So, before the new group has even been put to a vote, the proposed moderator has
(a) demonstrated an inability to understand the content of a message in plain english--whereas the original poster was merely comparing two RFDs, the proposed moderator immediately takes personal offense.
(b) demonstrated an inability to respond impartially--rather than addressing the comment, he insults the original poster and resolves to ignore him.
(c) brought off-topic, irrelevant personal details into the discussion--the fact that he is a "God-fearing Christian" is of no interest, except to demonstrate potential biases the proposed moderator will bring with him. Tell me, will posts from Jewish woodworkers be permitted? What if a black muslim wishes to participate? Or a (gasp) ATHEIST?
Normally, none of those questions would cross my mind, but from personal experience, someone who responds to trivial matters by trumpeting their status as a God-Fearing Christian, what I hear quite often is someone trumpeting narrow-minded, intolerant bigotry and hypocrisy.
Now you've already admitted to having a secret and undisclosed plot for at least one extra moderator, selected solely by you and undisclosed in the RFD, so already I don't regard you as a particularly open or trustworthy person.
If anyone really _is_ in favour of this proposal, would they please care to speak up openly ?
Unless you live in a real server bunker, I don't see your "seven connections" as especially reliable. Where do they run? To the same telegraph pole ? Down the same garden path? It's still exposed to these same single point failures.
Not to mention that confidence-inspiring hotmail address.
What sort of UPS capacity do you have on the house ? And if you did lose power / gain a plumbing flood, would you still be interested in mod duties ?
Co-resident moderators just aren't distinguishable moderators from a reliability viewpoint, even if they are from the volume aspect.
There's nothing unusual about proponent and moderator lists differing. Proponents are people who are involved in crafting an RFD and a CFV, and who at least in theory actively collaborate in pushing the proposal on news.groups, *and* in assessing comments on the proposal (whether on news.groups, in e-mail, or elsewhere) and considering possible changes.
Moderators are people who, well, moderate newsgroups. They decide whether to post posts, and they have various other jobs depending on circumstances. But they rarely act as text editors or salesmen, which are the two basic jobs proponents have. (Especially if you think of "salesmen" in a relatively sophisticated way. I've worked at industrial companies where a salesman might be involved in going back to the plant people and saying "OK, can we do this? If so, what can I tell them about specifications and ...")
Now, in *this* case, it's pretty obvious that the only salesman involved is the official proponent, so he's the only one who should be listed. Text editing is more complicated, because moderators do after all have to live with what the proponents write; but the other moderator candidate could be text editing behind the scenes. It is also possible that she doesn't exist, although that's not my read of the proponent's character based on his posts so far. Whatever. The unusual thing here is a moderated group proposal with so little artillery behind it, not the details of which names appear where on the RFD.
The *amusing* thing here is that the hostile reactions of the rec.woodworking people have me just about ready to bet real money that within two years, we'll see a moderated group proposal here from them with wide consensus behind it, a la the recent screenplays discussion.
Moderated group proposals from out of the blue are somewhat unusual, but it's not at all unusual that when they happen, they start someone scratching his or her head and saying "Hmmm, why not?" And if the traffic figures and other problems quoted are at all real, then I'd sorta expect that to happen in this case too.
Assuming, of course, that the proponent doesn't snatch victory from the jaws of defeat and actually a) pass a vote and b) get a working group set up. I'm not ready to bet real money on either of *those* propositions, though.
I wouldn't bet too much money on that joe. :-) I've been a participant in rec.ww for coming up on 10 years. If you do a google search on "split the group", you will note that this proposal comes up every now and again with various discussions pro and con for splitting the group, which has occasionally included someone calling for a moderated group as well. It's not that folks on this group are unknowledgeable of the possibilities, this just hasn't been seen as a needed change.
Not saying it won't happen, but given past history, it seems very unlikely. Traffic figures are probably realistic, problems quoted are most likely overstated. Most trollish problems have been resolved through filters and kill-files.
