ln63fkn@sdcc7.UUCP (Paul van de Graaf) (12/03/85)
Many users in my recent survey on why net.sources.mac doesn't want to go mod also brought up this point. Most others gave variations on the same arguments I posted with the survey. The argument list :-) now stands at: [whining mode] It's too much trouble to post to moderated groups. [sensible mode] Moderation introduces a lag in the posting process. [silly blather mode] Censorship is bad. Moderation is censorship. Ergo, moderation is bad. [irrate mode] The mailers are too blasted unreliable. Only 1/2 of what's mailed to the moderator gets through. I'd say this the most serious problem with moderated groups. In fact I'd guess this is what generates paranoia in some people and causes them to write Moderation = Censorship flames. Any ideas on how to tackle this problem? Perhaps the news/mail software could periodically check the paths to the moderators by trying to send them mail and waiting for a reply [hopefully automated]. If this fails an alternate path might be arranged or the news administrator could intervene. Do any members of "The Mod Squad" (ie. Lauren etc.) have any ideas? I'm still looking for more arguments against moderation. Mail 'em to me! Paul van de Graaf sdcsvax!sdcc7!ln63fkn U. C. San Diego