rec.pets.cats.breeds

In news.groups Misty9999 wrote:

: That is why I will ONLY support a moderated group. Any unmoderated
: group would become just like the other cat groups.

I also believe a moderated group is needed under the circumstances but
with an extreme bias towards light moderation. Otherwise, there's going
to be no difference between the flame wars on the right to breed on
rec.pets.cats* and rec.pets.cats.breeds.

Also, if you start out with an unmoderated forum and the first thing
you're dealing with is an extended flame war on breeders, there's a good
chance you'll end up with a ghost town group sooner than you'd like.

What I'd propose is you set up the group with only one stipulation which
is no one gets to flame anyone over the right to breed cats. Anything
else goes.

Noreen

On 6 Sep 2003 03:16:38 GMT, Noreen Cooper
wrote:

In news.groups Misty9999 wrote:

: That is why I will ONLY support a moderated group. Any unmoderated
: group would become just like the other cat groups.


I hope it would be as civil as rpc.anecdotes and community. I think
we agree we would like a civil group, we just see different methods of
achieving it. We aren't facing massive off-topic floods, a lot of
spam and advertizing or trolls who morph their names. Anyone remember
the days when trolling rpc was a recognized internet sport?

What we have is people who disagree, sometimes violently and resort to
personal attacks. That really can be handled with killfiles and some
restraint on the part of users. However I'm not against moderation if
that's what users want. After all, I'm a newsgroup moderator myself. I
would suggest though that everyone read "The Pitfalls of Moderation" to
be sure moderation is what they really want.
http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/faqs/mod-pitfalls.html

I also believe a moderated group is needed under the circumstances but
with an extreme bias towards light moderation. Otherwise, there's going
to be no difference between the flame wars on the right to breed on
rec.pets.cats* and rec.pets.cats.breeds.

I'm sorry, I don't follow. Are you saying you think light moderation
would result in fewer flame wars about breeding than tight moderation?

Also, if you start out with an unmoderated forum and the first thing
you're dealing with is an extended flame war on breeders, there's a good
chance you'll end up with a ghost town group sooner than you'd like.

It's the moderated group that can't be revived if it dies.

What I'd propose is you set up the group with only one stipulation which
is no one gets to flame anyone over the right to breed cats. Anything
else goes.

Noreen

Why bother with moderation then? Most users know how to drop the
offender in their killfile with a couple of mouse clicks. Surely you
wouldn't want all the other flame wars allowed in a moderated group?

BarB

On 6 Sep 2003 03:16:38 GMT, Noreen Cooper
wrote:

In news.groups Misty9999 wrote:

: That is why I will ONLY support a moderated group. Any unmoderated
: group would become just like the other cat groups.


I hope it would be as civil as rpc.anecdotes and community. I think
we agree we would like a civil group, we just see different methods of
achieving it. We aren't facing massive off-topic floods, a lot of
spam and advertizing or trolls who morph their names. Anyone remember
the days when trolling rpc was a recognized internet sport?

What we have is people who disagree, sometimes violently and resort to
personal attacks. That really can be handled with killfiles and some
restraint on the part of users. However I'm not against moderation if
that's what users want. After all, I'm a newsgroup moderator myself. I
would suggest though that everyone read "The Pitfalls of Moderation" to
be sure moderation is what they really want.
http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/faqs/mod-pitfalls.html

I also believe a moderated group is needed under the circumstances but
with an extreme bias towards light moderation. Otherwise, there's going
to be no difference between the flame wars on the right to breed on
rec.pets.cats* and rec.pets.cats.breeds.

I'm sorry, I don't follow. Are you saying you think light moderation
would result in fewer flame wars about breeding than tight moderation?

Also, if you start out with an unmoderated forum and the first thing
you're dealing with is an extended flame war on breeders, there's a good
chance you'll end up with a ghost town group sooner than you'd like.

It's the moderated group that can't be revived if it dies.

What I'd propose is you set up the group with only one stipulation which
is no one gets to flame anyone over the right to breed cats. Anything
else goes.

Noreen

Why bother with moderation then? Most users know how to drop the
offender in their killfile with a couple of mouse clicks. Surely you
wouldn't want all the other flame wars allowed in a moderated group?

