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

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

"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

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

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.

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

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

wrote:
Phyllis and I have come to favor the effort to have a moderated version
of rec.ponds.

A very nice, thoughtful post. Thanks.

--
Nick. Support severely wounded and disabled Veterans and their families!

Thank a Veteran and Support Our Troops. You are not forgotten. Thanks ! ! !
~Semper Fi~

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

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.

"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

"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

"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~

"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