

Lorraine wrote: Why do we have standards? How do we determine when it is appropriate, in the narrow instance of certain "spaces" online or in certain contexts, to violate the general case of the rule?
Lorraine,
Leaving aside ignorance of the rules by a list subscriber, I suspect that an individual will breach known rules when "possible benefits from the breach exceed value (risk) of the loss of membership". Where perceived value of loss is low, then potential for breach is higher. The value of "community" to a list subscriber is different for everyone and subjective - therefore any assumption that all subscribers view participation as membership in a community is probably overly-optimistic.
For reasons mentioned by others in earlier and other discussions, subscription denotes "participation, and opportunity to participate, in a range of conversations with largely anonymous people with shared interests in those conversations". I doubt whether such a description denotes a "community" in its traditional context. People subscribe to a list for a range of reasons, most of which revolve around themselves (interest, growth, education, networking, leverage, promotion, etc). Therefore the normative rules that govern the operation of strong communities are unlikely to have any force in this sort of environment and existing rules (standards) are unlikely to transpose personal motivations of a subscriber with "group goals" or "community best interest" ideals.
The reason we have standards, I suspect, is in order "to ensure orderly and uncompromised communication and participation by subscribers in a range of conversations which interest them".
The way I would increase the importance or power of the standards used by this group (and theoretically enhance a sense of community) would be to "lift the hurdle" or "pain of loss" of membership by:
Bottom line: make the pain of loss of membership exceed the possible gain from a breach