2nd CFD: moderated alt.fan.furry group
Peter da Silva
before we can proceed. The name has to be chosen, the details of the moderation policy and charter need to be worked out, and the address of the moderation
bot should be decided upon.
There have not been many suggestions. The obvious ones (alt.fan.furry.moderated
and alt.fan.furry.misc) have been preempted by a group of vandals. I'm somewhat
reluctant to post the ideas that have come my way lest they simply go ahead and
issue preemptive newgroups for them as well. The best suggestion is already the
name of a furry mailing list, but it *is* a good name.
On the moderation policy, open issues include: choice of moderators, moderator
comments, blacklisted keywords, and exactly what is to be done about moderators
who don't follow the policy.
There are three proposals on the table for election of moderators. One is still
being worked out. The second is mine, which would involve a simple approval
vote of all candidates, and any candidate with a high enough approval level
will be accepted. Initially, 60% will be enough to pass, but if fewer than 3
moderators with that high an approval rating are found it will be adjusted
downwards until 3 moderators are found. The third, Doug Wingers', is to take
all volunteers and hold a no-confidence vote if any misbehave.
That brings us to the second part of the election issue. How to deal with
misbehaving moderators... a spot no-confidence vote that they have to pass
with a 50% approval rate (as per Doug's proposal) seems reasonable. Originally
I was thinking in terms of a periodic repeat of the original vote but this
seems to serve the same purpose with less work.
On the charter we have:
"The purpose of new.group is for the discussion of anthropomorphic animals,
especially those found in literature, artwork, and other media; and to serve
as a resource for furry fans to exchange news and information relevant to the
fandom."
"The newsgroup is moderated, with a fairly open policy. Deliberately disruptive
posts, particularly from outside the readership, and debate (pro OR con) over
real-life sexual issues are the only topics completely barred."
Finally, the moderation address will be alt-fa...@taronga.com unless
another candidate is available (possibly a new domain or a forwarder at
fysh.org or fur.com).
--
This is The Reverend Peter da Silva's Boring Sig File - there are no references
to Wolves, Kibo, Discordianism, or The Church of the Subgenius in this document
Executive Vice President, Corporate Communications, Entropy Gradient Reversals.
rune....@worldnet.att.mil
>
> There are several issues that still need to be addressed by the group
> before we can proceed. The name has to be chosen, the details of the moderation policy and charter need to be worked out, and the address of the moderation
> bot should be decided upon.
>
> There have not been many suggestions. The obvious ones (alt.fan.furry.moderated
> and alt.fan.furry.misc) have been preempted by a group of vandals. I'm somewhat
> reluctant to post the ideas that have come my way lest they simply go ahead and
> issue preemptive newgroups for them as well. The best suggestion is already the
> name of a furry mailing list, but it *is* a good name.
Ok, now I am confused. Why are either of the names above off-limits? If
it was feasible to change a well-propagated, established, group of nine
years existence WHY is it NOT possible to do the same with either of
these non-propagated, non-established, groups? The same mechanism should
work even better, shouldn't it?
Peter da Silva
<rune....@worldnet.att.mil> wrote:
>Ok, now I am confused. Why are either of the names above off-limits? If
>it was feasible to change a well-propagated, established, group of nine
>years existence WHY is it NOT possible to do the same with either of
>these non-propagated, non-established, groups? The same mechanism should
>work even better, shouldn't it?
Because there's a crank with an attitude behind those groups. If we try and
use those names "Wotan" and the others will be sure to announce that *they*
own those groups and *they* created them and that *they* are responsible for
moderating them.
Given the knee-jerk reaction I got from alt.config and news.admin, I have
no hope for sanity from that direction.
rune....@worldnet.att.mil
>
> In article <380B90...@worldnet.att.mil>,
> <rune....@worldnet.att.mil> wrote:
> >Ok, now I am confused. Why are either of the names above off-limits? If
> >it was feasible to change a well-propagated, established, group of nine
> >years existence WHY is it NOT possible to do the same with either of
> >these non-propagated, non-established, groups? The same mechanism should
> >work even better, shouldn't it?
>
> Because there's a crank with an attitude behind those groups. If we try and
> use those names "Wotan" and the others will be sure to announce that *they*
> own those groups and *they* created them and that *they* are responsible for
> moderating them.
>
> Given the knee-jerk reaction I got from alt.config and news.admin, I have
> no hope for sanity from that direction.
Good point. Thanks.
diespa...@best.com
: Because there's a crank with an attitude behind those groups. If we try and
: use those names "Wotan" and the others will be sure to announce that *they*
: own those groups and *they* created them and that *they* are responsible for
: moderating them.
So? No one "owns" newsgroups. *They* have no more credibility
if they say they "own" a newsgroup than you do.
: Given the knee-jerk reaction I got from alt.config and news.admin, I have
: no hope for sanity from that direction.
They know how sneaky you are.
Peter da Silva
> So? No one "owns" newsgroups. *They* have no more credibility
> if they say they "own" a newsgroup than you do.
There are people who have an interest in a group. The long term readers and
posters interested in the fandom. They're the ones I listen to.
J. J. Novotny
> There have not been many suggestions. The obvious ones (alt.fan.furry.moderated
> and alt.fan.furry.misc) have been preempted by a group of vandals.
Howza bout alt.fan.anthropomorphics.moderated? Or
rec.arts.furry/rec.arts.anthropomorphic? (Too much work trying to hit
the big-8??) Or alt.arts.furry?
> On the moderation policy, open issues include: choice of moderators, moderator
> comments, blacklisted keywords, and exactly what is to be done about moderators
> who don't follow the policy.
I'm sort of covering this in other threads. Is that all right?
> On the charter we have:
>
> "The purpose of new.group is for the discussion of anthropomorphic animals,
> especially those found in literature, artwork, and other media; and to serve
> as a resource for furry fans to exchange news and information
> relevant to the fandom."
This is good.
> "The newsgroup is moderated, with a fairly open policy. Deliberately disruptive
> posts, particularly from outside the readership, and debate (pro OR con) over
> real-life sexual issues are the only topics completely barred."
Also good. Maybe something about insults being off topic. As well, we
should give some examples of things that are on topic. It's good to keep
in mind that new fans will be coming by all the time, and they will want
to know if this is a good place for them. We should hit some key words
like Pogo, Lion King, Albedo, Radio Comix, etc., just so newbies aren't
left too confused.
Thanks for the CFD, Peter. I think you are doing a great job with this.
Best;
J. J.
P. S. What's Discordianism?
Peter da Silva
J. J. Novotny <umno...@cc.umanitoba.ca> wrote:
>Howza bout alt.fan.anthropomorphics.moderated? Or
>rec.arts.furry/rec.arts.anthropomorphic? (Too much work trying to hit
>the big-8??) Or alt.arts.furry?
If you want to move out of alt.fan, there are already the furrynet groups.
The alt.fan.furry hierarchy is where people keep reading and posting.
>P. S. What's Discordianism?
Type in "sacred chao" in any search engine.
Richard Chandler - WA Resident
> On the moderation policy, open issues include: choice of
> moderators, moderator comments, blacklisted keywords, and exactly what
> is to be done about moderators who don't follow the policy.
Choice of moderators: After the other details have been hammered out, post a
message listing all the people who have volunteered during the course of this
discussion. Give them a few days to reconfirm. Issue a ballot. Take votes,
and accept however many win approval.
Modrator comments: I opt for the canned list. More detailed comments can be
done with a followup message. Canned list can be edited and added to as
necessary by the Moderators.
Blacklisted Keywords: Nothing automatic. Perhaps the moderator's page can
have a noteboard function to point out problems to the next "shift".
Booting Moderators: Two methods. Supermajority of the moderators, or a call
for a vote of no confidence by the readers. (Such meta-discussions must be
considered on topic). But, the moderator in question can't be booted until a
replacement is found.
Adding Moderators. Anyone can ask to become a moderator, but must attain
enough votes to be approved. (We need a quantity as well as percentage here,
probably based on the last general vote).
> There are three proposals on the table for election of moderators. One
> is still being worked out. The second is mine, which would involve
> a simple approval vote of all candidates, and any candidate with a
> high enough approval level will be accepted. Initially, 60% will be
> enough to pass, but if fewer than 3 moderators with that high an
> approval rating are found it will be adjusted downwards until 3
> moderators are found. The third, Doug Wingers', is to take all
> volunteers and hold a no-confidence vote if any misbehave.
I vote for the 60% or whatever method. The Party thing is bogus. The No
Confidence thing is a part of Moderator replacement.
> That brings us to the second part of the election issue. How to deal
> with misbehaving moderators... a spot no-confidence vote that they have
> to pass with a 50% approval rate (as per Doug's proposal) seems
> reasonable. Originally I was thinking in terms of a periodic repeat of
> the original vote but this seems to serve the same purpose with less
> work.
Agreed. Moderators can remain moderators until voted out, or they are
inactive for a significant (6 months of no work) period of time.
> Finally, the moderation address will be alt-fa...@taronga.com
> unless another candidate is available (possibly a new domain or
> a forwarder at fysh.org or fur.com).
This must be addressed soon. Pun not intended.
--
The greatest tragedy is that the same species that achieved space flight,
a cure for polio, and the transistor, is also featured nightly on COPS.
-- Richard Chandler
Spammer Warning: Washington State Law now provides civil penalties for UCE.
David Cooksey
Richard Chandler - WA Resident <mau...@kendra.com> wrote in message
news:991018215...@mauser.at.kendra.com...
> > There are three proposals on the table for election of moderators. One
> > is still being worked out. The second is mine, which would involve
> > a simple approval vote of all candidates, and any candidate with a
> > high enough approval level will be accepted. Initially, 60% will be
> > enough to pass, but if fewer than 3 moderators with that high an
> > approval rating are found it will be adjusted downwards until 3
> > moderators are found. The third, Doug Wingers', is to take all
> > volunteers and hold a no-confidence vote if any misbehave.
>
> I vote for the 60% or whatever method. The Party thing is bogus. The No
> Confidence thing is a part of Moderator replacement.
I just wanted to pipe up with a me too on this particular issue. Percentages
can be reached by agreement among interested INDIVIDUALS on the group.
David
diespa...@best.com
:> So? No one "owns" newsgroups. *They* have no more credibility
:> if they say they "own" a newsgroup than you do.
: There are people who have an interest in a group. The long term readers and
: posters interested in the fandom. They're the ones I listen to.
"I agree with people who agree with me."
-- Sneaky Peter da Silva
ilr
> Given the knee-jerk reaction I got from alt.config and news.admin, I have
> no hope for sanity from that direction.
>
How bout we all go to their groups and show that we're
serious about this. If they were given ANY type of authority
over newsgroups, than they have a responsibility to help
offer their services without uncalled-for prejudice. They can't
just give us the finger based on us being unpopular "furries".
And just like any other abuse on the 'net, you just keep going up
the chain of command, and you'll eventually find a reasonable supervisor.
--- i l r
Peter da Silva
>How bout we all go to their groups and show that we're
>serious about this.
I already tried it, and got accused of high crimes and misdemeanours by
people I thought knew better.
>If they were given ANY type of authority
>over newsgroups, than they have a responsibility to help
>offer their services without uncalled-for prejudice.
They haven't been given any authority, they've just taken it.
>And just like any other abuse on the 'net, you just keep going up
>the chain of command, and you'll eventually find a reasonable supervisor.
This is Usenet. There's no supervisor. There's no chain of command. There's
no justice, there's just us... and for once, let that be a *hopeful* pun
(even if it's still a bad one).
Matthew Milam
Peter da Silva <pe...@taronga.com> wrote in message
news:7ufa8t$b...@bonkers.taronga.com...
> There are several issues that still need to be addressed by the group
> before we can proceed.
Yeah, like do you have a fan club?
Matthew Milam
mmi...@interlync.com
Matthew Milam
Yeah, and they seem to be talking to the trolls or acting like morons
themsleves. Tea anyone?
Matthew Milam
mmi...@interlync.com
Wayd Wolf
Matthew Milam <mmi...@interlync.com> wrote in message
news:7ui48g$ck5$1...@raccoon.fur.com...
And people say you don't have a point. (waves and takes tea) This
reminds me.
RULES OF TROLL ENGAGEMENT
1. DON'T REPLY
They enjoy it. Left ignored, they go away and bother someone else
like their parents for money to go to the arcade.
2. IF REPLYING, STRIP HEADERS AND REPLIES OF TROLLERY
The cross post fools will not only put the Karl Malden Nose place
in or whatever, they will also put in the target group and some other
innocents. Spare yourself and the innocents by removing your group
and those innocent groups so that the reply will end up ONLY in the
trolls' home turf. They'll have to use their minds and actually
remember to put your group back in the distribution.
