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.

...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. Maybe a period of calm would let the reactivity settle.
Ongoing wars crossposted across many groups makes that really hard to
achieve.


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.

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!


I see a problem,
however, with that. It is volume. The moderators would have a lot of
reviewing to do. It seems to me that some basic filtering/moderating
rules would be good...like crossposted messages, certain words and,
yes, suspending or banning members who persist in conflict rather than
pond messages.

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.

Effective moderation would help members prone to conflictual messages
to exercise self-control.

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.


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

"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 ~~~~ }((((({*

"Köi-Lö" wrote in message
...
[snip]
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]

Your example above triggered a thought, so I'm focussing on just that
paragraph. The moderation guidelines should be written so that any content
that isn't obviously an immediate threat to health or life of fish,
wildlife, or ponders (!) should be allowed through to post, but then others
would have to post a rebuttal. In that case, also, a moderator might post
useful links.

More importantly, perhaps, if moderators were doing such a poor job that
content they personally disagreed with, based on subjective criteria, was
consistently being rejected, then anyone would still be free to post to the
unmoderated rec.ponds or any other relevant newsgroup or forum. Over time
poor moderation of RPM would result in little/no traffic. I.e., RPM would
cease to exist.

That's why it's important to read and critique the RFD when it's posted,
despite all the (mostly) useful discussion on rec.ponds. This is an
endeavor we all need to be involved with, to try to produce the best set of
guidelines we can come up with, based on our diverse experiences.

Gail
rec.ponder since April 2003

And that crieteria is in whos opinion, Different areas, states
countries all have different views that are wholey legal in their way
and looked at as normal.

How about a koi grill out. Were koi recipies can be exchanged., God
forbide kill a pet koi and eat it.,,.,.hell no that would be stopped
inits tracks, yet there is a perfeclty acceptable group and a forum as
well that have no problems with killing and eating a koi nor do they
have a proboem with pitching a cull on the ground and sticking it in
the hole by a fruit tree either.....

No the majority here for the most part have a very very bnarrow minded
view of what is reality in ponding and koi world. And that alone is
going to keep this group locked down to only the moderators views ot a
view of what is fine for one is also needs to be viewed as well.

Someone ask me how grilled sanke tastes..with bell peppers adnd onions
and seasoning. Its great, nice big slabs of meat griled to a flakey
consistency, actually makes grilled snapper or grouper kind of mundane
at most since koi are quick to grow and great eating and cheap.

On Wed, 06 Dec 2006 22:55:57 GMT, "Gail Futoran"
wrote:

"Köi-Lö" wrote in message
...
[snip]
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]

Your example above triggered a thought, so I'm focussing on just that
paragraph. The moderation guidelines should be written so that any content
that isn't obviously an immediate threat to health or life of fish,
wildlife, or ponders (!) should be allowed through to post, but then others
would have to post a rebuttal. In that case, also, a moderator might post
useful links.

More importantly, perhaps, if moderators were doing such a poor job that
content they personally disagreed with, based on subjective criteria, was
consistently being rejected, then anyone would still be free to post to the
unmoderated rec.ponds or any other relevant newsgroup or forum. Over time
poor moderation of RPM would result in little/no traffic. I.e., RPM would
cease to exist.

That's why it's important to read and critique the RFD when it's posted,
despite all the (mostly) useful discussion on rec.ponds. This is an
endeavor we all need to be involved with, to try to produce the best set of
guidelines we can come up with, based on our diverse experiences.

Gail
rec.ponder since April 2003

"Tristan" wrote in message
...

And that crieteria is in whos opinion, Different areas, states
countries all have different views that are wholey legal in their way
and looked at as normal.

I will often cringe when rec.ponders recommend adding certain types of
plants to a pond when I know it is illegal to have those plants in the state
I live in. If I know the person asking the question lives in the same state
I live in, I might post the link a state-run website about banned aquatic
plants as a way of giving someone information, their choice what to do about
it.

Presumably, that is something we have to consider about moderation policies
when the RFD is posted to news.groups.proposals.

How about a koi grill out. Were koi recipies can be exchanged., God
forbide kill a pet koi and eat it.,,.,.hell no that would be stopped
inits tracks, yet there is a perfeclty acceptable group and a forum as
well that have no problems with killing and eating a koi nor do they
have a proboem with pitching a cull on the ground and sticking it in
the hole by a fruit tree either.....

In parts of the world it is perfectly acceptable to eat cat and dog. In
most of the USA it is not acceptable. What should be done about such posts
as you describe above I have no idea. I would assume reasonable people
would be able to discuss such matters reasonably and come to a reasonable
solution, but then I've always been a bit of an optimist.

No the majority here for the most part have a very very bnarrow minded
view of what is reality in ponding and koi world. And that alone is
going to keep this group locked down to only the moderators views ot a
view of what is fine for one is also needs to be viewed as well.

Personal attack. Adds nothing to the discussion at hand.

Someone ask me how grilled sanke tastes..with bell peppers adnd onions
and seasoning. Its great, nice big slabs of meat griled to a flakey
consistency, actually makes grilled snapper or grouper kind of mundane
at most since koi are quick to grow and great eating and cheap.

I have no idea what a "sanke" is. Some sort of exotic meat or vegetable?

