From: cory@enigami.mv.com (Cory Kempf)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: guidelines for moderator replacement
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 92 15:08:55 EST
Organization: EnigamI, Inc., Nashua, NH
Reply-To: cory@enigami.mv.com
X-Mailer: uAccess - Macintosh Release: 1.6v1


In article <1992Aug11.232855.24903@athena.mit.edu> (news.groups), jik@athena.mit.edu (Jonathan I. Kamens) writes:
>In article <1992Aug11.154941.1590@falcon.aamrl.wpafb.af.mil>, bkottmann@falcon.aamrl.wpafb.af.mil (Brett Kottmann) writes:

>					As a moderator, however, I feel very strongly
>that I have a right to expect the same system that chose me (quite
>overwhelmingly) as moderator in the first place, to protect me against
>unwarranted harassment from individuals who are dissatisfied with my
>performance, *unless* there are enough such individuals that it is clear that
>my performance is lacking and I need to answer for it.

Then why does the system for replacing a moderator need to be different
than the one to put one in??  Why are you advocating two votes?  It
doesn't take two to put a moderator in place, does it?

>In addition to the problem of preventing the moderator from being harassed by
>replacement RFDs from dissatisfied readers, 

Just for a brief moment, consider: if the moderator is being harassed,
sie can force a CFV, and get 6 months of freedom of harassment.  Personally,
I don't think that the system would be used for harassment.

>Rec.arts.erotica is in a similar situation.  I seem to recall that there have
>now been at least three discussions, including this one, about replacing Evan.
>The first two didn't amount to anything, although this one might.  The first
>two were just a waste of bandwidth.

MANY discussions on the net are.  Most, I would say.  Any discussion
for a change in the heirarchy could be considered to be a waste. 
Any discussion within a newsgroup that the reader is not interested
in could be considered a waste.  

Assuming that this one succeeds, would it have, if the other two had
not occured?

>|> 1)  The RFD is xposted to the group in question, and/or the .d group
>|> associated.
>
>This is fine, but only if it has actually been shown that there is enough
>dissatisfaction that a vote to replace the moderator actually has a chance of
>succeeding.

This is the key flaw: *HOW* can it be shown that there is enough 
dissatisfaction, if the people concerned (e.g. the group's readership)
don't even know that the straw poll / discussion is taking place?!

For that matter, let us assume that there is a moderator who is throwing
a debate by rejecting some articles.  (e.g. one who is not being neutral
and fair, but playing sides).

The only people who know of this are the people who sent things in,
but never saw them posted.

A straw poll is requested to replace the moderator.  Discussion is
not allowed.  The group thinks that the moderator is doing at least
an adiquate job, that he is fair, etc.  The authors of the unpublished 
posts are the only ones who know different.  But they can't communicate
their objections to the group.

No open discussion of the affected readers occurs.  The other people
who have had articles rejected in similar circumstances, not reading
news.groups, are not aware that it wasn't 'just one or two articles',
or that those articles didn't 'just get lost in transit', but that
it was a systematic thing.

Protecting the poor moderator from adverse oppinion, at the expense
of free speach, is just not worth it.

>|> 2)  Non-appearance of the moderator during the discussion period is grounds 
>|> for automatic replacement.  (If the person is on vacation, there should be a
>|> substitute who can at least say "they won't be back till next month".)
>
>This should be explicitly spelled out.  And, furthermore, the amount of time
>that the moderator has to respond should be explicitly spelled out.  And,
>furthermore, if the moderator has posted an article recently saying, "I'm
>going on vacation for a few weeks, things will be dead while I'm gone, please
>be patient,"

I agree with this.  For reasonable vacations.  For longer leaves of
absense, either a new moderator should be selected, or a sub should
be appointed.  Say for any periods longer than 1 month (which is arbitrary.
Two weeks?  Six?  Two Months?).  But this is an event for the olympics
to hammer out.

>|> 	This is what largely goes on during the normal RFD/CFV melee.  Trying
>|> to get "new" procedures will only open up a can of worms.  The result either
>|> being ineffectual rules or unusable rules.
>
>It seems obvious that the CURRENT rules are "unusable [sic]," since they have
>never successfully been used to replace a moderator, despite several attempts,
>including this one.  If they were useable, then Dave Lawrence would have
>accepted the RFD to replace the rec.arts.erotica moderator.  Since he didn't,
>it seems clear that you're just going to have to come up with something better
>and get him to sign off on it before you can replace the moderator of
>rec.arts.erotica or any other newsgroup.  I doubt Dave is going to change his
>mind.

What you are saying is that one person has absolute control over all
changes to the net.  This is just not correct.

If necessary, he can be bypassed, although with the result that large 
portions of the net will probably not accept the results, flame wars 
will abound, control article counts will skyrocket, 'Forged' aprovals 
will be come rampant, etc.

Not Optimal.  

Until and unless proven otherwise, I think that Dave Lawrence
it a reasonable person.  If he is shown that he made a bad decision
(or at least that there is significant debate over it), he will take
action.  Most moderators are quite reasonable about things like this,
usually having a policy of posting the (rejected) article with a brief 
statement that it is being posted over the moderator's objections.  At 
least, those that I have come in contact with.

+C


-------------------------------------------------------------
Cory Kempf                    EnigamI, Inc.
cory@enigami.mv.com           ...!decvax!enigami!cory
Annon:	wi.5036@wizvax.methuen.ma.us

"F' cryin' out loud, it's *your* life; shouldn't you at least examine 
your lifestyle values to see if they are really what *you* want."
										--Keith Lim