And yes, this really was inevitable. There isn't any menace to nettime -- except of course, for the minor menace of Mark himself. Mark is always a menace to any discussion that doesn't center on himself and his delusions. <

>Let me tell you what Mark will do in the future. First, he'll find himself some other list (or site). Then, he'll begin denouncing nettime there. He'll forbid anyone to crosspost his denunciations back to nettime. But soon, another little world in cyberspace will be regaled with dismal terror stories about the sinister nettime conspiracy.<

* Subject: moratorium * From: Pit Schultz * Date: Mon, 23 Jun 1997 18:45:06 +0200

>I would propose to have a small moratorium -- only five postings a day. If the traffic is still too much, we will have to re-think it. Five substantial postings a day is the average number people most likely find acceptable.<

* Subject: Re: moratorium From: John Perry Barlow Date: Mon, 23 Jun 1997 11:45:30 -0600

>Less would be more. One or two long postings and two or three short ones is my limit.<

* Subject: the we of nettime * From: nettime maillist * Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 01:19:14 +0200

>during the last weeks i got several mail concerning the question of moderating nettime, basically expressing a 'clear yes' (ok, there was one 'better not')<

>the two channel interim model: the nettime-l mailinglist (moderated - by Geert and me until now) and alt.nettime (unmoderated). both are subscribable. see the how-to below. <

>If this becomes extremely difficult, or if many of you are revolting, we just get back into the old mode again, but i doubt that it will work for long. <

* Subject: Re: nettime@ars * From: diana@dial.isys.hu (Diana McCarty) * Date: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 12:41:47 +0200

>You are cordially invited to an informal Nettime meeting<

>Possible Topics for Casual Conversation: Update on the moderation question, Software solutions for the future of Nettime Publication Strategies and the Bible Meeting@WorkSpace Future intensive meetings. <

* Subject: Re: Re: nettime@ars * From: Josephine Bosma * Date: Tue, 9 Sep 1997 14:01:58 +0200 (MET DST) * In-Reply-To: <199709062256.XAA00103@basis.Desk.nl>

>have been thinking about the development of nettime a lot, and sadly I must say I think a lot of what happened the last few months is a direct result of the unconsciously (?) overdone declaration of the nettime 'board' (:lets say) that nettime was in trouble and needed fierce reorganisation. This has been a selffullfilling profecy, as it was not so, at least not to the majority of members at that time. I remember Geert Lovink and Pit Schulz saying things like : You don't notice it, but we do..., back then.<

>I suggest to have a few nettime 'babies', a webforum/magazine like something similar to lets say C-theory (please don't execute me straight away for giving a sensitive example again) a newsgroup or two for those that really want them (not many people use newsgroups generally, traffic and life on the net is just so busy lately that few seem to have the time) and the raw mailinglist as main meetingpoint, for die-hards and people that are not afraid to filter and sacrifice some time/space for the benefits of what free speech can all generate. Some parallel malinglists could be something too.<

* Subject: First Report from Documenta Hybrid Workspace Nettime Study Group * From: nettime maillist * Date: Sun, 14 Sep 1997 18:58:43 +0100 (GMT+0100)

>At present, the Nettime list is in a state of dis(re)pair due to the overwhelming volume of traffic on the list. Consequently, Geert and Pit (the unofficial moderation group) feel unable to complete the amount of work required to keep the list functioning smoothly. In order to lighten the workload on them, the committee plans to form an editorial group of around five to eight members. The ad hoc Kassel Committee will act as the interim group until enough volunteers from active Nettime members are assembled. Service on the group will be short-term and will rotate so members do not face the burnout syndrome that currently afflicts the Nettime Brothers.<

>As we were talking about the Nettime Bible and one Nettime member's recent experiences with publishing a Hungarian book, we decided it would also be nice to have a lexicon of Nettime terms (such as 'gift economy,' names and abbreviations like 'V2', 'Next 5 Minutes,' and so forth). The glossary should be collectively produced by the Nettime community. The committee believes that a glossary would be very helpful to newcomers<




ich untersuche gerade die debatte in nettime über "moderation", diese >hat sich über die jahre hinweg sehr konstant entwickelt. mit deinem >posting "nettime moderation" vom 22. juni 97 hast du diese ja eigentlich >angefangen

: hups, dass es diesen historischen zusammenhang gab, wusste ich nicht, obwohl ich mich vage an die situation erinnere ... >

"i want to suggest - tentatively, because i also see the interesting >dynamic of what is going on in the last months - that pit and geert >should switch on the moderator-button and filter messages before they go >out over the list. This would prevent us from some of the rant that >people should be doing in e-mail communication and then, possibly, send >to the list in a more digested form." >

>wie stehst du heute zur "moderation" in nettime?

ich denke, dass das irgendwann notwendig geworden ist; es gab 97 mehrere situationen, in denen die liste ueberschwemmt wurde mit 'flame wars' und spam; meiner meinung nach haengt das mit der anzahl der subscriber zu tun - ab 4-500 hoert so eine gruppe endgueltig auf, eine community zu sein, danach funktionieren dann auch bestimmte soziale regeln nicht mehr (dorf/stadt ...). es ist eine verzwickte situation, weil die dynamik der liste natuerlich zerstoert wird - auf nettime kommt jetzt meist am nachmittag und spaet am abend ein ganzer schwung, weil die moderatoren in nordamerika dann arbeiten -, die abfolge, kleine schnelle schlagabtausche, auch mal ein spontaner witz, usw., kommen kaum noch vor, die sind aber fuer so ein soziales medium wirklich wichtig - das konnte man ja sogar schon auf dieser snm list sehen. auf der anderen seite darf so eine list natuerlich nicht zu einer permanenten belastung werden, und wenn es auf einer liste, die sich zB bei ca. 8-10 mails pro tag eingependelt hat, ueber mehrere tage mehr als 15 gibt, dann fangen leute an, sich zu entsubskribieren. viele leute scheinen die listen immer schon an der schmerzgrenze zu empfinden (ich hoere das immer wieder ueber die rohrpost), und es brauch dann nur eine kleine intensivierung damit das kippt. moderation bei einer liste wie nettime ist wahrscheinlich unumgaenglich, aber sie ist auch kein community-medium mehr, sondern eine art gemeinsamer online-info-dienst.

>die nettime moderation >sollte ja vor kurzem (nov 99) "diversified" werden, es sollten also mehr >frauen "moderators" werden. Das hat dann irgendwie nicht funktioniert. >wiso nicht?

was meinst du dazu?

ich weiss nicht genau, was da gelaufen ist, aber die 'kultur' in der moderatorengruppe ist wohl ziemlich stark maennlich gepraegt, vielleicht autokratisch; ich kann darueber nur spekulieren, aber es scheint ausserdem keine aufgabe zu sein, die frauen gerne auf sich nehmen moechten, denn es haben sich wohl auch nur sehr wenige gemeldet; da muesstest du mal die frauen fragen, die sich da eingemischt hatten ... ausserdem ist das gender problem bei nettime mE nicht eines der moderation, sondern der inhalte und des diskurses allgemein, der ja ziemlich 1:1 den maennlichen dominanzdiskurs aus anderen gesellschaftlichen bereichen reproduziert; da reicht die entfremdung der frauen wahrscheinlich vom unzufriedenen lurker-lesen bis zum moderations-zoegern. aber dieses problem laesst sich, wie ueberall, meiner meinung nach nur durch alternative kanaele fuer frauen (faces, obn, etc.), oder aber durch forsches eindringen in maennerdomaenen ueberwinden; naja, und damit sind wir bei der frage um die handlungsperspektiven der emanzipationsbewegungen ... >

wie macht ihr das mit der moderation in der rohrpost?

keine moderation - die liste ist offen fuer alle subskribenten; solange das funktioniert, bleiben die leitungen offen.

>gibt es eigenlich alt.nettime (die vorgängerin von nettime-bold????) >noch ?

weiss ich ehrlich gesagt nicht; ich hab das nie benutzt. >

gibt es nettime.free noch, oder ist sie nach oktober 98 gestorben? >ist nettime bold eine antwort auf nettime.free? oder nicht?

ich denke mal, dass paul garrin nettime.free schnell wieder gekillt hat - das war ein kurzer, heftiger flop, der ihm viele leute abspenstig gemacht hat (ich weiss nicht, ob das jemals so deutlich ausgesprochen worden ist, aber folkloristisch weiss man, dass er diesen 'coup' gelandet hat); -bold ist natuerlich schon eine antwort auf diese befreiungsversuche, wie auch 7-11 eine abspaltung von nettime (der net.artists, fruehling 97) gewesen ist; darueber ist seit 97 auf treffen und per email immer wieder gesprochen worden, wo es dann immer die 'liberalisten' gab (u.a. sandra fokky fauconnier und josephine bosma), die fuer oeffnung waren, und eine reihe anderer (von antiorp damals regelmaessig als korporate fascists bezeichnet, im grunde die ganze moderatoren-riege), die sich fuer das ueberleben der liste verantwortlich fuehlten, und dies nur durch moderation gewaehrleistet sahen. ideologische kaempfe waren das, zum teil mit harten bandagen. auch Rhizome, wo es schon recht frueh (auch 97?) die trennung zwischen RAW und DIGEST gab, gehoert in diese geschichte mit rein. dazu gehoert dann auch noch, dass es natuerlich (teilweise alte) privatfehden gibt, u.a. viele leute, die ted byfield problematisch finden, und das wird natuerlich dann umso heftiger ausgetragen, wenn der auch noch nettime-moderator ist.

* Subject: Relational Architecture * From: Rafael Lozano-Hemmer <75337.1453@compuserve.com> * Date: Fr, 30 Jan 1998 09:35:53 -0500 * Content-Disposition: inline

>apologies for the recent severe hickups: we are currently renovating nettime to make rotating group moderation possible /p]<

* Subject: nettime moderation * From: Matthew Fuller * Date: Sun, 1 Feb 1998 18:15:29 +0000

>Over the next month or so Pit will be away from Berlin and the net. During this period, moderation of the Nettime list will be carried out by Geert Lovink (geert@xs4all.nl) and Matthew Fuller (matt@axia.demon.co.uk). The style of moderation will generally remain the same. At the same time however, we want to take this opportunity of having dual moderation to invite people involved in the list to experiment a little with it as a technical and social form. In particular we are conscious that there is a tendency for specific styles of writing to dominate traffic on Nettime. Increasingly the list is being used for men to compare the length of their bookshelves. Whilst we're hot for polemic and monumental essays of universal importance, we also believe that other things need to be said. To this end we have consulted the relevant tabulations and urge all nettimers to increase productivity in the following areas: rants - 25% increase 12.8% more manifestos a full 50% more fiction software reviews - 23.8% increase nasty weird shit - 100%<

To: undisclosed-recipients:; * Subject: nettime moderation * From: Faith Wilding <74447.2452@compuserve.com> * Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 11:34:25 -0500

> I welcome the new directions Matt and Geert are envisioning for Nettime (though I dread the increase of traffic on my email). <

Subject: nettime moderation * From: Stefaan Van Ryssen * Date: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 19:57:27 +01

>Who needs soap if we've got net art critics and no net art... <

To: nettime-l@Desk.nl * Subject: Re: nettime moderation * From: micz flor * Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 11:43:47 +0000

i found it very amusing to read the open invite to write *weird* stuff for nettime. in a way the lack of weirdness and the comparison of bookshelves (as matt described) was (or is) one of the features nettime gradually developed (some might want to use 'emerge') 'and got widely appreciated for. the printout (sic!) of nettime postings was always the essential sunday afternoon read - and enough people thought it was weird already! i am surprised to see the attempt to change the direction of the list - instead of just assuming that there are other lists out there to supply the *weistuff for the ones who want it.

mailinglist should not define themselves in the dichotomy of moderated vs open, they would have to change to job descriptions for *editors* instead of *hosts* - which, of course, creates a completely different media environment.

