oyster@uwmacc.UUCP (Vicious Oyster) (11/01/85)
In article <5647@amdcad.UUCP> jimb@amdcad.UUCP (Jim Budler) writes: > >The problem with mod.anything has always been that the moderator >'evaluates' the posting. His criteria will vary according to: > > 1) His beliefs. > 2) How much time he has. > >What happened to 'the free interchange of ideas'. Can't you gurus come >up with a mechanism of control which does not depend on your placing >people of your choice in a position of power to control the flow of >ideas and expressions to the rest of us out here? The "gurus" will correct me if I'm wrong, but a moderator is somebody who cares enough about the moderated subject to take the non-trivial amount of time, patience, storage space, etc., to do the work required of her/him. I sincerely doubt that anybody would take on the job if they had no interest in the subject matter. As for the free interchange of ideas, it seems you get what you pay for. To cite a recent example, the "free interchange of ideas" in net.SF-Lovers resulted in tens of messages (>30) which collectively yielded only three ideas, of which two were (in my 'umble opinion) more or less common knowledge. If you want a more technical example, look at the recent "ideas" being tossed about in net.micro, net.micro.mac, net.micro.atari, net.micro.cbm, net.micro.amiga, etc. Take away most of the Steve Jobs, Amiga vs 520ST, and Apple vs. DRI flamage and you get a reasonable volume of informative postings. If it takes a moderator to do that, I'm all for it. Now, if only somebody would volunteer... - joel "vo" plutchak {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!oyster Can you say "opinion"? I *knew* you could!
jimb@amdcad.UUCP (Jim Budler) (11/06/85)
In article <1632@uwmacc.UUCP> oyster@uwmacc.UUCP (Vicious Oyster) writes: >In article <5647@amdcad.UUCP> jimb@amdcad.UUCP (Jim Budler) writes: >>The problem with mod.anything has always been that the moderator >>'evaluates' the posting. His criteria will vary according to: >> 1) His beliefs. >> 2) How much time he has. > > The "gurus" will correct me if I'm wrong, but a moderator is somebody >who cares enough about the moderated subject to take the non-trivial amount >of time, patience, storage space, etc., to do the work required of her/him. >I sincerely doubt that anybody would take on the job if they had no interest >in the subject matter. > > As for the free interchange of ideas, it seems you get what you pay for. > >If you want a more technical example, look at the recent "ideas" being >tossed about in net.micro, net.micro.mac, net.micro.atari, net.micro.cbm, >net.micro.amiga, etc. Take away most of the Steve Jobs, Amiga vs 520ST, >and Apple vs. DRI flamage and you get a reasonable volume of informative >postings. If it takes a moderator to do that, I'm all for it. > Now, if only somebody would volunteer... > >Can you say "opinion"? I *knew* you could! It seems I have generated a lot of flames directed towards myself and my opinion on the lack of need for a moderator of the sources groups. It seems to contain an even mix of : 1) I shouldn't pick on the moderators. 2) I should do it myself if I don't trust other moderators. 3) The signal to noise ratio is terrible in net.sources, moderating would fix this. My response is: 1) I didn't, I objected to the concept. 2) If it's the only way to keep the information flowing. However, I believe there have been plenty of volunteers. Add one more to the list, Spaf. 3) The signal to noise ratio of the net is terrible. Moderating selected portions of the net would have very little true effect on the overall traffic. i.e. moderate it all or don't moderate. Since I first became involved in this rmgroup net.source.mac controversy I have subscribed to net.news and net.news.group. My opinions have changed some. Not completely, but some. -- Jim Budler Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. (408) 749-5806 Usenet: {ucbvax,decwrl,ihnp4,allegra,intelca}!amdcad!jimb Compuserve: 72415,1200 Bogus newsgroup: net.news: Move to end of .newsrc[yn^L]? Don't be dictators, use thought.