"Phyllis and Jim" wrote in message
ups.com...
Thanks for your thoughtful response. I remember well your
participation and our limited interaction in the years here before the
conflict got so large.
It appears that everyone agrees. There's no choice left for the regulars.
I agree that it is hard to see another option. I suspect that those
who were enjoying the friendly and safe interaction before the
conflicts would join us in seeing moderation as the best/only way to
renew the friendly interaction. I infer from some of the posts
recently that some people don't want the moderation and do fear it
would be vindictive or subjective.
Probably because some of us old timers on Usenet, on Forums and on assorted
lists have seen that happen in the past. So we're naturally suspicious.
Also those with a "mission" wouldn't want a moderated group since their
harmful, obscene, negative and personal attack posts would not go through.
Their victims (for lack of a better word) would be out of their reach. They
could no longer hold innocent people hostage (again for a better term).
...But on-topic content isn't always considered and
personalities become involved as was the case with the moderated Google
Aquarium group.
I would love to have a group where content is the measure of a post and
where anyone could post. That might be easier to achieve once the
rapid, reactive responses have settled down. I am thinking here of the
way people sometimes 'go after' even constructive posts by people with
whom they are angry. Seems hard not to have the hostility invade and
blend in.
A good and fair moderator should be able to spot this kind of hostility and
ask the person to remove it before they allow it through.
Maybe a period of calm would let the reactivity settle.
Ongoing wars crossposted across many groups makes that really hard to
achieve.
Not on a moderated group where that can be STOPPED dead in it's tracks!
Because of what the other NG calls "mission posters." We call them
trolls.
They're not interested in rec.ponds and several of them don't even own
ponds
or fish.
I (Jim) had not heard the term 'mission poster' before, but it makes
sense to me. I would like rec.ponds to be a place where those missions
could be put aside. Moderation and even suspension might help people
learn to have a mission-free zone. Or maybe to conduct a constructive
pond mission! Committed people helped Phyllis and me with our pond.
People from here were also a great help where our ponds are concerned as
well. In fact it was a poster from here who dug our second 2000 pond in
1997 or 98. :-)
We support the effort to have a moderated group.
As do most of us. There's no choice left when a group has resident
posters
"on a mission."
I hope there will be enough who support a moderated group that it can
get going. Maybe it could even be a place where the mission posters do
experience participation without the particular mission.
I personally would like to see anyone free to post on the moderated
group. Content is the best basis for moderation.
That doesn't always happen in the real world. What happens if posts are
on-topic but the moderator disagrees (look at the fish food issue) with
the
poster's stand? To my great sorrow I listened to a poster here, switched
to
an outrageously expensive koi food and now have hundreds of undersized
koi I
will be stuck with in the spring. The new spring fry will need the space
these undersized fish will be taking. I sorely regret switching foods
but
they wont want anyone to know that! I have no idea now what I'm going to
do
with these undersized koi come spring - that is if they survive the
winter.
:-( Am I not supposed to voice my opinion and share my experience?
I think your point is a good one. People will give advice, generally
the best they can see. Sometimes it is in error. That would be a good
place for other ponders with other knowledge to enter into the
discussion. It is there that differences need to be accommodated and
the joint commitment to respect despite difference to be modelled. We
need that ability in lots of places in life!
But keep in mind that the POST would have to go through to begin with. If
it's stopped in it's tracks because a moderator or two are convinced (just
an example) the cheaper food is trash, or the roof liner is toxic.... there
would be no discussion!
- - - snip
This is a good part of the answer. Just stopping the mindless
cross-posting,
personal attacks and sniping at others will about cure the problem here.
I agree with that. I wish I had a magic wand that could achieve that
result! I amhopeful that moderation will help us move in that
direction. Vainly, I fear, I would like to see moderation succeed to
such a level that it would not be needed.
Well, that brings us back to those obsessed souls "with a mission." It's
unlikely they'll change over time. I'm only going by personal experience
online over the years.
And get rid of 100% of the cross-posted trash and assorted trolls, on a
"mission" or not. :-) And no one has to hide for awhile then try and
sneak
back with another persona in hopes the trolls wont recognize them - a
poor
idea from the start.
I'll buy that. No crossposting; no trolling; people free to be honest,
genuine and different.
It sounds too good to be true - doesn't it?
Moderating seems to be the best bet.
It's the ONLY bet at this point.
Sadly, I concur.
For what they are worth, those are our thoughts. They are launched in
a spirit of friendship and intended to be without rancor.
Jim
I also expressed my thoughts in the spirit of friendship,without rancor
and
a 10 year history here.
I remember and value those earlier days of friendships without rancor.
I hope we can achieve more of them.
Jim
--
KL....
Frugal ponding since 1995.
rec.ponder since late 1996.
My Pond & Aquarium Pages:
http://tinyurl.com/9do58
~~~~ }((((* ~~~ }{{{{(ö ~~~~ }((((({*