Re: I guess it just depends who you are...
On Apr 10, 5:29 pm, "Alf P. Steinbach" <a...@start.no> wrote:
* James Kanze:
On Apr 8, 6:59 pm, "Alf P. Steinbach" <a...@start.no> wrote:
* James Kanze:
I've no problem with
comp.std.c++. To date, at least. And even in
comp.lang.c++.moderated (which is the group I've abandonned),
Well James, you're a moderator of that group you say you've abandonded:
what's wrong?
The general tone of the group has changed. The moderators are
taking too active a role, with too many moderator comments, too
many nit-picking rejections, etc. The moderation has become
perceptible.
Yes, there was a period, a month or two after new moderators were added
aug/sep last year, with too many mod comments and too many rejections.
Actually so far too many mod comments, about things that mod comments
weren't necessary for, that they generated policy debate in the group.
The new moderators had their rough edges polished off ;-), and as a
result we discovered that the written moderation guidelines could do
with an update reflecting actual policy; that's yet to be done.
Regarding mod comments.
I think you have a point regarding how perceptible moderation should be,
but at the same time I don't think moderation should be invisible in the
posted articles. For example, I think it's better to inform up front
that a thread has deviated into complete off-topicality than to just
silently starting rejecting articles in that thread, or let it go on.
I'd let it go on, at least within limits. The goal of
moderation is to prevent completely off topic threads from
starting; I'd be much more liberal with regards to threads which
deviate, although obviously, you do have have to draw the line
somewhere. (I remember once in the days before clc++m, in a
thread with Steve Clamage, we once ended up discussing tempered
scales. Obviously, you don't want a hundred posts on that
subject in a C++ newsgroup, but the two or three posts at the
end of an otherwise relevant thread didn't seem to bother
anyone.)
Another category of mod comments is about why an article is considered
on topic, or what aspect of an article is on topic. For example, buried
in article that at first sight might seem to be about how to use library
Xyz on platform Abc, there might be a general C++ question; it might be
that the article is really about a general C++ question. Then I think a
mod comment is appropriate to make it less likely that the thread goes
on to discuss only how to use library Xyz on platform Abc, or about why
or why not the original article is on-topic or off-topic.
I'm not even too bothered if an occasional thread drifts into
system dependant aspects. Again, as long as that isn't the
original teneur, and that it doesn't drag on.
When we started clc++m, clc++ (this group) had become pretty
unusable, because well over 90% of the posts were very definitly
Windows: how to I display a button, and things like that. 90%
is too much. But an occasional drift isn't the end of the
world, and this (unmoderated) group, today, seems on topic
enough that there's no need for moderation.
I think that's the big thing that's changed. I never liked the
idea of moderation to begin with. It just seemed that there was
no usable alternative. Having glanced at this group again, I
find that it has become quite usable; there are, perhaps, a few
too many questions for which the only real answer is: go read a
good beginners book on the language, but other than that, it
"feels" about right for me.
Most often this has apparently worked, but in a few cases it has not.
When or if it works we don't know that it works, but when it fails, the
nature of off-topicality is that it's something people care about
(otherwise it wouldn't be discussed), and so leads to long threads. As
concrete (in my view) mod comment failure examples, we had a very long
thread about the D language, and one about multi-threading applications.
Well, multi-threading doesn't seem off topic to me. Discussing
the lower level aspects of the system API are, but not to the
point where they bother me. As for the D language, it seems to
be more discussed in the moderated group than here, don't ask me
why.
On the other hand, two kinds of mod comment discussed in the written
moderation guidelines are in my view generally inappropriate (this is
part of why the written guidelines should IMHO be updated). First, the
one where the moderator squelches further discussion by referring to the
FAQ; happily it hasn't been used, at least not that way. Second, the
one where the moderator provides an authoritative, purely factual
reference, thereby also squelching further discussion. This one should
in my view in general not be used, either, but initially the new
moderators used it, and that was a main cause for the debate then. Are
you happy with the resulting effective policy in that regard?
As I said, it's not really a question about policy, per se.
Just how I personally feel.
