sdyer@bbncca.ARPA (Steve Dyer) (10/02/84)
Another possibility for the future of 'net.motss' is to form a "moderated"
newsgroup, something which was suggested at the time of its formation, but
never acted upon, perhaps because of its somewhat isolationist
connotations. For those new to the net, moderated newsgroups cannot be
posted to directly; rather, articles must be sent in a mail message to a
designated moderator, who then redistributes (or not) the article onto the
net. Such groups are named "mod.X", so our hypothetical newsgroup would be
"mod.motss", a nicely alliterative name.
Unlike the pretense of the net at large for such egalitarian goals as
"free speech", the purpose of a moderated newsgroup is to filter out
the irrelevant drek which is invariably attracted to certain newsgroups:
witness the gradual (but effective) replacement of the unmoderated
'net.general' by the moderated 'net.announce'. In the case of net.motss,
a group formed to foster intelligent discussion about gay issues, it has
recently in the past three months been overrun by bible thumpers and
purveyors of disinformation who are seemingly intent upon repeating
themselves again and again without any pretense to reason.
The reaction of most readers of net.motss has been increasing impatience,
where by now, articles of this kind now outnumber the serious. I have
received many letters describing overworked 'n' keys, and some people
interested in gay issues have simply ceased reading (not to mention
submitting) simply because of the bother of wading through such trash.
This, of course, is the worst situation imaginable; we cannot allow
the newsgroup to die or become ineffective due to the efforts of
an unreasoned few.
It is in this light that I recommend creating 'mod.motss', a newsgroup
essentially identical to 'net.motss', but one in which the articles
are screened by a moderator, a benevolent dictator whose only role is
to ensure that the posted article conforms with the purpose stated in
the first submission to 'net.motss' (copies available on request.)
Sure, this is a lot of "power" given to one person, but it is bestowed
by consensus. It is, in my personal view, much preferable to the
anarchic situation we see here right now.
Nor is this in any sense an abridgement of "free speech" (the ideal-- no
one ever claimed that USENET had to be either "fair" or "free".) Those who
would like to quote scripture or make incessant derogatory remarks about
gay people may continue to do so IN ANOTHER NEWSGROUP. They may take their
pick: net.flame is perhaps the most suitable, though even the most hardened
readers of that newsgroup may soon cry "enough!" and make a plea for
"mod.flame" :-)
I invite comments on this proposal. Some people might view this action,
if we agree to it, as a "defeat" of sorts, an outright admission that
a newsgroup devoted to gay issues could not operate effectively within
the heterogenious collection of discussion groups which comprise USENET.
I would not agree. First, only a few individuals are the problem here
(some would claim that there is only one "problem" here, and his initials
are Ken Arndt.) Second, if anything, it would increase the level of
discourse by ensuring that postings DO conform to the reasons for the
group's existence. I also do not think that the moderation should be
unnecessarily restrictive: honest inquiries and discussions, such as
Mark Terribile's of a few months ago, or the recent exegesis of
Scripture as viewed by Boswell, are all well within the limits as I
see them (the moderator may feel differently.) I see this as primarily
an expedient means to rid ourselves of "cranks", while improving
upon the very successful past year of net.motss.
One technical question remains: what is the distribution of mod.all
within USENET these days, as compared to net.all? I would hate to
see the distribution of the list drop off dramatically.
--
/Steve Dyer
{decvax,linus,ima,ihnp4}!bbncca!sdyer
sdyer@bbncca.ARPAwmartin@brl-tgr.UUCP (10/05/84)
This seems an excellent idea, but I propose one slight modification: "net.motss" continue to exist as is, but that any worthwhile item deemed by the moderator to be of value be extracted and included in "mod.motss". Thus, net.motss could include anything, unlimited and uncensored, while mod.motss would contain any direct submissions mailed to and cleared by the moderator, plus any items from net.motss that are worth including. Mod.motss thus has the best of both worlds. (Now, all you need is a moderator, and provide him tools to cleanly and simply do such transference across group boundaries -- he needs a "transfer" command to use as he reads net.motss, which will simply take the just-read existing posting, replace the "Newsgroups:" contents with "mod.motss", and copy it to his host's "mod.motss" directory.)