FIRST CALL FOR VOTES (of 2)
> unmoderated group rec.woodworking.all-ages
>
>Newsgroups line:
>rec.woodworking.all-ages Woodworking for all ages.
A suggestion to the Wreckers:
If you like the idea, vote "Yes."
If you want them out of our hair, vote "Yes".
If you don't care one way or the other, won't go visit, don't agree with their reasons, don't agree with their morals, don't want the limitations, etc, just don't vote. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
But, only if you have some really -compelling- reason they should not be able to start their group, should you vote "No."
Live and let live.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - If God approved of nudity, we all would have been born naked. ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
So your vote is for confusion and duplication? If this was for anything other than just a rec.woodworking duplicate your point would be valid - but it is to create an *identical* newsgroup! No difference. That benefits nobody. It is a bad idea and needs to be rejected on that basis. If there is someone who wants to create a valid and reasonable proposal (such as the original moderated proposal only with a better moderation team) then *that* would be properly handled the way you describe. Saying "let them do something wrong, bad and injurious in a small way to our online world just to get them out of our hair" is an irresponsible attitude.
Why don't you go check out alt.genealogy.methods for a good example of a group created by someone who thought they had a better idea? Yes, it's alt rather than rec., but it's the first example I can think of of a group that was very vocally proposed and has since effectively died.
You don't understand Larry. Some people feel compelled to impose their standards onto everybody, so now the nine or ten people who were going to congregate in r.w.m. will have no place to go.
If you ever took a walk down the beach at Blacks or Trail 6 San O' you would realize that God hadn't thought that one all the way through.
Sorry, Dave - I'm not following. And I'd prefer to not check out that group instead I'd rather ask others (you) what you think happened.
I like to consider myself bright enough to change my mind if someone "shows me the light".
I see newsgroups as dynamic - people come, people go. If I'm in the Elks Club, I've got no beef about a Moose Lodge opening up across the street.
How can something as inexhaustible as "participation in an internet newsgroup" become diluted by another newsgroup? More power to them - if it's any good, I'll join. If it's better, I'll switch.
And yes - there's some self-centered hypocrisy at work, on my part. I didn't give a toot about Howard Stern until I had children myself.
No, but you might beef about somebody trying to open up another Elks Club right across the street. IMO that's a bit closer analogy.
-- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com You must use your REAL email address to get a response.
IMO the problem with the proposal is that it's simply a duplication of the namespace with no mechanism to enforce the proposed "all-ages" part of the proposal.
If they had stayed with the moderated proposal and found a group of moderators that could be trusted I would have voted yes. As it stands, the proposal makes no sense.
And under that a sign: "Everyone welcome to come in and hang out, even those sewer-dwelling mad dog Elks across the street - and they are welcome to talk and act here just as they do there".
Rec.woodworking.all-ages is *IDENTICAL* to the existing newsgroup. There is *NO* difference other than the name. It is an ill-advised attempt to create a moderated newsgroup without a moderator and because it is badly planned and badly implemented it needs to be rejected until such time as someone presents a proposal that is well thought out and planned in such a way that it will meet the goals of the proponents and be acceptable to the usenet community as well.
Thu, Sep 30, 2004, 4:39am (EDT+4) snipped-for-privacy@netagw.com (Bill=A0Aten) burbled: =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0FIRST CALL FOR VOTES (of 2) =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0unmoderated group rec.woodworking.all-ages
Sounds like more wishful thinking to me. So what if it has a charter? With no moderator, how's a charter supposed to keep out the trolls, and all? That's sort of like saying, "Take the spoon away from Rosie O'Donnel, and she won't be fat." It ain't gonna happen.
I'm not gonna bother to vote. You get your group, fine. You don't get your group, fine. But, if you do, and the trolls find you, and I'm sure they will, don't come back here and bitch about it.
JOAT We will never have great leaders as long as we mistake education for intelligence, ambition for ability, and lack of transgression for integrity.
Well, there's a group called soc.genealogy.methods, which is moderated. The moderator (singular) had some availability problems and the group sat idle for a while. One person (and her sock-puppet/s) who had a grudge that goes back years against said moderator decided to make a big deal about it, and went off and created alt.genealogy.methods with the hope of it being a place to have those discussions but without the 'interference of an absentee moderator' or whatever her catch-phrase was.
The group was created (being in alt., it was just a matter of constructing the correct cmsg's), and the group was there. But, there wasn't really a _need_ for it other than the proponent having an opinion that wasn't widely shared by participants in the group. To me, that's pretty similar to the situation we have here.
Well, groups.google.com's archives of the group have it all, but I just checked 12 articles at random, and didn't find _one_ message which wasn't crosspsted to at least two other similar groups.
Look at the posts, though; they're all crossposts to similar groups. So, yes there's traffic, but it's all traffic that is on-topic to _other_ groups. It is, in my opinion, a good example of what happens when you have two (or more) groups with similar enough content that people aren't going to decide which to post to, so they'll post to both. By making it unmoderated, the "no crossposts", "no naughty language or OT posts" and so on is going to be ineffective at best, and possibly inviting trolling.
Maybe someday one of these un-needed divisions will work, but I haven't seen it happen yet. I see "neutral at best" as an end result here, which makes it hard to want to support it. The fact that the proponents have been _so_ absent here discussing what they want to do and what the real reasons are, makes me wonder what they're _really_ up to.
If they want our support, why aren't they here talking about it with us?
No, it will just whither. There's virtually no acceptable mechanism for removing a newsgroup once it's been created, so the appropriate time to do that is in the voting process.
The point of the RFD anc CFV process is for the proponent(s) of the new group to lobby for support and build a consensus that the new group is needed and will add something of value to usenet on its creation.
The proponents of this CFV have done the opposite, and now appear to be actively avoiding any discussion.
As a result, creating the new group is unlikely to add any value.
I was seriously considering voting in favor of the mooderated proposal, had the proponents put together a viable moderation team. They failed to do so, and then pulled the moderation from their proposal. At that point, the new group simply became an attempted duplication of the existing wreck under a new name. No redeeming features whatsoever.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.