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.