Posting

[4]

In article <1989May23.030223.24871 at utzoo.uucp> henry at utzoo.uucp
(Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <922 at maestro.htsa.aha.nl> fransvo at htsa.UUCP (Frans van Otten)
writes:
>>How would you feel about a moderated comp.lang.c.questions group ? [...]
> [...]
>(b) If there is also an unmoderated group, how do you propose to keep
>	the wars out of it?

	For some time now I've been trying to formulate a proposal for a
"semi-moderated" style of group, suitable for "comp.lang.c", "comp.graphics",
"sci.maths", "rec.games.chess", and other groups in which novices and experts
mix.  The idea is:

	A. Novice asks a question.  Detected by "Subject: Blah ... ?".
								   ^

	B. Novice tries to reply.  "Subject:  Re: Blah ... ?".  This reply
		fails.  Well, it probably gets posted locally, but when it
		reaches a "backbone", it is posted to the semi-moderator,
		dropped in the bit-bucket, bounced, or whatever.

	A. N. Expert tries to reply.  "Subject:  Re: Blah ... ?", but *also*
		has an "Expert: A. N. Expert" line.  This works.  Follow-ups,
		by novices or experts, now also work, 'cos they include the
		"Expert:" line.

	Thus, all respondents have either to be experts, or to have seen the
expert reply.  Novices who ask questions without the "?", novices who pretend
to be experts, and experts who bungle, are hung, drawn and quartered in the
usual way.  Articles that aren't questions are posted normally;  only the
inexpert immediate responses to questions are zapped, but that alone might
prevent many of the sillier wars.

	Details left to the imagination.  Comments?

-- 
Andy Walker, Maths Dept., Nott'm Univ., UK.
anw at maths.nott.ac.uk