Xref: utzoo comp.sys.ibm.pc:13155 comp.binaries.ibm.pc:559
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!steinmetz!davidsen
From: davidsen@steinmetz.steinmetz.UUCP (William E. Davidsen Jr)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc,comp.binaries.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: Moderation of comp.binaries.ibm.pc
Message-ID: <9916@steinmetz.steinmetz.UUCP>
Date: 14 Mar 88 16:11:44 GMT
References: <2133@polya.STANFORD.EDU> <12576@sgi.SGI.COM> <4666@teddy.UUCP>
Reply-To: davidsen@kbsvax.steinmetz.UUCP (William E. Davidsen Jr)
Organization: General Electric CRD, Schenectady, NY
Lines: 62

In article <4666@teddy.UUCP> jpn@teddy.UUCP (John P. Nelson) writes:
>>for those who have volunteered, it would be helpful for the rest of us
>>to know what you intend to do as moderator [of comp.binaries.ibm.pc].
>
>    If elected moderator, I promise to:
>
>1.  Be rude to anyone attempting to post non-binaries.
  It certainly would be more effective to vector them to a binaries.d
group if they are error reports or legitimate discussion of posting
policies. Of course a useful moderator could mail or repost as needed
when things get garbled, but it's not as fun as being rude.

>2.  Be rude to anyone posting binaries in a nonstandard format.
  I don't see that a standard beyond having a reasonable message telling
what the program does and the binary is needed. I see no reason to
disallow ARC, self unpacking ARC, ZOO, self unpacking ZOO, or PKARC,
although using ARC or ZOO as a recomendation would be desirable, since
those format can be unpack on UNIX so that the documentation can be
listed/read.

   The object of the moderator is to protect against blatent
abuses, not to eliminate postings of useful and legitimate programs
which are not packaged to his liking. I don't feel that we really need
explicit standards of what is "aesthetically pleasing."

>3.  Be rude to anyone posting software with a Copyright notice in it.
  Scratch things written in Turbo and older version of MSC. And heaven
forbid that an author might want credit for the work he's making
available to the public.

>4.  Be rude to anyone asking for copies of previously posted software
>    (I haven't got disk storage for archives).
  In my book that *totally* disqualifies you.

>5.  Be ESPECIALLY rude to anyone posting a virus or trojan program
>    that trashes my hard disk.
  No problem with that.

================
  My opinion is that this person does not have the qualifications to be
moderator. He can't offer archives, no repost or mailing, he won't allow
copyrighted software, he has said nothing directly about pirated
software, as long as it doesn't contain a copyright when he gets this.

  I see no past history of running a newsgroup or BBS, and I believe
that item five indicates that he lacks a spare system for testing, and
would have to risk his "live" disk to do so.  That's bound to make
anyone a little gunshy. I see no information about his net connections,
save that he's on a node with little disk available (to him).

  I guess with all of the better qualified moderators out there I would
say "thanks for the offer," but let someone better qualified do it. We
don't need a moderator to be rude, without one we can get *lots* of rude
postings, even to people who don't deserve it.

  It's a generous offer, but I have the feeling that it is made with
inadequate resources and experience, and perhaps a more hostile attitude
than is needed.
-- 
	bill davidsen		(wedu@ge-crd.arpa)
  {uunet | philabs | seismo}!steinmetz!crdos1!davidsen
"Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -me