Deutsch English Français Italiano |
<vquk0f$38g19$1@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!panix!.POSTED.panix6.panix.com!nan.users.panix.com!robomod!not-for-mail From: D Finnigan <dog_cow@macgui.com> Newsgroups: news.groups.proposals Subject: Re: 3rd RfD: Mass-deletion of moderated groups without a moderator Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2025 09:42:20 EDT Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Approved: NGP Approval Key <ngp-approval-key@ngp.big-8.org> Message-ID: <vquk0f$38g19$1@dont-email.me> References: <vqq7tf$ehn$1@reader1.panix.com> <vqtir0$2ukis$1@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Info: reader1.panix.com; posting-host="panix6.panix.com:166.84.1.6"; logging-data="9026"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@panix.com" Cancel-Lock: sha1:S3pgsO6wR1TgUBEb7Gtt1ZM0ShM= X-NGP-Policy: http://www.big-8.org/~ngp X-NGP-Info-1: Send submissions to ngp@nan.users.panix.com X-NGP-Info-2: Send technical/policy queries to ngp-admin@nan.users.panix.com X-Comment: Moderators do not necessarily agree or disagree with this article. X-Robomod: STUMP <https://savannah.gnu.org/projects/stump> X-Spam-Relay-Country: FR FI DE X-Spam-DCC: www.nova53.net: mailcrunch1.panix.com 1206; Body=1 Fuz1=1 Fuz2=1 Authentication-Results: mail2.panix.com; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=macgui.com Authentication-Results: mail2.panix.com; spf=fail smtp.mailfrom=eternal-september.org Authentication-Results: name/1DC47622AB; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=macgui.com X-Original-Injection-Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2025 13:45:04 +0100 (CET) Content-Language: en-US X-Auth-Sender: U2FsdGVkX1+Xytzjhz9OvJ1IRoNX/NK9DsxQyFLTj4Y= X-Auth: PGPMoose V2.0 PGP news.groups.proposals iEYEARECAAYFAmfS4LwACgkQrPkQbuk9hds1NACffQYWW8dw7cSsNcCHMOM3kIBd SXgAoMGe5XQnvyz0RP61hVt4pYDrzneR =rlFE Bytes: 3459 Lines: 29 On 3/12/25 10:19 PM, Rayner Lucas wrote: > > For groups in the latter category, I'm considering setting up some kind of > robo-moderation service for them. This would have a couple of benefits: > it would give time to try converting a group to unmoderated as a test > case, and would also permit seeing whether anyone is still attempting > to post to the groups. It could therefore serve as a temporary measure > if it's unclear what the best course of action would be. > > A robo-moderation system could also be a starting point for a more > general moderation platform. Currently, a serious problem is that > prospective moderators can't simply start moderating a group: they need > to set up email addresses, install and configure software (most of which > is outdated and awkward to set up), and get their Usenet provider to > allow them to post approved messages (which not all providers will be > willing to do). If we're going to have a mass deletion of groups without > moderators, I think we also ought to make sure that moderating a group > is not an unreasonably difficult thing to start doing. > > Thoughts? I agree that robo-moderation for certain groups, on a test basis, is a good idea. The robo-moderator could be configured with some basic checks against flooding. Otherwise, it seems to me that the risk is a small one, as whoever controls the robo-moderator can disable it or modify it if needed. We could let the robo-moderator run for 6 months or a year and see what, if any, new articles come in.