I suggest Googling some not-too-distant thread in rec.wood There _have_ been problems with troll attacks from Puppy Wizard, the forged anti-JOAT, and even our own pet buffoon BAD (who is at least genuinely interested in woodworking). No-one is supporting these, or would oppose any real means to avoid them. As an empirical definition of "foul", just take a look.
But that's not what moderation does. Moderation is easily defeated by the deliberate troll. Moderation's main target is the OT posting and that can be all too subjective.
I don't _want_ Christian flamewars in rec.woodworking, and there have been a few. You can't kf these posters, because they're genuine posters in an OT thread. On the whole I'd rather it didn't happen, and I rarely comment myself (and hopefully in a fairly objective and even-handed manner when I have done so). Likewise Bush/Kerry. It's not a big problem though (the volume just isn't - get over it) and it's a very small price to pay for the atmosphere of the group.
What's "woodworking" anyway ? I really wouldn't want to see large-scale crossposts from alt.home-repair or uk.d-i-y. So far the moderation guidelines appear to permit this.
I don't know if rec.wood has a spam problem. The servers I use, rent from or own have spam-clean feeds anyway.
Of the huge number of Usenet groups I read and post to (I Have No Life), rec.woodworking is just about the least broken. Why fix it ?
Actually, those are just the kinds of conditions that seem to suggest what Joe is predicting. If a group regularly goes through discussions of splits, there's a higher than usual chance that it's headed towards a split or some sort of reorg. The fact that someone actually went as far as submitting and RFD, just bumps the probabilities even higher, or the timeline that much closer, for the event being realized.
Well, from my standpoint, I think he (Vito)is a CONTROL FREAK! I think he wants to exert absolute control over those that don't share his point-of-view. I will stick with the regular Wreck - I have been on (and off) it for years. I have made some good online wrecker acquaintances that I wouldn't change for anything - even though we very often disagree with each other's position. At least on the Old Wreck, one can express his opinion - a lot like visiting each other's woodshop. While woodworking is sure the topic of choice, having a Net Nanny that would kick one of us out for using an F-word, S-word or other innocuous explanation is an unacceptable choice.
He can go off and form his own group. And then...uh....stay there. And leave the unadulterated Wreck for men and women with stronger constitutions...
On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 00:37:38 +0000, "Vito Kuhn" vaguely proposed a theory ......and in reply I say!:
remove ns from my header address to reply via email
Has Don Vito actually posted any other ww stuff here? I lost my messages a while back, but do not remember much if any input from him.
***************************************************** I know I am wrong about just about everything. So I am not going to listen when I am told I am wrong about the things I know I am right about.
On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 19:23:26 +0100, Andy Dingley vaguely proposed a theory ......and in reply I say!:
remove ns from my header address to reply via email
I'm not commenting on the thread, so I only post here. How does Don Vito manage to send a message to thge wreck, but make it that my reply _only_ goes to news.groups?
***************************************************** I know I am wrong about just about everything. So I am not going to listen when I am told I am wrong about the things I know I am right about.
On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 19:23:26 +0100, Andy Dingley vaguely proposed a theory ......and in reply I say!:
remove ns from my header address to reply via email
I agree.
***************************************************** I know I am wrong about just about everything. So I am not going to listen when I am told I am wrong about the things I know I am right about.
I'm not familiar with the screenplays discussion, so I hope I'm not making an obvious point here, but... Yes, it's possible, likely even, that within a couple of years we'll have another troll infestation and some of the more motivated, technical, and participating folks in the group will have had enough to fix it. Right now, the S:N ratio is held good enough by killfiles and/or a "trollfilter" that one of the members has developed. The "usual suspect" is away at the moment (...or maybe he's got a webtv account now...), but he's almost immediately recognizable so that's more a gnat than a real problem.
So, yes, maybe at some point a moderated group will be appropriate, but this proposal is at the wrong time, from the wrong person, for the wrong reasons.
DJ Delorie wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@delorie.com:
I don't see why they would need more than two computers (one primary, and one for backup) to perform moderation duties, given that their software runs in an IE window. Technically, one computer and the WebTV would probably be enough.
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.