RFD: news.admin.moderation

8 views
Skip to first unread message

Russ Allbery

unread,
Sep 22, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/22/99
to
You need to post this to news.announce.newgroups; you misspelled the name
of that group in your Newsgroups header. It's easier to *mail* the
proposal to newg...@isc.org with the news headers in the body of the
message.

In news.groups, Giovanni Greco <giov...@giovannigreco.com> writes:

> At the moment there is no appropriate newsgroup for discussion of this
> topic, so posts on the subject are debated mainly in other places like
> news.groups, news.admin.net-abuse, news.admin.censorship and the debate
> tends to go nowhere. The purpose of news.admin.moderation is to provide
> a focal point of discussion on this issue.

Personally, I think news.groups is an appropriate newsgroup for discussion
of this topic.

--
Russ Allbery (r...@stanford.edu) <URL:http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

Giovanni Greco

unread,
Sep 23, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/23/99
to
REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
unmoderated group news.admin.moderation

This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the creation of a
world-wide unmoderated Usenet newsgroup news.admin.moderation.
This is not a Call for Votes (CFV); you cannot vote at this time.
Procedural details are below.

Newsgroup line:
news.admin.moderation A forum for moderation.

RATIONALE: news.admin.moderation

Since the introduction of group moderation (1980) members of the
Usenet community have always had different opinions about moderation:
some users think newsgroup moderation means censorship; others do
it as work with no pay. What is needed is a specific forum where this
topic can be talked about.

At the moment there is no appropriate newsgroup for discussion of this
topic, so posts on the subject are debated mainly in other places like
news.groups, news.admin.net-abuse, news.admin.censorship and the
debate tends to go nowhere. The purpose of news.admin.moderation
is to provide a focal point of discussion on this issue.

In the Big Eight hierarchies there are almost 300 moderated groups:
this should offer sufficient traffic for such a forum. As we all
know, the future will bring increased flows of messages and more and
more moderated newsgroups. Two mailing lists for moderators already
exist. The newsgroup will be something more and will involve normal
users bringing their personal know-how to this specific group.

CHARTER: news.admin.moderation

The news.admin.moderation newsgroup is intended to be unmoderated
to allow users who don't think their message is off-topic to come
into the proposed group and show their message there: "People of
news.admin.moderation, why can't this message of mine be approved
in this newsgroup?" And, of course, the newsgroup can also be used
by moderators to justify their work.

Here new moderators can ask for advice from experienced ones about
the best way to moderate a newsgroup or how to behave with certain
kinds of posters. Users who would like to open a moderated newsgroup
can ask in the group about all the problems that moderation can
include or find out about the help that robo-moderation can give to
save a lot of work (thanks, for instance, to the pre-approved list).
Information on moderation's software tools will be welcome here.

If a moderator disappears, or any other problems occur, posters from
that group can come into the newsgroup and discuss how to deal
with this matter, deciding what to do and who can replace the old
moderator. The goal of this newsgroup is to preserve the freedom
of one and all, users and moderators alike.

PROCEDURE:

This is a request for discussion, not a call for votes. In this phase
of the process, any potential problems with the proposed newsgroups
should be raised and resolved. The discussion period will continue
for a minimum of 21 days (starting from when the first RFD for this
proposal is posted to news.announce.newgroups), after which a Call For
Votes (CFV) may be posted by a neutral vote taker if the discussion
warrants it. Please do not attempt to vote until this happens.

All discussion of this proposal should be posted to news.groups.

This RFD attempts to comply fully with the Usenet newsgroup creation
guidelines outlined in "How to Create a New Usenet Newsgroup" and "How
to Format and Submit a New Group Proposal". Please refer to these
documents (available in news.announce.newgroups) if you have any
questions about the process.

DISTRIBUTION:

news.announce.newsgroups
news.groups
it.news.moderazione

Proponent: Giovanni Greco <giov...@giovannigreco.com>

Jay Denebeim

unread,
Sep 23, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/23/99
to
In article <2VbpN8EW05Bc+Zd=alsNcG=6L...@4ax.com>,

Giovanni Greco <giov...@giovannigreco.com> wrote:
> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
> unmoderated group news.admin.moderation
>
>This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD)

No, it's not. It wasn't posted to news.announce.newgroups.

Jay
--
* Jay Denebeim Moderator rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated *
* newsgroup submission address: b5...@deepthot.aurora.co.us *
* moderator contact address: b5mod-...@deepthot.aurora.co.us *
* personal contact address: dene...@deepthot.aurora.co.us *

Jay Denebeim

unread,
Sep 23, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/23/99
to
In article <ylbtau8...@windlord.stanford.edu>,
Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> wrote:

>Personally, I think news.groups is an appropriate newsgroup for discussion
>of this topic.

Me too.

Giovanni Greco

unread,
Sep 23, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/23/99
to
On Wed, 22 Sep 1999 19:48:05 -0500, ig...@Algebra.Com (Igor)


>> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>> unmoderated group news.admin.moderation


>It is an interesting idea...

I agree...

>This is one of the really neat ideas that end up not working.

But not here...
It's not the problem that have to win the matter.


Giovanni Greco

Giovanni Greco

unread,
Sep 23, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/23/99
to
On 22 Sep 1999 17:31:44 -0700, Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> wrote:

>Personally, I think news.groups is an appropriate newsgroup for discussion
>of this topic.

It's something different; news.groups is for the opening of groups.
news.admin.moderation has another purpose.

Giovanni Greco

Denis McKeon

unread,
Sep 23, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/23/99
to
In news.groups, in <slrn7uiu6...@manifold.algebra.com> Igor wrote:
>Giovanni Greco <giov...@giovannigreco.com> wrote:
>* REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>* unmoderated group news.admin.moderation
>
>It is an interesting idea, but the proposed newsgroup will have
>very little genuine traffic. The topic of moderation usually comes up
>in two situations:
>
>1) When a group is being proposed
>2) When the policies of moderators of a moderated group stip up discontent.
n) When someone wants to continue the "moderation" == "censorship" flamefest
(one of the oldest established permanent floating flamefests in Usenet).

--
Denis McKeon
Comments welcome on the Moderated Newsgroups FAQ, at
http://www.swcp.com/~dmckeon/mod-faq.html
news:moderated-ng-f...@swcp.com

--
Denis McKeon

Jay Denebeim

unread,
Sep 23, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/23/99
to
In article <7sdjnh$4ct$1...@sloth.swcp.com>,
Denis McKeon <Dmc...@swcp.com> wrote:

>n) When someone wants to continue the "moderation" == "censorship" flamefest
>(one of the oldest established permanent floating flamefests in Usenet).

Then it should be talk.moderation, eh?

Giovanni Greco

unread,
Sep 23, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/23/99
to
On Thu, 23 Sep 1999 09:15:41 -0600, Dmc...@swcp.com (Denis McKeon)


>>* REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>>* unmoderated group news.admin.moderation

>n) When someone wants to continue the "moderation" == "censorship" flamefest
>(one of the oldest established permanent floating flamefests in Usenet).

Yes...but... tell me your opinion about the Charter...


Giovanni Greco

THE MEOOOOW SLAYER (Sabu424..The Walter Cronkite of Wrestling)

unread,
Sep 26, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/26/99
to
On Thu, 23 Sep 1999 12:28:02 -0500, ig...@Algebra.Com (Igor) wrote a
load :

>Giovanni Greco <giov...@giovannigreco.com> wrote:
>* On Wed, 22 Sep 1999 19:48:05 -0500, ig...@Algebra.Com (Igor)
>*
>*

>* >> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>* >> unmoderated group news.admin.moderation

>*
>*
>* >It is an interesting idea...
>*
>* I agree...
>*
>* >This is one of the really neat ideas that end up not working.
>*
>* But not here...
>* It's not the problem that have to win the matter.

>Giovanni,

>English is not my native language

well don't post in it then you bloody idiot

SABU424 is proud to be the RSPWNWA internewsgroup champion, and is dedicated
1/2 of the RSPWWCW Tag Team Champions (with Cpt Spinkick).

Please see detailed below the endorsements of Sabu424 by the following sabu424aholics.

sabr424 is great!!! - You Dummy

you are ace two sabut424 - SUPER calo

He's Walter Cronkite, Woodward and Bernstein, and Dan Rather all rolled into one!
The preminent wrestling journalist of our time! - Cpt Spinkick

Sabu brings something very special to this newsgroup......NEWS!

Even I am able to look past his blatant bias for WCW in order to see
the hot stories of the day. He's like Bob Ryder, David Meltzer, and
Mark Madden all rolled into one. - Mike Kelleher

You got your arse handed to you Milton, now go away - you're jealous of Sabu's
insider status, and it's eating you up inside. - Cpt Spinkick

A day without Sabu424 is like a day without sunshine. - Captain Spinkick

Or... a day without Acehole is like a day without mayo!! - Al Bundy

All information flows through Sabu424 first. I raise my Heineken to
you, Sabu trooper! Sa-loot! - Guerrera on RSPW

My God! What exclusive news! Thanks Sabu424! - Andy Atkinson

Hey Sabu, thanks for the great news tidbits. You are the A#1 reason I read
this festering suckhole of a newsgroup. Your commentary is always poignent and
heartfelt with a gentle yet rapier wit. Keep up the good work. - Psigun

Without Sabu424's insider knowledge the sun wouldnt come up. - The Avenger

Who do you trust, Christ or Sabu424? I trust Sabu424 - The Avenger

Sabu424 IS the oracle of knowledge - The Avenger

Sabu424 is inside more than Ron Jeremy - The Avenger (my favourite)

If Hitler had cloned Sabu424, germany would have won the war - The Avenger

Air, Water, and Sabu424 is all I need to live. - The Avenger

Without Sabu424's insider knowledge I'd be all fucked up and shit. - The Avenger

Sabu424 KNOWS when the apocalypse is he just isnt telling - The Avenger

And don't forget the commentary of Sabu424. He's the man. - Tony Gancarski : Workrate Cru Minister of Information.

For space's sake, I clipped this loser's sig file, but Christ on a Crutch,
wade through it sometime. This guy is a bigger mark for himself than
Hogan. - Sir Suedieboy

#1 wrestling insider sabu424 - Hoganicide

EVERYBODY IN THE HOUSE - MAKE SOME NOISE

"Sabu 424 is the utmost in quality wrestling commentary. He makes cretins like
Isaacs, Scherer, Samuda, and Scaia look like the hacks they are. Sabu 424
provides a valuable public service to not only all wrestling fans, but to
anyone interested in civil discourse on this most uncivil medium known as the
Internet. Truly, Sabu is the acest." - Gancarski (Workrate Cru)

Your source of news is impeccable and you have a classy webpage. I salute you for it - Gender Bender Liz Michael

Bob Ryder says on WCW live that Nitro is more exciting than RAW because of DJ Ran

What makes me smile is your insider information, thanks. - Shirl11496

I admire your frankness, honesty and ability to harness the news - NADA000000

Wow, Sabu424, you're so incredibly cool. Really, I applaud you.- CJ Moss

Sabu424, I'm impressed, your posts are making sense now... - Tom on RSPW

you are a wonderful human being. - Charmayne7

"you are an exclusive insider" - Rockboy

"GREAT JOB! I THINK THAT'S THE FIRST RP I EVER READ THAT MADE ME LAUGH SO
DAMN HARD!" - Wushu68 about my Konnan roleplay

I respect your knowledge and your news, you are an asset to RSPW - Alicia Snow

I believe that you are one of the best sources of news on the net today - Bairman

I honestly believe you are doing a good job, I enjoy your web page, thanks Sabu - Shirl.

Sabu424 - G-PRO Wrestler, endorsed by Clint Fletcher.

"You get respect doing rp's like that" Gerry Saracco

"My god...who thought Sabu424 could be a good poster in RSPW again? Hooo, the
apocalypse is coming." - Robert Berry on RSPW


Giovanni Greco

unread,
Sep 27, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/27/99
to
REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
unmoderated group news.admin.moderation

This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the creation of a

RATIONALE: news.admin.moderation

CHARTER: news.admin.moderation

END CHARTER.

PROCEDURE:

This is a request for discussion, not a call for votes. In this phase
of the process, any potential problems with the proposed newsgroups
should be raised and resolved. The discussion period will continue
for a minimum of 21 days (starting from when the first RFD for this
proposal is posted to news.announce.newgroups), after which a Call For
Votes (CFV) may be posted by a neutral vote taker if the discussion
warrants it. Please do not attempt to vote until this happens.

All discussion of this proposal should be posted to news.groups.

This RFD attempts to comply fully with the Usenet newsgroup creation
guidelines outlined in "How to Create a New Usenet Newsgroup" and "How
to Format and Submit a New Group Proposal". Please refer to these
documents (available in news.announce.newgroups) if you have any
questions about the process.

DISTRIBUTION:

news.announce.newgroups

Gillam Kerley

unread,
Sep 27, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/27/99
to

Giovanni Greco wrote:

> The news.admin.moderation newsgroup is intended to be unmoderated
> to allow users who don't think their message is off-topic to come
> into the proposed group and show their message there: "People of
> news.admin.moderation, why can't this message of mine be approved
> in this newsgroup?" And, of course, the newsgroup can also be used
> by moderators to justify their work.

