Re: MODERATOR (NOT MODERATORS?) FOUND for rec.photo.moderated, comp.std.announce, comp.newprod, and comp.simulation

Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> wrote:

15.06.2025 15:10 Uhr Adam H. Kerman wrote:

Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> wrote:

14.06.2025 15:59 Uhr Adam H. Kerman wrote: 

Moderated Usenet newsgroups need multiple moderators and a moderator
succession plan. Moderated newsgroups without this have failed. 

The hierarchy administrators know this, yet continue to accept
subsequent moderators who are not proposing to take over a group
with multiple moderators and a succession plan. 

We removed a lot of unusable moderated groups and will continue with
that process. 

This is not useful in any way.

There is simply nothing that can satisfy you. You don't like moderated
groups, you don't like removing them.

I do not seek satisfaction. I do not object to moderated newsgroups.
Users may post where they like.

This has always been your baby. One of the hierarchy administrators
doesn't like how or where people post and decides that imposing order --
as he sees it -- upon Usenet will improve discussion. Hence we got
tale's Great Miscification and skirv's "I just know it!" newgroups,
intended to force posters in specific alt.* groups to post to
replacement groups in the Big 8 that not one of them wanted. skirv got
yelled at severely for that and wound down his time on Usenet shortly
thereafter. Every single one of those groups failed.

Russ did something useful. He recognized the INET groups as Big 8 groups
so that a Big 8 checkgroups could finally be issued, something tale
simply wouldn't do.

And here you come along, having made the argument much of the time
you've been on Usenet, that a lengthy checkgroups filled with unused and
little used groups must be shortened for the good of Usenet.

Well, you've shortened it. Surely you must have evidence that you're
right and I'm wrong that anybody found it useful and began posting to
Usenet.

I know you intend to go after the low-traffic unmoderated groups next.