From: gberigan@cse.unl.edu (Life...)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple2,news.groups
Subject: Re: Comp.binaries.apple2 moderation: why not?
Date: 23 Jul 92 15:36:58 GMT
Organization: Ursa Minor Beta, 402-476-8047 @ 2400

chauhan@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu (Amrit Chauhan) writes:
>gberigan@cse.unl.edu (Life...) writes:
>>@ () writes:

>>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.

>Oh give me a break Greg!  These might not be your rules, but why can't
>something posted to csa2 at least be considered by the reader?  It
>doesn't have to be official for someone to actually think about it...

There is a reason why discussion must occur in news.groups.  You can't
have some group run their own private RFD and CFV in their group and
then suddenly announce to the net that their proposal has passed.  If no
discussion appears in news.groups, it would be evidence that there was
not sufficient support of the proposal to warrant a CFV.  And every
proposal, no matter how minor, still has an effect on the net at large.
There are those who are watchful of bad precedents being set.  These may
not directly apply to comp.binaries.apple2 to our eyes, but it may to
others, which is precisely why it must be discussed in a public forum in
news.groups, which is _supposed_ to be carried by every USENET site.

>I don't care
>where the discussion is supposed to take place, but ideas are ideas,
>and there's no need to just discount them as valid points because
>they're not in the "right" (and I think they are) place!

Technically, by your reasoning, it should take place in the group
affected, which is comp.binaries.apple2, and we _both_ know that that
would NOT be appropriate.

>If Tero really cared,

One can care about the discussion about a group without reading the
group.  I don't read the comp.unix.* groups, but I am interested in how
the reorg there turns out, and not only due to the proposal for
comp.unix.apple2gs.

You also discount the possibility that Tero could be a new user who has
not had access to comp.sys.apple2.  The apple2 groups might not even be
carried on his machine, but might be if the binaries group is moderated.
There is _another_ reason why one would be interested in the proposal,
and unable to follow it in comp.sys.apple2.

>>>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".

>Regardless, they're just annoyances, and when you consider the
>__possible__ fallout from moderation, these annonyances are
>acceptable..._TO ME_

And so if they are acceptable to you, then they MUST be acceptable to
EVERYONE ELSE, eh?  Well FAQs have been shown not to work in informing
users beforehand not to post discussion to comp.binaries.apple2.  Email
hasn't been effective, since there are still sites out there that carry
c.b.a2 but don't carry the .sys. group.  Moderation is the only tool
left.  And HEY, we can prevent more than just discussion posts, we can
offer virus protection, descriptive subjects, extractable archives, a
public archive site, post redirection, links into APPLE2-L... but no,
these are all (individually) way too minor of points to justify this
evil of moderation!  Ever thought of thinking of them as a whole, or is
1+1+1=1 in your world?  Any minor delay in approval, even one as small
as 5 days, is unacceptable to you, as you still claim there is something
that could cause the group to suddenly die, _never_ to recover.  You
keep waving this flag around, but so quickly no-one can see what's
printed on it.  What is on your flag?

>chauhan@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu -- Amrit Chauhan

Yes, Amrit, I know I won't change your mind; it's carved in stone.  But
I do have a duty, as the one who posted the RFD, to prevent you from
succeeding in convincing others to your opinion.

-- gberigan@cse.unl.edu (Life...)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple2