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