Re: 3rd RfD: Mass-deletion of moderated groups without a moderator

In article <vqq7tf$ehn$1@reader1.panix.com>,
Usenet Big-8 Management Board  <board@big-8.org> wrote:

              REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>
This is a formal Request for Discussion (RFD) to remove the following
99 moderated newsgroups.
>
>
RATIONALE:
>
Currently, these groups cannot be used for discussion because of the
lack of a moderator. Most of these groups haven't had a moderator for
a long time and have been unused for years. We consider it unlikely
that they will ever be revived with a new moderator. Nonetheless,
anyone interested in becoming a moderator for a group listed in this
RFD is invited to contact the Big-8 Management Board.

Thinking in a general sense about the problem of these unusable groups,
it seems to me there are several possible ways we could choose to deal
with each group. In approximate order from most to least desirable,
these are:

 - Find a moderator for the group
 - Convert the group to unmoderated (if we assume that this would
   work as intended)
 - Place the group under automated robo-moderation (possibly as a
   temporary precursor to one of the other actions)
 - Delete the group
 - Do nothing

The groups fall into some rough categories, based on which actions
would be appropriate:

 - Groups with little likelihood of being resurrected. This would
   include groups for obsolete or extremely niche topics, and groups
   for topics that are well served by other, more active groups. These
   probably ought to be deleted, as the other options are unlikely
   to achieve anything useful.
 - Groups that need to be moderated for naming or charter reasons.
   Examples would be groups with "moderated" in the name, or groups
   such as rec.humor.funny that are intended to be curated.
 - Groups that need to be moderated because they are troll/flame
   magnets, such as groups for controversial or sensitive topics.
 - Groups that could plausibly be robo-moderated or converted to
   unmoderated. This would include groups that are still of current
   interest, but that are not especially likely to attract trolls,
   spammers, or other abuse.

For groups in the latter category, I'm considering setting up some kind of
robo-moderation service for them. This would have a couple of benefits:
it would give time to try converting a group to unmoderated as a test
case, and would also permit seeing whether anyone is still attempting
to post to the groups. It could therefore serve as a temporary measure
if it's unclear what the best course of action would be.

A robo-moderation system could also be a starting point for a more
general moderation platform. Currently, a serious problem is that
prospective moderators can't simply start moderating a group: they need
to set up email addresses, install and configure software (most of which
is outdated and awkward to set up), and get their Usenet provider to
allow them to post approved messages (which not all providers will be
willing to do). If we're going to have a mass deletion of groups without
moderators, I think we also ought to make sure that moderating a group
is not an unreasonably difficult thing to start doing.

Thoughts?

R