Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Sadly supporting moderation
Phyllis and I have come to favor the effort to have a moderated version
of rec.ponds. We would like a rec.ponds where anyone can post and their content would be the determiner of whether their post goes up. Before we began to see so much personal animosity on rp, the posts were overwhelmingly supportive and off-topic messages were marked 'OT'. They were mostly friendly interaction between friends. Sadly, we have now reached a point where the majority of the posts - especially crossposts - are conflictual rather than pond-related. That defeats the purpose of the group and it has been entrenched long enough that we are not hopeful that conflictual posters will shift to consistent constructive posting. Returning conflict for conflict simply perpetuates and escalates the conflict. We have come to a point that we believe a moderated group is likely to be the only way to achieve a usenet rp group and to keep it free of the conflictual messages. We support the effort to have a moderated group. I personally would like to see anyone free to post on the moderated group. Content is the best basis for moderation. 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. Pond groups simply are not intended to be places of personal non-pond conflict. They are not intended to be one of 10 groups where a personal hostility is being launched. Effective moderation would help members prone to conflictual messages to exercise self-control. We began enjoying rec.ponds in 2002. It helped us with our pond. It built a wonderful friendship network for us. We would love to see conflict go away and the group one again about ponds. That does not seem likely in the forseeable future if conflict is not somehow abated. Moderating seems to be the best bet. For what they are worth, those are our thoughts. They are launched in a spirit of friendship and intended to be without rancor. Jim |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Sadly supporting moderation
wrote in message ups.com... Phyllis and I have come to favor the effort to have a moderated version of rec.ponds. It appears that everyone agrees. There's no choice left for the regulars. We would like a rec.ponds where anyone can post and their content would be the determiner of whether their post goes up. Before we began to see so much personal animosity on rp, the posts were overwhelmingly supportive and off-topic messages were marked 'OT'. They were mostly friendly interaction between friends. Which is as it should be. But on-topic content isn't always considered and personalities become involved as was the case with the moderated Google Aquarium group. Sadly, we have now reached a point where the majority of the posts - especially crossposts - are conflictual rather than pond-related. That defeats the purpose of the group and it has been entrenched long enough that we are not hopeful that conflictual posters will shift to consistent constructive posting. Returning conflict for conflict simply perpetuates and escalates the conflict. 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. We have come to a point that we believe a moderated group is likely to be the only way to achieve a usenet rp group and to keep it free of the conflictual messages. 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 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 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. Pond groups simply are not intended to be places of personal non-pond conflict. They are not intended to be one of 10 groups where a personal hostility is being launched. 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. We began enjoying rec.ponds in 2002. It helped us with our pond. It built a wonderful friendship network for us. We would love to see conflict go away and the group one again about ponds. That does not seem likely in the forseeable future if conflict is not somehow abated. Moderating seems to be the best bet. It's the ONLY bet at this point. 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. -- KL.... Frugal ponding since 1995. My Pond & Aquarium Pages: http://tinyurl.com/9do58 ~~~~ }((((* ~~~ }{{{{(ö ~~~~ }((((({* |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Sadly supporting moderation
"Köi-Lö" wrote in message
... wrote in message ups.com... [snip] 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? How to handle differences of opinion should be addressed in the RFD. I.e., how will moderators handle submissions they might personally disagree with? How that is handled should be discussed when the RFD is posted. I think, as ponders, we can both agree that some assertions should be viewed with the great deal of suspicion. Suppose someone posts that it's ok to use water straight from the tap to fill a pond without any dechlor or dechloramine? Do the moderators reject that "advice" (fish are likely to die!), or let it go through and hope someone else posts an alternate view of water preparation? Or should the moderators themselves post a cautionary note? Perhaps with links to useful websites? If you have good ideas about how to deal with these critical issues, it would be helpful if you would post them, especially once the RFD is posted. We all need to contribute to the discussion. 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. However, we have to be careful to allow reasonable disagreements. I.e., I can disagree with something you said, but at the same time I should avoid attacking you personally. Re cross-posting: I only read a few other "fish hobby" newsgroups. I would guess that some relevant cross-posting would be permitted. That's another point that should be discussed when the RFD is posted. Pond groups simply are not intended to be places of personal non-pond conflict. They are not intended to be one of 10 groups where a personal hostility is being launched. 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. As I understand it, the intention is to assess submitted posts only on content, whether it's on topic or reasonable off topic, whether language is reasonable or abusive, and not on *who* writes the post. Although it's more work for the moderators, I don't agree with "banning" anyone based on past history or, for that matter, based on their submissions to rec.ponds.moderated (RPM). I'm aware that some forums do that, but those are a different breed than USENET. We began enjoying rec.ponds in 2002. It helped us with our pond. It built a wonderful friendship network for us. We would love to see conflict go away and the group one again about ponds. That does not seem likely in the forseeable future if conflict is not somehow abated. Moderating seems to be the best bet. It's the ONLY bet at this point. 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. -- KL.... Frugal ponding since 1995. My Pond & Aquarium Pages: http://tinyurl.com/9do58 ~~~~ }((((* ~~~ }{{{{(ö ~~~~ }((((({* Gail rec.ponder since April 2003 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Sadly supporting moderation
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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Sadly supporting moderation
Calling all those so called other posters trolls is sure bad taste
Carol when yu are perhaps the opworst troll and disease that usenet or any other forum never had the opportunity of having aorund. YOur far form a regular anything but troll you are the main reason things are like they are right now. YOU try to speak like a person with a mission yet your shaking in yur tracks as your habits will be curtailed with a moderated group.......... So as the center stage spot light slowly moves off CArol and her sock puppets, Carol is seen to get all sulled up and crying for her mommy or anyone else that will still hear her pityfull pleas that folks are out toget her for no reason at all........... On Wed, 6 Dec 2006 12:07:57 -0600, Köi-Lö wrote: wrote in message oups.com... Phyllis and I have come to favor the effort to have a moderated version of rec.ponds. It appears that everyone agrees. There's no choice left for the regulars. We would like a rec.ponds where anyone can post and their content would be the determiner of whether their post goes up. Before we began to see so much personal animosity on rp, the posts were overwhelmingly supportive and off-topic messages were marked 'OT'. They were mostly friendly interaction between friends. Which is as it should be. But on-topic content isn't always considered and personalities become involved as was the case with the moderated Google Aquarium group. Sadly, we have now reached a point where the majority of the posts - especially crossposts - are conflictual rather than pond-related. That defeats the purpose of the group and it has been entrenched long enough that we are not hopeful that conflictual posters will shift to consistent constructive posting. Returning conflict for conflict simply perpetuates and escalates the conflict. 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. We have come to a point that we believe a moderated group is likely to be the only way to achieve a usenet rp group and to keep it free of the conflictual messages. 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 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 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. Pond groups simply are not intended to be places of personal non-pond conflict. They are not intended to be one of 10 groups where a personal hostility is being launched. 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. We began enjoying rec.ponds in 2002. It helped us with our pond. It built a wonderful friendship network for us. We would love to see conflict go away and the group one again about ponds. That does not seem likely in the forseeable future if conflict is not somehow abated. Moderating seems to be the best bet. It's the ONLY bet at this point. 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. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Sadly supporting moderation
Oh so now Gail proposes to modify a post a person makes to make it more acceptable. Then this is really all about control in this forum isn;'t it. A post should be placed as made by original poster or deleted inits entirety or replied to separately. So now mods are also gonna start to edit and change them. Yea right, ..I think yuu all have been taking lessons 0n forum manipulation from Koiphen memebers. If editiing a persons posts was made in a nonmoderated group it would be called forgeries.........That alone should make Carol feel right at home..... On Wed, 06 Dec 2006 19:03:32 GMT, "Gail Futoran" wrote: "Köi-Lö" wrote in message ... wrote in message ups.com... [snip] 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? How to handle differences of opinion should be addressed in the RFD. I.e., how will moderators handle submissions they might personally disagree with? How that is handled should be discussed when the RFD is posted. I think, as ponders, we can both agree that some assertions should be viewed with the great deal of suspicion. Suppose someone posts that it's ok to use water straight from the tap to fill a pond without any dechlor or dechloramine? Do the moderators reject that "advice" (fish are likely to die!), or let it go through and hope someone else posts an alternate view of water preparation? Or should the moderators themselves post a cautionary note? Perhaps with links to useful websites? If you have good ideas about how to deal with these critical issues, it would be helpful if you would post them, especially once the RFD is posted. We all need to contribute to the discussion. 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. However, we have to be careful to allow reasonable disagreements. I.e., I can disagree with something you said, but at the same time I should avoid attacking you personally. Re cross-posting: I only read a few other "fish hobby" newsgroups. I would guess that some relevant cross-posting would be permitted. That's another point that should be discussed when the RFD is posted. Pond groups simply are not intended to be places of personal non-pond conflict. They are not intended to be one of 10 groups where a personal hostility is being launched. 