From: jchokey@leland.Stanford.EDU (James Alexander Chokey)
Subject: Re: Procedure for changing to unmoderated?
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 92 18:32:30 GMT

In article <1992Aug16.000724.3504@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
>In article <3228227@bailey.UUCP>, ben@bailey.UUCP (Ben Bailey) writes:
>> There is currently a discussion in rec.food.cooking regarding making
>> the group rec.food.recipes unmoderated.  In the past year, no
>> articles have been posted (or almost none) to this group.
>
>	@#)(N@VB)N+@$HGBJ(@$GH
>
>	(I'd type something legible but I'm laughing too hard)
>:)
>
>> The current discussion seems to indicate that the well meaning 
>> moderator hasn't had the time to moderate the group properly.  Since
>> this has become an issue, a general debate has insued regarding
>> making the group unmoderated, as opposed to getting a new moderator.
>> 
>> I would like to know what the procedures are for holding a vote
>> for the purpose of moving a newsgroup from moderated to unmoderated.
>
>	Bring her into the wind and fire at will!
>

	"Stupendous Man"'s amusement at Ben's question is understandable
in light of the debate that's been raging here in news.groups, but this is
an issue of real concern to some people.  If anything, Ben's question and
description of the situation in rec.food.recipes underscore the real need
for having a workable set of guidlines for dealing with moderation problems.
	
	I've been following this discussion for a while and have noticed that
the arguments of those who want moderator replacement/removal to be as 
difficult as possible really seem to be barking up the wrong tree.  Their 
desire to prevent a good moderator from being "harassed" and "constantly
forced to defend himself" is understandable, but that really isn't the
problem in either rec.arts.erotica or rec.food.recipes.  In neither group,
are people concerned with replacing a moderator whom they do not like 
because of his/her process of selection/rejection, because of his/her 
editorial comments, or whatever.  They're both concerned with moderators
who have not posted ANYTHING in months, in spite of the fact that they have
received relevant submissions. 

	The arguments about "what if this" and "what if that" in hypothetical
situations are all fine and good in terms of providing debate material, but
please look at the very real problems in rec.arts.erotica and rec.food.recipes.
Here are situations where the moderator has simply not been doing his or her
job for months.  These are the sorts of problems that cause people to call
for a new moderator or for unmoderating a group, and these are the sorts
of problems that any Usenet guidelines on moderator complaints should be 
geared towards dealing with.  The fears of Jonathon Kamens and others that 
good moderators would continually be "under siege" are hypothetically possible
but are extremely unlikely in practice.  By worrying about an unlikely
possibility, rather than dealing with a very real problem that is going on 
in two newsgroups even as we speak, they're only talking around the problem.
	
	Please, folks.  Look at the situations that brought up this call for
moderator replacement/unmoderation and gear the debate around them--  around
real problems that are going on right now--  rather than around hypothetical 
and improbable "but what if"'s.  

	
	--  Jim C. <jchokey@leland.stanford.edu>