moderated health and behavior newsgroup

-L. wrote:
wrote:

Despite the brouhaha & nastiness that can - & often does - periodically
occur on unmoderated ngs, a moderated one doesn't interest me. I tried
one once, & basically found it to be a PITA - to have every innocuous
post vetted, to have the lag time - esp. if the moderator was busy
doing something else, etc. Plus, outside of the true trolls, seeing the
diversity of people "out there" - whom one wouldn't normally meet IRL,
can be interesting. Sometimes exasperating, but interesting. ;-) IMO.

Cathy

That's not how this works. It's moderated in that if someone posts
crap they get warned once and then kicked off if it happens again. The
offending posts get deleted. There is more than one moderator usually,
so the crap doesn't stay on the ng for long. It works quite well,
actually.

-L.

I wouldn't have a problem with that at all. I've read one moderated
group before where posts don't show up for a couple of days--I guess
until the moderator had time to inspect every one of them. By the time
the post showed up, people generally weren't that interested in
pursuing the topic anymore. It was really sucky.
But, yeah, if a new group gets set up, I'd give it a try.

Sherry

-L. wrote:
That's not how this works. It's moderated in that if someone posts
crap they get warned once and then kicked off if it happens again. The
offending posts get deleted. There is more than one moderator usually,
so the crap doesn't stay on the ng for long. It works quite well,
actually.

-L.

I co-moderate a list on Yahoo. It has a specific subject (raw
feeding). There are 4 moderators and a list owner and close to 1,000
members. New people are put on moderation (meaning their posts must be
approved by a moderator before they're posted on the list). Once the
person is shown to not be a troll or troublemaker, they're taken off
moderation. I think it works well for that particular list. But I
don't think it would for a newsgroup, especially one that has many
topics. I know on AOL their message boards used to be moderated and
they were terrible, and it was pretty stiffling.

On 27 Jun 2005 09:46:41 -0700, "-L." wrote:

We are thinking of setting one up since this group has become such a
wasteland. It would be through an easily-accessible venue such as
Yahoo, etc. Would anyone here be interested in participating? If so,
please send me an email - address in header is valid.

Thanks!

-L.

There are already Cat Health & Behavior groups set up on Yahoo.

I am not sure how they are, as I signed up, and never checked back...

wrote in message
ups.com...


-L. wrote:
wrote:

Despite the brouhaha & nastiness that can - & often does - periodically
occur on unmoderated ngs, a moderated one doesn't interest me. I tried
one once, & basically found it to be a PITA - to have every innocuous
post vetted, to have the lag time - esp. if the moderator was busy
doing something else, etc. Plus, outside of the true trolls, seeing the
diversity of people "out there" - whom one wouldn't normally meet IRL,
can be interesting. Sometimes exasperating, but interesting. ;-) IMO.

Cathy

That's not how this works. It's moderated in that if someone posts
crap they get warned once and then kicked off if it happens again. The
offending posts get deleted. There is more than one moderator usually,
so the crap doesn't stay on the ng for long. It works quite well,
actually.

-L.

I wouldn't have a problem with that at all. I've read one moderated
group before where posts don't show up for a couple of days--I guess
until the moderator had time to inspect every one of them. By the time
the post showed up, people generally weren't that interested in
pursuing the topic anymore. It was really sucky.
But, yeah, if a new group gets set up, I'd give it a try.

Sherry

I have also heard that moderated group members can earn posting freedom
after they demonstrate civility and maintain the decorum .... at the
discretion of the moderators of course.

Alison wrote:

Good idea. I've e.mailed you.

I tried to reply but it bounced. I will try again later today.

Have you thought about a free web based forum? I belong to several
web based forums. You can have pinned threads so people can find info
. It's easier and quicker to access a web forum where the posts are
in threads.
Alison

Hummm....will look in to it.

-L.

On Tue 28 Jun 2005 01:52:10a, -L. wrote in
rec.pets.cats.health+behav
roups.com):



Cheryl wrote:
After thinking more about it, I'd be for a moderated Usenet
group, but only if it didn't discourage true debating.

Exactly. Nothing wrong with a healthy debate.

Name calling and
the like I can do without. Debates that don't denigrate into
flamewars. Something like rec.pets.cats.health+behav.moderated.
Have a clear set of rules for posts that should be bounced, and
not stray away from that just because of personality
differences. I'd go for that.


--
Cheryl

The problem is that getting a Usenet group approved now is next
to impossible - and getting servers to carry it is, as well.

-L.



I'll talk to some people. "rec" is in the big 8 hierarchy, so it's
a little different and admittedly more difficult, but if approved,
most if not all news servers automatically pick up the big 8. I
think there's a clear need.

--
Cheryl

"The clever cat eats cheese and breathes down rat holes with baited
breath."
- W.C. Fields

"Cheryl" wrote in message
...
On Tue 28 Jun 2005 01:52:10a, -L. wrote in
rec.pets.cats.health+behav
roups.com):



Cheryl wrote:
After thinking more about it, I'd be for a moderated Usenet
group, but only if it didn't discourage true debating.

Exactly. Nothing wrong with a healthy debate.

Name calling and
the like I can do without. Debates that don't denigrate into
flamewars. Something like rec.pets.cats.health+behav.moderated.
Have a clear set of rules for posts that should be bounced, and
not stray away from that just because of personality
differences. I'd go for that.


--
Cheryl

The problem is that getting a Usenet group approved now is next
to impossible - and getting servers to carry it is, as well.

-L.



I'll talk to some people. "rec" is in the big 8 hierarchy, so it's
a little different and admittedly more difficult, but if approved,
most if not all news servers automatically pick up the big 8. I
think there's a clear need.


There really is. We could lose a bunch of whiners. Good luck!

On Tue 28 Jun 2005 06:49:55p, Mary wrote in
rec.pets.cats.health+behav ):

I
think there's a clear need.


There really is. We could lose a bunch of whiners. Good luck!

So we can count on your vote when/if it comes time for a RFV? That'd
be how to make it work!

--
Cheryl

"The clever cat eats cheese and breathes down rat holes with baited
breath."
- W.C. Fields

"Cheryl" wrote in message
...
On Tue 28 Jun 2005 06:49:55p, Mary wrote in
rec.pets.cats.health+behav ):

I
think there's a clear need.


There really is. We could lose a bunch of whiners. Good luck!

So we can count on your vote when/if it comes time for a RFV? That'd
be how to make it work!


You bet! But you know damned well they are not going to allow
you to create another rec. group. Buzzard can (or knows some
people who can) create an alt.group for you with no hassles
at all. Then if enough people ask for it, servers will add it.
No reason not to go for the rec. group, but perhaps an
alternative plan.