Interest? alt.comp.freeware.moderated

[Boomer]

Well, depending on the moderator and the rules, I'd be likely to
spend more time there than here.

I was curious as to why in the big 8 rather than in alt.

 

[Max Quordlepleen]

I was curious as to why in the big 8 rather than in alt.

What about something like gmane.org?
http://www.gmane.org/ It's working well for the OOo lists, which I
accessin my newsreaders. Setup a mailing list that can be used as a
newsgruop, and one may have the best of both worlds.

 

[Onno Tasler]

I cannot understand some people!!!

Well, I cannot understand some people either. But that usually does not
bother me to much.

why they have so much trouble and complain about this newsgroup, I
think it is fine as it is,

Well, that is what you think - but, regarding to your wish to freedom of
speech, there are people who think otherwise. I, for example.

I have a slow internet access, and when somebody like Tramp posts
hundreds of useless posts and tries to avoid my killfile, that annoys
me. It makes the usage of this group much more difficulty, because
interesting posts are hard to find between his litter. Since I often
only fetch news once a day, sometimes even less often, I might end up
downloading tons of flamewars without being able to killfile them. The
last week, I spend more time tuning my killfile than actually reading
posts. That is why I would vote for a moderated newsgroup - it would
allow me more discussions and less killfile tuning.

I think that moderated groups are OK for the ones that like to be
controlled and not allowed to have their own oppinion and voice it.
It sounds like to much of a dictatorship to me,

Please learn the important distinction between "censorship" and
"moderation". Censorship is intended to prevent speech, moderation is
intended to improve speech! (Yes, I know that the thin line between both
is blurred - and that is why a moderator carries a huge responsibility.)

but, not against it if it was just another group that was started.

acf shall not be deleted for this new group. That is the main reason for
my concerns about the new group and why I want a clear "job" for the new
group before anything else is done.

bye,

Onno

 

[Boomer]

What about something like gmane.org?
http://www.gmane.org/ It's working well for the OOo lists, which
I accessin my newsreaders. Setup a mailing list that can be used
as a newsgruop, and one may have the best of both worlds.

My thoughts are, after the Pricelessware voting, for the proponents of:

comp.software.freeware.moderated
alt.comp.freeware.moderated
web board
mailing list
or other suggestion(s)

start new threads for each of the above and list the pro's and con's
for their idea and see where that goes.

 

[Yves Bellefeuille]

I assume you know that there is a very formal process to add a group to
the big 8.

I'm very familiar with the procedures to create a new moderated group in
the Big 8. ;-)

And what advantage would it be to have a comp.software.freeware?

Since there's no "canonical" list of groups in alt.*, a moderated group
is likely to encounter many problems. For example, many news servers
will probably not mark it as "moderated", at least at first; the
moderators will have to contact them individually to ask them to correct
this.

 

[Alan]

(e-mail address removed):


This is the distinction that I have not been seeing. Example: How can
you discuss databases while simultaneously self-censoring any and all
pertinent references to MS Access?

This is just the tip of the iceberg though. Any *mention* of MS, let
alone relevant discussion, sets the "I hate Bill Gates" kiddies into a
hyperactive spree of irrelevant "hehehe" bleatings.

The other BIG issue is whether all the hyped-up, spin-doctored M$$$
world peace alerts over nothing at all will be moderated right out of
the new group. This sort of rubbish wastes more bandwidth that
"impure" -ware posts. This is going to depend on who the moderators end
up being. If it's Leernucks Lauders then I'm sure such OT posts will be
allowed to slip through (but not the replies that correct them and put
the info into its proper perspective). If there's a mixture of
moderators, then there will be arguments within the ranks. This will all
be very hard, if not impossible to achieve IMHO. Even though I do like
the idea of a group, free of "impure" freeware, it will quickly become a
waste of space unless any software-source political hype is moderated
appropriately, right out it's back orifice.

 

[=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=BBQ=AB?=]

This is just the tip of the iceberg though. Any *mention* of MS,
let alone relevant discussion, sets the "I hate Bill Gates"
kiddies into a hyperactive spree of irrelevant "hehehe" bleatings.

And any mention of MS which is not in glowing terms sets /you/ into
sarcastic invective-spewing mode.

I suppose you only meant to point out that the OS holy wars will be
a problem for moderators, and I agree. If OTOH you only meant that
MS-bashers are a problem, you are kidding yourself.

 

[Boomer]

(e-mail address removed) (Yves Bellefeuille) wrote in

I'm very familiar with the procedures to create a new moderated
group in the Big 8. ;-)

Ah. Yes. I see now.

Since there's no "canonical" list of groups in alt.*, a moderated
group is likely to encounter many problems. For example, many news
servers will probably not mark it as "moderated", at least at
first; the moderators will have to contact them individually to
ask them to correct this.

Thank you *very much* for your reply.

 

[Poster]

The only real shame here is that there would HAVE to be a

separate group created when for years this group functioned
as the place to be.

I'll bet alt.config would *NOT* approve that new NG request.

What many people are referring to here in ACF is really a "forum" not a
Usenet newsgroup. A (private) forum has an owner, owner specified rules,
true membership (every poster is approved in advance), occasional voting
if the owner wishes, prior approval of each and every message, including
the content of said message (HTML or not, binary attachments, etc.). The
forum owner dictates, plain and simple.

The above does not describe how ACF, as an unmoderated NG, was
established and is expected to operate. "Membership"? Votes? Moderation?
Doesn't apply to ACF. Attempting to come in after a NG is 5+ years old
and micromanage with heavy moderation and long, new, detailed FAQs
doesn't compute.

Usenet has been around a long, long time. ACF really can't dictate how
usenet operates; the group operates within usenet guidelines, like it or
not. Based on the ACF vague charter, and the fact it is unmoderated,
there are very few enforceable rules for this NG. Nor are more needed.

Consider this. Looking back in Google (eyeball, not scientific) two
years at some of the longest running off-topic threads, what I see is
the following: (1) they originate (start off) from very few posters, (2)
they often begin when someone tries to discipline, moderate or enforce a
"rule", (3) they end up being personal, and (4) they often originate
from OT posts, mostly dealing with rules and moderation and not
freeware.

I think the problems would probably disappear for the most part if
people would (1) stop trying to moderate, (2) report abuse silently
without posting that fact, (3) totally ignore trolls, and (4)
discontinue OT discussion. ("Just let it go.")

In summary -- Usenet is intended to be wide open in order to provide for
a free-wheeling discussion. There are few rules, certainly none
established in the last 5 years. Unmoderated NGs shouldn't be moderated.
Most ACF problems originate from OT discussion.

 

[REMbranded]

"Ben Cooper" <[email protected]> wrote:

Are the moderators going to download and investigate each
new freeware recommendation to ensure it meets the agreed
upon standards?

I think downloading and reading the EULA is at least required to make
certain the license does not change from one version to another, and
of course to make sure the first mention is on track.

This might be shared by someone who does not care to moderate?

 

[REMbranded]

Boomer <[email protected]> wrote:

These links are just "FYI's" about moderating a newsgroup from two well
known and respected people on Usenet. I thought they would give you
and others further, valuable, information on the subject.

They are a large help, thank you. I misread you in that there might be
a snag that I had not seen yet.

 

[REMbranded]

(e-mail address removed) (Yves Bellefeuille) wrote:

I'm interested, but I think it would be better for this group to be in
comp.*, not alt.*. I'm willing to help write the proposal.

As always, a lot depends on finding suitable moderators.

True, the interest is not here yet.

An alt* designation is far easier to achieve and is closer to a sister
group, rather than a totally new group. The comp* designation is
tougher to achieve and implies a pretty serious group.

It seems there is interest in allowing individual posts, rather than
simply listing pure freeware programs so far. If this is the case, alt
might be best IMO. Let's see.

Thanks for your input and interest!

------------ And now a word from our sponsor ----------------------
For a quality mail server, try SurgeMail, easy to install,
fast, efficient and reliable. Run a million users on a standard
PC running NT or Unix without running out of power, use the best!
---- See http://netwinsite.com/sponsor/sponsor_surgemail.htm ----

 

[REMbranded]

(e-mail address removed) (BillR) wrote:

I know that many oppose the idea of a board, but a mirrored moderated
board would offer many advantages. Posts could be allowed without
delay and censored later. Threads would be much easier to
cross-reference, etc. To satisfy anti-board people, an automated
gateway could make posts available in both places. I suspect posts
from the board would soon become among the most valuable on acf with a
presumption of worth.

Once it was up and running, demands on moderators would be much less
onerous. If nobody reviews messages for 12 hours, so what? In
addition, many people can effectively become semi-moderators via a
"report problem" process, further reducing what moderators have to
examine.

I probably just missed it, but I have yet to see a cogent argument on
why a board is bad -- just a lot of heat.

It will be an actual newsgroup. It will be perhaps this group with OT
threads pruned, or something along those lines. It isn't a board.

Other groups in this configuration use the base group [ACF] to harvest
posts from. Posters include the moderated acronym [ACFM] (in this
case) in the subject line to demonstrate they want the post included
in the moderated group. If the post is on topic, it is included.


------------ And now a word from our sponsor ----------------------
For a quality mail server, try SurgeMail, easy to install,
fast, efficient and reliable. Run a million users on a standard
PC running NT or Unix without running out of power, use the best!
---- See http://netwinsite.com/sponsor/sponsor_surgemail.htm ----

 

[REMbranded]

Owen <[email protected]> wrote:

I cannot understand some people!!! why they have so much trouble and
complain about this newsgroup, I think it is fine as it is, free speach
is the best way to learn, you can find out some interesting things like,
he/she is interesting, helpfull, knows or seems to know what they are
talking about, and on the other hand they are just silly stupid or just
plain idiots. Whatever class they fall into doesn't realy matter to me,
if I find a thread that doesn't interest me or someone is posting (OT)
or fighting with someone else, I can skip it if I want to, and move on
to the next, I find that there is something of interest/good in most
posts that can be helpfull. I think that moderated groups are OK for the
ones that like to be controlled and not allowed to have their own
oppinion and voice it. It sounds like to much of a dictatorship to me,
so if there is any kind of a poll/vote I would be against it if it means
that this group would be lost, but, not against it if it was just
another group that was started.
That's my 2 bobs worth!!!

I agree. I like this group as well and will continue reading it
regardless. The root of the problem seems to be the purity of the
freeware. The moderated group is a way to achieve a place for only the
"good stuff."

Please take into account this is moderation by volunteers (you are
invited to be one) and you are not required to read the new group if
it does gel. This group will remain unchanged This is a far cry from a
dictatorship.

It's nice to see a few lurkers check in!

 

[REMbranded]

"Mister Charlie" <[email protected]> wrote:

The only real shame here is that there would HAVE to be a separate group
created when for years this group functioned as the place to be. Like,
why move out of the neighborhood because the mob moved in? Still, it
probably is one of the only possibilities left.

The bright side is that we all can choose to read one or both and the
varied interests of the readers are catered to.

------------ And now a word from our sponsor ------------------
Want to have instant messaging, and chat rooms, and discussion
groups for your local users or business, you need dbabble!
-- See http://netwinsite.com/sponsor/sponsor_dbabble.htm ----

 

[REMbranded]

This is just the tip of the iceberg though. Any *mention* of MS, let
alone relevant discussion, sets the "I hate Bill Gates" kiddies into a
hyperactive spree of irrelevant "hehehe" bleatings.

The other BIG issue is whether all the hyped-up, spin-doctored M$$$
world peace alerts over nothing at all will be moderated right out of
the new group. This sort of rubbish wastes more bandwidth that
"impure" -ware posts. This is going to depend on who the moderators end
up being. If it's Leernucks Lauders then I'm sure such OT posts will be
allowed to slip through (but not the replies that correct them and put
the info into its proper perspective). If there's a mixture of
moderators, then there will be arguments within the ranks. This will all
be very hard, if not impossible to achieve IMHO. Even though I do like
the idea of a group, free of "impure" freeware, it will quickly become a
waste of space unless any software-source political hype is moderated
appropriately, right out it's back orifice.

Gaining a mutual understanding between moderators will be very
difficult indeed. It doesn't matter how even-handed a person might try
to be, there are always personal preferences at work. I'm willing to
do my best to inplement whatever the group consensus is and put my
personal tendencies aside. In short, we can only try our best and the
results will not be perfect, I'm sure.

 

[Roger Spencelayh]

Consider this. Looking back in Google (eyeball, not scientific) two
years at some of the longest running off-topic threads, what I see is
the following: (1) they originate (start off) from very few posters, (2)
they often begin when someone tries to discipline, moderate or enforce a
"rule", (3) they end up being personal, and (4) they often originate
from OT posts, mostly dealing with rules and moderation and not
freeware.

I think the problems would probably disappear for the most part if
people would (1) stop trying to moderate, (2) report abuse silently
without posting that fact, (3) totally ignore trolls, and (4)
discontinue OT discussion. ("Just let it go.")

Agreed.

Something I've noticed, and again not scientific, is that when someone
replies to a request for a program, and that program is not freeware, there
are usually two types of replies to that answer. The first says something
like "Are you sure Program xyz is freeware, my interpretation is that it's
(insert your choice here)." The second goes something like "xyz is Off Topic
in this group. Please keep your adverts for ???-ware out of this group.",
usually expressed in somewhat stronger language than I have used.

In the latter case, there usually follows replies asking what gives the
poster the right to control this newsgroup, and develops into flame war.

So I think the second of your paragraphs referenced above is the best piece
of advice posted here. And I know I'll get people telling me "It's the
slippery slope." but the indications seem to me to be the opposite.

 

[Vic Dura]

Waiting a day or so to see if your post appears. And then another 1-2-3+
days to see if any replies made it through. It is a type of experience
much different from the speediness of regular, unmoderated netnews.

I believe that blacklist based moderation software eliminates the
wait. Anyone can post immediately unless they are on the blacklist.
Yahoo Groups can be setup that way; although they require a person to
explicitly subscribe first.

Other forms of moderation require each individual message to be
approved and forwarded by the moderator. That type of moderation
technique does indeed result in long delays.

 

[Vic Dura]

What about something like gmane.org?
http://www.gmane.org/ It's working well for the OOo lists, which I
accessin my newsreaders. Setup a mailing list that can be used as a
newsgruop, and one may have the best of both worlds.

This is a good idea.

 

[BillR]

It will be an actual newsgroup. It will be perhaps this group with OT
threads pruned, or something along those lines. It isn't a board.

I understood your proposal was for a ng. I just think a board offers
more advantages.