🚀 go-pugleaf

This article is from sun!plaid!chuq (Chuq Von Rospach)
 and was received on Thu Sep  4 12:23:36 1986
 
> The main thought that keeps running through my head, is that no-one 
> seems to agree on what moderation is...
> 
> This is a more general problem with using computers as a communications
> medium, however - who, if anyone, decides what should and shouldn't be
> sent about, why, and how?

Let me preface my comments with a few things.  First, from what I have seen
in my traversing through the various electronic networks of the world, 
USENET is unique.  How?  Lack of control.  Every single other networking
system I've been involved in, with one exception (one that I wrote many
years ago) had some concept of a moderator.  Call it Sysop, call it moderator,
call it overseer, call it what you will.  Someone was responsible for 
making sure people acted properly.

For good reason.  In my youth, I wrote a USENET like thing for a CDC cyber
that connected a number of different colleges together.  It had, in its
prime, about 200 users, with a core group of 25 (core meaning an avreage
of one or more posting a week).  About like USENET, but about three orders
or magnitude smaller.

At one point there was an argument about excessive control and censorship
of material on the board, so, being Lord God of the program, I decreed
that it was anything goes.  Anyone could create a new topic, anyone could post
anything they wanted.  No censorship, no moderation, no mother-in-lawing.

Total Chaos.  We had one group (called snork) whose entire purpose in life
was to say 'snork' to each other.  To the tune of 50 messages a day at one
point.  We had fights that would make some of the flame wars on USENET look
like sunday picnics.  We had all SORTS of fun.  A few months later, I and 
some other people finally clamped down and put controls back on.  Most people
were happy to see it happen, but there were a few that made my Wobegon Wars
(for those that were around for that fiasco on USENET) look like nothing.

It got so bad I almost closed down the program.  Anyway, we experimented
with a number of ways to check&balance moderation/censorship with freedom
of expression, with varying degrees of success.  None were perfect, but 
the one that worked best ended up looking a lot like the current USENET
moderation style -- each group had an owner, who did what they felt best
for the group.  There was also an upper authority (at times, me, at times
me and a small group of advisors) who could beat on a moderator that was
abusing their authority, and possibly take away the group and give it to
someone else.  the threat was enough.  Real abuse was rare.

This is very similar to USENET with two exceptions.  First, USENET has 
unmoderated groups, and second, USENET has no real upper authority.
Mark [Horton] is an advisory upper authority only, which is usually just 
as good until you run into a real meatball.

Anyway, remember this when people scream about their "right" to post.  It
don't exist, folks.  USENET is unique in this, and USENET shows the failings
of this approach clearly. sigh.

Anyway, onward and upward:

> I see four basic ways that a group can be moderated;
> 
>    1. The moderator can be a 'funnel' for information, neither checking
>       the postings for quality nor for accuracy of presentation (e.g.
>       spelling) or information.

This isn't really moderation, Dave.  This is what happens to many of the
ARPA groups gatewayed into mod groups, but remember there is a moderator
on the front end of the group somewhere.  

Many ARPA groups are 'pass-through' in that the moderator simply redistributes,
but remember that he has the option to stop the breakthrough at any time,
either for the group as a whole or a single person, and take an active
stance.  This 'threat' is more than enough in most cases to keep people
in line.  There is no real reason for a moderator to crack down on  a group
unless there is a problem.

>    2. The moderator can be a 'copy editor', not saying yes or no on
>       what to post, but fixing the presentation to a consistent format
>       and correcting the typographic/spelling errors in the texts
>       received.
> 
>    3. The moderator can be a 'newspaper editor', where certain things
>       can be refused, but the most important issue is SPEED of reporting.

This can be done in a number of ways.  Unless a moderator digests (I
don't like digesting...) they shouldn't muck with the format or
material.  A yes/no decision on posting is all they should consider.
They CAN suggest running spell or how to rewrite to make it acceptable,
or where it might be more acceptable.  I firmly do not believe that a
moderator, as such, should change material because their name is NOT on
it and they may change something that gets someone else in trouble.

>       
>    4. The moderator can be a 'magazine editor' where not only is the 
>       presentation monitored, but the topics themselves. 

This is OtherRealms format (my electronic SF/Fantasy reviewzine).  In
most cases, it ain't worth it.  Lots of work, lots of detail, and you have
to know what you're doing with the subject matter, the electronic jungle,
and with the English language as well.  Most people don't.  Here, rewriting,
formatting, and re-arranging things are neccessary, but as 'editor' you
are known to be taking an active part so when things get screwed up, the
editor is to be blamed at least as much as the writer (the editor should
KNOW that an article is screwed up, for instance, and not publish is, even
if the writer didn't).

It's tough, and more work that most people would want to put into it.  Are
the results worth it?  I think so, but I'm not really sure yet.  OtherRealms
is nearing a year old, and I'm still figuring out how to do it right. There
are inherent limitations to the network that make a magazine format 
difficult to impossible.  We'll see what happens.

> There are some problems in that the moderators don't have official 
> sanction to 'edit' a newsgroup, so they tend to do it on the side in
> their spare time.  But again, it shows their dedication to the area of
> discussion.


I don't agree with Dave here.  Moderators DO have the sanction to edit, if 
what you mean by that is that moderators choose acceptable material (back
to the yes/no comment above).  The moderator's view of the group is (or
should be) well known, and the moderator should be consistent with it.

In Dave's case, he did the right thing by pointing out that he was going
to refuse this material, because it gives people a chance to comment on
the decision.  If enough people complain, he just changes his mind again.
If the material is important enough to someone, they can always go off,
start a mailing list, and see if it grows enough to become its own
mod group.  There are always alternatives.
 
> * How does the moderator decide how much to moderate?

By doing what he thinks is right.  By keeping his readership informed of this,
he gets feedback and can modify his view of 'right' based on his readers
needs.  Sometimes the needs of the group or the net outweigh this, but 
this is one of those judgement calls moderators are paid to decide.

chuq

[Comment: Chuq misinterprets my comment about official sanction for
 moderating newsgroups.  The "official" I'm referring to is the org the
 moderator works for.  The idea I was trying to convey was that as the
 amount of work the moderator has to do goes up, there is no equivalent
 amount of time/space given by the persons' org.  --Dave]