Xref: utzoo comp.graphics:17985 news.groups:31951 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!ucsd!qualcom.qualcomm.com!cancun.qualcomm.com!rdippold From: rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) Newsgroups: comp.graphics,news.groups Subject: Re: More discussion on fate of comp.graphics? Message-ID: <1991May13.182057.24163@qualcomm.com> Date: 13 May 91 18:20:57 GMT References: <4921@sahara.megatek.u <2965@sun13.scri.fsu.edu> Sender: news@qualcomm.com Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA Lines: 24 Nntp-Posting-Host: cancun.qualcomm.com In article <2965@sun13.scri.fsu.edu> murray@sun13.scri.fsu.edu (John Murray) writes: >ucp> >Followup-To: comp.graphics >Organization: SCRI, Florida State University >Lines: 15 > >Here's one idea that I don't think has been mentioned yet: > >Instead of creating one or a dozen new groups to solve the misuse of the >existing group, what about making the existing group moderated? > >In my opinion, a new group that is unmoderated won't solve anything for very >long, so if we need to go to a moderated group, the appropriate thing to do >is to moderate the one we're already using, rather than create a new group >and leave the old one to the wolves and wolf pups. So then what are you going to do with all the irritating, but legitimate, requests for XXXX viewer for machine YYYY? If you let them through, you haven't gained anything. If you don't let them through, you've cut off one of the few groups they can ask it on with some hope of answer. -- Standard disclaimer applies, you legalistic hacks. | Ron Dippold