BarB

On 7 Sep 2003 01:25:12 GMT, Noreen Cooper
wrote:

In news.groups BarB wrote:

: I hope it would be as civil as rpc.anecdotes and community. I think
: we agree we would like a civil group, we just see different methods of
: achieving it. We aren't facing massive off-topic floods, a lot of
: spam and advertizing or trolls who morph their names. Anyone remember
: the days when trolling rpc was a recognized internet sport?

And you speak as if trolls no longer seek rpc out. ;-) As I understand
it, cats and kids are the two sure bets when it comes to troll sport.

: What we have is people who disagree, sometimes violently and resort to
: personal attacks. That really can be handled with killfiles and some
: restraint on the part of users. However I'm not against moderation if
: that's what users want. After all, I'm a newsgroup moderator myself. I
: would suggest though that everyone read "The Pitfalls of Moderation" to
: be sure moderation is what they really want.
: http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/faqs/mod-pitfalls.html

Believe me, you're not speaking to someone uninformed on moderation or
the pitfalls thereof. That's why I emphasize "light".

:I also believe a moderated group is needed under the circumstances but
:with an extreme bias towards light moderation. Otherwise, there's going
:to be no difference between the flame wars on the right to breed on
:rec.pets.cats* and rec.pets.cats.breeds.

There is much more to it than simply saying " The rules are you can't
flame purebred cat owners or breeders". On Usenet , it is all about
signal to noise ratio. Nutrition, Declaw , early neuter, alternative
medicine etc. are all important topics. Some of these topics lead to
long drawn out vicious flame wars. Since they are NOT breed-specific
, I don't see how they would normally belong in a " breeds group " I
could be wrong.

If people are restricted from flaming over one thing , it does not
stop them from finding plenty of other things to deliberately disrupt
a group with. Without an off-topic mechanism in place, people will
bring these wars and other personal wars into a breeds group. If no
other reason, spite. People quickly lose interest in groups that are
75% flame and 25% useful posts.

Even light moderation has to have some sort of an off-topic
mechanism. Even light moderation has to have some mechanism to
blacklist posters who never post anything on-topic and simply want to
flame. You can start out with light moderation. You do need some sort
of a mechanism in place to deal with people who ONLY want to flame and
troll. In many groups a warning is issued to that type of poster. If
the person ignores a warning , they might be restricted from posting
for a week or two. If they just won't follow any rules after that ,you
have to blacklist them. If a moderated group is set , you have to have
some rules that are ONLY used as a last resort. If you are lucky , the
"rules of last resort " will never have to be implemented.

The idea is not to censor contrary opinions. You need differences of
opinion to make a group interesting. Moderated groups are held to
higher standards. Posters in moderated groups are usually there to
avoid the incessant schoolyard games that go on in some unmoderated
groups.

:Also, if you start out with an unmoderated forum and the first thing
:you're dealing with is an extended flame war on breeders, there's a good
:chance you'll end up with a ghost town group sooner than you'd like.

: It's the moderated group that can't be revived if it dies.

You have to step very lightly, in my opinion, when it comes to moderation.
Brian really is a master here in designing moderated systems which can
virtually be run by a robomoderator to reduce spam and block known troll
magnets with little human intervention.

There are many groups that have custom robomoderators. This works well
in if you can find highly computer literate people who are willing to
moderate. The reason I suggested Ready Stump is because anybody can
use it.

: Why bother with moderation then? Most users know how to drop the
: offender in their killfile with a couple of mouse clicks. Surely you
: wouldn't want all the other flame wars allowed in a moderated group?

Killfiles are imperfect instruments, IMO. First off, when you decide to
drop someone in your killfile you have forever judged their opinions on
all topics never to be worth reading. That may be wise in some cases but
not all. Secondly, in heated debates even if you've killfiled someone,
you'll be reading their posts in someone else's post, that I'll guarantee
you.

You also have to allow for people barely know how to use a newsreader
and don't even know how ( or have the capability ) to kill threads or
use a killfile. Ever heard of AOL , Web TV etc.

As for how much more moderation you'd need, that'd be up to you. My
opinion, however, is cat fanciers who have left Usenet aren't up for
continuous flame wars over the right to breed or own purebreds. I think
it'll cause too much of a disruption for the overall success of group if
such wars continue on and on and on without any recourse but killfiles.
But that is my opinion.

As I pointed out above , people can come into a group and start
massive flamewars over other issues. Flame wars can provide short term
amusement. In the long run they cause just as many people to lose
interest as spam.

On 7 Sep 2003 01:25:12 GMT, Noreen Cooper
wrote:

In news.groups BarB wrote:

: I hope it would be as civil as rpc.anecdotes and community. I think
: we agree we would like a civil group, we just see different methods of
: achieving it. We aren't facing massive off-topic floods, a lot of
: spam and advertizing or trolls who morph their names. Anyone remember
: the days when trolling rpc was a recognized internet sport?

And you speak as if trolls no longer seek rpc out. ;-) As I understand
it, cats and kids are the two sure bets when it comes to troll sport.

: What we have is people who disagree, sometimes violently and resort to
: personal attacks. That really can be handled with killfiles and some
: restraint on the part of users. However I'm not against moderation if
: that's what users want. After all, I'm a newsgroup moderator myself. I
: would suggest though that everyone read "The Pitfalls of Moderation" to
: be sure moderation is what they really want.
: http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/faqs/mod-pitfalls.html

Believe me, you're not speaking to someone uninformed on moderation or
the pitfalls thereof. That's why I emphasize "light".

:I also believe a moderated group is needed under the circumstances but
:with an extreme bias towards light moderation. Otherwise, there's going
:to be no difference between the flame wars on the right to breed on
:rec.pets.cats* and rec.pets.cats.breeds.

There is much more to it than simply saying " The rules are you can't
flame purebred cat owners or breeders". On Usenet , it is all about
signal to noise ratio. Nutrition, Declaw , early neuter, alternative
medicine etc. are all important topics. Some of these topics lead to
long drawn out vicious flame wars. Since they are NOT breed-specific
, I don't see how they would normally belong in a " breeds group " I
could be wrong.

If people are restricted from flaming over one thing , it does not
stop them from finding plenty of other things to deliberately disrupt
a group with. Without an off-topic mechanism in place, people will
bring these wars and other personal wars into a breeds group. If no
other reason, spite. People quickly lose interest in groups that are
75% flame and 25% useful posts.

Even light moderation has to have some sort of an off-topic
mechanism. Even light moderation has to have some mechanism to
blacklist posters who never post anything on-topic and simply want to
flame. You can start out with light moderation. You do need some sort
of a mechanism in place to deal with people who ONLY want to flame and
troll. In many groups a warning is issued to that type of poster. If
the person ignores a warning , they might be restricted from posting
for a week or two. If they just won't follow any rules after that ,you
have to blacklist them. If a moderated group is set , you have to have
some rules that are ONLY used as a last resort. If you are lucky , the
"rules of last resort " will never have to be implemented.

The idea is not to censor contrary opinions. You need differences of
opinion to make a group interesting. Moderated groups are held to
higher standards. Posters in moderated groups are usually there to
avoid the incessant schoolyard games that go on in some unmoderated
groups.

:Also, if you start out with an unmoderated forum and the first thing
:you're dealing with is an extended flame war on breeders, there's a good
:chance you'll end up with a ghost town group sooner than you'd like.

: It's the moderated group that can't be revived if it dies.

You have to step very lightly, in my opinion, when it comes to moderation.
Brian really is a master here in designing moderated systems which can
virtually be run by a robomoderator to reduce spam and block known troll
magnets with little human intervention.

There are many groups that have custom robomoderators. This works well
in if you can find highly computer literate people who are willing to
moderate. The reason I suggested Ready Stump is because anybody can
use it.

: Why bother with moderation then? Most users know how to drop the
: offender in their killfile with a couple of mouse clicks. Surely you
: wouldn't want all the other flame wars allowed in a moderated group?

Killfiles are imperfect instruments, IMO. First off, when you decide to
drop someone in your killfile you have forever judged their opinions on
all topics never to be worth reading. That may be wise in some cases but
not all. Secondly, in heated debates even if you've killfiled someone,
you'll be reading their posts in someone else's post, that I'll guarantee
you.

You also have to allow for people barely know how to use a newsreader
and don't even know how ( or have the capability ) to kill threads or
use a killfile. Ever heard of AOL , Web TV etc.

As for how much more moderation you'd need, that'd be up to you. My
opinion, however, is cat fanciers who have left Usenet aren't up for
continuous flame wars over the right to breed or own purebreds. I think
it'll cause too much of a disruption for the overall success of group if
such wars continue on and on and on without any recourse but killfiles.
But that is my opinion.

