mike@peregrine.UUCP (Mike Wexler) (07/24/85)
I have a suggestion on how to stem the tide of repeated postings. Only the author of an article posts followups to it. In effect the originator of a discussion becomes the moderator. This can be enforced in software by make the 'f' command send mail to the author of the article unless the person posting the article is the one doing the followup. The 'f' and the 'r' options could even be combined into one option. This would also tend to reduce the number of people just posting an article since they would become moderator of that discussion and would have to handle all the related mail personally. P.S.: All comments on this idea should be sent to me and I will summarize. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mike Wexler(trwrb!pertec!peregrine!mike) | Send all flames to: 15530 Rockfield, Building C | trwrb!pertec!peregrine!nobody Irvine, Ca 92718 | They will then be given the (714)855-3923 | consideration they are due. -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mike Wexler(trwrb!pertec!peregrine!mike) | Send all flames to: 15530 Rockfield, Building C | trwrb!pertec!peregrine!nobody Irvine, Ca 92718 | They will then be given the (714)855-3923 | consideration they are due.
lwall@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Larry Wall) (07/25/85)
In article <145@peregrine.UUCP> mike@peregrine.UUCP (Mike Wexler) writes: >I have a suggestion on how to stem the tide of repeated postings. >Only the author of an article posts followups to it. In effect >the originator of a discussion becomes the moderator.... I can think of several grave deficiencies with this plan: 1) It depends on the existence of an efficient mailing system. The extra latency involved in mailing to a moderator is in some cases unacceptable. 2) It depends on the existence of a reliable mailing system. A larger percentage of articles on the net are currently unrepliable to. 3) It depends on the proponent of an idea not to censor the opponent. Flamers are not moderates, and should not be moderators. 4) It depends on the proponent not to go on vacation. The average vacation is just long enough to allow previous articles on the subject to expire. 5) It does nothing to stem the tide of "Classic Coke is back" articles. I think I counted about 50 original "Classic Coke" articles in one day. 6) The person most in need of flaming is least likely to moderate well. Not everyone is qualified to moderate in terms of editorial skills. 7) It can easily be circumvented. I can think of at least three ways, offhand. 8) People would *certainly* try to circumvent it when following up a person who puts the following in his signature: | Send all flames to: | trwrb!pertec!peregrine!nobody | They will then be given the | consideration they are due. Since Mike might consider this a flame, and he thinks flames should go to nobody, I don't trust him with this message. :-) Larry Wall {allegra,burdvax,cbosgd,hplabs,ihnp4,sdcsvax}!sdcrdcf!lwall
mike@peregrine.UUCP (Mike Wexler) (07/31/85)
> I have a suggestion on how to stem the tide of repeated postings. > Only the author of an article posts followups to it. In effect > the originator of a discussion becomes the moderator. This can be > enforced in software by make the 'f' command send mail to the author > of the article unless the person posting the article is the one > doing the followup. The 'f' and the 'r' options could even be combined > into one option. This would also tend to reduce the number of people > just posting an article since they would become moderator of that discussion > and would have to handle all the related mail personally. > The general consensus on this issue is that it is not a good idea. The reasons given are as follows: 1. It will slow down the net by requiring message to go to the original poster and then back over the net in the summary message. 2. The replies are likely to be censored by the original author. Especially if s/he has an opinion that is opposite the original poster. 3. The mail capability of the system needs improvement. Often reply doesn't generate an address which will get the response to the original poster. 4. You can already post replies and many authors all ready suggest that you send replies to them so that the results can be summarized. 5. I am told(not verified) that if the followup-to: field contains a network address, all followup will be send to the appropriate person. 6. That anybody who would say send flames to peregrine!nobody probably would not make a very good moderator. :-) I did get one response that said that this would be a good idea. I am planning on modifying reply so that it will use a pathalias database or changing my send mail to make it more intelligent about network addresses. If I choose the former route, I will post the change to the net. If I take the latter route I will post a program the will turn the network maps into a form suitable for use by the f option of sendmail. I think that general awareness of the mechanisms currently available needs to be raised. People should know better than to post the answer to a simple question when a simple reply will do and many other people probably will also have the answer. BTW I agree that it would be nice to have inews made more intelligent so that a site can choose to ignore certain articles based on group/fanin/poster/posting organization/subgect(sic). Also I think that network connectivity should be raised so one organization cutting out a newsgroup will not neccessarily effect a large group of people. Please post responses(even flames) to me and I will summarize. Mike Wexler 15530 Rockfield, Building C Irvine, Ca 92718 (714)855-3923 (trwrb|pesnta|scgvaxd)!pertec!peregrine!mike -- Mike Wexler 15530 Rockfield, Building C Irvine, Ca 92718 (714)855-3923 (trwrb|pesnta|scgvaxd)!pertec!peregrine!mike