New moderation -- options?

While sci.space.?? is getting some particular attention, I wonder if two
news newsgroups might fit in to it:

sci.space.boosters -- Re the science, technology, and development of
those big machines for lifting off the pad. And reminiscing maybe,
about when we had some *real* ones out there. Namely, the Saturn V.
And, how good is this roman-candle thing, the Ares candlestick, for
sending people out to space?

sci.space.settlements -- Re human settlements off-Terra. Like bare
ground vs ground with a house on it, space will look very different when
people live there. I'd like to see discussion focussed on how to make
that happen. For instance, start with *how many* settlements? I think
the practical minimum might be three, it's certainly not one.

sci.space.money -- Re space and *investment*. Nowadays I just don't
think space settlement can come out of Washington. That's not what they
do down there. People, and business, will have to do it. And where the
rubber hits the road is: money. Investment. Whoever looks at today's
extremely-rich people vs costs to settle space (see Zubrin, The Case For
Mars) can estimate pretty good that there is enough money around to do
it. But that hasn't happened (yet). Why not? ?? So how can it be
made to happen?

sci.space.spacesuits -- Oops, another suggestion. I see lots of talk
around about space, but if anybody actually goes there for permanent
residence and work there, then we'll need spacesuits like here on Terra,
you have denim pants. As ubiquitous as that. We're not there, and I
think the topic is meaningful in its own right. How can spacesuits be
usable, simple, and easy to make?

Well, that's, uh, five. Maybe my primitive mind cannot count beyond 1,
2, many. But I think these could be all good for sci.space.xxx.

Titeotwawki -- mha [sci.space.policy 2009 Mar 25]

"Martha Adams" wrote:

While sci.space.?? is getting some particular attention, I wonder if two
news newsgroups might fit in to it:

Given the current traffic levels in the sci.space.* groups, getting
additional groups approved would be somewhat difficult.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

(Derek Lyons) wrote:

:"Martha Adams" wrote:
:
:While sci.space.?? is getting some particular attention, I wonder if two
:news newsgroups might fit in to it:
:
:Given the current traffic levels in the sci.space.* groups, getting
:additional groups approved would be somewhat difficult.
:

There is also the problem that once you fragment things a lot, ALL of
them tend to go moribund.

I think the original split we did way back when was probably about
right. An unmoderated 'policy' newsgroup (because tempers tend to run
hot on those sorts of issues) and moderated 'space.science' and
'space.tech' newsgroups.

From the original reorganization:

"The moderated groups shall have a policy of merely redirecting
to .policy rather than outright rejecting inappropriate articles.
The moderators may contact the poster and ask them if they would
prefer to rewrite a borderline article rather than simply redirect
it, at their discretion, but the author may insist on having the
article posted as-is to sci.space.policy."

Given a lot of the crap we see on Usenet these days, perhaps the
'redirection' should be at the moderators' option with an option to
simply reject outright. Things weren't nearly as bad back then as
they are now.

[If you look down the list of votes, you'll see me voting 'Yes' for
the creation of all three newsgroups involved in the reorganization.]

--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw

Fred J. McCall wrote:

(Derek Lyons) wrote:

:"Martha Adams" wrote:
:
:While sci.space.?? is getting some particular attention, I wonder if two
:news newsgroups might fit in to it:
:
:Given the current traffic levels in the sci.space.* groups, getting
:additional groups approved would be somewhat difficult.

There is also the problem that once you fragment things a lot, ALL of
them tend to go moribund.

I think the original split we did way back when was probably about
right. An unmoderated 'policy' newsgroup (because tempers tend to run
hot on those sorts of issues) and moderated 'space.science' and
'space.tech' newsgroups.

I think the only real mistake was to create .shuttle rather than
something like .manned as was done with .station, where MIR was
treated as being as on topic as ISS.

"The moderated groups shall have a policy of merely redirecting
to .policy rather than outright rejecting inappropriate articles.
The moderators may contact the poster and ask them if they would
prefer to rewrite a borderline article rather than simply redirect
it, at their discretion, but the author may insist on having the
article posted as-is to sci.space.policy."

Given a lot of the crap we see on Usenet these days, perhaps the
'redirection' should be at the moderators' option with an option to
simply reject outright. Things weren't nearly as bad back then as
they are now.

I don't know if the robomoderation software we have has the capability
to redirect, I'll look into it.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
...
(Derek Lyons) wrote:

:"Martha Adams" wrote:
:
:While sci.space.?? is getting some particular attention, I wonder if two
:news newsgroups might fit in to it:
:
:Given the current traffic levels in the sci.space.* groups, getting
:additional groups approved would be somewhat difficult.
:

There is also the problem that once you fragment things a lot, ALL of
them tend to go moribund.

I think the original split we did way back when was probably about
right. An unmoderated 'policy' newsgroup (because tempers tend to run
hot on those sorts of issues) and moderated 'space.science' and
'space.tech' newsgroups.

From the original reorganization:

"The moderated groups shall have a policy of merely redirecting
to .policy rather than outright rejecting inappropriate articles.
The moderators may contact the poster and ask them if they would
prefer to rewrite a borderline article rather than simply redirect
it, at their discretion, but the author may insist on having the
article posted as-is to sci.space.policy."

Given a lot of the crap we see on Usenet these days, perhaps the
'redirection' should be at the moderators' option with an option to
simply reject outright. Things weren't nearly as bad back then as
they are now.

[If you look down the list of votes, you'll see me voting 'Yes' for
the creation of all three newsgroups involved in the reorganization.]


You'll find I voted no at the time. Partly because while I thought the idea
of splitting was good, I wasn't keen on the exact nature of the proposed
split. (Personally I would have preferred sci.space.crewed or something in
place of sci.space.shuttle.)

But I do agree that fragmenting further wouldn't really help.



--
Greg Moore
Ask me about lily, an RPI based CMC.

(Derek Lyons) wrote:

:Fred J. McCall wrote:
:
(Derek Lyons) wrote:
:
::"Martha Adams" wrote:
::
::While sci.space.?? is getting some particular attention, I wonder if two
::news newsgroups might fit in to it:
::
::Given the current traffic levels in the sci.space.* groups, getting
::additional groups approved would be somewhat difficult.
:
:There is also the problem that once you fragment things a lot, ALL of
:them tend to go moribund.
:
:I think the original split we did way back when was probably about
:right. An unmoderated 'policy' newsgroup (because tempers tend to run
:hot on those sorts of issues) and moderated 'space.science' and
:'space.tech' newsgroups.
:
:I think the only real mistake was to create .shuttle rather than
:something like .manned as was done with .station, where MIR was
:treated as being as on topic as ISS.
:

The sci.space.shuttle and sci.space.news newsgroups already existed at
the time the reorganization was done.

:"The moderated groups shall have a policy of merely redirecting
:to .policy rather than outright rejecting inappropriate articles.
:The moderators may contact the poster and ask them if they would
:prefer to rewrite a borderline article rather than simply redirect
:it, at their discretion, but the author may insist on having the
:article posted as-is to sci.space.policy."
:
:Given a lot of the crap we see on Usenet these days, perhaps the
:'redirection' should be at the moderators' option with an option to
:simply reject outright. Things weren't nearly as bad back then as
:they are now.
:
:I don't know if the robomoderation software we have has the capability
:to redirect, I'll look into it.
:

If it's not simple to do it's probably not worth the trouble. If we
can somehow get the volume back up faster approval with less latency
is more important than a bunch of niceties at the margin. If a
rejected poster wants to redirect it themselves, it isn't that hard to
do.

--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw

"Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" wrote:

:"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
.. .
: (Derek Lyons) wrote:
:
: :"Martha Adams" wrote:
: :
: :While sci.space.?? is getting some particular attention, I wonder if two
: :news newsgroups might fit in to it:
: :
: :Given the current traffic levels in the sci.space.* groups, getting
: :additional groups approved would be somewhat difficult.
: :
:
: There is also the problem that once you fragment things a lot, ALL of
: them tend to go moribund.
:
: I think the original split we did way back when was probably about
: right. An unmoderated 'policy' newsgroup (because tempers tend to run
: hot on those sorts of issues) and moderated 'space.science' and
: 'space.tech' newsgroups.
:
: From the original reorganization:
:
: "The moderated groups shall have a policy of merely redirecting
: to .policy rather than outright rejecting inappropriate articles.
: The moderators may contact the poster and ask them if they would
: prefer to rewrite a borderline article rather than simply redirect
: it, at their discretion, but the author may insist on having the
: article posted as-is to sci.space.policy."
:
: Given a lot of the crap we see on Usenet these days, perhaps the
: 'redirection' should be at the moderators' option with an option to
: simply reject outright. Things weren't nearly as bad back then as
: they are now.
:
: [If you look down the list of votes, you'll see me voting 'Yes' for
: the creation of all three newsgroups involved in the reorganization.]
:
:
:You'll find I voted no at the time. Partly because while I thought the idea
f splitting was good, I wasn't keen on the exact nature of the proposed
:split. (Personally I would have preferred sci.space.crewed or something in
lace of sci.space.shuttle.)
:

I don't see you in there. Were you one of the 6 votes that had a
problem?

http://www.islandone.org/SpaceDigest...eorgTally.html

:
Personally I would have preferred sci.space.crewed or something in
lace of sci.space.shuttle.)
:

I don't disagree, but sci.space.shuttle already existed (and was even
fairly busy at the time) and wasn't really part of the reorg, along
with sci.space.news (which was mostly things like orbital elements as
I recall it).

:
:But I do agree that fragmenting further wouldn't really help.
:

Yeah. It'd be nice if we could fold things back together, given
current posting levels, rather than thin them out.

--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
...
"Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" wrote:


I don't see you in there. Were you one of the 6 votes that had a
problem?

http://www.islandone.org/SpaceDigest...eorgTally.html

Interesting since I've seen my name on the vote list before.

Oh well. Not important now.




--
Greg Moore
Ask me about lily, an RPI based CMC.

"Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" wrote:

:"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
.. .
: "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" wrote:
:
:
: I don't see you in there. Were you one of the 6 votes that had a
: problem?
:
: http://www.islandone.org/SpaceDigest...eorgTally.html
:
:Interesting since I've seen my name on the vote list before.
:

Yeah, I swear I've seen a vote list that didn't include me, too, which
was surprising to me at the time.

:
:Oh well. Not important now.
:

Hey, it was only 15 years or so ago. What kind of Usenet fixation
doesn't last longer than that? :-)


--
You are
What you do
When it counts.

Fred J. McCall wrote:

:
:But I do agree that fragmenting further wouldn't really help.
:

Yeah. It'd be nice if we could fold things back together, given
current posting levels, rather than thin them out.

I don't think Usenet even has a procedure for uncreating groups. (I
could be wrong.)

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL