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