XPost: news.groups 
 From: jimrtex@pipeline.com 
  
 On Mon, 23 May 2005 01:01:20 -0400, Russ Weber 
  wrote: 
  
 >On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 20:42:11 -0400, BarB wrote 
 >(in article ): 
 > 
 >> Moderation works as follows. One can use a robot, hand moderate or some 
 >> combination of both. Many moderated groups will use robomoderation to 
 approve 
 > 
 >> and repost everything except for articles containing certain words, 
 phrases, 
 >> addresses or other problems. The robot will kick those out to a human for 
 >> hand moderation. 
 > 
 >Thanks for your explanation.  I would like to propose a new moderated ng 
 >(with a name that would add a suffix of "mod" or "moderated") to the 
 original 
 >ng that is currently being swamped by cross posts. 
 > 
 >All articles that are directed to the new ng and not cross posted would go 
 >directly to the new ng with no other moderator intervention. 
  
 I would avoid making such an absolute limitation on moderation policy. 
 What would you do if someone decided to repost every article that was 
 cross-posted to the unmoderated group to the moderated group with the 
 cross-post removed?  Presumably the problem with the current 
 cross-posts is not that they are cross-posted, but rather that the 
 cross-posting serves as a mechanism for the posting of non-topical 
 material by persons who aren't reading the group. 
  
 Moderated groups may be exposed to certain spam that non-moderated 
 groups don't receive.  E-mail spam can be sent directly to the 
 submission address.  If the submission address ends up on spammers' 
 lists, then you will get spam e-mail that you would approve and 
 convert to news.  You will get ordinary Usenet spam as well.  If you 
 approve it, it may be harder to detect as spam.  Some NSPs and ISPs 
 that do filter for spam, do not filter moderated newsgroups. 
  
 If a group were to be created with only a cross-post blocking policy, 
 and then later started blocking other articles, some people will 
 scream that their 1st, 2nd, 5th, and 12th Amendment rights are being 
 violated.  And others will reply that the moderator "owns" his 
 newsgroup.  So it is better to have a clearer understanding of what 
 you might block as time goes on. 
  
 >All articles cross posted to either the new or old ng would go directly 
 >to the old ng (which would continue to be swamped by cross posts) 
 > with no other moderator intervention. 
  
 The moderator will never see articles posted only to the old news 
 group.  Someone who cross-posted to the moderated news group and 5 
 other news groups, should be presumed to have intended that his 
 article be debated and discussed in all the groups collectively, 
 rather than a subset of them separately.  If they did not include the 
 unmoderated news group, then it should be assumed that they did not 
 wish to publish in that group.  You are better off saying that you 
 will either approve or reject articles submitted to your news group, 
 period. 
  
 That said, there are a couple of cases where the moderation policy 
 does include involvement of unmoderated newsgroups. 
 rec.music.beatles.moderated was intended for more substantive and 
 critical articles, that some people felt were being lost among more 
 fannish or fluffy articles in the unmoderated group.  Those who 
 appreciated both styles of articles were concerned that some posters 
 would desert the unmoderated newsgroup, and it my deteriorate.  So the 
 moderation policy cross-posts all approved articles to both groups. 
 It can be argued that by seeking approval, the author has consented to 
 being published in both groups. 
  
 sci.space.tech and sci.space.science are moderated groups that were 
 created to provide a focus on the technical and scientific aspects of 
 space exploration.  At the same time, sci.space.policy was created as 
 an unmoderated group for policy discussion and debate, which might be 
 less technically based and more likely to be open ended and longer 
 lasting threads.  It in part was created as an outlet for discussion 
 that was not appropriate for the moderated groups, or only 
 tangentially so.  In this case, articles that are rejected for the 
 tech and science group are posted to the "policy" group. 
  
 I don't think either of these really apply to your proposed group.  In 
 the case of the Beatles group, _all_ articles in the moderated group 
 are considered to be appropriate for the unmoderated group.  In the 
 case of space groups, articles may be rejected based on the subjective 
 judgement of the moderator, such that the poster may not be sure 
 whether his article is appropriate for the more technical group.  In 
 your case, there is a clear objective standard that the poster can be 
 made aware of.  If he wishes cross-posting, he knows where to post to. 
  
 -- 
 Jim Riley 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)