Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site l5.uucp Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!decwrl!sun!l5!gnu From: gnu@l5.uucp (John Gilmore) Newsgroups: net.news.group Subject: Re: semi-moderators, or, what I tell you three times is true Message-ID: <367@l5.uucp> Date: Sun, 29-Dec-85 21:01:40 EST Article-I.D.: l5.367 Posted: Sun Dec 29 21:01:40 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 31-Dec-85 00:39:36 EST References: <397@cad.cs.cmu.edu> <246@neurad.UUCP> <1717@cbosgd.UUCP> Organization: Nebula Consultants in San Francisco Lines: 30 Aside from today's technical problems with mod groups, I would be a lot happier with them if we implemented the semi-moderator suggestion. Maybe we could make the threshold 3 copies, with the obvious link to "I tell you three times" (cf Stand on Zanzibar by John Brunner). I believe it's great that today's moderators [tend to] follow this rule. I am leery of setting up such a structure without tying down the rule in a "constitution" of sorts, so it persists after the current set of moderators and users has turned over. Can we agree that: Nobody will moderate a newsgroup without having first agreed that they will always post verbatim an article received three times from the same person, and containing the string 'I tell you three times' in the last copy received. The moderator may enclose an explanation of their objections to the article if desired. If a moderator refuses such an article, the sender may appeal in any (moderated or unmoderated) newsgroup of their choice. Moderators agree to post any such appeal received. This reduces the chance of "blacklisting" to the chance that *all* the moderators are corrupt. To "moderate" a newsgroup is to exercise intentional control over its contents, whether for technical, legal, editorial, or any other reasons. I think this policy, if enforced by us (the users) on the moderators, would preserve the basic anarchy and resulting free exchange on the Usenet, while providing a significant trash filter.