Is is possible to remove an unmoderated group that is being used?
jayne.ku...@gmail.com
to be removed. Before I go to the trouble of writing a proposal for
this, I'd like to know if it is even possible.
A disturbed individual writes most of the posts to the group using a
large number of constantly changing nyms. Most of groups' regular
participants have given up on the group and moved to a web forum.
Leaving him alone and ignoring him did not discourage him. He now
uses nyms that are very similar to (and easily mistaken for) the names
of the homeschoolers who used to use the group He posts false links
and links to anti-homeschooling sites while purporting to be giving
out homeschooling information. Any person seeking help with or
information on homeschooling will be inundated with deliberately
confusing misinformation. He follows up most posts that genuinely
attempt to discuss homeschooling by changing the subject line to a
personal attack, making discussions difficult to find and follow with
Google.
Many complaints have been sent to the ISP of this person with no
result. He is retired and apparently spends hours every day posting
to prevent the intended purpose of the homeschooling newsgroup from
taking place. While he is entitled to his belief that homeschoolers
are stupid, flooding the group so that this is the only message people
can find on it is not reasonable.
Jayne
Jim Riley
>I think that the newsgroup misc.education.home-school.christian ought
>to be removed. Before I go to the trouble of writing a proposal for
>this, I'd like to know if it is even possible.
>Many complaints have been sent to the ISP of this person with no
>result. He is retired and apparently spends hours every day posting
>to prevent the intended purpose of the homeschooling newsgroup from
>taking place. While he is entitled to his belief that homeschoolers
>are stupid, flooding the group so that this is the only message people
>can find on it is not reasonable.
What about renaming misc.education.home-school.christian to
misc.education.home-school.advocacy, and creating a new group
misc.education.home-school.christian.moderated?
--
Jim Riley
jayne.ku...@gmail.com
[...]
> What about renaming misc.education.home-school.christian to
> misc.education.home-school.advocacy, and creating a new group
> misc.education.home-school.christian.moderated?
While there was some interest in a moderated group earlier, I doubt
much exists now. Most of the former mehsc participants seem happy
with the web forum. I do like, however, the idea of renaming the
homeschooling group so that people are less likely to come there
looking for help and information. I think misc.education.home-
school.opposition describes the current state of the group.
Jayne
Jim and Phyllis
trolled or spammed to such a degree that .moderated groups are being
formed or forum groups are being formed.
Could there be some sort of criteria by which groups with vast amounts
of spam or troll traffic could be candidates for deletion or a name
change to reflect the troll traffic?
A drawback of the procedure would be that it would allow trolls to
focus on a group and more reliably to sink it. In effect, it would
allow trolls to destroy usenet groups...but then, they are doing so
now. Perhaps deletion would be a procedure to use after moderated
groups have been formed or when the regular civil posters to the group
request it. The benefit would be that parties interested in the topic
would have civil groups to use.
Jim
jayne.ku...@gmail.com
moderated group. While I am not aware of sufficient interest to
create a moderated discussion group, I think that there could be a
role for a moderated announcement group. It could use the name
misc.education.home-school.announce and be a place for links to
homeschooling-related web sites, discussion fora and blogs. It could
also include information about homeschooling resources, both online
and off, and homeschooling conferences. Currently, such information
posted to mehsc is drowned out by so much anti-homeschooling opinion
(often with misleading subjects like "How to Homeschool" and "FAQ")
that it becomes difficult and unreasonably time-consuming to find it
There is another homeschooling newsgroup,
misc.education.homeschool.misc, which currently is composed primarily
of posts with links to educational resources. While these are good,
they are not usually helpful for people looking for information on how
to get started homeschooling or seeking support. Also, if the regulars
from the Christian homeschool group try to post there, the anti-
homeschooling individual who floods their group starts including the
*.misc group in his "audience".
Jayne
Jim Riley
>I've been thinking more about Jim Riley's suggestion of creating a
>moderated group. While I am not aware of sufficient interest to
>create a moderated discussion group, I think that there could be a
>role for a moderated announcement group.
Is Chris Barnes still interested in moderating a mehsc? The hangup
last fall year was moderation in place, which the Board refuses to
consider. But if there were two unmoderated alternatives would that
be the case? Is the board willing to accept an RFD for a such
proposal? They could at least enunciate their rationale for no
in-place moderation.
|misc.education.home-school.advocacy Home-schooling advocacy.
|misc.education.home-school.christian Christian home-schooling (Moderated).
|misc.education.home-school.misc Almost anything about home-schooling.
|misc.education.home-school.resources Home-schooling resources, curricula, etc. (Moderated)
> It could use the name
>misc.education.home-school.announce and be a place for links to
>homeschooling-related web sites, discussion fora and blogs. It could
>also include information about homeschooling resources, both online
>and off, and homeschooling conferences. Currently, such information
>posted to mehsc is drowned out by so much anti-homeschooling opinion
>(often with misleading subjects like "How to Homeschool" and "FAQ")
>that it becomes difficult and unreasonably time-consuming to find it
>
>There is another homeschooling newsgroup,
>misc.education.homeschool.misc, which currently is composed primarily
>of posts with links to educational resources. While these are good,
>they are not usually helpful for people looking for information on how
>to get started homeschooling or seeking support. Also, if the regulars
>from the Christian homeschool group try to post there, the anti-
>homeschooling individual who floods their group starts including the
>*.misc group in his "audience".
Would Steven Saus be willing to switch to a
misc.education.home-school.resources? Would he be willing to moderate
it? Followup discussion could still occur in mehs.misc. I think to
some extent that he may be flooding out discussion in the group -
except that the group never had much discussion. His resource
postings are about 90% of the postings in the group.
--
Jim Riley
Martin X. Moleski, SJ
>Is Chris Barnes still interested in moderating a mehsc? The hangup
>last fall year was moderation in place, which the Board refuses to
>consider. But if there were two unmoderated alternatives would that
>be the case? Is the board willing to accept an RFD for a such
>proposal? They could at least enunciate their rationale for no
>in-place moderation.
There was some horror story with comp.ai going moderated,
if I understand things correctly. I either wasn't in n.g
at the time or wasn't paying attention.
I think the moratorium dates back to that (apparent)
catastrophe.
No matter what we do with the sick group, there are going
to be bad consequences.
1. Leave it alone.
2. Rmgroup it.
3. Add a companion moderated group. (Is that so bad?)
4. Moderate it in place.
There won't be 100% cooperation on any of those choices,
I imagine, either from news admins or from users of
the group.
Maybe this is the right next group to moderate in place?
Marty
--
Member of the Big-8 Management Board (B8MB) -- http://www.big-8.org
Unless otherwise indicated, I speak for myself, not for the Board.
Steve Bonine
> Maybe this is the right next group to moderate in place?
My issues with moderation in place are related to the expertise and
motivation of news administrators in today's Usenet.
Adding newsgroups is a routine part of administering a news server, and
yet there are a number of providers which are incapable of handling this
task. Whether this is due to incompetence or disinterest, we see
continuing struggles by proponents and potential users of groups to get
them added to some of the largest NSPs. Even with several paying users
bugging the support staff, it can take months to get a newsgroup added.
Moderation of a group in place is not a routine task for administrators,
and I would expect it to be done much more poorly than adding new
groups. Years ago, when the expertise and motivation of administrators
was higher, moderating a group in place might have worked. Today, I
think that it's not a reasonable course of action.
For many of the same reasons, "removing" the group is pretty pointless.
