POLL: Would you participate in a rec.aviation.piloting.moderated newsgroup?

On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 06:04:12 -0700 (PDT), Mark wrote:

Moderated groups usually fail due to lack of foot-traffic. You end
up with 7 people who run out of things to say. This is where I step
in with my brilliance.

The exception to this is an advertised and specialized category. In
that case you may become the defacto source for specialized
information. This group doesn't fit that category. I prefer
pedo****ing and Viagra groups.

The solution you are seeking is...mySpace.

www.gayincarolina.com

I am not a member. But my member is.

---
Mark Gay, Brilliant Ad Superior To All

What a ****tard you are. A reject, when your hopefully dead Mother saw
you coming out, she screamed horribly in the greatest anguish. "Kill
this violation of nature!".

Jim Logajan wrote:
The RFD would simply state that posts will be approved so long as they
are reasonably on-topic and non-inflammatory in the subjective
judgement of the moderators.

Scratch all that!

It is quicker and easier for all involved if users must perform a one-time
registration post (in which their e-mail address, posting handle, and NSP
are recorded, though if a posting handle is used the e-mail address is not
published.) The registration is manually validated by a moderator who
approves all registrations. After registration approval, when the user
posts, the NSP and posting handle are automatically checked against the
record list and the post is approved if a record is found.

Pros:
No delay in postings.
No extra work for moderators.
No easy nym-shifting by malevolent posters.

Cons:
De-registration for abuse can only occur after-the-fact.

On Sep 20, 12:03*pm, Jim Logajan wrote:
Jim Logajan wrote:
The RFD would simply state that posts will be approved so long as they
are reasonably on-topic and non-inflammatory in the subjective
judgement of the moderators.

Scratch all that!

It is quicker and easier for all involved if users must perform a one-time
registration post (in which their e-mail address, posting handle, and NSP
are recorded, though if a posting handle is used the e-mail address is not
published.) The registration is manually validated by a moderator who
approves all registrations. After registration approval, when the user
posts, the NSP and posting handle are automatically checked against the
record list and the post is approved if a record is found.

Pros:
No delay in postings.
No extra work for moderators.
No easy nym-shifting by malevolent posters.

Cons:
De-registration for abuse can only occur after-the-fact.

Well let me ask you this Jim, what would be your
criteria for acceptable posts?

---
Mark

Mark wrote:
On Sep 20, 12:03*pm, Jim Logajan wrote:
Jim Logajan wrote:
The RFD would simply state that posts will be approved so long as
they are reasonably on-topic and non-inflammatory in the subjective
judgement of the moderators.

Scratch all that!

It is quicker and easier for all involved if users must perform a
one-tim
e
registration post (in which their e-mail address, posting handle, and
NSP are recorded, though if a posting handle is used the e-mail
address is no
t
published.) The registration is manually validated by a moderator who
approves all registrations. After registration approval, when the
user posts, the NSP and posting handle are automatically checked
against the record list and the post is approved if a record is
found.

Pros:
No delay in postings.
No extra work for moderators.
No easy nym-shifting by malevolent posters.

Cons:
De-registration for abuse can only occur after-the-fact.

Well let me ask you this Jim, what would be your
criteria for acceptable posts?

The above proposal doesn't screen posts - merely requires registration in
order for posters to post. Since performing any sort of "due process" prior
to unregistering a poster is a hassle, a poster would have to engage in
some egregious behavior to find themselves unregistered.

In your case, the person who is currently posting using multiple 'nyms from
multiple NSPs would be unable to do that under the proposed scheme. And
would have been unregistered by me had their posts appeared in such a
moderated group. So you'd benefit there.

On the other hand, the thread that you started on this group that contained
the personal insult in the subject line "Jim Pennino or...Jim Pinheado?"
would have resulted in your deregistration in any group I was moderating.
So you'd have a reason not to join.

On Sep 20, 1:19*pm, Jim Logajan wrote:
Mark wrote:
On Sep 20, 12:03*pm, Jim Logajan wrote:
Jim Logajan wrote:
The RFD would simply state that posts will be approved so long as
they are reasonably on-topic and non-inflammatory in the subjective
judgement of the moderators.

Scratch all that!

