🚀 go-pugleaf

On Thu, 14 Feb 2002 16:01:50 GMT,
Richard Morrison <chooch@casagrande.com>, in
<3c6bd529.1883057@enews.newsguy.com> wrote:

>	There are problems with creating a moderated group.
>	
>	1.  It has to be a new group, with a new name.  (You cannot change an
>	existing unmoderated group into a moderated one for a large number of
>	reasons.)  Will new posters even be able to find the new group?

I don't see that as a problem. Simply spam^Wannounce the new group in
the Usual Places.

And changing a relatively small regional group from unmoderated to
moderated isn't as thorny a problem as it would be with a Big 8 or
alt.* group. It depends on how many servers actually carry fl.*, and
if they're willing to change things. It may not work, but it has a
higher likelihood of sucess.

>	2.  You have to find someone who is willing to act as moderator, and
>	that person has to demonstrate that they have the technical skill and
>	software to do the job.  They also have to have the _time_ available
>	to do it.  It's a big job, and usually a thankless one.

The software isn't a problem (STUMP comes to mind). But the job is
indeed a thankless one, even if the amount of traffic would IMHO not
be too great.

>	3.  You also have to consider questions like what happens if the
>	moderator quits, becomes disabled, or loses their access.  With no
>	replacement at hand, the group dies.

Deal with that in the charter. Multiple moderators who reign for a
set period of time.

>	Things will eventually calm down and normal posters can resume.
>	It's frustrating, but it works.

It's been 3 or more years, and I'm still waiting for "things to calm
down". It would be entertaining to trick the whole lot of them into
crossposting into alt.hackers, alt.hackers.malicious, and alt.2600...

James
-- 
Consulting Minister for Consultants, DNRC
I can please only one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow
isn't looking good, either.
I am BOFH. Resistance is futile. Your network will be assimilated.