🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <5dvi90$pck@orm.southern.co.nz>, geoff@southern.co.nz (Geoff
McCaughan) wrote:

>Wayne W. McDougall (system@codeworks.gen.nz) wrote:
>> 
>> > People have a right to know that you are filtering their news for 
>> > them.
>> 
>> Ummmm, nope. I'm not filtering their choose for them. Think about it.
>> People choose to filter their own news by say, subscribing to just
>> nz.general. If they didn't want a filter they would read every newsgroup.
>> What I am doing is to help defend their right to choose their filter and
>> to have that choice honoured.
>
>Just who the hell was it who died and made you moderator of nz.*?

I have to agree here, albeit more mildly.

Unilaterally moderating is WAY out of line, even if you believe you are
providing a public service.

The usual convention for cancels is that either a) the group in question
has more or less formally voted for retromoderation or b) the post has been
egregiusly crossposted/multiply posted such that it has a high Breidbart
index. You should never cancel on content alone without the consent of the
ng as a whole.

>> ...and here we disagree. I do not believe the readership at large needs to
>> know specific details about messages that it has already chosen as not
>> being messages it wants to see.

I chose to read messages posted that group. Not a subset chosen by you,
however wisely.

You're a vigilante, Wayne. If you would just secure a mandate I would feel
much happier.

Stephen Judd

-- 
Stephen Judd                       | Warning! I have a greater
User Support Consultant            | than average number of legs. 
School of Education                |         Want my PGP key?
University of Waikato, New Zealand |  http://poet.soe.waikato.ac.nz/