moderation of alt.sources vs. automated harangues

[Kyle Jones]

In article <2024 at convex.UUCP> tchrist at convex.com (Tom Christiansen) writes:
 > I've been getting a lot of hate mail, most of which is automatic,
 > by self-appointed moderators of alt.sources for a comment I 
 > posted there.  And I'm pretty tired of it.  
 > 
 >     I CAN'T CANCEL THE DAMN MESSAGE SO GET OFF MY BACK!!!
 > 
 > I've tried and our news software is in some state of hosery
 > which disallows this practice.  If you think alt.sources
 > should be restricted, moderate it.  If not, stop bitching.

I agree.  If alt.sources was supposed to be a magical forum where
everyone is Good and no non-source postings would occur, then I'd say
the experiment has failed.  People will forget to edit the newsgroups
line when responding.  New users will emerge who don't know about the
sources-only rule, or who've never heard of alt.sources.d.  And some
people steadfastly refuse to stop posting discussions to the source
groups no matter how much you plead.  Or harangue.  The latter may
deserve "hate mail" but certainly not the others.

So moderate alt.sources.  But do it the way comp.sources.misc was
originally going to be moderated: Axe non-source postings, and THAT'S
ALL.  Malcontents still can thwart the moderation scheme, but the main
problem is articles posted by accident, or because of ignorance.  The
occasional miscreant can be cut off.

kyle jones   <kjones at talos.uu.net>   ...!uunet!talos!kjones

  "Come to the edge," he said.
  But they held back.  "It's dangerous," they said.
  "Come to the edge."
  "But we might fall..."
  "COME TO THE EDGE!"
  So they came to the edge.
  And he pushed them...
  And they FELL...

	--Hume Cronyn for SIGNET Bank (a pessimist's reprise)