I hereby volunteer.

"Mike Terry" wrote in message
...

"JeroenK" wrote in message
...
HFguy schreef:

What would it take to add a moderator to this group?

I have no idea, but this NG being moderated would be something I would
defenitally vote for.

--
JeroenK

Hi - I agree, it would be wonderful if someone volunteered to be
moderator.

"Paul Zak" wrote in message
...
I hereby volunteer.


Fantastic, thanks Paul.

On 24 Mar 2007 05:26:13 -0700, "Steve" wrote
in om:

Sooner or later they'll grow tired.

That time will arrive when their provocative contributions to this
newsgroup fail to elicit responses. As long as readers are unable to
resist contributing their comments to the message thread, thus
sustaining its life, the troll will feel that his efforts are being
rewarded.

Traditionally, the means of dealing with Usenet content a reader would
prefer not to see is through the mechanism of configuring his news
reader client software, so that the messages headers containing
certain key words, or those posted by specific authors are blocked
locally from being displayed. Once undesirable message topics and/or
authors have been kill-filed, the reader suddenly sees a newsgroup
devoid of undesirable content, and the response rate to the troll's
articles begins to drop. When the troll finds his best efforts at
disruption unrewarding, the door is open for him to move along to
exercise his anti-social bent in newsgroups that haven't yet wised-up
to his trolling.

So if you truly want to see the newsgroup devoid of certain content
you find less than desirable, write some rules for your news reader's
kill file. In the end, improving the newsgroup's signal-to-noise
ratio is not about moderating the newsgroup; it's about you personally
taking responsibility for the newsgroup content you see.

"Mike Terry" wrote in message
...

"JeroenK" wrote in message
...
HFguy schreef:

What would it take to add a moderator to this group?

I have no idea, but this NG being moderated would be something I would
defenitally vote for.

--
JeroenK

Hi - I agree, it would be wonderful if someone volunteered to be
moderator.




On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 08:47:40 -0400, "Paul Zak"
wrote in
:

I hereby volunteer.


Read the FAQ on how moderation works.
http://www.big-8.org/dokuwiki/doku.p...aqs:moderation

Then decide if you truly desire to faithfully approve or reject ALL
the hundreds of articles posted daily to rec.radio.shortwave. If a
moderator is appointed by the newsgroup readership, the readership
will be entirely dependent upon the moderator for ALL content that
appears in that newsgroup. So a moderator of a busy newsgroup like
this must be willing to devote the requisite effort of moderation
several times daily for as long as the newsgroup exists.

Personally, I'd prefer to take personal responsibility for what
newsgroup content I see, rather that have another censor my news, for
it is the unique egalitarian nature of Usenet that is its strength.

I hereby volunteer.

"Then decide if you truly desire to faithfully approve or reject ALL the
hundreds of articles posted daily to rec.radio.shortwave."

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...

"Mike Terry" wrote in message
...

"JeroenK" wrote in message
...
HFguy schreef:

What would it take to add a moderator to this group?

I have no idea, but this NG being moderated would be something I
would
defenitally vote for.

--
JeroenK

Hi - I agree, it would be wonderful if someone volunteered to be
moderator.




On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 08:47:40 -0400, "Paul Zak"
wrote in
:

I hereby volunteer.


Read the FAQ on how moderation works.
http://www.big-8.org/dokuwiki/doku.p...aqs:moderation

Then decide if you truly desire to faithfully approve or reject ALL
the hundreds of articles posted daily to rec.radio.shortwave. If a
moderator is appointed by the newsgroup readership, the readership
will be entirely dependent upon the moderator for ALL content that
appears in that newsgroup. So a moderator of a busy newsgroup like
this must be willing to devote the requisite effort of moderation
several times daily for as long as the newsgroup exists.

Personally, I'd prefer to take personal responsibility for what
newsgroup content I see, rather that have another censor my news, for
it is the unique egalitarian nature of Usenet that is its strength.

Killfiles are good & all, but the annoying off-topic posters simply open up
new accounts & continue their annoying posts, which is why a moderated NG
would work best.

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
On 24 Mar 2007 05:26:13 -0700, "Steve" wrote
in om:

Sooner or later they'll grow tired.

That time will arrive when their provocative contributions to this
newsgroup fail to elicit responses. As long as readers are unable to
resist contributing their comments to the message thread, thus
sustaining its life, the troll will feel that his efforts are being
rewarded.

Traditionally, the means of dealing with Usenet content a reader would
prefer not to see is through the mechanism of configuring his news
reader client software, so that the messages headers containing
certain key words, or those posted by specific authors are blocked
locally from being displayed. Once undesirable message topics and/or
authors have been kill-filed, the reader suddenly sees a newsgroup
devoid of undesirable content, and the response rate to the troll's
articles begins to drop. When the troll finds his best efforts at
disruption unrewarding, the door is open for him to move along to
exercise his anti-social bent in newsgroups that haven't yet wised-up
to his trolling.

So if you truly want to see the newsgroup devoid of certain content
you find less than desirable, write some rules for your news reader's
kill file. In the end, improving the newsgroup's signal-to-noise
ratio is not about moderating the newsgroup; it's about you personally
taking responsibility for the newsgroup content you see.

In article vE4Nh.990$5E3.429@trndny01, HFguy wrote:
Michael Black wrote:

"Paul Zak" ) writes:

Looks like it's a HUGE P.I.T.A. to start up a UseNet NG, so I am considering
starting up a Yahoo moderated SWL NG instead. What's the interest level?



Chances are pretty good such a thing already exists. One of the problems
(but not the only one) with Yahoo "groups" or even the google-specific
"groups" is that it's way too easy to create them. SO they get created on
a whim, or for vanity reasons, or whatever, but creating a group doesn't
actually mean anything happens in it. So you just crowd things up with
another "group" that goes nowhere. (Which is why there is a whole process
to create Usenet newsgroups, it's not to keep valid newsgroups from
being created, it's there to make sure there is an actually good reason
to create yet another newsgroup.)

And since it's so easy to create those "groups", what you end up with
is a very balkanized situation. INstead of one hierarchy that is
easy to find and covers various areas, you get all kinds of "groups"
all over the place, where they are less easy to find. And then it
takes away from the existing discussion. It gets worse when the "group"
doesn't even go very far.

Michael

What would it take to add a moderator to this group?

It's not really possible to take an existing group and change its
status to moderated. That's because, to prevent vandalism, most
news servers are configured to not accept automatic configuration.
Getting all the news administrators to manually change a newsgroup's
status at some defined changeover date is pretty much impossible.

Mark Zenier
Googleproofaddress(account:mzenier provider:eskimo domain:com)

In article ,
Larry Dighera wrote:
....
Personally, I'd prefer to take personal responsibility for what
newsgroup content I see, rather that have another censor my news, for
it is the unique egalitarian nature of Usenet that is its strength.

This newsgroup is one the most easily provoked groups I read. If the
normal participants would just take into account that there's a small
group of asocial fools (or unbounded egotists) out there who are
deliberately trying to destroy its usefulness, we'd be a lot better off.

Ignore the bait.

Mark Zenier
Googleproofaddress(account:mzenier provider:eskimo domain:com)

In article ,
Paul Zak wrote:
To answer the question "why is it such a PITA": From
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/crea...sgroups/part1/

How to Create a New Usenet Newsgroup
Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2000 16:25:28 GMT

This is ancient history. Go read the current FAQ in news.announce.newgroup.

They just created a moderated ham radio group because of some of the
same people who infest this group, so you could use that as an example
of how it's done now.


Mark Zenier
Googleproofaddress(account:mzenier provider:eskimo domain:com)

On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 18:29:08 GMT, (Mark Zenier)
wrote in :

Ignore the bait.

Well put.