Volunteers needed for SMM moderation team

[Mark Borgerson]

The soc.men.moderated moderation team will be losing two
members on or about April first (No fooling!). I'm not particularly
thrilled at the idea of, once again, being the sole active moderator
for the group. Therefore, I would like to recruit one or more
new moderators to share the moderation duties.

If you would like to volunteer to act as a moderator, you may
contact me by email or by posting to the group.

Mark Borgerson
Moderator, soc.men.moderated

[Rob]

Post by Mark Borgerson
The soc.men.moderated moderation team will be losing two
members on or about April first (No fooling!). I'm not particularly
thrilled at the idea of, once again, being the sole active moderator
for the group. Therefore, I would like to recruit one or more
new moderators to share the moderation duties.
If you would like to volunteer to act as a moderator, you may
contact me by email or by posting to the group.

<sacrilegious mode>
How important do you think manual moderation is, Mark, compared to the
downsides of speed and complexity?

Do the mods reject lots of posts, or does the auto restriction on
cross-posting act as a decent noise control?

Is there any opportunity to trial another way?
</sacrilegious mode>





___________________________________________________________
All New Yahoo! Mail – Tired of ***@gr@! come-ons? Let our SpamGuard protect you. http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html

[Mark Borgerson]

In article <robomod-soc.men.moderated-20070320193515

Post by Rob

Post by Mark Borgerson
The soc.men.moderated moderation team will be losing two
members on or about April first (No fooling!). I'm not particularly
thrilled at the idea of, once again, being the sole active moderator
for the group. Therefore, I would like to recruit one or more
new moderators to share the moderation duties.
If you would like to volunteer to act as a moderator, you may
contact me by email or by posting to the group.

<sacrilegious mode>
How important do you think manual moderation is, Mark, compared to the
downsides of speed and complexity?
Do the mods reject lots of posts, or does the auto restriction on
cross-posting act as a decent noise control?

I think we reject about 5 to 10 per day. They are usually HTML
and/or commercial posting. The spammers have gotten more sophisticated
in their attempts to get their stuff past email filters---to the extent
that they capture and imitate valid subject lines. Those posts
will continue to need a human moderator. The only other duty
requiring human moderation is enforcing the charter limits on
language and ad-hom attacks. Hasn't been much of that recently,
though.

Post by Rob
Is there any opportunity to trial another way?

Do you mean pure robo-moderation? If so, you will need
to convince the moderators that software can enforce the
charter effectively.

Post by Rob
</sacrilegious mode>

Mark Borgerson

[Peter J Ross]

On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 07:10:39 -0800, Mark Borgerson

Post by Mark Borgerson
The soc.men.moderated moderation team will be losing two
members on or about April first (No fooling!). I'm not particularly
thrilled at the idea of, once again, being the sole active moderator
for the group. Therefore, I would like to recruit one or more
new moderators to share the moderation duties.
If you would like to volunteer to act as a moderator, you may
contact me by email or by posting to the group.
Mark Borgerson
Moderator, soc.men.moderated

Am I right in thinking that new moderators have to be approved by a
majority of existing moderators?

[John D.Wentzky]

Post by Peter J Ross
On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 07:10:39 -0800, Mark Borgerson

Post by Mark Borgerson
The soc.men.moderated moderation team will be losing two
members on or about April first (No fooling!). I'm not particularly
thrilled at the idea of, once again, being the sole active moderator
for the group. Therefore, I would like to recruit one or more
new moderators to share the moderation duties.
If you would like to volunteer to act as a moderator, you may
contact me by email or by posting to the group.
Mark Borgerson
Moderator, soc.men.moderated

Am I right in thinking that new moderators have to be approved by a
majority of existing moderators?

LOL!
That's a good one.
Do the new moderators have to meet their standards of political
incorrectness?
LOL!

[John D.Wentzky]

Post by Peter J Ross
On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 07:10:39 -0800, Mark Borgerson

Post by Mark Borgerson
The soc.men.moderated moderation team will be losing two
members on or about April first (No fooling!). I'm not particularly
thrilled at the idea of, once again, being the sole active moderator
for the group. Therefore, I would like to recruit one or more
new moderators to share the moderation duties.
If you would like to volunteer to act as a moderator, you may
contact me by email or by posting to the group.
Mark Borgerson
Moderator, soc.men.moderated

Am I right in thinking that new moderators have to be approved by a
majority of existing moderators?

Amy Vanderbilt's they aren't, huh?
Gay and abortionistic fools trying to protect themselves and their 'loved'
ones.
LOL!
A real joke.

[Mark Borgerson]

In article <***@pjr.gotdns.org>, ***@example.invalid
says...

Post by Peter J Ross
On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 07:10:39 -0800, Mark Borgerson

Post by Mark Borgerson
The soc.men.moderated moderation team will be losing two
members on or about April first (No fooling!). I'm not particularly
thrilled at the idea of, once again, being the sole active moderator
for the group. Therefore, I would like to recruit one or more
new moderators to share the moderation duties.
If you would like to volunteer to act as a moderator, you may
contact me by email or by posting to the group.
Mark Borgerson
Moderator, soc.men.moderated

Am I right in thinking that new moderators have to be approved by a
majority of existing moderators?

Yes. Sometime in April, that may mean that a single vote.

Mark Borgerson

[Peter J Ross]

On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 07:55:03 -0800, Mark Borgerson

Post by Mark Borgerson
says...
Yes. Sometime in April, that may mean that a single vote.

Unless your circumstances have changed, it isn't practicable for you
to be sole moderator. You're too busy.

I hoped, when the group was created, that future replacement
moderators could be chosen from among a large number of new regulars,
but the group hasn't attracted enough new posters to make that
possible. Oh well. It's been fun. So long and thanks for all the fish.

[Viking]

Post by Peter J Ross
I hoped, when the group was created, that future replacement
moderators could be chosen from among a large number of new regulars,
but the group hasn't attracted enough new posters to make that
possible. Oh well. It's been fun. So long and thanks for all the fish.

Largely because the perception of the original moderators was so bad.
Almost no regular soc.men posters wanted to come here. In time that
might change.

[Ben]

Post by Viking

Post by Peter J Ross
I hoped, when the group was created, that future replacement
moderators could be chosen from among a large number of new regulars,
but the group hasn't attracted enough new posters to make that
possible. Oh well. It's been fun. So long and thanks for all the fish.

Largely because the perception of the original moderators was so bad.
Almost no regular soc.men posters wanted to come here. In time that
might change.

I think you're right, that well did indeed get poisoned early on. As
of right now, I don't see sm regs posting here habitually (I plead
guilty to not posting here on a regular basis, but I visit and read
every day).

I asked the question here once if the low amount of traffic was a
potential result of the conversations not being heated or, if due to
moderation, they ended up being between people who essentially
agreed. I later saw some pretty good conversations going on here. As
much as Peter Ross has banged a trash can lid next to my ear on
occasion (very rarely, and not in quite some time), or creates some
posts elsewhere out of the sheer joy of raising hell, when he decides
to enter into a serious discussion, he does so, well, seriously.

I think that's the ultimate value of smm, and it's going to be a while
before it finds its' voice. Comparing it to sm is probably not of any
value at this point, if for no other reason than so much signal in sm
is actually noise.

[Mark Borgerson]

Post by Ben

Post by Viking

Post by Peter J Ross
I hoped, when the group was created, that future replacement
moderators could be chosen from among a large number of new regulars,
but the group hasn't attracted enough new posters to make that
possible. Oh well. It's been fun. So long and thanks for all the fish.

Largely because the perception of the original moderators was so bad.
Almost no regular soc.men posters wanted to come here. In time that
might change.

I think you're right, that well did indeed get poisoned early on. As
of right now, I don't see sm regs posting here habitually (I plead
guilty to not posting here on a regular basis, but I visit and read
every day).

It wasn't just an issue of bad perceptions--particularly of myself
and/or PJR, it was an issue of lack of performance by the moderators
who had a generally good reputation on sm: GA and Mark S. Had they
stuck around, they could have overridden any objections or rejections
on my part.

Post by Ben
I asked the question here once if the low amount of traffic was a
potential result of the conversations not being heated or, if due to
moderation, they ended up being between people who essentially
agreed. I later saw some pretty good conversations going on here. As
much as Peter Ross has banged a trash can lid next to my ear on
occasion (very rarely, and not in quite some time), or creates some
posts elsewhere out of the sheer joy of raising hell, when he decides
to enter into a serious discussion, he does so, well, seriously.
I think that's the ultimate value of smm, and it's going to be a while
before it finds its' voice. Comparing it to sm is probably not of any
value at this point, if for no other reason than so much signal in sm
is actually noise.

I decided last December, that I would hang in here until the first
anniversary of smm. While activity is low, there are other moderated
groups that only have 40 to 50 posts per week. As it is now, I often
read as many posts here as I do in soc.men. When you eliminate all the
nonsense posts and those yelling at or about feminism, there just
isn't much left.


Mark Borgerson

[Jayne Kulikauskas]

On 23 Mar 2007 07:49:30 -0700, Ben wrote:

[...]

Post by Ben
I think that's the ultimate value of smm, and it's going to be a while
before it finds its' voice. Comparing it to sm is probably not of any
value at this point, if for no other reason than so much signal in sm
is actually noise.

I think you are right. Unless we find some moderators, however, it may not
have an opportunity to "find its voice". It was kind of Kathy and Steve to
offer to act as temporary moderators to help the group get started, but it
really isn't fair to impose on them further.

[Viking]

On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 17:05:18 -0500, Jayne Kulikauskas

Post by Jayne Kulikauskas
[...]

Post by Ben
I think that's the ultimate value of smm, and it's going to be a while
before it finds its' voice. Comparing it to sm is probably not of any
value at this point, if for no other reason than so much signal in sm
is actually noise.

I think you are right. Unless we find some moderators, however, it may not
have an opportunity to "find its voice". It was kind of Kathy and Steve to
offer to act as temporary moderators to help the group get started, but it
really isn't fair to impose on them further.

Jayne: I would volunteer, but I don't have the time. Wish I did!

[Peter J Ross]

On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 17:05:18 -0500, Jayne Kulikauskas

Post by Jayne Kulikauskas
[...]

Post by Ben
I think that's the ultimate value of smm, and it's going to be a while
before it finds its' voice. Comparing it to sm is probably not of any
value at this point, if for no other reason than so much signal in sm
is actually noise.

I think you are right. Unless we find some moderators, however, it may not
have an opportunity to "find its voice". It was kind of Kathy and Steve to
offer to act as temporary moderators to help the group get started, but it
really isn't fair to impose on them further.

So what do you think should happen next?

You created this newsgroup, so your vision of its future ought to be
taken into account.

[Jayne Kulikauskas]

Post by Viking
On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 17:05:18 -0500, Jayne Kulikauskas

[...]

Post by Viking

Post by Jayne Kulikauskas
I think you are right. Unless we find some moderators, however, it may not
have an opportunity to "find its voice". It was kind of Kathy and Steve to
offer to act as temporary moderators to help the group get started, but it
really isn't fair to impose on them further.

So what do you think should happen next?
You created this newsgroup, so your vision of its future ought to be
taken into account.

It seems likely that news.admin.moderation will be created soon. If it is,
I will describe our situation there and see if I receive any helpful
suggestions aout finding more moderators. I hope Mark will be able to
manage as sole moderator long enough to try this, but I do not see that as
a long-term solution. If we cannot find additional moderators, I think
that he should quit. When I was working on the RFD, some people expressed
interest in creating smm as a robomoderated group primarily to keep out
cross-posting (similar to talk.origins). If there are still people who
want to do this and who are prepared to organize it, I'd like to see them
submit an RFD outlining how they would do it and, if the Board approves,
the new proponents could take over the name space. Otherwise, I think it
should be shut down and/or removed.

[Peter J Ross]

On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 20:10:49 -0500, Jayne Kulikauskas

Post by Jayne Kulikauskas

Post by Viking
On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 17:05:18 -0500, Jayne Kulikauskas

[...]

Post by Viking

Post by Jayne Kulikauskas
I think you are right. Unless we find some moderators, however, it may not
have an opportunity to "find its voice". It was kind of Kathy and Steve to
offer to act as temporary moderators to help the group get started, but it
really isn't fair to impose on them further.

So what do you think should happen next?
You created this newsgroup, so your vision of its future ought to be
taken into account.

It seems likely that news.admin.moderation will be created soon.

Very likely indeed.

Post by Jayne Kulikauskas
If it is,
I will describe our situation there and see if I receive any helpful
suggestions aout finding more moderators.

I expect I'll subscribe and follow any such discussion. It's certainly
a good idea for a newsgroup, and some of the charter is quite nicely
phrased. ;-)

Post by Jayne Kulikauskas
I hope Mark will be able to
manage as sole moderator long enough to try this, but I do not see that as
a long-term solution.

Moderating SMM single-handed isn't likely to be much fun, I assure
you.

Post by Jayne Kulikauskas
If we cannot find additional moderators, I think
that he should quit.

Perhaps the group could be put to sleep for a while and be revived
when enough moderators are available.

Post by Jayne Kulikauskas
When I was working on the RFD, some people expressed
interest in creating smm as a robomoderated group primarily to keep out
cross-posting (similar to talk.origins). If there are still people who
want to do this and who are prepared to organize it, I'd like to see them
submit an RFD outlining how they would do it and, if the Board approves,
the new proponents could take over the name space.

I think that eliminating crossposts but accepting everything else
would result in a smaller version of soc.men with similar flame wars.
I don't really see the point in that.

talk.origins doesn't contain a huge amount of rational discussion,
does it?

Post by Jayne Kulikauskas
Otherwise, I think it should be shut down and/or removed.

Removing it would be messy, given the lack of certainty about the
efficacy of rmgroups.

Closing down with the prospect of reopening under new management at
some future date might be the best option.

