I wonder if this will work
Jayne Kulikauskas
--
Jayne
Peter J Ross
Kulikauskas <jayne.ku...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm trying posting from a different server.
If a test post falls in the forest but there's nobody there to read
it, did it "work"?
Where does SMM go from here? I think some options should be
considered, including these:
1. Pack up and go home.
Advantages: Graham and Mark can stop wasting their time running
software and checking the posting queue just in case there's something
other than spamming going on.
Disadvantages: All the time and effort that has been spent so far will
be wasted.
Comment: I think this is the last-resort option. But perhaps we've
reached the last resort stage.
2. Artificially stimulate discussion by starting threads and replying
to them.
Advantages: If there are any lurkers waiting for something on-topic to
read, they may join in. If there aren't, we'll know.
Disadvantages: It's been tried before, at least by you and me. It
requires a lot of effort and commitment.
Comment: If at least two people want to try this again, it may work,
but I'm not particularly interested in joining in this time.
3. Switch to robomoderation, e.g. by allowing everything but
crossposts and detectable spam.
Advantages: Nobody would be put off using the group by perceptions of
being censored.
Disadvantages: The group could very well come to resemble a soc.men
without crossposts, and when we originally debated the creation of SMM
that prospect didn't appeal to anybody, as far as I can remember.
There's also no guarantee that the number of posts would increase at
all, so the initial investment of time by the moderators could be
wasted.
Comment: I'd expect the result to be about as much fun as
alt.flame.moderated would be, and I'd probably unsubscribe. (Some
people would list that under advantages.)
Any ideas?
--
PJR :-)
Jayne Kulikauskas
> In soc.men.moderated on Thu, 15 Nov 2007 20:54:43 -0500, Jayne
> Kulikauskas <jayne.ku...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I'm trying posting from a different server.
>
> If a test post falls in the forest but there's nobody there to read
> it, did it "work"?
>
> Where does SMM go from here? I think some options should be
> considered, including these:
>
> 1. Pack up and go home.
>
> Advantages: Graham and Mark can stop wasting their time running
> software and checking the posting queue just in case there's something
> other than spamming going on.
>
> Disadvantages: All the time and effort that has been spent so far will
> be wasted.
>
> Comment: I think this is the last-resort option. But perhaps we've
> reached the last resort stage.
I still see soc.men.moderated as having the potential to be a good group.
I think the topic is interesting and important. I would be reluctant to
simply "pull the plug".
> 2. Artificially stimulate discussion by starting threads and replying
> to them.
>
> Advantages: If there are any lurkers waiting for something on-topic to
> read, they may join in. If there aren't, we'll know.
>
> Disadvantages: It's been tried before, at least by you and me. It
> requires a lot of effort and commitment.
>
> Comment: If at least two people want to try this again, it may work,
> but I'm not particularly interested in joining in this time.
I think that people are attracted by controversy. A group in which only
one position is presented is likely to be boring. The two people in the
situation you describe would need to take opposing positions. I can
understand if you don't want to be one of them.
I feel some obligation to making this group work, even though it is past
the time I was expecting it to need intensive effort and commitment. I was
the proponent and it is still my baby.
> 3. Switch to robomoderation, e.g. by allowing everything but
> crossposts and detectable spam.
>
> Advantages: Nobody would be put off using the group by perceptions of
> being censored.
>
> Disadvantages: The group could very well come to resemble a soc.men
> without crossposts, and when we originally debated the creation of SMM
> that prospect didn't appeal to anybody, as far as I can remember.
Actually there was some interest in this. This was one of the first ideas
for the group and it did have some support. It was side-tracked, in part
by the arrival of my troll co-proponents. (Please give them regards if you
come across them in AUK.)
> There's also no guarantee that the number of posts would increase at
> all, so the initial investment of time by the moderators could be
> wasted.
>
> Comment: I'd expect the result to be about as much fun as
> alt.flame.moderated would be, and I'd probably unsubscribe. (Some
> people would list that under advantages.)
>
> Any ideas?
I had been considering the robo-moderation scenario even before you
mentioned it. It clearly does have the potential to go badly. Considering
all the other things that have gone wrong here, even an optimist like me
isn't hoping for the best. On the other hand, I'm inclined to try it just
to see what happens, if the initial set-up isn't too much bother.
I haven't thought of any other alternatives to the ones you present.
--
Jayne