On Fri, 05 Sep 2003 11:32:46 -0700, Brian Edmonds
wrote:

BarB writes:
Moderation is extremely time consuming.

Moderation with no software support, of a group with any more than just
dribbles of traffic, is extremely time consuming. Hand moderation, with
software support for queue management, of a group with more than
moderate traffic, is extremely time consuming. Moderation with software
support for automated management of spam and format controls, and poster
white and blacklisting, generally requires fairly little ongoing time.
With support for, and use of team moderation, the load can be even less.

I host over two dozen groups at present, of which I am sole moderator
for around half (which are mainly in the dribble category), and
co-moderator for most of the rest (of which all but two are moderate
traffic or less). My software falls into the latter category, and the
amount of time consumed by moderation, on an ongoing basis, is fairly
minimal.

The only " out of the box" software I have seen is Ready Stump. If the
group gets the votes , I would be willing to make the financial
commitment to get it set up. You even get a web page with it.


Your pointers to further reading are a good suggestion, and should
definitely be read carefully by anyone considering a moderated group.

In most cases moderation is unnecessary if the users have some self
control.

In most cases law enforcement is unnecessary if the citizens have some
self control.

I'm not saying that unmoderated groups don't work. I read and
participate in quite a number of them myself. But moderated groups can
be easy to maintain, and near transparent for their users, if they are
set up well. And they offer at least minimal enforcement mechanisms if
needed, as they at least occasionally are, particularly in some topic
spaces.

The reason I don't spend much time on Usenet anymore is because the
Wild West aspects of it are now just boring. The only unmoderated
groups that are readable are the non-controversial ones. Home
improvement groups , some of the comp groups etc.

I think a moderated group would have to be set up based on the
conventions of Usenet. Example; some of the things in the Charter for
misc.legal.moderated could be applicable to the proposed cat breed
group. Nobody is going to vote for a moderated group that fails to
adhere to proper Usenet standards.

I'll grant you that I think anyone getting all flamed up about cats
probably needs to reconsider their priorities (and I *like* cats), but
it takes all kinds...

Most proposals fail because the proponent didn't promote the new group
to the possible voters.

I believe the purpose of a RFD is to gauge the potential interest and
then try to promote it to the right people. I'm fairly ignorant of the
process.