llama@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Joe Francis) (10/12/90)
I think the moderators are in general restricting the domain of this group too tightly. I also object to CLT's steady interjection of comments into others notes. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Read My Lips: No Nude Texans!" - George Bush clearing up a misunderstanding
bweiss (10/17/90)
[I'm going to go ahead and respond right here instead of writing a separate followup. --CLT] llama@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Joe Francis) writes: >I think the moderators are in general restricting the domain of this group >too tightly. I think I might agree with this, but I don't have a copy of the charter of the group, so I could be wrong. [The charter for this group is pretty much for discussion, pro and con, about feminism; with flaming explicitly disallowed. We get both praise and complaints -- it is impossible to please everyone. If you're curious about the scope of the restrictions, you can always check the archives at ncar.ucar.edu, which store all the articles sent to soc.feminism before we see it. Essentially, 95% of what we reject are flames. The subject lines all come from you folks -- that's the major restriction on the domain (if it ain't posted, we can't approve or reject it ;-) --CLT] >I also object to CLT's steady interjection of comments into others notes. Actually, Cindy, I do agree with him here. Some of your interjections are long enough to be posts in their own right. I think they should be, to make it clear that _Cindy_ is posting her response to a legitimate post, rather than the _moderator_ suggesting the forum isn't appropriate. [This is probably true. Note, however, that I will probably get complaints for approving my own articles. I'm not complaining; this (can't please everyone syndrome) comes with the territory. But I do want you all to see where I'm coming from. Most of the time, if you people have comments about the running of the group, you can send your comments to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu, which will distribute your mail to all the current moderators of soc.feminism. --CLT] --beth bweiss@cs.arizona.edu
llama@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Joe Francis) (10/18/90)
>llama@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Joe Francis) writes: >>I also object to CLT's steady interjection of comments into others notes. In article <9010170254.AA17130@megaron.cs.arizona.edu> bweiss writes: >Actually, Cindy, I do agree with him here. Some of your interjections >are long enough to be posts in their own right. I think they should >be, to make it clear that _Cindy_ is posting her response to a >legitimate post, rather than the _moderator_ suggesting the forum >isn't appropriate. CLT writes: >[This is probably true. Note, however, that I will probably get >complaints for approving my own articles. I'm not complaining; this >(can't please everyone syndrome) comes with the territory. But I do >want you all to see where I'm coming from. >Most of the time, if you people have comments about the running of the >group, you can send your comments to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu, >which will distribute your mail to all the current moderators of >soc.feminism. --CLT] There are only two times where it is appropriate for a moderator to insert a comment into a post. The first, and most usual, case is where the moderator needs to inform possible followup posters that certain aspects of the post are perhaps best addressed in a different newsgroup. The second, rare, case is where the post specifically requests information from a moderator, or specifically addresses the moderators (or a moderator) as this one does, and might reasonably expect a reply from same. Any other interjections from moderators are intrusive and inappropriate. Any other comments moderators wish to make other than the above should be made in independent followups. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Read My Lips: No Nude Texans!" - George Bush clearing up a misunderstanding