asente@Cascade.ARPA (11/21/85)
A couple weeks ago I suggested that problems with moderated groups could be largely eliminated by having multiple moderators per group-- if one moderator didn't like your submission, you could always try another. There was no response at all. However, fearless soul that I am, I will venture to suggest another solution to the moderation problem (if there is indeed any problem with moderated groups other than in the imaginations of detractors). Why not create an unmoderated group, net.moderation-complaints, where anyone who had a complaint about a group moderator could post things? If it turned out that there was really a problem with a moderator, he could be replaced. So why not? -paul asente asente@SU-Cascade.ARPA decwrl!Glacier!Cascade!asente
mark@cbosgd.UUCP (Mark Horton) (11/22/85)
In article <22@Cascade.ARPA> asente@Cascade.ARPA writes: >A couple weeks ago I suggested that problems with moderated groups >could be largely eliminated by having multiple moderators per group-- >if one moderator didn't like your submission, you could always try another. >There was no response at all. Perhaps everyone agreed or didn't care. I think multiple moderators is in principle a good thing. The moderators have to coordinate among themselves very carefully, to prevent duplicates and make sure that back issues are equally accessable, so it's more work for the moderator. But right now we have a shortage of moderators even one per group. >However, fearless soul that I am, I will venture to suggest another >solution to the moderation problem (if there is indeed any problem with >moderated groups other than in the imaginations of detractors). Why not >create an unmoderated group, net.moderation-complaints, where anyone >who had a complaint about a group moderator could post things? If it >turned out that there was really a problem with a moderator, he could >be replaced. I think this is an excellent idea. As long as this newsgroup doesn't take up significant volume (e.g. long repetitive discussions moving there) it should make it clear that people are not being censored. We should also have a provision where a moderator can be thrown out if the net doesn't like the job they are doing. This would basically mean that someone else would have to be willing to moderate, and have an election between the two. Mark Horton
avolio@decuac.UUCP (Frederick M. Avolio) (11/23/85)
In article <1629@cbosgd.UUCP>, mark@cbosgd.UUCP (Mark Horton) writes: > In article <22@Cascade.ARPA> asente@Cascade.ARPA writes: > >A couple weeks ago I suggested that problems with moderated groups > >could be largely eliminated by having multiple moderators per group-- > > ... > Perhaps everyone agreed or didn't care. ... "asente@Cascade.ARPA," I am sorry. I -- probably like many others -- agreed but didn't say so. I think both of your ideas are good, though I think the second (moderated groups and a net.mod-complaints) is more practical than the first. I would really like to see all of the non-technical groups -- maybe with the exception of net.general or net.misc (which I would not read :-)) -- go to moderated groups. That means no non-moderated net version. (Mod.sources *looks* like a failure only because net.sources still exists and people post there rather than to mod.sources.) I used to read many non-technical groups, but have started to drop them (personally) one by one. (Every 2 or 3 months someone in net.startrek brings up the question of whether the transporter can be sueed to duplicate people or recreate them when they are old. The discussion about admirals vs. commodores in the military is still going on. And in almost every other group we can read "answers" to questions that start off "Well, I really don't know but I seem to think that I kind of remember....") -- Fred @ DEC Ultrix Applications Center {decvax,seismo,cbosgd}!decuac!avolio
lamy@utai.UUCP (Jean-Francois Lamy) (11/23/85)
How about a scheme where the moderator simply prepends "I warned you" to
the title of articles he would have killed?
Persons trusting the moderator simply put up a kill file. Hard-core
supporters of freedom of insanity simply read everything.
This may even cut on volume, since the temptation to respond inanely to
a particularely inane message may not occur (only the moderator has to
keep his temper when replying).
Such a scheme may not be appropriate for net.sources.*, where the
moderator in fact should be more of a museum curator than a newspaper
editor. Having everything go through the curator would probably cut a
lot on phony and not very useful software.
(net.binhex.mac specific arguments:) As for posting sources vs binaries, Mac
binaries are often shorter than the source (remember that most Mac
programs heavily rely on the system routines and ressources whose code
is not present in the executable version).
Assuming that the intersection of
a) people actually doing developpment on their Macs
b) having the particular compiler needed to ingest a given source
c) having a interest in a particular source AFTER seeing what it does :-)
is in fact quite small, I would tend to favor mailing source requests to
the author, which uses news only if after a couple of days the demand is
such that a reasonable cover of the backbone sites has been attained.
In this way, everybody gets to see only mostly useful stuff (since it
has been seen by the curator), and special interests are still well
served.
--
Jean-Francois Lamy
Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto,
Departement d'informatique et de recherche operationnelle, U. de Montreal.
CSNet: lamy@toronto.csnet
UUCP: {utzoo,ihnp4,decwrl,uw-beaver}!utcsri!utai!lamy
CDN: lamy@iro.udem.cdn (lamy%iro.udem.cdn@ubc.csnet)lear@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU (eliot lear) (11/25/85)
I would be very careful about having a group like net.moderation-complaints.
The net could alienate the moderators and end up with a worse shortage...
eliot lear
[uucp:{seismo,allegra,packard}!topaz!lear]
[arpa:lear@topaz.rutgers.edu]
/* Look Mom! No wigits!!! */