Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!purdue!ames!lll-winken!uunet!mfci!karzes
From: karzes@mfci.UUCP (Tom Karzes)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Moderated C group ? (was Re: Posting)
Message-ID: <890@m3.mfci.UUCP>
Date: 8 Jun 89 00:01:24 GMT
References: <1989May23.030223.24871@utzoo.uucp> <929@maestro.htsa.aha.nl> <13410@haddock.ima.isc.com> <934@maestro.htsa.aha.nl> <18230@unix.cis.pittsburgh.edu> <13607@haddock.ima.isc.com>
Sender: karzes@mfci.UUCP
Reply-To: karzes@mfci.UUCP (Tom Karzes)
Organization: Multiflow Computer Inc., Branford Ct. 06405
Lines: 21

In article <13607@haddock.ima.isc.com> karl@haddock.ima.isc.com (Karl Heuer) writes:
>
>So, let's draw up a charter: The moderator shall not reject a question for
>being "stupid".  He/she may reject an *answer* for being wrong ("int is always
>32 bits") or redundant (the 25th consecutive posting saying "no it isn't"), or
>any posting for being inappropriate ("How do you pronounce `#'?").  Does this
>sound reasonable?

I question the ability of a moderator to reject an *answer* for being
wrong.  I see no reason to believe that a moderator, no matter how chosen,
would necessarily have a more complete or more correct understanding of a
given issue than a given poster or reader.  True, considering the fact that
many people who try to post answers don't have a clue about C and appear
to have 2 digit IQ's, and assuming a moderator could be found who doesn't
suffer from these shortcomings, this might work for 90% of the answers.
However, I suspect there would still be occasions when a moderator wouldn't
understand a subtle point, but would *think* that he/she did, and would
incorrectly throw away a key response as being "incorrect" or "redundant",
depriving those of us who are able to appreciate such a posting from seeing
it.  To put it another way, I'd rather weed out a bit of garbage than risk
missing a few hastily discarded gems.