From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple2,news.groups
Subject: Re: Comp.binaries.apple2 moderation: why not?
Date: 23 Jul 92 23:29:20 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Jul23.160417.17237@unlinfo.unl.edu> gberigan@cse.unl.edu (Life...) writes:
>payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>gberigan@cse.unl.edu (Life...) writes:
>>>payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>>>cust_ts@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Tero Sand) writes:
>
>>>>That you missed humdreds of posts in cs2a on this topic shows your lack of 
>>>>involvment. Which brings to mind my question, what do you care? And why?
>
>>>Articles posted ONLY to comp.sys.apple2 regarding the moderation of
>>>comp.binaries.apple2, by the Guidelines, do NOT count.  Only what
>>>appears in news.groups is recognized discussion.  Crossposted items are
>>>fine.  These are not my rules, it is just the way it is.
>
>>Be that as it may be, it completely misses the question.
>
>The question was directed at someone else.  I was providing a sidebar,
>which does not even attempt the question.  I simply state that it is not
>required that a user follow or even take part in a newsgroup in order to
>take an interest or even an active part in the discussion of a proposal
>affecting that group.

Granted. Note that a change in the status of a group will have much effect
upon the rest of the net than adding or removing a group.
 
>>BTW, although you claim that you did NOT find reason for not moderating, it
>>is exactly as true for reasons TO moderate. It ain't broke, it does not need
>>to be fixed. 
>
>Are you talking to me, or to Tero?  Anyway, perhaps it is you who
>haven't been reading the articles, specifically the RFDs which were
>posted which clearly listed the benefits of moderation.

Tero originally, but I've been here all along, and I now read news.groups
daily. How you gonna vote on the Harley issue?

[...]
 
>>>>The real question is why do we -need- moderation. The answer is that we do
>>>>not -need- moderation. It would prevent a few annoyances, at a cost which
>>>>will exceed the value of the few benefits.
>
>>>Annoyances which still continue, even at the peak of the discussion
>>>period on moderation.  Many people, when they first join USENET, have
>>>groups presented to them in alphabetical order.  "binaries" comes before
>>>"sys".
>
>>And they -still- are no more than annoyances.
>
>Annoyances which, upon repeated instances, major annoyances, which have
>at times EXCEEDED the number of binaries posts.  I point to every Fall,
>when the new students at Universities get their first account with
>USENET.  It has been demonstrated that FAQs do not work, and email deals
>with the problem only after the effect.  The only way to prevent them is
>to work preemptively, and the only way to do that is with moderation.

Obvioulsy, some are -much- more annoyed than others. I wonder that they
have the patience to skip the Avatar discussion, or other things that they
might not want to read without flaming.
 
>::[My mentioning of some of the elements of the charter.]
>
>>So why is it that rather than supporting the proposition directly, you
>>ask the wrong question. The proposal being to -add- moderation, the question
>>that needs to be answered is -why- add moderation. It seems that you have
>>a personal stake in this. And it also seems you are being deliberatly
>>evasive. These are not qualities I find attractive in a moderator.
>
>The proposition supports itself rather well.  The reason why I keep
>responding to articles against the proposal is because I was the one
>that called for the proposal in the first place.  It's my JOB.

As to how well the proposition supports itself, the vote will tell, will
it not?
 
>>The discussion period drags on. All arguments were posted within the first
>>week it seems. Nothing new or different has been posted for a long time.
>
>Then you must have been asleep at your terminal.  There are now
>two more moderators, and a few more items added to the charter,
>including mention of the automatic post verification at 5 days
>and the donated virus checking software from Morgan Davis.  Just
>read it for a change.

Cosmetic changes. Essentially they change the 'how', but the what is not
affected, nor the reasoning behind it. I did not know that Morgan Davis
had donated virus software however. I respect his programming.
 
>>Rich
>>payner@netcom.com
>
>-- gberigan@cse.unl.edu (Life...)

Rich

payner@netcom.com
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple2