A minimally moderated versionof this newsgroup

[John Fortier]

"Roy McCammon" <rmccammon@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3F8C88E3.8070408@austin.rr.com...

moderated newsgroups generally fail due to lack of critical mass.

John Fortier wrote:
Having an unmoderated newsgroup for a subject such as
sci.electronics.basics
is, at first glance, a good idea. Anyone can post to the group, ask any
question and get,, hopefully, useful answers.

The lack of critical mass is generally caused by an excess of criticism. A
minimally moderated group will not suffer from a control freak at the helm,
which is what puts most people off moderated groups.

As I replied to the previous post in this thread, you'll be free to post
just as you are here, just not blatantly off topic or abusively.

No society can operate efficiently without some rules or binding customs.
(Please don't start an offshoot thread on that one!) At present we have no
rules and unruly and disruptive behaviour are, of necessity, tolerated. All
I intend for the new group is the imposition of some minimal rules which
will lubricate the flow of information and ideas.

John

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

John Fortier wrote:

"Roy McCammon" <rmccammon@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3F8C88E3.8070408@austin.rr.com...
moderated newsgroups generally fail due to lack of critical mass.

John Fortier wrote:
Having an unmoderated newsgroup for a subject such as
sci.electronics.basics
is, at first glance, a good idea. Anyone can post to the group, ask any
question and get,, hopefully, useful answers.



The lack of critical mass is generally caused by an excess of criticism. A
minimally moderated group will not suffer from a control freak at the helm,
which is what puts most people off moderated groups.

As I replied to the previous post in this thread, you'll be free to post
just as you are here, just not blatantly off topic or abusively.

No society can operate efficiently without some rules or binding customs.
(Please don't start an offshoot thread on that one!) At present we have no
rules and unruly and disruptive behaviour are, of necessity, tolerated. All
I intend for the new group is the imposition of some minimal rules which
will lubricate the flow of information and ideas.

John

Its easier to start a new newsgroup than to get it placed on lots of
news servers. Without wide distribution, it isn't available to many
people. If you use a single, private server you can have all kinds of
problems with providing service, and keeping the computer running,
backed up, and being able to devote the time to perform maintenance.
Other "Chat room" type groups are not archived by Google, or other
places, so its difficult, or impossible to see if something has already
been discussed to death, or to find information needed, an no one on
line has it, or the time to look for it. It will be damn hard to beat
using a widely distributed Usenet Newsgroup that is properly archived,
and has a great search engine to locate old posts.
--


Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

 

[John Fields]

On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 02:49:56 GMT, "John Fortier"
<jfortier@rochester.rr.com> wrote:

Obviously, no-one will have to use the new group if they choose not to, and
anyone who wants to indulge himself in a pissing match or to start threads
which have nothing to do with the purported purpose of the group will still
be free to do so. Joust not in the moderated group, should it come into
being.

---
"Joust not"? Interesting trypo!
---

Equally obviously, should the level of behaviour within this group and
related groups improve markedly as a result of this thread, there will be no
need for a moderated group, but ,sadly, I doubt that this will occur.

---
Whether the level of behavior in this group changes or not, I see no
_need_ for your group, only a perceived "oasis" which, if you're in
charge, will always be tranquil and pleasant according to what you
subjectively consider to be the "right" way to behave.
---

Generally, with a few well considered dissentions, such as yours, the
posters to this group have supported the idea of minimal moderation.

---
Hogwash. What you've done is assumed that because you've received a few
approvals that constitutes tacit agreement by the majority of the
population.
---

And I
think the point you may be missing here is that the moderation will be
minimal. You'll be free to post in the new group just as you are here.
Only if the posts are blatantly off topic or abusive will the poster be
warned, privately at first, to desist.

---
Censorship (which is what you're proposing to inflict) always starts off
with just barely minimal intrusion and grows, unless checked, at the
whim of the censor.
---

It will take a considerable amount of talent to actually get banned!

---
No, just continued disagreement with your position.

By the way, John, this thread (which is completely off-topic) was
started by you and really has no place in this forum, so if you believe
in what you preach end it and either get back on topic or ban yourself.

--
John Fields

 

[John Fields]

On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 02:57:25 GMT, "John Fortier"
<jfortier@rochester.rr.com> wrote:

"Roy McCammon" <rmccammon@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3F8C88E3.8070408@austin.rr.com...
moderated newsgroups generally fail due to lack of critical mass.

John Fortier wrote:
Having an unmoderated newsgroup for a subject such as
sci.electronics.basics
is, at first glance, a good idea. Anyone can post to the group, ask any
question and get,, hopefully, useful answers.



The lack of critical mass is generally caused by an excess of criticism.

---
Do you make this stuff up as you go along?
---

A minimally moderated group will not suffer from a control freak at the helm,
which is what puts most people off moderated groups.

As I replied to the previous post in this thread, you'll be free to post
just as you are here, just not blatantly off topic or abusively.

No society can operate efficiently without some rules or binding customs.
(Please don't start an offshoot thread on that one!) At present we have no
rules and unruly and disruptive behaviour are, of necessity, tolerated.

---
So it's OK for you to post and nurture an off-topic thread but it's not
OK for anyone else to diverge from it? What was that you were saying
about control freaks?

As far as the rest of it goes, now that you've been here for a while and
you've been subjected to the culture of the group, if you don't like it
just go away. So far, your technical contributions have been few and
banal, and you seem to gravitate toward a philosophy which dictates
conversion of the heathen to patterns of behavior which are
non-threatening to _you_.
---

I intend for the new group is the imposition of some minimal rules which
will lubricate the flow of information and ideas.

---
Imposition? I have a suggestion as to what you can do with your proposed
group and lubricant...

--
John Fields

 

[Michael Black]

John Fields (jfields@austininstruments.com) writes:

On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 02:49:56 GMT, "John Fortier"
jfortier@rochester.rr.com> wrote:


Obviously, no-one will have to use the new group if they choose not to, and
anyone who wants to indulge himself in a pissing match or to start threads
which have nothing to do with the purported purpose of the group will still
be free to do so. Joust not in the moderated group, should it come into
being.

---
"Joust not"? Interesting trypo!
---

Equally obviously, should the level of behaviour within this group and
related groups improve markedly as a result of this thread, there will be no
need for a moderated group, but ,sadly, I doubt that this will occur.

---
Whether the level of behavior in this group changes or not, I see no
_need_ for your group, only a perceived "oasis" which, if you're in
charge, will always be tranquil and pleasant according to what you
subjectively consider to be the "right" way to behave.

Since we're airing all this out, I think some of the blame should lie
with the beginners asking the questions. Often, they come here as
a beginner in two ways. They are new to electronics, but they are also
new to newsgroups. The likely accounts for many of the "email me the answer"
and even the expectation that we do all their work for them.

Too often, we see ill-formed questions. Someone already thinks they
have the solution, and think they just need an implementation. But if
they gave more of the overall picture, the solution might be quite
different from their expectation.

We see people asking for well covered information, that could better
be found with a few simple searches. "Where can I get XXX datasheet"
or "Where can I get XXX device". "What's a good place for a hobbyist
to buy parts" is a more pertinent question, because it may be a subjective
thing, though considering there are usually the same places mentioned
in answer to such questions, maybe not.

And then, of course, after the initial question, we don't hear from
the original poster again most of the time. They aren't participating
in the discussion, which surely allows for the oldtimers to drift
the thread and debate obscure points. And without the feedback of more
posts from the poster, how can we be sure we are answering it properly?
This is especially the case if the question is ill-formed or does
not include enough details.

So many of those questions are not from people willing to join an
existing community and learn from it, but someone who just wants an
answer and assumes we are here to answer their questions.

This is a terrible myth. I suspect some people may read a newsgroup
simply for the sake of helping others, but I think most are like me,
we hang around because there is something of value in the newsgroup.
I don't read this newsgroup every day (and every day going back nine years,
well the hierarchy hadn't split up back then) so I can help beginners.
I do so because in reading answers, I may learn something myself. And
once I'm here, I might as well answer questions that I can, keeping in
mind that the more effort I have to put into it, the more incentive there
better be to make it worth my while. So someone telling a good joke
might get an answer, when someone expecting an answer won't. SOmeone
asking an interesting question is likely to get an answer rather than
someone asking a pretty generic question that could be answered with
a little reading of those old fashioned webpages known as books, which
can be had in those old fashioned internet sites known as libraries.

But if all the answers went to the poster by email, I'd not be reading
this newsgroup. If the messiness of community is gone, then it likely
would be too sterile for me.

Michael

 

[John Larkin]

On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 02:57:25 GMT, "John Fortier"
<jfortier@rochester.rr.com> wrote:

The lack of critical mass is generally caused by an excess of criticism. A
minimally moderated group will not suffer from a control freak at the helm,
which is what puts most people off moderated groups.

