From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Comp.binaries.apple2 moderation: why not?
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 92 23:20:53 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Jul23.162244.18192@unlinfo.unl.edu> gberigan@cse.unl.edu (Life...) writes:
>payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>>>payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>
>>>>Because the cost of the solution could be very great. Moderation has
>>>>made the ms-dos binaries group an absolute joke.
>
>>And they cannot even decide on a standard compressor. Everyone seems to want
>>zip, except the moderator(s?), who want zoo. It is really amusing reading the
>>.d group. If the apple2 binaries were moderated, we would probably still be
>>using executioner format.
>
>You are making claims which you know are not true.  The charter clearly
>states that BinSCII will be used.  If/when BinSCII II comes out, and it
>gains general acceptance, then it will replace BinSCII I in c.b.a2.

Look again, I was pointing out a problem in a moderated group. It has
not been solved. 
 
>>>I find the moderation to be a seriously Good Thing, and
>>>can't understand why you're so avidly seeking the group you'll get without
>>>moderation: full of non-binaries, and those that are there are barely tested
>>>and quite possibly full of viruses. 
>
>>We -have- a perfectly servicable binaries group -without- moderation. There
>>has been no virus problem, and a new virus would not be caught anyway.
>
>There are pieces of code which are common among destructive viruses.
>The presence of such code will be checked, so even some new viruses will
>be caught.  (There was one program posted at one time that the author
>had said he had run such a virus checking program on, and that it had a
>false positive.)

I imagine that there might be some new vectors with the new GS/OS out.
 
>>The
>>non-binaries posts are just a minor annoyance.
>
>Which become major annoyances when the new students get their accounts
>in the Fall, and the discussion posts again outnumber the binaries.

No more an annoyance than passing a thread you have no interest in.
 
>>And there have no strong arguments for -changing- something that works quite
>>well. 
>
>Not everyone here believes that comp.binaries.apple2 "works quite well"
>as is.

So, not everyone believes that it is broken either. This is the reason for
the vote.
 
>>>You need look no farther than alt.sources
>>>to bear the former out, and what better distribution channel than Usenet for a
>>>brand new virus?
>
>>Vote as you wish, I vote no. There has not been one single strong reason for
>>the change. Some say that the little things add up to something we need, but
>>I do not see it, and many others do not as well.
>
>And I have yet to see one single strong reason for it not to be changed.
>Both sides do add up, but the for side, even with all its so-called
>minor points, still end up with a total greater than the negative side.

Since the proposal is to -add- moderation, this is what must be supported.
The proposal is not to remove moderation, or to not add moderation. Can
anyone focus upon the issue? Or is it just me? No reasons for not moderating
is zero reason for moderating. Like creationists who feel that crushing
evolution will verify creation, it will not.

The job is to show -why- moderation is needed. The reasons are weak. So
it is left to a matter of preferance. Lets wait for the vote.
 
>>Rich
>>payner@netcom.com
>
>-- gberigan@cse.unl.edu (Life...)