Follow up on moderator question

[Mike R]

Tom's sci.archaeology moderated is the logical successor to
sci.archaeology. I am the only one posting articles there and have
been for awhile. David Meadows also posts his excellent weekly summary
of stories and events there as well. Perhaps we could get all the non-
spammers to begin posting there so that we can have a list that is
already moderated as the real list.

Mike

[Matt Giwer]

The problem with all moderated groups is they all become advocate moderated.
I do not know how to find them but there are posts documenting this results
and which strongly argue against moderators.

I have no idea what you think of my viewpoint but if JTEM were a moderator
would my posts be approved? Highly unlikely.

If you want a moderated group, start one. The rules are out there. It is not
that difficult.

--
There will be no jewish extremists there will be only Jews until Jews revise
their history is Christian Europe to refer only to Christian extremists.
That is the essence of the double standard.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4372
http://www.giwersworld.org/israel/bombings.phtml a5
Tue Jan 24 13:52:46 EST 2012

[Tom McDonald]

That would be a fairly good start. However, the moderation rules for
sci.archaeology.moderated [s.a.m.](of which I am only one of several
moderators), if kept as they are, would probably mean a much less
free-wheeling set of discussions than we have had on sci.archaeology
when it was at its best. The current rules are very strict and limiting,
for good reasons; but perhaps those reasons should be reviewed and
alterations considered.

I don't know if it would be useful to change s.a.m.'s moderation rules
to allow for a freer flow of discussion. If it were, that might make for
a decent alternative to the polluted s.a. we see now.

One issue I see with using s.a.m. for the purpose of general
archaeological discussions is that the current one-at-a-time moderation
of individual posts is often not particularly timely, as moderators have
real lives away from Usenet.

Sometimes I will get an article to moderate, and turn it around in a few
minutes--if I am on-line and notice the little pop-up thingie for my
email reader. Other times, it might take several to many hours to get to
if, say, I'm visiting my son 100 miles away when the article gets to my
email. The same applies to the other moderators, though I have no life,
so I may be around my computer more often than some. :-)

Of course, getting everyone to use filters to cut down the noise would
be the first thing to try. I know some folks (George, for instance) have
said that's what they use, and it works for them.

Then the issue would be generating issues that produce productive
discussions. Your posts, and David Meadows', certainly have that
potential. The trick is to throw a lot of posts out there, and let folks
pick up on the stuff that turns their crank. That would require some
concerted effort on the part of those of us who love archaeology, but
don't often contribute.

Perhaps a starting point might be for folks to post questions they have
about archaeology, at any level. I for one love to reply to newbies who
have questions about archaeology, but don't have the background to
understand some of the deeper issues. Perhaps we could start an FAQ, and
have would-be regulars contribute to that. At worst, it could become a
place to point newbies (and those new to specific areas of archaeology)
to; at best, it might stimulate real discussions of a wide range of
archaeological issues.

There. That's my rambling on for now. I join you, Mike, in hoping for a
resurgence of good, solid archaeological give-and-take on Usenet.

[Tom McDonald]

On 1/24/2012 12:57 PM, Matt Giwer wrote:
> On 01/24/2012 01:09 PM, Mike R wrote:
>> Tom's sci.archaeology moderated is the logical successor to
>> sci.archaeology. I am the only one posting articles there and have
>> been for awhile. David Meadows also posts his excellent weekly summary
>> of stories and events there as well. Perhaps we could get all the non-
>> spammers to begin posting there so that we can have a list that is
>> already moderated as the real list.
>>
>> Mike
>
> The problem with all moderated groups is they all become advocate
> moderated. I do not know how to find them but there are posts
> documenting this results and which strongly argue against moderators.

I don't entirely disagree with you, but well-moderated groups have rules
about what can and can't be approved. In the case I'm familiar with,
sci.archaeology.moderated, our rules require a moderator who rejects an
article to specify why it is being rejected; and, if appropriate, to
suggest how to amend the article to bring it in line with the moderated
group's standards.

In addition, at least for s.a.m., the author of a rejected article can
ask that the rejected article be submitted to the panel of moderators
for discussion and a decision on its appropriateness for the ng.

> I have no idea what you think of my viewpoint but if JTEM were a
> moderator would my posts be approved? Highly unlikely.

If he were to become a moderator, he'd be required to put aside his
personal views of you or your content in his decisions about your
articles. As noted, some moderated groups have an appeal process that
tends mightily to cut down on personal animus between moderator and poster.

> If you want a moderated group, start one. The rules are out there. It is
> not that difficult.
>

It's not all that easy, either. Would you, for instance, be willing to
take part in the process? Or to volunteer to be a moderator, if it got
that far?

[Eric Stevens]

On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 13:06:07 -0600, Tom McDonald
<tmcdon...@charter.net> wrote:

>On 1/24/2012 12:09 PM, Mike R wrote:
>> Tom's sci.archaeology moderated is the logical successor to
>> sci.archaeology. I am the only one posting articles there and have
>> been for awhile. David Meadows also posts his excellent weekly summary
>> of stories and events there as well. Perhaps we could get all the non-
>> spammers to begin posting there so that we can have a list that is
>> already moderated as the real list.
>>

--- snip ---

>Of course, getting everyone to use filters to cut down the noise would
>be the first thing to try. I know some folks (George, for instance) have
>said that's what they use, and it works for them.

I use Agent as a news reader. While I can, if I wish, use kill files,
I have few of these and rely mainly on Agent's ability to 'Ignore
Thread'. It works for me.
>
--- snip ---

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[JTEM]

Mike R <michaelrugger...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Tom's sci.archaeology moderated is the logical successor to
> sci.archaeology.

Here in our universe usenet is dying. The problem is too few
participants.

Moderators STOP people from posting. That's all they do.

Moderators do not get people to post.
Moderators do not make the topics interesting.
Moderators do not make anyone more intelligent.

All moderators do is STOP people from posting, and right
now usenet is dying from a LACK OF participation, not an
over abundance of posts.

[JTEM]

Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:

>         I have no idea what you think of my viewpoint but if JTEM were a moderator
> would my posts be approved? Highly unlikely.

Just the opposite. I am staunchly AGAINST moderation as
all moderators can do is STOP someone from posting. They
can't make anyone post on topic. They can't make anyone
more intelligent or interesting. All moderators do is STOP
people from posting, while usenet is dying from a LACK of
people posting and NOT from too many posts.

[JTEM]

Tom McDonald <tmcdonald2...@charter.net> wrote:

> Matt Giwer wrote:

> > I have no idea what you think of my viewpoint but if JTEM were a
> > moderator would my posts be approved? Highly unlikely.
>
> If he were to become a moderator, he'd be required to put aside his
> personal views of you or your content in his decisions about your
> articles.

It's funny, but several people are on record advocating moderators,
advocating censorship, and the only person anyone is concerned
about is me... someone who has been arguing against moderators
since 1993 in soc.penpals. Later I argued against them in
alt.politics.homosexuality. Moderators can only STOP people from
posting. They can't make anyone post what you want to read.

And, besides, Giwer is usually on topic. Is ideas are daft, not very
well thought out and with holes a mile wide, but on topic...

[VtSkier]

I am a member of a newsgroup which is basically trashed because of the
words written by a very few individuals who have a vendetta against
others in the newsgroup. The abuse from one or two people became so bad
that a few years ago we (the majority of posters) decided to form a
moderated version to which I also subscribe.

The most recent legitimate post on the moderated NG is last May. Most of
us still have our discussions on the unmoderated group, use killfiles if
we find certain individuals to abusive for our taste and generally have
a reasonable time.

The problem which crops up with killfiles is that those that don't use
them and are not included in our killfiles sometimes respond to those
who practice abuse. This means that sometimes we get to see the abuse,
but it's still MUCH better with the killfile.

Having had that experience and also noting how much activity there is on
sci.archaeology.moderated, I'm not at all in favor of forming another
moderated NG. We have a moderated NG and it's not used. This should be
end of discussion. Killfiles should work better here than in the other
place I mentioned if you wish to use them because there appears to be
less responding by people who are not interested in an
abusive thread.

And, yes. Modertion is a form of censorship and while I do see certain
individuals going at each other from time to time and would wish they
would be more polite, they are generally on topic and not really
threateningly abusive.

[Tom McDonald]

As Eric Stevens noted, some news readers (such as Agent) have an "Ignore
Thread" option, which means that you don't see any posts in threads you
ignore. So if a thread is junk to you, you don't have to see any of the
posts, whether by those in your kill file or those out of it.

I use Thunderbird, an email reader, for reading ngs. I can filter on
"subject" (thread), though it requires a little work to implement it.
You appear to be using Thunderbird, too, so you might want to try this
filter option to see if it helps reduce the crap you see.

[Tom McDonald]

On 1/25/2012 6:24 AM, JTEM wrote:
>
> Matt Giwer<jul...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> I have no idea what you think of my viewpoint but if JTEM were a moderator
>> would my posts be approved? Highly unlikely.
>
> Just the opposite. I am staunchly AGAINST moderation as
> all moderators can do is STOP someone from posting. They
> can't make anyone post on topic.

That's exactly what moderators do on, for instance,
sci.archaeology.moderated.

> They can't make anyone
> more intelligent or interesting.

Again, in my experience as a moderator on s.a.m., we do ask folks who
submit on-topic but flawed articles to consider re-writing their
articles, and often (FSVO 'often') suggest ways to improve their
articles to enhance understanding and discussion value.

> All moderators do is STOP
> people from posting, while usenet is dying from a LACK of
> people posting and NOT from too many posts.

I don't disagree that Usenet is suffering from a lack of folks posting,
but I would add 'posting intelligent, on-topic articles'. There are
plenty of folks posting crap, abuse and spam.

The three main ways to a better Usenet experience for those who care
seem to me to be:

1) Judicious use of kill-files and 'ignore thread' filters;
2) Moderation;
3) Self-discipline.

Or, of course, all of the above.

[Trond Engen]

Tom McDonald:

> I use Thunderbird, an email reader, for reading ngs. I can filter on
> "subject" (thread), though it requires a little work to implement it.

No, press <k>.

> You appear to be using Thunderbird, too, so you might want to try this
> filter option to see if it helps reduce the crap you see.

What is (slightly) more work is implementing "ignore subthread",
ignoring only those filamens that's gone sour.

--
Trond Engen

[Matt Giwer]

On 01/25/2012 11:26 AM, Tom McDonald wrote:

> That's exactly what moderators do on, for instance, sci.archaeology.moderated.

I have just joined and will post. Lets see what happens.

--
There will be no jewish extremists there will be only Jews until Jews revise
their history is Christian Europe to refer only to Christian extremists.
That is the essence of the double standard.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4372

http://www.giwersworld.org/holo3/holo-survivors.phtml a17
Tue Feb 7 00:30:01 EST 2012

[Matt Giwer]

On 02/07/2012 12:30 AM, Matt Giwer wrote:
> On 01/25/2012 11:26 AM, Tom McDonald wrote:
>> That's exactly what moderators do on, for instance, sci.archaeology.moderated.

> I have just joined and will post. Lets see what happens.

What a waste. A moderated group reduced to little more than a place for
official announcements. There appears to be no interaction whatsoever. Perhaps
there is a different feed outside the US.

--
Jewish people, German people
Chosen people, Herrnvolk
Zionists, Neonazis
Its all the same in practice.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4369
http://www.giwersworld.org/holo3/holo-survivors.phtml a17
Tue Feb 7 12:33:33 EST 2012