gnu@l5.uucp (John Gilmore) (12/30/85)
Aside from today's technical problems with mod groups, I would be a lot happier with them if we implemented the semi-moderator suggestion. Maybe we could make the threshold 3 copies, with the obvious link to "I tell you three times" (cf Stand on Zanzibar by John Brunner). I believe it's great that today's moderators [tend to] follow this rule. I am leery of setting up such a structure without tying down the rule in a "constitution" of sorts, so it persists after the current set of moderators and users has turned over. Can we agree that: Nobody will moderate a newsgroup without having first agreed that they will always post verbatim an article received three times from the same person, and containing the string 'I tell you three times' in the last copy received. The moderator may enclose an explanation of their objections to the article if desired. If a moderator refuses such an article, the sender may appeal in any (moderated or unmoderated) newsgroup of their choice. Moderators agree to post any such appeal received. This reduces the chance of "blacklisting" to the chance that *all* the moderators are corrupt. To "moderate" a newsgroup is to exercise intentional control over its contents, whether for technical, legal, editorial, or any other reasons. I think this policy, if enforced by us (the users) on the moderators, would preserve the basic anarchy and resulting free exchange on the Usenet, while providing a significant trash filter.
roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith) (12/31/85)
> If a moderator refuses such an article, the sender may appeal > in any (moderated or unmoderated) newsgroup of their choice. > Moderators agree to post any such appeal received. How about simply what everybody has been saying all along: If the moderator of mod.foo won't accept your article, just post it to net.foo. I don't understand what this "appeal" stuff is all about. -- Roy Smith <allegra!phri!roy> System Administrator, Public Health Research Institute 455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016
campbell@maynard.UUCP (Larry Campbell) (01/02/86)
> How about simply what everybody has been saying all along: If the > moderator of mod.foo won't accept your article, just post it to net.foo. I > don't understand what this "appeal" stuff is all about. > -- > Roy Smith <allegra!phri!roy> > System Administrator, Public Health Research Institute > 455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016 Sometimes 'net.foo' doesn't exist. -- Larry Campbell The Boston Software Works, Inc. ARPA: maynard.UUCP:campbell@harvard.ARPA 120 Fulton Street UUCP: {harvard,cbosgd}!wjh12!maynard!campbell Boston MA 02109
greenber@phri.UUCP (Ross Greenberg) (01/02/86)
> > How about simply what everybody has been saying all along: If the > > moderator of mod.foo won't accept your article, just post it to net.foo. I > > don't understand what this "appeal" stuff is all about. > > 455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016 > > Sometimes 'net.foo' doesn't exist. > Is that when you should use net.general? :-) ross m. greenberg ihnp4!allegra!phri!sysdes!greenber
phil@amdcad.UUCP (Phil Ngai) (01/04/86)
It seems there are a significant number of people worried enough about
censorship that they want a last resort method of making sure they can
post. My expectation is that the people most likely to use this
mechanism are the ones I don't want to hear from. So I think I'd like
to see yet another header line added indicating whether the moderator
thinks this article is worth reading. Then I could probably set up rn
to junk all such articles and we could all be happy. It could be called
"Trash: yes" or something like that.
--
Smokers are the lepers of the 80's.
Phil Ngai +1 408 749 5720
UUCP: {ucbvax,decwrl,ihnp4,allegra}!amdcad!phil
ARPA: amdcad!phil@decwrl.dec.comlauren@vortex.UUCP (Lauren Weinstein) (01/05/86)
If you put messages in the moderated groups that the moderator feels shouldn't be in there, you are forcing people to receive those messages simply to throw them away. Talk about wasteful.... --Lauren--