Re: 3rd RfD: Mass-deletion of moderated groups without a moderator (rec.arts.drwho.moderated etc.)

On 15/03/2025 10:37, Blueshirt wrote:

Daniel70 wrote:
>

On 15/03/2025 8:33 pm, Blueshirt wrote:

The Doctor wrote:

In article <vr1jjk$k3k$2@reader1.panix.com>, Usenet Big-8
Management Board  <board@big-8.org> wrote:

 rec.arts.drwho.moderated
 These groups have long been derelict due to the lack of
a moderator.
 If any readers of this notice are willing to serve as
moderator for any of these groups, and have the
technical infrastructure to do so, they are encouraged
to contact the Big-8 Management Board by replying by
e-mail to this message.  The Board is happy to advise
prospective moderators on the technical and procedural
requirements.

 let it go!

 Phew! I'm glad you said that Dave... when I saw that message
from the Big-8 Board I thought you might be the one person
here that would volunteer to become the moderator of RADWM!

 I was EXPECTING Binky to stick his hand up .... but, maybe,
his High Powered ISP/NSP Business is keeping him too busy!!

>
I really did think it would be something Dave might go for. He
probably has the right equipment too. Dave did go for the
moderator job when that group was first announced to counter all
the "noise" (word of the week!) here.
>
RADW isn't busy enough now though so we don't need a moderated
group. (IMO obviously.)
>

My view is moderated groups equal censorship and go against
the whole idea behind Usenet... so yeah, let it go.
 

Never having been exposed to one, I couldn't possibly
comment!! ;-P

>
Imagine somebody reading every one of your posts and deciding
what was acceptable content, or not, before letting it go
through to the actual group to be read? I'm sure moderation
works well on some Usenet groups but moderation as a system is
open to abuse as you are at the whim of the moderator(s) and
their individual opinions and tolerances. Moderation is another
word for censorship, as if the moderator doesn't like what you
say, your post gets stopped and doesn't 'appear'. So, censored!

Oh, I think a little technical moderation can be a good thing.
Imagine if this newsgroup permitted all messages that:
1. Contained 10 or more words of original content (A/I generated text,and
 large scale copy/pasting from other sources not permitted - a link, with
 personal commentary, would be the right way to go here)
2. Did not personally defame or attack another poster
3. Snipped replied-to content to a couple of sentences relevant to context
 for each point being made
4. Did not repeat the same catchphrases and pointless intersections over and
 over.
For 96% of posters to this group, 99% of their posts would get through (once
 they mastered the basic netiquette of snipping for context!)
As for the other 4%, well, he'd have to learn how to post properly or be
 forever silenced.
--
There’s no point in being grown up if you can’t act a little childish
 sometimes.