Unmoderated is good, but it would also be nice to be able to block
offenders
who stray too far off topic.
On Wed, 04 May 2005 23:35:08 +0100, Paul Davis <pd@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
> A Request For Discussion (RFD) for a new usenet group,
> 'comp.compilers.unmoderated', will be posted in the near future. As
> part of this process, it will be necessary to get some feedback from
> users of related groups as to the desirability, or otherwise, of
> creating a new group. This group is intended to be an unmoderated
> version of the existing 'comp.compilers' group.
>
> The rationale for the RFD is that the moderated group has a high
> posting latency (which is currently an average of 3.5 days), and that
> this makes it impossible to use the group in an 'interactive' manner.
> A single Q/A cycle currently takes, on average, over 5 days, and can
> occasionally be considerably longer (if, for example, the moderator is
> on holiday). The posting latency has increased steadily over the
> years, rising from an average of 1.4 days in 1996, to 3.5 days in
> 2005.
>
> Our concern at this stage is to determine whether or not the existing,
> or potential, reader****p of comp.compilers is adversely affected by
> the latency issue. If you have any opinions on this matter, and
> whether an unmoderated group would better serve the reader****p, please
> reply to this message, with your concerns or opinions.
>
> ------------------------------------------------
> PLEASE REPLY ONLY TO COMP.COMPILERS.TOOLS.PCCTS.
> ------------------------------------------------
>
> Some concerns have already been raised, which I have briefly covered
> below:
>
> (1) It would be more usual to use the names 'comp.compilers' and
> 'comp.compilers.moderated' for an unmoderated and a moderated group,
> respectively. However, this change would require the consent of the
> c.c moderator, who is not in favor of an unmoderated group.
>
> (2) An unmoderated group would, of course, have its share of
> irrelevant and spam postings; whether or not this is a significant
> issue will be a matter of personal opinion. However, it should be
> noted that the c.c moderation policy requires that posters use
> verifiable email addresses, which are displayed in cleartext. It could
> be argued that this policy simply moves the burden of spam from the
> group to the individual posters themselves.
>
> Finally, it should be noted that the RFD does not, in any way, reduce
> the usefulness or utility of c.c itself. Anyone who would prefer to
> post to a moderated group will still have that option.
|
