If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Moderating r.a.p and r.a.s. Was: Absolute lowest altitude you can fly (legally)
Michael Rhodes wrote:
Is there a particular reason why r.a.s and r.a.p are not moderated? I currently moderate or co-moderate 5 newsgroups and have acquired some small insights on moderation; here's what I think I know or have learned: 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. 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. The pay sucks (did I mention it requires unpaid volunteer efforts?) and borderline and rejected posts (which pop up more often than you'd think) seem to consume most of the daily effort. Great diplomacy and the patience of the biblical Job are needed if moderation is to be effective. Secondly, if the proposed moderated groups adopt charters similar in scope to those for r.a.p and r.a.s then IMHO most of the posts by mxsmanic would still be on topic, while a non-trivial number of the follow-up messages others have posted in response appear to be off topic or inflammatory and therefore subject to rejection. And strictly speaking much of the other off-topic threads that long-time regulars sometimes start would have to be nipped at the bud. This all assumes of course that the moderators are adhering strictly to charters set up for public access discussion of aviation and not set up like clubs with access restricted to "members." Lastly, moderation doesn't really eliminate strife - it merely moves it partly out of sight to e-mails between moderators and posters whose posts have been rejected. And did I mention how much moderators get paid to keep newsgroups "clean" for the benefit of readers? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Moderating r.a.p and r.a.s. Was: Absolute lowest altitude you can fly (legally)
("Jim Logajan" wrote)
Is there a particular reason why r.a.s and r.a.p are not moderated? I currently moderate or co-moderate 5 newsgroups and have acquired some small insights on moderation; here's what I think I know or have learned: Ms X Maniac will pass ...while a moderator will be with us forever. I vote NO! Mont-Black also votes NO! ....and Paul votes NO! |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Moderating r.a.p and r.a.s. Was: Absolute lowest altitude you can fly (legally)
"Montblack" wrote in message ... ("Jim Logajan" wrote) Is there a particular reason why r.a.s and r.a.p are not moderated? I currently moderate or co-moderate 5 newsgroups and have acquired some small insights on moderation; here's what I think I know or have learned: Ms X Maniac will pass ...while a moderator will be with us forever. I vote NO! Mont-Black also votes NO! ...and Paul votes NO! I agree. There's WAY too much fuss over this character. There is no substitute for simply not answering him if his posts bother people. Personally, I don't even know he's there half the time unless I post on someone in the same thread he's in. REALLY....he's no big deal at all, and surely not worth moderating a group over him. Dudley Henriques |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Moderating r.a.p and r.a.s. Was: Absolute lowest altitude you can fly (legally)
"Dudley Henriques" wrote in
: I agree. There's WAY too much fuss over this character. There is no substitute for simply not answering him if his posts bother people. Dang, how so much I agree...... Allen |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Moderating r.a.p and r.a.s. Was: Absolute lowest altitude you can fly (legally)
Dudley Henriques wrote: "Montblack" wrote in message ... ("Jim Logajan" wrote) Is there a particular reason why r.a.s and r.a.p are not moderated? I currently moderate or co-moderate 5 newsgroups and have acquired some small insights on moderation; here's what I think I know or have learned: Ms X Maniac will pass ...while a moderator will be with us forever. I vote NO! Mont-Black also votes NO! ...and Paul votes NO! I agree. There's WAY too much fuss over this character. There is no substitute for simply not answering him if his posts bother people. Personally, I don't even know he's there half the time unless I post on someone in the same thread he's in. REALLY....he's no big deal at all, and surely not worth moderating a group over him. Dudley Henriques Agreed. This is Much Ado About Nothing. I'm just not sure why people get their panties in a twist over this non-issue. --Walt |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Moderating r.a.p and r.a.s. Was: Absolute lowest altitude you can fly (legally)
On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 22:46:29 -0000, Jim Logajan
wrote: Michael Rhodes wrote: Is there a particular reason why r.a.s and r.a.p are not moderated? I currently moderate or co-moderate 5 newsgroups and have acquired some small insights on moderation; here's what I think I know or have learned: 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. 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. The pay sucks (did I mention it requires unpaid volunteer efforts?) and borderline and rejected posts (which pop up more often than you'd think) seem to consume most of the daily effort. Great diplomacy and the patience of the biblical Job are needed if moderation is to be effective. Secondly, if the proposed moderated groups adopt charters similar in scope to those for r.a.p and r.a.s then IMHO most of the posts by mxsmanic would still be on topic, while a non-trivial number of the follow-up messages others have posted in response appear to be off topic or inflammatory and therefore subject to rejection. And strictly speaking much of the other off-topic threads that long-time regulars sometimes start would have to be nipped at the bud. This all assumes of course that the moderators are adhering strictly to charters set up for public access discussion of aviation and not set up like clubs with access restricted to "members." Lastly, moderation doesn't really eliminate strife - it merely moves it partly out of sight to e-mails between moderators and posters whose posts have been rejected. And did I mention how much moderators get paid to keep newsgroups "clean" for the benefit of readers? Moderation won't work. Do what you did to Robert L. Bass if the group thinks MX is that bad. I personally think Mx is harmless and mostly posts on-topic, but my opinion doesn't matter since I'm not a regular here. If you want a "members only" forum, Usenet is not the right media.. open a private web forum and attract the folks you want to see. That can get boring though... BTW.. If any of you are interested I became aware of this group because of the turmoil RLB instigated here, and has been a scourge on a certain alarm NG for years. Unfortunately the alarm NG has been unable to get rid of the SOB. I do enjoy the good information here and look forward to my flight training when I can afford it and get the time. -- -Graham (delete the double e's to email) |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Moderating r.a.p and r.a.s. Was: Absolute lowest altitude you can fly (legally)
("G. Morgan" wrote)
Moderation won't work. Do what you did to... (CENSORED) moderator mode ON The-fish-who's-name-we-dare-not-speak is not spoken here for one very good reason: We really don't need said (fwnwdns) looking up his accomplishments on Google one day, only to see he's being talked about on RAP and RAS. moderator mode OFF MontBlack-Pearl |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Moderating r.a.p and r.a.s. Was: Absolute lowest altitude you can fly (legally)
On Sat, 6 Jan 2007 00:39:23 -0800, Montblack wrote
(in article ): ("G. Morgan" wrote) Moderation won't work. Do what you did to... (CENSORED) moderator mode ON The-fish-who's-name-we-dare-not-speak is not spoken here for one very good reason: We really don't need said (fwnwdns) looking up his accomplishments on Google one day, only to see he's being talked about on RAP and RAS. moderator mode OFF Is he still even alive? |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Moderating r.a.p and r.a.s. Was: Absolute lowest altitude you can fly (legally)
On Sat, 6 Jan 2007 10:07:04 -0800, C J Campbell
wrote: Is he still even alive? Very much so. We can't get rid of the ******* in the alarm group. He says he has lung cancer and plans to beat it. I don't wish death on him but I do want him to just go away. -- -Graham (delete the double e's to email) |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Moderating r.a.p and r.a.s. Was: Absolute lowest altitude you can fly (legally)
"G. Morgan" wrote in message
... Moderation won't work. Do what you did to Voldemort's name removed if the group thinks MX is that bad. I personally think Mx is harmless and mostly posts on-topic, but my opinion doesn't matter since I'm not a regular here. The difference is there was complete agreement that Voldemort should be shunned. Because people continue responding to Anthony's baiting questions, he will never leave. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Absolute lowest altitude you can fly (legally) | Mxsmanic | Piloting | 138 | January 8th 07 05:53 PM |