karen@everexn.uucp (Karen Valentino) (01/06/90)
illgen@hq.af.mil (Keneth..Illgen) writes: > Why do we need to have this group moderated? People write that a >moderator would be there to correct errors <maybe> and question what >one might mean in a statement. To me, that doesn't seem like enough to >show the need for a moderator. Definitely a valid point, but a moderator also determines the appropriateness of a posting. I am pro moderator for a couple of reasons. One is that I think having a moderator will eliminate technical glitches, such as postings intended for alt.unameit ending up in r.a.c. because the poster doesn't know what s/he is doing. Moderation will also serve to redirect someone who posts a question about how old Michael J. Fox was when he did Back to the Future to r.a.m., without my having to read or kill a) the original article, b) the 12 articles informing the poster of the answer (those articles will contain 5 different ages), and c) the 92 articles written by people who flame the poster for posting the question in the first place ("You moron! Go back to r.a.m. where you belong!"). Essentially, by having someone preside over the newsgroup, there is only one person who has to read the stuff that's misdirected or inflammatory. I don't post to rec.books (yet--watch out, Evelyn!) or to r.h.f. or to a couple of other moderated newsgroups that I read religiously, but I appreciate them, and I think that they accomplish their purpose--to provide their readers with quality content. And having a moderator for a group does not mean that lively discussion doesn't go on--it often does (except in r.h.f., of course--its discussions go elsewhere--YAY!). > Under what circumstances would a moderator of this group not post >an article <with the exception of those articles that would not be related >to movies whatsoever>?.... A valid question. I've already written that I don't think that a moderator should edit without permission. And I think that this issue needs discussing. I don't know how moderators for other newsgroups handle the issue of editing--maybe we could hear from some of you. >... I just feel >that those who want to continue to post articles about BTTFII and >Hoverboard will continue to do it in r.a.m and those who want to discuss >the technical and artistic aspects will include r.a.m.s in their daily >reading. I'm afraid I'm much more skeptical about this than you are. I see inappropriate postings every day (and who knows, may have originated one or two myself), and usenet groups can be pretty noisy places. In some groups noise is to be expected. What would news.groups be without noise? (Answer: Very different.) I feel very strongly that the moderator will be doing me a big favor by culling what we, by consensus, determine *belongs* in r.a.c. from the total amount of noisy stuff that is sent to the newsgroup. Karen -- Karen Valentino <> Everex North (Everex Systems) <> Sebastopol, CA ..uunet!everexn!karen ..{apple, well}!fico2!everexn!karen "I don't care what people think! I just care about my reputation!" Grant Linowitz
karen@everexn.uucp (Karen Valentino) (01/09/90)
karen@everexn.uucp (Karen Valentino) writes: >I don't post to rec.books (yet--watch out, Evelyn!) or to r.h.f. Yikes, I wrote this in error--sorry! Karen -- Karen Valentino <> Everex North (Everex Systems) <> Sebastopol, CA ..uunet!everexn!karen ..{apple, well}!fico2!everexn!karen "I don't care what people think! I just care about my reputation!" Grant Linowitz