dpw@rayssd.UUCP (10/24/84)
<support free fascism>
We seem to have two side on this issue. I will not defend or attack
either side except in a small flame after my suggestion.
Point: By having moderated groups it gives one person the
power to decide what we should read. (He/she may not
abuse that power but it is still there)
POINT WELL TAKEN!
Counter Point: Having an open news groups allows anyone regardless
of content access to post news. With this lack of
control the group can become filled with junk.
THIS POINT TOO IS WELL TAKEN!
OK, now for my suggestion. For each mod.xxx form a mod.xxx.r for
articles that was rejected by the moderator. This would serve the
following purposes:
1. It give the net a chance to see what articles is being
filtered and why.
2. Second it would allow everyone a change to be heard.
3. It would also allow for comments to the moderator on
what the net wants to read. Lets the reader help set
editorial policy
4. It gives to the advantages of a mod group without losing
the advantages of a open group.
I'm sure that you can think of more reason for such a concept.
Thank you for you attention on this matter. Small flame to follow.
<< FLAME ON >>
From the amount of flames going back and fore about mod vs net groups
in net.news.group I have been converted from net to mod type groups.
These type of articles proves the need for mod groups. One of the main
reason for mod groups is to kept one or more persons from trying to
ram their own values down everyone throats. Which is what all this
flaming back & fore is all about.
Come off gang we all know the pros and cons of this issue. There is
no need to recoved it, again and again. If you think that you can
change someone else attitude give me a call. I have this bridge in
Newport, RI that I need to sell cheap, because if I don't my ex-wife
will get it :-)
<< FLAME OFF>>
Darryl Wagoner
decvax!brunix land line: 401-847-8000 x4089
allegra-------\ home line: 401-849-5730
---- !rayssd!dpw
linus-------/karsh@geowhiz.UUCP (Bruce Karsh) (10/26/84)
> > OK, now for my suggestion. For each mod.xxx form a mod.xxx.r for > articles that was rejected by the moderator. I vote for this solution to be implemented.
chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Zonker T. Chuqui) (10/27/84)
> OK, now for my suggestion. For each mod.xxx form a mod.xxx.r for > articles that was rejected by the moderator. As a moderator, I am very strongly AGAINST such a suggestion because the procedures for doing this already exist. If I refuse to post something to mod.singles, the person who originally sent it to me can simply submit it to net.singles instead. Look at some of the implications of mod.singles.r: o If I don't post something but instead suggest modifications to an article to make it more appropriate, I would have to post a version of the article to mod.singles.r, even though an improved version would show up in mod.singles shortly. o If I find something to be completely useless, tasteless, obscene, or any of the other basic reason for not posting it, I'm STILL going to be forced to post it. This has implications of legality, among other things. If someone sends me the sources to the System V kernel for posting to mod.singles, I would reject them as being inappropriate to the topic and refer them to mod.singles (who would reject them as being illegal). But in both cases we'd have to post them to mod.singles.r and mod.sources.r because they were rejected and suddenly our sites are both being inundated by thousands of AT&T lawyers on the hunt (just kidding, AT&T, really!) o Looking at the worst case, let us assume (this is PURELY hypothetical-- really!) that I decide to become a megalomaniac psycho with delusions of grandeur (remember, this is PURELY hypothetical-- I'm not that way-- really!) who feels that the only appropriate articles for mod.singles are the ones I agree with (C'mon, quit believing that stuff-- I'm making it up! honest!). Am I REALLY going to post the rejected stuff to mod.singles.r and slit my own throat? I may be insane, but I'm not stupid (I'm STILL joking, folks....). Users would have to resort to net.singles anyway-- that is exactly why we AREN'T planning on removing any of the net groups. The basic reason I'm against mod.singles.r is responsibility. As a moderator I have a responsibility to the readers to post everything to the topic that I get that is within the frame of the topic. The things that I don't post are things that I feel either aren't appropriate to the topic or in some way make the net liable, such as unix sources. By forcing me to post the rejected items as well, you are forcing me to take an implicit responsibility in those things I don't feel I can be responsible for as well. The responsibility for posting a rejected article should lay on the author, not on me. chuq -- From the Department of Bistromatics: Chuq Von Rospach {cbosgd,decwrl,fortune,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo}!nsc!chuqui nsc!chuqui@decwrl.ARPA I'd know those eyes from a million years away....
lauren@vortex.UUCP (Lauren Weinstein) (10/28/84)
The whole point of moderated groups is (as far as I am concerned) to cut down on repetition (such as 500 people answering the same question) and to insure a more valuable level of information content. People, if we continue on our current course, we'll shortly find major sites dropping out of the netnews business, and setting up separate groups to distribute the repetitous answers and obviously meaningless drivel isn't going to help at all. --Lauren--
fair@dual.UUCP (Erik E. Fair) (10/29/84)
The mod.*.r equivalent for mod.* already exists. It's called net.*
Erik E. Fair ucbvax!fair fair@ucb-arpa.ARPA
dual!fair@BERKELEY.ARPA
{ihnp4,ucbvax,hplabs,decwrl,cbosgd,sun,nsc,apple,pyramid}!dual!fair
Dual Systems Corporation, Berkeley, California