Walter Patton wrote:
> Censorship comes to BEE-L is there nothing sacred anymore.
 
From Webster's:
 1cen-sor 1: one of two magistrates of early Rome...
          2: an official who examines publications for objectionable
             matter b: an official who reads communications and deletes
             forbidden material.
          3 archaic: a faultfinding critic
          4: the psychic agency that represses unacceptable notions
             before they reach consciousness
 
My comments:
          1: Ain't never been to Rome!
          3: I have no faults! ;)
          4: If I did have a fault it would be that I don't have enough
             grey matter to be psychic!
 
So that leaves number 2 - I HATE number two (parents of young children
will get that joke).  Anyway, "An official who examines publications for
objectionable matter (and/or) who reads communications and deletes
forbidden material".  Those who know me know there is very little I find
objectionable and I let laws tell me what is forbidden.  Folks who read
my posts already know what I find objectionable, but for the record I
restate.
 
1) I object to quoted material.  Most times a poster includes many lines
of background to pose a one or two line question.  Subsequent responses
quote the entirety of the original to offer a two line answer.
Responses to the subsequent responses proliferate the offense to the
point that there is actually VERY LITTLE substance in the majority of
posts.  This is not a value judgment on my part, it's an indisputable
fact based on an unbiased review of BEE-L archives.  Once moderation is
in effect, posts that include entire quotes of previous posts will be
returned to sender with a request that THEY edit their post to remove
superfluous requoted material and resubmit their response, at which time
it will be approved.
 
Let me give an example, and the names used in no way reflect any
references to people either real of fictional, living or dead.
 
Tom ([log in to unmask]) posts:
 
BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, and on and on and on for twenty lines, and yada yada
yada, so what I really want to know is what color should I paint my
hive?
 
Dick ([log in to unmask]) answers:
 
> Tom ([log in to unmask]) wrote:
>
> BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, and on and on and on for twenty lines, and yada yada
> yada, so what I really want to know is what color should I paint my
> hive?
>
 
BLAH, BLAH, BLAH,  well actually in the south we say BLAAAAAAAHHHHHHH,
BLAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHH, BLAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH, and yaDAH, yaDAH,
yaDAH and on and on and on for 30 lines, so paint your hives white!
 
Then Jane ([log in to unmask]) responds:
 
> Dick ([log in to unmask]) wrote:
>
> > Tom ([log in to unmask]) wrote:
> >
> > BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, and on and on and on for twenty lines, and yada
> > yada yada, so what I really want to know is what color should I
> > paint my hive?
> >
>
> BLAH, BLAH, BLAH,  well actually in the south we say BLAAAAAAAHHHHHHH,
> BLAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHH, BLAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH, and yaDAH, yaDAH,
> yaDAH and on and on for 30 lines, so paint your hives white!
 
I think pink hives are prettier than white!
 
>>> End of Example.
 
So in this example, Tom asks a question that is answered in ANY
beginning beekeeping text.  Over 150 lines have been wasted in
responses that really are a matter of opinion with little fact.
However, as moderator I would approve Tom's original post, I would
return to Dick his response with a request that he resubmit it as
follows:
 
   "[log in to unmask] asked what color to paint his hives.  Here in the
   south, white is a good color but other colors are acceptable,
   especially in other areas"
 
and I would return to Jane her post requesting that she offer her
response without all the quoted material.  Jane's response could be:
 
   "Tom asked what color to paint his hives, and Dick responded 'white'.
    Tarzan and I like pink, Cheetah does too!"
 
Now as far I'm concerned the content of these posts is garbage, but I'll
allow them all, however Dick and Jane will HAVE to change their writing
style.  I have not stymied their rights to free speech, I have enforce
my request that unnecessary requoting of previously posted material be
kept to a minimum.  After a while and a few returned posts, everyone
will learn proper netiquette that requoting is bad and this number one
problem will become a non-problem.
 
2) I object to responses to the list that should go to individuals.  A
prime example was the call for a Christian Beekeepers List (CBL).  I am
not a heathen, neither am I a devout church attendee.  I would not have
stopped the call to create a CBL (unless of course it quoted an entire
previous post).  However, the original post suggesting the CBL requested
all responses via private E-Mail.  Any guesses how much wasted time and
space was spent flaming or praising John's suggestion?  ALL responses to
the list regarding CBL would have been returned to the sender pointing
out that the original poster requested private responses.
 
