moderated health and behavior newsgroup

wrote in message
ups.com...

CatNipped wrote:
"Candace" wrote in message
ups.com...

You all could just join that. I seldom post to it. It's nice and all
but, personally, I like to be able to be foul-mouthed and bitchy if
I'm
in the mood for it. Plus I like some of the "characters" here.

Candace

LOL! I hear that!! There are just times when you *need* to call
someone a
f*cking @$$hole! ; If people would just not take things so seriously
and
realize this is all a fantasy world and not real life (except when we
need
to pull together to help a cat)

It *can* be all fantasy - or virtually all, but in the 2 other ngs I've
been consistently reading & posting to for 7 years, it's more real life
than a fantasy world.

I've met - IRL - a bunch of people on one of the ngs: it's a music
group - many of us have met up w/eachother at several concerts over the
years, & 2 of the of the people I met on that ng have become personal
friends outside of the ng. Although I have not met other posters IRL on
the 2nd group, various others there have met eachother, & I 'see' most
(maybe all?) of those posters as real people - not just characters out
in cyberspace, posting to Usenet.

Cathy

Oh, I've met several members of rpca in real life - they came to my house
and we had dinner and a great time. That's not what I meant. What I meant
was that it's easy to both "pretend" on newsgroups and it's easy to get
carried away in a flame war when you feel somewhat anonymous. In either
case you have to take things you read here with a grain of salt and not take
things so personally that you let it affect you in real life.

Hugs,

CatNipped

then they might not get their feelings hurt
and feel the need to post only in a controlled group! And if they
*could*
do that it would make it a hell of a lot easier to pull together when
there
is a cat that needs to be helped!!!

Hugs,

CatNipped

Mary wrote:
Oh, yeah, Lynnie. Go to your new group and PLEASE take
Philip with you!

Very nice Mizz Mary, this is exactly what the problem is, a ton of bull
**** to weed through just to try and find the point of a thread.

Example, I have no idea what is the story with "Conan" the cat becuase
I don't have the time or motivation (after working outside under the
hot Arizona summer sun) to weed through the female bitch fest
bickering. I wish Conan well however.

Women, can't live with them, can't shoot 'em.

See you in hell Madam, Karl.

wrote:
Mary wrote:
Oh, yeah, Lynnie. Go to your new group and PLEASE take
Philip with you!

Very nice Mizz Mary, this is exactly what the problem is, a ton of bull
**** to weed through just to try and find the point of a thread.

Example, I have no idea what is the story with "Conan" the cat becuase
I don't have the time or motivation (after working outside under the
hot Arizona summer sun)

Dude, I just got back from AZ. You deserve canonization if you work
outside there, during the summer.

-L.

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.

wrote:

I suppose I just don't like the idea of a moderated group, really...
Maybe *too* sanitized fr me, with the moderator(s) sort of hanging over
everyone.

Nobody hangs over anyone. There's an underlying understanding of
civility and if someone resorts to personal attacks, they get booted.
Nothing wrong with a real debate as long as you don't make it personal.


In the groups I read that are moderated, that's the main rule - no
personal attacks. It's pretty transparent to the users. The
moderatoprs don't even read every day. If someone acts like an
asshole, it's ignored but reported to the moderator via email and that
person then gets an email from a moderator telling them to knock it
off. If they keep it up, they get booted and just "disappear" along
with their posts.


And then... What happens, the moderator(s) & their own
possibly subjective view(s) of what post(er) stays, & who's booted,
when it comes to a post's content? Or if they know a poster from a
prior experience, & either liked - or disliked - that poster; despite
trying to be as objective as possible? Seems like it could be a tad
sticky, to me. I realize that there are plenty of moderated groups;
just a matter of what feels comfortable to whom.

Well, you can join and quit if you hate it. Or not join. Nobody's
forcing you to do either.

-L.

wrote:

I suppose I just don't like the idea of a moderated group, really...
Maybe *too* sanitized fr me, with the moderator(s) sort of hanging over
everyone.

Nobody hangs over anyone. There's an underlying understanding of
civility and if someone resorts to personal attacks, they get booted.
Nothing wrong with a real debate as long as you don't make it personal.


In the groups I read that are moderated, that's the main rule - no
personal attacks. It's pretty transparent to the users. The
moderatoprs don't even read every day. If someone acts like an
asshole, it's ignored but reported to the moderator via email and that
person then gets an email from a moderator telling them to knock it
off. If they keep it up, they get booted and just "disappear" along
with their posts.


And then... What happens, the moderator(s) & their own
possibly subjective view(s) of what post(er) stays, & who's booted,
when it comes to a post's content? Or if they know a poster from a
prior experience, & either liked - or disliked - that poster; despite
trying to be as objective as possible? Seems like it could be a tad
sticky, to me. I realize that there are plenty of moderated groups;
just a matter of what feels comfortable to whom.

Well, you can join and quit if you hate it. Or not join. Nobody's
forcing you to do either.

-L.

-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.

Agreed.

Cheryl wrote:
On Mon 27 Jun 2005 09:33:42p, -L. wrote in
rec.pets.cats.health+behav
oups.com):



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.


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

Agreed.

Candace wrote:
-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.

There is currently a Yahoo group devoted to cat health and behavior
that was started by someone who used to post regularly here (and the
other 2 moderators also). She still does occasionally. It has a large
membership and I get it by digest rather than read it on Yahoo. I
don't like reading through Yahoo, I find it more cumbersome than
reading posts through Google.

You all could just join that. I seldom post to it. It's nice and all
but, personally, I like to be able to be foul-mouthed and bitchy if I'm
in the mood for it. Plus I like some of the "characters" here.

Candace

Well THERE is a candid admission!

"-L." wrote in message
oups.com...
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!..

Good idea. I've e.mailed you.
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