Lieken wrote:


~ janj wrote:
Full support here. I'll co-moderate if it isn't time consuming, or too
techno-difficult. Derek, Solo? Maybe K30 would come back? Nick? Gail?
Galen? Phyllis/Jim? G Pierce? Bill, DavidM? ~ jan


You were against moderation before. What changed?

I'm _still_ against moderation, but as Jan seems to have done, I think I've
finally come to accept that there seem to be no other choices (that involve
Usenet).

I don't believe that most people who would volunteer for the job are people
I'd want moderating my discussion. That said, I don't disagree with any of
Jan's choices (naturally, including myself :-) ). I've probably disagreed
with most of them (_not_ including myself) at some time or other, but we
can disagree without it turning into a two-year flame war.
--
derek

On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 21:57:44 -0400, Derek Broughton
wrote:

You were against moderation before. What changed?

I'm _still_ against moderation, but as Jan seems to have done, I think I've
finally come to accept that there seem to be no other choices (that involve
Usenet).

I don't believe that most people who would volunteer for the job are people
I'd want moderating my discussion. That said, I don't disagree with any of
Jan's choices (naturally, including myself :-) ). I've probably disagreed
with most of them (_not_ including myself) at some time or other, but we
can disagree without it turning into a two-year flame war.

The 2 year flame war and losing so many RPers, the smut, flooding, an a few
dozen other of reasons.

I'm for light moderation to keep the slanderous smut & JW/anti-JW talk in
the smut and JW groups and out of a pond group.

Now any subject that ponders turn to in a course of discussion is okay with
me, between ponders... it doesn't have to be just pond talk, imo. Like in
the old days, we put OT in the subject when we had other topics we wanted
to share with ponding-friends. ~ jan
--------------
See my ponds and filter design:
www.jjspond.us

~Keep 'em Wet!~
Tri-Cities WA Zone 7a
To e-mail see website

"~ janj" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 21:57:44 -0400, Derek Broughton
wrote:

You were against moderation before. What changed?

I'm _still_ against moderation, but as Jan seems to have done, I think
I've
finally come to accept that there seem to be no other choices (that
involve
Usenet).

I don't believe that most people who would volunteer for the job are
people
I'd want moderating my discussion. That said, I don't disagree with any
of
Jan's choices (naturally, including myself :-) ). I've probably disagreed
with most of them (_not_ including myself) at some time or other, but we
can disagree without it turning into a two-year flame war.

The 2 year flame war and losing so many RPers, the smut, flooding, an a
few
dozen other of reasons.

I'm for light moderation to keep the slanderous smut & JW/anti-JW talk in
the smut and JW groups and out of a pond group.

Now any subject that ponders turn to in a course of discussion is okay
with
me, between ponders... it doesn't have to be just pond talk, imo. Like in
the old days, we put OT in the subject when we had other topics we wanted
to share with ponding-friends. ~ jan
--------------
See my ponds and filter design:
www.jjspond.us

~Keep 'em Wet!~
Tri-Cities WA Zone 7a
To e-mail see website

I agree with what Jan said above. I've not been involved in a moderated
newsgroup before, but I'm willing to try it and be one of the moderators.
I'm guessing, here, but it seems to me the main job of a moderator is to let
through any reasonable posts, even OT if labeled so, and reject any posts
that involve personal attacks AND any posts crossposted to irrelevant
groups.

Naively, Gail

On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 19:29:02 GMT, "Gail Futoran"
wrote:

Now any subject that ponders turn to in a course of discussion is okay
with
me, between ponders... it doesn't have to be just pond talk, imo. Like in
the old days, we put OT in the subject when we had other topics we wanted
to share with ponding-friends. ~ jan
--------------
See my ponds and filter design:
www.jjspond.us

~Keep 'em Wet!~
Tri-Cities WA Zone 7a
To e-mail see website

I agree with what Jan said above. I've not been involved in a moderated
newsgroup before, but I'm willing to try it and be one of the moderators.
I'm guessing, here, but it seems to me the main job of a moderator is to let
through any reasonable posts, even OT if labeled so, and reject any posts
that involve personal attacks AND any posts crossposted to irrelevant
groups.

Naively, Gail

You might get more information by using a real address and posting to
rec.guns and using the subject: Moderator. I've always found serious
shooter's to be most accommodating.

Regards,

Hal

sorry, I already have a couple lists. and my website for school is tooooo time
consuming. Ingrid

~ janj wrote:

Full support here. I'll co-moderate if it isn't time consuming, or too
techno-difficult. Derek, Solo? Maybe K30 would come back? Nick? Gail?
Galen? Phyllis/Jim? G Pierce? Bill, DavidM? ~ jan


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
List Manager: Puregold Goldfish List at
http://weloveteaching.com/puregold/
sign up: http://groups.google.com/groups/dir?...s=Group+lookup
www.drsolo.com
Solve the problem, dont waste energy finding who's to blame
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I receive no compensation for running the Puregold list or Puregold website.
I do not run nor receive any money from the ads at the old Puregold site.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Zone 5 next to Lake Michigan

wrote:

Thanks, ~janj.

