Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 08:50:03 11/20/97
Go up one level in this thread
On November 20, 1997 at 10:07:19, Chris Whittington wrote: > >On November 20, 1997 at 09:05:10, Fernando Villegas wrote: > >>On November 20, 1997 at 08:15:17, Peter Herttrich wrote: >> >>>On November 20, 1997 at 08:06:06, Bas Hamstra wrote: >>> >>>>Are the plans to create a new moderated newsgroup cancelled? >>>>I thought there was going to be an argumentation period, request >>>>for votes etc...? >>>> >>>> >>>>Bas Hamstra. >>> >>>Good question! >>>But i think, before you start a RFD u should find a moderator. >>>And this is not easy. This guy has to read every msg and this >>>with this high traffic here. umpf....... >>> >>>Perhaps Bob? I remember some months ago, someone said, he is >>>a computer :-) For a computer this should be no problem. >>>No no no no no .... don't shoot me, i'm only joking. >>> >>>Anyway i would like to see a good discussion abt this theme. >>> >>>Cheerio >>>Peter >> >> >>Sorry, but, whats's the purpose to create a new newsgroup? It seem we >>are running all the time from something or from somebody.The potential >>of conflict will be not diluded in that way, because is in ourselves: >>there are in CCC a good amount of egoes, as in elsewhere, so strong >>discussions and even insults will happen all the time, here or in the >>moon. > >Entirely correct analysis. > >> Or is the idea to do something absolutely exclusive for gurus? > >Some people seem to like that idea. But a rgcp on the ng hierarchy will >be relatively open access. If it's moderated by screening each post, >then it will be very slow (not to my taste); but being slow has the >advantage of keeping the nutters away, since they like fast feedback and >manic thread maintenance. > this isn't necessarily a given. I post in moderated groups regularly, and my posts show up within minutes usually. So moderation doesn't necessarily make things any slower. In fact, the moderated groups I read are fast enough that most don't realize they is moderated. >If it's moderated by controlling user access (unacceptable posts get you >banned), then it will, as CCC has shown, be mainly crap-free, with >occasional failures. > > >>Well, is that is the case, is legitimate, though somewhat disgusting for >>us, non-guru entities. > >Yes, I agree. But the problem is that the great, open, democratic >experiment in the world talking to itself has failed. Its just about >fine when good-will experts or just an interested community is talking >(but even the we haev personality clashes etc); but it fails because it >is also open house to any lunatic, bore, axe-grinder, lonely stalker or >whatever who cares to join in the fun. This latter collection wreck open >access groups (as we know). > >Chris Whittington
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.