O
Onno Tasler
Mister said:
Which group is the better one, of course!
bye,
Onno
Which group is the better one, of course!
bye,
Onno
O
Onno Tasler
If there are enough readers, then we should also get enough votes.
Also, I think we should discuss the exact sense of the newsgroup before
we make further plans: a draft for Charta and FAQ. That needs to be
ready before any action can be taken.
A moderated newsgroup, good and fine, but which is the deeper sense of
it? That is something we need to answer first, then we can discuss about
technical details on where and how to set up the newsgroups.
bye,
Onno
S
Spacey Spade
[snip]
Would it be possible to establish an imaginary group, which is just acf
with stuff taken out (noninformative noise, like this message), but is
otherwise an exact copy?
Spacey
Would it be possible to establish an imaginary group, which is just acf
with stuff taken out (noninformative noise, like this message), but is
otherwise an exact copy?
Spacey
O
omega
Spacey Spade said:
While pondering this discussion, I developed a daydream along fairly similar
lines. There is a little precedent. I don't want to do the work of looking
it up, but for example, a few newsgroups which hold "best of" reposts from
another group/s.
If, from acf, any of us could forward any message we see here which has
useful content about freeware, into acf.mod-best. And that a moderator
would then review for final judgement that it's a post about freeware...
A lot of labor for moderators. Yet, in theory, could end with an excellent
information repository.
M
ms
I occasionally lurk on a modereated military ng that discusses military
hardware. I see only maybe 10 posts that *appear* in a day. IIRC, a
single person is the modereator. There is usually a 2-3 day delay. A
recent example was an Abrams tank was damaged in Iraq 3 days ago. This
would be a hot topic on that ng, and nothing has appeared when I checked
just now. And ACF has a much higher volume.
Mike Sa
?
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=BBQ=AB?=
This is done by setting up filters in you own newreader, usually.
I suppose it would be possible to set up a server which pulls a.c.f,
have a team of people authorized to cancel posts, then make that
'clean' feed available to users. But someone would have to volunteer
her own disk space and bandwidth to make it happen.
?
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=BBQ=AB?=
Ok, I misunderstood something you wrote earlier. Sorry.
My fault, probably. I should have waited for morning and my own coffee
before trying to post that.
Thanks, I think I understand your position better now.
AFAICT, it is not the attempt to dissuade people from making certain
types of posts you mind, but rather the tone. E.g, in another thread
you said, "Don't complain because you don't like what you're reading
<G>." The notion of attempted moderation of an unmoderated group does
not make much sense to me, but that is every bit as much an attempt to
dissuade people from making posts (complaint posts) you don't want to
read. ("Don't read it!" was your suggestion for posts others don't
want to read, is just as facile for me to suggest that you not read
complaints.
Ok, maybe my first cup of coffee is not working so well yet. Drinking
more now.
If I say "don't post $$$magazineware" and you say "don't post
complaints about magazineware", which of us has 'attempted moderation'?
Whether the answer is both or neither, I don't see such posts as a
problem.
I think what you might want to consider is a moderated group in which
those sort of posts are allowed, but no one can say "Eat &*%& and die,
you $$$ware posting piece of &^*&#$ scum" and no one can say "don't you
dare tell him what not to post, you *#&*$ FAQ nazi."
With a relatively small moderation team which shares a consistent sense
of what is harrassment or abuse, those sorts of attacking posts could
be quickly thrown out and the good posts allowed. Discussion of what
freeware is (or what is freeware) would still be ok, but without the
flaming.
R
REMbranded
AFAICT, it is not the attempt to dissuade people from making certain
types of posts you mind, but rather the tone. E.g, in another thread
you said, "Don't complain because you don't like what you're reading
<G>." The notion of attempted moderation of an unmoderated group does
not make much sense to me, but that is every bit as much an attempt to
dissuade people from making posts (complaint posts) you don't want to
read. ("Don't read it!" was your suggestion for posts others don't
want to read, is just as facile for me to suggest that you not read
complaints.
Exactly. I had written that I should mind my own advise, but I removed
it. But at some point I feel compelled to speak out against my own
advise.
I can handle it also. I really feel that a great many people prefer a
group that is on track and that stays on track though. It's just a
matter of doing it.
That's a possibility. It will be determined by those like you who are
interested though. I'm only one of them.
Sounds good to me. Anyone else have anything to add?
M
Mister Charlie
The only real shame here is that there would HAVE to be a separate group
created when for years this group functioned as the place to be. Like,
why move out of the neighborhood because the mob moved in? Still, it
probably is one of the only possibilities left.
M
Mister Charlie
Ah, the heck with it.Onno Tasler said:Which group is the better one, of course!
