dmmartindale@watcgl.UUCP (Dave Martindale) (01/20/85)
I really don't see why people are so opposed to moderation. As a heavy reader of news, anything that will result in a newsgroup having a higher proportion of useful or interesting articles is a *good thing* for me - it means I can continue to read groups that I want to, rather than giving up from lack of time. Moderation will certainly help this. And as a poster of news, moderation also does not bother me. When I post something, I generally think about whether it is something that the group's readers will find useful or interesting. If not, I probably won't post it. And on occasions, I've posted answers to questions only to find out in a day or so that two dozen other people have also posted the same answer - I'd be HAPPY to have a moderator delete my superfluous posting and let only one answer through. But I get the impression that some people want the "right" to post whatever they please, regardless of whether anyone else wants to hear it. I have absolutely no sympathy for these people. Other people seem to have the concern that the moderators will delete material that, in fact, other people *do* want to see. This is a legitimate concern, and there need to be some sort of mechanism of checks and balances for this to be guaranteed not to happen. But I'm willing to trust moderators in general, and willing to accept moderation even without the checks and balances as being an imperfect system that is still better than the current anarchic system. To the people who object to moderation simply on the principle that they don't want anyone having the power to screen what they read: I understand your point of view, but I don't think you should expect me to pay for the transmission of stuff I consider useless to keep you happy.
cmt@myrias.UUCP (Chris Thomson) (11/12/85)
In <530@aero.ARPA> Gary Kremin complains that Billy Brackenridge is a bad moderator because he censors items about copy protection in INFO-IBM-PC. I have read that list for over two years, and NEVER ONCE seen any sign of Billy imposing his views on the readers of the list. What I did see was an endless stream of mania regarding copy protection (like: Don't buy this program because it is copy protected, and: Anyone who copy-protects a program is a gouging slimeball), which Billy finally put an end to by refusing to forward same. I was glad. I wondered why it took so long. THE MOST IMPORTANT FUNCTION OF A MODERATOR IS CENSORSHIP. That is why moderated groups exist. That is why I read them. If a moderator is using a list or group as a soapbox, or is suppressing legitimate, useful articles, then he/she should be replaced. Failing that, people will stop reading the list/group, and start a new one. Moderators are just like newspaper editors, and their biases are just as obvious. Kremen advocates deluging Billy and others with messages asserting the right to post anything, no matter how repetitive, silly, tasteless, or illegal. That is crap. DON'T DO IT.