It is quicker and easier for all involved if users must perform a
one-tim
e
registration post (in which their e-mail address, posting handle, and
NSP are recorded, though if a posting handle is used the e-mail
address is no
t
published.) The registration is manually validated by a moderator who
approves all registrations. After registration approval, when the
user posts, the NSP and posting handle are automatically checked
against the record list and the post is approved if a record is
found.

Pros:
No delay in postings.
No extra work for moderators.
No easy nym-shifting by malevolent posters.

Cons:
De-registration for abuse can only occur after-the-fact.

Well let me ask you this Jim, what would be your
criteria for acceptable posts?

The above proposal doesn't screen posts - merely requires registration in
order for posters to post. Since performing any sort of "due process" prior
to unregistering a poster is a hassle, a poster would have to engage in
some egregious behavior to find themselves unregistered.

Actually you may be on to something here with this idea. It's
sounding do-able.

In your case, the person who is currently posting using multiple 'nyms from
multiple NSPs would be unable to do that under the proposed scheme. And
would have been unregistered by me had their posts appeared in such a
moderated group. So you'd benefit there.

I'll join.

On the other hand, the thread that you started on this group that contained
the personal insult in the subject line "Jim Pennino or...Jim Pinheado?"
would have resulted in your deregistration in any group I was moderating.
So you'd have a reason not to join.

Not only do I very much regret that, just thinking about it
is probably hurting me far more than it may, or may not
have annoyed him. He didn't deserve it. Live and learn.

---
Mark

On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 10:48:21 -0700 (PDT), Mark wrote:

I'll join. I so need friends, I'll do anything for attention. To
have all of you like me, reaaaaaaly like me. Like they did on
alt.religion.kibology and misc.writing. That is until everyone
killfiled me.

______________
/ \
| WHAAAAAAAAAAA! |
\__ _________/
/ ,'
_.~._ /,'
,~'.~@~.`~.
/ : _..._ : \
{ :,"''\\`".: }
`C) 0 _ 0 (--.._,-"""-.__
( ) @ ( ) `.
`-.-_-.-' \
,' \ / ,` ;`-._,-.
,' ,'/ ,' `---t.,-. \_
,--.,',' ,'----.__\ _( \----'
'///,`,--.,' `-.__.--' `. )
'///,' `-`
--
http://www.noob.us/pictures/consider...a-new-bicycle/

On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 12:19:05 -0500, Jim Logajan wrote:

Well let me ask you this Jim, what would be your
criteria for acceptable posts?

On the other hand, the thread that you started on this group that contained
the personal insult in the subject line "Jim Pennino or...Jim Pinheado?"
would have resulted in your deregistration in any group I was moderating.
So you'd have a reason not to join.

*LOL*
--
A fireside chat not with Ari!
http://tr.im/holj
Motto: Live To Spooge It!

Jim Logajan wrote:

But I need to know if there is a large enough potential audience of
users for such a group. So if you would be willing to carry on
conversations on such a group (keeping in mind that posts would be
delayed) please post a reply to this message so stating your
willingness.

Yes. I would give it a try. There's nothing to lose. The rest of this group has been virtually useless for the
last several years.

Mike

"Jim Logajan" wrote in message
.. .
While I do not have a lot of time to spare for it, I would be willing to
perform the "dirty work" necessary toward creation of a moderated version
of this newsgroup. It would co-exist with this unmoderated one.

But I need to know if there is a large enough potential audience of users
for such a group. So if you would be willing to carry on conversations on
such a group (keeping in mind that posts would be delayed) please post a
reply to this message so stating your willingness. I'm sorry that I cannot
say yet who might moderate, other than to point out that the technical
capability exists to support multiple moderators such that the most
lenient
judgement would prevail. If you must, assume the worst (that I am the sole
moderator.)

Since this newsgroup would continue to exist, and because competing web
forums already exist, there does not seem anything of interest that could
be said by those who might oppose creation of such a group.

The RFD would simply state that posts will be approved so long as they are
reasonably on-topic and non-inflammatory in the subjective judgement of
the
moderators. Worst case is that posters can always return to this non-
moderated group in the event their posts are rejected or they feel the
moderators have become too anal or otherwise lost their minds.

It's well worth a try, and I will be glad to read and occasionally
contribute.

Peter

Jim Logajan writes:

While I do not have a lot of time to spare for it, I would be willing to
perform the "dirty work" necessary toward creation of a moderated version
of this newsgroup. It would co-exist with this unmoderated one.

Moderated newsgroups are typically ghost towns.