Borked Pseudo Mailed

Which do you prefer?

Moderated has the advantage to stop a lot of trolls and spam and keep everything on topic.

I have been an member and later an mod of one flickr group which shows why people prefer most web forums to be un-moderated.
http://www.flickr.com/groups/flickrd...group/discuss/

This group has rules about it's rules.
One admin, http://www.flickr.com/photos/mamamimmy/, has now informed members if they want to create a forum they must first ask an admin.
One poster posted that his camera had been stolen and this admin wrote a message that they had violated the rules by now asking if they could open it then closed the thread to be deleted within 2 days after the posters that seen their 'final warning or be banned'

The problem with having someone like mamamimmy in charge of one of these groups is if they don't agree with you you get your message deleted and you get banned.

Sadley mamamimmy couldn't handle being 2nd in charge so she made the Flickr Diamond group private so no one could see it. Sadley with Flickr once a group has been made private you can't change it (we created a petition to have it reversed but they say they have no control).
The minute the group was made private mamamimmy had created another Flickr Diamond group and she is the only admin.
Sad state of affairs when people have to resort to this to feel power in their lives.

I vote for keeping usenet & google groups un-moderated.

Poldie

Borked Pseudo Mailed wrote:
> Which do you prefer?
>
> Moderated has the advantage to stop a lot of trolls and spam and keep everything on topic.

What happens when someone moderates one of your reasonable posts?
What's wrong with Thunderbird and a filter on an unmoderated group? Do
you find ignoring trolls really that difficult? It's just a few clicks
away. Of course, if people just didn't respond to trolls in the first
place... But that's not going to happen any time soon, sad to say.

> I vote for keeping usenet & google groups un-moderated.

No-one cares about google groups, and no-one's going to moderate Usenet.
I'd check out Thunderbird (or practically any Usenet newsgroup client).

Chris H

In message <g6f715$g0r$1@registered.motzarella.org>, Poldie
<_.?@?._.invalid> writes
>Borked Pseudo Mailed wrote:
>> I vote for keeping usenet & google groups un-moderated.
>
>No-one cares about google groups,

Very true :-)

>and no-one's going to moderate Usenet.

Not true. Many servers are now not carrying the full range of NG's.
It's usually the binary groups that go first.

Also there are many moderated Usenet groups.

--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

Poldie

Chris H wrote:
> In message <g6f715$g0r$1@registered.motzarella.org>, Poldie
> <_.?@?._.invalid> writes
>> Borked Pseudo Mailed wrote:
>>> I vote for keeping usenet & google groups un-moderated.
>> No-one cares about google groups,
>
> Very true :-)
>
>> and no-one's going to moderate Usenet.
>
> Not true. Many servers are now not carrying the full range of NG's.
> It's usually the binary groups that go first.
>
> Also there are many moderated Usenet groups.
>
I meant, as you probably know, that no-one is going to moderate the
unmoderated Usenet groups, as the fact that they are unmoderated were
part of the charter relating to their creation. They'd have been
moderated initially if that was the intention. The only moderator I
trust is myself (although if an ISP wants to remove spam which is
clearly spam, then that's also fine).

Poldie

Chris H wrote:
> In message <g6f715$g0r$1@registered.motzarella.org>, Poldie
> <_.?@?._.invalid> writes
>> Borked Pseudo Mailed wrote:
>>> I vote for keeping usenet & google groups un-moderated.
>> No-one cares about google groups,
>
> Very true :-)
>
>> and no-one's going to moderate Usenet.
>
> Not true. Many servers are now not carrying the full range of NG's.
> It's usually the binary groups that go first.
>
> Also there are many moderated Usenet groups.

Yes, but the thrust of my point was that

Moose & Squirrel

Poldie wrote:

> Chris H wrote:
> > In message <g6f715$g0r$1@registered.motzarella.org>, Poldie
> > <_.?@?._.invalid> writes
> >> Borked Pseudo Mailed wrote:
> >>> I vote for keeping usenet & google groups un-moderated.
> >> No-one cares about google groups,
> >
> > Very true :-)
> >
> >> and no-one's going to moderate Usenet.
> >
> > Not true. Many servers are now not carrying the full range of NG's.
> > It's usually the binary groups that go first.
> >
> > Also there are many moderated Usenet groups.
> >
> I meant, as you probably know, that no-one is going to moderate the
> unmoderated Usenet groups, as the fact that they are unmoderated were
> part of the charter relating to their creation. They'd have been
> moderated initially if that was the intention. The only moderator I
> trust is myself (although if an ISP wants to remove spam which is
> clearly spam, then that's also fine).
>

Gotta love it when a reader prefers their "moderation" via kill-file,
rather than the potential whims of a NG human moderator.


- JT
uses a filter, no longer sees posts from "google."

--
See Header for Improving Usenet's Signal-To-Noise Ratio

"The pendulum of the mind oscillates between sense and nonsense,
not between right and wrong." - Carl Jung

Rita Berkowitz

Borked Pseudo Mailed wrote:

> Which do you prefer?

Depends on the agenda. If I want to get quality reading and useful
information with an extremely low noise floor I will opt for a moderated
group. On the other hand if I want the no holds barred wild west atmosphere
where the topic of the day is to stimulate an idiot or two I will opt for an
unmoderated Usenet forum.

> Moderated has the advantage to stop a lot of trolls and spam and keep
> everything on topic.

Yes it does.

> I have been an member and later an mod of one flickr group which
> shows why people prefer most web forums to be un-moderated.
> http://www.flickr.com/groups/flickrd...group/discuss/

Than they can start an unmoderated group if they don't agree with the rules.
Why change the rules to support the few at the majority's expense?

> This group has rules about it's rules.
> One admin, http://www.flickr.com/photos/mamamimmy/, has now informed
> members if they want to create a forum they must first ask an admin.
> One poster posted that his camera had been stolen and this admin
> wrote a message that they had violated the rules by now asking if
> they could open it then closed the thread to be deleted within 2 days
> after the posters that seen their 'final warning or be banned'

Sounds like you have an ax to grind. Don't like the rules? Move on.

> The problem with having someone like mamamimmy in charge of one of
> these groups is if they don't agree with you you get your message
> deleted and you get banned.

Cool!

> Sadley mamamimmy couldn't handle being 2nd in charge so she made the
> Flickr Diamond group private so no one could see it. Sadley with
> Flickr once a group has been made private you can't change it (we
> created a petition to have it reversed but they say they have no
> control). The minute the group was made private mamamimmy had created
> another Flickr Diamond group and she is the only admin.
> Sad state of affairs when people have to resort to this to feel power
> in their lives.

Sounds like she got your goat!!

> I vote for keeping usenet & google groups un-moderated.

I agree! And here is a famous quote I penned a few years back. This kinda
sums it up.

Usenet, the litter box of the Internet, is a very unique place. Generally
speaking, people, like cats, being social animals tend to drop by to take a
shit and move on. Some are more considerate of their peers and bury their
shit while others simply leave it exposed for all to smell. Like any other
community litter box, it requires regular care and cleaning by its users or
the cat will find somewhere else to shit. You, naturally being
inconsiderate of others with your vile and pungent excrement are now reaping
what you sowed. In other words, did the cat mistake your face for a litter
box and shit in your mouth while you were sleeping last night? Go spit the
shit out, brush your teeth, gargle with a powerful mouthwash, get over it
and move on with your life already.



Rita
--
Stamping out Internet stupidity one idiot at a time. Never empower the
idiot, embrace it and stimulate it. For more details go to the Usenet
Stimulus Project page.

http://ritaberk.myhosting247.com

Ron Hunter

Borked Pseudo Mailed wrote:
> Which do you prefer?
>
> Moderated has the advantage to stop a lot of trolls and spam and keep everything on topic.
>
> I have been an member and later an mod of one flickr group which shows why people prefer most web forums to be un-moderated.
> http://www.flickr.com/groups/flickrd...group/discuss/
>
> This group has rules about it's rules.
> One admin, http://www.flickr.com/photos/mamamimmy/, has now informed members if they want to create a forum they must first ask an admin.
> One poster posted that his camera had been stolen and this admin wrote a message that they had violated the rules by now asking if they could open it then closed the thread to be deleted within 2 days after the posters that seen their 'final warning or be banned'
>
> The problem with having someone like mamamimmy in charge of one of these groups is if they don't agree with you you get your message deleted and you get banned.
>
> Sadley mamamimmy couldn't handle being 2nd in charge so she made the Flickr Diamond group private so no one could see it. Sadley with Flickr once a group has been made private you can't change it (we created a petition to have it reversed but they say they have no control).
> The minute the group was made private mamamimmy had created another Flickr Diamond group and she is the only admin.
> Sad state of affairs when people have to resort to this to feel power in their lives.
>
> I vote for keeping usenet & google groups un-moderated.
>
>
You have just explained why I don't like moderated groups. If your
opinion differs from the moderator's, your messages are likely to be
deleted, or not released until the subject of the discussion has lost
the interest of the group. No thanks!

Don Stauffer in Minnesota

On Jul 26, 10:22*am, Poldie <_.@._> wrote:
> Chris H wrote:
> > In message <g6f715$g0...@registered.motzarella.org>, Poldie
> > <_.?@?._.invalid> writes
> >> Borked Pseudo Mailed wrote:
> >>> I vote for keeping usenet & google groups un-moderated.
> >> No-one cares about google groups,
>
> > Very true :-)
>
> >> and no-one's going to moderate Usenet.
>
> > Not true. * *Many servers are now not carrying the full range of NG's.
> > It's usually the binary groups that go first.
>
> > Also there are many moderated Usenet groups.
>
> I meant, as you probably know, that no-one is going to moderate the
> unmoderated Usenet groups, as the fact that they are unmoderated were
> part of the charter relating to their creation. *They'd have been
> moderated initially if that was the intention. *The only moderator I
> trust is myself (although if an ISP wants to remove spam which is
> clearly spam, then that's also fine).

There IS a procedure to modify a charter. Actuallly, there is one
moderated newsgroup that I would like to see unmoderated, 'cause the
moderators keep dying and they have not created a co-moderater, so the
group keeps going into limbo. (sci.aeronautics).

Noons

Poldie wrote,on my timestamp of 26/07/2008 10:57 PM:
> Borked Pseudo Mailed wrote:
>> Which do you prefer?
>>
>> Moderated has the advantage to stop a lot of trolls and spam and keep
>> everything on topic.
>
> What happens when someone moderates one of your reasonable posts? What's
> wrong with Thunderbird and a filter on an unmoderated group? Do you
> find ignoring trolls really that difficult? It's just a few clicks
> away. Of course, if people just didn't respond to trolls in the first
> place... But that's not going to happen any time soon, sad to say.


And you're saying this to one of the best
known Usenet trolls? Are you even aware
of that simple fact?

>
>> I vote for keeping usenet & google groups un-moderated.

Fortunately, no one gives a shit what you vote for.

>
> No-one cares about google groups, and no-one's going to moderate Usenet.
> I'd check out Thunderbird (or practically any Usenet newsgroup client).


Actually, given the number of troll, scam and spam
posts coming from "google groups", it's obvious a
lot of trolls care about them...