In MsgID on Sat, 08 Aug 2009 20:36:25
+0100, in uk.net.news.config, 'Peter J Ross' wrote:

>
>I don't dispute that moderated groups can be successful, and I have no
>doubt that URCM will be a success if it's created. It's the very fact
>that such groups are likely to succeed that makes me wary of them. The
>unmoderated alternative groups don't benefit when a successful
>moderated alternative is created, and I believe unmoderated groups to
>be the very soul of Usenet, and also Usenet's biggest long-term
>selling point.

I'm agreed with you there, though I do see a use for moderation once in a
while. The thing that saves us from a plague of moderated groups (apart
from the fact that most contributors probably agree about the benefit of
spontaneneity and the fact that moderation *can* strangle it) is the way
it requires the constant attention of several subscribers to do the job. I
imagine most such control freaks are going to prefer to set up an entire
little world in which to play god, in the form of a web forum.

The other thing to note is the way that the mere presence of a parallel
moderated group can be enough to either a) 'rescue' a group from the more
brain-dead varieties of troll, because their audience is no longer
captive, or b) push the more intelligent troll subset into evolving in a
positive direction. 

IOW a moderated alternative is sometimes no more than a temporary curative
strategy.

Dave J.