From: dgreen@smurf.sti.com (Dan R. Greening)
Newsgroups: news.groups,soc.motss
Subject: Re: Soc.Motss.* / Automoderation.
Date: 19 Dec 1992 17:47:23 -0800
Organization: Software Transformation, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: smurf.sti.com

dgreen@smurf.sti.com (Dan R. Greening) blurted:

>I love the suggested "no crossposts" rule, and it seems to
>have almost universal support.  It is ingenious for its intended goal.

Well, I spoke too soon.  I saw this overwhelmingly positive thread in
news.groups and presumed it spoke for soc.motss readers too.  I salve my
wounds thinking that at least the idea appealed to gay news administrators
(or computer scientist/book writers, like Paul Asente).

The problem with suggestions like automoderation is that people fear that it
will cause something horrible to happen, like squelching ideas, and so they
react extremely strongly.

Would it be possible to get at least neutral feelings toward an experimental
automoderated alt.lesbigay, which would be always alt.lesbigay->soc.motss 
crossposted?  This would allow us to experiment and see how good or bad it
really is.  Further, readers of soc.motss who don't have access to the alt 
hierarchy could scan for "Newsgroups: .*alt\.lesbigay" if they want to see
just what is being posted there.

Be careful about waxing flamelegant against some sort of automoderation.
A non-moderated forum will ALWAYS be provided.  However, there are many,
many good people, potential assets to a worldwide gay newshierarchy, who are
excluded from soc.motss because of the enormous traffic.  They cannot
argue their case loudly in soc.motss, because they do not even know this
discussion is taking place.  They aren't here.  I have met lots of these 
people, and most likely, if you think about it, you have too--but not in 
soc.motss.  Jess argues that threaded readers eliminates this problem.  
It does not.  I am a very sophisticated news reader and news administrator.  
I cannot deal with the traffic here for very long, and continue to remain 
a productive manager.  Yes, I read comp.windows.x, which is almost as
voluminous, but it is part of my job, and it consumes much more time than
I wish it did.

Therefore, I ask that you try to consider those who wish to contribute, 
get announcements, etc, but who cannot spare the time to wade through 
hundreds of postings a day.  You have to put on a little "pretend
I'm one of them" cap to see how they feel, because there will inherently
be few of them in this newsgroup.  If you are reading this it is likely
that you have the time to do it.  You like the cocktail party atmosphere.
They really need a more controlled forum, if they are to participate.  

There are some people who just want fact-sheets, i.e., 2 well-thought postings
a day.  There are some who just don't want to put up with cross-posting bozos.
And there are some who cannot cope with more than, say, 50 articles a day.
Few of those people are in soc.motss, but it seems wise to consider them
since having big time-demands also correlates with some qualities we might 
value in friends of the gay community.

Don't forget them.
-- 
____
\  /Dan Greening    Software Transformation   1601 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd, #100
 \/dgreen@sti.com   (408) 973-8081 x313       Cupertino, CA 95014