cracauer@wavehh.hanse.de (Martin Cracauer) writes:

>So what exactly is this group [comp.std.c++] for?
>Discussing how the standard should looks like or
>asking question `Is this code correct standard C++?'.

Both, IMHO.  Often the questions are related.

--
Fergus Henderson - fjh@munta.cs.mu.oz.au

red@redpoll.mrfs.oh.us (Richard E. Depew) writes:

>The current version of
>retroactive moderation is a "tit-for-two-tats" model whereby a single
>off-charter post draws an admonishment, but subsequent ones from the
>same author may be rejected.

I don't think that the "tit-for-two-tats" model would work very well
for comp.std.c++, since most of the inappropriate posts are from first-time
posters to comp.std.c++.

--
Fergus Henderson - fjh@munta.cs.mu.oz.au
all [L] (programming_language(L), L \= "Mercury") => better("Mercury", L) ;-)

In article <9505802.11877@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU>,
Fergus Henderson <fjh@munta.cs.mu.OZ.AU> wrote:
>red@redpoll.mrfs.oh.us (Richard E. Depew) writes:
>
>>The current version of
>>retroactive moderation is a "tit-for-two-tats" model whereby a single
>>off-charter post draws an admonishment, but subsequent ones from the
>>same author may be rejected.
>
>I don't think that the "tit-for-two-tats" model would work very well
>for comp.std.c++, since most of the inappropriate posts are from first-time
>posters to comp.std.c++.

     There are situations in which the tit-for-two-tats model doesn't
work well... against spam, for instance.  Sometime you just have to
revert to tit-for-tat.  However, tit-for-tat is less polite.  Perhaps
you might ask the newsgroup to choose between the models (or test each
for a period to see which works better for this group).

Best wishes,
Dick
--
Richard E. Depew, Munroe Falls, OH    red@redpoll.mrfs.oh.us (home)
``Every time history repeats itself, the price goes up.''  Old saying

In article <D4MBv9.KEs@redpoll.mrfs.oh.us>, red@redpoll.mrfs.oh.us (Richard E. Depew) writes:
|> In article <9505802.11877@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU>,
|> Fergus Henderson <fjh@munta.cs.mu.OZ.AU> wrote:
|> >red@redpoll.mrfs.oh.us (Richard E. Depew) writes:
|> >
|> >>The current version of
|> >>retroactive moderation is a "tit-for-two-tats" model whereby a single
|> >>off-charter post draws an admonishment, but subsequent ones from the
|> >>same author may be rejected.
|> >
|> >I don't think that the "tit-for-two-tats" model would work very well
|> >for comp.std.c++, since most of the inappropriate posts are from first-time
|> >posters to comp.std.c++.
|>
|>      There are situations in which the tit-for-two-tats model doesn't
|> work well... against spam, for instance.  Sometime you just have to
|> revert to tit-for-tat.  However, tit-for-tat is less polite.  Perhaps
|> you might ask the newsgroup to choose between the models (or test each
|> for a period to see which works better for this group).

A heck of a lot of off-charter postings are simple mistakes, often
by failing to check the Newsgroups line or failing to search the
newsgroup space thoroughly enough.  You mean you've never done
either? :-)  Being bureaucratic will merely penalise people who
make simple errors and allow real pests to play the rules - after
all, they can always create a new username for each posting!

Also, I have once or twice had posts rejected as off-charter, where
the moderator's idea of the charter was somewhat different from
what it actually said.  Encouraging censorship-by-moderation is NOT
a good idea.  There is only one newsgroup that I regard as being
persistently in this state, and you can probably guess what it is :-)

No, sorry, I am afraid that no simple rules are a substitute for
common sense and human effort.


Nick Maclaren,
University of Cambridge Computer Laboratory,
New Museums Site, Pembroke Street, Cambridge CB2 3QG, England.
Email:  nmm1@cam.ac.uk
Tel.:  +44 1223 334761    Fax:  +44 1223 334679