XPost: news.groups, rec.arts.comics.dc.universe, rec.arts.sf.tv   
   XPost: rec.arts.tv   
   From: kalelfan@yanospamhoo.com   
      
   "Mark Kramer"  wrote in message news:ig0dtg$ji6$1@pcls6.std.com...   
      
   > In article <8ohjv8Ft1oU1@mid.individual.net>,   
   > KalElFan  wrote:   
   >   
   >> ... You aren't asking them to come into an old   
   >> hornet's nest where 15% or whatever are dead-set against it.   
   >   
   > Then where will these moderators be finding the articles they steal?   
   >   
   >> People are more likely to see the new hierarchy as a New   
   >> Usenet Frontier, which is exactly what OM is.   
   >   
   > A "New Usenet Frontier", where every article is stolen from an existing   
   > unmoderated old frontier newsgroup. How, ummm, novel?   
      
   See, this is the problem you've been having from the start.  First   
   time you popped in to the moderated NGP thread, it was well into   
   the discussion and it was apparent you weren't up to speed.  You   
   were making false assumptions and other posters pointed that out.   
   So I never responded to you at the time.   
      
   Then, after I'd left that excellent thread with many good contributions   
   from several people, I kept reading and noticed another flurry of three   
   or four posts from you.  They again reflected the fact you hadn't read   
   or if so hadn't understood the preceding discussions.  I didn't bother   
   returning to repeat what the thread had already gone through.   
      
   Then you showed up here on the unmodersted news.groups and it   
   was the same thing again, except it was a post with nothing but a   
   few assertions and generalizations.  You were responding to A B,   
   who had seen some merit in OM.  Since there was absolutely nothing   
   substantive let alone specific in your post, I again didn't bother with   
   a response.   
      
   In the interim you made a few posts in discussions I wasn't even   
   involved in, and I thought those were good.  I also responded to   
   your post on the moderation on NGP.  Then Alexander responded   
   to me on that and I decided to do the IRRITATE robomod shtick in   
   response.   
      
   But now you come back and assume that posts are going to be   
   "stolen".  This is literally a week or two ago now it must be, when   
   that whole issue was discussed in detail.  IF an existing group   
   were being moderated, i.e. the posts "stolen" as you see it, then   
   it would have been literally a mirror version, i.e. a different view   
   of the same group and nothing more.  It would be no different   
   than well run news servers filtering spam or binaries, technically   
   making what gets through a "moderated view" of the full, junkier   
   version.  So there were zero copyright issues and nothing would   
   have been stolen.  It would have just been a different view of the   
   group.   
      
   But that's not even what the OM concept has been for maybe 200   
   posts now.  If copyright whines were the ONLY obstacle I'd have   
   no problem, but meantime the OM concept was clearly looking   
   VASTLY better as a separate hierarchy.  There was very detailed   
   discussion on how crossposts would get handled, and when MIDs   
   would have to be changed and so on.  I also concluded that it   
   would be far, far better to just have rec.arts.tv posters *choose*   
   to post or crosspost to the new hierarchy, rather than try to copy   
   across any posts.  The existing groups are (i) at best 5% of the OM   
   potential market, and (ii) can be a poison pill to new users if you   
   have some posters doing nothing but whine about being dragged   
   into it and so on.   
      
   Also, look at a group like sci.med.cardiology.  It's a total writeoff.   
   I subscribed to it very briefly and kept adding to my killfille any   
   time a poster responded to some religious nutjob troll or some   
   such that's been flooding the group.  There were maybe three   
   posters left after I finished the killfile experiment.   
      
   People talk about newbies using their filters.  It's total b.s.   
   even for established posters on all kinds of groups that are   
   just completely beyond salvaging.  It would be insane to   
   "apply" Optional Moderation to them.  There's nothing to   
   make the exercise worthwhile.   
      
   If all that isn't enough reason to start fresh with a brand new   
   OM hierarachy, the naming "system" in the Big 8 and alt.* is   
   kaput.  I concede it's better than one hierarchy called big8.*   
   But there's a much better way to do it, and that's a limited   
   number of coherent topics (15-20) with tagging or keywords   
   doing the rest.  Allow people to filter out, or filter in, what   
   they prefer.  The "moderator" really becomes "traffic cop"   
   and the task is more "bag it and tag it" than moderation.   
      
   They don't even have to bag it and tag it!  Literally *FIVE*   
   tags or keywords will mark more than 95% of the "noise"   
   on rec.arts.tv for example, and it'd be the same on almost   
   all groups.  Just five tags!  OT, META, UPA (for Usenet   
   Performance Art or Trolling), and one tag, perhaps FLM   
   for "Flame".  The latter would be broadly defined as   
   anything escalating into overly contentious discussion, ad   
   hominen or name calling, heated words or profanity.   
   Anything that goes beyond the civil discourse most people   
   stick to face to face, but that is undeniably accepted by   
   many to be part of the Usenet tradition at least some of   
   the time.   
      
   On rec.arts.tv, there's a special problem with political   
   discussion so it needs a fifth tag for that.  On another   
   group it might be a different unique problem, but it's   
   maybe PLT for Political Discussion in the TV division of   
   the OM hierarchy.  Why not just OT?  Because it's not   
   OT in an era where news channels and shows and hosts   
   are covering it 24/7.  It enters threads in that context,   
   just like all kind of other things do when the details of   
   an episode of a TV show get discussed for example.   
   But even if it were true that is was off-topic, it's likely   
   to be a major chunk of posting in the TV division as   
   it is in rec.arts.tv, and many regulars will participate   
   in it.  There may be crossposts to the politics hierarchy   
   whenever an O'Reilly or Hannity segment is discussed.   
   So the best policy is a separate tag.   
      
   If "trusted users" agreed to self-moderate by simply using   
   the above tags where appropriate whenever they start a   
   thread, or in replying if that's appropriate, 95% of the   
   cesspool barrier and the noise could be dealt with on   
   Usenet.  Those posters could all be whitelisted into the   
   lo-mod view automatically, and the hi-mod view is then   
   also generated because it's strictly a function of the tags.   
      
   (For those who don't know, the META+ tag on this thread   
   signifies discussion that is relevant to the functioning of   
   a group or other group-related issues.  On an unmoderated   
   group, which all on the crosspost list are, the arbiter of that   
   is the poster.  Since I've been subscribed to all five of the   
   groups on the crosspost list, and have posted to them, for   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)