To: nettime-l@basis.Desk.nl * Subject: Servian concern... * From: owner-nettime-l@basis.Desk.nl * Date: Wed, 04 Mar 1998 15:04:57 +0100

Of course it's possible to have a discussion about Servian rights in Kosovo, and about the what is allowed in resistance by etnic Albanians, but I don't think nettime is the propper place to conduct this discussion. Or am I wrong?

To: nettime-l@Desk.nl * Subject: Kosovo Thread, Richard, Benson, Simon * From: nettime.mailing.list@basis.Desk.nl * Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 22:45:17 +0000

>Richard: >Why not political issues on Nettime. Wasn't this net always a little bit >about politics, reporting about different demonstrations and protests?

>Sure, but how controversial and extreem, always interesting and straight. Your concern about what you are calling terrorism is based upon a very nationalistic opinion. Which unfortunatelly excists in Servia, but I don't want to read about on the nettime list; it just doesn't belong here. If this list is open for the protection of the joys of nationalism I don't want let my mailbox be a waste box, and will sign off. (This is another call towards the owners...)<

To: nettime-l@Desk.nl * Subject: Nettime Moderation * From: Matthew Fuller * Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 20:34:44 +0000

>This list exists only as it is used. The negotiation of what is and what is not suitable for inclusion on the list has been acheived by the list itself in this case. Hopefully it works more effectively because it doesn't give all power to the decision making of the moderator which can never be informed as to the suitability of all messages. This is perhaps a case in point. Matthew forwarded the initial message to the list. He hadn't got much of an idea what it was about - certainly not enough to make a decision to delete it. Not wanting to base a decision on ignorance, he based it on a generalised -rather than specific - trust that people would not overly abuse the list. We believe that adopting this approach pays off because list-members who are more informed - or at least more engaged - with the situation were able to provide a cluster of texts which provided a context to the initial post, and pointers outwards.<

To: Nettime * Subject: a modest proposal * From: t byfield * Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 23:50:56 -0500

>In keeping with Mr. Fuller's most excellent innovation--demanding better, more diverse content--I will make the following requests: list- subscribers should please submit LESS cross-posted rants from other lists sloppy formatting and encoding masculinity by default pissing matches MORE obsolescent genres (epic, pastorals, sonnets, doggerel, etc.) material about open source development and developments practical ideas for integrating "new" and "old" media bibliographies, orderly compilations, useful pointers<

To: nettime-l@Desk.nl * Subject: media, art, economy? * From: Pit Schultz * Date: Wed, 1 Apr 1998 01:26:51 +0100

Responding to Andreas Broeckman in four steps nettime escaped from its oedipal vectors. 1. The wired ideology exhausted itself and declined intellectually with the end of the net.hype, as you can see if you still buy this magazine. 2. A modest democratization of nettime through a rotating group moderation (which is still not standard even if others already learned from it) 3. A certain continuity and 'reliable instability' through a number of long term planning and resisting ideas which step by step are tested/ implemented (first of all the nettime book). 4. A continuity, especially regarding the basis as a non-commercial project, which in many ways gives the project a higher sustainability and working economy of content.

To: nettime-l@Desk.nl * Subject: z8578i575 * From: humanzsuk@ultra.com * Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1998 16:57:52 +0100

>v2 - 1 > fasc!zt \+\ pozer++ .krap || .org <

To: nettime@Desk.nl * Subject: [madre, (someone), antiorp, madre] * From: "nettime's_digestive_system" * Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 04:32:16 +0100

>moderation has to go<

To: nettime-l@Desk.nl * Subject: ...a sigh of relief (ADMINISTRATIVA) * From: Nettime_moderators * Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1998 13:33:22 -0100