There are the NSPs who market their product based on the number of
newsgroups in their active files; these companies will never remove a
group. The NSPs that grudgingly respond to user requests to add groups
are not likely to see any justification for the work to remove a group.
This leaves the alternative of creating a companion moderated newsgroup,
which requires significant work from at least one person and preferably
a small group of people who care about the Usenet group. If everyone
who cares has left Usenet, there's no one to do this task.
By default, the alternative of "do nothing" is likely to be the winner.
Jim Riley
<mol...@canisius.edu> wrote:
>On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 21:44:37 CST, Jim Riley <jim...@pipeline.com> wrote in <13fgj7e...@corp.supernews.com>:
>
>>Is Chris Barnes still interested in moderating a mehsc? The hangup
>>last fall year was moderation in place, which the Board refuses to
>>consider. But if there were two unmoderated alternatives would that
>>be the case? Is the board willing to accept an RFD for a such
>>proposal? They could at least enunciate their rationale for no
>>in-place moderation.
>
>There was some horror story with comp.ai going moderated,
>if I understand things correctly. I either wasn't in n.g
>at the time or wasn't paying attention.
comp.ai (net.ai) was a very old group. Some of the more practical
topics had been split off into specific subgroups. Another group, the
unmoderated comp.ai.philosophy had been created several years earlier
to take certain long lasting threads out of comp.ai. Every so often,
someone would stick a cross.post between comp.ai and
comp.ai.philosophy and the discussion would get dumped into comp.ai.
comp.ai is very near the start of the group list alphabetically so it
also gets a lot of alphabet spam. It was an ongoing group, but
weakly.
I was surprised that it got enough votes to be converted. There
wasn't a real upwelling of support to moderate the group, but more the
case of someone coming forward and volunteering to moderate the group,
and others consenting. There was a small attempt to stuff ballots in
opposition, that was caught by the votetaker.
The group was moderated, and 6 months later Bloxy discover that fact.
He hadn't been a user of comp.ai, except when there was a cross-post
to comp.ai.philosophy. He had actually participated in a tangent
subthread of the RFD discussion without apparently being aware of what
the original thread had been about.
6 months latet he discovered that the group had been moderated.
>I think the moratorium dates back to that (apparent)
>catastrophe.
When a group is converted in place to a moderated status, there are
technical problems.
Persons using servers where the group is marked unmoderated will be
able to read approved articles. They may also be able to read
articles posted at other servers where the group is marked at
unmoderated, if the article is able to propagate to their server.
They will also apparently be able to "post" to the group but the
unapproved articles will not be seen by those using the group on
servers where the group is marked as moderated. If they are
motivated, they can submit directly to the moderator. And if course,
they can make the effort to have the group converted to a moderated
status on the server they use.
Certain news server software will detect unapproved articles in a
moderated group and send them to the submission address. This can
help the moderator locate servers where the group is configured as
unmoderated. At worst, it can subject the moderators to articles that
were never intended to be moderated. But this may not be
substantively different than the spam submissions.
If there are motivated participants in the newsgroup, the technical
problems can be overcome.
>No matter what we do with the sick group, there are going
>to be bad consequences.
>
>1. Leave it alone.
>
>2. Rmgroup it.
>
>3. Add a companion moderated group. (Is that so bad?)
>
>4. Moderate it in place.
5. Moderate in place, create an unmoderated companion group for
advocacy, and recognize that there is also another unmoderated group
for discussion of home schooling.
--
Jim Riley
jayne.ku...@gmail.com
[...]
> Is Chris Barnes still interested in moderating a mehsc? The hangup
> last fall year was moderation in place, which the Board refuses to
> consider. But if there were two unmoderated alternatives would that
> be the case? Is the board willing to accept an RFD for a such
> proposal? They could at least enunciate their rationale for no
> in-place moderation.
I doubt very much that Chris is interested, nor do I think that many,
if any, of the former participants of mehsc are interested in
returning to Usenet. They are comfortable on the web forum and like
the ease of the software there. I do not think the newsgroup
moderation software can compete. While it would have made sense to
create a moderated Christian homeschooling group a year or two ago, I
do not expect sufficient interest to justify it at this point.
> |misc.education.home-school.advocacy Home-schooling advocacy.
I don't think the term "advocacy" indicates clearly enough the level
of flaming and abuse taking place. What about misc.education.home-
school.debate?
> |misc.education.home-school.christian Christian home-schooling (Moderated).
As I said, I am not aware of anyone interested in participating in
this.
> |misc.education.home-school.misc Almost anything about home-schooling.
In other words, leave this existing group alone, right?
> |misc.education.home-school.resources Home-schooling resources, curricula, etc. (Moderated)
Are there other groups using *.resources like this?
[...]
> Would Steven Saus be willing to switch to a
> misc.education.home-school.resources? Would he be willing to moderate
> it? Followup discussion could still occur in mehs.misc.
As I recall, when I last discussed it with him, Steven was
ideologically opposed to moderation in general. I would be surprised
if he were willing to be a moderator. I would ask him about his
willingness to post to an announce/resources ng before proceeding much
further with proposing it.
>I think to
> some extent that he may be flooding out discussion in the group -
> except that the group never had much discussion. His resource
> postings are about 90% of the postings in the group.
There were discussions but it was years ago. It has been a long time
since the critical mass of regular participants necessary for
maintaining frequent discussions existed. My impression was that
discussion on mehsm had been decreasing by attrition until eventually
Steven's resource posts were the main thing left, rather than him
flooding discussions out. There used to be a couple of regulars who
would watch out for newbies to answer questions. Lately this doesn't
seem to happen any more, either.
Even though homeschooling has greatly increased in numbers in recent
years, people who come to the Usenet homeschooling groups for help or
information are likely to be ignored on one group and attacked on the
other.
Jayne
jayne.ku...@gmail.com
> My issues with moderation in place are related to the expertise and
> motivation of news administrators in today's Usenet.
Do I understand correctly that the problems you foresee in moderation
in place would be similar to attempting to change the name of the
group?
Jayne
Steve Bonine
Yes.
If you try to change the name by changing the name (that is, the
articles in the group survive the change) then it's a nonstandard
activity and requires actual knowledge and understanding of the news
software to accomplish. Chances of it happening in today's Usenet are
remote.
If you try to change the name by removing the old group and adding the
new group, you get to see the problems involved in removing a group plus
the problems involved in trying to get a new group propagated. The
result is likely to be that the old group will continue to exist on many
servers, and you'll struggle to get the new group added.
Either way, "change the name of the group" really is not something that
will happen in the way that you want it to, especially since you're
lacking a group of interested people to bug newsgroup administrators to
make the required changes.
Kathy Morgan
> No matter what we do with the sick group, there are going
> to be bad consequences.
>
> 1. Leave it alone.
>
> 2. Rmgroup it.
>
> 3. Add a companion moderated group. (Is that so bad?)
>
> 4. Moderate it in place.
>
> There won't be 100% cooperation on any of those choices,
> I imagine, either from news admins or from users of
> the group.
>
> Maybe this is the right next group to moderate in place?
No, I don't think so--the technological hurdles are too great. I also
would vote against a name change (which actually means removing the one
group and creating a new group with the new name). If there are
proponents and users who want to create a companion moderated group,
that might be worth considering.
--
Kathy, new moderator of comp.sys.mac.announce and
comp.sys.mac.programmer.info
Jim Riley
>On Sep 24, 11:44 pm, Jim Riley <jimr...@pipeline.com> wrote:
>
>[...]
>> Is Chris Barnes still interested in moderating a mehsc? The hangup
>> last fall year was moderation in place, which the Board refuses to
>> consider. But if there were two unmoderated alternatives would that
>> be the case? Is the board willing to accept an RFD for a such
>> proposal? They could at least enunciate their rationale for no
>> in-place moderation.
>
>I doubt very much that Chris is interested, nor do I think that many,
>if any, of the former participants of mehsc are interested in
>returning to Usenet. They are comfortable on the web forum and like
>the ease of the software there. I do not think the newsgroup
>moderation software can compete. While it would have made sense to
>create a moderated Christian homeschooling group a year or two ago, I
>do not expect sufficient interest to justify it at this point.
Well he has the moderation expertise and experience, and interest in
the topic, and in past had expressed interest in moderating the group.
>> |misc.education.home-school.advocacy Home-schooling advocacy.
>
>I don't think the term "advocacy" indicates clearly enough the level
>of flaming and abuse taking place. What about misc.education.home-
>school.debate?
Why does "debate" connote abuse and flaming? "advocacy" is the
traditional Usenet name for that type of endless discussion.
>> |misc.education.home-school.christian Christian home-schooling (Moderated).
>
>As I said, I am not aware of anyone interested in participating in
>this.
Then moderation would be easy. It may or may not attract former
participants. The state of the existing group certainly won't attract
those who wish to discuss home schooling.
>> |misc.education.home-school.misc Almost anything about home-schooling.
>
>In other words, leave this existing group alone, right?
Yes. But it is recognized as an unmoderated alternative for those who
may not want to use a moderated newsgroup. The social concern with
moderation in place is that participants who don't like moderation can
still discuss the topic that presumably interests them.
>> |misc.education.home-school.resources Home-schooling resources, curricula, etc. (Moderated)
>
>Are there other groups using *.resources like this?
None in the Big 8. ".info" appears to be the name used for somewhat
similar groups, though this sometimes may be understood as more static
information as might be found in FAQs. This is not always true, for
example, see rec.autos.sport.info
>[...]
>> Would Steven Saus be willing to switch to a
>> misc.education.home-school.resources? Would he be willing to moderate
>> it? Followup discussion could still occur in mehs.misc.
>
>As I recall, when I last discussed it with him, Steven was
>ideologically opposed to moderation in general. I would be surprised
>if he were willing to be a moderator. I would ask him about his
>willingness to post to an announce/resources ng before proceeding much
>further with proposing it.
There is a difference between a discussion group, and announcement,
etc. groups as far as moderation go. You wouldn't be proposing
moderation of mehs.misc but another group.
>>I think to
>> some extent that he may be flooding out discussion in the group -
>> except that the group never had much discussion. His resource
>> postings are about 90% of the postings in the group.
>
>There were discussions but it was years ago. It has been a long time
>since the critical mass of regular participants necessary for
>maintaining frequent discussions existed. My impression was that
>discussion on mehsm had been decreasing by attrition until eventually
>Steven's resource posts were the main thing left, rather than him
>flooding discussions out. There used to be a couple of regulars who
>would watch out for newbies to answer questions. Lately this doesn't
>seem to happen any more, either.
"Flooding out" doesn't really have the right connotation. If your
(general) news server had a reasonable expiration period, you could
scan through his posts every few weeks. Some may be time sensitive,
but most would not. So even if you were a regular reader, you might
not see any posts from someone else. And if someone new finds the
group, they might simply conform to what they see as the norms of the
group. Other people from time to time post web sites that they have
found, and of course there are the drive-by infomercials.
>Even though homeschooling has greatly increased in numbers in recent
>years, people who come to the Usenet homeschooling groups for help or
>information are likely to be ignored on one group and attacked on the
>other.
--
Jim Riley
Tim Skirvin
> I think that the newsgroup misc.education.home-school.christian ought
> to be removed. Before I go to the trouble of writing a proposal for
> this, I'd like to know if it is even possible.
Having discussed this with the rest of the Board, yes, it's
likely that we would entertain an RFD on this topic.
- Tim Skirvin (sk...@big-8.org)
--
http://www.big-8.org/ Big-8 Management Board
http://www.killfile.org/~tskirvin/ Skirv's Homepage <FISH>< <*>
Ted Johnson
> "jayne.kulikaus...@gmail.com" <jayne.kulikaus...@gmail.com> writes:
> > I think that the newsgroup misc.education.home-school.christian ought
> > to be removed. Before I go to the trouble of writing a proposal for
> > this, I'd like to know if it is even possible.
>
> Having discussed this with the rest of the Board, yes, it's
> likely that we would entertain an RFD on this topic.
>
> - Tim Skirvin (sk...@big-8.org)
Please be advised that there are long-standing members who are
adamantly *against* closing down misc.education.home-
school.christian.
Ted Johnson
Martin X. Moleski, SJ
<1192412811.4...@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>:
>On Sep 26, 3:04 pm, tskir...@killfile.org (Tim Skirvin) wrote:
>> "jayne.kulikaus...@gmail.com" <jayne.kulikaus...@gmail.com> writes:
>> > I think that the newsgroup misc.education.home-school.christian ought
>> > to be removed. Before I go to the trouble of writing a proposal for
>> > this, I'd like to know if it is even possible.
>> Having discussed this with the rest of the Board, yes, it's
>> likely that we would entertain an RFD on this topic.
>Please be advised that there are long-standing members who are
>adamantly *against* closing down misc.education.home-
>school.christian.
"Entertaining an RFD on this topic" does not mean that
it is a done deal.
It means that we would try, as best we can with the limited
tools available, to hear from all interested parties.
If some reasonably good evidence can be given that what
you say is true, then I would definitely vote against
removing the group.
Tim Skirvin
> On Sep 26, 3:04 pm, tskir...@killfile.org (Tim Skirvin) wrote:
>> Having discussed this with the rest of the Board, yes, it's
>> likely that we would entertain an RFD on this topic.
> Please be advised that there are long-standing members who are
> adamantly *against* closing down misc.education.home-
> school.christian.
*nod* Understood; and if there is a proposal put forward, we will
definitely account for those of you that still want to keep your group.
We don't want to remove a useful resources.
In your favor, though, we have recently updated our list of
"discouraged" proposal topics:
http://www.big-8.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=policies:discouraged
I believe that Number 8 applies to this case: "Proposals to remove
an unmoderated group outside the scope of a hierarchy reorganization,
unless the group is extremely low traffic." I suspect this means that,
without significant discussion, we would *not* entertain an RFD on this
topic.
- Tim Skirvin (sk...@big-8.org)
--
http://www.big-8.org/ Big-8 Management Board
Ted Johnson
wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 21:56:32 CST, Ted Johnson <hubbard...@gmail.com> wrote in
> <1192412811.470203.158...@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>:
>
> >On Sep 26, 3:04 pm, tskir...@killfile.org (Tim Skirvin) wrote:
> >> "jayne.kulikaus...@gmail.com" <jayne.kulikaus...@gmail.com> writes:
> >> > I think that the newsgroup misc.education.home-school.christian ought
> >> > to be removed. Before I go to the trouble of writing a proposal for
> >> > this, I'd like to know if it is even possible.
> >> Having discussed this with the rest of the Board, yes, it's
> >> likely that we would entertain an RFD on this topic.
> >Please be advised that there are long-standing members who are
> >adamantly *against* closing down misc.education.home-
> >school.christian.
>
> "Entertaining an RFD on this topic" does not mean that
> it is a done deal.
>
> It means that we would try, as best we can with the limited
> tools available, to hear from all interested parties.
