Subject: Re: Moderated sci.geo.* newsgroups
From: gentryd@pipeline.com
Date: 22 Sep 1996 03:40:30 GMT
Reposting article removed by rogue canceller.
In article <32433899.17EC@oro.net>, Richard Adams writes:
>gentryd@pipeline.com wrote:
>
>
>
>> But then what is the make-up of CONGRESS? How did the
>> representatives and senators get to be in the position that
>> they are in?
>>
>> It's government of the people, by the people, for the people.
>>
>> The people are the government. Although you won't get no
>> argument from me that things haven't been running that way. :-(
>
>
>"For the people". But you have to be elected, then you pass laws
>and those laws affect everyone. Rules that a group itself makes
>when the group is not affecting EVERYONE are legal unless laws
>exist to the contrary.
>
Yes, but it was the people who elected that official. The
official just didn't assume office without being elected. But
then their are some exceptions when somebody has to leave office
early.
>> Since when is it legal bar people from participating in a
>> public newsgroup just because their view differs from yours?
>
>
>The group is not a public group. Access to the group is limited
>by your internet service contract. It is LEGAL to bar people so
>long as there is no law to the contrary. The group is free to
>make its own rules.
Sorry, but I don't agree.
Mailing lists and e-mail servers were established for the
type of moderation that your talking about. Usenet news groups
was established as a worldwide discussion medium.
This is out of a book by R. Wiggins entitled, "The Internet
for everyone, A Guide for Users and Providers".
Its only that a few enterprising individuals are trying to
carry the technique used with mailing lists and e-mail servers
over into usenet.
>The people are not the government. Public officials have a
>different status in society. Laws of defamation are much
>different for them, for example. A single law maker has the
>power of millions or people. It's incorrect to infer that
>each person is the government. They are unique entities, and
>the constitution was written to limit the power of the
>government, not limit the power of the people. These are
>referred to as the public sector and the private sector.
Oh! I didn't know that we were back in the days of taxation
with representation. hmmmm...
I thought people, at the next election, could elect a different
person if they didn't think the original person was doing the
job they elected that person for.
Gee, I learn something new every day!!! We don't have any
redress against elected officials. I guess re-calls are a
thing of the past. hmmm....
>The power of the states is written in other amendments
>such as the fourteenth which define and limit these powers,
>making the state laws subordinate to the US constitution
>and federal laws.
>Anything the US constitution controls also controls the
>states. The states may opt for tighter controls to
>again control the state governement. California has more
>controls over government censorship. Again these are laws
>that control the governement and not the private sector.
Correct, but you were implying that the constitution only
applied to Congress.
>Constitutional law is a complex subject. A more interesting
>question would be why the government can pass laws against
>pornography or against defamation when the constitution say
>"congress shall make no law...". The answer is called the
>compelling interest test. The courts have upheld that the
>congress CAN make such laws if there is a compelling interest
>to do so. The Supreme court has the task of applying the
>absolute controls of the constitution to the world realities.
True also. But that, IMO, make it any more right. We're the
government and we can do damn well as we please. hmmm....
>> >For many news group participants, the groups have become
>> >a place where people feel a false sense of impunity.
>> >They proclaim a freedom of speech which does not exist,
>> >and then fail to practice their real legal duty to speak
>> >truthfully. They distort and destroy the true meaning of
>> >the constitution to justify their lies.
>>
>>
>> Usenet is a world wide discussion medium. If you moderate,
>> then you are taking away the chance for somebody to discuss
>> something.
>
>
>Won't there be another place they can carry on the discussion
>without the moderation?
Will their?
>Moderation didn't "take away" anything. Instead it gives a
>particular group of people the meeting place they want.
>You don't have to go there unless you want. It's still
>your choice.
Mailing lists and e-mail servers were established just for
that purpose. So that people could discuss pieces of information
relative to that group. I'm also a member of one of these
types of groups.
Its also people's choice to hit the delete button, to use
kill-files, over skip over something that doesn't interest
them.