Power corrupts.

John

 

[John Larkin]

On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 07:46:36 -0500, John Fields
<jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

I intend for the new group is the imposition of some minimal rules which
will lubricate the flow of information and ideas.

---
Imposition? I have a suggestion as to what you can do with your proposed
group and lubricant...

Geez John, that one was *funny*.

John

 

[Roy McCammon]

John Fortier wrote:

"Roy McCammon" <rmccammon@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3F8C88E3.8070408@austin.rr.com...

moderated newsgroups generally fail due to lack of critical mass.

John Fortier wrote:

Having an unmoderated newsgroup for a subject such as

sci.electronics.basics

is, at first glance, a good idea. Anyone can post to the group, ask any
question and get,, hopefully, useful answers.



The lack of critical mass is generally caused by an excess of criticism.

No, its just generated by a lack of subscribers and exacerbated
by the moderator going on vacation or getting sick or getting
editorial.

You may want to look at Mark Kinsler's very succesful yahoo
group "howthingswork". It is mildly moderated in the sense
that the postings are not moderated, but if you get too ugly,
Mark boots you out. You can talk basic electronics there if
you want.

You might also examine comp.dcom.telecom which is moderated
and has refused to allow me to post in the past. I don't
know why and I never got an explanation. One day my posts
just would not appear. My attempts to contact the moderator
were unsuccessful.







--
local optimization seldom leads to global optimization

my e-mail address is: rb <my last name> AT ieee DOT org

 

[Fernan Bolando]

In article <3F8C88E3.8070408@austin.rr.com>, Roy McCammon wrote:

moderated newsgroups generally fail due to lack of critical mass.

John Fortier wrote:
Having an unmoderated newsgroup for a subject such as sci.electronics.basics
is, at first glance, a good idea. Anyone can post to the group, ask any
question and get,, hopefully, useful answers.

Hi am very new to usenet so feel free correct me if I am stepping my
bounds. I am still learning some configuration of newsclient.

I was just wondering. Maybe we can just have a newsgroup for newbie
questions, a main newsgroup for the more complex questions and an extra
newsgroup for a slightly off topic thoughts and ideas.

We can just post questions which we consider newbies to the newbie
newsgroup. If the topic becomes more hardcore then it gets upgraded or
transferd to the main newsgroup. For offtopic stuff can be posted in the
offtopic newsgroup.

I am not sure if this is possible, But this method is bieng used in one of
the local linux user mailing list that I joined in. They have a linux-newbie,
linux-user and linux-misc mailing list. Full moderation is implimented
in the linux-users, and newbies questions are posted in linux-newbie. If
the topic in the linux-newbie becomes more complex some of the
older/wiser/experienced poeple will suggest that the topic be transfered
to the linux-users mailing list. Off-topic questions are posted in the
linux-misc of course most of it are still slightly related to linux.

I hope I was able to relate the idea clearly

,Fernan

 

[Michael Black]

Fernan Bolando (fernanbolando@mailc.net) writes:

In article <3F8C88E3.8070408@austin.rr.com>, Roy McCammon wrote:
moderated newsgroups generally fail due to lack of critical mass.

John Fortier wrote:
Having an unmoderated newsgroup for a subject such as sci.electronics.basics
is, at first glance, a good idea. Anyone can post to the group, ask any
question and get,, hopefully, useful answers.



Hi am very new to usenet so feel free correct me if I am stepping my
bounds. I am still learning some configuration of newsclient.

I was just wondering. Maybe we can just have a newsgroup for newbie
questions, a main newsgroup for the more complex questions and an extra
newsgroup for a slightly off topic thoughts and ideas.

But this is what this newsgroup, sci.electronics. basics is for.

And if there's griping about the state of this newsgroup, one
might want to throw in the way too often cross-posting across
the hierarchy. And the beginner questions that way too often
land in sci.electronics.design

Michael

 

[John Larkin]

On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 22:07:49 GMT, Fernan Bolando
<fernanbolando@mailc.net> wrote:

Hi am very new to usenet so feel free correct me if I am stepping my
bounds. I am still learning some configuration of newsclient.

I was just wondering. Maybe we can just have a newsgroup for newbie
questions,

this one

a main newsgroup for the more complex questions

sci.electronics.design

and an extra
newsgroup for a slightly off topic thoughts and ideas.

sci.electronics.misc

John

 

[Michael Black]

John Larkin (jjlarkin@highSNIPlandTHIStechPLEASEnology.com) writes:

On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 22:07:49 GMT, Fernan Bolando
fernanbolando@mailc.net> wrote:


and an extra
newsgroup for a slightly off topic thoughts and ideas.


sci.electronics.misc

John


But that's intended for the electronic stuff that doesn't

quite fit into one of the other newsgroups in the hierarchy.

The political junk and the weather reports are supposed to
go to a pertinent newsgroup, not sci.electronics.misc

Michael

 

[Roy McCammon]

Michael Black wrote:

But that's intended for the electronic stuff that doesn't
quite fit into one of the other newsgroups in the hierarchy.

The political junk and the weather reports are supposed to
go to a pertinent newsgroup, not sci.electronics.misc

things evolve.

We are a group. We have a common interest in electronics,
but first of all we are a group, a community, a club and
gossip plays an important part in group cohesion.


--
local optimization seldom leads to global optimization

my e-mail address is: rb <my last name> AT ieee DOT org

 

[John Larkin]

On 16 Oct 2003 00:40:55 GMT, et472@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Michael Black)
wrote:

The political junk and the weather reports are supposed to
go to a pertinent newsgroup, not sci.electronics.misc

Michael

"Supposed to?" Nobody is in charge here.

John

 

[Keith R. Williams]

In article <3F8D871D.3060406@mmm.com>, rbmccammon@mmm.com says...

John Fortier wrote:
"Roy McCammon" <rmccammon@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3F8C88E3.8070408@austin.rr.com...

moderated newsgroups generally fail due to lack of critical mass.

John Fortier wrote:

Having an unmoderated newsgroup for a subject such as

sci.electronics.basics

is, at first glance, a good idea. Anyone can post to the group, ask any
question and get,, hopefully, useful answers.



The lack of critical mass is generally caused by an excess of criticism.

No, its just generated by a lack of subscribers and exacerbated
by the moderator going on vacation or getting sick or getting
editorial.

OTOH, look at the difference between alt.military and
sci.military.moderated. The former is a lightning rod for all
sorts of conspiracy nuts, the latter tends to be a rational
discussion of military technology. The moderator does an
*excellent* job and rarely intervenes, though does post the rules
regularly.

You may want to look at Mark Kinsler's very succesful yahoo
group "howthingswork". It is mildly moderated in the sense
that the postings are not moderated, but if you get too ugly,
Mark boots you out. You can talk basic electronics there if
you want.

I cannot stand web-based groups. I find them too hard to follow.
I like the content of /. but cannot stand following it because of
the browseü
erhead. No, NNTP is where it's at. *I* control
the horizontal, and *I* control the vertical.

You might also examine comp.dcom.telecom which is moderated
and has refused to allow me to post in the past. I don't
know why and I never got an explanation. One day my posts
just would not appear. My attempts to contact the moderator
were unsuccessful.

Who is the moderator? I know John (as opposed to his idiot
brother Jim) Navas wanted to do a moderated comp.dcom.modem
group, though I don't think it ever happened. From the off-line
conversations I had with him, I think he would have handled it
well.

The bottom line is that moderated groups have to be run very well
to work at all. I also believe that the non-moderated group has
to be so out of control that no one will post (no one goes there,
it's too busy ;-) before a moderated group can survive. I simply
don't see this here. Killfiles, perhaps (killfiles can do more
than IDs). Of course there is also the problem of getting a new
group past the "big-eight" rules, and then getting it carried by
a critical mass of servers.

--
Keith

 

[John Fields]

On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 18:01:25 -0700, "Baphomet"
<fandaDEATH2SPAMMERS@catskill.net> wrote:

"John Fortier" <jfortier@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Gixib.29628$Hs.23701@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
Having an unmoderated newsgroup for a subject such as
sci.electronics.basics
is, at first glance, a good idea. Anyone can post to the group, ask any
question and get,, hopefully, useful answers.

But the group is dominated by a few individuals who instantly descend to
personal abuse should anyone disagree with them. This is not what the
group
should be about.

Well, now that we're all in total agreement

---
Whoa, there, big fella!!!

Count me out, as far as that "total agreement" stuff goes.

--
John Fields

 

[John Larkin]

On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 18:04:49 -0500, John Fields
<jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 18:01:25 -0700, "Baphomet"
fandaDEATH2SPAMMERS@catskill.net> wrote:


"John Fortier" <jfortier@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Gixib.29628$Hs.23701@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
Having an unmoderated newsgroup for a subject such as
sci.electronics.basics
is, at first glance, a good idea. Anyone can post to the group, ask any
question and get,, hopefully, useful answers.