I'd be quite happy if people whose messages have been rejected (or who
think their posts have been rejected) would take the issue to a
moderation newsgroup and leave the rest of Usenet alone. Experience
suggests that creating a moderation NG will simply give them one more
place to cross-post, and moderation-complaint traffic elsewhere in
news.* will not be reduced.

>
> Here new moderators can ask for advice from experienced ones about
> the best way to moderate a newsgroup or how to behave with certain
> kinds of posters. Users who would like to open a moderated newsgroup
> can ask in the group about all the problems that moderation can
> include or find out about the help that robo-moderation can give to
> save a lot of work (thanks, for instance, to the pre-approved list).
> Information on moderation's software tools will be welcome here.

Isn't there already a moderators' mailing list for this; that seems to
be the more sensible format given the relatively small number of
moderators.

>
> If a moderator disappears, or any other problems occur, posters from
> that group can come into the newsgroup and discuss how to deal
> with this matter, deciding what to do and who can replace the old
> moderator. The goal of this newsgroup is to preserve the freedom
> of one and all, users and moderators alike.

I refer the honorable gentleman to my answer a couple paragraphs above.

All in all, I really like the idea in theory, but think it would end up
being redundant in practice.

GK

Giovanni Greco

unread,
Sep 27, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/27/99
to
On Mon, 27 Sep 1999 00:39:35 -0500, Gillam Kerley <gke...@execpc.com>


>I'd be quite happy if people whose messages have been rejected (or who
>think their posts have been rejected) would take the issue to a
>moderation newsgroup and leave the rest of Usenet alone. Experience
>suggests that creating a moderation NG will simply give them one more
>place to cross-post, and moderation-complaint traffic elsewhere in
>news.* will not be reduced.

Now there could be a place for moderation's issues, so, if you do
not want to go to the right place is maybe because you are wrong.

>Isn't there already a moderators' mailing list for this; that seems to
>be the more sensible format given the relatively small number of
>moderators.

Moderation is not only a matter of moderators.

>All in all, I really like the idea in theory, but think it would end up
>being redundant in practice.

It's up to us.

Giovanni Greco


Russ Allbery

unread,
Sep 27, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/27/99
to
In news.groups, Giovanni Greco <giov...@giovannigreco.com> writes:

> CHARTER: news.admin.moderation

> The news.admin.moderation newsgroup is intended to be unmoderated to
> allow users who don't think their message is off-topic to come into the
> proposed group and show their message there: "People of
> news.admin.moderation, why can't this message of mine be approved in
> this newsgroup?" And, of course, the newsgroup can also be used by
> moderators to justify their work.

After thinking about this proposal some more, I think I'd vote in favor of
this group if you also include discussions of moderation techniques and
software, how to document your moderation method for your users, how to
get started with moderation, and other similar technical topics in the
charter.

We occasionally have those discussions on the moderators list, but that
list tends to have a lot of people on it who are impatient with extended
and rambling discussions since they don't have a lot of time to read. It
would be nice to have another place to move them to if they get too long
and theoretical.

Jonathan I. Kamens

unread,
Sep 27, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/27/99
to
I cannot support this proposal as it stands. To a large extent, my
concerns echo those of others who have posted about it, but I'd like to
reiterate those to put my "spin" on them and to point out some concerns
that I'm not sure others have mentioned.

1) There is already a "moderators" mailing list. This mailing list has
served well for a long time. Moderators do not seem to think that it
should be replaced by a newsgroup (and I agree). So the proposed
newsgroup will not provide any useful functionality that the mailing
list already provides.

2) Newsgroup moderation is a topic about which a small number of people
have very strong feelings. Many of these are the kind of people who
are willing to disrupt any and all forums to express their opinions to
as wide an audience as possible. In short, an unmoderated newsgroup
about moderation will be swamped by anti-moderation zealots. If this
group is going to exist, it must itself be moderated, or there's no
chance that it will work.

3) I do not agree that there needs to be a newsgroup in which people
can "appeal" the decisions of moderators of another group. The only
people responsible for deciding whether a particular article belongs in
a moderated newsgroup are the moderators of that newsgroup. Each
moderated newsgroup should have its own procedure for appealing such
decisions (and that procedure may legitimately be "you lose"). There
is nothing to be gained from creating a public free-for-all where
people can flame about their postings being rejected from a newsgroup.

I agree that there have been a very small number of cases where
moderators have abused their power and it has been necessary to use the
"weight of the Usenet" to compell them to change their policies or step
down. But these cases are few and far between, and they can be handled
by discussions on the "moderators" list and/or news.groups. There is
no need for a separate newsgroup to discuss them.

4) I agree that disappearing moderators have occasionally caused
problems, but again, I believe that the current forums are sufficient
for dealing with such problems.


If the proposal were modified to make the group moderated (and yes, I
realize that doing so would alienate a small number of zealous
anti-moderation types), I might be willing to support it despite the
other reservations noted above.

Jonathan I. Kamens

unread,
Sep 27, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/27/99
to
In article <SDLvN7IzGhepUbM+46Z=LD5b...@4ax.com>,

Giovanni Greco <giov...@giovannigreco.com> writes:
>Now there could be a place for moderation's issues, so, if you do
>not want to go to the right place is maybe because you are wrong.

As someone else said, that's a nice idea in theory, but it just doesn't
work in practice.

You can't engage in a reasoned, logical debate with a Usenet a**hole.
They don't accept the ground rules of reasoned debate. So you can say,
"You know, if you're unwilling to confine your discussion to the
appropriate forums, you must know that you're wrong," and they'll post
a message accusing you of being a child molestor and go back to posting
in fifty groups. You haven't achieved anything by creating another
forum -- you've just added yet another group for them to add to their
Newsgroups lines.

>It's up to us.

No, it's not. If the group is unmoderated, then it's up to *everyone*
what goes in the group once it is created. You have no control over
abuse of the group. I have no control over abuse of the group. And
like it or not, when a**holes decide to take over a group, they pretty
much win, because they can create enough noise to block out the signal.

Jay Denebeim

unread,
Sep 27, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/27/99
to
In article <SDLvN7IzGhepUbM+46Z=LD5b...@4ax.com>,

Giovanni Greco <giov...@giovannigreco.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 27 Sep 1999 00:39:35 -0500, Gillam Kerley <gke...@execpc.com>

>Now there could be a place for moderation's issues, so, if you do


>not want to go to the right place is maybe because you are wrong.

I think most of us are happy with news.groups for that sort of
message. Also, honestly, I don't think there's enough traffic to
warrent a newsgroup. 99% of the moderation topical traffic is
discussed in the context of new moderated newsgroup RFDs. That
traffic wouldn't move leaving the 1 kook a year complaining about a
specific moderated newsgroup.

>>Isn't there already a moderators' mailing list for this; that seems to
>>be the more sensible format given the relatively small number of
>>moderators.
>
>Moderation is not only a matter of moderators.

Quoting out of context is a slimy debating technique. As you well
know, he wrote this in response to a paragraph in the charter talking
about new moderators getting help from established ones. Which the
moderator's mailing list is more than sufficient to handle, and more
appropriate as well.

Asking new moderators to go to an unmoderated newsgroup that's a
magnet for kooks with an axe to grind is a little much IMO.

Giovanni Greco

unread,
Sep 27, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/27/99
to
On 27 Sep 1999 05:29:32 -0700, Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> wrote:

>After thinking about this proposal some more, I think I'd vote in favor of
>this group if you also include discussions of moderation techniques and
>software, how to document your moderation method for your users, how to
>get started with moderation, and other similar technical topics in the
>charter.

Every information about moderation can be discuss in
news.admin.moderation

Giovanni Greco

P.S.
I would like to say here one more think: moderators should be paid.
Money no power. People have the power.

Giovanni Greco

unread,
Sep 27, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/27/99
to
On 27 Sep 1999 13:03:29 GMT, j...@kamens.brookline.ma.us (Jonathan I.
Kamens) wrote:

>As someone else said, that's a nice idea in theory, but it just doesn't
>work in practice.

Who knows... let's try.

>>It's up to us.

>No, it's not. If the group is unmoderated, then it's up to *everyone*

With *us* I mean everyone. We are both right.

Giovanni Greco


Giovanni Greco

unread,
Sep 27, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/27/99
to
On 27 Sep 1999 12:57:47 GMT, j...@kamens.brookline.ma.us (Jonathan I.
Kamens) wrote:

>1) There is already a "moderators" mailing list. This mailing list has
>served well for a long time. Moderators do not seem to think that it
>should be replaced by a newsgroup (and I agree). So the proposed
>newsgroup will not provide any useful functionality that the mailing
>list already provides.

The difference between mailing list and newsgroup is that in the
mailing list only moderators can discuss in the newsgroup also users.
And moderation it's everybody's problem.

>2) Newsgroup moderation is a topic about which a small number of people
>have very strong feelings. Many of these are the kind of people who
>are willing to disrupt any and all forums to express their opinions to
>as wide an audience as possible. In short, an unmoderated newsgroup
>about moderation will be swamped by anti-moderation zealots.

If a user can pretend that the moderator is honest, the moderator can
pretend that the user is educate.

>There
>is nothing to be gained from creating a public free-for-all where
>people can flame about their postings being rejected from a newsgroup.

Let us see the message and the charter of the group.

> I agree that there have been a very small number of cases where

>moderators have abused their power...

We want to make sure that in the future moderators will not be able to
abuse of their power.

>If the proposal were modified to make the group moderated (and yes, I
>realize that doing so would alienate a small number of zealous
>anti-moderation types), I might be willing to support it despite the
>other reservations noted above.

Newsgroup must be unmoderated.

Giovanni Greco

Adam Bailey

unread,
Sep 27, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/27/99
to
Giovanni Greco <giov...@giovannigreco.com> wrote:
>On 27 Sep 1999 12:57:47 GMT, j...@kamens.brookline.ma.us (Jonathan I.
>Kamens) wrote:
>
>>1) There is already a "moderators" mailing list. This mailing list has
>>served well for a long time. Moderators do not seem to think that it
>>should be replaced by a newsgroup (and I agree). So the proposed
>>newsgroup will not provide any useful functionality that the mailing
>>list already provides.
>
>The difference between mailing list and newsgroup is that in the
>mailing list only moderators can discuss in the newsgroup also users.
>And moderation it's everybody's problem.

And believe me, everyone is going to vent their problems in such a group. It
will be nothing but flame wars crossposted from non-moderated cousins to
moderated groups, where moderators and their policies are lambasted left and
right.

I don't see very many moderators using this for a place to discuss
techniques or software, as they would generally prefer to handle such things
in private, where they have a little more freedom to be open about their
problems.

--
Adam Bailey | Chicago, Illinois
ad...@lull.org | Finger/Web for PGP
ada...@aol.com | http://www.lull.org/adam/

Giovanni Greco

unread,
Sep 27, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/27/99
to
On 27 Sep 1999 15:13:12 GMT, dene...@deepthot.aurora.co.us (Jay
Denebeim) wrote:

>I think most of us are happy with news.groups for that sort of
>message. Also, honestly, I don't think there's enough traffic to
>warrent a newsgroup. 99% of the moderation topical traffic is
>discussed in the context of new moderated newsgroup RFDs. That
>traffic wouldn't move leaving the 1 kook a year complaining about a
>specific moderated newsgroup.

If I've proposed the group is because I think about it differently.

>Quoting out of context is a slimy debating technique.

First of all it's not in my style, at all, secondly I cannot see any
problem in my answer and neither in what I've quoted.
Maybe you got wrong that part of the post. (Yes, must be like that).

Giovanni Greco


silverpelican

unread,
Sep 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/28/99
to
In article <7snpkb$ktf$1...@jik.shore.net>,

j...@kamens.brookline.ma.us (Jonathan I. Kamens) wrote:
> I cannot support this proposal as it stands. To a large extent, my
> concerns echo those of others who have posted about it, but I'd like
to
> reiterate those to put my "spin" on them and to point out some
concerns
> that I'm not sure others have mentioned.
>
> 1) There is already a "moderators" mailing list. This mailing list
has
> served well for a long time. Moderators do not seem to think that it
> should be replaced by a newsgroup (and I agree). So the proposed
> newsgroup will not provide any useful functionality that the mailing
> list already provides.
Certainly not surprising that moderators, liking the job that they do,
would not be in favor of any cricism arising in an unmoderated forum.

> 2) Newsgroup moderation is a topic about which a small number of
people
> have very strong feelings. Many of these are the kind of people who
> are willing to disrupt any and all forums to express their opinions to
> as wide an audience as possible. In short, an unmoderated newsgroup
> about moderation will be swamped by anti-moderation zealots. If this
> group is going to exist, it must itself be moderated, or there's no
> chance that it will work.
Do you realize how ludicrous an idea, this is? A moderated NG
discussing the pros and cons of moderation? Ya, right!

> 3) I do not agree that there needs to be a newsgroup in which people
> can "appeal" the decisions of moderators of another group. The only
> people responsible for deciding whether a particular article belongs
in
> a moderated newsgroup are the moderators of that newsgroup. Each
> moderated newsgroup should have its own procedure for appealing such
> decisions (and that procedure may legitimately be "you lose"). There

> is nothing to be gained from creating a public free-for-all where
> people can flame about their postings being rejected from a newsgroup.
That's agreeable. Unhappy posters can just complain, cross-posting, of
course, into NANAU, NANAE, and several other non-relevant groups. This
will certainly hold the general noise down.

> I agree that there have been a very small number of cases where
> moderators have abused their power and it has been necessary to use
the
> "weight of the Usenet" to compell them to change their policies or
step
> down. But these cases are few and far between, and they can be
handled
> by discussions on the "moderators" list and/or news.groups. There is
> no need for a separate newsgroup to discuss them.
Change that to read"cases in which anybody, anywhere did anything
about.

> 4) I agree that disappearing moderators have occasionally caused
> problems, but again, I believe that the current forums are sufficient
> for dealing with such problems.
The only current forum, apparently, is the "moderators list" which, one
might surmise, is pretty self-serving.

> If the proposal were modified to make the group moderated (and yes, I
> realize that doing so would alienate a small number of zealous
> anti-moderation types), I might be willing to support it despite the
> other reservations noted above.
In other words, when the group has been both gutted and rendered
impotent. Wow!

--
There is no Lumber Cartel and I am not unit# 1932.
"It was necessary to destroy the village in order
to save it". Tet,1968


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

Henrietta K. Thomas

unread,
Sep 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/28/99
to
In news.announce.newgroups, on Mon, 27 Sep 1999 04:32:59 GMT, Giovanni Greco
<giov...@giovannigreco.com> wrote:

> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
> unmoderated group news.admin.moderation
>
>This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the creation of a
>world-wide unmoderated Usenet newsgroup news.admin.moderation.
>This is not a Call for Votes (CFV); you cannot vote at this time.
>Procedural details are below.
>
>Newsgroup line:
>news.admin.moderation A forum for moderation.

[snip to save bandwidth]

I like this proposal very much. Long overdue. You got a YES
vote here. The only suggestion I would make is that the one-line
description be: Problems of newsgroup moderation.

Henrietta K. Thomas
us.* hierarchy administration
Business: usa...@wwa.com
Personal: h...@wwa.com
---
Support the new, improved us.* hierarchy! Ask your news admin
to get the list of active groups from usa...@wwa.com.

Jay Denebeim

unread,
Sep 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/28/99
to
In article <KaLvN2vY1DSSidndwKKw2b=f2...@4ax.com>,
Giovanni Greco <giov...@giovannigreco.com> wrote:

>If I've proposed the group is because I think about it differently.

Well, good for you. BTW did you bother to ask the moderators what
they thought of the idea before sending out the RFD. Never mind, I
know you didn't, I'm a moderator, so I know. Kinda pointless having a
group like this if none of them show, don't you think?

Gillam Kerley

unread,
Sep 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/28/99
to

Jay Denebeim wrote:
>
Kinda pointless having a
> group like this if none of them show, don't you think?

I dunno. If Bloxy would leave here and go there, it might all be
worthwhile.

GK

Boris Ammerlaan

unread,
Sep 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/28/99
to
In <37f07335$0$77...@news.execpc.com>, Gillam Kerley wrote:

>Jay Denebeim wrote:
>>
>Kinda pointless having a
>> group like this if none of them show, don't you think?

More or less. Maybe *you* know all the (dis)advantages of moderation and
do not have anything to discuss anymore, but future moderators may not.

>I dunno. If Bloxy would leave here and go there, it might all be
>worthwhile.

But you just *know* he would not. Nuisances do not leave until they
are forced out, or until they get bored. (I am against the first
option; the second has the disadvantage that they may return.)

--
Boris Ammerlaan * Mystery quote:
bo...@stack.nl * "What good is science if it doesn't do
http://www.stack.nl/%7Eboris/ * any *harm*?"

Giovanni Greco

unread,
Sep 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/28/99
to
On 28 Sep 1999 07:27:27 GMT, dene...@deepthot.aurora.co.us (Jay
Denebeim) wrote:

>Well, good for you. BTW did you bother to ask the moderators what
>they thought of the idea before sending out the RFD. Never mind, I

>know you didn't, I'm a moderator, so I know. Kinda pointless having a


>group like this if none of them show, don't you think?

You are right. But ask now yourself where I could have asked such a
question and which kinds of answers could have I had.

Giovanni Greco


Giovanni Greco

unread,
Sep 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/28/99
to
On 27 Sep 1999 16:17:19 GMT, ad...@lull.org (Adam Bailey) wrote:

>And believe me, everyone is going to vent their problems in such a group. It
>will be nothing but flame wars crossposted from non-moderated cousins to
>moderated groups, where moderators and their policies are lambasted left and
>right.

Do you think so many people have problems with moderators?

A moderator should be responsible of his work.
news.admin.moderation will certify the bad job of some
but also the good one of many.

Giovanni Greco

unread,
Sep 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/28/99
to
On Tue, 28 Sep 1999 07:03:40 GMT, usa...@wwa.com (Henrietta K.
Thomas) wrote:

>I like this proposal very much. Long overdue. You got a YES
>vote here. The only suggestion I would make is that the one-line
>description be: Problems of newsgroup moderation.

I will consider your advice for the title of the group
and thank you for your vote *yes*.

Giovanni Greco

Jonathan I. Kamens

unread,
Sep 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/28/99
to
The posting to which this is a followup is an excellent example of why
an unmoderated news.admin.moderation would not work.

*plonk*

Jay Denebeim

unread,
Sep 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/28/99
to
In article <slrn7v188k...@toad.stack.nl>,
Boris Ammerlaan <bo...@stack.nl> wrote:

>More or less. Maybe *you* know all the (dis)advantages of moderation and
>do not have anything to discuss anymore, but future moderators may not.

That's what this group is for. One of the things most of us are here
for is educating the new moderators. Usually that education consists
of "You *really* want someone experienced on your moderation team"

This is where that topic is discussed, and I really don't see any of
us going to a newsgroup specifically created to take pot shots at us.
Many moderators like arguing, but that doesn't mean we'll wilfully put
our heads on a chopping block.

Jay Denebeim

unread,
Sep 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/28/99
to
In article <D7HwN5SrJ8tELc...@4ax.com>,
Giovanni Greco <giov...@giovannigreco.com> wrote:

>You are right. But ask now yourself where I could have asked such a
>question and which kinds of answers could have I had.

You could have asked on the moderator's mailing list, or enlisted a
moderator to put your question forward. I'm sure Russ would have had
no trouble doing it.

The answer you got would be the same one you're getting now:
News.groups is fine for this sort of conversation. We're not
interested in adding yet another group to read, and in any event your
group sounds like a shooting gallery and we'll have no part of it.

Or something thereabouts. That's how *I* personally feel, I think
you'll find most moderators would take the same position.

Jay Denebeim

unread,
Sep 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/28/99
to
In article <bLjwNxsmRxlMiKYjYu=4p4i...@4ax.com>,
Giovanni Greco <giov...@giovannigreco.com> wrote:

>Do you think so many people have problems with moderators?

No. There's actually a very few really noisy ones.

>A moderator should be responsible of his work.
>news.admin.moderation will certify the bad job of some
>but also the good one of many.

They are. If a moderator does a bad job people stop posting to the
newsgroup. It's a self-limiting problem.

Tim Skirvin

unread,
Sep 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/28/99
to
dene...@deepthot.aurora.co.us (Jay Denebeim) writes:

>>If I've proposed the group is because I think about it differently.

>Well, good for you. BTW did you bother to ask the moderators what
>they thought of the idea before sending out the RFD.

Here's one that would like it. *wave*

- Tim Skirvin (tski...@uiuc.edu)
--
<URL:http://www.uiuc.edu/~tskirvin/> Skirv's Homepage <FISH><
<URL:http://www.killfile.org/dungeon/> The Killfile Dungeon <*>

Gary Forbis

unread,
Sep 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/28/99
to
Jay Denebeim <dene...@deepthot.aurora.co.us> wrote in message
news:7sqo7i$d0j$1...@dent.deepthot.aurora.co.us...

> In article <bLjwNxsmRxlMiKYjYu=4p4i...@4ax.com>,
> Giovanni Greco <giov...@giovannigreco.com> wrote:
>
> >Do you think so many people have problems with moderators?
>
> No. There's actually a very few really noisy ones.
>
> >A moderator should be responsible of his work.
> >news.admin.moderation will certify the bad job of some
> >but also the good one of many.
>
> They are. If a moderator does a bad job people stop posting to the
> newsgroup. It's a self-limiting problem.

Such a policy create noise in the form of excess news group creation.