>we're going to experiment with turning the moderation up slightly: that means nettime's_digestive_system will gather together more stuff, and fewer things will be approved. it's not that we don't love you--we do. but a high-traffic list that no one reads doesn't make much sense. so please be patient if you send something and it doesn't appear. there are ~850 subscribers now, and they really are everywhere; so we'll try to make choices based on the logic that fact suggests.<

To: nettime-l@Desk.nl * Subject: sighs and whispers: on moderation * From: "nettime's_digestive_system" * Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1998 10:36:53 +0100

To: nettime-l@Desk.nl * Subject: gated communities * From: Josephine Bosma * Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1998 11:39:07 +0100

>This mail is a protest against the removal of antiorp from the three mailinglists this mail is going to. At the same time it is a contemplation of what these lists mean to me and maybe to others. What is it, that people get so uptight over having to delete mails. I am sure they delete most of the other postings too without ever reading them. Do we have the lists we have like we have 'the right newspaper' or magazine? Just to give ourselves the idea we are on the right track, because at least we know the headers of the latest thread that was produced by some people that know what is best for us?<

To: nettime-l@Desk.nl * Subject: gated communites [grancher, bosma, greene and galloway, byfield] * From: "nettime's_digestive_system" * Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1998 02:12:25 +0100

>josephine is all right, I agree with her: We don't have to throw away someone like "antiorp" whithout good reasons. I said to "antiorp" to moderate his spam, it is really different than throwing someone from this list. <

>I'm really shocked to see "antiorp" excluded from these list, and to see some serbian fascist still staying on the smae list !!!! <

To: nettime-l@Desk.nl * Subject: immoderate * From: calin@euronet.nl (Calin Dan) * Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1998 11:06:57 +0100

>when this shifts to moderation, i will have a problem posting there, because i am not interested in having that expectation chill: will I get through or not? after all, publishing on nett. is a voluntary job, right?<

To: Multiple recipients of nettime-free * Subject: many questions! * From: eon@autono.net (eon) * Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1998 20:10:46 -0400

>> Once again, there is an OPEN LIST for Nettime, free of > any unwanted censorship, hidden agendas, personal tastes, > anal-retentive book editors/librarians, respiratory diseases, > and other information-hostile elements that have corrupted > the intial mission of the nettime list as established by the > founders of Nettime in Venice, June, 1995. <<

>A deep sigh of relief... and many thanks to those who took this initiative.<

To: nettime-l@Desk.nl * Subject: on moderation and spams * From: Luther Blissett * Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1998 16:48:55 +0100

>Or is antiorp an "info-warrior"? Right. S/he declared war upon... whom? Me? So why can't I counter-attack? And even if antiorpisms were worth reading, why post them on Nettime? I'm sure there are more suitable contexts. Antiorp fans want us to be open-minded - antiorp tried to tear our nervous system apart. Two different beasts, I daresay. Any attempt at describing such annoying behaviors either as "performances" or as "mind-challenging" dunno-whats will always provoke my fierce resistance.<

To: "Multiple recipients of nettime.free" * Subject: Re: many questions! * From: scotartt * Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1998 17:56:23 +1000

>please remove me from this list. i didn't ask to be on it. this is highly rude, not good net.manners.<

* Subject: Re: on moderation and spams * From: "cisler" * Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1998 14:47:01 +0100

>I'm sticking with nettime (classic). I find the moderation as it has been carried out to be desirable and not heavy-handed. I don't mind that someone is starting a splinter group with a similar name, but I think it is bad net etiquette to take a mailing list and automagically sign everyone up as has happened with nettime free.<

* Subject: Re: on moderation and spams * From: Stefan Wray * Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1998 17:48:20 +0100

>For moderators: how did they get the list of subscribers??? Was this not a private list? Can you make it so no one can copy nettime-l addresses again?<

To: nettime-l@Desk.nl * Subject: Re: on moderation and spams * From: "David S. Bennahum" * Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1998 20:13:16 +0100

>I received a series of idiotic posts from nettime.free, and prompty unsubscribed while making a point of calling them assholes.<

To: nettime-l@Desk.nl * Subject: Re: on moderation and spams (several messages) * From: nettime@desk.nl * Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 08:58:48 +010

>I don't know beyond guess who are the frustrated behind that nettime.free spam, but reminds me of a technique that I hoped not to encounter again: opressing people in their own privacy with arrogant lectures about freedom.<

>If there are dissatisfied nettimers, by all means start a new list, cross-post its address and doxas widely, and encourage the like minded (and even more important, dissenters) to sign up.<

>This is not "free" - I did not freely choose to be here. Call a spade a spade, its a prison, not a "re-education camp" and we're all in detention. It should be properly named - nettime.spam.<

To: nettime-l@Desk.nl * Subject: a brief piece on nettime free * From: Pit Schultz * Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 04:59:55 +0200

>the atmosphere of 'electronic disturbance' is growing on several mailinglists at the moment, but it is yet not clear if it is just a temporary phase, and what it has to do with what happens outside of the net, particulary the situation at the stock markets and various conflicts around ethnic and religious faultlines. some are calling it a millenial hysteria.<

>another context is clearly the name.space project paul garrin started, and which went into a final crisis. the demand of paul garrin to send out promotion material about his own project is not new, and it was a flame war he was mainly involved in which led into moderation of the nettime mailinglist in autumn 1997. the so called nettime-free is based on Paul Garrin's server.<

* Subject: Re: on moderation and spams (several messages) * From: nettime@Desk.nl (nettime's_digestive_system) * Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 21:58:48

>I should start by declaring myself to be a virtually full-time, unrepentant and chronic LURKER.<

To: "Multiple recipients of nettime.free" * Subject: Matthew Fuller and Peter van der Pouw Kraan Comment * From: eon@autono.net (eon) * Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 21:05:33 -0400

>Hello from Nettime.Free. There have been some requests to unsubscribe from some of the people who have received messages from this list and did not wish to do so. If you are one of them and would still like to stop your subscription, please send the message: unsubscribe nettime.free to To those who wish to remain and support an open, self-regulated list, this list is what YOU make of it. If you don't want it to become a "spam camp" then please be considerate of what you post. The recommendation is, post openly, post thoughtfully, post sparingly...and take your flames, pouts, and personal conflicts offline, or at least, offlist. This is YOUR list to serve YOU! Enjoy!<


To: nettime-l@Desk.nl * Subject: Re: on moderation and spams (several messages) * From: "nettime's_digestive_system" * Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 09:50:26 +0100

To: nettime-l@Desk.nl * Subject: Surprise Attack: Re-Routing Nettime * From: MediaFilter * Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 05:42:16 -0400

>Re-Routing Nettime: An Exercise in Electronic Disturbance Surprise "Columbus Day Outing" By Paul Garrin Personal note: My sincerest apologies to anyone who was offended or inconvenienced by this exercise. It was not intended in any way to be malicious or aimed at any specific persons or groups in any way other than in comedic parody. <


To: nettime@Desk.nl * Subject: this time non-competetive split? * From: Joerg Heiser * Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 13:47:39 +0100

>A suggestion for a, this time non-competetive split of nettime into three seperate lists: nettime.d: debate, news nettime.e: essays, interviews nettime.w: weird stuff everybody is free to subscribe to one, two or all three lists. When you're subscribed to more than one, you can easily see from the subject heading to which list the message belongs<

To: nettime-l@Desk.nl * Subject: intro of readme! * From: Geert Lovink * Date: Thu, 19

>Welcome. Bienvenue. Guten Tag. This is an anthology of Nettime, an internet mailing list-an attempt to transform thousands of emails, articles, and comments into book form. But what is "Nettime"?<



nettime-l = kosovo-l or serbia-l or nato-l ? From: "felipe rodriquez Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999 00:01:52 +0200

>75% of messages on Nettime these days are about the war in Serbia. I'm wondering if that is the purpose of the nettime list, and wondering if the nettime list is slowly but surely be converted to the serbian/kosovo war information centre.<

To: nettime-l@Desk.nl Subject: Re: nottime-l etc: attempt@purpose-summary From: Josselien Janssens Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999 23:59:51 +0200