But the group is dominated by a few individuals who instantly descend to
personal abuse should anyone disagree with them. This is not what the
group
should be about.

Well, now that we're all in total agreement

---
Whoa, there, big fella!!!

Count me out, as far as that "total agreement" stuff goes.

Me too! I'm in total agreement with John.

John

 

[Baphomet]

"John Fortier" <jfortier@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Gixib.29628$Hs.23701@twister.nyroc.rr.com...

Having an unmoderated newsgroup for a subject such as
sci.electronics.basics
is, at first glance, a good idea. Anyone can post to the group, ask any
question and get,, hopefully, useful answers.

But the group is dominated by a few individuals who instantly descend to
personal abuse should anyone disagree with them. This is not what the
group
should be about.

Well, now that we're all in total agreement

 

[Keith R. Williams]

In article <k2u0pvkkcr0iide0o2he47kkfu0gbjk9ka@4ax.com>,
jjlarkin@highSNIPlandTHIStechPLEASEnology.com says...

On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 18:04:49 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 18:01:25 -0700, "Baphomet"
fandaDEATH2SPAMMERS@catskill.net> wrote:


"John Fortier" <jfortier@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Gixib.29628$Hs.23701@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
Having an unmoderated newsgroup for a subject such as
sci.electronics.basics
is, at first glance, a good idea. Anyone can post to the group, ask any
question and get,, hopefully, useful answers.

But the group is dominated by a few individuals who instantly descend to
personal abuse should anyone disagree with them. This is not what the
group
should be about.

Well, now that we're all in total agreement

---
Whoa, there, big fella!!!

Count me out, as far as that "total agreement" stuff goes.

Me too! I'm in total agreement with John.

Me too! I'm totally with John. er, which one?

--
Keith

 

[John Fortier]

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:bkdqovsndm1h65l5tvcnnrs9ml2e7vbaj6@4ax.com...

On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 02:49:56 GMT, "John Fortier"
jfortier@rochester.rr.com> wrote:


Obviously, no-one will have to use the new group if they choose not to,
and
anyone who wants to indulge himself in a pissing match or to start
threads
which have nothing to do with the purported purpose of the group will
still
be free to do so. Joust not in the moderated group, should it come into
being.

---
"Joust not"? Interesting trypo!
---

Equally obviously, should the level of behaviour within this group and
related groups improve markedly as a result of this thread, there will be
no
need for a moderated group, but ,sadly, I doubt that this will occur.

---
Whether the level of behavior in this group changes or not, I see no
_need_ for your group, only a perceived "oasis" which, if you're in
charge, will always be tranquil and pleasant according to what you
subjectively consider to be the "right" way to behave.
---

Generally, with a few well considered dissentions, such as yours, the
posters to this group have supported the idea of minimal moderation.

---
Hogwash. What you've done is assumed that because you've received a few
approvals that constitutes tacit agreement by the majority of the
population.
---

And I
think the point you may be missing here is that the moderation will be
minimal. You'll be free to post in the new group just as you are here.
Only if the posts are blatantly off topic or abusive will the poster be
warned, privately at first, to desist.

---
Censorship (which is what you're proposing to inflict) always starts off
with just barely minimal intrusion and grows, unless checked, at the
whim of the censor.
---

It will take a considerable amount of talent to actually get banned!

---
No, just continued disagreement with your position.

By the way, John, this thread (which is completely off-topic) was
started by you and really has no place in this forum, so if you believe
in what you preach end it and either get back on topic or ban yourself.

--
John Fields

John,

As with any forum, if you don't agree with the miniimal controls I am
proposing, you don't have to take part. This would be a pity, since, when
you are not involved in a clash of personalities, your advice within the
group is usually relevant and good, and would be a valuable contribution to
the purposes of the group, which is to help beginners in the field of
electronics.

As to whether the thread is of topic, this is a moot point. Granted it is
not directly involved with technical questions of electronics or
telecommunications, but, since the purpose of sci.electronics.basics is to
help newcomers with basic electronics problems, anything which makes it
easier to impart such knowledge can be considered on topic Also, it would
be pretty useless to post such a topic elsewhere

Basically, John, if you don't agree with the idea, don't use it. Stay away.
It's a free internet, nobody's forcing you to join in.

But, if you do join in, and wish to continue to join in, all you need do is
abide by some pretty simple, non restrictive rules. If that is too much for
you, perhaps you would be happier elsewhere.

John