Re: [RANT] Death of Usenet: Film at 11
frantz@netcom.com (Bill Frantz) writes:
At 1:34 PM 8/19/96 -0700, Mike Duvos wrote:
Moderated newsgroups gain reputation from their moderation policies and probably should not be included in this scheme.
Actually, this was hashed out a long time ago on the late, lamented news.future. I'm pleased to see ideas I fought for coming to life again. Moderation could easily fit in. A moderation-stamp would be just one more field for the search to work with. Someone (I think it was me but it's been years since all this was said!) speculated that this would actually be an improvement in several ways: * If rejected messages were indicated by simply missing a signature of approval, voluntary not searched for by individual readers, it would be harder to claim moderator censorship. Or to accomplish it, for that matter. * Multiple independent moderators could work on the same newsgroup. * If the stamp of approval were dissociated from the message proper, messages could propagate without waiting for the moderator's receive-email-and-post cycle. The moderator's "OK" would catch up later, for those readers that wait for it. Imminent resurrection of Usenet predicted. Film-teaser at 5. Tom
On Tue, 20 Aug 1996, Tom Breton wrote:
* If rejected messages were indicated by simply missing a signature of approval, voluntary not searched for by individual readers, it would be harder to claim moderator censorship. Or to accomplish it, for that matter.
* Multiple independent moderators could work on the same newsgroup.
* If the stamp of approval were dissociated from the message proper, messages could propagate without waiting for the moderator's receive-email-and-post cycle. The moderator's "OK" would catch up later, for those readers that wait for it.
Innaresting. Sort of a reverse NoCeM. I like it, but of course you'd have to distribute the clients by magic. Sounds good for discussion groups, especially soc.culture.* and soc.religion.*, but there's still a role for strictly moderated *.announce groups. -rich
Rich Graves <rich@c2.org> writes:
* If rejected messages were indicated by simply missing a signature of approval, voluntary not searched for by individual readers, it would be harder to claim moderator censorship. Or to accomplish it, for that matter.
* Multiple independent moderators could work on the same newsgroup.
* If the stamp of approval were dissociated from the message proper, messages could propagate without waiting for the moderator's receive-email-and-post cycle. The moderator's "OK" would catch up later, for those readers that wait for it.
Innaresting. Sort of a reverse NoCeM. I like it, but of course you'd have to distribute the clients by magic.
Why 'reverse'? NoCeM's can be used to both 'hide' and 'highlight' articles. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps
participants (3)
-
dlv＠bwalk.dm.com -
Rich Graves -
tob＠world.std.com