Except for that two-month (?) period mentioned above with far too many
mod comments, is it fair to say that the disagreement/disappointment is
over how to handle off-topicality and potential very probable
off-topicality, and if so (and if not! :-) ), what do you suggest?
Well, I guess what I'm really suggesting is to drop moderation,
as I don't think it really necessary any more:-).
Regarding rejections.
I'm not sure what you mean by "nit-picking" rejections, but as far as I
can see the contested rejections, so far, fall roughly in two groups:
* Missing context, e.g. no quote or no attribution.
The clc++m moderators have agreed to disagree over this (unwritten)
rejection cause, but still there's room for further disagreement
about agreeing or disagreeing over its concrete applications.
I see no reason to reject for this, and until recently, there
never were any such rejections.
* Personal attacks (ad hominem) by implication.
E.g., hypothetical example, instead of "you're an idiot" writing
"idiots often hold similar points of view", only typically a bit
more subtle -- otherwise there wouldn't be disagreement.
As I see it the first category isn't really a problem, because it's so
easy for the poster to add a quote or attribution or other context and
repost, without changing in any way whatever the article is meant to
express, and thereby improving or keeping the overall quality of the grou=
p.
The second category is in my view more problematic, and I think that's
why we have the policy of when in doubt, accept, except for flames or
flame-bait, where when in doubt, reject.
The word idiot would, IMHO, put it over, in this case; idiot is
an insult, no matter what. On the other hand, I've seen
rejections for use of words that the standard dictionaries don't
consider insulting, and I've seen rejections when only the
argument was being attacted, not the person.
The latter is a very delication situation: I'd reject "that's an
idiotic argument", even though it explicitly attacks the
argument, and not the person, because "idiotic" is an insult,
per se. On the other hand, a lot of uses of "you" are obviously
generic: "if you say X, it implies Y". And what do you say
about things like "A professional programmer will..." (which
obviously implies that if you don't agree, you aren't
professional). There's also a question of personal style; in
one discussion not so long ago between Andrei and myself, I know
that one of the moderators commented to the effect that
normally, that kind of posting was just over the limits, but
since he knew Andrei and I, and knew that we fundamentally have
great respect for one another, and didn't mean it personally, he
accepted it. I know that both Andrei and I can be somewhat
biting at times; I actually enjoy discussing things with him
more because of it. On the other hand, Walter can at times be
condescending: no flame, or anything concrete, but I feel more
insulted by it than by anything Andrei has ever said.
There are no easy, or "correct" answers, and all I can say is
that I don't feel comfortable with the set of current judgement
calls, taken as a whole (even though I could accept any one of
them in isolation). Again, when we created the moderated group,
we'd just come out of a period where there was one poster who
managed to post 10 or 15 posts a day, accusing Stroustrup and
C++ of being in an anti-American conspiracy, and I forget what
all else. Nothing in any of the posts I've seen (including the
rejected ones) come anywhere close to those posts in terms of
flames.
[...]
I don't like it, either, as a matter of principle (except for the
problem of a generally extremely dull and uninteresting world, one would
wish that all people were always rational with the highest ethics and
morals, just perfect beings...).
It's not necessarily dull, if you just let them speak. I
wouldn't call the discussions I've had with Andrei dull and
uninteresting, even though I'm convinced that we're both people
who are always rational with the highest ethics and morals:-).
But I think it's OK as long as there
is a non-moderated well known and useful alternative for the case where
the moderator(s) abuse their position, or where that appears to the
poster to be the case.
I have no problem with the existance of moderated groups, as
long as, as you say, the possibility of unmoderated expression
also exists. In the case of the C++ groups, however, I just
feel more comfortable in the unmoderated groups. (The
moderation of comp.std.c++ doesn't bother me, because the group
is so specialized. At least in theory; when discussion has
gotten a little bit away from purely standardization issues, the
moderation has bothered me there as well.)
--
James Kanze (GABI Software) email:james.kanze@gmail.com
Conseils en informatique orient=E9e objet/
Beratung in objektorientierter Datenverarbeitung
9 place S=E9mard, 78210 St.-Cyr-l'=C9cole, France, +33 (0)1 30 23 00 34