Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!looking!brad
From: brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Yet another thing smart feeders can do
Message-ID: <35837@looking.on.ca>
Date: 19 Oct 89 02:17:01 GMT
Organization: Looking Glass Software Limited, Waterloo ON
Lines: 53
Class: misc

Another thing that a smart feeder can do that might be useful is redefine
the concept of the moderated group.

Right now moderating a group means dealing with a lot of mail, and in
most cases, demand on your time.  Most moderators can't even go away on vaction
without complaints or special arrangements.

For moderated, as opposed to edited groups, there is an interesting
solution.

A few dozen major (dare I say backbone?) sites keep lists of authorized
posters for moderated groups.  The moderator maintains those lists.  If
a poster shows that he or she can behave, ie. resist the temptation to
post abusive flames, off topic material and other unwanted stuff, they
get on the list.   If you're on the list, you can post to the group, and these
main sites feed your articles.

If you're not on the list, the software refuses to forward your article.
It also issues an immediate cancel that goes *back* along the track your
article came.  It also sends you mail saying what took place.  It also
forwards your message to the moderator (as per now) if we can figure some
way to avoid hundreds of duplicates when messages hit several points with
this software at the same time.

Anyway, your message goes to the moderator somehow, and if it's ok, just
like today, it gets posted.  If you are good and ask, you get on the list.

If you're on the list and you goof anyway, the moderator issues a cancel.
The cancel kills that mesasge any anything that attempts to follow it up.

Goof too many times and you're on the list.

An alternate method would be to have a shit list instead of a good list.
This would be people who have to go through the moderator -- anybody
else can post freely.  Problem with that is that many problems come from
newcomers, and this would not deal with that.


The reason I suggest this is that moderated groups aren't doing as well as
we woud like them to.  Many don't like them because they sometimes stifle
stuff a bit too much, and they're a lot of work for the moderator.

Semi-moderated groups might be the answer.  The ability of the moderator
to kill threads, and not just messages, would also be a start, and would
be easier to do.  (Just have a few key sites note ultra-cancelled messages,
and have them check the root of References on each incoming message to
see if it's a cancelled thread.)

Of course, this wouldn't work for ultra-moderated groups like rec.humor.funny,
comp.risks and rec.mag.otherrealms, but it would work for most of the
others.
-- 
Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473