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