Also, kill files are useless when the trolls' posts are quoted
verbatim in the replies of people we haven't kill filed. Stop
reposting their garbage for them.
3. KNOW THE TROLLS
Trolls enjoy hurting other people. Sadism. Trolls run from real
confrontation. Cowardice. Combine a sadist and a coward and you get a
bully. Basic school-yard fourth-grade entity. And they should be left
there. Refer to rule #1.
I vote for keeping a.f.f as is, creating a new moderated area,
and having a multiperson moderator group with voting and such.
As a thought, if we create alt.fan.random.and.stukafox, can we
troll there with off-topic nonsense about furry movies, comics, and
conventions?
-Wayd Wolf
P.S.
"Sheriff Da Silva, Sherrif Da Silva!"
"What's the matter there little missy?"
"We need you sherrif! There's trolls a comin!"
"Deputy Chandler! Get yer off yer butt and round up a posse!"
"But sheriff, we ain't but got four or five people we can trust
to this work!"
"Then we'll be all that stand against them varmints. Get yer
rifle."
Sorry, but the imagery of the wild west is on my mind for some
reason.
Forrest
Wayd Wolf <wo...@your.door> wrote :
>Trolls run from real confrontation.
Addendum: the definition of real confrontation appears to be a situation
that transcends the screen, for example when ISPs get involved.
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
>In article <7uh6ma$56e$1...@crucigera.fysh.org>, ilr <i...@rof.net> wrote:
>>How bout we all go to their groups and show that we're
>>serious about this.
>
>I already tried it, and got accused of high crimes and misdemeanours by
>people I thought knew better.
There has been a great amount of missunderstanding about this.
>>If they were given ANY type of authority
>>over newsgroups, than they have a responsibility to help
>>offer their services without uncalled-for prejudice.
>
>They haven't been given any authority, they've just taken it.
Can we take it back. Would Tale edit the records in our favour?
--
Please excuse my spelling as I suffer from agraphia. See
http://www.zeta.org.au/~dformosa/Spelling.html to find out more.
Kay Shapero
"J>Peter da Silva wrote:
> There have not been many suggestions. The obvious ones
(alt.fan.furry.moderated
> and alt.fan.furry.misc) have been preempted by a group of vandals.
"J>Howza bout alt.fan.anthropomorphics.moderated? Or
"J>rec.arts.furry/rec.arts.anthropomorphic? (Too much work trying to
"J>hit the big-8??) Or alt.arts.furry?
And what's to prevent the "vandals" from doing the same thing to whatever
name is brought up? When a group of people are deciding on something in
public, there is a necessary lag time between proposal of name and
acceptance, which does not exist for someone acting solely on their own.
Why the heck NOT go for a rec.* group? Granted there are ways for people
to make utter prats of themselves there too, but at least it would remove
this particular form of idiocy. Alt.* groups can be created by anybody
with a server. It takes a bit more to get one of the "big 8" up. But the
rules aren't all that onerous - alt.music.filk successfully moved to
rec.music.filk a few years back (without bothering to delete the original
group which still serves as a place to post things that don't fit the
charter of r.m.f like bawdy songs.) Yes, there'd be a lot of yelling and
stuff, but I suspect even this group wouldn't match some of what's gone on
in there in the past (those who remember the rec.pet.cats reorganization
may now shudder reminicently. :->)
Peter da Silva
I will, as I've noted earlier, be happy to assist anyone who wants to in
coming up with a proposal. I will run the moderation software for them, if
needed.
But I am not going to try and run a vote through news.groups. Too much
pain, too little chance of success.
Dave Huang
David Cooksey <ot...@mustelid.com> wrote:
>Richard Chandler - WA Resident <mau...@kendra.com> wrote in message
>news:991018215...@mauser.at.kendra.com...
>> Confidence thing is a part of Moderator replacement.
>
>I just wanted to pipe up with a me too on this particular issue. Percentages
>can be reached by agreement among interested INDIVIDUALS on the group.
Yeah, I agree.
--
Name: Dave Huang | Mammal, mammal / their names are called /
INet: kh...@bga.com | they raise a paw / the bat, the cat /
FurryMUCK: Dahan | dolphin and dog / koala bear and hog -- TMBG
Dahan: Hani G Y+C 23 Y++ L+++ W- C++ T++ A+ E+ S++ V++ F- Q+++ P+ B+ PA+ PL++
Kay Shapero
Pd>In article <d6a_991...@salata.com>,
Pd>Kay Shapero <kay.s...@salata.com> wrote:
>Why the heck NOT go for a rec.* group?
Pd>But I am not going to try and run a vote through news.groups. Too
Pd>much
Pd>pain, too little chance of success.
Well, we didn't have that much trouble with rec.music.filk and I didn't
think we had a chance when I started the proposal - I only did it because
the rest of a.m.f asked me to. I was delighted with the results. To be
sure, we had a polite constituency that stuck to the topic, discussed the
charter in a businesslike manner, made what changes needed to be made, and
then held the election. It could be the contrast between this and the
folks who, at the same time, were throwing fireballs at each other over the
split of rec,pet.cats of all things helped as well. :->
Now weirdly enough I see some of the same sort of businesslike
consideration in here - a lot of useful things have been done to further
this idea. And while there are some users who can't post without being
nasty, the fact that there are only a few would be visible to the users at
large on the newgroups group pretty quickly. It might not be as bad as you
think.
Muke Tever
>1. DON'T REPLY
> They enjoy it. Left ignored, they go away and bother someone
>else like their parents for money to go to the arcade.
Addendum 1a: Never mention trolls
A passing insult is just as bad as a direct reply. (And the
existence of trolls as a thing to be mentioned is almost always in
insult.)
Corollary to Addendum 1a:
Addendum 1a is a rule that is broken by its own invocation. (It
remains to be seen whether invoking this corollary changes that, as it
does for Godwin's Law)
*Muke, breaking his own rules, just this once.
--
AIM: MukeTurtle "Multiple choice is not always the right answer."
ICQ: 1936556
Web: http://i.am/muke
Update? What's that?
Dr. Cat
: RULES OF TROLL ENGAGEMENT
: 1. DON'T REPLY
Yup!
: 2. IF REPLYING, STRIP HEADERS AND REPLIES OF TROLLERY
Nah. Strip ALL the newsgroups - reply by EMAIL instead. If you enjoy
replying to trolls, or have fooled yourself into thinking it'll
accomplish something, do it in email where you and the troll can
entertain each other privately. Most other people don't wanna
listen to you two arguing or insulting each other, eh?
: 3. KNOW THE TROLLS
Not really necessary if you follow rule 1. Some of them might have
different reasons for doing what they do, and different feelings about
the reactions they get. Or they might be all very similar in
personality. Or maybe they're all some guy named Freddy who posts
all this stuff from his basement and makes up thousands of different
names to do it under.
Who cares? If you're not chatting with them, there's no reason to
bother knowing what they're like. And there's no good reason to be
chatting with 'em. :X)
*-------------------------------------------**-----------------------------*
Dr. Cat / Dragon's Eye Productions || Free alpha test:
*-------------------------------------------** http://www.bga.com/furcadia
Furcadia - a new graphic mud for PCs! || Let your imagination soar!
*-------------------------------------------**-----------------------------*
(Disclaimer: Billy goats gruff should take extra care.)
Peter da Silva
Kay Shapero <kay.s...@salata.com> wrote:
>Well, we didn't have that much trouble with rec.music.filk and I didn't
>think we had a chance when I started the proposal - I only did it because
>the rest of a.m.f asked me to. I was delighted with the results.
I will be more than happy to provide any assistance you feel you need, so
long as I don't have to herd the thing through myself.
Wayd Wolf
Dr. Cat <c...@bga.com> wrote in message
news:380d7...@feed1.realtime.net...
> Wayd Wolf (wo...@your.door) wrote:
(snip)
>
*-------------------------------------------**-----------------------
------*
> Dr. Cat / Dragon's Eye Productions || Free alpha
test:
> *-------------------------------------------**
http://www.bga.com/furcadia
> Furcadia - a new graphic mud for PCs! || Let your
imagination soar!
>
*-------------------------------------------**-----------------------
------*
>
> (Disclaimer: Billy goats gruff should take extra care.)
This might be the shortest yet all. Anyone care to compile a
compendium? They make interesting reading.
-Wayd Wolf
P.S.
I only meant people should get to know them on a functional level
and thus understand why replying to them is such a bad idea. I don't
advocate getting close and warm and fuzzy with them. Unless said
warmth and fuzziness involves hot epoxy and dryer lint being applied
to said troll.
