From: jesse AT dseg DOT ti DOT com (Jesse W. Bennett)
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: c.o.m.djgpp retro-moderated?
Date: 5 Mar 1997 20:26:38 GMT
Organization: Texas Instruments
Lines: 42
Message-ID: <5fkktu$3q8$1@superb.csc.ti.com>
References: <199703051220 DOT HAA27542 AT delorie DOT com>
Reply-To: jbennett AT ti DOT com (Jesse Bennett)
NNTP-Posting-Host: lenny.dseg.ti.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp

[Posted and mailed]

In article <199703051220 DOT HAA27542 AT delorie DOT com>,
	DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com> writes:

>> > 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.

I assume this question is directed at me.  I am unaware of any
unauthorized cancels in the *djgpp* newsgroup - and I want it to stay
that way.  I think this issue has already been blown out of
proportion, but I will cite a specific example of how these things can
get out of hand.

In the sci.math newsgroup there is an individual "affectionately"
known as AP.  He is a bit of a crackpot.  A few months ago there was a
similar discussion there about an informal moderation scheme to reduce
the noise.  AP protested loudly because it was clear that many
considered him to be a major source of this noise.  Although the group
ultimately decided that the proposed scheme should not be implemented
there was someone who decided to take matters into their own hands and
started canceling AP's posts (using a cancelbot).  The culprit was
identified and the cancels were eventually stopped.

This is but one example.  Unfortunately, the problem of unauthorized
cancels is a growing one on USENET.  My concern is that someone who
has been the subject of an *authorized* cancel will feel justified in
retaliating in kind.

As I said in an earlier message, this is NOT the principal reason for
my opposion to R-M.  In retrospect, I regret having made the comment
at all because it has taken the focus of this discussion away from the
more important issues.

Best Regards,
Jesse