Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!uflorida!gatech!psuvax1!psuvm.bitnet!rwc102
From: RWC102@PSUVM (R. W. F. Clark)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: Call for Discussion: Moderation of news.admin
Keywords: Lysergic lemonade
Message-ID: <54460RWC102@PSUVM>
Date: 23 Sep 88 02:21:12 GMT
References:  <2728@tolerant.UUCP> <155@carpet.WLK.COM>
Organization: Syd Barrett Cabal, the Harlequinade, and the Hell Club
Lines: 28

In article <155@carpet.WLK.COM>, bill@carpet.WLK.COM (Bill Kennedy) says:
>
>When I cross-posted to news.admin and news.sysadmin one time I was politely
>informed that news.admin was for news administrators and that news.sysadmin
>was news for system administrators.  Admittedly they are frequently the same
>person, but often they are decidedly different.  The person who reminded me
>added that the mistake I made was commonplace.

To state that news.admin and news.sysadmin are reserved _for_
administrators is not technically correct.  Both groups are
reserved for comments directed _to_ the respective sort of
admins.

I might be convinced to vote for moderation of news.admin,
were someone to collect votes and agree upon a reasonable
method of tallying opinion, and to present an adequate _reason_
that moderation is necessary.  I don't consider a simple majority
of votes a valid reason to do anything.  It is a demonstrated
fact that practically any suggestion, no matter how idiotic,
will receive a majority of positive votes simply because nay-
sayers often have less impetus to send a vote.  Perhaps, though,
a fifty vote preponderance might be in order in this circumstance
as a valid means of determining the need for moderation of a group.

>--
>Bill Kennedy  Internet:  bill@ssbn.WLK.COM
>                Usenet:  { killer | att | rutgers | uunet!bigtex }!ssbn!bill

R. W. F. Clark