>
> If some reasonably good evidence can be given that what
> you say is true, then I would definitely vote against
> removing the group.
>
> Marty
> --
> Unless otherwise indicated, I speak for myself, not for the Board.
At least 3 members have spoken against it in just the last 24 hours
(although my post seems to be arriving "fashionably late"!).
tj (Ted Johnson)
jayne.ku...@gmail.com
> Ted Johnson <hubbard...@gmail.com> writes:
> > On Sep 26, 3:04 pm, tskir...@killfile.org (Tim Skirvin) wrote:
> >> Having discussed this with the rest of the Board, yes, it's
> >> likely that we would entertain an RFD on this topic.
> > Please be advised that there are long-standing members who are
> > adamantly *against* closing down misc.education.home-
> > school.christian.
>
> *nod* Understood; and if there is a proposal put forward, we will
> definitely account for those of you that still want to keep your group.
> We don't want to remove a useful resources.
>
> In your favor, though, we have recently updated our list of
> "discouraged" proposal topics:
>
> http://www.big-8.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=policies:discouraged
>
> I believe that Number 8 applies to this case: "Proposals to remove
> an unmoderated group outside the scope of a hierarchy reorganization,
> unless the group is extremely low traffic." I suspect this means that,
> without significant discussion, we would *not* entertain an RFD on this
> topic.
>
> - Tim Skirvin (sk...@big-8.org)
I understand what I am envisioning as a hierarchy reorganization and
am planning to frame the proposal that way. I want to consolidate the
two low-traffic unmoderated groups into one and add a moderated one.
If there is only going to be one unmoderated group, it seems to me
that it should be misc.education.home-school.misc rather than
misc.education.home-school.christian, since there is nothing that I
can see that is specifically Christian about the remaining discussion
and of the few remaining regular posters, at least two are atheists.
I have been delaying putting out the proposal in the hopes of
receiving input from Steven Saus, the one person who still
consistently posts to mehsm. He has not responded to either email or
the posted thread on the topic. I have pretty much given up on this
now and hope to get the proposal out soon.
Jayne
Jeremy Nixon
> If some reasonably good evidence can be given that what
> you say is true, then I would definitely vote against
> removing the group.
I, too, am not going to vote to remove an actively-used newsgroup against
the wishes of those using it. There is nothing to worry about here.
--
Jeremy Nixon | address in header is valid
(formerly jer...@exit109.com)
Brandon Staggs
> the posted thread on the topic. I have pretty much given up on this
> now and hope to get the proposal out soon.
Jayne, why are you bothering with this? Several of us still using
mehsc have told you we are not interested in having the group folded
into something else or otherwise molested.
--
Brandon Staggs
http://www.swordsearcher.com
http://www.studylamp.com
http://www.brandonstaggs.com
.
jayne.ku...@gmail.com
> "jayne.kulikaus...@gmail.com" wrote on Mon, 15 Oct 2007 16:50:50 CST:
>
> > the posted thread on the topic. I have pretty much given up on this
> > now and hope to get the proposal out soon.
>
> Jayne, why are you bothering with this? Several of us still using
> mehsc have told you we are not interested in having the group folded
> into something else or otherwise molested.
An RFD is a request for discussion. I think the situation in the home-
schooling groups is pretty bad and that a discussion about what can be
done about it is a good thing. When I thought it over, I came to the
conclusion that removing meh-sc was the least bad option. In a
discussion involving home-schooling group regulars and people who are
knowledgeable about Usenet in general, other options might come out or
I might change my mind about the relative badness of the options. It
is even possible that, given more information, you and others might
change your mind.
Yes, if everyone goes in with their minds made up even before they see
the proposal, then it is not worth bothering with this. I respect
most of the people who have raised objections enough that I believe
them capable of putting aside their initial negative reactions and
have a reasonable discussion about this. I don't believe that leaving
things the way they are is the best we can do. I want to talk about
it.
Jayne
Mark T
> |misc.education.home-school.misc Almost anything about home-schooling.
>
> In other words, leave this existing group alone, right?
Does that mean you have finally come to your senses rather than your annual
"Ban Dissent and Burn Dissenters" Inquisition????
> As I recall, when I last discussed it with him, Steven was
> ideologically opposed to moderation in general.
He seems to be a rational person.
Mark T
>>> |misc.education.home-school.advocacy Home-schooling advocacy.
>>
>>I don't think the term "advocacy" indicates clearly enough the level
>>of flaming and abuse taking place. What about misc.education.home-
>>school.debate?
>
> Why does "debate" connote abuse and flaming? "advocacy" is the
> traditional Usenet name for that type of endless discussion.
Homeschoolers DON'T debate with anyone who has more knowledge about
education that they have. Instead, they endeavour to CENSOR debate by
contacting ISPs and calling the dissenters "trolls". Homeschoolers at mehsc
are the TERRORISTS of educational newsgroups.
#######################################################
>From John Milton's "Areopagitica" (1644) [Appleton- Century Crofts; New
York:1951]p.51
"And though all the winds of doctrine were let loose to play upon the earth,
so Truth be in the field, we do injuriously by licensing and prohibiting to
misdoubt her strength. Let her and falsehood grapple; who ever knew Truth
to be the worse in a free and open encounter? Her confuting is the best and
surest suppressing."
########################################################
Mark T
> Please be advised that there are long-standing members who are
> adamantly *against* closing down misc.education.home-
> school.christian.
I am also one who opposes it.
Mark T
> Yes, if everyone goes in with their minds made up even before they see
> the proposal, then it is not worth bothering with this.
Your proposal was NEVER worth bothering with in the first place. You are
doing this soley to CENSOR debate. Nothing more. Nothing less.
****************************
In our times, various ideologically dedicated groups increasingly use
censorship, coercion, or propaganda to limit access to ideas, literature,
and the arts that they consider threatening. p.74
Censorship, the twin brother of propaganda, is the tool of despots, of
idealogues, of ayatollahs, of fantics. p.96
Franky Schaeffer "Sham Pearls For Real Swine" ( Wolgemuth & Hyatt;
Brentwood:1990) [Francis Schaeffer's son & Susan Schaeffer Macaulay's
brother]
*********************************
Jim Riley
wrote:
>"Jim Riley" <jim...@pipeline.com> wrote:
>
>>>> |misc.education.home-school.advocacy Home-schooling advocacy.
>>>
>>>I don't think the term "advocacy" indicates clearly enough the level
>>>of flaming and abuse taking place. What about misc.education.home-
>>>school.debate?
>>
>> Why does "debate" connote abuse and flaming? "advocacy" is the
>> traditional Usenet name for that type of endless discussion.
>
>Homeschoolers DON'T debate with anyone who has more knowledge about
>education that they have. Instead, they endeavour to CENSOR debate by
>contacting ISPs and calling the dissenters "trolls". Homeschoolers at mehsc
>are the TERRORISTS of educational newsgroups.
At least on the surface, the misc.education.* groups appear to be
pretty worthless (1). Which of the misc.education.* groups do you
find value in, and in which have you been a victim of their supposed
terrorism?
It is true that misc.education.home-school.misc has some value, but
that is because no one other than Stephen Saus really uses it.
misc.education.home-school.christian used to have utility for those
who used it, until the continuous trolling attacks began.
What do you think of:
misc.education.home-school.advocacy
misc.education.home-school.misc
misc.education.home-school.resources (Moderated)
misc.education.home-school.christian (Moderated)
I really don't think that the users of mehsc would terrorize mehsm or
mehsa.
