On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 22:46:29 -0000, Jim Logajan wrote in :
Michael Rhodes wrote:
Is there a particular reason why r.a.s and r.a.p are not moderated?
First, I'm not 100% sure what the current policy is, but I believe that
proposals to change an unmoderated group to a moderated group would be
discarded as contrary to Big 8 Usenet policy. This is because the few times
that unmoderated groups have been changed to moderated in the past have
lead to considerable strife.
I'm on the big-8 management board, such as it is, and that sounds
We couldn't bring ourselves to say we'd "never" try to change
the status of a group from unmoderated to moderated, but I think
we're quite firm that it's something that we'd hardly ever consider.
r.a.p. and r.a.s. would not, in my view, qualify as likely
But it would be possible to propose parallel groups; e.g.
rec.aviation.piloting.moderated - but you'd have to find moderators willing
to plow through submissions several times a day, everyday, indefinitely.
Moderation definitely slows down the dialogue.
And (in my eight-year experience as the moderator of one group),
may tend to lead to less liveliness and fun. There are a lot
Here's a faq about how moderation works, with a link to Allbery's
I think Jim is absolutely right: get a real newsreader, [amigo],
and killfile anyone you don't want to read--and anyone who
talks with them ceaselessly. "And the world will be a better
Big-8 newsgroups: humanities.*, misc.*, news.*, rec.*, sci.*, soc.*, talk.*
for info on how to add or remove newsgroups.