As I pointed out above , people can come into a group and start
massive flamewars over other issues. Flame wars can provide short term
amusement. In the long run they cause just as many people to lose
interest as spam.

On 7 Sep 2003 01:25:12 GMT, Noreen Cooper
wrote:

In news.groups BarB wrote:

: I hope it would be as civil as rpc.anecdotes and community. I think
: we agree we would like a civil group, we just see different methods of
: achieving it. We aren't facing massive off-topic floods, a lot of
: spam and advertizing or trolls who morph their names. Anyone remember
: the days when trolling rpc was a recognized internet sport?

And you speak as if trolls no longer seek rpc out. ;-) As I understand
it, cats and kids are the two sure bets when it comes to troll sport.

: What we have is people who disagree, sometimes violently and resort to
: personal attacks. That really can be handled with killfiles and some
: restraint on the part of users. However I'm not against moderation if
: that's what users want. After all, I'm a newsgroup moderator myself. I
: would suggest though that everyone read "The Pitfalls of Moderation" to
: be sure moderation is what they really want.
: http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/faqs/mod-pitfalls.html

Believe me, you're not speaking to someone uninformed on moderation or
the pitfalls thereof. That's why I emphasize "light".

:I also believe a moderated group is needed under the circumstances but
:with an extreme bias towards light moderation. Otherwise, there's going
:to be no difference between the flame wars on the right to breed on
:rec.pets.cats* and rec.pets.cats.breeds.

There is much more to it than simply saying " The rules are you can't
flame purebred cat owners or breeders". On Usenet , it is all about
signal to noise ratio. Nutrition, Declaw , early neuter, alternative
medicine etc. are all important topics. Some of these topics lead to
long drawn out vicious flame wars. Since they are NOT breed-specific
, I don't see how they would normally belong in a " breeds group " I
could be wrong.

If people are restricted from flaming over one thing , it does not
stop them from finding plenty of other things to deliberately disrupt
a group with. Without an off-topic mechanism in place, people will
bring these wars and other personal wars into a breeds group. If no
other reason, spite. People quickly lose interest in groups that are
75% flame and 25% useful posts.

Even light moderation has to have some sort of an off-topic
mechanism. Even light moderation has to have some mechanism to
blacklist posters who never post anything on-topic and simply want to
flame. You can start out with light moderation. You do need some sort
of a mechanism in place to deal with people who ONLY want to flame and
troll. In many groups a warning is issued to that type of poster. If
the person ignores a warning , they might be restricted from posting
for a week or two. If they just won't follow any rules after that ,you
have to blacklist them. If a moderated group is set , you have to have
some rules that are ONLY used as a last resort. If you are lucky , the
"rules of last resort " will never have to be implemented.

The idea is not to censor contrary opinions. You need differences of
opinion to make a group interesting. Moderated groups are held to
higher standards. Posters in moderated groups are usually there to
avoid the incessant schoolyard games that go on in some unmoderated
groups.

:Also, if you start out with an unmoderated forum and the first thing
:you're dealing with is an extended flame war on breeders, there's a good
:chance you'll end up with a ghost town group sooner than you'd like.

: It's the moderated group that can't be revived if it dies.

You have to step very lightly, in my opinion, when it comes to moderation.
Brian really is a master here in designing moderated systems which can
virtually be run by a robomoderator to reduce spam and block known troll
magnets with little human intervention.

There are many groups that have custom robomoderators. This works well
in if you can find highly computer literate people who are willing to
moderate. The reason I suggested Ready Stump is because anybody can
use it.

: Why bother with moderation then? Most users know how to drop the
: offender in their killfile with a couple of mouse clicks. Surely you
: wouldn't want all the other flame wars allowed in a moderated group?

Killfiles are imperfect instruments, IMO. First off, when you decide to
drop someone in your killfile you have forever judged their opinions on
all topics never to be worth reading. That may be wise in some cases but
not all. Secondly, in heated debates even if you've killfiled someone,
you'll be reading their posts in someone else's post, that I'll guarantee
you.

You also have to allow for people barely know how to use a newsreader
and don't even know how ( or have the capability ) to kill threads or
use a killfile. Ever heard of AOL , Web TV etc.

As for how much more moderation you'd need, that'd be up to you. My
opinion, however, is cat fanciers who have left Usenet aren't up for
continuous flame wars over the right to breed or own purebreds. I think
it'll cause too much of a disruption for the overall success of group if
such wars continue on and on and on without any recourse but killfiles.
But that is my opinion.

As I pointed out above , people can come into a group and start
massive flamewars over other issues. Flame wars can provide short term
amusement. In the long run they cause just as many people to lose
interest as spam.

On 7 Sep 2003 01:25:12 GMT, Noreen Cooper
wrote:

In news.groups BarB wrote:


: Why bother with moderation then? Most users know how to drop the
: offender in their killfile with a couple of mouse clicks. Surely you
: wouldn't want all the other flame wars allowed in a moderated group?

Killfiles are imperfect instruments, IMO. First off, when you decide to
drop someone in your killfile you have forever judged their opinions on
all topics never to be worth reading. That may be wise in some cases but
not all. Secondly, in heated debates even if you've killfiled someone,
you'll be reading their posts in someone else's post, that I'll guarantee
you.

I seldom killfile an individual. If I do, it's with good reason and it
doesn't bother me a bit never to read their posts again. Eventually I'll
drop that filter though.

Usually I killfile a flame war by subject just so I don't have to read
abusive posts in someone's response. Frankly I don't think one should
respond to abusive posts in the first place and certainly by the second
or third round the thread is usually nothing but abuse from both sides.
Anything worthwhile has been said and the thread goes in my killfile for
several weeks.

I know that Agent, Outlook Express and Netscape readers all allow you to
killfile by words in the subject as well as by author. AOL allowed
killfile on author, subject is, subject contains, and domain starting
with version 5. There are also generic filter programs such as "nfilter.
Those posting from Google should be helped to install a real news reader
if flames are a problem for them.

I have all conjugations of the verb "declaw" in my filters.

As for how much more moderation you'd need, that'd be up to you. My
opinion, however, is cat fanciers who have left Usenet aren't up for
continuous flame wars over the right to breed or own purebreds. I think
it'll cause too much of a disruption for the overall success of group if
such wars continue on and on and on without any recourse but killfiles.
But that is my opinion.

To which you are entitled, but so far this thread has not brought abuse
down on our heads. What it hasn't brought yet though is enough posts
from breeders and those interested in breeding who might use the group
and make it an educational place to be.

Frankly, I'll support you whether you decide to moderate or not. However,
I anticipate more problems down the line with such a track-record flame
topic and no moderation in place.

Noreen

You could be right, but if it is to be moderated at all, I wouldn't want
to see any abusive posts. I'd hate the proposal to lose votes over
moderation though. Votes are going to be scarce enough as it is. Perhaps
the proponent should run a straw poll by email to gauge potential
traffic.

BarB

On 7 Sep 2003 01:25:12 GMT, Noreen Cooper
wrote:

In news.groups BarB wrote:


: Why bother with moderation then? Most users know how to drop the
: offender in their killfile with a couple of mouse clicks. Surely you
: wouldn't want all the other flame wars allowed in a moderated group?

Killfiles are imperfect instruments, IMO. First off, when you decide to
drop someone in your killfile you have forever judged their opinions on
all topics never to be worth reading. That may be wise in some cases but
not all. Secondly, in heated debates even if you've killfiled someone,
you'll be reading their posts in someone else's post, that I'll guarantee
you.

I seldom killfile an individual. If I do, it's with good reason and it
doesn't bother me a bit never to read their posts again. Eventually I'll
drop that filter though.

Usually I killfile a flame war by subject just so I don't have to read
abusive posts in someone's response. Frankly I don't think one should
respond to abusive posts in the first place and certainly by the second
or third round the thread is usually nothing but abuse from both sides.
Anything worthwhile has been said and the thread goes in my killfile for
several weeks.

I know that Agent, Outlook Express and Netscape readers all allow you to
killfile by words in the subject as well as by author. AOL allowed
killfile on author, subject is, subject contains, and domain starting
with version 5. There are also generic filter programs such as "nfilter.
Those posting from Google should be helped to install a real news reader
if flames are a problem for them.

I have all conjugations of the verb "declaw" in my filters.

As for how much more moderation you'd need, that'd be up to you. My
opinion, however, is cat fanciers who have left Usenet aren't up for
continuous flame wars over the right to breed or own purebreds. I think
it'll cause too much of a disruption for the overall success of group if
such wars continue on and on and on without any recourse but killfiles.
But that is my opinion.

To which you are entitled, but so far this thread has not brought abuse
down on our heads. What it hasn't brought yet though is enough posts
from breeders and those interested in breeding who might use the group
and make it an educational place to be.

Frankly, I'll support you whether you decide to moderate or not. However,
I anticipate more problems down the line with such a track-record flame
topic and no moderation in place.

Noreen

You could be right, but if it is to be moderated at all, I wouldn't want
to see any abusive posts. I'd hate the proposal to lose votes over
moderation though. Votes are going to be scarce enough as it is. Perhaps
the proponent should run a straw poll by email to gauge potential
traffic.

BarB

On 7 Sep 2003 01:25:12 GMT, Noreen Cooper
wrote:

In news.groups BarB wrote:


: Why bother with moderation then? Most users know how to drop the
: offender in their killfile with a couple of mouse clicks. Surely you
: wouldn't want all the other flame wars allowed in a moderated group?

Killfiles are imperfect instruments, IMO. First off, when you decide to
drop someone in your killfile you have forever judged their opinions on
all topics never to be worth reading. That may be wise in some cases but
not all. Secondly, in heated debates even if you've killfiled someone,
you'll be reading their posts in someone else's post, that I'll guarantee
you.

I seldom killfile an individual. If I do, it's with good reason and it
doesn't bother me a bit never to read their posts again. Eventually I'll
drop that filter though.

Usually I killfile a flame war by subject just so I don't have to read
abusive posts in someone's response. Frankly I don't think one should
respond to abusive posts in the first place and certainly by the second
or third round the thread is usually nothing but abuse from both sides.
Anything worthwhile has been said and the thread goes in my killfile for
several weeks.

I know that Agent, Outlook Express and Netscape readers all allow you to
killfile by words in the subject as well as by author. AOL allowed
killfile on author, subject is, subject contains, and domain starting
with version 5. There are also generic filter programs such as "nfilter.
Those posting from Google should be helped to install a real news reader
if flames are a problem for them.

I have all conjugations of the verb "declaw" in my filters.

As for how much more moderation you'd need, that'd be up to you. My
opinion, however, is cat fanciers who have left Usenet aren't up for
continuous flame wars over the right to breed or own purebreds. I think
it'll cause too much of a disruption for the overall success of group if
such wars continue on and on and on without any recourse but killfiles.
But that is my opinion.

To which you are entitled, but so far this thread has not brought abuse
down on our heads. What it hasn't brought yet though is enough posts
from breeders and those interested in breeding who might use the group
and make it an educational place to be.

Frankly, I'll support you whether you decide to moderate or not. However,
I anticipate more problems down the line with such a track-record flame
topic and no moderation in place.

Noreen

You could be right, but if it is to be moderated at all, I wouldn't want
to see any abusive posts. I'd hate the proposal to lose votes over
moderation though. Votes are going to be scarce enough as it is. Perhaps
the proponent should run a straw poll by email to gauge potential
traffic.

BarB

In ,
Misty9999 composed with style:

There is much more to it than simply saying " The rules are you
can't flame purebred cat owners or breeders". On Usenet , it is all
about
signal to noise ratio. Nutrition, Declaw , early neuter, alternative
medicine etc. are all important topics. Some of these topics lead
to
long drawn out vicious flame wars. Since they are NOT
breed-specific , I don't see how they would normally belong in a "
breeds group " I
could be wrong.

I think you are. According to you, purebred cats should follow a
different schedule for neutering than ordinary cats.

Message-ID:
copy & paste
"This post is going to get me flamed. I don't really care. I have
eight
Cats. Two Maine Coons, two Siamese and four shelter adopted cats. The
Maine coon is a slow growing cat. Most Maine Coon breeders don't
recommend neutering a male until the age of NINE months. Male cats of
any type are normally not neutered until six months.

A few Maine Coon breeders have capitulated to the early neuter crowd.
They are afraid of back yard breeders. This argument has some merit ,
but I don't think you should do something that has NO proven benefit
and could be detrimental.

I have seen the results of early neutering in male Maine coons. Some
appear to attain normal growth. Others are clearly smaller and less
developed because of early neuter. In the case of mixed breeds , it is
impossible to tell if the procedure has detrimental effects at this
time."
/copy & paste