From: fbkotler@nospicedham.myfairpoint.net   
      
   Rod Pemberton wrote:   
      
   ...   
   > So, is talk of moderation off-topic too?   
      
   Actually, yes. I think discussion of moderation is supposed to be off   
   topic in a moderated group! But we need to discuss it.   
      
   >  Do I need to get a special   
   > room? padded perhaps? ...   
      
   Padded... perhaps barred... :)   
      
   > No one has come forward in the three and a half years since Nathan   
   > passed to moderate despite Frank asking for another moderator a few   
   > times now, AIR.  (Is that correct Frank? ...)   
      
   I just got an offer - from Rick - to help with moderation. I'm not mad   
   at Rick, but I suspect you guys don't want him.   
      
   > While I understand the group's desire to perpetuate Chuck Crayne's   
   > legacy and I understand some people's strong preference for moderation,   
   > it would seem that the effort required to find and keep moderators has   
   > exceeded the ability or willingness of the people posting to the group.   
   >   
   > I.e., I'd recommend removing moderation whenever Frank decides to   
   > finally call it quits.  My current impression is that he seems close   
   > to doing so.  In the short term, CLAX could approve anything.  You may   
   > need to filter the posts on your own end going forward.  In the long   
   > term, moderation would need to be formally removed by Usenet.   
   >   
   > Or, we could just say goodbye to CLAX, leaving it as it is.  We'd lose   
   > the ability to post at some point in time, once Frank's and Nate's   
   > accounts expire,  unless Wolfgang teaches us how to bypass moderation   
   > and post anyway.   
      
   It was Herbert who posted with a line, "Approved: Who approved this?"   
   Foolishly, IMHO, he cc'ed it to "the Board". They were annoyed and   
   threatened to cut off his access. I don't think anything came of it.   
      
   A server may or may not allow you to post an "Approved" message. I had   
   to make special arrangements with Eternal-September. Nathan may have   
   made arrangements with GigaNews, I don't know. I was simply using his   
   account, which is a no-no in itself. You're not "supposed" to post   
   "Approved" messages unless you're the moderator. I don't know what the   
   consequences might be. I suggest not doing it.   
      
   aen@nospicedham.spamtrap.com wrote:   
    >> ...   
    > Seems I misunderstood that.  I thought he would quit, and from a   
    > message at the time when Chuck passed and the moderation changed I   
    > collected it isn't possible to change a group from moderated to   
    > unmoderated, so I thought the group would then end.  It is of course   
    > his descision what he does.   
      
   I will continue approving messages for now. I was a little annoyed. I   
   mentioned to Rick in private mail that having that off topic message   
   slip through would serve as an intelligence test for c.l.a.x. Can we   
   tell this isn't about assembly language? If so do we know enough not to   
   reply to it? We didn't do too well. We still need somebody else - at   
   least as "backup". A younger guy... someone who likes assembly language.   
   Hmmmm...   
      
      
   Terje Mathisen wrote:   
      
   ...   
    > Since I control the moderator email accout, I can of course take over in   
    > case Frank got run over by a bus or something, but I'd really like to   
    > keep things the way they are as long as possible!   
    >   
    > It is effectively impossible to change a newsgroup from moderated to   
    > unmoderated, since far too many news servers will ignore those update   
    > messages, (perhaps rightly?) suspecting that they are forgeries.   
      
   Yes, you're in the bucket if I'm not doing it. Few busses in my   
   neighborhood, but I'm old enough so no one will say, "What a shame! He   
   was so young!" when I kick off. That's when, not if. That's why we need   
   somebody else - so you don't get stuck with it.   
      
      
   wolfgang kern wrote:   
      
   ...   
    > yeah, motion seconded!   
      
   ...   
    > I disagree here, CLAX is and always was an almost serious ASM-group with   
    > really few OT posts. And I'd like to keep it that way.   
      
   It was not always that way. It was just c.l.a. then. That's how it got   
   to be moderated in the first place. Probably a mistake, in retrospect.   
      
   ...   
    > You mean I could teach that ? :) if I ever bypassed the moderation here   
    > I don't remember how it worked nor what I did.   
    > And even if I could teach it, I wouldn't do it.   
      
   Doesn't seem to be much of a trick to it. Any "Approved" line seems to   
   do it. Better to have a "proper" moderator, though.   
      
   There are other messages in this thread, but that covers most of it. We   
   can discuss it some more. We don't need to do anything immediately (I hope).   
      
   Best,   
   Frank   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)