Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site yale.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ulysses!ucbvax!decvax!yale!qux
From: qux@yale.ARPA (El Magnifico Kaufman)
Newsgroups: net.news.group
Subject: "Moderation a failure"
Message-ID: <165@yale.ARPA>
Date: Sat, 7-Sep-85 13:30:25 EDT
Article-I.D.: yale.165
Posted: Sat Sep  7 13:30:25 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 9-Sep-85 04:16:45 EDT
References: <205@kepler.UUCP> <774@vortex.UUCP> <2978@sdcc3.UUCP> <3207@nsc.UUCP> <202@almsa-1>
Reply-To: kaufman@yale-comix.UUCP (El Magnifico Kaufman)
Organization: Yale University CS Dept., New Haven CT
Lines: 26

In article <202@almsa-1> control@almsa-1.UUCP (William Martin) writes:
>In article <3207@nsc.UUCP> chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach) writes:
>>
>>Moderation as it currently is set up turned out to be a rather unqualified
>>failure.   ...
>>I just don't think there is a way to graft moderation onto the USENET
>>setup, unless you are willing to redefine USENET.
>>
>While I hesitate to challenge an expert in this, let me mention that
>mod.rec.guns is working just fine, and I would call it a success.
    
Might it be that the reason most moderated groups failed was that there
existed parallel unmoderated groups?  Posting to a moderated group is
(or at least can be) somewhat of a hassle, and doesn't have the instant
gratification of posting to an unmoderated group and then immediately
reading one's own message.

Of course, eliminating net.singles in favor of mod.singles (or whatever)
would have caused even more uproar than just creating mod.singles did.
Is leaving the unmoderated groups around what you meant by not "redefining
USENET," Chuq?

Qux

Kaufman-David@Yale-Comix.Arpa	Kaufman@YaleCS.Bitnet	..!decvax!yale!kaufman