Xref: utzoo news.admin:2764 alt.flame:2084 Path: utzoo!hoptoad!ihnp4!att!ucbvax!labrea!decwrl!mejac!gryphon!richard From: richard@gryphon.CTS.COM (Richard Sexton) Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.flame Subject: Re: The death of USENET was ( Re: Moderated USENET (was Re: The death of Summary: Moderation Message-ID: <4572@gryphon.CTS.COM> Date: 22 Jun 88 00:39:17 GMT References: <4542@gryphon.CTS.COM> <31.UUL1.3#935@aocgl.UUCP> Reply-To: richard@gryphon.CTS.COM (Richard Sexton) Organization: Trailing Edge Technology, Redondo Beach, CA Lines: 74 In article <31.UUL1.3#935@aocgl.UUCP> tmanos@aocgl.UUCP (Theodore W. Manos) writes: >In article <4542@gryphon.CTS.COM> richard@gryphon.CTS.COM (Richard Sexton) >>In article <28.UUL1.3#935@aocgl.UUCP> tmanos@aocgl.UUCP (Theodore W. Manos) writes: >>>Do I finally hear some peace and quiet coming??? :-) Here's my vote too. >>>I also will offer to moderate a group - even one I don't read! >> Let me see if I understand this, you're offering to moderate a group >> you don't even read ? >> >> Hmm. Can I make the tacit assumption that if you don't read a group it's >> because you arn't interested in the content ? Could I even go so far as >> to say you don't know anything about the subject ? > >Actually, no, you can *not* make that assumption. I happen to be both >interested and somewhat knowledgable about a fairly diverse range of >topics. That however does *not* mean that I read all of the news.groups >concerning those subjects. Maybe you have either: a) a narrow enough >range of interests, or b) more than enough unproductive time to allow >you to read all of the news.groups in which you might be interested. Or maybe c) I read fast. >I do not. Oh. >There are at least 60 news.groups that I would like to read >which I do not, for various reasons. So, the answer to your question(s) >is, it would depend on the topic. > >I might add further that, being an effective moderator does *not* >require either an in-depth knowledge of, or any personal interest in, >the particular issue being debated. Which makes me a perfect candidate to moderate rec.guns. I'm serious about this. >What it does require is a decent >sense of fair play, some knowledge of the rules of debate and order, and >the ability to remain unbiased in your decisions, irregardless of >personal opinions/feelings (which is not always terribly easy to do :-) ). Well what about tha case where somebody posts something of a highly complex and technical nature that is completely bogus ? It seems to me it would help to have some understanding of the subject you are moderating, rather than just have memorized Roberts rules of order. >What it would appear that you have suggested is, Judges are not >qualified to administrate/moderate court cases, unless they have a >personal knowledge and interest in the matter being tried. Obviously >such is not true. What the Judges require is a knowledge of the law and >legal precedent, proper procedure, and the ability to judge in an >unbiased fashion the issues at hand. While Judges certainly don't live >in a vacuum, their prior personal knowledge and/or opinions about the >details of a case can make the proper execution of their task just that >much more difficult for them. I could site other examples too, if you >should so desire. Ok, coming from a family of laywers and judges, I asked them. Their reply was that a judge that makes decisions on pure cut and dried legal technicalites is a LEGAL judge, he/she is not a GOOD judge. Actually, this is borne out by watching L.A. Law, but since you don't have time to read the NET, you hardly have time to watch TV. >Perhaps now it makes more sense to you. I understand your position. I also understood Hitlers position. Neither make sense. -- "Shrimp Ahoy" richard@gryphon.CTS.COM {backbone}!gryphon!richard