Gail
rec.ponder since April 2003

Ask Jan to explain what a Sanke is........I am sure she would be
happy to expain that being she is a koi guru...I would tell you to
ask koi lo but she would probaly lie to you.
Just because a plant is on the states hit list does not make it
illegal in all states even if on a so called list to have in your
personal possession., Were not talking pot plants were talking
invasive plants. Parrots feather and hyacinths are not allowed to be
sold and if you listen to some folks its against the law to have them,
since they construe ban to be not able to have, False entirely.
Virtually most all invasive plants listed exist in this and surounding
states however not all of thes estates consider them invasive. I can
literally walk 900 yards down to my stream and get all the parrots
feather and hyacinth I care to harvest andput it in my "private" ponds
if I so desire. Or I can go visit a friend in South Carolina and bring
home a truck load of these so called "illegal plants" and place them
in my pond and the state is not gonna do a darn thing about it.
However just don;t let me get caught selling the things to residents
of this state as thats illegal, not the act of having them. However I
can legally sell them to residents that do not live in this
state.......Its also against the law here to own a chicken eating hog,
but its done all the time......yet how a law is interpreted and by
who.

On Thu, 07 Dec 2006 20:18:40 GMT, "Gail Futoran"
wrote:

"Tristan" wrote in message
.. .

And that crieteria is in whos opinion, Different areas, states
countries all have different views that are wholey legal in their way
and looked at as normal.

I will often cringe when rec.ponders recommend adding certain types of
plants to a pond when I know it is illegal to have those plants in the state
I live in. If I know the person asking the question lives in the same state
I live in, I might post the link a state-run website about banned aquatic
plants as a way of giving someone information, their choice what to do about
it.

Presumably, that is something we have to consider about moderation policies
when the RFD is posted to news.groups.proposals.

How about a koi grill out. Were koi recipies can be exchanged., God
forbide kill a pet koi and eat it.,,.,.hell no that would be stopped
inits tracks, yet there is a perfeclty acceptable group and a forum as
well that have no problems with killing and eating a koi nor do they
have a proboem with pitching a cull on the ground and sticking it in
the hole by a fruit tree either.....

In parts of the world it is perfectly acceptable to eat cat and dog. In
most of the USA it is not acceptable. What should be done about such posts
as you describe above I have no idea. I would assume reasonable people
would be able to discuss such matters reasonably and come to a reasonable
solution, but then I've always been a bit of an optimist.

No the majority here for the most part have a very very bnarrow minded
view of what is reality in ponding and koi world. And that alone is
going to keep this group locked down to only the moderators views ot a
view of what is fine for one is also needs to be viewed as well.

Personal attack. Adds nothing to the discussion at hand.

Someone ask me how grilled sanke tastes..with bell peppers adnd onions
and seasoning. Its great, nice big slabs of meat griled to a flakey
consistency, actually makes grilled snapper or grouper kind of mundane
at most since koi are quick to grow and great eating and cheap.

I have no idea what a "sanke" is. Some sort of exotic meat or vegetable?

Gail
rec.ponder since April 2003

And I thought sanke was a typo for snake....learn something new every
day - lol

BTW what is a sanke....I could google but it is getting late

Gill

I have no idea what a "sanke" is. Some sort of exotic meat or vegetable?

Gail
rec.ponder since April 2003

Tri-Colored (red,black,white) Koi. ~ jan :-)

"~ janj" wrote in message
...
I have no idea what a "sanke" is. Some sort of exotic meat or vegetable?

Gail
rec.ponder since April 2003

Tri-Colored (red,black,white) Koi. ~ jan :-)

Thanks, Jan. I've seen photos and even live koi (I've been to Water Garden
Gems in TX on several occasions), but never had koi of my own, so I didn't
pick up on the terminology.

I shouldn't say I've never had koi of my own; on two occasions a local pet
shop sold me what I thought were goldfish and turned out to be koi. I
returned them for goldfish.

Gail

Well not in that basic aspect. Its a fish with a "white" body and red
and black marking on the white body. You can also have a black bodied
fish or even a red bodied, with the other two colors and its not a
sanke...at least not how it was explained to me.

On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 15:20:48 GMT, ~ janj wrote:

I have no idea what a "sanke" is. Some sort of exotic meat or vegetable?

Gail
rec.ponder since April 2003

Tri-Colored (red,black,white) Koi. ~ jan :-)



-------
I forgot more about ponds and koi than I'll ever know!

Gail Futoran wrote:

Your example above triggered a thought, so I'm focussing on just that
paragraph. The moderation guidelines should be written so that any
content that isn't obviously an immediate threat to health or life of
fish, wildlife, or ponders (!) should be allowed through to post, but then
others
would have to post a rebuttal. In that case, also, a moderator might post
useful links.

I disagree. I don't believe bad advice should be moderated at all - just
rebutted. I'm not into censorship, despite supporting a moderated group,
and while I've been ponding for more than a decade, and have some
techniques I think are winners, I know that I'm not an expert - and then
there are the things like shooting Herons: even when we know it's illegal,
we can hardly ban posts for illegal advice without treading on very thin
ice unless we're practicing lawyers (in the appropriate locale).
--
derek

On Thu, 07 Dec 2006 20:51:32 -0400, Derek Broughton wrote:

[...]
I disagree. I don't believe bad advice should be moderated at all - just
rebutted. I'm not into censorship, despite supporting a moderated group,
and while I've been ponding for more than a decade, and have some
techniques I think are winners, I know that I'm not an expert - and then
there are the things like shooting Herons: even when we know it's illegal,
we can hardly ban posts for illegal advice without treading on very thin
ice unless we're practicing lawyers (in the appropriate locale).

I know of at least one precedent for a charter which disallowed posts for
advocating illegal acts. So it may be reasonable to include something like
this if most users wanted it. Another option is accepting the messages and
posting them with an appended warning, such as "Warning: this post contains
advice that may be illegal in your area." (STUMP moderation software
supports this.) Or, as you say, you can allow the post as is and hope that
someone posts a rebuttal.

I suggest getting as much input on this question as you can from potential
group users during the RFD. You can do this during the discussion or it is
possible to set up a poll for this.

--
Jayne