"Vito Kuhn" wrote in
:

"William D" wrote:

"Vito Kuhn" wrote in
:

"JLD" wrote:

Go away Wanda. Vito tried to moderate this group last year and
it failed.

That's an outright LIE. I NEVER "TRIED TO MODERATE THIS GROUP". I
proposed a SEPARATE group and it never failed. The result of the
vote was inconclusive because of vote fraud. WE VOLUNTARILY
declined the option to have a revote.

Do you regret that decision now?

No, not at all. The voting system was being abused by a sociopath at
the time. The problem wasn't fixed until MONTHS later.

At that time, it wasn't even POSSIBLE to "MODERATE THIS GROUP".

You're absolutely right about that, but who knows what tomorrow
will bring. I see that you have volunteered to serve on the
committee which will make decisions on the future of all Big 8
newsgroups. If you're elected to the committee, would you support a
removal of that ban on proposals to change the moderation status of
existing newsgroups?

I support CHOICE. If someone wants to propose a NEW moderated
newsgroup, the people interested in using it should be the ones to
decide if it is worth creating, instead of a bunch of users in the
UNMODERATED parent group. If enough users in an unmoderated newsgroup
want their group to be moderated, that should be allowed. To answer
your question, YES I think the ban should be lifted and I intend to
try and make that happen. But that isn't the only reason I
volunteered for the board. The Big Eight group list needs a lot of
cleaning up. Many dead and useless newsgroups needs to go away. The
new voting system (if there's even going to BE voting) needs to be
tested and established. Lots of stuff needs to be fixed, and I look
forward to being one of the people to make it all happen.

So your motivation in volunteering for the new NAN committee is so that
you can empower ordinary Usenet posters to have their favorite
unmoderated Big 8 groups become moderated?

So your candidacy for the committee isn't about helping out the Big
8...it's *really* about control and censorship.