>> Even though I don't agree with the ideas by some of the
>> posters, I still tolerate them and try and understand what
>> they are trying to get across. Thats why it is a worldwide
>> discussion medium. So that opposing views can be discussed.
>>
>> Lets not set this up to be a ng that only allows a certain
>> viewpoint or topic to be allowed.
>>
>> Vote NO against moderation.
>
>
>I respect all other opinions but this is not the time to
>vote. Wait and see what is really proposed and weigh it out
>to see if it will affect you in a negative way. If it does,
>then a NO vote is justified. If it doesn't affect you
>in a negative way and allows other what they percieve as
>as positive, why stop them from having what they way?
>If there is no negative effect on you, aren't you forcing
>your own controls over someone else, thereby limiting their
>freedom to meet and discuss as they want to?
I'm not stopping anybody from pushing a delete key, or using
a kill-file, or just skipping over a post. Everybody has
that chance. Once a ng is moderated, then any poster is at
the mercy of what was once called a "witch hunt".
I've mentioned before that the number of posts to this ng
don't warrant splitting out to a moderated group and one that
isn't moderated.
Most days, their are less then a dozen posts to this ng. And
even less then 12 per month with predictions.
So now we've got 3 newsgroups, one for predictions, one for
moderated earthquakes, and one for unmoderated earthquakes.
Some site administrators may not choose to carry all these
ng's based on interest, cost of disk space, and other
considerations. Is their a way to guarantee that all site
administrators would carry all of these ng's?
I have several other concerns. Primarily as to where does it stop.
Sure your only proposing that posts for "get rich quick schemes"
would be weeded out (but we all know this started because of Turi),
but the question is; Where does it stop? Maybe it should be
incorporated into the proposal that a minimum of 1000 votes
should be submitted with a 90% approval rate before a poster
could be banned from the moderated group.
Another concern is that scientists would stay away from the
unmoderrated ng's and the layperson would loose the interraction
with the scientists and teachers. There isn't anything to
guarantee that they would participate in the unmoderated group
let alone read it. Their time is limited too.
So instead of taking a chance with any of the above, I'd prefer
to leave things as they are.
I've got more, but I'll leave it at this for now.
Dennis
Subject: Re: Publishing Scholarly Work on the Web -- opinion anyone?
From: Nick Kew
Date: 21 Sep 1996 11:16:52 GMT
Reposting article removed by rogue canceller.
Thank you for taking the trouble to post such a detailed reply.
My previous post may have been too brief to serve its purpose, so perhaps
I should clarify some of the issues you raise. I believe others in this
thread have made similar points, but since you do so specifically with
reference to my post, I shall do so too.
> >My software will index and cross-reference the abstracts,
>
> There are already many systems that do this, but the fact is, 20+ years of
> R&D; has not yet resulted in a machine indexing system that is satisfying.
I took the view that a detailed discussion would be inapppropriate
to a newsgroup post in this thread. What is new is the implementation
of Holistic Hypertext, to generate automatic cross-references within
the abstracts themselves (independent of database size). To implement
a whole new search engine would indeed have been re-inventing the wheel,
so I'm afraid I can't offer you a new database engine. However, as I'm
sure you're aware, the growth of the Web has fuelled unprecedented
iand continuing advances in this area, to the extent that shortcomings
I described less than a year ago are no longer applicable today.
Since you're clearly interested in the subject, you'll no doubt have
read what I've posted to more appropriate fora for technical discussion,
such as the IRLIST (although I don't recollect your feedback from that).
> Of course, that all assumes you have legal right to use the abstracts to
> create a publicly accessible, searchable database and serve up the
> abstracts....
This is an important point, and is precisely what deterred me from trying
to go ahead when I first appreciated the potential of the Web for this
kind of collection. However, a number of people have expressed very
positive and well-reasoned sentiments in this thread, leading to the
view that the idea may be one whose time has come.
> Ah, now we are getting to the present. You are interested in creating a
> digital library! Comparable to a traditional library, only in electronic
> form....
