A cat forum. CatBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » CatBanter forum » Cat Newsgroups » Cat health & behaviour
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

RFD: rec.pets.cats.breeds



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old September 5th 03, 07:13 PM
BarB
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old September 5th 03, 07:13 PM
BarB
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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
  #3  
Old September 5th 03, 07:32 PM
Brian Edmonds
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.
  #4  
Old September 5th 03, 07:32 PM
Brian Edmonds
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.
  #5  
Old September 6th 03, 02:17 AM
Misty9999
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.


  #6  
Old September 6th 03, 02:17 AM
Misty9999
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.


  #7  
Old September 6th 03, 06:37 PM
Arthur L. Rubin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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....


  #8  
Old September 6th 03, 06:37 PM
Arthur L. Rubin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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....


  #9  
Old September 7th 03, 01:44 AM
Yowie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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  
Old September 7th 03, 01:44 AM
Yowie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:34 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2017 CatBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.