Right now I'm just hoping for potential co-moderators, and not
asking anyone to make a definite commitment, until all the nuts and
bolts are in place. ("nuts" doesn't sound right!!)

OK. I'm in - I'm willing to serve as a co-moderator if needed. I spend way
too much time on Usenet now - more will still only be way too much...
--
derek

Personally I and a lot of others see you much like Jan. very biased
and not worthy of being a moderator without being prejudiced. You
just have that insatiable trait to always have to have the last word
Derek, right or wrong just as long as it suits your way of thinking.

On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 14:51:09 -0400, Derek Broughton
wrote:

wrote:

Thanks, ~janj.

Right now I'm just hoping for potential co-moderators, and not
asking anyone to make a definite commitment, until all the nuts and
bolts are in place. ("nuts" doesn't sound right!!)

OK. I'm in - I'm willing to serve as a co-moderator if needed. I spend way
too much time on Usenet now - more will still only be way too much...

On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 13:26:58 -0600, RTB wrote:

Personally I and a lot of others see you much like Jan. very biased
and not worthy of being a moderator without being prejudiced. You
just have that insatiable trait to always have to have the last word
Derek, right or wrong just as long as it suits your way of thinking.

That has nothing to do with being bias or prejudice, that's just a
personality quark. You have a few of those yourself Roy,
as do I. ;-) ~ jan
--------------
See my ponds and filter design:
www.jjspond.us

~Keep 'em Wet!~
Tri-Cities WA Zone 7a
To e-mail see website

We would be willing to help. We too have moderated a ng. Rec.ponds has
been a fine groupo before. light moderation would be worth the price
to keep things on topic.

Jim and Phyllis

On Nov 26, 2:36 pm, ~ janj wrote:
Full support here. I'll co-moderate if it isn't time consuming, or too
techno-difficult. Derek, Solo? Maybe K30 would come back? Nick? Gail?
Galen? Phyllis/Jim? G Pierce? Bill, DavidM? ~ jan





On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 13:25:40 -0500, wrote:
I've spent several more hours doing research.
Here is a ( brief?) update. (It turned out longer than I
intended. Please try to read through all of it. I've repeated a lot
of those things that are critical.)

The main control group (Big-8 Usenet org) that actually creates
new groups has recently changed their methods. There is no longer
any public voting (which allowed all kinds of fraud and abuse.)
This is a __very__ good thing, which will be a definite plus in
getting a moderated group going..

Basicly, 4 things need to happen.

1. First, publicize the fact that a new moderated group may be
formed if there is enough interest. We need to spred the word to
former rec. ponders. Their positive imput will be very helpful (see
step 3 below.)

2. An RFD (request for discussion) has to be written and
submitted. This should also include a FAQ giving all necessary
reasons and details. This __must__ also include a list of
persons who agree to act as moderators.

3. The Big-8 Usenet organization puts the FAQ and RFD on a
newly created newsgroup and opens it up for discussion.
The new group is " news.groups.proposals ". It is
moderated and was just created on 11-18-06. Your news provider
may/probably does not carry it yet. Please ask them to carry it.
All discussion pro/con __must__ take place on that group. After
your news provider starts to carry it, you will need to subscribe to
it. And let former rec.ponders know about it. Their imput will be
a huge help in getting the Big-8 group to authorize creation.

This new group (news.groups.proposals) is run by and
moderated by the big-8, and they will filter out all posts that come
from trolls, have flames or abusive language, or invalid email
addresses. They are VERY familiar with the more well-known usenet
trolls, and will filter them out. What gets through should be an
honest picture of the desire to have a new rec.ponds.moderated group.

4. After a length of time, the Big-8 Board will review all the
discussion and will vote on whether to allow the creation of a new
rec.ponds.moderated group..
(There is no longer a public CFV -call for vote--, and that will
stop the trolls from "stuffing the ballot box". A VERY good thing.)

Until recently the Big-8 had a different method of creating
groups, and it tended to favor fraud and abuse. It also had voting
rules that made many honest people reluctant to vote in favor of a
new group. ALL THAT HAS NOW CHANGED. The voting is now internal,
amongst the members of the Big-8 board.

What need to be done now?

1. I will be spending the next 5-7 days learning more about all
the details. I'll report back here occassionally with updates.

