Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: 3rd RFD: comp.binaries.apple2 moderated
From: gberigan@cse.unl.edu (Life...)
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 05:07:03 GMT
 <1992Jul27.152421.22828@unlinfo.unl.edu> <6!mmy#_.payner@netcom.com>
Organization: Ursa Minor Beta, 402-476-8047 @ 2400

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:
>>>>gberigan@cse.unl.edu (Greg "Life..." Berigan) writes:

>>>>>The moderator and assistants reserve the right to
>>>>>cancel any posting in comp.binaries.apple2 that is deemed inappropriate.
>>>>                                                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>>>>I'm not sure I like that last part (mind you, I'm still for moderation).
>>>>Maybe it should be "... deemed inappropriate as stated in the charter"?

>>>Agreed, it should be spelled out exactly in the charter. If it does pass,
>>>lets at least iron out any apparent problems.

>>Well, "inappropriate" has a wide spread.  That the article was actually
>>approved by a moderator would imply that it was appropriate, but it
>>could turn that under closer examination it was not.  However, it is
>>primarily there as a clause to authorize a moderator to cancel
>>postings not made by a moderator.

Such as articles posted with forged approval.

>Too wide a spread. 

>>The charter doesn't explicitly state that only moderator-approved
>>articles are to appear, but it is understood net-wide that that is the
>>case with a moderated newsgroup except where denied (alt.hackers).

>Since the moderators will have to explicitly post the files to the
>net, I see no way anything -but- moderator approved articles could be
>posted.

As I mentioned above.  If you are familiar with the newsgroup
alt.hackers, you know how easily this can be done.  It is a moderated
newsgroup.  There is no moderator.  Not even an automaton.  Alt.dev.null
is also moderated, but it is set up to point to a mail address which
discards any incoming message.

>>How about "deemed inappropriate by the charter, moderators, and/or the
>>net at large"?

>How will the net at large be able to assess programs possessed only by
>the moderators?

That is why I mentioned articles approved mistakenly by a moderator.
I'm sure the users of c.b.- and c.sys.apple2 would raise hell over a
commercial program slipping through.

>I remember when the runtime version of Hyperstudio was
>posted with some stacks, and there were people complaining that 
>commercial software had been posted. Net users make mistakes as well.

If the hard evidence shows that the net-at-large is incorrect (to be
presented in the open forum of comp.sys.apple2) then an article will be
left alone, or reposted if it had been removed.

>But if the charter is so vague that it does not specify what should
>not be posted, then the netgroup users have no say, the moderator can
>rule with an iron fist (so to speak, and I do not mean to allude to
>Jawaid).
>
>The charter should specifically mention materials which are inappropriate,
>which would obviously include commercial programs.

I'm not about to list every program ever written and say yes/no on each.
I will however give general categories

How about this:

|Appropriate files shall mean virus-free Freeware, Shareware, or
|otherwise freely-distributable programs which run on any one or more
|Apple II or Apple III computers or their compatibles, their [programs']
|documentation, and their data files, excluding those files which are
|already covered by existing newsgroups' charters.  Submissions will
|include a description of a reasonable length; when posted it will be
|be presented at the beginning of the first part of the archive, and
|seperated from the archive body by a Control-L.  The description will
|include what machine(s) it will properly run on.
|
|Appropriate postings do not include articles that are not approved by
|one of the moderators nor the idle-moderator script.  Such approval
|does not insure an article is appropriate, especially in the case of
|the latter.
|
|Subjects will be constructed with keywords indentifying CPU requirements,
|name of the archived program, parts count, and short summary (additional
|hardware and software requirements will take precedence over short
|summary).  Postings will be encoded using newest versions of ShrinkIT
|and BinSCII, until such (unforseen at this writing) time that they are
|usurped in preference.  There will be 3 BinSCII parts per post.
|Articles will have unique, sequential article-IDs, with Reference:
|headers set accordingly for threaded newsreaders' (like trn) benefit.
|The series of posts that make up a complete archive will be posted
|together, and will be delayed until all parts have been received.
|Submissions not checked for 5 days after receipt will be automatically
|posted as-is; it is recommended, but not required, that submitters send
|postings in in the same format as the approved postings are sent out.
|Repeat postings will not be posted if the posting in question has been
|posted within 6 months time; this does not apply to newer versions of
|the same program.  Postings will be forwarded to the APPLE2-L mailing
|list as approved, as well as archived on an anonymously accessible FTP
|site.  Old postings will also be available on request from the
|moderator(s).
|
|If an article is found to be inappropriate, the article will be
|cancelled.  In the case of articles with forged approval, the article
|will then be treated as if it had just been submitted by the poster.

Hmm, I'd better save that!

Basically the above is a restatement of the "Goals of Moderation" in the
RFDs, but I'll incorporate it into the Call For Votes printing of the
charter.  Any other changes?  C'mon, speak up, we don't have a whole
month anymore.

>Why should there be a problem with spelling this out in the charter?

Well there is the 3 days we have to suddenly make changes.  I mean I am
glad that you are at least discussing this now, but did it have to be
_now_?  I was about ready to pre-send the CFV.

One problem with spelling everything out explicitly is that it does not
leave room for future expansion.

>BTW, who are the proposed moderators? Jawaid would have my vote, but at
>this point I am not sure about Tero. Are there others?

Just the list of 4 as printed in the 3rd RFD.  Tero though is not in
that list.  The 4 are Jawaid, myself, johnp@silver.lcs.mit.edu (John
Palaima), and stuckey@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu (Anthony J. Stuckey).  Jawaid
is primary moderator, myself as co, and John and Anthony as backups who
will be called to duty when needed.

-- gberigan@cse.unl.edu (Life...)
Newsgroups: news.groups,comp.unix.sysv386