murray@sun13.scri.fsu.edu (John Murray) (05/13/91)
Here's one idea that I don't think has been mentioned yet: Instead of creating one or a dozen new groups to solve the misuse of the existing group, what about making the existing group moderated? In my opinion, a new group that is unmoderated won't solve anything for very long, so if we need to go to a moderated group, the appropriate thing to do is to moderate the one we're already using, rather than create a new group and leave the old one to the wolves and wolf pups. -- *Standard Disclaimers Apply*| ---Get Out Of HELL Free!--- John R. Murray |The bearer of this card is entitled to forgive murray@vsjrm.scri.fsu.edu |Himself of all Sins, Errors and Transgressions. Supercomputer Research Inst.| -- D. Owen Rowley
mcdonald@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (Doug McDonald) (05/13/91)
In article <2965@sun13.scri.fsu.edu> murray@sun13.scri.fsu.edu (John Murray) writes: >Here's one idea that I don't think has been mentioned yet: > >Instead of creating one or a dozen new groups to solve the misuse of the >existing group, what about making the existing group moderated? > >In my opinion, a new group that is unmoderated won't solve anything for very >long, so if we need to go to a moderated group, the appropriate thing to do >is to moderate the one we're already using, rather than create a new group >and leave the old one to the wolves and wolf pups. > >-- >*Standard Disclaimers Apply*| ---Get Out Of HELL Free!--- >John R. Murray |The bearer of this card is entitled to forgive >murray@vsjrm.scri.fsu.edu |Himself of all Sins, Errors and Transgressions. >Supercomputer Research Inst.| -- D. Owen Rowley This would probably result in its death: nobody would moderate it. Moderating a presently unmoderated and very popular group with the express intent of rejecting most of the submissions would result in disaster. Where else would the present submissions go but to the moderator? If he sends them on, the readers who would like a comp.graphics.research would get mad. If he refuses to send them on, the rejectees would deluge him - and news.groups - and, indeed, perhaps the people who voted for moderation - with extremely inflammatory mail. Comp.graphics is presently a VERY successful group. I find it extremely useful. If you want something different - something moderated, simply start up a new group. I would vote for that. I would vote against moderating this group. Doug McDonald
rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) (05/14/91)
In article <2965@sun13.scri.fsu.edu> murray@sun13.scri.fsu.edu (John Murray) writes: >ucp> >Followup-To: comp.graphics >Organization: SCRI, Florida State University >Lines: 15 > >Here's one idea that I don't think has been mentioned yet: > >Instead of creating one or a dozen new groups to solve the misuse of the >existing group, what about making the existing group moderated? > >In my opinion, a new group that is unmoderated won't solve anything for very >long, so if we need to go to a moderated group, the appropriate thing to do >is to moderate the one we're already using, rather than create a new group >and leave the old one to the wolves and wolf pups. So then what are you going to do with all the irritating, but legitimate, requests for XXXX viewer for machine YYYY? If you let them through, you haven't gained anything. If you don't let them through, you've cut off one of the few groups they can ask it on with some hope of answer. -- Standard disclaimer applies, you legalistic hacks. | Ron Dippold
simona@panix.uucp (Simona Nass) (05/18/91)
In article <1991May13.182057.24163@qualcomm.com> rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) writes: >In article <2965@sun13.scri.fsu.edu> murray@sun13.scri.fsu.edu (John Murray) writes: >>ucp> >>Followup-To: comp.graphics >>Organization: SCRI, Florida State University >>Lines: 15 >> >>Here's one idea that I don't think has been mentioned yet: >> >>Instead of creating one or a dozen new groups to solve the misuse of the >>existing group, what about making the existing group moderated? >> >>In my opinion, a new group that is unmoderated won't solve anything for very >>long, so if we need to go to a moderated group, the appropriate thing to do >>is to moderate the one we're already using, rather than create a new group >>and leave the old one to the wolves and wolf pups. > >So then what are you going to do with all the irritating, but legitimate, >requests for XXXX viewer for machine YYYY? If you let them through, you >haven't gained anything. If you don't let them through, you've cut off >one of the few groups they can ask it on with some hope of answer. > > >-- >Standard disclaimer applies, you legalistic hacks. | Ron Dippold I am strongly opposed to moderating it, but would like to see it broken down into sub-groups, perhaps at least: - one for image requests and discussion about same - one about the technology (how-to, opinions about viewers, etc.) -S. -- ( rutgers!cmcl2!panix!simona, uunet!jyacc!david, simona@panix.uucp )