Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: 3-week discussion period? (was: RFM: rec.arts.erotica)
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Date: 12 Aug 92 16:22:13 EST
 <1992Aug11.160050.1591@falcon.aamrl.wpafb.af.mil> <1992Aug11.235044.26507@athena.mit.edu>
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <1992Aug11.235044.26507@athena.mit.edu>, jik@athena.mit.edu (Jonathan I. Kamens) writes:
> In article <1992Aug11.160050.1591@falcon.aamrl.wpafb.af.mil>, bkottmann@falcon.aamrl.wpafb.af.mil (Brett Kottmann) writes:
> |> 	How many admins would reject a valid vote to change moderators?  Why
> |> would someone reject such a vote?
> 
> Because there is no precedent for it?

	Not a very good reason.

> 
> Because they have no way of knowing if the moderator was given a chance to
> answer the charges against him?

	Again, are admins supposed to follow every discussion to make sure
every side has presented their case?  Of course not.  If a vote passes, and
were talking 2/3 of the total and 100 more yes than no votes, then I think that
admins can assume that people are voting like they do for any other group
process.
	And, since the moderator is supposed to be reading incoming messages,
and we can assume that RFDs are posted to relevent newsgroups, then the
moderator should know what is going on.  If they choose not to enter into the
discussion, or aren't reading their mail, then that is their problem, and not
the reader's, the group's, or usenet's.

> Because Gene Spafford and Dave Lawrence reject the vote?

	Why would Spaf or Dave reject the vote?

> As I've already pointed out, Gene Spafford maintains the list of moderator
> mail aliases that the vast majority of sites use.  If Gene Spafford rejects a
> moderator change, then, plain and simple, articles that are posted in the
> newsgroup are going to continue to get mailed to the original moderator, no
> matter what your replacement vote says is supposed to happen.

	Red Herring.  You're trying to say that Gene WILL reject such votes and
are essentially putting words into his mouth.

> "The Golden Rule: Those that have the gold, make the rules."  You don't have
> to convince the people in news.groups that you're right.  You have to convince
> the people who implement the decisions suggested by the votes.  Those people
> have already decided, apparently, that the current newsgroup creation
> guidelines are not sufficient for replacing a moderator.  Trying to argue
> differently here is therefore just spitting in the wind.

	You're assuming that Gene and Dave would reject any moderator change
that came along.  You're also implying that they would only do this to
moderator changes.  The truth is, if either one of them voiced disapproval to
ANY vote, it would most likely be not implemented or have spotty propagation.
	It's nice to rely on parental-figures, but I'd like to think that
Usenet can decide for itself when someone is doing a bad job of moderation.

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Newsgroups: news.groups,alt.sex.stories,alt.sex