Re: Meta: rec.games.diplomacy.moderated?

Chris Babcock wrote:

>Tired of spam? "Games group, 'Buy a vending machine!'" and "This is a
>diplomacy group, maybe someone will give a crap about my marginal
>political opinion." If there's interest, it may be time for a charter
>discussion about a moderated group. Are we satisfied with the signal to
>noise ratio? If not, what lengths are willing to go to in order to have
>a healthy Usenet channel available? 

Even if there is sup****t for a moderated group, are there enough
people who would want one?  (Remember, it takes at least 100 people to
activate a new rec.* group - and that's 100 plus one for every "no"
vote, and I am under the impression there is a growing number of
people who have nothing better to do than to vote against new groups
as they feel there are enough of them as it is.)

-- Don