--
Jim Riley
Mark T
>>> Why does "debate" connote abuse and flaming? "advocacy" is the
>>> traditional Usenet name for that type of endless discussion.
>>
>>Homeschoolers DON'T debate with anyone who has more knowledge about
>>education that they have. Instead, they endeavour to CENSOR debate by
>>contacting ISPs and calling the dissenters "trolls". Homeschoolers at
>>mehsc
>>are the TERRORISTS of educational newsgroups.
>
> At least on the surface, the misc.education.* groups appear to be
> pretty worthless (1). Which of the misc.education.* groups do you
> find value in
I haven't found much depth in any of them. Reflective praxis and
professional reading are important for every professional educator but this
is usually done within the context of one's own workplace. It is not found
in homeschooling. It is worthwhile having a forum on education where
questions can be answered for homeschoolers struggling in certain areas
specially in teaching techniques, assessment / evaluation and in evaluation
of homeschool resouces. Of utmost importance is the universal problem in
homeschooling of socialisation that MUST be addressed for the welfare of the
child.. It is also worthwhile in presenting ALL sides of homeschooling for
every educational philosophy / methodology has BOTH pros and cons. A site
that only presents the pros is not helping homeschoolers in the long term.
Addressing the cons is part of the way forward.
> and in which have you been a victim of their supposed
> terrorism?
misc.education.home-school.christian
I have responded with parody and satire.
I am a professional educator with 30 years experience (K-12 & adult) being
both a School Principal and Training Manager. I was also the first person
to be invitated by the Baptist Union in Australia to speak at their Annual
Celebration on the pros and cons of Christian schooling. Christian
homeschooling has many of the same problems Christian schooling encounters.
I advocate homeschooling when done well. Each family needs to be assessed
as an individual unit and some children in the same family may be suited to
homeschooling while others may be better helped at a public school or a
Christian school.
> What do you think of:
>
> misc.education.home-school.advocacy
misc.education.home-school.advocacy sounds like a good idea.
> misc.education.home-school.misc
Keep it as it is.
> misc.education.home-school.resources (Moderated)
To be of use to the LEARNER (the focus of all education) it should also have
access by those qualified in education / teaching. There are many resources
that are not worthwhile using. For example, not all children learn reading
through phonics so a Moderator who advocates ONLY using phonics (and censors
all else) will disadvantage many children. Herein is the problem: many
homeschoolers haven't the background to understand the many facets of
education.
Generally, I am not in favour of moderation as it too often merely reflects
the moderator's biases rather than the basis of the discussion. Moderator
decisions tend to be subjective.
> misc.education.home-school.christian (Moderated)
Leave misc.education.home-school.christian as it is. There are MANY
differing Christian views. As a Liberal Christian I am opposed to teaching
creationism / intelligent design as science to any child. The only
Christians advocating creationism are fundamentalists. Catholics do not
advocate creationism and they are a large part of Christianity. Having a
fundamentalist Moderator on a site means that ALL other Christian views will
be censored. Fundamentalist Christians are very intolerant.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
... quoting from James Barr's book "Fundamentalism" on the three
distinguishing features of the Fundamentalist:
'Firstly, a fundamentalist has a very strong emphasis on the inerrancy of
the Bible, and believes in the absence from it of any sort of error.
Two, a strong hostility to modern theology and to the method, results and
implications of modern critical study of the Bible.
And three, an assurance that those who do not share their religious
viewpoint are not really true Christians at all.'
Peter Cameron "Heretic" (Doubleday; Sydney: 1994) p. 178
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> I really don't think that the users of mehsc would terrorize mehsm or
> mehsa.
They only terrorise professional educators as they erroneously believe every
untrained homeschooler knows more about education than a professional
educator and that if you don't homeschool then you can't have an opinion -
especially if you are a professional educator. Nonsense! I have helped
many homeschoolers throughout my career.
Jim Riley
wrote:
>"Jim Riley" <jim...@pipeline.com> wrote:
>
>>>> Why does "debate" connote abuse and flaming? "advocacy" is the
>>>> traditional Usenet name for that type of endless discussion.
>>>
>>>Homeschoolers DON'T debate with anyone who has more knowledge about
>>>education that they have. Instead, they endeavour to CENSOR debate by
>>>contacting ISPs and calling the dissenters "trolls". Homeschoolers at
>>>mehsc are the TERRORISTS of educational newsgroups.
>>
>> At least on the surface, the misc.education.* groups appear to be
>> pretty worthless (1). Which of the misc.education.* groups do you
>> find value in
>
>I haven't found much depth in any of them.
I was also thinking of these groups. Are any of them being
terrorized?
misc.education
misc.education.adult
misc.education.language.english
misc.education.medical
misc.education.science
misc.education.home-school.christian
misc.education.home-school.misc
> Reflective praxis and
>professional reading are important for every professional educator but this
>is usually done within the context of one's own workplace. It is not found
>in homeschooling. It is worthwhile having a forum on education where
>questions can be answered for homeschoolers struggling in certain areas
>specially in teaching techniques, assessment / evaluation and in evaluation
>of homeschool resouces. Of utmost importance is the universal problem in
>homeschooling of socialisation that MUST be addressed for the welfare of the
>child.. It is also worthwhile in presenting ALL sides of homeschooling for
>every educational philosophy / methodology has BOTH pros and cons. A site
>that only presents the pros is not helping homeschoolers in the long term.
>Addressing the cons is part of the way forward.
If such discussion were to actually happen, wouldn't it be more likely
to happen in misc.education.home-school.misc?
>> and in which have you been a victim of their supposed
>> terrorism?
>
>misc.education.home-school.christian
What form did this "terrorism" take?
>I have responded with parody and satire.
Does your parody include using e-mail addresses of other participants?
>I am a professional educator with 30 years experience (K-12 & adult) being
>both a School Principal and Training Manager. I was also the first person
>to be invitated by the Baptist Union in Australia to speak at their Annual
>Celebration on the pros and cons of Christian schooling. Christian
>homeschooling has many of the same problems Christian schooling encounters.
>I advocate homeschooling when done well. Each family needs to be assessed
>as an individual unit and some children in the same family may be suited to
>homeschooling while others may be better helped at a public school or a
>Christian school.
>> What do you think of:
>>
>> misc.education.home-school.advocacy
>
>misc.education.home-school.advocacy sounds like a good idea.
>
>> misc.education.home-school.misc
>
>Keep it as it is.
Sort of.
>> misc.education.home-school.resources (Moderated)
>
>To be of use to the LEARNER (the focus of all education) it should also have
>access by those qualified in education / teaching. There are many resources
>that are not worthwhile using. For example, not all children learn reading
>through phonics so a Moderator who advocates ONLY using phonics (and censors
>all else) will disadvantage many children. Herein is the problem: many
>homeschoolers haven't the background to understand the many facets of
>education.
Resources would primarily be for posting things like Stephen Saus
currently posts to misc.education.home-school.misc. While useful,
they give the appearance that the group is not a discussion group. If
someone wanders in, their impression would probably be that it isn't a
discussion group.
>Generally, I am not in favour of moderation as it too often merely reflects
>the moderator's biases rather than the basis of the discussion. Moderator
>decisions tend to be subjective.
>
>> misc.education.home-school.christian (Moderated)
>
>Leave misc.education.home-school.christian as it is. There are MANY
>differing Christian views. As a Liberal Christian I am opposed to teaching
>creationism / intelligent design as science to any child. The only
>Christians advocating creationism are fundamentalists. Catholics do not
>advocate creationism and they are a large part of Christianity. Having a
>fundamentalist Moderator on a site means that ALL other Christian views will
>be censored. Fundamentalist Christians are very intolerant.
Do many Catholics home school?
>> I really don't think that the users of mehsc would terrorize mehsm or
>> mehsa.
>
>They only terrorise professional educators as they erroneously believe every
>untrained homeschooler knows more about education than a professional
>educator and that if you don't homeschool then you can't have an opinion -
>especially if you are a professional educator. Nonsense! I have helped
>many homeschoolers throughout my career.
In what manner do they terrorize the users of
misc.education.home-school.misc or would they terrorize user of a
misc.education.home-school.advocacy?
--
Jim Riley
Michael Black
>>They only terrorise professional educators as they erroneously believe every
>>untrained homeschooler knows more about education than a professional
>>educator and that if you don't homeschool then you can't have an opinion -
>>especially if you are a professional educator. Nonsense! I have helped
>>many homeschoolers throughout my career.
>
> In what manner do they terrorize the users of
> misc.education.home-school.misc or would they terrorize user of a
> misc.education.home-school.advocacy?
I don't know if this is the best place to wade in, and I have no
experience with the specific newsgroups.
But, there are two very distinct paths that bring people to home-schooling.
I think the initial impetus was the whole criticism of the school system
by people like John Holt, Jonathan Kozol and Ivan Illich, to name a few,
about forty years ago. They started with criticism of what existed, and
some or all of them came to the conclusion that the only way to fix
the problem was to get rid of the schools. I think we can even place Seymor
Papert in that "school", with his creation of the computer language Logo that
is intended as a learning environment, and maybe even Alan Kay (with
his conceptual design of the Dynabook forty years ago, and his
current involvement with that $100 laptop for learning).
The other path is those who feel the school system is teaching the
wrong things, specifically religious matters (or lack of). They want
to take their children out of the school system to keep them away
from ideas that they dislike. But, they then recreate what goes
on in school systems at home, curriculum and a rather rigid structure.
I don't know how the first group influenced the second, if at all.
But the distinction is quite strong, since the former take issue
with the very process, and are more interested in having the child
lead, while the latter is quite traditional in the teaching process.
That causes a significant clash, since both groups end up at the
same place (sort of) with radically different reasons. One is
interested in staying away from the school system, the other just
wants to keep some things out of the learning process and has
no problem cooperating with the officials. The first group likely
doesn't think much of the notion of homeschooling when it must
follow what's set up by a local schoolboard, the latter can live
with it.
The first group believes that the child is really quite capable
at learning, and that adults are quite qualified to help them
learn. The second group likely still believes that specific
teachers are needed for the process.
So there is clash on religion, and there is clash on ideology.
And right from the start of this thread, I assumed that's where
the issue lies.
Based on passing references, I get the feeling that the first group
has mostly faded away, or at least dwarfed by the other group, so
every time someone talks of "home schooling" they are generally talking
about schools at home.
Michael
jayne.ku...@gmail.com
[...]
> That causes a significant clash, since both groups end up at the
> same place (sort of) with radically different reasons. One is
> interested in staying away from the school system, the other just
> wants to keep some things out of the learning process and has
> no problem cooperating with the officials. The first group likely
> doesn't think much of the notion of homeschooling when it must
> follow what's set up by a local schoolboard, the latter can live
> with it.
>
> The first group believes that the child is really quite capable
> at learning, and that adults are quite qualified to help them
> learn. The second group likely still believes that specific
> teachers are needed for the process.
>
> So there is clash on religion, and there is clash on ideology.
> And right from the start of this thread, I assumed that's where
> the issue lies.
>
> Based on passing references, I get the feeling that the first group
> has mostly faded away, or at least dwarfed by the other group, so
> every time someone talks of "home schooling" they are generally talking
> about schools at home.
While these ideological issues exist, in my experience, the groups are
not as polarized as this description suggests, especially in countries
other than the US. Many people are motivated to homeschool for
multiple reasons and combine characteristics that you have ascribed to
the different groups. I never had the impression that the Usenet
homeschooling groups were divided along the lines you suggest. Back
when the .misc group was more active, many of its participants were
Christians who also participated in the .christian group. We simply
avoided discussing religious aspects of homeschooling (and general
religious discussion) in the misc. group. Both newsgroups
historically contained posts representing both ideologies.
Jayne.
Mark T
> While these ideological issues exist, in my experience, the groups are
> not as polarized as this description suggests, especially in countries
> other than the US.
Unfortunately most of the homeschoolers in the ngs ARE from the USA.
jayne.ku...@gmail.com
[...]
> >> At least on the surface, the misc.education.* groups appear to be
> >> pretty worthless.
You apparently refer to the following, as well as the 2 homeschooling
groups:
> misc.education
> misc.education.adult
> misc.education.language.english
> misc.education.medical
> misc.education.science
I am not familiar with these groups. Could you please expand on your
comment? I have submitted an RFD to reorganize the homeschooling sub-
hierarchy. Do you think the entire misc.education. hierarchy needs to
be reorganized? If so, what would you suggest? Would it make sense
to for me to incorporate this into ( a later draft of) my proposal?
Jayne
Jim Riley
Mark T had indicated that he felt that the mehsc-erc were the
terrorists of the "educational newsgroups". I asked whether he meant
the other groups in the misc.education.* hierarchy. He apparently
didn't since he simply said that they didn't have much depth.
Most of them appear to have been created with the professional
educators in mind (eg how to educate/train adults for new careers, how
to teach ESL, how to teacn science. misc.education.medical appears to
be more oriented towards medical school students. Most of them barely
passed their vote, and there have been several other proposed groups
that failed (me.legal, me.law-school, me.math, me.montesorri,
me.virtualreality).
Those that were created were in the early to mid-90s, when many
persons were getting their news access through university servers, and
then Usenet was overwhelmed by commercial ISPs. There's not much
discussion in them. Sometimes, someone will discover a group, and try
to start some discussion, and then after a while will leave.
I would just leave them alone. I don't think that they can really be
consolidated, and misc.education already exists.
--
Jim Riley
Chris Barnes
For the B8MB - so that you know, this is the person who caused 100+
people to leave the mehsc newsgroup and form a webbased discussion forum.
Iow, this is the "non-legitimate poster" I was referring to.
And I'll be up front about it, if a new mehsc.moderated newsgroup gets
created, he will be blacklisted from day 1.
--
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Chris Barnes AOL IM: CNBarnes
ch...@txbarnes.com Yahoo IM: chrisnbarnes
"Usenet really is all about standing around and hitting the ground
with clubs, on a spot where many years earlier a dead horse lay."
Chris Barnes
> Martin X. Moleski, SJ <mol...@canisius.edu> wrote:
>
>> If some reasonably good evidence can be given that what
>> you say is true, then I would definitely vote against
>> removing the group.
>
> I, too, am not going to vote to remove an actively-used newsgroup against
> the wishes of those using it. There is nothing to worry about here.
Jayne asked me to rejoin this newsgroup so I could participate in this
discussion.
First, a reply to Jeremy:
I think one (especially the B8MB) need to be keenly aware of who the
"participants" are in a discussion like this. Yes, there are some
legitimate participants of the mehsc newsgroup who are opposed to the
removal of the existing newsgroup. But as Jayne has said, the vast
majority of people who are former "legitimate participants" no longer
care as they have moved on. However, the majority of posts to that
newsgroup these days are from a single "non-legitimate poster" (who
happens to use multiple nyms). I suspect - strongly - that if the folks
who don't care knew that the spammer/flammer is using nyms that spoof
the old legitimate ones, that they then WOULD care... and quite strongly.
Note for definition: a non-legitimate poster is one who posts only to
spam and or flame. There is no discussion in their posts. This
perfectly describes the person currently in mehsc.
Now, suggestion for Jayne:
As I said in our email, I am willing to support the creation of a new
moderated newsgroup. Mostly in an advisory role, but would take a
slightly bigger role initially to just get the ball rolling. But I
would suggest - strongly - that you "don't bite off more than you can
chew". By that, I mean I would suggest that this RFD be limited to only
creating the mehsc.moderated group; leave the existing groups alone. If
the RFD starts messing around with the existing groups, the odds of
getting the new group created drop significantly.
Iow, a partial success is still better than no success. Note that this
isn't a philosophy I always subscribe to (sometimes I do believe in "all
or nothing"), but for this case, I believe it holds true.
Martin X. Moleski, SJ
...
>Now, suggestion for Jayne:
>As I said in our email, I am willing to support the creation of a new
>moderated newsgroup. Mostly in an advisory role, but would take a
>slightly bigger role initially to just get the ball rolling. But I
>would suggest - strongly - that you "don't bite off more than you can
>chew". By that, I mean I would suggest that this RFD be limited to only
>creating the mehsc.moderated group; leave the existing groups alone. If
>the RFD starts messing around with the existing groups, the odds of
>getting the new group created drop significantly.
>Iow, a partial success is still better than no success. Note that this
>isn't a philosophy I always subscribe to (sometimes I do believe in "all
>or nothing"), but for this case, I believe it holds true.
This seems to me to be good advice.
I understand how galling it is to leave mehsc in the
hands of an army of sock puppets. But the demonstration
that there is nobody there but them puppets is maddeningly
difficult.
Creating a companion moderated group seems to me to be
relatively straightforward and faces only the ordinary
(and not trivial) tasks involved in creating a new
moderated group.
jayne.ku...@gmail.com
[...]
> Now, suggestion for Jayne:
> As I said in our email, I am willing to support the creation of a new
> moderated newsgroup. Mostly in an advisory role, but would take a
> slightly bigger role initially to just get the ball rolling. But I
> would suggest - strongly - that you "don't bite off more than you can
> chew". By that, I mean I would suggest that this RFD be limited to only
> creating the mehsc.moderated group; leave the existing groups alone. If
> the RFD starts messing around with the existing groups, the odds of
> getting the new group created drop significantly.
I have already submitted an RFD for a reorganization of homeschooling
groups that includes the group removal of mehsc. (as I understand it,
it should appear Real Soon Now) I am open to leaving that part out of
future RFDs depending on how the discussion goes.
Jayne
Chris Barnes
> So you're planning on moderating by person and not by content. Neat!
Actually, the discussion that has taken place has been to only allow a
very few, nearly auto-messages which contain legitimate information on
where real discussions are already taking place.
Such messages are already being posted to mehsc, but are lost in the
abyss that the group has become (thanks almost exclusively to the poster
who would get blacklisted).
I have no intentions of actually participating in a real discussion on
that newsgroup. Ever. What's more, since real discussions are already
taking place somewhere else, I feel adding "yet another place for
discussions" does the homeschooling community a disservice.
Jeremy Nixon
> I think one (especially the B8MB) need to be keenly aware of who the
> "participants" are in a discussion like this. Yes, there are some
> legitimate participants of the mehsc newsgroup who are opposed to the
> removal of the existing newsgroup. But as Jayne has said, the vast
> majority of people who are former "legitimate participants" no longer
> care as they have moved on. However, the majority of posts to that
> newsgroup these days are from a single "non-legitimate poster" (who
> happens to use multiple nyms). I suspect - strongly - that if the folks
> who don't care knew that the spammer/flammer is using nyms that spoof
> the old legitimate ones, that they then WOULD care... and quite strongly.
> Note for definition: a non-legitimate poster is one who posts only to
> spam and or flame. There is no discussion in their posts. This
> perfectly describes the person currently in mehsc.
That's all well and good, and I sympathize. I really do. I hate it when
people ruin newsgroups, and it happens all too often, and it's a serious
problem. However, we aren't the Usenet Abuse Department.
For us to remove a currently-used newsgroup based on the value of the
traffic in that group would require us to make a value judgement of
the traffic. Then we would be imposing our value judgement on everyone
else: everyone using the group, and everyone who might ever want to use
the group in the future. This is not a road I am comfortable going down.
Creating a companion moderated group to move to is a valid reaction to
not liking the situation in the existing group. Nuking the group from
orbit is not. It would create a dangerous precedent, *even if* it were
the right thing to do in this particular case, which is far from clear.
It is also worth noting that, while we can remove the group from our
official list, we cannot remove it from all the servers around the world.
The group traffic that is bothering you would *not* be stopped by any
action we are able to take. It can and would continue, and would only
be hidden from some portion of the network. In short: there is nothing
we can do to help.
Kathy Morgan
> For us to remove a currently-used newsgroup based on the value of the
> traffic in that group would require us to make a value judgement of
> the traffic. Then we would be imposing our value judgement on everyone
> else: everyone using the group, and everyone who might ever want to use
> the group in the future. This is not a road I am comfortable going down.
Same here.
> Creating a companion moderated group to move to is a valid reaction to
> not liking the situation in the existing group.
The proposal posted isn't for a companion discussion group, but for an
announcement group to point potential users to web resources. I'm not
convinced there would be enough traffic to justify a newsgroup for that;
hopefully the proponent will give us some numbers about how many posts
she expects.
--
Kathy
jayne.ku...@gmail.com
[...}
> For us to remove a currently-used newsgroup based on the value of the
> traffic in that group would require us to make a value judgement of
> the traffic. Then we would be imposing our value judgement on everyone
> else: everyone using the group, and everyone who might ever want to use
> the group in the future. This is not a road I am comfortable going down.
My gut reaction to the situation was indeed to "nuke the group from
orbit" which is what motivated my original post in this thread. The
responses convinced me that this was not useful and I moved towards
the idea of a moderated .resources group. However, since I needed
to do a proposal for this anyhow, I decided to use this proposal as an
opportunity for a discussion exploring the possibility of
reconsolidating the two underused homeschooling groups. This is not a
question of quality of traffic but of volulme of trafffic.
I suspect that my shift in thinking may be causing some confusion.
Jayne
Jeremy Nixon
> However, since I needed to do a proposal for this anyhow, I decided to
> use this proposal as an opportunity for a discussion exploring the
> possibility of reconsolidating the two underused homeschooling groups.
> This is not a question of quality of traffic but of volulme of trafffic.
>
> I suspect that my shift in thinking may be causing some confusion.
I noticed the shift, but honestly hadn't read your proposal until after
I went through this thread. It's a different approach, but still does
remove the one group, so I'll still be wanting to see that people in
general think it's a good idea and want to go along with it. Otherwise
it'll just fracture discussion rather than consolidating it.
Jim Riley
wrote:
Currently most of the content of mehs.misc is articles that would
better fit the resources group, and may be hurting the mehs.misc as a
discussion group. If you came into a group and saw zero discussion
for weeks at a time, but lots of resource postings, you might well
conclude that it is not a discussion group.
--
Jim Riley
jayne.ku...@gmail.com
> I noticed the shift, but honestly hadn't read your proposal until after
> I went through this thread. It's a different approach, but still does
> remove the one group, so I'll still be wanting to see that people in
> general think it's a good idea and want to go along with it. Otherwise
> it'll just fracture discussion rather than consolidating it.
