Monday Morning Quarterbacking
Each of us has hot buttons. One of mine is Monday morning quarterbacking. Decisions, even in this organization, are at times nothing beyond a crapshoot. But what's more important than slapping up the decision-maker after the fact, maybe on a Monday morning, is taking a good look at the situation and learning from it. Then do better the next time. My mother used to often say to me, "Cookie, try to make only new mistakes . . . "
In the not too distant past, a very active Mensa e-list suffered a Near Death Experience after a decision, one made with certain good intention, to modify things. In retrospect, that modification was akin to pulling the plug. The list had become awash with chatter, much of it friendly bantering between the participants and not directly on point to the stated purpose of the list, and the daily message count was creeping upward. The response to the protestations of a few was for the moderator to split the list and make it into two lists. The original list was to function as business only; the second would be a forum for chatter. The result? Both lists are now almost entirely dead.
Was Mensa served? Not hardly. Were the individual members served? Not hardly. Do we now shoot the decision-maker? Not hardly . . . and not fair. Instead, let's examine, as well as we can, the psychology of what happened.
Many years ago I came up with my own definition of what makes a good Mensa Editor. As I recall, it went something like this: "A good editor is one who pleases as many, while offending as few, and realizes there are no one hundred percents." It's time, I believe, to extend that definition to include far more than editing. No matter the judgment call, even on a matter as trivial as the purity of the content of an e-list, when a decision is made, there will be a certain percentage of the participants who will be displeased. Remember, there are no one hundred percents. Our duty, if you will, is to pay attention to the numbers split.
Since we now know that the list moderator's decision to surgically split these conjoined twins has them both in ICU, struggling for survival, let's look at some tough Monday morning questions. In the case of list chatter, does it drive off serious folks or make the list seem more welcoming? Would the answers depend on which Mensa list was being considered? Is it better for e-lists that are Mensa-sponsored to stick strictly to a subject or is it better to allow for the side play that often distinguishes Mensa conversations/writings from other non-Mensa lists?
Really, how much time does it take to hit the "delete" or "next" key? I enjoy peeking at the chatter, when I have time, because it serves as an insight to the moods and personalities of the writers. Wit and wisdom spill from unexpected places, and assumptions made from very brief encounters at RGs and AGs often fly out the window, replaced by newfound knowledge of what lies beneath the exterior of a person. Heck, some of these people are totally cool, and who'd a ever thunk it? Speaking for only myself, I do not want to be monitored as to what I can or cannot say on a Mensa e-list. If I post 57 pieces of mindless drivel in a single day, readers can — and will — delete me. And I have the option to delete when I choose. Choice is magic in Mensa. Too, the list moderator has some e-options to make me behave.
Again, there are no hundred percents. No solution is perfect. We now know that a heavy hand and loose censorship is not the answer. But it's Tuesday morning . . . so let's pick up, dust off and get on with it.
|