From: devkumar@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Devakumar Sreevijayan)
Newsgroups: alt.culture.kerala
Subject: Re: SCK, Moderation and other stories
Date: 23 Jan 1993 07:51:24 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: dewey.cc.utexas.edu

This is somewhat lengthy.        
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let me briefly compare moderated newsgroups and unmoderated newsgroups.
A prime example of an unmoderated newsgroup is s.c.i. Unmoderated newgroups
tend to be more 'organic', in the sense that anything and everything goes,
with the unfortunate consequences of unmanageable volume and frequent chaos.
On the fortunate side, there is a sense of freedom and sometimes (though
rarely) you see posts that are spontaneous and creative. However, as we
know too well, s.c.i. has been organic to the point of becoming a jungle.  
Its difficult to 'live' in such jungles, thus the migrations to the hinterland,
to a.c.k., s.c.t., etc. A phenomenon that has recently been symptomatic of
the country at large.
        An unmoderated newsgroup, that remains relatively free of abuse
despite high volume, is rec.arts.books. The discussion remains at a very
high plane, without being unduly stuck-up. Why do things work over there
and not over in s.c.i? A major reason could be the implicit awareness that
discussions must pertain to books (even if they are not, people do drop 
'an obligatory book reference'). Another is the presence of a large and
*regular* set of respondents who post articulately and constructively.
These people tend to act as a sort of filter, unconsciously forcing the
new poster to observe an unwritten, though observable, code of conduct. 
Even if there are disruptions, these same set of regular posters help
restore stability. These respondents also tend to be much older than the
s.c.i populace who also are rarely 'regular' posters. In short, if there
is a set of regular, articulate, sane :-) (read mature) posters, enough to 
become a critical mass, the newgroup reaches a level of stability. 
         A good example of a moderated newgroup is soc.religion.eastern.
Dinesh Prabhu was the founding moderator. I think he did an excellent job
and instituted some practices which are worth emulating, should we decide
to go the moderated way. At the end of each week, Dinesh used to present
a list of all the posts he received, the ones he rejected or sent back for
changes, and his reasons for doing so. If there was an objection, the matter
was discussed publicly and relevant rules, conventions, etc. were presented.
This newgroup has now reached that 'critical mass', that I doubt if any
articles are rejected at all. The problem is that there has to be a moderator
willing to take the trouble. There has to be a committee also, volunteers
perhaps, who will present the second level of decision-making, should there
be need for arbitration. The function of the moderator, is to scan all the
received articles, and reject or ask for resubmission, any articles that
may be perceived as leading to a disruption of the smooth workings of the
group. In other words, do not allow flame wars to erupt. I  don't think
there really is any need to scan articles closely for content unless there is
already some tension on the net.  If a heated discussion is terminated by
the moderator, it places no excessive curbs on the rights of the worked-up   
few, I think; they can always take their ugliness someplace else.  
To extend my earlier metaphor, instead of a jungle, we would like a garden,
and in a garden you need a gardener who does some weeding.

            I hope this comparison helps the discussion. I shouldn't feel
offended if a moderator sent this post of mine back to me, asking me to
cut it down to readable size. :-)

/dev
Newsgroups: alt.culture.kerala