Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 11:35:07 03/26/99
Go up one level in this thread
On March 26, 1999 at 14:17:59, Todd Durham wrote: >On March 26, 1999 at 13:40:04, Dann Corbit wrote: > >First, thank you for your reply, and second, thanks for the advice about TSCP >and Phalanx you gave G. W. Smith. I'm going to take that piece of advice and put >it to use in a month or two. > >>Moderated newsgroups are a huge workload for someone. Ask the moderators of >>this group, and I am sure they will tell you. On Usenet, it is even harder, >>because the posts back up and don't get posted until approved. > >Would it be possible to run one more like CCC is run? I saw last night that >Charles Unruh made a post that was killed by this morning. Is it not at all >possible to do such things on a usenet group? (I mean deleting a post after it >goes out instead of before so that posts don't have to be read by a moderator >before hand?) And I also still have my original questions, if someeone can >answer them: >1) How would one go about doing this? >2) Who would be the moderators? How would they be choosen? >3) Would there be any cost? >4) Who would the moderators be responsible to? (This is an important one!) >5) Are we just going to talk about it, or are we going to do something about it? http://www.cis.ohio-state.edu/hypertext/faq/usenet/usenet/moderated-ng-faq/faq.html http://www.cis.ohio-state.edu/hypertext/faq/usenet/usenet/moderated-ng-faq/faq-doc-7.html >>It also prevents >>them from being delivered to any crossposted newsgroups when a moderated group >>is included until it has been approved. > >This might be a good thing! It could act as a fire wall to slow the spread of >the flames! > >>Also, moderated newsgroups have a tendency to be dry and boring. I suppose that >>is better than the quagmire things have arrived at, but I don't really see any >>good solutions. > >Ideally, I would see the moderators acting with a light hand. If a thread >wanders a little off into left field, that's fine, people can ignore these as >they wish. Even some arguing should be allowed, I think, as sometimes people do >disagree strongly and honestly on an issue. (For example, the threads here >concerning whether or not Odell Hall should have given the handle of the person >he caught cheating.) Some arguement is fine. Good, in fact! What I think a >moderator's job in such a situation SHOULD be would be to send off email to the >parties concerned and just ask them to tone done any personal stuff if it got >out of hand. In the case cited above, the people in question handled this matter >on their own (at least, I didn't see any public action by outside parties) and >handled it well, last I checked. I believe this would work well most of the >time, as most people ARE reasonable, and only need to be occassionally reminded >to mind their manners. (My wife performs this function for me!) > >The biggest function a moderator would perform would be to handle the people >whose only purpose in life is to make the lives of others miserable, and wildly >off-topic stuff. (e.g. Starting a discussion on whether or not NATO should >pursue its policy in Kosovo would be too far afield, but perhaps asking which >player one thinks is the most aggresive player ever might not be. At least it's >about chess.) > >Also, it should be made quite clear what the policies are before hand, so no one >later says, "I didn't know I couldn't say ____." > >Finally (at last!), I don't think a moderated group HAS to be dry. It's just a >question of who the moderators are and what policies are to be enforced. > >Todd > >PS I apologize for any missing or extra t's. Getting a new keyboard is my top >priority this weekend! If someone wants to create a moderated newsgroup that is fine. I have no interest in being a moderator. In fact, I have an interest in not being one.
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.