From:	jesse AT lenny DOT dseg DOT ti DOT com (Jesse Bennett)
Newsgroups:	comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject:	Re: c.o.m.djgpp retro-moderated?
Date:	6 Mar 1997 16:45:45 GMT
Organization:	Texas Instruments
Lines:	43
Message-ID:	<5fmsbp$6tr$1@superb.csc.ti.com>
References:	<Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 970306131158 DOT 20341F-100000 AT is>
Reply-To:	jbennett AT ti DOT com (Jesse Bennett)
NNTP-Posting-Host:	lenny.dseg.ti.com
Mime-Version:	1.0
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway:	from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp

[Posted and mailed]

In article <Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 970306131158 DOT 20341F-100000 AT is>,
	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il> writes:
> 
> On 5 Mar 1997, Jesse Bennett wrote:
> 
>> In article <Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 970305164326 DOT 18300B-100000 AT is>,
>> 	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il> writes:
>> 
>> > The only practical way to
>> > make the noise lower is to have designated people on the news group who
>> > would point out such cases and ask the involved to kindly take their
>> > discission off the group.  This requires that the majority of the
>> > participants will accept such judgement and abide by it.
>> 
>> It also relies on a concensus of what is considered on-topic.  This is
>> where things become difficult.
> 
> I think that by agreeing to accept judgment of those individuals
> charged with the rights to cancel or re-route messages, you are freed
> of any need for such a consensus.  It is now a problem of those
> individuals to make decisions about what should and should not be left
> out.

Apparently I misunderstood what you were suggesting.  In the original
paragraph you seem to be referring to a *voluntary* form of self
moderation where designated individuals would *request* certain
discussions be taken off the group.  This I agree with.  In the latter
paragraph you are clearly talking about R-M, where compliance with the
judgment of the moderators is *not* on a voluntary basis.  This I do
not favor.

In the case of R-M I think it is *very* important to have concensus of
what is considered off-topic.  I would not want to accept the judgment
of another without understanding what their position on a subject was.
It is NOT a question of trust.  I trust that these individuals would
do what they honestly believe is the Right Thing.  But if their view
of the Right Thing is not consistent with the group opinion then this
becomes a Bad Thing for the group as a whole.

Best Regards,
Jesse

- Raw text -