andrewfg@dai.ed.ac.uk (Andrew Fitzgibbon) writes:

>A misdirected posting said:
>< Is there a guide or book available to teach me how to parse an INI or
>< text-based default configurations file?  Can anyone tell me the basic
>< algorithm on how to do it?  Any help will be appreciated.

>Someone was talking about the task of moderating comp.{lang,std}.c++
>and how one person could not do it alone.

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

While I think the current number of articles in comp.std.c++ is too
high to moderate, I think the number of those that really *form*
standards is not.

I think it makes sense to move discussion of whether some piece of code
conforms to a standard to comp.lang.c++ and let comp.std.c++ be for
discussions about the standard. That is moderatable (and must be
moderated).

[Could someone please send me the current charter of
comp.std.c++?. Thanks].

Martin
--
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Private email Martin.Cracauer@wavehh.hanse.de Fax +4940 522 8536. No NeXTMail!

In article <D4K3qy.n54@aisb.ed.ac.uk>,
Andrew Fitzgibbon <andrewfg@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
[...]
>Someone was talking about the task of moderating comp.{lang,std}.c++
>and how one person could not do it alone.
>
>Someone else asked about group moderation, which doesn't exist as a
>net.concept.  Could we arrange a 'group cancel' facility, where
>a number of people would be allowed to cancel articles under the same
>rules as apply for moderator rejection. (i.e. a couple of lines pointing
>out the reason).  This would more effective than the current method
>of editing Followup-To lines and hoping for a thread to die.

     You have just described retroactive moderation - moderation
by removal of inappropriate articles.  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.  The proof-of-concept software permits
multiple moderators to share the burden, or to work simultaneously
without causing a mini-spam of rejection messages.

     For more infomation send the message "index retromod" to
"archive-server@redpoll.mrfs.oh.us".

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

A misdirected posting said:
< Is there a guide or book available to teach me how to parse an INI or
< text-based default configurations file?  Can anyone tell me the basic
< algorithm on how to do it?  Any help will be appreciated.

Someone was talking about the task of moderating comp.{lang,std}.c++
and how one person could not do it alone.

Someone else asked about group moderation, which doesn't exist as a
net.concept.  Could we arrange a 'group cancel' facility, where
a number of people would be allowed to cancel articles under the same
rules as apply for moderator rejection. (i.e. a couple of lines pointing
out the reason).  This would more effective than the current method
of editing Followup-To lines and hoping for a thread to die.

A.

--
Andrew Fitzgibbon (Research Associate),                     andrewfg@ed.ac.uk
Artificial Intelligence, Edinburgh University.               +44 031 650 4504
<a href=http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/staff/personal_pages/andrewfg> Home Page </a>
       "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" - traditional (c1950)
          "A stitch in time saves nine." - traditional (c1590)

In article <D4K3qy.n54@aisb.ed.ac.uk>,
Andrew Fitzgibbon <andrewfg@ed.ac.uk> wrote:

>Someone was talking about the task of moderating comp.{lang,std}.c++
>and how one person could not do it alone.
>
>Someone else asked about group moderation, which doesn't exist as a
>net.concept.

????

>Could we arrange a 'group cancel' facility, where
>a number of people would be allowed to cancel articles under the same
>rules as apply for moderator rejection.

We could arrange a robomoderation facility a la Jonathan
Kamens' soc.net-people proposal.  I really liked that one,
and would be glad to vote in favor of it or another such
proposal for a robomoderated discussion group.

(Synopsis: upon your first submission to the newsgroup, you
receive a copy of the FAQ, and all subsequent posts are
approved by the moderation daemon.  If you prove to be an
abusive presence, the human operator of the moderation
program may configure the program to blacklist you until
such a time as you demonstrate repentance.)

--
Unsolicited commercial electronic mail sent to this address will be
proofread at a cost of $200/hour (one half-hour minimum).