I'm a newsgroup user since the days of dialing-in via 14.4 modems,
so I'm a little experienced in this area.
I started as a participant and later a sysop on a 1200 baud modem back
in the mid-80s. (I am a time traveler; I come to you from the past!)
You have asked for some
input so I'd like to share a few thoughts. I frequently visit your
site and never came across anything really annoying.
Me, neither. The vast majority of posts are on topic and the vast majority of posters have been courteous and welcome guests.
The guidelines
and policies in question are more or less what's commonly accepted
on usenet. Of course re-thinking can't do any harm but I don't feel
like this forum needs anything more elaborate. On the other hand
you may have good reasons for this.
Up until I started this thread, we were doing OK with no guidelines in writing (at least according to my taste; YMMV). As I started removing posts that I thought crossed the line, I thought it might be good to mark some of the lines that people shouldn't cross a little better than they had been in the past. "Ignorance of the law is no excuse"--if the laws have been published somewhere where the interested parties can find them.
IMHO if you want to enhance quality all together - and what else are
we talking about - there's no way around a moderated forum. Reading
the possible postings in advance is equal in time and effort compared
to reading it later but there is a big difference in rejecting a posting a priori
or to ban someone after the event. I'm aware in the end it's a matter
of taste how to conduct a forum and we could easily discuss the pros
and cons for weeks, but why waiting 'til the damage is done when one
has control? A possible posting to the TIGHAR forum doesn't require
immediate action and there is no need for any realtime performance.
I've been a Usenet moderator since 1998, served on the Board for the
Big-8 since its inception, and acted as co-chair for the Board for a couple of years or so. My experience has been that unmoderated groups are generally more lively than moderated groups, even when the moderation is quite light and eminently reasonable. I prefer the problems of retro-moderation to pre-moderation.
I am only one member of the moderation team. I serve at the discretion of TIGHAR's executive officers, so it's possible that they will want to take your advice.
A 'troll' is merely annoying but I've seen serious but non-moderated
newsgroups going nuts on silly threads beyond belief, which is a real
menace. We are all human and none of us is free from emotions. Many
professional newsgroups are moderated to prevent this and keep it
strictly on-topic. I consider this very adequate.
Understood. We can tighten up if we have to. In my view, we're not there yet.
A moderated forum doesn't necessarily mean preventing discussion
unless the possible posting is completely off-topic. The moderator of
course isn't forced to overact in this regard. Talking to others by means
of a forum can be an interesting thing even on a non-expert level.
Lateral thinking and asking the right questions is quite as important as
giving the right answers. In my experience a moderated forum doesn't
constrict this.
I've helped to set up lots of moderated Usenet groups, so I know how they can bring a great deal of relief from people whose tastes in dialogue run counter to my own. I was opposed to the creation of
news.groups.proposals, but I was wrong. The group has worked as you describe above--posts are pre-moderated and good discussions have taken place. Moderation can definitely work.
Thanks very much for your thoughtful feedback--much appreciated!