brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) (10/19/89)
Another thing that a smart feeder can do that might be useful is redefine the concept of the moderated group. Right now moderating a group means dealing with a lot of mail, and in most cases, demand on your time. Most moderators can't even go away on vaction without complaints or special arrangements. For moderated, as opposed to edited groups, there is an interesting solution. A few dozen major (dare I say backbone?) sites keep lists of authorized posters for moderated groups. The moderator maintains those lists. If a poster shows that he or she can behave, ie. resist the temptation to post abusive flames, off topic material and other unwanted stuff, they get on the list. If you're on the list, you can post to the group, and these main sites feed your articles. If you're not on the list, the software refuses to forward your article. It also issues an immediate cancel that goes *back* along the track your article came. It also sends you mail saying what took place. It also forwards your message to the moderator (as per now) if we can figure some way to avoid hundreds of duplicates when messages hit several points with this software at the same time. Anyway, your message goes to the moderator somehow, and if it's ok, just like today, it gets posted. If you are good and ask, you get on the list. If you're on the list and you goof anyway, the moderator issues a cancel. The cancel kills that mesasge any anything that attempts to follow it up. Goof too many times and you're on the list. An alternate method would be to have a shit list instead of a good list. This would be people who have to go through the moderator -- anybody else can post freely. Problem with that is that many problems come from newcomers, and this would not deal with that. The reason I suggest this is that moderated groups aren't doing as well as we woud like them to. Many don't like them because they sometimes stifle stuff a bit too much, and they're a lot of work for the moderator. Semi-moderated groups might be the answer. The ability of the moderator to kill threads, and not just messages, would also be a start, and would be easier to do. (Just have a few key sites note ultra-cancelled messages, and have them check the root of References on each incoming message to see if it's a cancelled thread.) Of course, this wouldn't work for ultra-moderated groups like rec.humor.funny, comp.risks and rec.mag.otherrealms, but it would work for most of the others. -- Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
ray@philmtl.philips.ca (Ray Dunn) (10/20/89)
Mr. Templeton's proposal for the ultimate kill file clearly doesn't go nearly far enough. In addition to only allowing articles with specific poster _names_, the automatic moderator software should also use a list of allowable _subjects_. While implementing that feature, it would be unfortunate if the opportunity to include only approved _ideas_ and _opinions_ was not added as well. [Frankly, I can't express how disgusting I found that elitist proposal]
tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff) (10/20/89)
I see nothing about Brad's idea for extension of the moderated newsgroup concept that cannot already be done today. What is the point of devolving moderation duties onto a gaggle of well connected sites (which must then be kept up to date) instead of doing it on the moderator's host. If the moderator's host has problematic connectivity then someone else should moderate. If someone wants to write moderation scripts or programs that are driven off shit-lists or love-lists, they could do so now; you just process the incoming mail accordingly. If moderated groups aren't working as well now as some would like, then the discontented folks should either write new tools to help moderators out, or take over moderation duties themselves. -- "Of course, this is a, this is a Hunt, you | Tom Neff will -- that will uncover a lot of things. | tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET You open that scab, there's a hell of a lot of things... This involves these Cubans, Hunt, and a lot of hanky-panky that we have nothing to do with ourselves." -- RN 6/23/72
brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) (10/20/89)
In article <784@philmtl.philips.ca> ray@philmtl.philips.ca (Ray Dunn) writes: >While implementing that feature, it would be unfortunate if the >opportunity to include only approved _ideas_ and _opinions_ was not added as >well. >[Frankly, I can't express how disgusting I found that elitist proposal] "Elitist?" In a strange sense yes, in that a moderated group is somewhat elitist. But what I proposed, in the context of moderated groups, was the opposite of elitist! Under the current system, in a moderated group, only one person can post. All I suggested was a mechanism to allow people to post in moderated groups without intervention from the moderator. I suggest a method of lessening a moderator's intervention, and it gets called disgustingly elitist. I suppose I should have suggested strengthening it! The reactions of usenet people always amaze me. Yes, moderated groups are elitist of course. But most people would say that's what's good about 'em. -- Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
dveditz@dbase.UUCP (Dan Veditz) (10/21/89)
Ray Dunn writes (heavy on the sarcasm): - In addition to only allowing articles with specific poster _names_, the - automatic moderator software should also use a list of allowable _subjects_. - - While implementing that feature, it would be unfortunate if the - opportunity to include only approved _ideas_ and _opinions_ was not added as - well. - - [Frankly, I can't express how disgusting I found that elitist proposal] Brad was proposing a *tool* to help cut down some of the work moderators must do. Moderators currently *DO* reject articles with subjects inappropriate for the group, with topics that have been rehashed many times, or with objectionable content (flames and the like). Do you object to moderators? If you agree that moderators are useful--or even necessary--in some cases then something like the proposed tool could help them do their jobs. If a moderator turns into a despotic censor then an unmoderated group will probably be formed, perhaps even in alt.* to avoid a vote. (Or, for example, alt.sys.sun was formed when the delay induced by an overworked moderator of comp.sys.sun was too long for some people to wait). Brad's proposed tool would create semi-moderated groups. In one version the moderator keeps a list of people trusted to post in good taste, and in the other version it is a list of people who have shown that their postings may require good ol' hand moderating. Note that it WAS NOT a "Kill" file that automatically junks articles, it regulated the number of articles the moderator had to give personal attention to. The proposal was no more "elitist" than any other moderator scheme. -Daniel Veditz uunet!ashtate!dveditz
rob@phavl.UUCP (Robert Ransbottom) (10/22/89)
In article <36450@looking.on.ca> Brad sez: >"Elitist?" In a strange sense yes, in that a moderated group is >somewhat elitist. But what I proposed, in the context of moderated ^^^\ a "controller" allows posting to his news.group by putting people in a post.allow or post.deny file. >groups, was the opposite of elitist! Under the current system, in a >moderated group, only one person can post. All I suggested was a mechanism >to allow people to post in moderated groups without intervention from >the moderator. > This is badly thought. In the current system one person moderates or edits. All may post. Thus a moderator can put out his group on the basis of the content of the messages, not by authorship. >I suggest a method of lessening a moderator's intervention, and it gets >called disgustingly elitist. [ ... ] Quite reasonably so. Of course if the elite were truely the elite, it would be okay :-). -- rob
tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff) (10/22/89)
The proposal to offer automation for some aspects of moderation
(e.g., instant approval for selected posters, rejection for others,
categorization on subject etc) has merit. All you need is a script
to handle the mail a moderator normally gets.
The part of the proposal where these duties were decentralized out
to well connected sites sounds bad. You just create a bunch of
chances to get out of synch, and not that much work is saved. Groups
where posting policy is restricted should continue to be run via the
moderation mail mechanism. Tools to make this easier would be welcome.
--
'We have luck only with women -- \\\ Tom Neff
not spacecraft!' *-((O tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET
-- R. Kremnev, builder of FOBOS \\\ uunet!bfmny0!tneff (UUCP)ray@philmtl.philips.ca (Ray Dunn) (10/24/89)
In article <36450@looking.on.ca> Brad Templeton writes: > All I suggested was a mechanism >to allow people to post in moderated groups without intervention from >the moderator. In article <280@dbase.UUCP> dveditz@dbase.UUCP (Dan Veditz) writes: >Brad was proposing a *tool* to help cut down some of the work moderators >must do. > Moderators currently *DO* reject articles with subjects inappropriate >for the group, with topics that have been rehashed many times, or with >objectionable content (flames and the like). Of course they do, but one hopes that they apply the same selection criteria (no matter how ill defined), to each potential posting. What is being proposed would clearly create different classes of usenet citizen. Those who are pre-"approved", and those who must subject their opinions to the current vagaries of the moderator. I do see "elitist" as being an appropriate word for such a system of semi-closed "clubs", and I do find that more insidious than straight moderation. That it would make it easier for the elite of such a system to post is not a justification of the elitism. Newsgroup moderation is a service. The "tool" being proposed here optimizes the organization of the service at the expense of the service itself. This is a common mistake of service organizations who lose sight of their mandate and see their work as an end in itself, not something I necessarily believe is at work here, but there does seem to occasionally be a lack of appreciation of the sensitive nature of the moderation process. -- Ray Dunn. | UUCP: ray@philmt.philips.ca Philips Electronics Ltd. | ..!{uunet|philapd|philabs}!philmtl!ray 600 Dr Frederik Philips Blvd | TEL : (514) 744-8200 Ext : 2347 (Phonemail) St Laurent. Quebec. H4M 2S9 | FAX : (514) 744-6455 TLX : 05-824090