"Steve" ) writes:
On Mar 24, 11:18 am, Larry Dighera wrote:
"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.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Good points all.

One arrangement I'd consider is where the group is allowed to go on as
it always has, only where someone is available who can delete obvious
and persistent attempts at trolling. If this group ever has a
moderator, I'd like it to be a manageable job for him and not
something that'll have him tearing his hair out.

And you can't retroactively cancel messages, not to any level of having
it work.

There is no central storage of messages. They are accumulated at your
ISP or wherever your newsserver is, and then passed on to the next newsserver,
where they take in new messages and pass on their new messages along with
your new messages, and so it goes. That's the way it's worked since 1979 when
Usenet was created.

A lot of sites will no longer accept cancel messages. At the very least, it
takes time for those cancel messages to propagate through the system, so
many will see the off-topic messages before the cancel would arrive (and
cancel it if the cancel works). So those people reply, even if the
original might disappear.

The fact that google archives the messages is irrelevant to this discussion.
They are just yet another news site, that happens to have a permanent
retention of the messages. But google is not Usenet.

Michael