3) BINARIES and FILE ATTACHMENTS!  All binary files and file attachments
will be returned to sender.  BEE-L is NOT a homogonous list that looks
the same to everyone, everywhere.  There are some subscribers who are
not able to read these files!  Repeatedly, requests have been made to
advertise the availability of binaries to everyone so those who want
them can go get them.  The only way to enforce this request is via a
moderated list.  Hey Jerry!  Your latest COMB letter - know what?  I'd
love to read it.  Know what?  Your attachment was unreadable by my
editor, especially because I get BEE-L in digest format not as
individual mail items.  What I got from your post was that you wrote a
letter which I can't read.
 
Availability can be advertised but binaries cannot be posted.  If I
can't read 'em I won't approve 'em.  I can easily enforce this by
simply implementing a size limit on postings.
 
4) FLAMES!  Keep it civil.  This is not to say that we can't disagree,
we SHOULD disagree.  But name calling belongs in the play ground sandbox
and we all should know the difference.  Those who don't won't get
through.
 
5) SERVICE REQUESTS GO TO THE SERVER, POSTS GO TO THE LIST!!!  Any
service requests posted to the list will not be approved.
 
More responses to others' postings:
 
Andy Nachbaur wrote:
"I guess I am about the only bee person in the world that enjoys the
list for all the wrong reasons which brings on the moderation of
anyone's post...."
 
Again, I have no intention to block anyone's right to say what they
want.  Although long winded I have never found Andy's posts offensive or
inflammatory.  Rather I have found them to be thought provoking and
challenging.  Andy takes classes of beekeepers (researchers, government
officials, honey boards, hell, EVERYBODY!) to task, but he has never
been disrespectful to anybody.  Any yes, this is IMHO.
 
Spelling?  I cood kar less!  Haven't the time to check it and actually I
enjoy the flavor.  Grammar?  I don't care if well advice is offered good
as long as the advice is sound.  Verbose?  I can delete faster than I
can read, I suspect we all can.  However as moderator, by the time I get
to the point of approving or not, I've already read it.
 
Setting REVIEW/NOREVIEW is reserved for list owners, which is
why no one has seen it referenced in the LISTSERV REFCARD.  NOREVIEW
grants "preapproval" to any subscribers' postings.  For users whom I am
confident will follow the five items outlined above (minimal quoting,
private vs public responses, no binary or file attachments, no flames,
service requests to the server) I can set their subscription options to
NOREVIEW.  The more NOREVIEW subscribers, the less work I have to do.
I WANT subscribers set to NOREVIEW!  In a perfect world everyone would
follow proper netiquette and there would be no need for REVIEW.
 
Guy F. Miller wrote:
" ... Unless there is a technical problem with capacity or some other
compelling reason, I think you ought to let the chips fall where they
may...."
 
There IS a compelling reason, time and money.  Requotes take time and
cost money!  Time to download, which also costs some subscribers real
dollars - SIGNIFICANT dollars.  Other concerns include the time to
read (or skip over), costly storage medium to archive, and MANY
reasons that may not be apparent to those who read and discard.  There
are many issues that aren't apparant from the perspective of a single
subscriber that are of concern to a list owner or system administrator.
I am the owner of BEE-L, but I am also the system administrator for
the system on which it resides.  I am approaching this issue not only
from the perspective of a single subscriber on a single list, I am
approaching it from the position of one responsible for thousands
of applications on a machine that supports and serves tens of thousands
of customers.
 
I also realize that some (many?) mailers simply quote articles in their
entirety as the default.  I know when I use Pegasus mail I have to go
out of my way to make it NOT requote that to which I am responding.  But
I have learned how to do it, I will help others to learn (if I can, I
know I don't know it all) and it is my belief that moderating BEE-L
will affect the changes in subscribers' piece of cyberspace to make
this list (and others on which BEE-L subscribers participate) better
lists.
 
Barry Birkey wrote:
"It looks like we are going to be turning a corner here on bee-l and
I'm not sure how I feel about it as I don't know what it will look
like....".
 
This is a very important point, I too don't know how this will change
the list although I believe it will be for the better.  I hope all
subscribers will at least stick it out until May 1 to at least see.
Unfortunately some have already bailed out - sent the SIGNOFF command
to the list, which was caught by the moderator, who honored their
request and signed them off.  But this is NOT a censorship issue, it's
a LEARNING issue.  I was the first to use the "C" word, I'm smart enough
to have seen it coming.  But as Barry put it, "I wish people would take
it upon themselves to learn the points of netiquette to help us all
communicate with each other a little easier."
 
There are MANY more comments that have been made, both on list and to
me privately.  I simply have not had time to respond to them all.  I
hope that those who wrote to me privately will find their queries
answered in this public forum.  I hope that those who voiced concerns
are reassured that this will continue to be a PUBLIC, OPEN forum, and
I hope that my belief that moderation will improve the caliber of this
list proves to be correct.
 
Aaron Morris - thinking moderation can be a good thing, if not over
               indulged :)