🚀 go-pugleaf

I think your efforts are mostly reasonable and are pretty "moderate" for
moderation, and that said... still, just to be picky-picky and/or the
"devil's advocate," even though this may not be the "most" helpful.... (and
advocating for no devil either in general or particular) ....

Keith A. Glass <salgak@huskynet.com> wrote in article
<35EED58F.640E@huskynet.com>...
> OK gang. . .  Here goes, Mark III.
> 
> Let me know what you think. . . 
> 
> 
> **********
> Proposed FAQ/ Charter and Guidelines for moderation of 
> proposed newsgroup "dc.general.moderated"
> 
> The purpose of dc.general.moderated is to provide a forum for
> discussion of items of general interest specific to the 
> Washington, DC, Metropolitan area, 

and practice may make perfect, but it seems that "general interest
specific" (or compelling reasons to ignore same) may be in the variously
shaded eyes of various beholders... (if unmoderated dc.gen. is an
indicator: that the purpose may end up being honored more in the breach..) 
--- or so it seems to my humble and impaired vision....

the theory sounds reasonable... the application and practice will be harder
to define and achieve, given the more than a few examples of very recent
exceptions (if that might be a reasonable guide for future likely posting
in dc.gen.m.) in the unmoderated group   ....particularly by the
drafters/approvers of this declaration of independence (just an
observation... not a criticism-- or then it would be one in which I would
have to include myself)

> in an atmosphere free
> of excessive cross-posts.

I think those which many would consider most "offensive" (which for my
tastes ---entirely apart from content/topic--- have been in
style/attitude/manners) have not exceeded your below stated limits... but
there have been lots of those... too many (for my tastes)
 
> The idea is to discuss LOCAL issues.  Political Issues dealing
> with various aspects and actions of the FEDERAL government,
> including one's opinion of the President, Senator such-and-such
> or your particular political viewpoint on a national issue
> have other forums in which they are more appropriate.  

which could also be true/said of other, but more "fun" type national
issues/topics (credit card problems, McDonald's, Microsoft vs. Linux,
whatever is etc.) not specific to D.C. ... but I gather these
inconsistencies will slide by in dc.gen.m. as they do in dc.gen (unmod)...

> The
> users of dc.general.moderated request that you post such items
> to those more appropriate fora.  
                                          ^^^^
I think that would do better as "forums"...

> Federal Policies regarding 
> purely local issues (i.e. the Wilson Bridge, the DC Financial 
> Control Board, Home Rule, etc) are on topic here.  But 
> discussions over your favorite political topic, such as 
> abortion, Federal gun control policy (as opposed to local 
> policies), etc. are not welcome here.

I think, then, that you might have left open a big loophole for getting
what I think you don't want.... since all of the "such as" also happen to
be local issues/policies---spoken to by local politicians .....and in D.C.
are very much tied into what the Fed legislative and executive branches
want to mandate for D.C. residents...

I think you are asking, if I am reading your draft correctly (and I'm not
entirely clear about what you said/meant to say) that all topics related to
the unpleasant aspects of the "human condition" which might lead to
qualitative and quantitative unpleasantness kindly go elsewhere... which if
fine if this is what you want and so state.

> The intent is to robo-moderate the group using the following
> criteria:
> 
> Any acceptable message must have: 
> 
>   - No more than 4 newsgroups total 
>         (should weed out a lot of spam)

which means not too much different than now at least from what I get: there
doesn't seem to be much spam at present on my unfiltered news server and
like I said above I think the "problem" posts already meet the 4 or less
criteria...

>   - No *.general other than dc, va, md, balt, md.pg, md.mont, or wv 
>         (amendable if other local hierarchies appear)

that still covers a BIG chunk of land, people and issues... and I see it as
somewhat disingenuously eliminating CURRENT "problem" cities and states...
(just by chance, of course).... 

I would suggest either no cross-posting... or no specifying of the groups
not permitted for x-posting...

and to give another perspective on why to include other *.generals: like a
couple of current newsworthy D.C. employees (from Houston) and candidates
for mayor hailed (as did many --I suspect--- metro D.C.posters) in the not
too distant past from other states which might want to keep up with and
contribute thoughts on long-lost buddies...

OTOH, these perspectives can be somewhat achieved by posting to those and
this group in a singular fashion...

>   - Posted to no other dc.* groups other than dc.general
>         (if it's not of general interest, why post it here ??)

who's to define "general" (mine may be different than yours) interest....
and Wilson Bridge can go to dc.driving... and we do have dc.politics
(granted with its own "problems")... 

>   - Not be cross-posted to alt.test
>         (to stop the occaisional net.joker)

I'm missing something (the problem addressed) here (maybe everywhere) but
this one I don't understand as an issue
 
> Any message that does not meet the criteria will be robomoderated.
> 
> You will note that we do not, at this point, suggest moderation
> by topic, or the exclusion of net-abusers, trollers, or spammers.

I think you are very strongly suggesting it... 
you just aren't yet enforcing it... (except in a limited and roundabout
way)

> This is not to say that we may not consider doing so at some time
> in the future, if the noise level begins to drown out the newsgroup.

Wouldn't that depend on who's listening?  And would that be Mother Teresa
or Howard Stern doing the judging of the decibels...?

I would go for no and try some earplugs first  ... of course anything could
be considered... voted upon or just left up to King Solomon...and since/if,
as I hope/expect, there is going to be an unmoderated dc.gen., I think if
one's going to moderate, one can announce whatever rules, censorship
one/others want, be as restrictive, biased and subjective as one/others
like... (unless there are usenet rules to the contrary... )

And as long as the charter mostly clearly states whatever...
 
> Changes to bot moderation policy must be approved by the current 
> administrator(s) of the dc.hierarchy
> *****

(do they permit private clubs on usenet?---I really don't know)

I would say you mostly want dc.gen-fun-nice.m. and IF so, more clearly
should say so...
and more likely, I think, to be achieved in the end with NO cross-posting
permitted (if to do by bot).

end of random rhetorical nonsense thoughts....maybe there's something
useful... maybe not...