We'll have to go back to arguing with our significant others and surely
NO ONE here wants that! ;-)
J
Jim Scott
Mister Charlie wrote on Sun, 02 Nov 2003 16:46:46 GMT
Just because someone who does not know the 'rules' of the group (OR
should know better) posts about $ware/spyware/etc then there is no need
for us to make work for ourselves or the more generous by starting a new
group. The Mabbets of this world will just post to that group out of
bloody-mindedness.
Innocent newbies can be corrected or ignored, and the rest are best
ignored in any case.
Life's too short for all this.
--
Jim
------------------------------------------------------------
Tyneside - Top right of England
To email me directly:
miss out the X from my reply address
Visit http://freespace.virgin.net/mr.jimscott
------------------------------------------------------------
Agreed.
Just because someone who does not know the 'rules' of the group (OR
should know better) posts about $ware/spyware/etc then there is no need
for us to make work for ourselves or the more generous by starting a new
group. The Mabbets of this world will just post to that group out of
bloody-mindedness.
Innocent newbies can be corrected or ignored, and the rest are best
ignored in any case.
Life's too short for all this.
--
Jim
------------------------------------------------------------
Tyneside - Top right of England
To email me directly:
miss out the X from my reply address
Visit http://freespace.virgin.net/mr.jimscott
------------------------------------------------------------
B
Ben Cooper
Are the moderators going to download and investigate each
new freeware recommendation to ensure it meets the agreed
upon standards?
B
Boomer
[snip]
These links are just "FYI's" about moderating a newsgroup from two well
known and respected people on Usenet. I thought they would give you
and others further, valuable, information on the subject.
Y
Yves Bellefeuille
I'm interested, but I think it would be better for this group to be in
comp.*, not alt.*. I'm willing to help write the proposal.
As always, a lot depends on finding suitable moderators.
B
BillR
I know that many oppose the idea of a board, but a mirrored moderated
board would offer many advantages. Posts could be allowed without
delay and censored later. Threads would be much easier to
cross-reference, etc. To satisfy anti-board people, an automated
gateway could make posts available in both places. I suspect posts
from the board would soon become among the most valuable on acf with a
presumption of worth.
Once it was up and running, demands on moderators would be much less
onerous. If nobody reviews messages for 12 hours, so what? In
addition, many people can effectively become semi-moderators via a
"report problem" process, further reducing what moderators have to
examine.
I probably just missed it, but I have yet to see a cogent argument on
why a board is bad -- just a lot of heat.
BillR
O
Owen
I cannot understand some people!!! why they have so much trouble and
complain about this newsgroup, I think it is fine as it is, free speach
is the best way to learn, you can find out some interesting things like,
he/she is interesting, helpfull, knows or seems to know what they are
talking about, and on the other hand they are just silly stupid or just
plain idiots. Whatever class they fall into doesn't realy matter to me,
if I find a thread that doesn't interest me or someone is posting (OT)
or fighting with someone else, I can skip it if I want to, and move on
to the next, I find that there is something of interest/good in most
posts that can be helpfull. I think that moderated groups are OK for the
ones that like to be controlled and not allowed to have their own
oppinion and voice it. It sounds like to much of a dictatorship to me,
so if there is any kind of a poll/vote I would be against it if it means
that this group would be lost, but, not against it if it was just
another group that was started.
That's my 2 bobs worth!!!
Regards
?
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=BBQ=AB?=
It would not mean that a.c.f would be lost, and I imagine a.c.f would
remain much as it is.
B
Boomer
(e-mail address removed) (Yves Bellefeuille) wrote in
I assume you know that there is a very formal process to add a group to
the big 8. And what advantage would it be to have a
comp.software.freeware?
Thank you.
I assume you know that there is a very formal process to add a group to
the big 8. And what advantage would it be to have a
comp.software.freeware?
Thank you.
T
Tiger
Well, depending on the moderator and the rules, I'd be likely to spend
more time there than here.
J
jason
203.194.27.1:
<snip>
I tend to agree. A lot of flame wars start simply because people don't
know how to ignore trolling. Everyone talks about filters; few use them.
Why is that? Do people secretly LIKE watching train wrecks?! Sounds like
a personal problem! Not a problem with the group.
Granted, the definitional problems are harder to get around. But if
there's some kind of consensus that comes out of Susan's poll, that could
be put into the FAQ. And an updated FAQ would be a good first step to
getting this group back on track.
But...I have nothing against a moderated group. Run the two groups in
parallel. Only time will tell which is the more successful.
<snip>
I tend to agree. A lot of flame wars start simply because people don't
know how to ignore trolling. Everyone talks about filters; few use them.
Why is that? Do people secretly LIKE watching train wrecks?! Sounds like
a personal problem! Not a problem with the group.
Granted, the definitional problems are harder to get around. But if
there's some kind of consensus that comes out of Susan's poll, that could
be put into the FAQ. And an updated FAQ would be a good first step to
getting this group back on track.
But...I have nothing against a moderated group. Run the two groups in
parallel. Only time will tell which is the more successful.