mokhtar@ubc-vision.CDN (mokhtar) (10/06/84)
> It is in this light that I recommend creating 'mod.motss', a newsgroup > essentially identical to 'net.motss', but one in which the articles > are screened by a moderator, a benevolent dictator whose only role is > to ensure that the posted article conforms with the purpose stated in > the first submission to 'net.motss' (copies available on request.) > Sure, this is a lot of "power" given to one person, but it is bestowed > by consensus. It is, in my personal view, much preferable to the > anarchic situation we see here right now. As much as I sympathize with you, I just have to disagree because I don't believe in 'benevolent dictators'. This newsgroup is supposed to be a discussion group. It's intended function is very different from that of (ex) net.general. I don't see any 'anarchic' situation here, just a lot of 'noise'. Why couldn't the true contributors of net.motss ignore that noise and respond to the more reasonable arguments? Farzin Mokhtarian < ubc-vision!mokhtar >
manis@ubc-vision.CDN (Vincent Manis) (10/06/84)
I guess I too would prefer an unmoderated discussion. I've Organization: UBC Vision, Vancouver, B.C., Canada Lines: 10 pretty well changed my mind on this over the last couple of days--originally, I thought that a moderated discussion might screen out the repetitive individuals who are using this newsgroup to flame rather than discuss. I suggest that we politely ask flamers to go elsewhere (including perhaps net.flame) and let us get back to some sort of serious discussion. There are certain individuals whose name automatically makes me respond 'n' to the prompt. If everyone else did that, they would most certainly get the hint.
ag5@pucc-i (Henry C. Mensch) (10/07/84)
<<Oh, well!>>
It seems that the discussion about mod.motss is now a moot
point, since Mark Horton <cbosgd!mark> sent a control message creating
this group and naming Steve Dyer <bbncca!sdyer> as the moderator "for
now."
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Henry C. Mensch | Purdue University Computing Center
{decvax|ucbvax|sequent|icalqa|inuxc|uiucdcs|ihnp4}!pur-ee!pucc-i!ag5
--------------------------------------------------------------------
" . . You'd better smile when they watch you,
smile like you're in control. . ."
-- *Smile*, Was (Not Was)sdyer@bbncca.ARPA (Steve Dyer) (10/08/84)
>As much as I sympathize with you, I just have to disagree because I >don't believe in 'benevolent dictators'. This newsgroup is supposed >to be a discussion group. It's [sic] intended function is very >different from that of (ex) net.general. I don't see any 'anarchic' >situation here, just a lot of 'noise'. Why couldn't the true >contributors of net.motss ignore that noise and respond to the more >reasonable arguments? Then you don't believe in moderated newsgroups, either. One of the main functions of a moderator is to remove "noise" as well as to ensure that the discussion follow the groundrules for the news group. The moderator for mod.movies, shall we say, is acting appropriately when a discussion about a sci-fi movie becomes a discussion of Heinlein, and redirects the postings to net.sf-lovers. The moderator for mod.movies is acting appropriately when a question about "Casablanca" generates 50 identical responses, and only posts a single representative response. So, too, for the moderator of mod.motss, if the group is ever realized. I am redistributing to you the reason and purpose of net.motss from its first posting, to remind you just how far the group has strayed lately. The problem is not only Brunson and Arndt and the occasional other crazies who crop up now and again, but the "righteous" of us, myself included, who, by counterflaming, further degrade the quality of the discussion. Nor do our targets ever listen. Responses of any type merely reinforce their behavior, as they observe with infantile wonder their ability to stir up their environment. I think it is probably futile to encourage people to ignore such postings, given the nature of the net. "Noise" prompts people to unsubscribe to net.motss. "Noise" causes people to type 'n' before they even read an article. This "noise" obscures cogent points in a discussion by pandering instead to emotion and invective. Reasonable arguments? Show me one, and I'll respond to it. I haven't see one yet. Rather, we have Brunson (and fellows) who should be written off by everyone else as a fool, and we have Arndt who has no arguments at all, but rather a diffuse antipathy towards gay people and an anti-social manner, veering between stark-raving madness (witness his last response to Gerber) and parodies of sociological citation. Regardless of the fate of {net,mod}.motss, which I'll discuss in a later message, I invite those of you who can discern cogency in any of this "sludge" (to recapitulate a phrase of Ron Rizzo's) to do these people one better, and restate what you think was important therein in a manner more suitable for public discussion. -- /Steve Dyer {decvax,linus,ima,ihnp4}!bbncca!sdyer sdyer@bbncca.ARPA
arndt@lymph.DEC (10/09/84)
I also nominate Steve Dyer for mod. of the new mod.motss. That way he and the two other guys can get started right away. (I hope they can agree!!) Of course I realize they will continue to read my postings, (as I really do phase out), - Steve wouldn't miss one! With all the talk of pressing the "N" key (unix twits) I'll bet few do (Now I'll get mail saying yes they do!!!) because despite the fact you may not agree with me, I'm not boring at least. Rizzo's appeal to Boswell's research is seemingly ok by Steve, at least he hasn't labeled it "parodies of sociological citation". What about the times I have posted data that the homosexual community agrees with, or just straight factual stuff? Never mind. If Steve and co. want to become a pearl in our oyster that's ok by me. Head on out. Anyway, that's my vote. (I do have one don't I???) Regards, Ken Arndt
sdyer@bbncca.ARPA (Steve Dyer) (10/10/84)
Yup, Mark Horton created 'mod.motss' this past week. I am quite
ambivalent about having to resort to mod.motss, and even more
ambivalent about having both newsgroups coexist. Still, I have
received enough private mail on the topic, along with the public
messages, to convince myself that it is worth a try. At the very
least it will remove the argument that I've heard from a number of
people over the last few months which goes roughly like: "Well, I
used to read net.motss, but with all this crap in there, well, I just
don't bother anymore." Or, "isn't it a shame the way net.motss has
been overrun by the Bible baiters." Well, listen people, mod.motss
AIN'T going to be like that, so your excuse is gone. Use it or lose it.
What are the respective futures of net.motss and mod.motss? Right now,
of course, they coexist, and that will probably stay that way for
the immediate future. My own personal view is that mod.motss should
replace net.motss as soon as it is clear that mod.motss is off-the-ground
and well-established. But this is something which should be discussed
by the group at large. If there are problems with using a moderated
newsgroup format (inconvience of posting, limited distribution of mod.all)
or if mod.motss does not become sufficiently popular (by more than
"two of us"--we'll see, Ken!) then we will try to deal with the situation
in net.motss.
My next message will be an introduction to 'mod.motss' with all sorts
of useful information about how to post articles to it.
--
/Steve Dyer
{decvax,linus,ima,ihnp4}!bbncca!sdyer
sdyer@bbncca.ARPAwombat@ccvaxa.UUCP (10/13/84)
Will there be any provision for sending mod.motss via mail to sites not receiving mod.* groups? I enjoy reading this notesfile, but with the creation of mod.motss, I'm afraid the interesting discussions will all go to the new notesfile. Wombat ihnp4!uiucdcs!ccvaxa!wombat
sdyer@bbncca.ARPA (Steve Dyer) (10/19/84)
I don't plan (myself) to forward mod.motss to sites which might
not happen to receive mod.all.
It seems to me that even the most closeted gay person or embarassed
straight person should be able to ask their system managers to arrange
to receive mod.all from their newsfeed neighbors. After all, there
are many moderated newsgroups out there now, and there is little
reason to not carry mod.all--it is slowly becoming as important as
net.all.
If they ask, just look 'em in the eye and say: "I'm REALLY INTERESTED
in reading mod.singles." :-) :-)
--
/Steve Dyer
{decvax,linus,ima,ihnp4}!bbncca!sdyer
sdyer@bbncca.ARPAwild@sun.uucp (Will Doherty) (06/28/85)
After reading Arndt's last message, I wonder why we aren't using mod.motss. I must have been off the net when mod.motss came around. Can anyone give more information about this (post to everyone so we can decide where to continue discussion)? Will Doherty
sdyer@bbnccv.UUCP (Steve Dyer) (06/30/85)
> After reading Arndt's last message, I wonder why we aren't using > mod.motss. I must have been off the net when mod.motss came around. > Can anyone give more information about this (post to everyone so > we can decide where to continue discussion)? > > Will Doherty Will, Mod.motss is still around, although like most moderated groups, it hasn't proved very popular (save for Mike Simpson's summaries.) Around the same time of its creation, the level of discussion in net.motss improved a whole lot, reducing the motivation to turn whole-heartedly to a moderated forum. Still, I am more than willing to receive more postings-- the address is, as always, {decvax,ihnp4,ima,linus,bbnccv}!bbncca!motss. -- /Steve Dyer {decvax,linus,ima,ihnp4}!bbncca!sdyer sdyer@bbnccv.ARPA