Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site bbncca.ARPA Path: utzoo!linus!bbncca!sdyer From: sdyer@bbncca.ARPA (Steve Dyer) Newsgroups: net.motss,net.news.group Subject: A mod.est proposal: "mod.motss" Message-ID: <980@bbncca.ARPA> Date: Tue, 2-Oct-84 00:40:38 EDT Article-I.D.: bbncca.980 Posted: Tue Oct 2 00:40:38 1984 Date-Received: Tue, 2-Oct-84 05:39:59 EDT References: <9211@watmath.UUCP> Organization: Bolt, Beranek and Newman, Cambridge, Ma. Lines: 68 Another possibility for the future of 'net.motss' is to form a "moderated" newsgroup, something which was suggested at the time of its formation, but never acted upon, perhaps because of its somewhat isolationist connotations. For those new to the net, moderated newsgroups cannot be posted to directly; rather, articles must be sent in a mail message to a designated moderator, who then redistributes (or not) the article onto the net. Such groups are named "mod.X", so our hypothetical newsgroup would be "mod.motss", a nicely alliterative name. Unlike the pretense of the net at large for such egalitarian goals as "free speech", the purpose of a moderated newsgroup is to filter out the irrelevant drek which is invariably attracted to certain newsgroups: witness the gradual (but effective) replacement of the unmoderated 'net.general' by the moderated 'net.announce'. In the case of net.motss, a group formed to foster intelligent discussion about gay issues, it has recently in the past three months been overrun by bible thumpers and purveyors of disinformation who are seemingly intent upon repeating themselves again and again without any pretense to reason. The reaction of most readers of net.motss has been increasing impatience, where by now, articles of this kind now outnumber the serious. I have received many letters describing overworked 'n' keys, and some people interested in gay issues have simply ceased reading (not to mention submitting) simply because of the bother of wading through such trash. This, of course, is the worst situation imaginable; we cannot allow the newsgroup to die or become ineffective due to the efforts of an unreasoned few. It is in this light that I recommend creating 'mod.motss', a newsgroup essentially identical to 'net.motss', but one in which the articles are screened by a moderator, a benevolent dictator whose only role is to ensure that the posted article conforms with the purpose stated in the first submission to 'net.motss' (copies available on request.) Sure, this is a lot of "power" given to one person, but it is bestowed by consensus. It is, in my personal view, much preferable to the anarchic situation we see here right now. Nor is this in any sense an abridgement of "free speech" (the ideal-- no one ever claimed that USENET had to be either "fair" or "free".) Those who would like to quote scripture or make incessant derogatory remarks about gay people may continue to do so IN ANOTHER NEWSGROUP. They may take their pick: net.flame is perhaps the most suitable, though even the most hardened readers of that newsgroup may soon cry "enough!" and make a plea for "mod.flame" :-) I invite comments on this proposal. Some people might view this action, if we agree to it, as a "defeat" of sorts, an outright admission that a newsgroup devoted to gay issues could not operate effectively within the heterogenious collection of discussion groups which comprise USENET. I would not agree. First, only a few individuals are the problem here (some would claim that there is only one "problem" here, and his initials are Ken Arndt.) Second, if anything, it would increase the level of discourse by ensuring that postings DO conform to the reasons for the group's existence. I also do not think that the moderation should be unnecessarily restrictive: honest inquiries and discussions, such as Mark Terribile's of a few months ago, or the recent exegesis of Scripture as viewed by Boswell, are all well within the limits as I see them (the moderator may feel differently.) I see this as primarily an expedient means to rid ourselves of "cranks", while improving upon the very successful past year of net.motss. One technical question remains: what is the distribution of mod.all within USENET these days, as compared to net.all? I would hate to see the distribution of the list drop off dramatically. -- /Steve Dyer {decvax,linus,ima,ihnp4}!bbncca!sdyer sdyer@bbncca.ARPA