Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site sdcrdcf.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ulysses!allegra!oliveb!hplabs!sdcrdcf!lwall
From: lwall@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Larry Wall)
Newsgroups: net.news
Subject: Re: posting followups
Message-ID: <2192@sdcrdcf.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 25-Jul-85 12:37:01 EDT
Article-I.D.: sdcrdcf.2192
Posted: Thu Jul 25 12:37:01 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 29-Jul-85 07:21:28 EDT
References: <145@peregrine.UUCP>
Reply-To: lwall@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Larry Wall)
Distribution: net
Organization: System Development Corp. R+D, Santa Monica
Lines: 52

In article <145@peregrine.UUCP> mike@peregrine.UUCP (Mike Wexler) writes:
>I have a suggestion on how to stem the tide of repeated postings.
>Only the author of an article posts followups to it.  In effect
>the originator of a discussion becomes the moderator....

I can think of several grave deficiencies with this plan:

1) It depends on the existence of an efficient mailing system.

	The extra latency involved in mailing to a moderator is in some
	cases unacceptable.

2) It depends on the existence of a reliable mailing system.

	A larger percentage of articles on the net are currently unrepliable
	to.

3) It depends on the proponent of an idea not to censor the opponent.

	Flamers are not moderates, and should not be moderators.

4) It depends on the proponent not to go on vacation.

	The average vacation is just long enough to allow previous articles
	on the subject to expire.

5) It does nothing to stem the tide of "Classic Coke is back" articles.

	I think I counted about 50 original "Classic Coke" articles in
	one day.

6) The person most in need of flaming is least likely to moderate well.

	Not everyone is qualified to moderate in terms of editorial skills.

7) It can easily be circumvented.

	I can think of at least three ways, offhand.

8) People would *certainly* try to circumvent it when following up a person
   who puts the following in his signature:

					| Send all flames to:
					|	trwrb!pertec!peregrine!nobody
					| They will then be given the 
					| consideration they are due.
 
	Since Mike might consider this a flame, and he thinks flames should
	go to nobody, I don't trust him with this message.  :-)

Larry Wall
{allegra,burdvax,cbosgd,hplabs,ihnp4,sdcsvax}!sdcrdcf!lwall