Re: Moderate techwr-l?

Subject: Re: Moderate techwr-l?
From: Gail DeCamp <decampg -at- SMTPLINK -dot- NGC -dot- COM>
Date: Fri, 6 Jan 1995 09:54:33 PST

I have to come out against moderating the group. For one thing, it a
tremendous investment of time to do so. For another, I've been on
moderated electronic discussions, and things end up sounding stilted.

Good point. I certainly don't have the time to moderate (although, if we
decide to do it and pass the job around, I could take a turn.)
Alternatively, perhaps we could start a FAQ with an "advertisement
guideline"? I've seen some ads that were highly irritating and others that
I didn't mind.

If we do a FAQ, I'd also like to suggest that we ask people to include
descriptive subject lines (so you know when you look at your mailing list
what you want to read and what you don't.) That won't help the people who
get the list in digest form, but it will help others.

(two good points deleted to save bandwidth)

It just feels to me that bringing on a moderator is admitting that
we're all still at the sand-box level of interaction, and I just don't
things are that bad.

Another good point. I don't necessarily think we need an activist moderator
either, but it would be nice to have someone watching out for the stuff
that's clearly inappropriate (like the "cheap icnese" ad.)

Gail DeCamp
Speaking from, but not for, Network General Corporation



Bonni Graham
Owner, Manual Labour
bonnig -at- ix -dot- netcom -dot- com


Previous by Author: moderate techwr-l?
Next by Author: Re[2]: moderate techwr-l?
Previous by Thread: Re: moderate techwr-l?
Next by Thread: Re[2]: moderate techwr-l?


What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:

Sponsored Ads


Sponsored Ads