> There are some notable R&D; projects under way....
> Yes, it is fully operational. (Access is
> restricted to UCSF of course. If you are interested, you can find out more
> at http://www.library.ucsf.edu)
ucsf.edu? That looks like U.S. academia. I would expect them to
have a decent traditional library within a few minutes physical travel,
and at the very least an old-fashioned PC-based database/search system.
I cannot see how a Web system is of more than marginal benefit in this
kind of situation. Perhaps those responsible are unwilling or unable
to accommodate the needs of people such as myself, who left academia many
years ago and don't have access to a real physical library. Or perhaps
they simply haven't developed the mechanisms for selective access to open
and restricted documents for different users (which would certainly be
IMHO an unfortunate oversight, given the simplicity of the task itself).
> [size of database and technical issues]
I think we may be talking at cross-purposes here. Your interest appears
to involve database technologies and information mining. My principal
motivation is orthogonal to this: to harness existing technology to
make the library more widely accessible. As a small-scale case in point,
I have recently developed a Web-based document management system for
a major international Client. This replaces an existing PC-database
system, and the benefit it brings is not in terms of the search engine
itself, but in terms of making the database directly accessible from
collaborating institutions and industrial partners in several countries.
> This idea has been floated by a few people. To date, there has not been a
> mad rush by authors to abandon the established schorlarly publishing
> channels. The realm of print publishing is too closely intertwined with
> academic and professional recognition,
Which is precisely why I find this thread interesting. I realise that
scientists and engineers who post to newsgroups comprise a self-selected
sample of the total population, but I am nevertheless encouraged.
Nick Kew.
Subject: Re: Publishing Scholarly Work on the Web -- opinion anyone?
From: perpcorn@dca.net (Timothy Perper)
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 1996 18:54:54 -0500
In article <5205fp$pau@nntp1.best.com>, dking@amphissa.com (David N. King)
wrote:
> In article <51kk84$a0c@news.esrin.esa.it>, Nick Kew
wrote:
>
> >My original suggestion is to hold *abstracts* online, with the provision
> >to hold full papers where appropriate. Keeping abstracts in an easily-
> >searchable website would surely be a valuable service to researchers,
> >while referring them to the traditional publishing media for full papers.
>
> This is a terrific idea. It was first implemented three decades ago with the
> MEDLINE system. There are currently several thousand bibliographic databases
> that provide citations and abstracts "pointing" to the printed publications.
> A few hundred are widely available through "vendors" like Dialog. Some of
> them are already migrating to the web. MEDLINE is available on the web thru
> several sites, the best public access being via the National Library of
> Medicine's GratefulMed web-based system. Others are getting there.
>
> >
> >My software will index and cross-reference the abstracts,
>
> There are already many systems that do this, but the fact is, 20+ years of
> R&D; has not yet resulted in a machine indexing system that is satisfying.
> Mechanically, you can do it pretty easily; in practical terms, it produces
> marginal intellectual access to conceptual content. But maybe your
> parsing, weighting, and automated Boolean algorithms are better than anyone
> else has conceived yet, and I'd really like to see it, if it is. Have you
> published it? If you have, I'm sure you are aware of the large research
> literature on the problem of machine indexing of scholarly/technical
> literature. If all you are planning to do is parse words from abstracts into
> a database searchable with a typical web search engine query mechanism,
> thanks but I'll pass.
>
> Of course, that all assumes you have legal right to use the abstracts to
> create a publicly accessible, searchable database and serve up the
> abstracts. Have you discussed this idea with publishers and agreed upon an
> acceptable framework for putting their copyrighted material up on your web
> site? Or were you planning to simply download the abstracts from existing
> databases, capitalizing on the work of those who create and maintain those
> databases? Have you negotiated the legal aspects of that? Or were you
> planning to write and keyboard your own abstracts? That's an option with
> fewer legal hurdles, but it sounds like a lot of work.
>
> >and has the option
> >to hold any or all of the full papers online according to publisher choice.
>
> Ah, now we are getting to the present. You are interested in creating a
> digital library! Comparable to a traditional library, only in electronic
> form. Tools for bibliographic control and access (electronic indexes with
> abstracts) to a collection of literature in electronic form, all accessible
> from one electronic "location." Great idea! There is a substantial
> literature on this which I'm sure you are familiar with. ACM devoted a
> special issue to it last year. There is an electronic journal on the subject
> and of course there is a wealth of literature in traditional paper format.
> You can find a bit on the web too. Digital libraries. Great idea!
>
> There are some notable R&D; projects under way. National Science Foundation
> has funded, I think, 9 major R&D; projects to the tune of $25 million at
> major institutions: U of Michigan, Berkeley, Illinois, Stanford, etc. Those
> projects are getting under way. But a couple of projects got an
> earlier start. Perhaps the most impressive to date is the Red Sage project
> at UCSF which is now in its 3rd year. A collaboration between the UCSF
> Library & Center for Knowledge Management, AT&T; Bell Labs, and 20 publishers
> of the biomedical literature. It is pretty small-scale: 70 medical and
> biomedical research journals, including the major titles in clinical
> medicine -- bitmapped images of every printed content page including
> graphics, tables, photos, etc. The electronic journal collection is linked
> to the MEDLINE database with a top-notch forms-based web search interface
> called Medsage. Every UCSF doctor, nurse, researcher, student, etc, with a
> network link or web access has access to the electronic library from their
> office desktop. Pretty slick! Yes, it is fully operational. (Access is
> restricted to UCSF of course. If you are interested, you can find out more
> at http://www.library.ucsf.edu)
>
> Make a wild guesstimate of the size of the database. 70 journals, maybe 1000
> pages per year in each, abstracts and citations, one per article. 3 years in
> the collection. That's, let's see, only 210,000 pages of articles. Not all
> that small when you think about it, but manageable. But of course, there are
> 3500 journals in medicine alone. There are around 6 million records in the
> MEDLINE database, most with abstracts. Consider the kind of system required
> to manage and serve that up. How about if we just limit the system to the
> top 500 journals? Maybe 50,000 articles per year. That's only 50,000
> abstracts. Then throw in all the journal pages for those articles. Better
> limit the collection to just the last couple of years, I guess. That's,
> let's see, maybe around 1,000,000 pages of content, plus 100,000 abstracts
> plus a database for searching. But to be a major digital library (a Harvard
> or Illinois or Berkeley), expand that to include all of the quality journals
> in all areas published; a minimum collection would be 50,000 titles out of
> the 200,000+ published worldwide. And they can't limit it to the last year
> or two; the have to meet the research and academic needs of their
> university. I can't add that high.
>
> Consider the mess of irrelevant junk you get trying to search using current
> web-based search engines, and that the web at present has relatively little
> meaningful content. Multiply that by millions of content-rich pages
> annually. This is not something one just does overnight and serves up on
> a little Indy. One needs equipment and technical staff to deal with the
> technology (easy to come by if you can afford it) and needs people
> knowledgeable about conceptual design and construction of complex
> knowledge-based systems (harder to come by) and needs economic models and
> evolutionary development strategies (virtually non-existant).
>
> But the current, more serious obstacles are economic and legal. You might
> want to consider those aspects in developing your system. Do you have any
> publishers signed up yet to participate in your project? Have you figured
> out how you will pay them for the right to provide access to their
> copyrighted publications? And how to cover the costs you incur from them?
> There are very thorny problems involved in this, and the publishers don't
> really know what economic models to work with, what the "marketplace" of
> electronic publishing looks like, or how to price their electronic product
> yet. But you can bet for sure that they are not going to give away their
> product or sit by and watch others distribute it without reimbursing them.
> The long tradition of libraries providing free access to the literature
> disguises the truth: information is not free, it is very expensive.
>
> >
> >As others have pointed out, the peer-review process is an important element
> >of academic publishing. I believe web-based collaboration software can
> >be used to facilitate this process, providing a forum ("workgroup") whose
> >members are a paper's authors together with recognised referees in a
> >subject area. Such papers may have readonly access to the general public
> >(or subscribers-only if a publisher prefers) while in the review process,
> >thus accelerating the publication cycle.
>
> This idea has been floated by a few people. To date, there has not been a
> mad rush by authors to abandon the established schorlarly publishing
> channels. The realm of print publishing is too closely intertwined with
> academic and professional recognition, grants and funding, careers and
> livelihood. If you give a researcher the choice of publishing in a major
> print journal like "Science" or an IEEE journal, or just tossing their paper
> (their ideas and work -- their intellectual property) out there on the web
> for others to "contribute to" using collaboration software, I don't think
> you'd have a hard time guessing which he would choose. This is a nifty idea
> conceptually and an attractive one technologically. It will be interesting
> to see if it ever catches on. I'd say that chances are very slim in the
> short run, but may be marginally better down the road in a very few
> specialized areas like law and engineering.
>
> >
> >The technology is ready: we need only apply it!
>
> I'd say current technology is not yet ready on the scale that is needed,
> although it is getting there. I'd say the current crop of typical web search
> engines and indexing systems are inadequate for current web content and
> completely worthless for anything more substantive. But the web is a very
> solid foundation for growth and improvement, and there will be real progress
> made over the next 5 years.
>
> I think it likely, in the short term, that we'll see print publications
> migrating to the web via digital libraries -- first, university libraries
> subscribing to electronic versions of print journals with access limited to
> their campus (this is already happening per the Red Sage example), then,
> professional societies providing access to the journals they publish to
> their members free and to non-members for a fee (this is beginning now too;
> IEEE journals are going up now for example), and a few publishers testing
> marketing models for publishing on the web (Journal of Biological Chemistry
> and a few others are doing that now). Then we'll see commercial sites run by
> "vendors" of the literature with professional indexing/abstracting linked to
> electronic collections (still a year or two away).
>
> Of course, all of the above is just my personal opinion, and I'd be just as
> glad to be wrong about any of my predictions. :-)
>
> David N. King
Look at sci.psychology.journals.psycoloquy (p s y c o l o Q U Y in case
it's hard to read). They have such a system up and running. I don't know
how well they or its readers and authors think it works, but it's there.
It's run by the American Psychological Association.
And second... as the net expands, and links join up (each of which is a
straight line in net-space), we get a Peano space-filling curve. I guess
that explains the connection to fractals. ;-).
Tim Perper perpcorn@dca.net
--
Timothy Perper
perpcorn@dca.net
Subject: Re: RFD: reorganize sci.geo.earthquakes and sci.geo.geology - 12 Sept 96, version 6
From: *baguio@ix.netcom.com* (Frank Vaughan / Spectre Gunner)
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 1996 04:48:56 GMT
There we were, at 17,000 feet over the Ho Chi Minh Trail when Richard
Adams keyed the microphone and said:
> Triple Quadrophenic wrote:
>
>
>
> > Richard Admas is, in my view, not competent to act as a moderator. His
> > various errors in what he has done so far have satisfied me of this. Now can
> > we sit down and try to sort out what can and should be done?
>
>
>
> I agree that we should sort this out. May I suggest that the task
> of "sorting it out" would be best served if people would refrain from
> posting opinions about the abilities of the individuals in the
> conversation until such time as the need to debate this is reached.
> We haven't reached that point yet. So long as personal attacks are
> launched, the "sorting out" process will be stifled by the offensive
> and defensive posturing.
>
> Richard
Richard:
Like it or not, the proponent of a newsgroup change is part of the
issue.
If, for example, I came marching into the ng, began proposing changes,
then the fact that I have never posted in the ng, and that I have no
background or knowldege of earthquakes (other than as a passenger)
would be legitimate subjects for discussion, especially if in the
draft documents I listed myself as proposed moderator.
I also believe that you are being hypercritical in describing the
message you quated as a personal attack.
The individual stated that he believed you were not qualified to be
moderator. That is his right, and it is not a personal attack.
