[mod] news.admin.net-abuse.sightings
Tim Skirvin
to take over the currently-closed news.admin.net-abuse.sightings. Rather
than contact everyone (only) by email, I figured that a good way to go
about this would be to discuss it here. So:
To potential moderators - how are you going to moderate the group?
What software, what policies? What experience do you have, and what
credentials?
To all readers - what do you want out of NANAS?
- Tim Skirvin (tski...@killfile.org)
Moderator, much of news.admin.net-abuse.*
--
http://wiki.killfile.org/projects/usenet/nana/ news.admin.net-abuse.*
Larry Sheldon
> To potential moderators - how are you going to moderate the group?
> What software, what policies? What experience do you have, and what
> credentials?
>
> To all readers - what do you want out of NANAS?
Am an "all readers" reader. I might suggest that the discussion should
take two forks, one the "what do you want?" question, the other a "what
was wrong with what we had?"
Except for general "what is going on" picture of the world, I don't have
any requirements, and can live without NANAS.
I'd still like to know what is driving the "abandon ship" calls ere and
on SPAM-L, or was it just a coincidence?
(Nothing I say here or elsewhere should be interpreted and fault-finding
of any of the hard working souls who labored thanklessly.
If I mean to find fault, the words "I fault ${name}" will appear in the
sentence.)
--
Requiescas in pace o email Two identifying characteristics
of System Administrators:
Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Infallibility, and the ability to
learn from their mistakes.
Eppure si rinfresca
ICBM Targeting Information:
http://tinyurl.com/4sqczs
http://tinyurl.com/7tp8ml
D. Stussy
news:tskirvin.20090605012649$4a...@vulture.killfile.org...
> In the last twelve hours or so, I've gotten several offers
> to take over the currently-closed news.admin.net-abuse.sightings. Rather
> than contact everyone (only) by email, I figured that a good way to go
> about this would be to discuss it here. So:
>
> To potential moderators - how are you going to moderate the
group?
> What software, what policies? What experience do you have, and what
> credentials?
>
> To all readers - what do you want out of NANAS?
Firstly, I am not interested in the moderator position.
Secondly, does it really need a moderator? If all messages that are posted
to it are supposed to be spam, there should be no discussions. Simply put
into the FAQ for the group that anyone who tries to hold a discussion on
the group may end up being identified as a spammer, especially if there are
people who take the messages posted and automatically feed them into
spam-detection software. (I don't do that, but I have thought about doing
it.)
Basically, "if it's not [e-mail] spam, it is [NG] spam!" So why moderate
it?
Andrzej Adam Filip
As I understand the idea behind moderated NANAS is to reduce number of
"intentionally false reports" and block floods.
I personally suggest switching moderation of NANAS to
*automatic*:
a) check e-signature of registered reporter, report size, ...
b) check flood limits
*manual*:
1) register new reporter's (gpg) key
2) revoke registration after abuse
--
[pl>en: Andrew] Andrzej Adam Filip
an...@onet.eu Andrze...@gmail.com an...@xl.wp.pl
Larry Sheldon
> As I understand the idea behind moderated NANAS is to reduce number of
> "intentionally false reports" and block floods.
>
> I personally suggest switching moderation of NANAS to
> *automatic*:
> a) check e-signature of registered reporter, report size, ...
> b) check flood limits
> *manual*:
> 1) register new reporter's (gpg) key
> 2) revoke registration after abuse
All of which needs a human being to do the work. It appears that for
his own (and therefore thoroughly legitimate) reasons, Mr Skirvin does
not want to (can't?) do that work anymore, and somebody needs to step
forward and do it, if things are to change from their current status.
I don't know, but my guess is the requirements are:
Access to a well connected machine that is likely to be around for a while.
Time, energy, and knowledge to administer the modbot, deal with
conflicts, and answer law suits.
I have all but 8 of those.
Sam Trappe
Tim Skirvin <tski...@killfile.org> wrote:
> In the last twelve hours or so, I've gotten several offers
> to take over the currently-closed news.admin.net-abuse.sightings. Rather
> than contact everyone (only) by email, I figured that a good way to go
> about this would be to discuss it here. So:
>
> To potential moderators - how are you going to moderate the group?
> What software, what policies? What experience do you have, and what
> credentials?
As someone who offered to take over moderation, here's what I have to
offer:
- Software: My intention would be to port your moderation software to a
virtual server and domain under my control
- Policies: I would implement the existing policies.
- Hardware (you didn't ask, but): I would use a Xen virtual server
running CentOS, with appropriate dedicated resources and bandwidth (20
GB disk, 512MB RAM, 500 GB bandwidth) on an IPv4/v6 multi-homed network.
I would like to know what system/bandwidth requirements you believe are
required, so we can provide it.
- Experience: 30 years in IT, network experience since ARPAnet, CompTIA,
MCP and some other IT certifications (not listed here as not relevant to
the task at hand, CTO for consulting firm (we work in several knowledge
domains - Information Security, Health Care, and Environmental
Services), previously a Director in a number of roles at one of the
Gartner top 3 IT firms. Note: NO experience moderating USENET newsgroups
-
>
> To all readers - what do you want out of NANAS?
I'm perfectly satisfied by what NANAS provides now, and how it works.
That having been said, some of the ideas put forth by Andrzej Adam Filip
to be quite intriguing. I suspect he has greater qualifications than I
specific to moderating NANAS. If he is resource limited, perhaps we
could collaborate.
>
> - Tim Skirvin (tski...@killfile.org)
> Moderator, much of news.admin.net-abuse.*
Cheers,
--
Replies by posting preferred. All spam reported
Greg Samson
> To all readers - what do you want out of NANAS?
I'd like the NANAS system to continue to work. I infrequently post
particularly
egregious spams to it and know that Google indexes them shortly thereafter.
It's
good to have a public place where this can happen.
--
u wi zat clue stick dotorg
Phil
> In the last twelve hours or so, I've gotten several offers
> to take over the currently-closed news.admin.net-abuse.sightings. Rather
> than contact everyone (only) by email, I figured that a good way to go
> about this would be to discuss it here. So:
>
> To potential moderators - how are you going to moderate the group?
> What software, what policies? What experience do you have, and what
> credentials?
>
> To all readers - what do you want out of NANAS?
>
> - Tim Skirvin (tski...@killfile.org)
> Moderator, much of news.admin.net-abuse.*
I would like to see NANAS continue as it was, your policies seemed to
work well and the modbot usually handled matters very well as seen by us
on the outside. We users have little or no idea what is involved as
regards time, hard/software.
As for others above, I lack the skillset for *nix and Usenet admin, also
personal bandwidth for hosting and although pushed for time, I will
offer to do what I can as a contribution.
NANAS is an important archive of data provided by people that have gone
to the trouble of reporting their research, and it has been extremely
useful to me and others in buidling CIDR reputations in order to protect
and ration network resources without losing valued connectivity.
Andrzej Filip has some good suggestions in this thread and he has an
excellent format for realtime blacklist testing results. Other posters
submit incredible detail from their findings, all unpaid labors in the
hope of a cleaner, less abused net.
Kindly publish what the current hardware and bandwidth requirements are,
also an estimate of hours per week typically required for moderation
duties. Is any of your soft/hardware available for re-use? How much can
be done by remote management to a colo? Is there a NANAS fund? If not, I
suggest that running costs be scheduled and donations sought asap. Are
there any ESP, ISP, Colo firms interested/supportive for hosting and
bandwidth?
