If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
RFD: rec.pets.cats.breeds
On Fri, 05 Sep 2003 07:01:57 -0700, Misty9999
wrote: Obviously , you are not familiar with the cat groups. I rarely bother with them anymore. Check out rec.pets.cats.health+behav.They have flamefests that would put an Outlaw Biker's group to shame. The only way such a group would succeed is if it was moderated. Most of the people in the cat groups are involved in pet rescue. They hate breeders. They feel that every purebred cat means one less home for their shelter cats. Just owning a purebred cat can get you flamed. Most people who own purebred cats also own shelter cats. That won't matter to the rescue people. I can assure you that you will get incessant posts about " Those irresponsible Breeders" " Those selfish purebred cat owners " and on and on. Moderation is extremely time consuming. You might want to read: http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/faqs/mod-pitfalls.html http://www.swcp.com/~dmckeon/mod-faq.html http://www.landfield.com/moderators/ In most cases moderation is unnecessary if the users have some self control. That means one never responds to a troll or a flame.. not even once. One ignores it completely and also ignores anyone who can't refrain from answering. It doesn't matter how witty your response or how offended you were by a personal attack. Don't answer! It just irritates the group to the point where they stop reading your messages as well. Filter out the flamers. I've been reading the rec.pets.cats groups since 1995. A kill filter does wonders for the readability as well as for your blood pressure. I would add to the charter, "Rational discussions are encouraged, personal attacks and flame-wars are strongly discouraged." I'm going to crosspost this to news.groups and rpc.health+behav. Discussion on an RFD has to be posted to news.groups, but the rpc members must be brought in if the proposal is to get enough votes to pass. Members of news.groups may comment on the RFD, but they will not vote for a group they don't use. Most proposals fail because the proponent didn't promote the new group to the possible voters. BarB |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
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. 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. 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. Selah. Brian. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Misty9999 wrote:
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. Home improvement groups are non-controversial? I haven't looked at Usenet home improvement groups, but home improvement is one of the forbidden categories of discussion in the lunchroom at work. Religion is not.... |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Misty9999 wrote:
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. Home improvement groups are non-controversial? I haven't looked at Usenet home improvement groups, but home improvement is one of the forbidden categories of discussion in the lunchroom at work. Religion is not.... |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
"Misty9999" wrote in message
... 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. alt.religion.wicca.moderated uses stump IIRC, and seems to work reasonably well. They've set it up so that unfamiliar posters have to be "hand moderated" but once a person has made enough acceptable posts, they are put upon the "pre-approved" list. Pre-approved status can be lost if other members complain about another poster, but usually the regulars just say "whoa, calm down there, friend!" and things return to normal (often with an apology from the hot poster too). There are 5 moderators who share the work, and are also well enough aware of their own biases that they will leave a message in the queue for other moderators if they think they culdn't fairly moderate that particular post. They are also a friendly lot, you could do worse than drop than an e-mail and ask how it works. The address of the moderator board is , the web site is http://stump.algebra.com/~arwm/index.html Yowie |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Yowie wrote:
alt.religion.wicca.moderated uses stump IIRC, and seems to work reasonably well. The group uses Ready STUMP (for a fee). They've set it up so that unfamiliar posters have to be "hand moderated" but once a person has made enough acceptable posts, they are put upon the "pre-approved" list. A matter of moderation policy, other groups might use a different rule set. -- news:alt.pagan FAQ at http://www.dmcom.net/bard/altpag.txt news:alt.religion.wicca FAQ at http://www.dmcom.net/bard/arwfaq2.txt news:news.groups FAQ at http://www.dmcom.net/bard/ngfaq.txt Want a new group FAQs http://web.presby.edu/~nnqadmin/nnq/ncreate.html |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Yowie wrote:
alt.religion.wicca.moderated uses stump IIRC, and seems to work reasonably well. The group uses Ready STUMP (for a fee). They've set it up so that unfamiliar posters have to be "hand moderated" but once a person has made enough acceptable posts, they are put upon the "pre-approved" list. A matter of moderation policy, other groups might use a different rule set. -- news:alt.pagan FAQ at http://www.dmcom.net/bard/altpag.txt news:alt.religion.wicca FAQ at http://www.dmcom.net/bard/arwfaq2.txt news:news.groups FAQ at http://www.dmcom.net/bard/ngfaq.txt Want a new group FAQs http://web.presby.edu/~nnqadmin/nnq/ncreate.html |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
"Misty9999" wrote in message
... 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. alt.religion.wicca.moderated uses stump IIRC, and seems to work reasonably well. They've set it up so that unfamiliar posters have to be "hand moderated" but once a person has made enough acceptable posts, they are put upon the "pre-approved" list. Pre-approved status can be lost if other members complain about another poster, but usually the regulars just say "whoa, calm down there, friend!" and things return to normal (often with an apology from the hot poster too). There are 5 moderators who share the work, and are also well enough aware of their own biases that they will leave a message in the queue for other moderators if they think they culdn't fairly moderate that particular post. They are also a friendly lot, you could do worse than drop than an e-mail and ask how it works. The address of the moderator board is , the web site is http://stump.algebra.com/~arwm/index.html Yowie |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
rec.pets.cats.breeds | Yowie | Cat anecdotes | 3 | September 8th 03 07:16 PM |
RFD: rec.pets.cats.breeds | BarB | Cat anecdotes | 1 | September 7th 03 09:18 PM |
RFD: rec.pets.cats.breeds | BarB | Cat community | 1 | September 7th 03 09:18 PM |
RFD: rec.pets.cats.breeds | BarB | Cat health & behaviour | 3 | September 7th 03 09:18 PM |