Xref: utzoo news.admin:2759 alt.flame:2082
Path: utzoo!yunexus!geac!mnetor!cxsea!ssc-vax!uw-beaver!cornell!batcomputer!itsgw!steinmetz!uunet!aocgl!tmanos
From: tmanos@aocgl.UUCP (Theodore W. Manos)
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.flame
Subject: Re: The death of USENET was ( Re: Moderated USENET (was Re: The death of
Message-ID: <31.UUL1.3#935@aocgl.UUCP>
Date: 22 Jun 88 03:56:29 GMT
Article-I.D.: aocgl.31.UUL1.3#935
References: <4542@gryphon.CTS.COM>
Organization: Alpha Omega Consulting Group, LTD,  Roselle, IL
Lines: 48

In article <4542@gryphon.CTS.COM> richard@gryphon.CTS.COM (Richard Sexton)
>In article <28.UUL1.3#935@aocgl.UUCP> tmanos@aocgl.UUCP (Theodore W. Manos) writes:
>>Do I finally hear some peace and quiet coming??? :-)  Here's my vote too.
>>I also will offer to moderate a group - even one I don't read!
>
> Did somebody start a contest for the most idiotic post of the year ?
>
> Weemba ?
>
> Let me see if I understand this, you're offering to moderate a group
> you don't even read ?
>
> Hmm. Can I make the tacit assumption that if you don't read a group it's
> because you arn't interested in the content ? Could I even go so far as
> to say you don't know anything about the subject ?
>
> Hey, makes sense to me.

Actually, no, you can *not* make that assumption.  I happen to be both
interested and somewhat knowledgable about a fairly diverse range of
topics.  That however does *not* mean that I read all of the news.groups
concerning those subjects.  Maybe you have either: a) a narrow enough
range of interests, or b) more than enough unproductive time to allow
you to read all of the news.groups in which you might be interested.  I
do not.  There are at least 60 news.groups that I would like to read
which I do not, for various reasons.  So, the answer to your question(s)
is, it would depend on the topic.

I might add further that, being an effective moderator does *not*
require either an in-depth knowledge of, or any personal interest in,
the particular issue being debated.  What it does require is a decent
sense of fair play, some knowledge of the rules of debate and order, and
the ability to remain unbiased in your decisions, irregardless of
personal opinions/feelings (which is not always terribly easy to do :-) ).

What it would appear that you have suggested is, Judges are not
qualified to administrate/moderate court cases, unless they have a
personal knowledge and interest in the matter being tried.  Obviously
such is not true.  What the Judges require is a knowledge of the law and
legal precedent, proper procedure, and the ability to judge in an
unbiased fashion the issues at hand.  While Judges certainly don't live
in a vacuum, their prior personal knowledge and/or opinions about the
details of a case can make the proper execution of their task just that
much more difficult for them.  I could site other examples too, if you
should so desire.

Perhaps now it makes more sense to you.
Ted Manos   tmanos@aocgl.{COM,UUCP,UU.NET}  or ...!{uunet,mcdchg}!aocgl!tmanos