Kay Shapero
Pd>In article <e43_991...@salata.com>,
Pd>Kay Shapero <kay.s...@salata.com> wrote:
>Well, we didn't have that much trouble with rec.music.filk and I didn't
>think we had a chance when I started the proposal - I only did it because
>the rest of a.m.f asked me to. I was delighted with the results.
Pd>I will be more than happy to provide any assistance you feel you
Pd>need, so long as I don't have to herd the thing through myself.
Actually I was going to stay out of this since I don't really post in here
all that often, but then maybe that would actually help. I can't set up
moderation (I'm not even a usenet sysadmin - I'm a FIDO sysop and I'm
reading this thing from a FIDO feed rather than directly from an ISP), so
we'd still need the folks you lined up to handle the physical details..
OK, IF people actually want one, I'll start work on the charter
application. If not, there's no reason we can't stick with alt.*. Caveat
- this DOES require behaving like sensible lifeforms on the newgroup
groups. I don't want to inflict another rec.pet.cats debacle on them. Our
resident trolls hit my killfiles long ago, but I know they're still here
because of the unfortunate people who can't resist talking to them.
Fortunately, should they decide to come the total prat over on the
newgroups group the main effect will probably be to explain WHY moderation
is necessary. It might even help.
J. J. Novotny
> If you want to move out of alt.fan, there are already the furrynet
> groups.
>
> The alt.fan.furry hierarchy is where people keep reading and posting.
Hmmm. Yeah, I guess you're right. Then I suggest
alt.fan.furry.arts.moderated ... seeing as how the emphasis will be on
the art and entertainment side of things with the fandom itself only a
side issue. It's also a good clue as to what's on topic for newcomers.
Re: discordianism
>
> Type in "sacred chao" in any search engine.
I will do that. Thanks.
Best;
J. J.
Peter da Silva
J. J. Novotny <umno...@cc.umanitoba.ca> wrote:
>Hmmm. Yeah, I guess you're right. Then I suggest
>alt.fan.furry.arts.moderated ... seeing as how the emphasis will be on
>the art and entertainment side of things with the fandom itself only a
>side issue. It's also a good clue as to what's on topic for newcomers.
I'm not interested in the arts and entertainment side or the fandom side
myself. There's more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your
philosophy.
Amy Pronovost
I don't like moderated newsgroups. Sure, we have flame wars here etc...
but cripes, moderation just rubs me the wrong way for some reason.
What happens if the moderator either has a grudge against you or is
completely devoid of a sense of humour?
I rarely post here, but I probably won't post on a moderated news group.
I post on some message boards on the web that are moderated,
everything's done automatically but there are admin that come down on
people who are being jerks.
Just my opinion...
I'll stick to the yerf groups (When they come up) for now..
Amy - Too many different opinions. Moderation.. bleh.
Forrest
Amy Pronovost :
>What happens if the moderator either has a grudge against you or is
>completely devoid of a sense of humour?
In an anyone-can-pass system, with the range of volunteers to date, this is
not a problem.
Dr. Cat
: Dr. Cat <c...@bga.com> wrote in message
: > (Disclaimer: Billy goats gruff should take extra care.)
: This might be the shortest yet all.
It might have been.
*-------------------------------------------**-----------------------------*
Dr. Cat / Dragon's Eye Productions || Free alpha test:
*-------------------------------------------** http://www.bga.com/furcadia
Furcadia - a new graphic mud for PCs! || Let your imagination soar!
*-------------------------------------------**-----------------------------*
(Disclaimer: But it surely isn't now.)
Karl Xydexx Jorgensen
> (Disclaimer: But it surely isn't now.)
I think your shortest disclaimer was one word: "Subscribe", posted
around August 1998 sometime...
____________________________________________________________
Xydexx Squeakypony [ICQ: 7569393]
Xydexx's Anthrofurry Homepage
http://www.smart.net/~xydexx/anthrofurry/homepage.htm
Kay Shapero
AP>What happens if the moderator either has a grudge against you or
AP>is completely devoid of a sense of humour?
Actually that one has a solution - one of the other moderators who lacks
the former and posesses the latter passes your message, which is why the
suggestion was multiple moderators.
Other than that, of course, it's a matter of taste. Nobody is going to do
anything to alt.fan.furry which will remain as it is; the current
discussion is over creating a new group.