>Yay! Good questions, Felipe, Fred et all! Here's my thoughts as a Communications/Media/PR person: Felipe, you don't create a whole new newspaper for a specific war, no? Nettime-L is like a intl 'newsforum' for the target group "people like us". I.e. those people who have as only solid unifying criterium that they are on Nettime-L; are ruffly divided up in all the grey areas between the categories "artist", "activist", "geek", "designer", "freak" or a combination of any or all of those. I would not dare to generalise more than that about this group. The forum Nettime-l is used to exchange news and views on stuff that interests us (if it is politically correct to speak of the Nettime group as "us") and keeps our minds busy otherwise we wouldn't be on it. EVERY list I'm on is mainly talking about Kosovo. Every newspaper spends 70% of their front page on it. At work 70% of the conversations pretty much are about the war as well. In that sense, Nettime comes as close as it can to reflecting the 'normal' world... There IS an actual WAR on you know, with people dying. I don't intend to sneer, I know you all are aware of this, that is why we're all so pre-occupied with it. Wars DO tend to disrupt whatever passes for normality on every level. You NEED to communicate about them in every circle. So my plea is, don't try to categorise communication too much. Because then you have to 1) memorise all the categories and 2) decide which message falls under which category and 3) what to do with ones that just won't fit any category, etc. etc... <

To: nettime-l@Desk.nl * Subject: Re: nettime-l = kosovo-l or serbia-l or nato-l ? * From: Pit Schultz * Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 19:22:54 +0200

>in such moments it becomes clear that a list like nettime is not an "independent" media as all, that it corresponds to the priorities set by bigger media, which depend from but also construct the attention of recipients given to "present" topics. the urgency of the event status homogenizes all media, so it gives also small media the chance to keep up with the big guys for a moment, and even by chance stay upfront, open for more experiments in such a situation, with but, i agree with you in terms that i do not have any interest to be part of the invention of a new type of journalism or opinion production in times of crisis. (the net as cheap CNN?) the problem is indeed the weired mix of pseudo-objective news fetishism with the sincere worries of people with the propaganda machine of both sides. so people should have the right to be lurkers, and do not have an opinion in times where it seems that everyone has to admit on which side they stay. there were a few messages indeed which switched on the meta level and i am sure that also other people experienced mailinglists as a useful media last weeks.<

To: nettime-l@Desk.nl Subject: RE: nettime-l = kosovo-l or serbia-l or nato-l ? From: "felipe rodriquez" Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 01:47:23 +0200

>I do wonder if Nettime is the place to continue a discourse about this topic. My worries have nothing to do with the topic of Serbia or Kosova, but with the persistence of the topic on the list. In my relatively long history as a net addict I've witnessed the evolution of lists over and over again. Every list or newsgroup has an evolutionary process; it is initiated, it grows into something the readers enjoy, then it grows further into a heavy traffic and limited topic environment, and eventually the initiators leave in disgust because what is left is something very remote from what was intended. Currently Nettime is moving into the phase where topics are limited, and traffic grows. The content of the list is slowly moving away from the initial intention and diversity of the nettime list, and within weeks or months people will start unsubscribing from the nettime mailinglist and moving towards other communities. The future of nettime is at stake. And I'd like to make sure that we move into that phase with our eyes open. Because Nettime is a moderated list, the moderators have a chance to change the course of development on the list. And I believe some strategy or action by the moderators would be appropriate at this moment, or in the very near future.<

To: nettime-l@Desk.nl Subject: administrativa: Nettime/Kosovo From: "nettime's_mod_squad" Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1999 19:23:31 -0400

>the open war in Yugoslavia and Kosovo is now more than five weeks old.<

>Initially, there was considerable confusion around as to where to find independent information and nettime served also as a redistribution channel connecting many different initiatives. As these independent information providers become better known, the need to function as a relay decreases. For the moderators, this means not forwarding from other e-mail list on a regular basis. Those interested in this information can subscribe directly to the lists (see below); information about new or other resources is a big help, of course.<

To: nettime-l@Desk.nl Subject: Re: RE: nettime-l = kosovo-l or serbia-l or nato-l ? From: "K.Patelis" Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1999 12:20:19 +0100 (BST)

>n the same way as customising news channels really really pisses me off, for the same reason for which specialisation in early education ennoyed me in school , I think that this idea is absolutely out of the question.<

To: nettime-l@bbs.thing.net * Subject: moderation rotation * From: "nettime's_rotating_moderators" * Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 13:29:39 -0500

>[1] Scot McPhee [2] Sebastian Luetgert [3] Geert Lovink [4] Ted Byfield [5] Felix Stalder [?] moderators temporarily out of orbit<

To: nettime-l@bbs.thing.net * Subject: Re: moderation rotation (3x) * From: "nettime's_digestive_system" * Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1999 09:51:35 -0500 (EST)

>I do not really get this rotation business, nor do I really agree with the idea that identity has anything to do with moderating well, besides I kind of feel there is something going on here that the rest of the Nettimers are not priveledged enough to find out about ( a joke? not a joke?).<


To: nettime-l@bbs.thing.net * Subject: diversifying the moderation * From: nettime * Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1999 09:51:53 -0500 (EST)

>We encourage women who are interested in the nettime list to volunteer their time as moderators. Please get in touch with us and we can talk about the details.<



To: nettime-l@bbs.thing.net Subject: Dear Nettime From: Paul Garrin Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 04:30:37 -0500

>Dear Nettime Yes, I mean the subscribers of this list, not the "censorship" board who controls it. In the event that this message even makes it to the list, I invite those who are interested in a reasonable and open discussion on Name.Space and some of the issues of late, to post your comments to the RepoHistory "RECLAIMTHE.NET" forum located at http://RepoHistory.ReclaimsThe.Net.<

>Nettime is not the appropriate forum to carry on any discussion on DNS, Name.Space, or related issues because the "moderators/ censors" control the content of this list to suit their own personal agendas.<

* Subject: RECLAIM NETTIME (was Re: Dear Nettime) * From: "scotartt" * Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2000 08:56:51 +1100

>I am glad this debate is being set up from the outset in such a civil, interesting tone. There is a difference between 'moderating' a list and 'censoring' it. As I recall having to send you several excoriating emails to your 'nettime-free' ahhh -- effort -- which you forced-subscribed everyone to some years ago, in order to stop recieving the junk mail that was being sent to that alleged 'list', it doesn't seem to me that you are in any position of moral or technical authority to start public debate on this or any other list or forum about the nature of moderation.<

* Subject: nettime, dear nettime... * From: "nettime's_autoimmune_system" * Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 22:35:46 -0500 (EST)

Subject: [Nettime-bold] Nettime offers new flavours* From: Michaël van Eeden * Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 13:55:23 +0100 * Importance: Normal* List-Id: the uncut, unmoderated version of nettime-l

>Nettime offers new flavours

Hello, We have added new channels for nettime content. New is nettime-bold, the *unmoderated* version of the nettime list. It contains everything that is sent to nettime-l regardless of it being approved by the moderators or not. It is also possible to sent messages directly to nettime-bold.<

* Subject: Moderation Madhouse, Adieu! * From: k.jacobs@beatmail.com (Katrien Jacobs) * Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 01:17:52 -0500

>What Matters (A look behind the scenes) Nettime moderation has gone beserk. It was never an easy effort to create friendships or establish communication with the nettime moderators, but it boiled and exploded (again) in the last couple of days.<

>My last idiotic attempt would have been to post an announcement for more female moderators (eight male moderators right now) but I was told that my music was starting to sound very irritating.<

To: nettime-l@bbs.thing.net Subject: Re: Moderation Madhouse, Adieu! From: "geuzen" Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 16:36:20 +0100

A plea for equal representation is never idiotic, it is imperative. I am sorry to hear that there will be one less woman moderating nettime.

the year:


short description:

| | |