XPost: news.groups, rec.arts.comics.dc.universe, rec.arts.sf.tv   
   XPost: rec.arts.tv   
   From: kalelfan@yanospamhoo.com   
      
   "catpandaddy"  wrote in message   
   news:ifnfgd$s7d$1@news.eternal-september.org...   
      
   > Isn't all of this already accomplished with killfile rules on a good   
   > newsreader?  People can already choose what to filter out by their   
   > own preferences, ...   
      
   My guess is maybe 15% of longtimers have that way of looking at   
   it or that philosophy.  I disagree with it and Optional Moderation   
   inherently takes the user and especially new user perspective.  It   
   provides the optional moderation, rather than effectively telling   
   them "here's a bucket and a strainer, now filter the cesspool   
   yourself."   
      
   I think 85% of longtime Usenetters will be fine with the idea of OM   
   and bringing in more newbies.  They may be skeptical, to varying   
   degrees, but they recognize that if any filtering tool is available it's   
   not their choice, it's a user choice.  I think most of the 85% would   
   like it to be as not disruptive as possible though, to Usenet and   
   to any existing groups.   
      
   That's why OM should be developed off to the side in a brand new,   
   separate hierarchy.  Existing group users can choose to crosspost   
   to the new hierarchy if they wish, but posts won't be imported or   
   subjected to OM unless they either post or crosspost to the new   
   hierarchy, or otherwise allow it.  Everything about the OM concept,   
   in its current form, tries to avoid any disruption or negative effects   
   on current groups.  In the medium- and long-term, if OM works well   
   it's conceivable that more longtime Usenetters could migrate to the   
   new hierarchy exclusively, but that'll be their choice and they might   
   have left in any case.   
      
   > ... so I don't see how adding "tags" does anything except create more   
   > work for the admins...   
      
   For starters, that's based on what I'd characterize as the false premise,   
   the idea that asking the user to take a bucket and strainer, and filter   
   the cesspool themselves, is relevant here.  Optional Moderation, by   
   definition, is a concept that is optional for the user.  Someone else   
   can always suggest they not use OM, or if a user is eager to filter the   
   cesspool themselves no one can or will stop them.  It's all user choice.   
   OM would provide the moderated view(s) for the users who want it.   
      
   Beyond that, there are various reasons why only two options leads to   
   problems.  Many, many posters like to be able to read off-topic posts   
   once in a while at least, some engage in it, some are okay with flame   
   wars and so I think a lo-mod version would be quite popular.  User vs.   
   Moderator issues, discontent with moderators and so on is higher   
   when it becomes a choice between the Cesspool View and the Uber-   
   Clean View According to Moderator Whatshisname.  It can lead to a   
   kind of moderation mission creep, and moderator's abusing their   
   power.  Moderators start to view the moderated version as their   
   Private Place, or theirs and that of posters who share their views or   
   attitudes.   
      
   I've often said that one of the biggest problems with the moderated   
   forums is that they can too easily shield fallacies and the like.  There's   
   something to be said for allowing Usenet to be a battleground where   
   the better argument wins, even if it hurts the loser's ego and even if   
   it gets quite contentious.  Of course few will admit they've lost the   
   argument, but the readers decide not the moderators by cutting off   
   the discussion or even flame war tone of it.  I'll be providing one or   
   more examples in a later post.  There are many things that are in   
   the tradition of Usenet that shouldn't be limited to some perfectly   
   sterile hi-mod version, or a cesspool-ridden no-mod version.   
      
   With OM and the three-option approach, moderators are as much   
   a "bag it and tag it" traffic cop, and a User Assistant, as they are a   
   moderator.  There'd be other safeguards too, like more than one   
   moderator on a group or even shift, and a review/appeal process   
   or the like.  With the ad-hoc moderated groups, disenchantment   
   with the one moderator can fester and there's no recourse.  Here,   
   a user can turn the moderator off, but I think the lo-mod version   
   or view will make it far less likely they'll want or feel they need to   
   do that.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)