Crusade Newsgroup - Moderated

[B5JMS Poster]

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: natelson at leland.Stanford.EDU (Douglas Natelson)
Date: 24 May 1998 14:55:07 -0600
Lines: 37

Simo Aaltonen <simo.aaltonen at sicom.fi> wrote:
>
>I think it's getting to be about time a rec.arts.sf.tv.crusade.moderated
>newsgroup was formed. Why moderated and why now?
>
[snip!]
>2. This is the perfect and also possibly the best chance yet to start over
>from the beginning, so to speak, and this time, do it right. The Crusade
>group needs to be moderated strictly enough that no flames or trolls even
>get started in the newsgroup. Trolls should simply not be allowed into the
>group.

If you have a fool-proof way, or even a 95% foolproof way, of
discerning between a criticism and a flame or troll, please describe
it.

An example in B5 context:  what if I posted "JMS, I think the
overall quality of Season 5 has suffered substantially because of
a lack of good dialogue editting."  Is that a flame?  What if I said,
"I think JMS suffers from Tom Clancy syndrome sometimes, and the
quality of the show would improve if someone less personally attached
to every word of dialogue were brought in to edit."  Or what if
I said "The ending of the Shadow War sucked!  Why on earth would these
two exceedingly powerful species suddenly start listening to our
opinions and meekly taking our suggestions?  Totally ruined my
suspension of disbelief!"?  Is that a troll?

I'd much rather have active discussion of many points of view, with
all the risks of flaming that entails, than a group so strictly
moderated it becomes a sycophantic no-criticism, no-disagreement-with-
the-moderators zone.

Just my $.02....

DN



=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: jmsatb5 at aol.com (Jms at B5)
Date: 25 May 1998 00:09:41 -0600
Lines: 25

>An example in B5 context:  what if I posted "JMS, I think the
>overall quality of Season 5 has suffered substantially because of
>a lack of good dialogue editting."  Is that a flame?

Nope.

>What if I said,
>"I think JMS suffers from Tom Clancy syndrome sometimes, and the
>quality of the show would improve if someone less personally attached
>to every word of dialogue were brought in to edit."

Annoying, but not a flame.
> Or what if
>I said "The ending of the Shadow War sucked!  Why on earth would these
>two exceedingly powerful species suddenly start listening to our
>opinions and meekly taking our suggestions?  Totally ruined my
>suspension of disbelief!"?  Is that a troll?

Nope.

 jms

(jmsatb5 at aol.com)
B5 Official Fan Club at:
http://www.thestation.com
-***
-*** B5JMS SUBSCRIBERS: Replies to messages go to the list maintainer,
-*** <b5jms-owner at cs.columbia.edu>.  If you want to reply elsewhere, adjust
-*** the "To" field.  See http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~ezk/b5jms/ for all
-*** other information about this list.