From: jik@athena.mit.edu (Jonathan I. Kamens)
Newsgroups: alt.config
Subject: Re: Proposal: alt.answers
Date: 10 Jan 1993 00:21:34 GMT
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: pit-manager.mit.edu
In-reply-to: dclunie@pax.tpa.com.au's message of 9 Jan 1993 04:49:53 GMT

In article <1illhhINN5qc@flash.pax.tpa.com.au> dclunie@pax.tpa.com.au (David Clunie) writes:

   I feel very strongly that this group should NOT be moderated. I have no complaints
   about Jonathan's moderation of the other groups, quite the converse,

Thank you.

   but an
   unmoderated answers group is much more in keeping with the anarchist alt philosophy.

1) Not everyone buys into the "anarchist alt philosophy" to this great
an extent.  There is a difference between "alt should have less
organization than the other hierarchies" and "alt should have no
organization at all."  People who believe the latter are part of what
has given alt the "sewer" reputation.

2) If what you state above were really the case, I would find it
difficult to understand why so many authors of FAQs whose homes are in
the alt hierarchy already cross-post their FAQs to news.answers.

   I know there will probably be a little bit of a problem with noisy replies and
   questions, but these can easily be redirected with follow-ups to alt.answers.d.

I doubt it would be so easy.

   There are lots of FAQ's that would not be strictly in keeping with the style of
   moderation applied to comp.answers,

Why do you say that?  Since news.answers was created, I don't recall
rejecting even *one* FAQ because it was "not... strictly in keeping
with the style of moderation applied to comp.answers [sic]" (Are you
sure you don't mean news.answers?).  Unless you're talking about the
header format requirements that news.answers imposes on FAQs.  Well,
fine, if you want to make alt.answers unmoderated and not impose any
requirements on postings in it, go right ahead.  I certainly won't
stand in your way.  But I doubt it will work nearly as well as you
seem to think it could.  There are, after all, reasons for the
news.answers guidelines.

   I do not necessarily agree with Jef's comment about moderation based upon the
   content as well as form of FAQ's, but the issue will inevitably be raised,

Why will it "inevitably be raised?"  The alt.sex, alt.sex.wizards,
talk.bizarre, and alt.buddha.short.fat.guy FAQs all appear in
news.answers, just to name a few of the more "offensive to some"
examples.  I have even been asked on more than one occasion to refuse
approval for FAQs that offend some people.  I have refused to do so in
all cases, and I see no reason why I, or anyone else moderating a
*.answers newsgroup, should hae to do so in the future.

   Finally, if any attempts are made to make it a moderated group, then there will
   undoubtedly be a "newgroup" war to make the group moderated or unmoderated as
   people see fit.

"Even if making it moderated will be more beneficial to people in the
long run, we shouldn't do it, because there will be some people who
disagree with this decision and decide to take matters into their own
hands, despite a contrary decision by the readers of alt.config."
That's stupid.

If people really are going to get all in a huff about having a
moderated alt.answers, I'd just as soon not deal with it at all.  I'm
willing to do it, and I think it's the right thing to do, but it's not
work the aggravation of fighting with people about it.

-- 
Jonathan Kamens                                         jik@MIT.Edu
Aktis, Inc.                                 Moderator, news.answers
Xref: sparky alt.config:8323 rec.humor.d:2903