I agree. If I cannot convince people of the usefulness of
consolidating the groups, I will not pursue that aspect of my proposal
in future versions of this RFD. In that case, I would only propose
the creation of the .resources group.
Jayne
jayne.ku...@gmail.com
> Currently most of the content of mehs.misc is articles that would
> better fit the resources group, and may be hurting the mehs.misc as a
> discussion group. If you came into a group and saw zero discussion
> for weeks at a time, but lots of resource postings, you might well
> conclude that it is not a discussion group.
This is a good point. I've been thinking about this and wondering if
even the addition of discussion of dubious quality would address this
problem. Several people have predicted that the resident anti-
homeschooler would move to .misc if the groups were consolidated as I
propose. While this has an obvious downside, it might make it clearer
that .misc is a discussion group.
Jayne
jayne.ku...@gmail.com
[...]
> The proposal posted isn't for a companion discussion group, but for an
> announcement group to point potential users to web resources. I'm not
> convinced there would be enough traffic to justify a newsgroup for that;
> hopefully the proponent will give us some numbers about how many posts
> she expects.
As far as I know, my proposed format that has not been used before.
This makes it difficult to predict. Initially there will be traffic
because I intend to seed the group with appropriate posts. This will
serve as both content and a model for others. I am expecting the
amount of subsequent posting to depend on how many blogs and web sites
I contact to invite people to promote their sites on .resources. I
expect most people contacted to want to do this. I could commit to
making a specific number of contacts, if that would reassure you. I'm
guessing the traffic will be between 5 and 50 posts a month.
>From the Board's perspective, you might consider the .resources group
as an experiment. If it does succeed, there may be other groups for
other subjects that could be created with a similar format.
Jayne
Tim Skirvin
> And I'll be up front about it, if a new mehsc.moderated newsgroup gets
> created, he [Mark T] will be blacklisted from day 1.
Without yet commenting on the rest of the proposal, I have no
problems with this.
- Tim Skirvin (sk...@big-8.org)
--
http://www.big-8.org/ Big-8 Management Board
http://www.killfile.org/~tskirvin/ Skirv's Homepage <FISH>< <*>
jayne.ku...@gmail.com
> Chris Barnes <ch...@txbarnes.com> writes:
> > And I'll be up front about it, if a new mehsc.moderated newsgroup gets
> > created, he [Mark T] will be blacklisted from day 1.
>
> Without yet commenting on the rest of the proposal, I have no
> problems with this.
In practice, this will mean moderation by content because of Mark T's
nym-shifting. He very well could get in an appropriate post under
another name. If, however, the post is appropriate, I do not see this
as a serious problem.
Jayne
Galen Hekhuis
Just as a data point, I help moderate a group (rec.ponds.moderated)
which moderates based on content. It isn't a problem. There is no
way to "block" a determined poster, and, like Jayne says, if a post is
appropriate, it doesn't really matter who made it.
--
Galen Hekhuis ghek...@earthlink.net
Illiterate? Write for FREE help
Brandon Staggs
> It's been said already that he will be cancelled on sight. If he's
> identifiable, he's killfile-able. There is no need for a moderated
> group.
He is identifiable by his posting style. Most people seemed unable to
plonk him without constantly having to put up with new nyms and
constantly killfiling him. I encouraged posters at the time to switch
to a better reader and just plonk his ISP and that is what I did. But
his ISP should have cut his access or at least told him to use a
single nym so that his abuse could be ignored.
Anyway, I don't care too much what happens here, but I am not inclined
to support any reorganization. But Mark T is one of the most insipid
trolls I've ever come across, and even being ignored for half a year
did nothing to change his behavior. If ever an ISP deserved a UDP it
was... is, his.
--
Brandon Staggs
.
Tim Skirvin
>>>> And I'll be up front about it, if a new mehsc.moderated newsgroup gets
>>>> created, he [Mark T] will be blacklisted from day 1.
>>> Without yet commenting on the rest of the proposal, I have no
>>> problems with this.
>> In practice, this will mean moderation by content because of Mark T's
>> nym-shifting. He very well could get in an appropriate post under
>> another name. If, however, the post is appropriate, I do not see this
>> as a serious problem.
> It's been said already that he will be cancelled on sight.
In the pursuit of accuracy, that is not what was said. "The user
will be blacklisted" and "the user's posts will be cancelled" are very
different assertions, and I have only seen the potential moderators
suggest the former.
> If he's identifiable, he's killfile-able.
I disagree with this as well; not all methods of identification
can be easily handled with a killfile, not with all software and not
efficiently. A moderation setup can identify the user more effectively,
since it has access to all headers and an envelope address; so it has the
potential to offer a useful defense against morphing.
Chris Barnes
> He is identifiable by his posting style. Most people seemed unable to
> plonk him without constantly having to put up with new nyms and
> constantly killfiling him. I encouraged posters at the time to switch
> to a better reader and just plonk his ISP and that is what I did. But
> his ISP should have cut his access or at least told him to use a
> single nym so that his abuse could be ignored.
Very true.
I wish there were a way to take punative actions against his ISP -
specifically, but cutting off their news feed (both upland and download).
But that's a subject for another thread....
Chris Barnes
> It's been said already that he will be cancelled on sight. If he's
> identifiable, he's killfile-able. There is no need for a moderated
> group.
I'm going to pretend for just a moment that you would listen to a
reasonable argument. Knowing your previous attitude of "there is no
valid reason for a moderated group", I know I am probably just whistling
into the wind, but I'll play anyway - at least this once.
Killfiles are legitimate tools:
(a) for people who are regular readers of a group and can thus identify
posters worthy of being placed into a kill file
(b) for people with enough technical knowledge to successfully create a
kill file for the newsreader program of their choosing.
Neither of those cases are in play for the target audience of the
proposed moderated group. Specifically, the target audience of the
proposed new group is *primarily* for people new to homeschooling who
are seeking a place to have valid, legitimate discussions. Thus, by
definition they do not fit into category #1. Further, the technical
abilities of homeschoolers runs the complete range from "zero" to "able
to create a valid RFD" - IOW, there is a significant portion of the
target audience who does not qualify under category #2.
Thus, there is a valid, legitimate need for the group to be moderated.
Mark T
>>>>> And I'll be up front about it, if a new mehsc.moderated newsgroup gets
>>>>> created, he [Mark T] will be blacklisted from day 1.
....
>> It's been said already that he will be cancelled on sight.
> In the pursuit of accuracy, that is not what was said. "The user
> will be blacklisted" and "the user's posts will be cancelled" are very
> different assertions, and I have only seen the potential moderators
> suggest the former.
POTENTIAL MODERATORS!!!!!
It will be like putting Stalin in charge of decidiung who marches in rally
for democracy.
These intolerant fundamentalist "potential moderators" are ONLY concerned
about CENSORSHIP of other views.
****************************
In our times, various ideologically dedicated groups increasingly use
censorship, coercion, or propaganda to limit access to ideas, literature,
and the arts that they consider threatening. p.74
Censorship, the twin brother of propaganda, is the tool of despots, of
idealogues, of ayatollahs, of fantics. p.96
Franky Schaeffer "Sham Pearls For Real Swine" ( Wolgemuth & Hyatt;
Brentwood:1990) [Francis Schaeffer's son & Susan Schaeffer Macaulay's
brother]
Mark T
>>And I'll be up front about it, if a new mehsc.moderated newsgroup gets
>>created, he will be blacklisted from day 1.
>
> So you're planning on moderating by person and not by content. Neat!
Exactly!!!!!