Mail Archives: djgpp/1997/03/03/08:04:19
> > (or if they just feel like it).
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Are you serious about this statement? If so, then you really are
> talking about censorship and not moderation.
The purpose of that statement was to prevent people from choosing an
R-M poorly. Normally, the R-M would only do the Right Thing, but the
job inherently prevents people from complaining about his/her choices
(else the job would be impotent). Since the R-M effectively can get
away with anything, it's wise to make that clear up front.
> readers of this newsgroup. In this case it might make sense to
> reconsider the group charter, not dismiss these discussions as
> "off-topic". Like almost everything else in life newsgroups evolve
> and the interests of the readers change with the times. This is
Except that the group of people who are discussing, say, gcc
optimizations don't read the djgpp newsgroup. They read the gnu.gcc.*
newsgroups. If a djgpp reader changes interest, they should switch
newsgroups. If people did the right thing, they'd set the Followup
field to point to the appropriate cross-posted newsgroup, so that the
thread migrated to the right place.
> especially true with DOS programming. It seems clear to me that DOS
> has a limited life as a mainstream OS and therefore most DOS
> programmers will eventually develop interests in other OS's. This is
> the reason that the "off-topic" discussions of Win32 and Linux are so
> prevalent. They are the natural migration path for DOS programmers.
Yes, and threads comparing djgpp to win32 or linux are appropriate.
When the topic changes so that djgpp is no longer involved, the thread
should move to a different newsgroup.
> The problem with the proposed moderation scheme is that it has a
> tendency to eliminate only those posts concerning topics the
> moderators personally dislike, but not necessarly all (or the majority
> of) off-topic posts. Full moderation where *every* posting is
> evaluated for on-topic content is much more fair. There should also
> be some degree of accountability for what is (or isn't) allowed in the
> interest of fairness to the DJGPP community.
This is very true, but more difficult to implement.
> * HELP! What's wrong with this code???
>
> * Why is sizeof( my_structure ) wrong?
>
> * What is the best way to implement [whatever]?
>
> * All of the other c.l.c. type questions that appear here.
Amazingly enough, the charter already prohibits posting questions that
appear in the FAQ.
As for your examples, the right thing to do is reply with a post that
references the original, cross-posts to c.l.c, and sets the follow up
there also. Thus, follow-ups to your post will go to the right place.
- Raw text -