From: whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt)
Subject: Re: A thought about Rialto 
Reply-To: whheydt@PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt)
Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 23:13:26 GMT

In article <1992Sep3.212202.26775@athena.cas.vanderbilt.edu> cctimar@athena.cas.vanderbilt.edu (Charles) writes:
>I had a thought about making the Rialto work a little more efficiently.
>
>My idea is to make the Rialto "slightly moderated," in that it could
>have subject-area moderators.

From what I understand of the workings of usenet, 'slightly moderated'
is rather like 'a little bit pregnant'.  Either a newsgroup is
moderated (and the moderator must approve all postings--barring
someone hacking their way in), or it isn't moderated and anyone can
post.

>These would not be moderators in the usual sense, but something more
>like experts or specialists.  An example might be Cariadoc on the
>subject of cooking, or Justin for dance (supposing that either of them
>volunteered for such a position).

Se sort of get that effect anyway.  There are some folks out here
that, on factual matters at least, are taken as de facto experts.
Once someone who is informally recognized that way makes a statement
on something within their sphere of expertise, discussion tends to
fade *very* rapidly (or, sometimes, turn into a series of questions).

By the way, I would class Baron Dur as the Rialto expert on Fire
Safety as a prime example of a specific-field Rialtan expert.

>The system rely on a tacit agreement, by many of us, to let that person
>moderate that topic.  If we had a question, we could send it to that
>person, who would either send us a reply or post the question and
>optional commentary.  If somebody else posted on that topic, we would
>send any responses we wished to make to the specialist, who would
>formulate the first response.  If the expert had posted the initial
>message, or had already replied to it, then the rest of us would feel
>free to add our own comments.

While this is an interesting proposal, my first reaction is that it's
not workable.  The Rialto is a very small part of a network that is
rather proud of it's anarchic nature.  As it is--*no* one is bound by
conventions such as you suggest, and the last time I looked, the
estimated readership of this newsgroup was roughly comparable to the
entire offcial membership of the SCA.  Since we all know numerous
people in the Society who *don't* read the Rialto, this implies large
numbers of people who aren't, by any stretch of the imagination, in
the Society.  (As an aside for all of you in that category--feel free
to read.  And--as far as I'm concerned--feel free to comment if you
have anything to add to discussions.  likewise, questions are
welcome.)  Those of us in the Society, to whatever degree, have no
social lever to enforce such an agreement on those who aren't.
Personally--I don't seek one, either.

>Is this system, or something like it, workable?  How much would it
>reduce noise?

On the whole, the Rialto has a pretty good signal-to-noise level.
This is fortunate, since I really doubt the scheme would work.  

>This may require considerable modification.  If you feel like
>responding to this, consider whether to use the Rialto or direct
>e-mail.

I think a rather more fundamental question is:  is this (or any form
of moderation needed?  We're pretty moderate already.

	--Hal

        Hal Ravn, Province of the Mists, West Kingdom
        Wilson H. Heydt, Jr.,  Albany, CA 94706,  510/524-8321 (home)
-- 
Hal Heydt                    |    "Boycott Time-Warner"
Analyst, Pacific*Bell        |         --J. Danforth Quayle
510-823-5447                 |    "... kill all the lawyers."
whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM    |         --William Shakespeare
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca