Discussions re: r.a (if not interested, don't read)

Discussions re: r.a (if not interested, don't read)

Post by Linda Zi » Sun, 24 Mar 1996 04:00:00



I'm going to stick my neck out here a little and present my
perceptions about what's happened to the discussions about
moderation, renaming, etc.

About 2 months ago, a discussion ensued about the possibility
of making rec.antiques a moderated newsgroup. Some people
expressed displeasure over FS/WTB ads showing up here and
raised the moderation suggestion again. The discussion
was moving along quite well....no blatant flames and
people were stating their positions in a civil manner.

I raised some questions regarding whether less drastic
measures could be taken rather than making this a moderated
group. I received two e-mails--one civil, one snotty,
essentially saying, "Take this discussion to news.groups.
It doesn't belong here."

In an attempt to play by the rules, I did so. Then I got
several e-mails saying the post never reached their sites
and expressing interest in discussing matters that ultimately
will affect everyone who reads/posts to this group. To make
a long story short, the discussion died out [read "came to
a screeching halt"].

Sidebar: I found it fascinating that as long as the
discussion leaned in favor of moderation, no one objected to
its being held on r.a. Once some caution was urged in
making such a drastic move, suddenly this became an
unacceptable place for the discussion. Interesting.
Maybe that's just a coincidence. :-)

I'm not posting my current comments in an attempt to revive the
discussions. My purpose is to suggest to those who would like to
make changes to this newsgroup: Before a formal RFD suddenly
springs to life, there really should be an informal discussion
*somewhere* so that people who contribute to and enjoy this
group can have their say. I'm not talking about a handful
of people with an agenda. I'm talking about everyone who
has an opinion (and a stake in the future of r.a) and wishes
to voice that opinion before being asked to vote.

When this discussion was under way before, it was also suggested
to me that e-mail is a better place to discuss issues such as
moderation and renaming. I say no. In order for everyone to
have the *same* information and to keep the discussion on
the facts and civilized, I believe it must be carried on
publicly...above board and not influenced by a lot of
private campaigning, schmoozing, and subtle bullying.

I've posted this so that those who wrote asking me "Where's
the r.a discussion on new.groups?" will know that I tried
to get it going there twice and failed. But if it ever resumes
again, I encourage you to jump in and say your piece at
the informal discussion stage, or you might find yourself
looking at an RFD, or subesequently a CFV, that in no
way represents your views or those of the majority
of r.a readers.

Back to our regularly scheduled program.

Linda Zinn

 
 
 

Discussions re: r.a (if not interested, don't read)

Post by Nora Sir » Tue, 26 Mar 1996 04:00:00



Quote:
(Linda Zinn) writes:

>I'm going to stick my neck out here a little and present my
>perceptions about what's happened to the discussions about
>moderation, renaming, etc.

<big snip>

Quote:
>I'm not posting my current comments in an attempt to revive the
>discussions. My purpose is to suggest to those who would like to
>make changes to this newsgroup: Before a formal RFD suddenly
>springs to life, there really should be an informal discussion
>*somewhere* so that people who contribute to and enjoy this
>group can have their say. I'm not talking about a handful
>of people with an agenda. I'm talking about everyone who
>has an opinion (and a stake in the future of r.a) and wishes
>to voice that opinion before being asked to vote.

>When this discussion was under way before, it was also suggested
>to me that e-mail is a better place to discuss issues such as
>moderation and renaming. I say no. In order for everyone to
>have the *same* information and to keep the discussion on
>the facts and civilized, I believe it must be carried on
>publicly...above board and not influenced by a lot of
>private campaigning, schmoozing, and subtle bullying.

>I've posted this so that those who wrote asking me "Where's
>the r.a discussion on new.groups?" will know that I tried
>to get it going there twice and failed. But if it ever resumes
>again, I encourage you to jump in and say your piece at
>the informal discussion stage, or you might find yourself
>looking at an RFD, or subesequently a CFV, that in no
>way represents your views or those of the majority
>of r.a readers.

>Back to our regularly scheduled program.

>Linda Zinn


Brava, Linda,

Brilliantly put and I concur with everything you've said.  Thank you
for saying it.

Nora