Nuxx:6c80abab-d76c-45cf-9a56-d65996e267ef@r3g2000vbp.googlegroups.com

Path: num2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!num1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!number.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!postnews.google.com!r3g2000vbp.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID: <6c80abab-d76c-45cf-9a56-d65996e267ef@r3g2000vbp.googlegroups.com> From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.net.news.config,uk.rec.cycling Subject: Re: create moderated newsgroup uk.rec.cycling.moderated Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 01:00:25 -0700 (PDT) References:   <0tk925tu9futl1k2kcmedg94sdg2iuhlbi@4ax.com>  <874ouz2fho.fsf@toy.config>    <78lk15F14frjkU2@mid.individual.net>  <87oct5zrmo.fsf@toy.config> Lines: 40 Organization: http://groups.google.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 81.156.251.27 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1244016025 18489 127.0.0.1 (3 Jun 2009 08:00:25 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 08:00:25 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: r3g2000vbp.googlegroups.com; posting-host=81.156.251.27; posting-account=7_6kYAkAAABD6HrjM0VxehwvZOKMxm4g User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-GB; rv:1.9.0.10) Gecko/2009042316 Firefox/3.0.10 (.NET CLR 3.5.30729),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) Bytes: 3608 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.net.news.config:52662 uk.rec.cycling:4595

On Jun 3, 8:46=A0am, Daniel Barlow  wrote: > a...@chiark.greenend.org.uk (Alan Braggins) writes: > > I think an ignorant newcomer who asks a question which has been answere= d > > before should be treated with some favour compared to someone asking th= e > > same question again and again and again and again and again, rather tha= n > > rejected immediately. > > Does "treated with some favour" mean "have their post approved", or > "have it rejected more gently"? =A0If we assume the existence of an FAQ > list (yes, I know this is not currently the case) then I for one would > see nothing wrong with rejecting posts from newbies with something akin > to "In regard to your submission to u.r.c.m, please find attached a copy > of the group FAQ: we would like to draw your attention to question 23 > which we think covers the points you are trying to make. =A0Your > submission has not been posted on this occasion, but your future > contributions to the group remain welcome"

They wouldn't *feel* very welcome. "Here's a group with a lot of posts, and no-one can spend a minute or two explaining it to me in person?"

> Creation of a suitable FAQ is a whole other job, of course. =A0The last > attempt bogged down quite quickly on the Helmet question

Any FAQ would be horribly biased, and you know it. *No way* would any question on speed cameras not be biased towards "They work", despite that not being the case.

> > It does empower sock-puppets a bit, but I don't think we should assume > > that every ignorant seeming newcomer is a sock-puppet just because a > > favorite tactic of trolls is to pose as ignorant newcomers. > > Absolutely agree. =A0But I don't think it necessarily follows that the > article has to get posted anyway: hopefully a good-faith newbie will not > go off in a huff if rebuffed gently.

Incorrect, I think, on the main part.