iy47ab (02/22/83)
I think the idea of a moderated net is VERY VERY bad!!! I have noted the recent not-quite-coup and attempt to censor on net.suicide, and I feel very strongly that any attempt to moderate this newsgroup makes it far to easy for even inadvertant censorship. This is contrary to the spirit of this newsgroup -- everyone ought to have their say, whatever it may be. I understand there is a problem with duplicate submissions and can only suggest that people read ALL the news before they post replies. Good Luck. Lady Arwen
tracy (02/25/83)
Philosophical issues aside, there are some very compelling reasons for moderation. Usenet is a shining example of Sturgeon's Law: 90% of it is crap. I find very little on Usenet that is actually useful to life on Earth (or even interesting.) I am suprised at how easy I find it to simply hit carriage return and watch endless banal articles roll past. What a waste of time. Netnews burnout. I am quite busy with work and other interests. I currently subscribe to 20 or so newsgroups. I have had to unsubscribe from many newsgroups that I would like to read because the sheer volume of trival submissions were making my newsreading sessions marathons which interfered with my other activities. I like to do the things which contribute the most to my life. It's quite wonderful that we have this Nihilinet to play with, where every- one can say their piece. The value I place on the network is directly related to the quality of submission. Of what use is an interesting submission in newsgroup net.whatever when I have unsubscribed that newsgroup because I couldn't spend vast amounts of time reading the 29 uninteresting submissions? The 'n' key only works when subject lines actually describe the subject well. Not often. Mailing lists and digests that I have seen from the Arpanet are more interesting, accessible and of higher quality (more thought involved in the production of the submissions) than their Usenet counterparts. They present continuing discussions in an easy to understand format. I enjoy reading them. I think that the idea that moderation is evil or bad because it is censorship is an unfortunate bit of semantic confusion. A moderator would ensure that the material which was included in the moderated group did not contain fifty submissions saying exactly the same thing. He/she would ensure that things meant for net.jokes got to net.jokes and not net.serious. These are fairly mechanical, inoffensive tasks. Of course there would be room for abuse. A moderator censoring submissions because he didn't agree with their content would be "wrong". A moderator rejecting something because the English used rendered it understandable only to a psychotic is doing me a favour. You can call the moderation "bad" or "evil" when it is misused. This would have the pragmatic effect of making the moderated newsgroup worth reading. What a change. I am willing to put up with a little ideological discomfort for the sake of a useful system. (I too, oppose censorship in general.) There is technique I use for doing my bit to raise the quality of submission on the network. Whenever I come across an article that I would like to follow up on, I compose a reply in a file. I think about it for a few minutes, and then I delete it. I get to have my say and I don't bore you people with it. Occasionally I make exceptions. If more poeple did this we wouldn't be talking moderation. So what do you want? A Usenet where everone can post anything anywhere indiscriminately? Or a Usenet worth reading? I say, up with quality. To paraphrase: "Knowing something about a computer and having access to a terminal doesn't mean you have anything interesting to say." (You probably do. Sometimes. And I would rather be able to find it easily.) Busy eating small children and menacing castles, but quietly, Tracy Tims (...decvax!hcr!tracy)