The individual then went on to explain why. That is also his right.
The individual did not engage in name calling or any of the other
activities that make up personal attacks.
I am forced to conclude, after having read more than 97 postings in
this thread, that the majority of the posturing is coming from you.
Perhaps you would be well served to take a step back and look at the
big picture. Take an honest look at the criticisms you are receiving.
Try and turn the chessboard around, so to speak. You are receiving a
high level of public criticism for your proposals, and very little
public support. What is even more damning in my opinion, is that the
majority of the criticisms are technical, rather than emotional, in
nature. Serious issues have been raised concerning everything from
moderation to the need for a reorganization. Focus on addressing
them, not getting into name-calling, blame-setting exercises.
If this issue came to a vote today, sir, I would vote NO simply based
upon your conduct.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I'm proud to be an American.
Where else can veterans live in cardboard boxes and a
draft dodger live in the White House?
~~~~~~~~~~
When replying, remove the asterisks from my return address. The asterisks are used to spoof junk e-mailers.
Subject: Re: RFD: reorganize sci.geo.earthquakes and sci.geo.geology - 12 Sept 96, versi
From: gentryd@pipeline.com
Date: 24 Sep 1996 05:26:55 GMT
In article <323C6BD8.7FE9@oro.net>, Richard Adams writes:
>Summarizing your arguments against additional groups are
>
> a) longer time to browse through messages
> b) waste of space at provider sites
>
>I agree that for some newsreaders it takes a couple of
>keystrokes to select an additional newsgroup, but for
>others it's one press of the mouse button. ...A very
>small argument to deny those members the groups they want.
Actually I'm not trying to deny anybody anything. I think
it would be much easier for somebody to maintain a kill-file
or just skip the article then for somebody to maintain
several newsgroups.
>If you personaly don't want that group's articles, no one
>is going to force you to add the group name or select the
>subject heads. If the newly added group prohibits cross
>posts, it's more likely the articles you find there will be
>unique and worth the trip and the mouse button press.
Actually, I enjoy reading the majority of postings on s.g.e.
Therefore, I'd have triple the newsgroups to maintain.
s.g.e moderated, s.g.e unmoderated, and s.g.e predictions.
>Moderation may invite posters that would otherwise not
>like to contribute.
Actually, their are alot of people that don't post because
of critism and ridicule of their ideas. Ideas that are on
topic, but nevertheless are shunned as being crazy.
A case in point:
Sometime back somebody had reported over on ca.eq's about
needles hanging from a magnet and that just prior to an
earthquake the magnet had lost its magnetism with the
needles falling to the ground. Somebody then followed
that up with a comment that the shaking itself had caused
that affect. Guess that person who had made that follow-up
had never heard of the Meisner effect. And BTW, I put
it rather nicely concerning the person who flamed the
original poster.
Most of the people that are for moderation, if not all,
don't like these kinds of posts. Yet they ARE on TOPIC.
The proponents of moderation are hoping that a moderated
group will get rid of these kinds of posts. THEY WON'T.
And you know why? Because they ARE on TOPIC.
Because they ARE on TOPIC, the moderated ng will be the
newsgroup that gets used for these kinds of posts. Their
won't be any traffic on the unmoderated ng.
In the case I mentioned above, who would be considered
off topic? The person who posted the original observation
or the person who followed that posting up with the
un-warranted flame.
I mentioned above that the proponents for moderation are
the people who don't like posts from non-scientists. That
is the reason why I ask, where does it stop. Its a chance
for them to get the moderation started. Once its in place,
then they will wait for awhile and then further it along
with more restrictions as to what kind of posts they can start
weeding out from the ng.
I've been out here since s.g.e started and on ca.eq's for
about 2 1/2 years. Based on my observations of these ng's,
its not to difficult to see that this is just the first
step.
That is why I'm against any kind of moderation from the
get go.
Some may think that I'm acting out of paranoia and I
wish I were. But I'm not. It comes from seeing the various
kinds of reactions to posts over the years.
