Mail Archives: djgpp/1997/03/05/07:33:59
> DJ, can you please explain what would retro-moderation mean for
> subscribers to the mailing list? Thanks.
For posts that would be AUTO-retro-moderated, there would be no
change, since I already filter out spam and heavy cross-posts (which
is all that can be auto-R-M'd). For other posts that are manually
R-M'd, unless they're caught *real* quick, they'll make it to the
mailing list before they get a chance to get cancelled.
The big change will be that (hopefully) off-topic threads that won't
die and aren't useful will come to a stop.
> > postings to be anonymously canceled with no accountability. There are
>
> I think you are pushing this issue way too far. The authority to
> cancel messages is not given to everyone: the news group has to come
In addition, the *ability* to cancel posts already exists, so your
concerns are also valid in a non-moderated group. Have they happened
yet? If so, I haven't noticed.
> My real concern is how well *trustworthy* and *well-meaning*
> individuals can indeed classify the borderline postings in a way that
> doesn't prevent useful information from getting to people who might
> find it helpful.
And how likely they are to err the wrong way.
> The *real* issue here is not whether a bunch of criminals will take
> control of this news group's traffic, the issue is this: how much are
> we annoyed by the noise that we get on an unmoderated group, and how
> much can we trust our trustees to let them cancel and/or re-route
> some of the messages. That is the issue that DJ was talking about;
> FWIW, I agree that it *should* be raised and discussed by everybody
> who cares to make their views public.
Which is why I've been freely admitting the bad aspects of
retro-moderation.
- Raw text -