Moderating r.a.p and r.a.s. Was: Absolute lowest altitude you can fly (legally)

On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 22:46:29 -0000, Jim Logajan wrote in :

Michael Rhodes wrote:

Is there a particular reason why r.a.s and r.a.p are not moderated?

First, I'm not 100% sure what the current policy is, but I believe that
proposals to change an unmoderated group to a moderated group would be
discarded as contrary to Big 8 Usenet policy. This is because the few times
that unmoderated groups have been changed to moderated in the past have
lead to considerable strife.

I'm on the big-8 management board, such as it is, and that sounds
about right.

We couldn't bring ourselves to say we'd "never" try to change
the status of a group from unmoderated to moderated, but I think
we're quite firm that it's something that we'd hardly ever consider.

r.a.p. and r.a.s. would not, in my view, qualify as likely
exceptions-to-the-rule.

But it would be possible to propose parallel groups; e.g.
rec.aviation.piloting.moderated - but you'd have to find moderators willing
to plow through submissions several times a day, everyday, indefinitely.
Moderation definitely slows down the dialogue.

And (in my eight-year experience as the moderator of one group),
may tend to lead to less liveliness and fun. There are a lot
of tradeoffs.

Here's a faq about how moderation works, with a link to Allbery's
"Pitfalls" essay:

http://www.big-8.org/dokuwiki/doku.p...aqs:moderation

I think Jim is absolutely right: get a real newsreader, [amigo],
and killfile anyone you don't want to read--and anyone who
talks with them ceaselessly. "And the world will be a better
place ..."

Marty
--
Big-8 newsgroups: humanities.*, misc.*, news.*, rec.*, sci.*, soc.*, talk.*
See http://www.big-8.org for info on how to add or remove newsgroups.