moderation of alt.sources vs. automated harangues

[John F. Haugh II]

In article <1989Oct17.005207.16223 at rpi.edu> tale at pawl.rpi.edu (David C Lawrence) writes:
>In article <17149 at rpp386.cactus.org>, jfh at rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II):
>John> How about you tell us what the need =isn't=.  Your argument has been
>John> no more persuading than his.
>
>I never said my argument was persuading, but at least it does have the
>characteristics of a more civilized debate.

The only arguments which have ever been persuading on USENET are those
involving usage and approval by some majority.  Outside of the mainstream
USENET [ here in the alt.wasteland ;-) ] there is no need for anyones
approval and usage suffices quite well to justify a newsgroup.  Hence,
since there is considerable usage the newsgroup is quite valid as it is.

>                I am not steadfastly pushing for moderated
>alt.sources) and then you came and did a grep of your active file and
>said that I need to tell you why moderation would be a good thing,
>which I had already done.  There has _got_ to be more to than this
>simply countering with, "No.  It's not good."

As I said above, usage is the -only- well recognized reason for
existence.  You are quite free to issue a newgroup for alt.sources.mod
and see who stands up and salutes it.  I know this sounds like `it's
my sandbox go play in your own', but alt is a lot like that.

>John> I will now state, without further proof, that in the case of
>John> alt.sources and friends moderation is a Bad Thing[tm].
>
>Okay, why?  And how was a grep on your active file was sufficient proof?
>alt.sources.amiga was being "actively" moderated by Peter, so it isn't
>a good comparison for the matter at hand.  It was also limited to one
>sort of source code which has a companion group or comp.sources.amiga.

Actually alt.sources.amiga was a great example.  I spoke with someone
who had been on UUNET and they informed me that the entire Amiga
archive which Peter had been maintaining was approximately 14 files.
Prior to being unmoderated my active file showed only one article
and that was one which Peter posted in response to my rmgroup'ing
the newsgroup.  It turns out unmoderating the newsgroup would have
been a much better idea, oh well ...

>I like Russ Nelson's proposal.  Read it in alt.config.

Why?  I like leaving things alone.  You want a new newsgroup,
make your own.  I everyone keeps whining, I'll even do it for you!
-- 
John F. Haugh II                        +-Things you didn't want to know:------
VoiceNet: (512) 832-8832   Data: -8835  | The real meaning of MACH is ...
InterNet: jfh at rpp386.cactus.org         |    ... Messages Are Crufty Hacks.
UUCPNet:  {texbell|bigtex}!rpp386!jfh   +--<><--<><--<><--<><--<><--<><--<><---