> is moderation better? or is, limiting the no. of articles
> per day per a/c better? depending on what sciters think of
> it, we can find the proper direction to proceed.
pardon me if i'm taking off tangentially. but the whole purpose
of this attempt to moderate SCIT was to control the 'quality'
of posts, not the 'quantity' of posts. if someone posts 25
articles on telugu literature per day on scit, i say 'more
power to them'. as it exists, the simplest way of controlling
the contents of the post without infringing on the freedom
of speech rights is to just eliminate crossposts. no one
can oppose the fact that these crossposts have absolutely
no relevance whatsoever to scit.
the question of one person 'hijacking' the newsgroup will
arise if that person is dedicated to the task of hijacking.
from what i can see, these crossposters don't care two hoots
about dedicatedly destroying newsgroups. they just post to
all groups, period. their job ends.
if and when such a hijacking does occur, we can use USENET
rules to stop that person at that time.
the task at hand right now is to get back some sanity to
scit. and i feel that auto-moderation as proposed is probably
the best way to go about doing it.
i'll be posting the RFD to scit sometime next week. from the
discussion on telusa, i don't see any major objections to the
proposed RFD. i must hasten to add that at this stage, it is
just an RFD and hence any/every kind of discussions are
welcome. here's hoping that we'll see more participation
on this issue next week.
kamala