Moderated List

On Fri, 02 May 2008 14:36:55 -0400, tman inv@lid wrote in
:

Bottom line is that success lies in getting enough of the right moderators.

There can be another issue with moderated discussion.

I recall a law suit that ultimately resulted in AvWeb changing hands.
It was over some inflammatory posting that the moderator(s) chose not
to censor. It seems, that once censorship rears its head, the
potential for legal recourse follows closely behind.....

gregvk wrote in
:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote in news:fvfm2v$shp$9
@blackhelicopter.databasix.com:

gregvk wrote in
:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote in news:fvfkio$shp$1
@blackhelicopter.databasix.com:

Larry Dighera wrote in
:


Denny, Denny, Denny.... A moderated newsgroup is going to cost
more than mere money. It's going to require someone with vision
to draft an acceptable charter, but more difficult, it's going to
require a full-time moderator or group thereof whose censorship
evenhandedness and impartiality are acceptable to the readership.

Hey, I'll do it.


Bertie

I'll get you started with The Rules.

Rule #1 - Discussing moderation is forbidden because it just makes
people get upset. Those who discuss moderation will be banned from
Usenet for at least 6 months. Anyone who attempts to circumvent the
ban will be reported to the authorities and prosecuted for misuse of
an automated information system.


I was just gonna kick out peopel who flew cherokess, but anything
that starts an argument is good , so your idea flies.


Bertie

Rule #2 - An article will not be approved for posting unless the
header contain's the author's full name, residential address,
telephone number, and IP address. Posting false or unverifiable
information is both bannable and prosecutable as fraud.


Oh this is Larry's kinda group...


Bertie

"Bill Denton" wrote in
:

"author's full name, residential address, telephone number, and IP
address"

I'm sure there is a spammer's database out there somewhere.

Why don't you just go ahead and send them all of that information so
they won't have to waste time crawling newsgroups to get it?





Now that's thinking outside the box.


Bertie

Larry Dighera wrote in
:

On 02 May 2008 18:14:00 GMT, gregvk wrote in
:

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting,alt.usenet.kooks


alt.fan.larry-dighera.netkop.netkop.netkop added

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" wrote

We don't need moderation. We just need folks to pay attention to what they're
doing.

As much as I do not like the idea of moderation, it would cure a problem beyond
people not paying attention. It could get rid of several fujwits that have done
nothing but pollute the place, and run off many people who finally felt the
effort to stay was not worth it.

It has merit, IMHO.
--
Jim in NC

"tman" inv@lid wrote

Just for an at-home example, Most of Mxsm...'s initial posts, and on-topic
followups would be allowed in a "well-moderated" group (but not the flames
that he baits).

In that case, a moderated group would have no use.

One may not agree with him, think he is right, think he is beautiful, has an
ATP, or speaks from any authority, but the discussions do (often) start out on
topic.

But he ALWAYS ends up making it a flame fest, of meaningless dribble. That
would be reason to keep him eliminated, in my world.

Bottom line is that success lies in getting enough of the right moderators.

Yes, and agreeing on the mandate of the group, and of who gets the boot, and a
million other procedural details.
--
Jim in NC

"Martin Hotze" wrote in message
...
Denny schrieb:
We need to find or create a moderated list for the pilots who follow
this group...
I'm willing to even kick in a few bucks to make it happen...

for a start don't use google-groups (but a real newsreader connecting to a
real newsserver) and filter out any postings coming from there.

Agreed. Google groups is a place I avoid, and only go as a last resort.
--
Jim in NC

gregvk wrote in
:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote in news:fvft57$jpe$4
@blackhelicopter.databasix.com:

"Bill Denton" wrote in
:

"author's full name, residential address, telephone number, and IP
address"

I'm sure there is a spammer's database out there somewhere.

Why don't you just go ahead and send them all of that information so
they won't have to waste time crawling newsgroups to get it?





Now that's thinking outside the box.


Bertie

Rule #3 - Nobody may question, challenge or discuss the rules. Anyone
who does will be banned and may be prosecuted for obstructing justice
and/or disturbing the peace.

Rule #4 - Nobody may question, challenge or discuss the authority of
the Moderator or the Moderator's decisions and actions. Anyone who
does will be banned and may be prosecuted for obstructing justice
and/or disturbing the peace.


I'm liking the idea of this moderated group with me in charge better al
the time. Today rec.aviation.*.mod tomorrow the soc.* hirarchy!


Bertie

On Fri, 02 May 2008 19:56:13 GMT, Larry Dighera wrote in :

There can be another issue with moderated discussion.

I recall a law suit that ultimately resulted in AvWeb changing hands.
It was over some inflammatory posting that the moderator(s) chose not
to censor. It seems, that once censorship rears its head, the
potential for legal recourse follows closely behind.....

I haven't heard of any cases of such lawsuits derived
from participation in a moderated Usenet newsgroup.

Usenet is not a website.

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.

Denny wrote:
We need to find or create a moderated list for the pilots who follow
this group...
I'm willing to even kick in a few bucks to make it happen...

Creating a moderated group such as rec.aviation.piloting.moderated or even
just rec.aviation.moderated does have some advantages and problems:

Advantages
1) The unmoderated groups would continue to exist for those who dislike or
object to their posts being vetted. They can't cry censorship simply
because they still have the same old groups.

2) If the moderated group dies or never gains traffic, the unmoderated
group still exists and again, no harm, no foul.

I'd be willing to help with the technical details and act as a co-moderator
should enough qualified co-moderators volunteer. I've written moderation
software that is currently being used for 5 moderated groups and is
designed to handle multiple co-moderators. It does require installing the
Python programming language onto a machine (either Linux or Windows) and
installing a GUI application onto the machines of the co-moderators.

There are essentially no technical problems to overcome. But...

Problems:

1) Decent coverage would require moderators to check in several times a
day, every day, for the life of the group. No time off for good behavior.

2) Finding decent moderators. Ones with the right mix of diplomatic skills
and the proper amount of humility. The ones who would approve a topical,
non-inflammatory post that they otherwise strongly disagree with and who
would reject a non-topical or inflammatory post they strongly agree with.

One aid to objectivity is having a way to limbo a post so it can be vetted
by multiple co-moderators. The software I wrote allows just that.