From: fred_s@earwax.pei.com (Fred Scott)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Unmoderated newsgroup moderation (was Re: use a KILLFILE)
Date: 12 Oct 92 21:16:17 GMT
Organization: Protocol Engines Incorporated

In article <410@ulogic.UUCP> hartman@ulogic.UUCP (Richard M. Hartman) writes:
>In article <1992Oct9.000614.3454@pei.com> fred_s@earwax.pei.com (Fred Scott) writes:
>>to keep in mind is that there is *no* arbiter of what's germane to an
>>unmoderated newsgroup.  
>
>Sure there is.  The current population of the group that has
>been happily (sp?) communicating until the advent of the disruptive
>force.  The status quo should always have precedence (perhaps even
>when it is the status quo that is technically in violation of the
>established charter, if no attempt has been made to enforce it).
>
>>"has been there for a lot longer" does not give either of these people the
>>right to stand up and say "hey buddy, your material doesn't belong here - get
>>out!"  If you think it does, then we ought to clear up that misunderstanding
>>right away.
>
>Perhaps we should.  I maintain that the current population of the
>group is the best determiner of what is/is not appropriate material
>for that group, and are perfectly within their rights to request
>off-topic posters to relocate.  Of course this must stand up to
>the "reasonability test".  If we're talking about nude windsurfing
>in the comp.cpm topic because it hasn't had any real posts about cpm
>in years <g>, then perhaps someone who has inheirted an Osborne would
>have a decent case for being there......

(Perhaps I've overstated my case.  In truth, I don't know if most on the net
really agrees with me about what I've said on this subject.  But I wish people
would at least consider my viewpoint.)

The problems I've seen are when the edges are fuzzy.  Posted material is "kind
of" near the edges of the newsgroup's charter but not really within it.  Or
the original post was within the boundries but the follow-ups have steadily
mutated to an orthagonal subject, etc. etc.  The trouble starts when some
self-appointed newsgroup cop starts making judgements about the content of the
posts.  Sometimes, he DOES have a good complaint but a lot of times these guys
are complaining about fairly minor transgressions or are flat out wrong.
And even when they're right, it's been my observation that a lot of the
"criminals" don't bother to listen.  And others will quickly start a flame
war over it - which is actually counter-productive in terms of clearing a
newsgroup of noise.

In short, I don't believe in policing newsgroups because:

*	It isn't clear who has the authority and judgement to do so.   (And
	those who assume it immediately become flame-bait for those who
	resent being "policed".)

*	It's unpleasant and frequently starts unnecessary flame wars.

*	It doesn't seem to work, at least IMHO.

>I was under the impression that, even if there were somewhere a set
>of rules for creating alt. groups, that it was not frequently adhered
>to.  If there is a concerted effort underway to try to get a mechanism
>in place and honored I apologize for undermining your efforts.

I don't believe there are any rules.  I was just pointing out that we don't
need any more unused groups, and the best policy to avoid creating another one
is to leave the actual creation to the people who would use it.  If they need
help, fine - give them anything and everything they need to do the deed.  But
leave the doing to them.

Fred