From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Comp.binaries.apple2 moderation: why not?
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 92 04:52:51 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Jul22.205159.19989@unlinfo.unl.edu> gberigan@cse.unl.edu (Life...) writes:
>payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>
>>>
>>>>cust_ts@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Tero Sand) writes:
>
>>>>>Ok, folks: I just spent over half an hour searching articles that deal
>>>>>with moderating c.b.a2. I did NOT find reasons for not moderating except
>>>>>for two, which where stated by Amrit. So, please stop claiming
>>>>>otherwise.
>
>>No, -I- do think that this is the wrong way around. Read a bit more carefully
>>please. The proposal is to change cb2a, so this proposal should be supported.
>>That you missed humdreds of posts in cs2a on this topic shows your lack of 
>>involvment. Which brings to mind my question, what do you care? And why?
>
>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.

Be that as it may be, it completely misses the question.

BTW, although you claim that you did NOT find reason for not moderating, it
is exactly as true for reasons TO moderate. It ain't broke, it does not need
to be fixed. 
  
>>what do you care? You are neither a poster or a lurker in the apple2
>>groups, or you would not have to ask questions like you do above. Vote as
>>you wish, but I cannot see why you would vote at all. Do you even have an
>>Apple //? The vote would not affect you at all unless you do. But your
>>vote could have a negative impact upon the actual users of the groups.
>>Not that you seem to care.
>
>I know of some people who will not get involved with any binaries group
>unless it is moderated.  

Obviously their opinion counts more than those who -use- the group.
 
>>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".

And they -still- are no more than annoyances.
 
>Besides, the way this will be implemented, the maximum delay of an
>article will be 5 days.  After 5 days have elapsed, any submitted
>article will be approved _automatically_.  Since Jawaid and I are online
>daily (if not hourly), and can do the moderation duties simultaneously,
>it is unlikely that that 5 day period will be reached.  Most likely,
>during active time, an archive would be delayed only by 2 days of
>receipt of the final part, maximum.  Discussion posts can be relayed to
>comp.sys.apple2 immediately, and likely help given to the person
>immediately as well, such as a request for an expired post or the
>perennial "How do I decode these files?" posted to .binaries.

So why is it that rather than supporting the proposition directly, you
ask the wrong question. The proposal being to -add- moderation, the question
that needs to be answered is -why- add moderation. It seems that you have
a personal stake in this. And it also seems you are being deliberatly
evasive. These are not qualities I find attractive in a moderator.
 
>>Rich
>>payner@netcom.com
>
>That reminds me, I need to send the 3rd RFD today!

The discussion period drags on. All arguments were posted within the first
week it seems. Nothing new or different has been posted for a long time.
 
>-- gberigan@cse.unl.edu (Life...)


Rich

payner@netcom.com


Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple2