Formal Proposal to create MODERATED sub-group

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 19

RichM:

I would like to see us submit a formal proposal to create a rec.gambling.poker.professionals moderated sub-group. The following document explains the relatively complex process by which sub-groups are created: http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/faqs/big-eight.html

Back on March 19, 1999, there were 149 messages, and 29 of those discussed the fact that there were too many messages in the group. Since then, the problem has gotten five times worse, averaging more than 700 posts per day in 2004. This group has grown at a rate of 6% per month during the past year, which compounds to a doubling of the newsgroup every year.

According to the FAQs on creating a moderated sub-groups, the most important justification for doing so is that:
"Y mailing list is bursting at the seams and needs to add a gated newsgroup or readers will leave."
I don't know how the rest of you feel, but I am about ready to give up on trying to stay with this group, and go find or develop another web forum.

I am NOT suggesting that we SPLIT the newsgroup, but rather that we create a moderated sub-group for players who want to discuss the finer aspects of the game without all the political infighting and flaming and spam. I want the new sub-group to be targeted at those who play poker for profit. I am suggesting "professionals" as the name, but I really don't care what it is called as long as it is moderated and it is obviously a place which is attractive to more advanced players. Do you have any other name suggestions?
I have read many other proposals for splitting this group going back five years, including by type of game (holdem, stud, etc), or by environment (casino, homegames, online, tv), or by major topics (cheating, tournaments, hand analysis). I think all of these past efforts were stalled because dividing the topics is not the same as dividing the audience. Rather than simplifying our lives, dividing according to these proposals would just force most people to read every message in every subgroup. Most, importantly, these divisions simply do not address the time-value needs of experienced players, especially those who earn a living from poker, and who have to give up some multiplier of big blinds in order to read RGP.

Below is the message count so far this month. This data should be included with our proposal.
2/18 - 758
2/17 - 700
2/16 - 786
2/15 - 474
2/14 - 484
2/13 - 643
2/12 - 814
2/11 - 937 **
2/10 - 847
2/9 - 942 **
2/8 - 599
2/7 - 449
2/6 - 972 **
2/5 - 584
2/4 - 738
2/3 - 665
2/2 - 716
2/1 - 533
Rich M

This thread originates from within 'usenet', and as such the content and users are not guaranteed to have been moderated by our community.

RichM:

I suppose I should have also posted this article (on the same site) which discusses the pit-falls of creating a moderated group: http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/faqs/mod-pitfalls.html

The most important issue addressed was the "team" of moderators that we would need to put together, but I think there are enough long-term folks with a love for this group to make this work.
Rich M

This thread originates from within 'usenet', and as such the content and users are not guaranteed to have been moderated by our community.

Linda K Sherman:

[nq:1]I would like to see us submit a formal proposal to create a rec.gambling.poker.professionals moderated sub-group.[/nq]
You've got the instructions, go ahead.
The reason this has never gotten off the ground before is because the people who want a moderated group expect someone else to do all the work.

Linda Sherman
-
Anyone but Bush in 2004

This thread originates from within 'usenet', and as such the content and users are not guaranteed to have been moderated by our community.

arlo payne:

Oh boy oh boy
Just what I want someone else deciding what I should and should not see.

Just use your newsreader and kilfile those that drive you crazy.

Or
I will decide what is best for everyone to see Emotion: smile

Rich:
Just how long have you been reading this group?
[nq:1]I would like to see us submit a formal proposal to create a rec.gambling.poker.professionals moderated sub-group. The following document explains ... - 972 ** 2/5 - 584 2/4 - 738 2/3 - 665 2/2 - 716 2/1 - 533 Rich M[/nq]
Posted using RecPoker.com - http://www.recpoker.com

This thread originates from within 'usenet', and as such the content and users are not guaranteed to have been moderated by our community.

Dave L:

Get out of our newsgroup, Arlo.

This thread originates from within 'usenet', and as such the content and users are not guaranteed to have been moderated by our community.

AJohn808:

he already has several times. :n )
(sorry Arlo-couldnt help it)

This thread originates from within 'usenet', and as such the content and users are not guaranteed to have been moderated by our community.

Bad Bob:

[nq:1]Oh boy oh boy Just what I want someone else deciding what I should and should not see. Just use ... will decide what is best for everyone to see Emotion: smile

Rich: Just how long have you been reading this group?[/nq]
Oh come on Arlo, give the guy a chance. A moderated off shoot doesn't mean we won't still have RGP as a free for all group. Nobody is going to tell you any such thing and you know it.
I think it is a reasonable idea, the group at one time, from what I have read, was as he said a place for serious poker players to discuss serious poker. It still is, but it is full of a lot of signal noise now.
I'm sure no pro but I really can't see a problem with "another" poker group. I also agree with what Linda says. No one so far is willing to do the enormous amount of work involved, (including me).

I would say to Rich... get your feet wet pal and write up a proposal for discussion and submit it. That is the first step and until someone does it, there isn't much point in discussing it now. JMHO
Bad Bob
(Smother him in Onions and
cook him till he is blue.)

This thread originates from within 'usenet', and as such the content and users are not guaranteed to have been moderated by our community.

Gary Carson:

I'd consider a moderated group if the intent was to eliminate spam.

But, the idea of creating a moderted group for "professionals" is both misguided and elitist.
I'm not interested. Go to twoplustwo.com

Gary Carson
I've started a tutorial on probability and poker at http://garycarson.com

This thread originates from within 'usenet', and as such the content and users are not guaranteed to have been moderated by our community.

Octo :

[nq:1]I'd consider a moderated group if the intent was to eliminate spam. But, the idea of creating a moderted group for "professionals" is both misguided and elitist.[/nq]
I agree. Just ask yourself this: would you rather get poker advice from Bill Chen or Vince Lepore?

This thread originates from within 'usenet', and as such the content and users are not guaranteed to have been moderated by our community.

Patti Beadles:

I think it might be time.
You will need a very strong charter outlining what is acceptable content and what isn't, so that the rules are clearly spelled out for everyone. You'll also need a good team of moderators to manage the whole thing... it's too much for just one or two people.

Some sort of robo-moderation might be good... some authors can be quickly whitelisted, saving the human moderators a fair bit of work.

I'd suggest that adding a .news subgroup would also be useful. This would also be moderated, and could be used for things like announcements of tournaments, RGP events, etc., as well as tournament results.
-Patti

Patti Beadles, Oakland, CA > "Isn't it funny how people say they'll never (Email Removed) > grow up to the be their parents, then one day http://www.gammon.com / > they look in the mirror and they're moving Check out www.tribe.net! > aircraft carriers into the Gulf region?"

This thread originates from within 'usenet', and as such the content and users are not guaranteed to have been moderated by our community.

Formal Proposal to create MODERATED sub-group

Related forum topics: