🚀 go-pugleaf

klaatu wrote:
> 
> Horrible formatting for unreadability fixed.

Deal with it, pinkboy <g>

> Keith A. Glass wrote:
 
> >
> > OK Folks, there seems to be enough support for dc.general.moderated.
> >
> > 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.
 
> And of course we have to ask "who decides if it's funny."

Levity. . . you do recall "levity", don't you ???
 
> And the fact of the matter is, dc.general (or whatever) is assuredly the place
> to talk about who's running for office, mostly because it will be their
> policies that will shape the city, and thus it's absolutely germane to the
> topic. To be fair, such discussions should be cross-posted to dc.politics and
> where-possible follow-ups to dc.general should be removed once the discussion
> moves from substantive issues and into simply sniping and bickering.
 
Klaatu: words have MEANING.  Clearly, if I wanted to post something
about DC-area
politics, dc.politics would be the venue of choice. . .

> > 2. Cross-posting policy:  If it's of general interest to DC area netizens,
> > specifically, then it's not likely that it will be of similar interest to other
> > groups, with the exception of perhaps va.general, md.general, and balt.general.
 
> mont.general and pg.general (or whatever) gets excluded? Why?

1. Wasn't aware of them.

2. I would still suggest the 4-crosspost maximum.  I've also had
wv.general suggested
as a cross-post group. . 
 
> Also, we quite-commonly get top-quality posts from misc.arts.urban-transit or
> wherever it is. And also from alt.law-enforcement, and if law-enforcement
> isn't a regional issue, I don't know what is.

I said "not likely", not "will not be accepted. . ."
 
> > Hence, a limit of 3 other groups may be listed on a post to dc.general.moderated.
> > Furthermore, to limit extraneous cross-posts and net.trolls, if a post is
> > cross-posted to ANY *.politics group, or an alt.fan.* group of a non-DC-area
> > personality, or any talk.* group, it will automatically be excluded.
 
> Why? Besides becauase you don't like Rush Limbaugh. (I don't like him either,
> but some of the better posts I've ever seen have been people arguing _against_
> dittoheads.)

Because I'd like to see a USEABLE group.  But as long as we kept the
4-group limit,
I'd say drop it.  I was floating a first, trial balloon. . .
 
> > 3.  There will be two moderators on dc.general.moderated: either may approve
> > a post for forwarding to the group.
 
> Ah. You propose the creation of a Cabal. Who will be the Cabal? shall the
> membership of the Cabal be open, or occult from view?

Actually, I was thinking in terms of you and Dave Aronson for starters, 
I've
also had an offer of robomoderation. . . .
 
> > <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. . .
> >
> > 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.
 
> Absolutely out of the question. This last paragraph reads like a friggin
> hijacking. Even Stanley Kalisch III would call this an out-and-out usurpation.
> The news-admin community frowns on this sort of thing, it's just another ploy
> towards retromoderation. What would you do then, in maybe six months agitate
> for a renaming of the group to dc.general, and in a roundabout way achieve
> retromoderation, where nobody is likely to approve it directly?

The news-admin community isn't an issue here, it's the admin of the
dc.hierarchy
that comes into play here.  I had merely suggested it, to conserve
bandwidth:
when you effectively take a group moderated, you wipe the original. . .
 
> Contrarily, I propose that any post in dc.general.moderated be automatically
> crossposted to dc.general (where it actually belongs), and that thus, people
> who _want_ to limit their readable postings to only what someone else has
> decided they should read, should read dc.general.moderated - and those who
> like the freewheeling uncontrolled nature (even taking the bad with the good)
> of the UseNet as it stands, should continue to read dc.general.
 
The future is moderated groups, if for nothing else than to cut down the
noise
level from spams. . .

> We might want to crosspost this discussion to news.admin.net-abuse.misc from
> here on in, to get some of the net.luminaries in on the discussion, to get
> dc.general removed you'll probably wind up dealing with some of them anyways.
 
Why ???  We've tried dealing with abuse at various providers, I spent a
week asking
followups and trollers to remove dc.general from the followups, and got
mostly
flamed for asking for civilized behavior.

As far as this goes, I get flamed a few more times, I might just drop
this too, and
let dc.general get what it deserves. . .