REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
moderated group news.groups.proposals
This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) to suspend the charter and >moderation policy of the Usenet newsgroup news.groups.proposals.
DISCUSSION SO FAR
D Finnigan argues that aside from occasional technical difficulties, >news.groups.proposals is working fine, in contrast with news.groups,
which is cluttered with off-topic posts. They recommend that the Board >continue its work on improving the moderation system.
Paul Schleck suspects that the off-topic spam posts to news.groups may
be putting off people from posting there. He also wonders whether
returning configging discussion to news.groups would provide people with
an unrestricted forum to advance fallacious arguments about moderated >newsgroups. Furthermore, he argues that the problems that led to the >creation of news.groups.proposals could emerge again even in a smaller >Usenet, and that the purely technical issues with moderation software
are solvable.
Computer Nerd Kev says that as long as there's still spam on
news.groups, then keeping discussions moderated is worthwhile. They
also draw attention to disruptive troll posting on alt.config.
meff expresses concern about what would happen if the moderators became >unavailable. Given the current posting levels and the ability of current >users to filter messages, they tend to agree with the proposal in the RFD.
Absent that specific, current discussion, there is a good
chance that the Board may choose to make a decision based on current discussion so far, which appears to favor the current status quo, a
position which I support.
This thread has been awfully quiet, with few replies. In particular,
those who had the strongest opinions about moving back to news.groups
are currently absent in this discussion. If the Board acted on comments
so far, it would appear to favor the status quo of retaining news.groups.proposals.
I don't wish to overspeculate, but possible explanations for this
include:
- Some may feel that it doesn't matter, either because they believeBingo.
that Usenet is "dead," or that their opinions will not be fairly
considered.
This thread has been awfully quiet, with few replies. In particular,
those who had the strongest opinions about moving back to news.groups
are currently absent in this discussion. If the Board acted on comments
so far, it would appear to favor the status quo of retaining news.groups.proposals.
I don't wish to overspeculate, but possible explanations for this
include:
- Some may feel that they have already sufficiently commented on this
matter in the past, and it is the Board's responsibility to gather up
all posts on this subject from the deep and noisy past article
history of news.groups
If there are better/different explanations, others are certainly welcome
and encouraged to weigh-in here
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 285 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 74:39:10 |
Calls: | 6,489 |
Calls today: | 2 |
Files: | 12,096 |
Messages: | 5,275,936 |