From: robert.mcclenon@verizon.net 
  
 On Mon, 6 Sep 2004 22:18:12 -0700, "Paul H." 
  wrote: 
  
 > 
 >"Thad"  wrote in message 
 >news:1094516952.27979@isc.org... 
 >>                      REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD) 
 >>                unmoderated group rec.photo.digital.slr 
 >> 
 >> This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the creation of a 
 >> worldwide unmoderated Usenet newsgroup rec.photo.digital.slr. This is 
 >> not a Call for Votes (CFV); you cannot vote at this time. Procedural 
 >> details are below. All followup discussion should be posted to 
 >> news.groups. 
 >> 
 >> Newsgroup line: 
 >> rec.photo.digital.slr Digital SLR (single lens reflex) camera systems. 
 > 
 >I'd say forget it:  after all the problems on rec.photo.digital with 
 >spammers, trolls, and psychos, the last thing the rec.photo hierarchy needs 
 >is another UNMODERATED group. 
 > 
 >And I really hope no one starts up with that knee-jerk "learn how to use 
 >filters, newbie" bulls**t:   Lots of people, myself included, know how to 
 >use filters.  The problems is that there are many knowledgeable 
 >photographers who don't know how to use filters, don't want to learn how to 
 >use them, and will leave a newsgroup when the signal-to-noise ratio drops 
 >significantly.  Yeah, that's right--the very people who would keep the 
 >newsgroup fresh and interesting will be among the first to leave when the 
 >inevitable troll crap starts. 
 > 
 >If you really want to start up another unmoderated photo group, you might as 
 >well call it  rec.photo.digital.cesspool2, because that's what it will be in 
 >no time at all. 
 > 
  
 I am mostly inclined to agree.  In any case, I would like the 
 proponent to explain how he thinks that creating a new unmoderated 
 group will improve the signal-to-noise ratio. 
  
 I see that the charter forbids flame wars and inappropriate 
 cross-posting.  However, the charter of an unmoderated Big Eight 
 newsgroup is only maintained through the respect and courtesy of the 
 participants in the group or enforced by flaming or by 
 retromoderation.  Since the charter does not state that it will be 
 enforced by retromoderation, I assume that is not the intent of the 
 proponent.  Also, retromoderation is generally considered to be a 
 questionable practice. 
  
 It appears that the proponent thinks that the flame wars in previous 
 rec.photo groups are due to confusion as to what group is for what. 
 This may be true to some extent, but I don't think that telling 
 flamers to stop flaming does much, and I think that telling trolls to 
 stop trolling merely feeds them. 
  
 Is there a reason why the proponent is not proposing moderation?  Can 
 the proponent explain why he thinks that this group will not have a 
 problem with spammers, flamers, and trolls? 
  
      - -     Bob McClenon 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)