From: wag5@quads.uchicago.edu (john peter wagner)
Subject: Re: proposed vote of confidence
Reply-To: wag5@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 00:51:53 GMT

In article <MUFFY.92Sep1165554@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>In article <78885@ut-emx.uucp> lynch@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Tom Lynch) writes:
>
>>The issue has been raised that a/the modertor of soc.feminism has been
>>inappropriately rejecting articles.
>
>It would seem that all of the moderators have been accused of this
>(actually, I'm not sure that anyone has accused me of this, but I
>wouldn't be surprised...the one I have seen was ataylor's complaints
>about something that I was not involved in), but the major complaint
>that I have seen is not that, but that the moderators also post.
>
>>The responses have been wild and emotional.
>
>The accusations have been wild and emotional.
>
>>>muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
>>>*laugh*...right.  And all of you would leap to try to pull soc.feminism
>>>down, even though you have made it clear that you have very little
>>>understanding of what's going on there.  
>
>>I ask you to reconsider.
>
>Well, it's not really *my* decision.  There are three moderators (one
>currently inactive).  The decision would have to be made by all three of
>us, presumably at the request of a significant number of the readers of
>soc.feminism, although I do not know if there is any set procedure for
>this sort of thing.
>
>>It is inconvienient to have two forums on the same topic.  It would be
>>much simpler to let the large majority of readers to agree that the
>>moderation is appropiate and have one group.
>
>Why?  Some people have written to me since the creation of alt.feminism
>and said that they are much happier with a moderated group.  Others have
>written saying that they disapprove of moderation.  Why should both
>groups not be satisfied?
>
>>his is not an issue of
>>moderation or no moderation - it is an issue of appropariate
>>moderation.
>
>Really?  That really isn't how it looks.  It seems to me that a *lot* of
>people want a completely unmoderated group.  Perhaps you should survey
>the readership of both groups before claiming that the issue is not
>moderation.
>
>>>Look, you've got your place now, why not just live in it?  If
>>>people are really so unhappy with soc.feminism, they will all 
>>>post here and soc.feminism will quietly die away.
>
>>Wouldn't that be nice, there would be the one group of people whose
>>articles biased moderator likes/tolerates, and then the other group.
>
>Well, when you say "tolerates," what do you mean?  We "tolerate" any
>article that is relevant to feminism, until a point is run around in
>circles many times.  Either moderators *moderate*, which means to reject
>some articles, or you have an unmoderated group, and you might as well
>dispense with moderators, who just slow down the whole process.  Indeed,
>it seems to me that that is exactly what you have done.
>
>>That is not the problem
>>with that group as it stands, the problem is the articles which are
>>missing.
>
>WHICH articles are "missing"?  Again, it sounds like you're arguing that
>all articles should be posted, in which case moderation does not make
>any sense.
>
>If you are actually in favor of moderation, which articles would you
>have rejected?
>
>>Kind of like south Africa making a little country just for
>>the blacks, so they won't get in the way...
>
>Well, if you want to make that comparision, you should note that it is
>not the antifeminists segregating us, it is the feminists.  Are you
>trying to say that feminists are in a majority?  Tell me where, so I can
>move there...it sure as hell isn't anywhere around here (virtual world
>or real world).
>
>>It seems that the least that could be done is some sort of election
>>for new moderators - seeing that your short.  Again, I would bow
>>out of such an election upon Muffy's request.
>
>The last time they went looking for moderators, there were very few
>volunteers.  I only recall myself and a guy in Europe whose connectivity
>was very bad.  I would be interested to see the results of your
>attempting to find moderators.  Somehow, I suspect that most of them
>would be confirmed feminist-haters.
>
>I'd say the first step is to determine what the general Usenet procedure 
>for replacing moderators is, or to get one created.  Then, follow that
>procedure.  Once again, the decision is not mine to make.  The only
>decision I can make is whether or not to stop being a moderator, and I
>do not intend to do that given the "reasons" that have been advanced so
>far.
>
>Muffy
>--

	Listen, if anyone doesn't like this group being unmoderated, why
do they read it? Why don't they just stick to soc.feminism or
create a new group with 'moderate moderation.' This newsgroup,
as it seems to be getting a lot of discussion, is far from dead.
I would say that people even like it as it is.  Yes, I think enough of
you readers will join me in support of this unmoderated group that
perhaps you should consider starting a new newsgroup under your own
control.

				J. Wagner