I'm starting an informal poll on wether people would like to create a alt.tv.simpsons.moderated - place your votes and thoughts in this thread.
Paul
POLL: Moderation
Mar 17, 2004, 8:30 AM ET25 posts by 19 posters
25 posts
"Paul Melville Austin" wrote in message news:405852f4$0$31906$[email]...
--------- Yes. And since it's coming from me, you all know why.
Jay
"Paul Melville Austin" wrote in news:405852f4$0$31906$[email]:
It depends. I assume that moderation would prevent spam, trolls, and so on, but what about the "Internet, eh?" type posts? I'd vote against moderation (that is, I wouldn't bother participating in such a group) if in-joke posts were banned also.
Jim
Oy! Listen to Jim's latest shpiel!
Are those still around?
"Jim" wrote in message news:oB%5c.28804$JL2.333800@attbi_s03...
-------- One of the moderated groups I belong to allows for jokes, and even off-topic posts, but they must be in good taste.
Jay
No. "Paul Melville Austin" wrote in message news:405852f4$0$31906$[email]...
"Paul Melville Austin" wrote in message news:405852f4$0$31906$[email]...
No.
"Paul Melville Austin" wrote in news:405852f4$0$31906$[email]:
Why? The few problem posters and idiots can all be dealt with by the killfile.
Who's going to be the moderator of this group, and why should we trust them to decide what we read?
Learn to use your killfile and quitcherbitchin. My experience with moderated groups is that they become cliques.
ATGS wasn't moderated and it became a clique. In fact, it was just a group of people brown-nosing Randy Amasia. That's why there were (are?) so many trolls there.
All groups become cliques, it's by design.
Stan +- +- +- +- "Game 0ct0pus SUCKS!!!" wrote in message news:[email]...
Agreed.
They're open to the public, so anyone may join in at any time. Sometimes one's fitting in with the rest of the group is dependent upon how well they adapt to the group's quirks, and other times it's as easy as bringing in a new idea and just keeping up with the conversations.
My experience tells me that the best groups are those with several cliques who interact regularly with each other but not so much with everyone else. That is, a group of 5-10 regulars watch for their own conversations, but they also post under other interesting subjects.
It's just community -- you hang out with your friends, but you're open to communicate with anyone who brings something useful.
--- "MIDIcian" (tm) wrote in
"JPM III" wrote in message news:c3i2be$282qil$[email]...
And the worst are when there's a group of 5-10 regulars (or even more) who watch for other's posts and attempt to silence those.
Stan
"Paul Melville Austin" wrote in message news:405852f4$0$31906$[email]...
Moderated groups are for snobs. Any person with half a brain can use a killfile (yes, even if they're using Outlook Express) or simply ignore the problem posts. It's a lot easier than setting up a new newsgroup.
Against.
Paul Melville Austin wrote:
Why would a newsgroup that has as little traffic as this one need a moderated group?
Because of the rampant cross-posting, I would presume. But kill-files work just fine, too.
Brett
Well, I think there's little traffic now precisely because of the trolls.
"Robert Bindler" wrote in message news:c3babu$26ojur$[email]...
That's not the fault of the trolls, that's the fault of those that allow their voice to be censored.
Stan
I'm opposed to the creation of a new group/leaving usenet etc. To borrow from 2F22:
This is a "is Smithers gay post." When you respond that he's obviously queer with a flaming Q you're taking part in an ATS tradition.
This is a "where is Springfield post." When you make the obvious newbie feel stupid for posting it, you're taking part in an ATS tradition.
When you have to consult snpp for some really really obscure fact, you're consulting ATS.
This newsgroup is a part of us all! A part of us all! A part of us all! Sorry to repeat myself, but it'll help you remember.
In alt.tv.simpsons, on the "POLL: Moderation" thread, Paul Melville Austin wrote:
I'm skeptical. Not because I oppose moderated groups per se, but because moderating a group can be a seriously large hassle. It's usually only done for topics that are so controversial that conversations about them usually degenerate into flame-fests.
Group moderation also works best if the moderator has a steady schedule. Nobody wants to have no posts show up for days on end because the moderator has to study for finals, or put in overtime at work. Does this describe you or any of the volunteers for moderation?
If a moderated group were created, I'd most likely just crosspost between it and a.t.s., and monitor both. So for me, it's not a choice between moderated and not-moderated.
Paul Melville Austin wrote:
Nay.
Dan Gravell wrote:
Who keeps saying that?
"Rockboy" wrote in message news:SlN6c.219142$A12.59597@edtnps84...
thread.
Billy Goat ???
"Rockboy" wrote in message news:SlN6c.219142$A12.59597@edtnps84...
thread.
It was him. Get him, fellas.
"Paul Melville Austin" wrote in message news:...
Sounds good....I'm in.