🚀 go-pugleaf

In dc.config Keith A. Glass <salgak@huskynet.com> wrote:
: OK Folks, there seems to be enough support for dc.general.moderated.

Okay, so I didn't bail yet...it appears this might actually go somewhere.

: Now we have to set some criteria as to what will be allowed:

: 1.  dc.general.moderated is a moderated newsgroup whose purpose is to
: discuss
: issues and events of interest to the Metropolitan Washington DC area.
: It is not
: a forum for political discussions of items that occur in Washington due
: to the
: presence of the seat of the Federal Government: alt.politics.*,
: talk.politics.*.
: Nor is it a place to talk about who's running for election in DC,
: Montgomery,
: PG, Fairfax, Arlington, or any of the other jurisdictions which comprise
: the
: DC Metro area: we have dc.politics for that. . .  unless it's funny.

I would take exception to the _local_ election point. First, dc.politics
is effectively a dead group, due to similar problems as we are addressing
here. I realize this is an arguement for dc.politics.moderated instead,
but also, .general seeems to be inclusive of such topics. Also, the local
traffic (sans DIE BILL CLINTON or DIE NEWT GINGRICH spam) is low enough to
perhaps make dc.politics an unnecessary group at all.

If this is decided to be a rule, I would like to make a request for
consideration of dc.politics.moderated as another group. I would
personally like to discuss the mayoral election with other locals in a
forum where I'm not innundated by idiots interrupting with New World Order
crapola.

(BTW- Tony Williams! Yeah!)

: 2. Cross-posting policy:  If it's of general interest to DC area

Agreed, with the possible exception of the points on _local_ politics made
above.

: 3.  There will be two moderators on dc.general.moderated: either may
: approve
: a post for forwarding to the group.

: <Note: do we want a bot to assist in the moderation of the group, and if
: so,
: who runs it ???>
: We need to talk more to take this part of the charter. . .

Here, I would say that all of our parameters are easily dumped in a Perl
script "bot" filter. There's no reason for human moderation, and I would
prefer it that way. One, we aren't tied to people having the time to do
moderation duties, and two, this eliminates all possibility of censorship.

A clause can be put into the charter leaving additional moderation methods
possible by overall consensus at a later date,, if found to be necessary.

How's that for prepositions, eh?

: 4.  Upon formation of dc.general.moderated, we will ask for the
: dissolution of
: dc.general at a date "X" days after dc.g.mod is created.  Dc.general
: will have a
: daily post notifying users of the change.

Amazingly, I agree with Klattu here. Dissolution in't needed. The days of
bandwidth concerns are pretty much over (especially for a moderate volume
group like this). In addition, once the trolls are given the unmoderated
group, and itbecomes totally filled with garbage x-posts, sysadmins will
start dropping it all on their own (or not, whatever).

My guess is it will end up being rmgrouped by non-local admins doing feed
cleanup. Eventually it will dry up into a wasteland like dc.politics,
where the only remaining posts will be the morons, unless locals start
using it, whereupon they will driven off by the twits, then back to
wasteland.

: OK gang, let's hash it out from this start. . .

Well, that's my two cents.

John Nowicki