NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #16/NN_1992_16.iso/spool/comp/sys/apple2/17739

Internet Message Format | 1992-07-22 | 3.7 KB

Xref: sparky comp.sys.apple2:17739 news.groups:15958
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple2,news.groups
Path: sparky!uunet!sun-barr!decwrl!csus.edu!netcomsv!mork!payner
From: [e-mail] (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Comp.binaries.apple2 moderation: why not?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 17:51:02 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Lines: 77

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Tero Sand) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Rich Payne) writes:
>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Tero Sand) writes:
>>>Ok, folks: I just spent over half an hour searching articles that deal
>>>with moderating c.b.a2. I did NOT find reasons for not moderating except
>>>for two, which where stated by Amrit. So, please stop claiming
>>>otherwise.
>>
>>I think that you have it the wrong way around.
>
>No, I didn't get anything 'the wrong way around'. The above is in
>response to those people who, when I've asked for reasons 'why not', say
>'plenty of reasons have been presented'.

No, -I- do think that this is the wrong way around. Read a bit more carefully
please. The proposal is to change cb2a, so this proposal should be supported.
That you missed humdreds of posts in cs2a on this topic shows your lack of
involvment. Which brings to mind my question, what do you care? And why?

>> Are there any compelling
>>reasons -to- moderate. None have yet been posted. All the plusses have been
>>basically that it will prevent a few annoyances.
>>
>
>It depends on what you mean by compelling. Life-threatening? Definitely
>not. However, without any valid reasons for not moderating, why
>shouldn't we prevent those 'few annoyances'?

Because the cost of the solution could be very great. Moderation has
made the ms-dos binaries group an absolute joke. The MS-DOS world is
doing great, and can survive without a working binaries group. Apple
itself has stopped supporting the Apple//, and there is a need for a
working binaries group.

>>>To repeat those 2:
>>>    o moderation isn't 100% effective
>>>    o it slows down posting.
>>>
>>>Pretty weak.
>>
>>This is exactly the kind of opinion you were complaining about a few posts
>>back.
>>
>>Can you post -1- compelling reason?
>
>The two reasons why I'll be voting YES _unless_ a _valid_ no reason crops up
>are descriptive headers and uncorrupted archives. There are others, but
>they don't mean much to me.

Again, what do you care? You are neither a poster or a lurker in the apple2
groups, or you would not have to ask questions like you do above. Vote as
you wish, but I cannot see why you would vote at all. Do you even have an
Apple //? The vote would not affect you at all unless you do. But your
vote could have a negative impact upon the actual users of the groups.
Not that you seem to care.

>Now, unless there's an aspect of moderation that would HURT you, then,
>if none of the 'for' reasons benefit you, please abstain. Or, if you can
>figure out why moderation is bad, share it with the rest of us.

Look at the MS-DOS binaries group sometime. It will only take a few minutes
to see -all- the programs, even if you have never read it before. Then tell
me that moderation can have no negative impact.

The real question is why do we -need- modration. The answer is that we do
not -need- moderation. It would prevent a few annoyances, at a cost which
will exceed the value of the few benefits.

>-Tero Sand
>  EMail: [e-mail]     Snail mail: Auroran Sairaala os. 6-1

Rich

[e-mail]