Regards,
Dennis
Subject: Re: RFD: reorganize sci.geo.earthquakes and sci.geo.geology - 12 Sept 96, version 6
From: *baguio@ix.netcom.com* (Frank Vaughan / Spectre Gunner)
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 1996 08:40:48 GMT
There we were, at 17,000 feet over the Ho Chi Minh Trail when Richard
Adams keyed the microphone and said:
> Frank Vaughan / Spectre Gunner wrote:
> >
>
>
>
> > Serious issues have been raised concerning everything from
> > moderation to the need for a reorganization. Focus on addressing
> > them, not getting into name-calling, blame-setting exercises.
>
>
> Okay. I turn the chessboard around and observe the following
> problem with moderation. Wouldn't a moderated group carry
> with it an assumption that the group's discussion is more
> "truthful".
IMO, no. It might carry the assumption that it was more civil, or
more on-topic, but certainly not more truthful. There is no
moderating for truth, there is no guarantee of quality.
> If a robot moderator like that proposed was only
> removing crossposts in a group named "x.y.z.moderated",
> and some person began posting rediculous stuff, and then an
> observer happened to look in and see that it was a so called
> "moderated" group, wouldn't they assign more credibility to
> the rediculous posts?
I honestly don't believe so. Posting have to be judged on their own
merits. There is no aura of respectability that goes with moderation.
(watch me piss off a lot of people here)
Moderators are like the referees in a hockey game:
* When fans throw stuff on the ice, they pick it up so that no one
gets hurt (they keep off-topic posts out)
* The blow the whistle for too many players on the ice (they watch for
excessive cross-posting)
* They make sure that no one really gets hurt during the bench
clearing brawls (they keep major flame wars from breaking out).
Neither referees nor moderators can keep arguments from erupting, and
neither determine which player or posting is "better".
The best hockey games are the ones where the referees blow their
whistles the fewest times. Too many whistles usually mean that the
referees are doing a poor job and have lost control of the games.
So, too, it is with moderators. The best moderators (IMO) have a
firm, but gentle, hand. They rule out of a basis of mutual respect,
not out of power. We recently had a thread on Jane Fonda within the
moderate soc.history.war.vietnam. Not necessarily a lot of either
quality or truth there. The moderators let it run its course, and
when it showed signs of getting out of hand, the moderator posted an
ADMIN note asking that we all cool our jets. To the best of my
knowledge, extremely few messges had to be returned unposted, and the
thread had mostly died a natural death. Firm but gentle.
> In that case, although moderation has
> met a need that many feel could be handled by "kill files",
> it has failed miserably in ensuring the quality of the posts.
Exactly. Moderation is not a panacea. IT is excellent for reducing
cross-posted traffic, it is wonderful for creating a flame-free
environment, and it creates an environment where posters have the
opportunity to be more thoughtful than in unmoderated groups. But
there is no guarantee that the latter will happen. Banning people
doesn't doesn't guarantee it.
Pretend, Richard, that your moderation team voted to ban me from the
group. Let's even assume it was for good cause. Do you honestly
think that is going to stop me from posting in your group?
Hell, I've got at least 35 AOL disks on my shelf, a dozen or so from
CompuServe and Prodigy. Netcom and Earthlink will sign up anyone with
money. You see, I could have half a dozen new accounts befor the
electronis are dry on the message you send telling me that I am
banned. today I'm Frank Vaughan / Spectre Gunner, tomorrow I'm Michael
DeGuzman, the next day I'm someone else. Hell, in alt.war.vietnan we
have traced more than 40 different net-identities to a single
individual. See what you are up against.
Frank
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Frank Vaughan is baguio@ix.netcom.com
Why do so many publications expect people to write for free?
It is, I'm afraid, because the bean-counters of the world have taken over, and since they have no self-worth, they assume no one else is worth anything either.
If I want exposure, I'll drop my pants the next time I'm at the mall.
When replying, remove the asterisks from my return address. The asterisks are used to spoof junk e-mailers.