2. First and foremost, we need to have a group of long-term,
trusted, genuine rec. ponders who will consider acting as moderators.
These persons will have a lot of power in judging which posts go
through, which need editing, and which get thrown out.
IF YOU ARE A RECOGNIZED, WELL-KNOWN, GENUINE, LONG-TERM PONDER,
WILL YOU CONSIDER HELPING OUT? No firm commitments are needed until
all the facts & details are worked out and ready for submission.

3. I need to do more research on the various software programs
that act as robo-moderators. These programs do the first interception
of all posts and filter out the obvious trolls, junk, abuse,
off-topic, cross-posted, etc. posts. A robo-moderator program will
also intercept and kill any troll who decides to flood the moderators
with hundreds or thousands of posts. This will greatly reduce the
workload for the moderators.

I have a lot of work to do in the coming week, or more. All I
need to know is,...do I have the support of genuine rec.ponders who
truly love the subject of this group, and want to see it survive?

Its true that there is already a moderated group on google, but
I don't care for google groups. I would much prefer a usenet group.
Also, the google group has aquaria posts, and goes well beyond the
original intended focus of the rec.ponds group.

As a last note, I would be willing to act as a co-moderator, but
in truth I'm not a good choice. I am an unknown, and loyal
rec.ponders can't be sure of my motives, or know what I might do as a
moderator.
My intentions are very honest and sincere. But most, if not
all, co-moderators need to be recognized, loyal, long-term, neutral
ponders who can be trusted to make judgements on what goes through and
what gets blocked. I want to help, and will help if allowed, but I'm
not a good choice, at least not at this time. Simply because you
really don't know me or my track record..

Anyways, I'll stop for now.

I'm going back to do more research. But I need to hear feedback
from the people who love the subject of this group.

Is there support for this project? Can we get a group of
potential co-moderators who would be willing to help out (provided
that things are set up so that they don't get swamped with work.)
At this point, I think that a robo-moderator, plus 3-4-5 co-moderators
should be sufficient to spred the workload out.)

I'll be checking back to see what the reaction is to this post.
If there is no support, then I'll drop the project and move on.

But I don't want the subject of this group to die. And I think
it will die if something drastic isn't done.

__Genuine__ rec.ponders.........how do you feel about all this?

george (not my real name)-----------------

Also ponding troll free at:http://groups.google.com/group/The-Freshwater-Aquarium- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -

~ janj wrote:

On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 13:26:58 -0600, RTB wrote:

Personally I and a lot of others see you much like Jan. very biased
and not worthy of being a moderator without being prejudiced. You
just have that insatiable trait to always have to have the last word
Derek, right or wrong just as long as it suits your way of thinking.

That has nothing to do with being bias or prejudice, that's just a
personality quark. You have a few of those yourself Roy,
as do I. ;-) ~ jan

LOL (and thanks). I _love_ to get the last word, but it certainly never
happens on this group, because I lose interest faster than the trolls.
--
derek

Excuse me, but who did you call me. I assure you I am not Roy. I am
however surprised Roy has not shown up to add turmoil to this group in
some time now.
It may be best if we just refrain from mentioning his name.

RTB

On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 02:20:35 GMT, ~ janj wrote:
On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 13:26:58 -0600, RTB wrote:

Personally I and a lot of others see you much like Jan. very biased
and not worthy of being a moderator without being prejudiced. You
just have that insatiable trait to always have to have the last word
Derek, right or wrong just as long as it suits your way of thinking.

That has nothing to do with being bias or prejudice, that's just a
personality quark. You have a few of those yourself Roy,
as do I. ;-) ~ jan
--------------
See my ponds and filter design:
www.jjspond.us

~Keep 'em Wet!~
Tri-Cities WA Zone 7a
To e-mail see website

"PK" wrote in message
...


Excuse me, but who did you call me. I assure you I am not Roy. I am
however surprised Roy has not shown up to add turmoil to this group in
some time now.
It may be best if we just refrain from mentioning his name.
=================================
Roy is here posting under the new nym of RTB and using Motzarella as his new
newsserver.

X-Trace: reader.motzarella.org
U2FsdGVkX19BLq9n+l/KnHqhhbBMqEGZjZV/mFlFJbuV6SM2Kg92dVA75A0/kUhpUmt3me6YwYTrTj1J0XLX9AJEtB/Vq8DNnBy1W2+zz95YDrO2AgOXOheIIroFW9tUiBnHvfoau8qKA uBJECxh1Bd4EcrNqWGS4MPHHI171fC+FBldQNgHkufShCin1JE U1L1gAZXjC8BuedXemoJay7ffjuLaR6TfXir21VwYlitc4I0lm tuUaxCgE0JgFyzHBewWi2krtceXpN6ue3PuGw==

--
KL....
Frugal ponding since 1995.
My Pond & Aquarium Pages:
http://tinyurl.com/9do58
~~~~ }((((* ~~~ }{{{{(ö ~~~~ }((((({*