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. As I understand it, the intention is to assess submitted posts only on content, whether it's on topic or reasonable off topic, whether language is reasonable or abusive, and not on *who* writes the post. Although it's more work for the moderators, I don't agree with "banning" anyone based on past history or, for that matter, based on their submissions to rec.ponds.moderated (RPM). I'm aware that some forums do that, but those are a different breed than USENET. We began enjoying rec.ponds in 2002. It helped us with our pond. It built a wonderful friendship network for us. We would love to see conflict go away and the group one again about ponds. That does not seem likely in the forseeable future if conflict is not somehow abated. Moderating seems to be the best bet. It's the ONLY bet at this point. 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. -- KL.... Frugal ponding since 1995. My Pond & Aquarium Pages: http://tinyurl.com/9do58 ~~~~ }((((* ~~~ }{{{{(ö ~~~~ }((((({* Gail rec.ponder since April 2003 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Sadly supporting moderation
"Gail Futoran" wrote in message ... "Köi-Lö" wrote in message ... wrote in message ups.com... [snip] 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? How to handle differences of opinion should be addressed in the RFD. I.e., how will moderators handle submissions they might personally disagree with? How that is handled should be discussed when the RFD is posted. Your right Gale but it does no harm to bring some of these issues up for people to mull over beforehand. I think, as ponders, we can both agree that some assertions should be viewed with the great deal of suspicion. Suppose someone posts that it's ok to use water straight from the tap to fill a pond without any dechlor or dechloramine? LOL! Well that would be like telling people to feed their fish rat-poison pellets! In the case of food there were others who also fed the cheaper commercial foods with great success. I'm not the only one - but I see your point. Do the moderators reject that "advice" (fish are likely to die!), or let it go through and hope someone else posts an alternate view of water preparation? Or should the moderators themselves post a cautionary note? Perhaps with links to useful websites? That's a good idea! Let them post a cautionary note that not all ponders had success with cheaper feeds. Or that chlorine is deadly to fish etc. In the case of chlorine though, you're talking about a poison that kills whereas commercial feeds do not kill our fish. If you have good ideas about how to deal with these critical issues, it would be helpful if you would post them, especially once the RFD is posted. We all need to contribute to the discussion. This is true. 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. However, we have to be careful to allow reasonable disagreements. I.e., I can disagree with something you said, but at the same time I should avoid attacking you personally. There you go! When someone disagrees with someone else, calling that person names or making disparaging remarks to or about them causes a lot of negativity overall. Re cross-posting: I only read a few other "fish hobby" newsgroups. I would guess that some relevant cross-posting would be permitted. That's another point that should be discussed when the RFD is posted. I agree - as long as it's *relevant* to all groups concerned. - - - brevity snips As I understand it, the intention is to assess submitted posts only on content, whether it's on topic or reasonable off topic, whether language is reasonable or abusive, and not on *who* writes the post. It's my opinion obscene messages and gross profanity have no place on a family type NG such as this, or most NGs for that matter. Although it's more work for the moderators, I don't agree with "banning" anyone based on past history or, for that matter, based on their submissions to rec.ponds.moderated (RPM). I'm aware that some forums do that, but those are a different breed than USENET. This is true. - - - snips -- KL.... Frugal ponding since 1995. rec.ponder since late 1996. My Pond & Aquarium Pages: http://tinyurl.com/9do58 ~~~~ }((((* ~~~ }{{{{(ö ~~~~ }((((({* |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Sadly supporting moderation
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Sadly supporting moderation
"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 ~~~~ }((((({* |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Sadly supporting moderation
Your an old silly twit Nick..what was wounded or hurt on you, your
pride? On 06 Dec 2006 20:45:30 GMT, wrote: wrote: Phyllis and I have come to favor the effort to have a moderated version of rec.ponds. A very nice, thoughtful post. Thanks. |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Sadly supporting moderation
"Tristan" wrote in message
... Oh so now Gail proposes to modify a post a person makes to make it more acceptable. Nope, I never said that. As I understand the process, moderators would: (1) let a submission be posted OR (2) return a submission to its author with an explanation of why the submission is being rejected OR (3) return a submission to its author with a recommendation that, e.g., objectionable language be removed (by the author) and the submission be returned revised (by the author) to be posted. I.e., that the poster follow published guidelines about posting to rec.ponds.moderated (RPM). Obviously (2) and (3) are much the same thing, at a practical level. The person submitting a post has the choice to follow published guidelines, or post somewhere else. Else why bother with moderation in the first place? At no time EVER have I said moderators should have the power to edit someone else's post. I wouldn't do it nor would I ever post to a newgroup that did that to posts. Then this is really all about control in this forum isn;'t it. Of course it's about control, but not of *this* forum - rec.ponds - since no one is proposing changing rec.ponds, rather people are proposing a brand new USENET newsgroup called, mostly likely, rec.ponds.moderated. rec.ponds will continue to exist, AFAIK. No one I know of is proposing uncreating (or whatever the term is) rec.ponds. That really isn't that hard to comprehend, is it? or replied to separately. So now mods are also gonna start to edit and change them. Again, I never ever once suggested moderators of rec.ponds.moderated or any other USENET newsgroup should be allowed to edit a post. Nor has any other responsible (i.e. non troll) person here. To correct what might be another misconception on your part, I will respond to something you wrote above: "A post should be placed as made by original poster or deleted inits entirety" My response to that would be, as I understand the proposed process, a moderator can either post a submitted post to RPM, or RETURN the submission to the original author with an explanation of why the moderator(s) will not post the submission as it currently reads. I.e., I expect in many cases an author will be directed to published guidelines about acceptable posts. The original author is then within his/her rights to delete the post, or revise and resubmit. Clear? It is up to everyone who responds to the RFD to make sure these issues are made clear. Rather than engage in personal attacks and deliberate misrepresentations of what other people (like me) have written in posts, if you are sincerely interested in facilitating the process of creating RPM, you might (1) raise reasonable questions (without personal attack or insult) (2) propose solutions and revisions to published RFD(s) (withough resorting to personal attack or insult). That really isn't that hard to grasp, is it? Yea right, ..I think yuu all have been taking lessons 0n forum manipulation from Koiphen memebers. Personal attack. Would not be allowed in RPM as I understand the moderation guidelines under discussion. If editiing a persons posts was made in a nonmoderated group it would be called forgeries.........That alone should make Carol feel right at home..... No one is suggesting editing anyone's post other than one's own post(s). I.e., I edit my posts because I type fast and make frequent typos. I try to catch and correct them. I also reread my posts before sending them for clarity and often will edit them. But those are MY very own posts. You keep repeating your charge that RPM moderators will edit other people's posts as though writing it often enough will make it true. Anyone reading your post will understand that your assertion does NOT represent the position of any of the responsible rec.ponders who have been involved in this discussion. Gail rec.ponder since April 2003 |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Sadly supporting moderation
"Köi-Lö" wrote in message
... "Gail Futoran" wrote in message ... "Köi-Lö" wrote in message ... wrote in message ups.com... [snip] How to handle differences of opinion should be addressed in the RFD. I.e., how will moderators handle submissions they might personally disagree with? How that is handled should be discussed when the RFD is posted. Your right Gale but it does no harm to bring some of these issues up for people to mull over beforehand. [snip] I was not suggesting discussion should not take place here in rec.ponds. I wanted to make sure people reading these posts understand that even if we all come to an agreement here in rec.ponds, there remains a need to discuss all the same issues when the RFD is posted in news.groups.proposals. When that will be, I have no idea. I also was attempting to emphasize that we should be thinking about what we want RPM to look like (how it functions, posting guidelines, moderator guidelines, etc.) so that when the RFD *is* posted, we'll have a good idea of where we stand on various issues. Gail rec.ponder since April 2003 |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Sadly supporting moderation
"Gail Futoran" wrote:
"Tristan" wrote in message Oh so now Gail proposes to modify a post a person makes to make it more acceptable. Nope, I never said that. As I understand the process, moderators would: (1) let a submission be posted OR (2) return a submission to its author with an explanation of why the submission is being rejected OR (3) return a submission to its author with a recommendation that, e.g., objectionable language be removed (by the author) and the submission be returned revised (by the author) to be posted. I.e., that the poster follow published guidelines about posting to rec.ponds.moderated (RPM). In another moderated NG, soc.religion.islam, I have had posts returned. In the first instance, it was because I used my above e-mail addy instead of me true one. In that instance, two of the moderators went out of their way to return my post, with a clear explanation of why. When I corrected my e-mail addy, my message was posted as written. In the second instance, my post was returned because it contained an excessive amount of quoted text compared to new text. Again, after judicious snipping on my part, my message was posted as written. I appreciate the efforts of moderators, who all seem to be volunteers, in the other moderated groups where I post, and anticipate that the same will be the case with rec,ponds,moderated. -- Nick. Support severely wounded and disabled Veterans and their families! Thank a Veteran and Support Our Troops. You are not forgotten. Thanks ! ! ! ~Semper Fi~ |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Sadly supporting moderation
"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 |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Sadly supporting moderation
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 |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Supporting Peas ? | United Kingdom | |||
Supporting stake trees | Gardening | |||
Supporting a 1metre drop between lawn and patio with gabion baskets | Gardening | |||
Supporting Climbers | United Kingdom | |||
supporting new fruit trees | United Kingdom |