Tim Skirvin
> I'd still like to know what is driving the "abandon ship" calls ere and
> on SPAM-L, or was it just a coincidence?
It was just coincidence.
That said: I've been running NANAS for over twelve years now,
without a break. It wasn't the first or only group that I've run during
this time, but it has been the highest traffic by a significant amount,
and (more importantly) the group has offered the least feedback and sense
of community in ratio to the resources I have put into the group.
It was also extremely disheartening that nobody responded to my
announcement that the group was going away until after I had shut down the
'bot. While not the end of the world, it was a good example of the
biggest problem I've had with the group since the beginning: there is no
particular sense of community that I feel around the group. It's hard to
convince yourself to do the work when there's not even anybody clearly
benefiting from it.
I don't intend this to be whining; instead, I hope it informs
those that are looking to take over the group as to the situation you're
likely to find yourself in. I would suggest that, perhaps, a more active
community must be formed if the group is to remain viable. Create a
.sightings.d group, continue an ongoing discussion as to what should be
reported and how, look to make groups for discussions of different types
of network abuse. In general, work to use the information and reward
those that are using the group and those that find novel ways to use the
reports. If you do those things, the group could still be helpful.
Tim Skirvin
>> In the last twelve hours or so, I've gotten several offers
>> to take over the currently-closed news.admin.net-abuse.sightings. Rather
>> than contact everyone (only) by email, I figured that a good way to go
>> about this would be to discuss it here. So:
>> To potential moderators - how are you going to moderate the group?
>> What software, what policies? What experience do you have, and what
>> credentials?
> As someone who offered to take over moderation, here's what I have to
> offer:
> - Software: My intention would be to port your moderation software to a
> virtual server and domain under my control
The deal on my software: I've never gotten around to finishing
it up, and at this point I suspect that I probably never will if things
continue as they currently are. But it would still be a good idea to
finish it up, because while it works okay for me, it's not really in great
shape for J. Random User right now.
I would like to hand over the software to someone that could
actively support it. By that, I would like to see a github account for
it created; installation and test scripts written; the whole thing
packaged up for CPAN and for major distributions; and, once it's out
there, I'd like to see somebody take patches and support it and so forth.
I'm probably not the one to start this off. If somebody else can
take it over, then I'd be happy to participate in the porting process.
> - Policies: I would implement the existing policies.
I worry that the policies need an overhaul, actually.
> - Hardware (you didn't ask, but):
The requirements are low on this front, really. The hard part is
keeping the server running and connected; past that, it'll run on just
about anything the world can throw at it. I was running this thing on a
486 back in the day, after all...
- Tim Skirvin (tski...@killfile.org)
--
http://wiki.killfile.org/ Skirv's Homepage <FISH>< <*>
http://www.stanford.edu/~tskirvin/ Skirv's Work + CV
Tim Skirvin
> Kindly publish what the current hardware and bandwidth requirements are,
> also an estimate of hours per week typically required for moderation
> duties.
I've already posted the hardware requirements - basically, any old
thing that can run a mail and news server is probably fine, with a web
server for good measure. I have a hard time separating out the bandwidth
requirements, but can say that 67MB of posts have been cached since I took
the group down a week ago.
What's hardest is the stable mail and news service.
> Is any of your soft/hardware available for re-use? How much can be done
> by remote management to a colo?
I've already discussed the software as well. The hardware, well,
it's my desktop...
> Is there a NANAS fund? If not, I suggest that running costs be
> scheduled and donations sought asap.
There is theoretically a fund, but I have only gotten one donation
to it in the last three years (and that was in the last week).
> Are there any ESP, ISP, Colo firms interested/supportive for hosting and
> bandwidth?
Probably. I'd guess that the relevant service on a VM through
panix would be ~$40-50 per month, though the bandwidth costs might make
that questionable.
- Tim Skirvin (tski...@killfile.org)
--
http://wiki.killfile.org/ Skirv's Homepage <FISH>< <*>
http://wiki.killfile.org/projects/ Skirv's Projects
Larry Sheldon
>
> It was just coincidence.
That is a comfort, of sorts.
> That said: I've been running NANAS for over twelve years now,
> without a break. It wasn't the first or only group that I've run during
> this time, but it has been the highest traffic by a significant amount,
> and (more importantly) the group has offered the least feedback and sense
> of community in ratio to the resources I have put into the group.
One of the things I've long believed is: it is hard to say "thanks" too
much.
And I am as bad as anybody about see if it can be done.
Thanks.
>
> It was also extremely disheartening that nobody responded to my
> announcement that the group was going away until after I had shut down the
> 'bot. While not the end of the world, it was a good example of the
> biggest problem I've had with the group since the beginning: there is no
> particular sense of community that I feel around the group. It's hard to
> convince yourself to do the work when there's not even anybody clearly
> benefiting from it.
Once you have figured out how to do it, it loses the new pretty quickly.
And if nobody else cares, why should you?
> I don't intend this to be whining; instead, I hope it informs
> those that are looking to take over the group as to the situation you're
> likely to find yourself in. I would suggest that, perhaps, a more active
> community must be formed if the group is to remain viable. Create a
> .sightings.d group, continue an ongoing discussion as to what should be
> reported and how, look to make groups for discussions of different types
> of network abuse. In general, work to use the information and reward
> those that are using the group and those that find novel ways to use the
> reports. If you do those things, the group could still be helpful.
As I have said elsewhere, I'd like to see the fight against spam lose
the email/usenet definitions and deal with abusive marketing in any medium.
>
> - Tim Skirvin (tski...@killfile.org)
> Moderator, much of news.admin.net-abuse.*
Thank you, Mr. Skirvin
Tim Skirvin
My current plan is to request that the moderators.isc.org shut off
all submissions to news.admin.net-abuse.sightings, .policy, and .bulletins
as of July 1st. Please work under the assumption that there is a deadline.
Larry Sheldon
> What, has all of the interest dried up?
I have not lost interest, but I have run out of new things to say.
Hard as that might be to believe.
> My current plan is to request that the moderators.isc.org shut off
> all submissions to news.admin.net-abuse.sightings, .policy, and
> .bulletins as of July 1st. Please work under the assumption that
> there is a deadline.
Which means there will be a great panicky flurry about June 28th.
> - Tim Skirvin (tski...@killfile.org) Moderator, much of
> news.admin.net-abuse.*
Thanks Tim for all you have done.
Just a curiosity item, who owns that stuff--by that I mean, can just
anybody get it turned back on? I'm sure somebody will try.
Will a rmgroup (or what ever they are called) be issued?
Tim Skirvin
>> My current plan is to request that the moderators.isc.org shut off
>> all submissions to news.admin.net-abuse.sightings, .policy, and
>> .bulletins as of July 1st. Please work under the assumption that
>> there is a deadline.
> Which means there will be a great panicky flurry about June 28th.
Probably, yes.
> Just a curiosity item, who owns that stuff--by that I mean, can just
> anybody get it turned back on? I'm sure somebody will try.
If I hand the group off to somebody, then there's not much to say
about it - it just happens, with the "official" change-over taking place
when the moderators.isc.org alias points at the new submission address.
I'll take care of informing the Big-8 Management Board about what's going
on, in that case, though that's not formally necessary.
If there's nobody to hand a group off to, then I'm going to
recommend to that same Board that the group(s) be rmgrouped. At that
point, it would be significantly more difficult to re-create. (Note that
I'm on the Board, and that the formal moderation vacancy process has
already begun.)
- Tim Skirvin (tski...@killfile.org)
Moderator, much of news.admin.net-abuse.*
--
http://wiki.killfile.org/projects/usenet/nana/ news.admin.net-abuse.*
Seth
Tim Skirvin <tski...@killfile.org> wrote:
> To all readers - what do you want out of NANAS?
An easy way to post copies of spams for permanent public archive so as
to assist in ensuring the appropriate reputations for those involved.
Seth
Hal Murray
Tim Skirvin <tski...@killfile.org> writes:
> To all readers - what do you want out of NANAS?
I'd like a convenient way to document abuse. NANAS and google-groups
mostly works.
Is there a better way?
I'm interested in all forms of abuse of the net, not just spam.
(I expect most non-spam abuse is supporting spam.)
ssh probes are a good example.
--
These are my opinions, not necessarily my employer's. I hate spam.
David Ritz
Hash: SHA1
On Sunday, 07 June 2009 15:59 -0700, in article
<tskirvin.20090607225959$56...@vulture.killfile.org>, Tim Skirvin
<<tski...@killfile.org> wrote:
> I've been running NANAS for over twelve years now, without a break.
> It wasn't the first or only group that I've run during this time,
> but it has been the highest traffic by a significant amount, and
> (more importantly) the group has offered the least feedback and
> sense of community in ratio to the resources I have put into the
> group.
Tim,
nana.sightings is not the sort of group one would expect to develop a
sense of community, any more than news.lists.filters has a sense of
community. The main difference I see between nana.sightings and
news.lists.filters is that n.l.f is set up specifically to be fed by
automated processes, where nana.sightings was designed to be a place
where any individual might be able to report spam.
At the time of the reorganization in 1996, the only group where
net-abuse issues were discussed was nana.misc. While this group was
intended for discussion, it also became a place where spam was being
reported. As the volume of spam increased in both Usenet and e-mail,
the rate of spam reporting increased in nana.misc, to the point that
it interfered with discussion. This led to the creation of
nana.usenet for the discussion of Usenet related net-abuse issues,
nana-email for the discussion of e-mail related net-abuse issues,
and nana.policy for the discussion of net-abuse policy issues.
<aside>
In the past, I used nana.policy specifically for the purpose of
discussing UDPs. I'd post a RFD to multiple groups, with a
Followup-To nana.policy. This provided an advantage of a no x-posting
rule, which generally kept the noise level down to manageable levels
in the discussions which ensued.
</aside>
At the same time, two non-discussion groups were also created,
nana.bulletins, used at the time primarily by Usenet de-spammers to
provide automated or semi-automated summaries of their cyberspam and
NoCeM activities, and nana.sightings. Both of these groups required
that followups be directed to other groups within the nana.*
sub-hierarchy. All that was required was that what was posted should
be easily human readable.
As followups required that they be intentionally redirected away from
these last two groups, there was no expectation that a community
would be formed around them.
========================================================================
What I see as a problem with nana.sightings is the sheer volume of
articles being flooded into the group. That so much of this volume is
attributable to a handful of users running scripted processes is
something I find troubling. The vast bulk of these scripted reports
could be better dealt with were they to appear as summaries, perhaps
on a daily basis, in nana.bulletins. After all, nana.bulletins is
intended for the automated posting of summaries.
Looking at "[ADMIN] Welcome to news.admin.net-abuse.sightings!" and
scanning down the the last FAQ:
<http://wiki.killfile.org/projects/usenet/faqs/nanas/>
<quote>
Q: I can forward all...
A: Stop right there. I'd rather you didn't send me every email that
comes to a certain address; this tends to lead fairly rapidly to an
effective mailbomb, with hundreds of megabytes of forwarded traffic
blocking both the network pipe and the local resources of the
moderation box. As such, I have taken a fairly hard-line approach
to the problem: if any problems with the volume of your posts come
to my notice, I will immediately stop accepting your submissions,
probably without notice. You have been warned.
</quote>
Were this enforced, nana.sightings volumes would drop to far more
manageable and reasonable levels. It would have the added benefits of
making nana.sightings far less intimidating to the average user, and
might increase the likelihood of followup and discussion which would
come from being able to find the more interesting tidbits which are
currently buried under the sheer volume of automated postings in
nana.sightings.
While I have subscribed to nana.sightings since its inception, I am
only able to deal with it by killfiling virtually all [email] reports,
making rare exceptions for individual authors whose invariably manual
analyses are actually informative and interesting, as my personal
interest goes well beyond emitter IP addresses.
========================================================================
As for myself, I do not have the financial, technical nor physical
resources required to undertake the task of moderating these groups.
I will again state that it is my personal feeling that none of the
affected moderated newsgroups under discussion has outlived their
usefulness. It is my sincere hope that a suitable moderator can and
will be found.
Again, Tim, thank you for your dedication in keeping these groups
alive over the past twelve and a half years. I can't say that
moderating newsgroups which were never intended to be discussion
groups could ever be particularly rewarding. I suspect that about the
only time you receive any feedback is when something goes dramatically
wrong. Do know your efforts in this often contentious arena are
appreciated.
Thanks.
- --
David Ritz <dr...@mindspring.com>
Be kind to animals; kiss a shark.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.11 (Darwin)
Comment: Public Keys: <http://dritz.home.mindspring.com/keys.txt>
iEUEARECAAYFAkoyu4kACgkQUrwpmRoS3us/9wCTBIU3Nplc99zCQxvCuOgn8UbU
XgCdFvV7kIxwSL8Lu1ce79t57loscQs=
=Tewc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Tim Skirvin
>>> My current plan is to request that the moderators.isc.org shut off
>>> all submissions to news.admin.net-abuse.sightings, .policy, and
>>> .bulletins as of July 1st. Please work under the assumption that
>>> there is a deadline.
>> Which means there will be a great panicky flurry about June 28th.
> Probably, yes.
10 day notice, folks.
Xavier Roche
> 11 days before you prove you hate me so much that you'd let .policy drop
> before you'd "allow" me to support it even though you know full well that I am
> completely qualified, capable and offering to do so.
Humm, trolling (especially with/against Jamie) is perhaps not the best
attitude to have when you want to maintain an abuse sightings group.
Larry Sheldon
> 11 days before you prove you hate me so much that you'd let .policy drop
> before you'd "allow" me to support it even though you know full well that
> I am
> completely qualified, capable and offering to do so.
>
> Funny, that.
Hilarious.
And I didn't realize that a froup existed (that I aver look at) that
does not have you in a kill file.
That's now repaired.
Tim Skirvin
> I have the facilities. I know how.
You don't have the software at present, though, nor does anybody
else. It's not rocket science - I wrote my first modbot as my first real
independent programming project as an undergrad - but you and everyone
else that has volunteered has included a dependency of "use Skirv's
software", and nobody has responded to my discussion of the software
itself. I find this troubling.
On a more personal level, I am also somewhat concerned about your
judgement on matters surrounding network abuse. I feel obligated to find
someone to replacement that has a temperament that will support the group
in the long term. Please, convince me.
Rob Kelk
<gbur...@databasix.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 17:28:23 -0700, Tim Skirvin <tski...@killfile.org> wrote:
<snip>
>> I feel obligated to find someone to replacement that has a temperament
>> that will support the group
>>in the long term.
>
>I know full well when to troll and when not.
I believe (and this is only my opinion, not anyone else's) that anyone
who believes there are times when trolling is acceptable should not be a
moderator in news.admin.* or *.answers - these groups require tending by
someone who both *is* sober in behaviour and *is seen to be* sober in
behaviour. These are serious groups; IMHO anyone who is seen to not take
Usenet seriously should not apply.
<snip>
--
Rob Kelk Personal address (ROT-13): eboxryx -ng- tznvy -qbg- pbz
Any opinions here are mine, not ONAG's.
ott.* newsgroup charters: <http://onag.pinetree.org>
Any Usenet message claiming to be from me but posted from any server
other than individual.net is a forgery. Please filter out such
messages if you have the capability.
Larry Sheldon
>
> I believe (and this is only my opinion, not anyone else's) that anyone
> who believes there are times when trolling is acceptable should not be a
> moderator in news.admin.* or *.answers - these groups require tending by
> someone who both *is* sober in behaviour and *is seen to be* sober in
> behaviour. These are serious groups; IMHO anyone who is seen to not take
> Usenet seriously should not apply.
Wrong. wrong. WRONG!
You are not alone in thinking that.
To the rest of what is quoted above: AMEN!
K. A. Cannon
<7a7abrF...@mid.individual.net> in news.admin.net-abuse.policy on
Sun, 21 Jun 2009 10:52:59 -0700:
>Gary L. Burnore wrote:
>
>> 11 days before you prove you hate me so much that you'd let .policy drop
>> before you'd "allow" me to support it even though you know full well that
>> I am
>> completely qualified, capable and offering to do so.
>>
>> Funny, that.
>
>Hilarious.
>
>And I didn't realize that a froup existed (that I aver look at) that
>does not have you in a kill file.
>
>That's now repaired.
Don't let it be personal Larry...jeesh...we'd hate to see you loose
any objectivity.
--
K. A. Cannon
kevin.a.cannon at gmail dot com
Don't worry about the world coming to an end today.
It's already tomorrow in Australia.
-Charles Schultz
COOSN-266-06-02374
Hammer of Thor, April 2005
PIERRE SALINGER MEMORIAL HOOK, LINE & SINKER June 2007
Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle X 2
#9 People ruining UseNet lits.
#6 Top Assholes on the Net lits.
#5 Most hated Usenetizens of all time
#15 AUK psychos and felons lits
#5 Cog in the AUK Hate Machine
http://www.themonastery.org/dev/cert/ulc_certificate_view.swf?id=10010810040
414
K. A. Cannon
<tskirvin.20090622002823$7b...@vulture.killfile.org> in
news.admin.net-abuse.policy on Sun, 21 Jun 2009 17:28:23 -0700:
<snip>
>Please, convince me.
You won't be convinced.
Tim Skirvin
>> On a more personal level, I am also somewhat concerned about your
>> judgement on matters surrounding network abuse.
> Be specific.
I can point at one specific case that stands out above all others
in my mind. Back in October 2007, you forge-approved messages to a group
that I help moderate. When called on it, you not only did not apologize,
but bragged that you did it in order to get my attention. It worries me
that you're willing to commit network abuse in order to get what you want.
It also worries me that you're attempting to frame this discussion
as "you hate me so much that you'd let this group rather than work with
me." That attitude does not fill me with confidence that you're willing
to moderate a group such as this in an even-handed manner.
All of that said, this is not the place for me to go into a
detailed explanation of my views of any potential moderator's overall
judgement.
>> Please, convince me.
> I believe anyone who really knows me knows that you should already be
> convinced.
Be that as at may, I am currently unconvinced. If you are not
willing to try to convince me, I'm going to remain that way. An object
at rest, and all that...
spamme...@pandora.orbl.org
>Gary L. Burnore wrote:
>
>> 11 days before you prove you hate me so much that you'd let .policy drop
>> before you'd "allow" me to support it even though you know full well that
>> I am
>> completely qualified, capable and offering to do so.
>>
>> Funny, that.
>
>Hilarious.
>
>And I didn't realize that a froup existed (that I aver look at) that
>does not have you in a kill file.
>
>That's now repaired.
That's funny. I wouldn't have seen Gary's post but for your response,
which is a good thing in this case.
I don't know if it's still there, but this gem was in databasix headers for
a long
time:
X-Organization: DataBasix - Continuing to kick USENet ass.
Is Gary still "kicking USENet ass"?
Just what we need in a moderator, not.
Larry Sheldon
> Larry Sheldon <lfsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Gary L. Burnore wrote:
[mercy snip]
>> And I didn't realize that a froup existed (that I aver look at) that
>> does not have you in a kill file.
>>
>> That's now repaired.
>
> That's funny. I wouldn't have seen Gary's post but for your response,
> which is a good thing in this case.
You'd think that as much as _I_ complain about that I'd be more careful.
Mea maxima culpa.
> Just what we need in a moderator, not.
I'd rather see it shut down (because I'm not sure I could tell the
difference).
Rob Kelk
<gbur...@databasix.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 05:21:36 -0700, Rob Kelk <rob...@deadspam.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 19:30:57 -0700, "Gary L. Burnore"
>><gbur...@databasix.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 17:28:23 -0700, Tim Skirvin <tski...@killfile.org>
>>>wrote:
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>>> I feel obligated to find someone to replacement that has a temperament
>>>> that will support the group
>>>>in the long term.
>>>
>>>I know full well when to troll and when not.
>>
>>I believe (and this is only my opinion, not anyone else's) that anyone
>>who believes there are times when trolling is acceptable should not be a
>>moderator in news.admin.* or *.answers - these groups require tending by
>>someone who both *is* sober in behaviour and *is seen to be* sober in
>>behaviour.
>
>
>You misread what I wrote, I assume. I know that nanap is not a place to
>troll. Does that make it clearer?
No.
"I know full well when to troll and when not" implies that you believe
there are times and places to troll. "I know that nanap is not a place
to troll" implies that you believe there are other places to troll. Is
this implication correct? Do you believe that there is a group or a
reader of any part of Usenet that it is acceptable to troll?
If the answer to those questons is "yes", then I did not misread what
you wrote.
>>These are serious groups; IMHO anyone who is seen to not take
>>Usenet seriously should not apply.
>
>Yes, I believe you did not understand what I wrote. I take USENet so
>seriously I've spent hundreds of thousands of dollars supporting it.
Your Organization header reads "Our news service can beat up your news
service". Those are words I would expect from a child, not from a Usenet
moderator.
It doesn't matter whether you are or are not a good candidate for the
job from a technical standpoint; for all I know, you might be the
perfect person for the job from a technical standpoint. It's the persona
you present online that makes me doubt your suitability for the job.
Kelb tal-Fenek
> Rob Kelk wrote:
>>
>> I believe (and this is only my opinion, not anyone else's) that anyone
>> who believes there are times when trolling is acceptable should not be a
>> moderator in news.admin.* or *.answers - these groups require tending by
>> someone who both *is* sober in behaviour and *is seen to be* sober in
>> behaviour. These are serious groups; IMHO anyone who is seen to not take
>> Usenet seriously should not apply.
>
> Wrong. wrong. WRONG!
>
> You are not alone in thinking that.
>
> To the rest of what is quoted above: AMEN!
If we are going to attack the character of a person then the charges
should be specific and not vague insinuations. What does trolling
mean in the context of these charges and what exactly does is mean
to take usenet seriously?
spamme...@pandora.orbl.org
<snip>
>
>Your Organization header reads "Our news service can beat up your news
>service". Those are words I would expect from a child, not from a Usenet
>moderator.
>
>It doesn't matter whether you are or are not a good candidate for the
>job from a technical standpoint; for all I know, you might be the
>perfect person for the job from a technical standpoint. It's the persona
>you present online that makes me doubt your suitability for the job.
His previous Org header read:
Larry Sheldon
Vague insinuations???!!
The troll said he trolls.
More than one of us have said that trolling is never acceptable.
Some of us think an admitted troll who has forged moderation of the very
groups in question to get his troll scat posted is NOT a suitable candidate.
I for one of those, would have to drop the "moderated" groups because
there would be no expectation of honest moderation and protection from
trolls.
What part of that seems vague?
Larry Sheldon
find it odd that a person wanting to be a moderator at this level would
make his postings X-No-Archive: Yes
I think a person who actually has something to say would be willing to
be quoted for all of time.
I distrust people who have a reputation of promising things, then doing
something else, and take steps to make history revisable.
Kelb tal-Fenek
> Kelb tal-Fenek wrote:
>> Larry Sheldon wrote:
>>> Rob Kelk wrote:
>>>> I believe (and this is only my opinion, not anyone else's) that anyone
>>> To the rest of what is quoted above: AMEN!
>> If we are going to attack the character of a person then the charges
>
>
> The troll said he trolls.
>
> More than one of us have said that trolling is never acceptable.
Would you please define trolling in the context that is being
discussed and the person that this is being directed at here.
> Some of us think an admitted troll who has forged moderation of the very
> groups in question to get his troll scat posted is NOT a suitable candidate.
From reading this thread, I see a reference to forged moderation
that dates back a couple years; is there a pattern? How often has
this happened; just that one time or is this a common thing? And a
wonderful new term; troll scat. I'm assuming this means something
added to a discussion that was intended to have a negative impact
and draw attention away from the topic. This is a form of
censorship, in my opinion. It should be easy to post proof of this.
If you can do this, I would appreciate it.
> I for one of those, would have to drop the "moderated" groups because
> there would be no expectation of honest moderation and protection from
> trolls.
>
> What part of that seems vague?
OK, maybe it's just me, but it seems that most of everything you say
is vague. Is this intentional? A troll? You now threaten to drop the
moderated groups; WTF does that mean. You intend to drop them all,
or only the one being discussed?
And now another word is thrown into the mix; honesty. In my opinion,
words like these should not be used unless you are willing to back
them up with specific facts. Someone who is unwilling to do this
after attacking the character of a person would fall into the
category of what I consider a troll... in my opinion... etc...
Phil
> "Gary L. Burnore"<gbur...@databasix.com> writes:
>
>> I have the facilities. I know how.
>
> You don't have the software at present, though, nor does anybody
> else. It's not rocket science - I wrote my first modbot as my first real
> independent programming project as an undergrad - but you and everyone
> else that has volunteered has included a dependency of "use Skirv's
> software", and nobody has responded to my discussion of the software
> itself. I find this troubling.
As regards the software Tim, have you considered Sourceforge or other
open source centers? That may be a way to get the software developed and
supported as you indicated with an appropriate license plus you could
stay involved too. Presumably, such a license would then permit it's
continued use for Usenet moderation.
If we take the scenario that no software is available by the end of this
month, is an un-moderated NANAS a possibility such that NANAS users are
left to filter as necessary? Moderation could be re-applied at any point
in the future as and when appropraite software can be given the task.
Phil
> Be that as at may, I am currently unconvinced. If you are not
> willing to try to convince me, I'm going to remain that way. An object
> at rest, and all that...
>
> - Tim Skirvin (tski...@killfile.org)
> Moderator, much of news.admin.net-abuse.*
Tim, from what I can see, Gary at Databasix is the only one offering to
take on the moderation duty but is minus the software i.e. dependant on
your software. Let me add that I do not know Gary. Assuming that no
other person offers, would it not be possible to give the role to Gary
but on a provisional, performance [Charter] basis?
As I see it, either NANAS dies or Gary can continue as Moderator,
subject to availability of necessary software. Why not let him do so for
a period of say 3 or 6 months with a review? Call it a provisional
appointment, the Board would retain the ultimate control of pulling the
plug if they felt his conduct was not per Charter.
Larry Sheldon
>> The troll said he trolls.
>>
>> More than one of us have said that trolling is never acceptable.
>
> Would you please define trolling in the context that is being
> discussed and the person that this is being directed at here.
No, I won't--but I'll do the homework for you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll # That definition is
acceptable to me, even if it _is_ a Wikipeium.
A clue would be, in a discussion about trolls where somebody has said
"Yes, I am a troll" a new troll or a sock of the old one--I'm never sure
unless they self-confess--says something like "Would you please
define trolling in the context that is being discussed and the person
that this is being directed at here."
Larry Sheldon
> If we take the scenario that no software is available by the end of this
> month, is an un-moderated NANAS a possibility such that NANAS users are
> left to filter as necessary? Moderation could be re-applied at any point
> in the future as and when appropraite software can be given the task.
The filtering of trolls is technology that works reasonably well as long
as standers-by done bypass the filters for the trolls.
The biggest problem that I see no other solution for is the modbot
doesn't allow discussions in .sightings, deflecting attempts to .email
or .usenet.
In connection with my view that the separate discussions of different
kinds of spam may be wasting our efforts, that might not be all bad.
But it will be different, and we need to think about what kind of
"different" we want to encourage.
Larry Sheldon
> Tim Skirvin wrote:
>> "Gary L. Burnore"<gbur...@databasix.com> writes:
>>
> [snip]>
>> Be that as at may, I am currently unconvinced. If you are not
>> willing to try to convince me, I'm going to remain that way. An object
>> at rest, and all that...
>>
>> - Tim Skirvin (tski...@killfile.org)
>> Moderator, much of news.admin.net-abuse.*
>
> Tim, from what I can see, Gary at Databasix is the only one offering to
> take on the moderation duty but is minus the software i.e. dependant on
> your software. Let me add that I do not know Gary. Assuming that no
> other person offers, would it not be possible to give the role to Gary
> but on a provisional, performance [Charter] basis?
You missed that he also, by reputation and by self-testimony has shown
no ability what ever to control himself in anything resembling a human
adult fashion.
If he or someone like him becomes the moderator, there might as well be
an rmgroup issued for the moderated groups in question.
>
> As I see it, either NANAS dies or Gary can continue as Moderator,
It dies either way.
Tim Skirvin
>> You don't have the software at present, though, nor does anybody
>> else. It's not rocket science - I wrote my first modbot as my first real
>> independent programming project as an undergrad - but you and everyone
>> else that has volunteered has included a dependency of "use Skirv's
>> software", and nobody has responded to my discussion of the software
>> itself. I find this troubling.
> As regards the software Tim, have you considered Sourceforge or other
> open source centers?
Distribution isn't the problem. I've already uploaded bits of the
source code to github; I'm holding off on doing the rest until somebody
expresses some actual interest in taking it over.
> That may be a way to get the software developed and
> supported as you indicated with an appropriate license plus you could
> stay involved too. Presumably, such a license would then permit it's
> continued use for Usenet moderation.
> If we take the scenario that no software is available by the end of this
> month, is an un-moderated NANAS a possibility such that NANAS users are
> left to filter as necessary?
No. That's not how Usenet works. Changing the moderation status
of a group is, if not impossible, more work than it's worth. It would be
easier to create a new unmoderated group.
- Tim Skirvin (tski...@killfile.org)
Moderator, much of news.admin.net-abuse.*
--
http://wiki.killfile.org/projects/usenet/nana/ news.admin.net-abuse.*
Seth
Larry Sheldon <lfsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>More than one of us have said that trolling is never acceptable.
Never? Even in alt.troll.this.newsgroup?
Seth
Seth
Larry Sheldon <lfsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>You missed that he also, by reputation and by self-testimony has shown
>no ability what ever to control himself in anything resembling a human
>adult fashion.
He's done reasonably well in the past few years.
>If he or someone like him becomes the moderator, there might as well be
>an rmgroup issued for the moderated groups in question.
Why?
>> As I see it, either NANAS dies or Gary can continue as Moderator,
>
>It dies either way.
There's NANAS and NANAP. NANAS in automatic; it can be (and has been,
I believe) bot-moderated. I want it to continue running the way it
has been, to make it easy to post evidence of spamming.
NANAP requires judgment. I see nothing wrong with a trial period; if
it works, everybody is happy. If it doesn't either pick another
moderator to run it, or kill the group. No harm in killing it a few
months later.
Seth
Seth
Tim Skirvin <tski...@killfile.org> wrote:
>Phil <snowdonco...@yahoo.com> writes:
>> If we take the scenario that no software is available by the end of this
>> month, is an un-moderated NANAS a possibility such that NANAS users are
>> left to filter as necessary?
>
> No. That's not how Usenet works. Changing the moderation status
>of a group is, if not impossible, more work than it's worth. It would be
>easier to create a new unmoderated group.
We can easily _effectively_ unmoderate a group by setting the
moderator address to an auto-posting bot.
Seth
Tim Skirvin
> As I see it, either NANAS dies or Gary can continue as Moderator,
> subject to availability of necessary software. Why not let him do so for
> a period of say 3 or 6 months with a review? Call it a provisional
> appointment, the Board would retain the ultimate control of pulling the
> plug if they felt his conduct was not per Charter.
The Board doesn't have that power, nor (as far as I can tell) does
it want such a power. The moderation relays are maintained separately
from the Big-8, and are fairly binary in nature: either you are the
moderator of a group, or you aren't. There's not really much of a middle
ground.
The only way I could see this working would be to have me continue
to maintain the submission address, and forward on the submissions to
another site.
Also, has Gary actually volunteered for NANAS?
- Tim Skirvin (tski...@killfile.org)
Moderator, much of news.admin.net-abuse.*
--
http://wiki.killfile.org/projects/usenet/nana/ news.admin.net-abuse.*
Larry Sheldon
Troll scat.
This is not a.t.t.n
Larry Sheldon
> In article <7accguF...@mid.individual.net>,
> Larry Sheldon <lfsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> You missed that he also, by reputation and by self-testimony has shown
>> no ability what ever to control himself in anything resembling a human
>> adult fashion.
>
> He's done reasonably well in the past few years.
Modulo the last time Ferguson posted to NANAE.
>> If he or someone like him becomes the moderator, there might as well be
>> an rmgroup issued for the moderated groups in question.
>
> Why?
I won't read them any more.
>>> As I see it, either NANAS dies or Gary can continue as Moderator,
>> It dies either way.
>
> There's NANAS and NANAP. NANAS in automatic; it can be (and has been,
> I believe) bot-moderated. I want it to continue running the way it
> has been, to make it easy to post evidence of spamming.
Then you want a competent moderator-administrator. (You are
disqualified because you obviously think mod-bots are created, supported
and exist without a human in attendance.)
> NANAP requires judgment. I see nothing wrong with a trial period; if
> it works, everybody is happy. If it doesn't either pick another
> moderator to run it, or kill the group. No harm in killing it a few
> months later.
*shrug*
I won't have direct knowledge of the outcome of the test.
Larry Sheldon
> Seth wrote:
> Then you want a competent moderator-administrator. (You are
> disqualified because you obviously think mod-bots are created, supported
> and exist without a human in attendance.)
And with that, I think I have contributed all I have to the conversation.
I'm out and on the side.
Phil
[snip]
> The filtering of trolls is technology that works reasonably well as long
> as standers-by done bypass the filters for the trolls.
>
> The biggest problem that I see no other solution for is the modbot
> doesn't allow discussions in .sightings, deflecting attempts to .email
> or .usenet.
>
> In connection with my view that the separate discussions of different
> kinds of spam may be wasting our efforts, that might not be all bad.
>
> But it will be different, and we need to think about what kind of
> "different" we want to encourage.
>
of the doubt for a responsible position. Of course I have seen NANAE
rants but they are pretty much confined to Jamie these days. If he was
to mess up as Moderator, the position would be revoked promptly I
expect. In my earlier post I should have referred not just NANAS but
also to the other affected moderated groups.
Many contributors to NANAS have requested that it continue as it was,
i.e. a permanent record and archive of abuse evidence. As Tim suggests,
it may be simpler to start a new unmoderated group for posting such
evidence. I would have no problem with a wider definition of net abuse,
not limited to email spam.
Forgive my ignorance, how would it be possible with an unmoderated group
to prevent deflecting as you mention? Presumably the modbot was blocking
posts that didn't conform to certain parameters i.e. with a follow-up
outside the group, anti flooding etc.
Tim, I don't know how it works but you really ought to open up a
sub-domain with sourceforge.org. That will make it possible to host web
pages with all the info for your modbot software and permit developers
to get involved as an open project. It would appear to have little
competition if there is nothing else readily available, which suggests
to me that it could become a standard alpha in more common use rather
than a beta in your hands alone.
Larry Sheldon
> Forgive my ignorance, how would it be possible with an unmoderated group
> to prevent deflecting as you mention? Presumably the modbot was blocking
> posts that didn't conform to certain parameters i.e. with a follow-up
> outside the group, anti flooding etc.
My understanding of the protocol is that the bot does this (approximately):
Tests Subject: line for the absence of "Re: " and the presence of either
[usenet] or [email] and on success, approves the posting to .sightings.
If the failure of the test is on on the presence of Re: , the bot posts
the message to .email, or .usenet as indicated by the bracketed material.
I don't know how an unmoderated froup could do that redirection.
Larry Sheldon
Larry Sheldon
> Phil wrote:
>
>> Forgive my ignorance, how would it be possible with an unmoderated
>> group to prevent deflecting as you mention? Presumably the modbot
>> was blocking posts that didn't conform to certain parameters i.e.
>> with a follow-up outside the group, anti flooding etc.
>
> My understanding of the protocol is that the bot does this
> (approximately):
>
> Tests Subject: line for the absence of "Re: " and the presence of
> either [usenet] or [email] and on success, approves the posting to
> .sightings.
Upon reflection....I'll bet it keys on the References: header, not the
presence of Re: in the Subject: .
Steve Crook
Message-Id: <7aav32F...@mid.individual.net>:
> More than one of us have said that trolling is never acceptable.
There are a couple of regulars in alt.usenet.kooks who would admit to
being highly accomplished trolls. In other newsgroups they are held in
high esteem for their valued contributions.
Some might not like trolling but it is part of Usenet's heritage. The
problem as I see it is that the word troll is often misused to describe
any idiot who performs acts of Usenet vandalism.
--
pub 1024D/228761E7 2003-06-04 Steven Crook
Key fingerprint = 1CD9 95E1 E9CE 80D6 C885 B7EB B471 80D5 2287 61E7
uid Steven Crook <st...@mixmin.net>
Kelb tal-Fenek
> On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 02:13:08 -0700, Steve Crook <st...@mixmin.net> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 20:05:05 -0700, Larry Sheldon wrote in
>>Message-Id: <7aav32F...@mid.individual.net>:
>>
>>> More than one of us have said that trolling is never acceptable.
>>There are a couple of regulars in alt.usenet.kooks who would admit to
>>being highly accomplished trolls. In other newsgroups they are held in
>>high esteem for their valued contributions.
>>
>>Some might not like trolling but it is part of Usenet's heritage. The
>>problem as I see it is that the word troll is often misused to describe
>>any idiot who performs acts of Usenet vandalism.
>
I asked for examples so I could figure out what he was implying by
calling you a troll. No response that made any sense to me so I'm
just assuming he doesn't like you for some reason. It's all bullshit
to me. What I think is important is that whoever takes over this
abuse sightings newsgroup has grit and isn't afraid of a little
controversy. All I know about you is what I see in the groups and
this indicates to me that you would do fine. Maybe I'm reading more
into this moderation position than I should. I'm just fed up with
what is going on now with spammers having free reign on usenet and
think it's time to take a stand. I don't see that now, especially
from Bambies who seem content to remain in their little club house
and avoid any controversy. It wasn't always like that.
Peter J Ross
Phil <snowdonco...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Larry Sheldon wrote:
> [snip]
>> The filtering of trolls is technology that works reasonably well as long
>> as standers-by done bypass the filters for the trolls.
>>
>> The biggest problem that I see no other solution for is the modbot
>> doesn't allow discussions in .sightings, deflecting attempts to .email
>> or .usenet.
>>
>> In connection with my view that the separate discussions of different
>> kinds of spam may be wasting our efforts, that might not be all bad.
>>
>> But it will be different, and we need to think about what kind of
>> "different" we want to encourage.
>>
> Larry, noted your comments above, I was trying to give Gary the benefit
> of the doubt for a responsible position. Of course I have seen NANAE
> rants but they are pretty much confined to Jamie these days.
It would be a rather greater cause for concern if Gary were a friend
and supporter of Jamie.
> If he was
> to mess up as Moderator, the position would be revoked promptly I
> expect.
I haven't seen any meaningful suggestions for how that could be done
without intervention from people who are trusted precisely because
they never intervene.
> In my earlier post I should have referred not just NANAS but
> also to the other affected moderated groups.
There's such a huge difference between the two newsgroups that it's
hardly meaningful to discuss their moderation and moderators together.
> Many contributors to NANAS have requested that it continue as it was,
> i.e. a permanent record and archive of abuse evidence. As Tim suggests,
> it may be simpler to start a new unmoderated group for posting such
> evidence. I would have no problem with a wider definition of net abuse,
> not limited to email spam.
I don't think we have time for a discussion of redefining net-abuse -
and such discussions never seem to lead to any kind of new consensus.
--
PJR :-)
slrn newsreader v0.9.9p1: http://slrn.sourceforge.net/
extra slrn documentation: http://slrn-doc.sourceforge.net/
newsgroup name validator: http://pjr.lasnobberia.net/usenet/validator
Peter J Ross
Kelk <rob...@deadspam.com> wrote:
[about Gary L. Burnore]
> Your Organization header reads "Our news service can beat up your news
> service". Those are words I would expect from a child, not from a Usenet
> moderator.
Would you prefer "Your news service's mom dresses it funny"?
Gary's Organization line is a reasonably sophisticated joke that
depends for its effect on its similarity to a well-known playground
taunt being recognised by the reader. Does making jokes that some
people might not understand disqualify one from being a moderator?
> It doesn't matter whether you are or are not a good candidate for the
> job from a technical standpoint; for all I know, you might be the
> perfect person for the job from a technical standpoint. It's the persona
> you present online that makes me doubt your suitability for the job.
What in Gary's persona suggests that he would approve unsuitable
articles or reject suitable ones?
--
PJR :-)
news://news.admin.announce (Moderated)
Post and read announcements of interest to news administrators.
Peter J Ross
Steve Crook <st...@mixmin.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 20:05:05 -0700, Larry Sheldon wrote in
> Message-Id: <7aav32F...@mid.individual.net>:
>
>> More than one of us have said that trolling is never acceptable.
> There are a couple of regulars in alt.usenet.kooks who would admit to
> being highly accomplished trolls.
"admit"? ;-)
> In other newsgroups they are held in
> high esteem for their valued contributions.
It's my opinion that high accomplishment in trolling is correlated
with high accomplishment in other fields. It's the trolls who aren't
highly accomplished who are the problem.
> Some might not like trolling but it is part of Usenet's heritage. The
> problem as I see it is that the word troll is often misused to describe
> any idiot who performs acts of Usenet vandalism.
Almost everybody trolls a little from time to time.
"I make witty remarks; you troll; he's an abuser."
Larry Sheldon
> What in Gary's persona suggests that he would approve unsuitable
> articles or reject suitable ones?
His reaction (and language) every time Mark Ferguson posts about
anything (without regard to the quality and con tent of the Ferguson
posting. (Yes, I also have Ferguson kill-filed where ever he pops up,
because he too is unable to control himself.)
There are numerous other examples.
Larry Sheldon
> Peter J Ross wrote:
>
>> What in Gary's persona suggests that he would approve unsuitable
>> articles or reject suitable ones?
>
> His reaction (and language) every time Mark Ferguson posts about
I think I meant Paul Ferguson. I'm the Ferguson part is right.
My apologies to any Ferguson's that I have offended in my ignorance.
Steve Crook
Message-Id: <slrnh470l...@pjr.gotdns.org>:
>> There are a couple of regulars in alt.usenet.kooks who would admit to
>> being highly accomplished trolls.
>
> "admit"? ;-)
Well metaphorically speaking. Never admit to anything! :)
>> In other newsgroups they are held in
>> high esteem for their valued contributions.
>
> It's my opinion that high accomplishment in trolling is correlated
> with high accomplishment in other fields. It's the trolls who aren't
> highly accomplished who are the problem.
In the context of this discussion, I think accomplishment at trolling
should not bias the acceptability of someone to perform a role of
moderation. That's not to say I'm unbiased, I enjoy a good troll.
K. A. Cannon
wrote:
>In news.admin.net-abuse.policy on Wed, 24 Jun 2009 02:13:08 -0700,
>Steve Crook <st...@mixmin.net> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 20:05:05 -0700, Larry Sheldon wrote in
>> Message-Id: <7aav32F...@mid.individual.net>:
>>
>>> More than one of us have said that trolling is never acceptable.
>> There are a couple of regulars in alt.usenet.kooks who would admit to
>> being highly accomplished trolls.
>
>"admit"? ;-)
While I am an *award* winning troll.
>> In other newsgroups they are held in
>> high esteem for their valued contributions.
>
>It's my opinion that high accomplishment in trolling is correlated
>with high accomplishment in other fields. It's the trolls who aren't
>highly accomplished who are the problem.
Pulling off a successful, subtle troll is an art form unto itself.
Pulling off a successful and subtle troll on others who are successful
and subtle trolls...ah....
>> Some might not like trolling but it is part of Usenet's heritage. The
>> problem as I see it is that the word troll is often misused to describe
>> any idiot who performs acts of Usenet vandalism.
>
>Almost everybody trolls a little from time to time.
>
>"I make witty remarks; you troll; he's an abuser."
Trolling belongs in groups where trolling is acceptable.
And..
Trolling is not successful without people who are gullible enough to
*get trolled*.
--
K. A. Cannon
kevin.a.cannon at gmail.com.
COOSN-266-06-02374
Hammer of Thor, April 2005
PIERRE SALINGER MEMORIAL HOOK, LINE & SINKER June 2007
Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle X 2
#9 People ruining UseNet lits.
#6 Top Assholes on the Net lits.
#5 Most hated Usenetizens of all time
#15 AUK psychos and felons lits
#5 Cog in the AUK Hate Machine
http://www.themonastery.org/dev/cert/ulc_certificate_view.swf?id=10010810040414
Seth
Larry Sheldon <lfsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Seth wrote:
>> In article <7aav32F...@mid.individual.net>,
>> Larry Sheldon <lfsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> More than one of us have said that trolling is never acceptable.
>>
>
>Troll scat.
>
>This is not a.t.t.n
Nobody said it was.
To me, "never" means not ever, anywhere, anytime, on any newsgroup.
If you meant "trolling is never acceptable in the news.admin
hierarchy" you should have said so; I'd be a lot more inclined to
agree.
Seth
Seth
Larry Sheldon <lfsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Peter J Ross wrote:
>
>> What in Gary's persona suggests that he would approve unsuitable
>> articles or reject suitable ones?
>
>His reaction (and language) every time Mark Ferguson posts about
>anything (without regard to the quality and con tent of the Ferguson
>posting. (Yes, I also have Ferguson kill-filed where ever he pops up,
>because he too is unable to control himself.)
Do you think he'd look at the content of a Ferguson article to decide
whether or not to post it? (Gary, want to respond?) Ferguson has
posted articles that I think should be approved (if the group they
were sent to were moderated), as well as junk. But few people haven't
posted any of the latter, and none of them is volunteering anyway.
>There are numerous other examples.
Gary is not my first choice as moderator. My first choice didn't
volunteer for the job. Gary is a much better choice than letting
the newsgroups die.
Seth
Seth
Larry Sheldon <lfsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Seth wrote:
>> There's NANAS and NANAP. NANAS in automatic; it can be (and has been,
>> I believe) bot-moderated. I want it to continue running the way it
>> has been, to make it easy to post evidence of spamming.
>
>Then you want a competent moderator-administrator. (You are
>disqualified because you obviously think mod-bots are created, supported
>and exist without a human in attendance.)
I've been in this field way too long to believe that any computer-run
process doesn't need human oversight (including especially the net
itself; I was there when it failed (not quite) every Tuesday).
I do believe that an outside observer can more or less tell if the
modbot is running correctly (e.g. by checking for his submissions in
the newsgroup). There are clearly enough people who don't trust Gary
that they would check, which gives me confidence.
Seth
Seth
Tim Skirvin <tski...@killfile.org> wrote:
> The only way I could see this working would be to have me continue
>to maintain the submission address, and forward on the submissions to
>another site.
If you're willing to do that, fine. Or, if you don't want to eat the
bandwidth, set the moderator address to a domain (or subdomain) you
own, (e.g. sigh...@nana.killfile.org) and point its MX at Gary's
server. Then you can move or kill it whenever you want.
Seth
Seth
Gary L. Burnore <gbur...@databasix.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 12:51:20 -0700, Seth <se...@panix.com> wrote:
>>We can easily _effectively_ unmoderate a group by setting the
>>moderator address to an auto-posting bot.
>
>The problem I'd see with that is that someone would see "Moderated" and assume
>it was and wonder why something he/she thought should have been moderated
>wasn't.
Oh noes! Somebody is wrong on the net!
Seth
Larry Sheldon
> To me, "never" means not ever, anywhere, anytime, on any newsgroup.
I could accept that.
> If you meant "trolling is never acceptable in the news.admin
> hierarchy" you should have said so; I'd be a lot more inclined to
> agree.
What I thought I said (certainly what I meant to say) was: trolling is
never acceptable to me.
Larry Sheldon
> Do you think he'd look at the content of a Ferguson article to decide
> whether or not to post it?
No, I don't.
> Gary is not my first choice as moderator. My first choice didn't
> volunteer for the job. Gary is a much better choice than letting
> the newsgroups die.
as they say in the bad movies: we will have to agree to disagree.
Seth
Larry Sheldon <lfsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Seth wrote:
>
>> To me, "never" means not ever, anywhere, anytime, on any newsgroup.
>
>I could accept that.
>
>> If you meant "trolling is never acceptable in the news.admin
>> hierarchy" you should have said so; I'd be a lot more inclined to
>> agree.
>
>What I thought I said (certainly what I meant to say) was: trolling is
>never acceptable to me.
I take it you're not a regular in auk then.
There's lots of stuff that isn't acceptable to me, but is within the
rights of other people to do, so I avoid the places where it's common.
Seth
Kelb tal-Fenek
> I take it you're not a regular in auk then.
>
> There's lots of stuff that isn't acceptable to me, but is within the
> rights of other people to do, so I avoid the places where it's common.
If only they would avoid you. The kook group and others like that
one would not exist if they couldn't impose their rights on others
by crossposting to whatever newsgroup they feel is their right.
They have every right...
Larry Sheldon
> There's lots of stuff that isn't acceptable to me, but is within the
> rights of other people to do, so I avoid the places where it's common.
And I expect the habitues thereof not to invade the space of decent
people. And I will take action against them when they don't.
Having trouble getting into my kill-file? Cross-post from auk.
Larry Sheldon
> Seth wrote:
>
>> There's lots of stuff that isn't acceptable to me, but is within the
>> rights of other people to do, so I avoid the places where it's common.
>
> And I expect the habitues thereof not to invade the space of decent
> people. And I will take action against them when they don't.
And I _certainly_do_NOT want them governing space decent people call home.
Seth
They don't get into moderated (and even robo-moderated) newsgroups.
Besides, it's very easy to killfile crossposts (all, too many
newsgroups, specific newsgroups, or whatever you want).
Seth
Seth
Larry Sheldon <lfsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Having trouble getting into my kill-file? Cross-post from auk.
Wouldn't it be easier just to put auk crossposts into your killfile to
start with?
Seth