[John D.Wentzky]

Post by Mark Borgerson
The soc.men.moderated moderation team will be losing two
members on or about April first (No fooling!).

The two who got their feathers ruffled?
Or, did they go into prono and make some big cash?
LOL!
Wanting soemone else to fill their shoes now?

Post by Mark Borgerson
I'm not particularly thrilled at the idea of, once again, being the sole
active moderator
for the group.

So, let it be unmoderated then, and stop thinking you are supposed to
practice censorship in a free speech medium.

Post by Mark Borgerson
Therefore, I would like to recruit one or more
new moderators to share the moderation duties.

Why?

Post by Mark Borgerson
If you would like to volunteer to act as a moderator, you may
contact me by email or by posting to the group.

Nah. Free Speech is the law in the USA.

[Mark Borgerson]

Post by John D.Wentzky

Post by Mark Borgerson
The soc.men.moderated moderation team will be losing two
members on or about April first (No fooling!).

The two who got their feathers ruffled?
Or, did they go into prono and make some big cash?
LOL!
Wanting soemone else to fill their shoes now?

Post by Mark Borgerson
I'm not particularly thrilled at the idea of, once again, being the sole
active moderator
for the group.

So, let it be unmoderated then, and stop thinking you are supposed to
practice censorship in a free speech medium.

Post by Mark Borgerson
Therefore, I would like to recruit one or more
new moderators to share the moderation duties.

Why?

Because I was out of town on business or vacation for about 12 weeks
last year, and it helps to have someone else to moderate when my
net access is limited.

Post by John D.Wentzky

Post by Mark Borgerson
If you would like to volunteer to act as a moderator, you may
contact me by email or by posting to the group.

Nah. Free Speech is the law in the USA.

LOL, if you really believe that, try sending a threatening letter
to Mr. Bush.

soc.men is open to you if you think free speech is such an important
issue.

Mark Borgerson

[John D.Wentzky]

Post by Mark Borgerson

Post by John D.Wentzky

Post by Mark Borgerson
The soc.men.moderated moderation team will be losing two
members on or about April first (No fooling!).

The two who got their feathers ruffled?
Or, did they go into prono and make some big cash?
LOL!
Wanting soemone else to fill their shoes now?

Post by Mark Borgerson
I'm not particularly thrilled at the idea of, once again, being the sole
active moderator
for the group.

So, let it be unmoderated then, and stop thinking you are supposed to
practice censorship in a free speech medium.

Post by Mark Borgerson
Therefore, I would like to recruit one or more
new moderators to share the moderation duties.

Why?

Because I was out of town on business or vacation for about 12 weeks
last year, and it helps to have someone else to moderate when my
net access is limited.

True.
You could test it in unmoderated mode if you want to run that 'trial
ballon'.

Post by Mark Borgerson

Post by John D.Wentzky

Post by Mark Borgerson
If you would like to volunteer to act as a moderator, you may
contact me by email or by posting to the group.

Nah. Free Speech is the law in the USA.

LOL, if you really believe that, try sending a threatening letter
to Mr. Bush.

Not my idea of a prudent thing to do.

Post by Mark Borgerson
soc.men is open to you if you think free speech is such an important
issue.

Thank you.

Post by Mark Borgerson
Mark Borgerson

[Brian Mailman]

...> So, let it be unmoderated then,

Then it would be "removed" because there already is an unmoderated group.

B/

[John D.Wentzky]

Post by Brian Mailman

...> So, let it be unmoderated then,

Then it would be "removed" because there already is an unmoderated group.
B/

I guess you are in some network operations thing somehow.
Bandwidth concerns and such?
I imagine if it had to be removed that the unmoderated groups would suffice.
Maybe I would volunteer, but the same issues remain where I could not
disallow a person to exercise their free speech rights, unless they were not
entitled to them.
It would be easy to exclude non-USA persons from posting privileges.
Non-US persons have no real free speech rights on U.S. webspace.

[Brian Mailman]

Post by John D.Wentzky

Post by Brian Mailman

...> So, let it be unmoderated then,

Then it would be "removed" because there already is an unmoderated group.

I guess you are in some network operations thing somehow.

No.

You seem to miss the point. If smm was "unmoderated" it would be
redundant of sm, an unmoderated group on the same topic.

B/

[Graham Drabble]

Post by John D.Wentzky
Non-US persons have no real free speech rights on U.S. webspace.

This newsgroup has nothing to do with US webspace. For a start Usenet
is a completely seperate entity from the web, it is merely gated to
some web sites and secondly the moderation (the only part which is
centralised) is hosted in the UK.

I think some of the moderators are in the US (though haven't asked)
however I'm a UK citizen living in the UK. Some of the modbot is hosted
on my personal PC other parts on my web provider's server. Within 6
months it will all be hosted locally.