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:ig5spn$1fl$1@pcls6.std.com...   
      
   > Whether that group is in om.* or elsewhere, the concept and   
   > issue is the same. Someone posts to an unmoderated groups   
   > and finds his article copied to a moderated one.   
      
   om.politics   
      
   That's the politics group and there are no "moderated" or   
   "unmoderated" or "hi-mod" or any other suffixes.  When you   
   post in om.* and in this case om.politics, it goes to the email   
   address for the politics division.  From there it's processed   
   into three views of the group.  One group, three different   
   views of it.  Repeat:   
      
     One group, three different views of it.   
      
   No one will ever post to om.* without this being very clearly   
   explained to them.  I concede that if they had the level of   
   reading comprehension that you *ostensibly* have they   
   may not understand what's very clearly explained.  I say   
   ostensibly because I'm 99.99% sure you get this Mark.  You   
   just wish it weren't so and feel the need to imagine it an   
   easier target.   
      
   om.politics.a-view   
   om.politics.b-view   
   om.politics.c-view   
      
   Think of .c as the "common" unmoderated view that Usenet is   
   most traditionally known for and loved by many.   
      
   Think of .b as the "bot" view, an entirely robomoderated stage   
   based largely if not exclusively on whitelisting.   
      
   Finally, think of .a as the "ace" or highest moderated view   
   It's also possible for this view to be generated automatically,   
   because posters whitelisted into the .b view will have agreed   
   to tag their "exception" posts if any.  Human moderation   
   would be primarily limited to maintaining the .b view whitelist.   
      
   > And yet a single moderated group with tagging or keywords   
   > isn't sufficient. You need an unmoderated pool of articles   
   > to pick from.   
      
   Moderated groups are not in the best tradition of Usenet.   
   In a perfect world, even Optional Moderation would not   
   be needed.  But it is, because Usenet has a cesspool barrier   
   and signal to noise problem that has been central to its   
   decline.  Telling new and returning users "Here's the bucket   
   and strainer, now filter the cesspool yourself" will not work.   
   Pure moderation does not work either, because few want it.   
   Optional moderation gives people a choice.  Those who don't   
   like the idea of a such a hierarchy can just not post there.   
      
   >> [KalElFan wrote]:   
   >> 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.   
   >   
   > Isn't it a shame that this is NOT what is being proposed as   
   > 'om.*'. Why are you ranting on about it?   
      
   The tags were central to the concept almost 10_YEARS_AGO   
   (yes it was 2001).  It was two views then not three, and a   
   single server project applied to one group.   
      
   >> 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.   
   >   
   > So all it takes for a spammer to post to a group, or a flamer,   
   > to the highly protected "hi-mod" view is to include the right   
   > tag. As in a followup... What a useless system.   
      
   No, it's the opposite.  FLM tags will get robomoderated OUT of   
   the hi-mod view.  NOT tagging a flame is a potential "loophole"   
   that gets it into the hi-mod view.  But other robomoderation   
   flags, and polite reminders, and if a poster has just gone bad   
   and persists in making untagged flames or the like then a   
   suspension or removal from the whitelist is the remedy.  The   
   user's post(s) would still go to the unmoderated view.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)