Nice job sending every single one of them to newsgroups without audiences due to lack of active moderators. Excellent job on not looking for any active discussion on Usenet of any of those topics.
It would have been far less hypocritical of Bambi to issue those bulk rmgroup messages a month ago for all the groups A.B. would propose to remove over the next year rather than dragging it out and pretending that this will be discussed seriously.
You understand that when the rmgroup messages are ignored by a whole lot of servers, we'll all laugh at you again, yes? But please, please, please continue to claim that there's no self delusion taking place, that your lack of control of resources someone else provides is entirely due to that someone else not giving a shit about his users.
But it's doing something for the sake of doing something. I suggest that you all start patting yourselves on the back for a job well done right now. Why wait?
On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 16:06:16 +0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman wrote in Message-Id: <hdrt9o$1jc$3@news.albasani.net>:
> You understand that when the rmgroup messages are ignored by a whole lot of > servers, we'll all laugh at you again, yes?
Why is this a bad thing? Isn't one of Usenet's attractions that it is diverse and to some extent anarchic in nature? What's the problem with having groups on some servers and not on others? Personally I choose to ignore all newgroup and rmgroup messages and just synchronise my active list with the one published at isc.org. To date this policy has failed to inflame any of my users enough to tell me they don't like it.
> But please, please, please continue to claim that there's no self > delusion taking place, that your lack of control of resources someone > else provides is entirely due to that someone else not giving a shit > about his users.
I probably haven't lurked for the decades required to understand what this is about. Why is group removal such a contentious issue? In instances where moderated groups are dead and have no moderator, why even delay in getting rid of them?
Steve Crook wrote: > I probably haven't lurked for the decades required to understand what > this is about. Why is group removal such a contentious issue? In > instances where moderated groups are dead and have no moderator, why > even delay in getting rid of them?
It's not really a contentious issue. It provides fine fodder for the folks who are just here for the game. No matter what the board does, some folks will find a reason to complain. If they provide lots of time in the process, that's a bad thing. If the groups are removed quickly, that's a bad thing. If they do nothing, that's a bad thing.
The reason to delay in getting rid of dead moderated groups is to give folks who might be interested in the topic an opportunity to revive the group. I doubt that many will actually be revived, but the person who is taking the initiative prefers the procedure he's using. We can all second-guess him, but he's the one doing the work.
Steve Crook <st...@mixmin.net> wrote: >On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 16:06:16 +0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman wrote: >>You understand that when the rmgroup messages are ignored by a whole lot of >>servers, we'll all laugh at you again, yes? >Why is this a bad thing? Isn't one of Usenet's attractions that it is >diverse and to some extent anarchic in nature? What's the problem with >having groups on some servers and not on others? Personally I choose to >ignore all newgroup and rmgroup messages and just synchronise my active >list with the one published at isc.org. To date this policy has failed >to inflame any of my users enough to tell me they don't like it.
Goodness. As ftp.isc.org isn't a News server with users, that doesn't appear to be a useful thing to do. I have no idea how many users you have.
>>But please, please, please continue to claim that there's no self >>delusion taking place, that your lack of control of resources someone >>else provides is entirely due to that someone else not giving a shit >>about his users. >I probably haven't lurked for the decades required to understand what >this is about. Why is group removal such a contentious issue? In >instances where moderated groups are dead and have no moderator, why >even delay in getting rid of them?
Delay? It's not as if any of these groups went dormant yesterday. So why bother to do it at all?
A useful thing to do would be to discover where these topics are discussed on Usenet and to discuss issues affecting the dormant moderated groups in those groups, but Bambi won't do actual work, just this nonsensical busy work.
Steve Bonine <s...@pobox.com> wrote: >Steve Crook wrote: >>I probably haven't lurked for the decades required to understand what >>this is about. Why is group removal such a contentious issue? In >>instances where moderated groups are dead and have no moderator, why >>even delay in getting rid of them? >It's not really a contentious issue. . . .
Thanks, Squirrel Steve, for speaking on behalf of all who aren't aware of this discussion. Of course it's not contentious if it's hidden.
Yet another opportunity for your ad hominem attacks, of course...
>The reason to delay in getting rid of dead moderated groups is to give >folks who might be interested in the topic an opportunity to revive the >group. . . .
. . . an opportunity they don't have as this isn't being discussed in any newsgroup in which the topic of the moderated group is discussed.
On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 16:47:21 +0000 (UTC), Steve Crook <st...@mixmin.net> wrote in <slrnhg30gp.bp.st...@news.mixmin.net>:
> ... In >instances where moderated groups are dead and have no moderator, why >even delay in getting rid of them?
There's no harm in delaying sending the rmgroup message. The harm has already been done by having a dead group on the list for much more than two months.
Someone might want to revive the group. Going at a steady pace gives them a fair shot at it.
Marty
-- Co-chair of the Big-8 Management Board (B8MB) <http://www.big-8.org> Unless otherwise indicated, I speak for myself, not for the Board.
>>>I probably haven't lurked for the decades required to understand what >>>this is about. Why is group removal such a contentious issue? In >>>instances where moderated groups are dead and have no moderator, why >>>even delay in getting rid of them?
>>It's not really a contentious issue. . . .
>Thanks, Squirrel Steve, for speaking on behalf of all who aren't aware >of this discussion. Of course it's not contentious if it's hidden.
>Yet another opportunity for your ad hominem attacks, of course...
And calling Steve "Squirrel Steve" is what type of attack.
You used to be amusing - but get less so with each passing insulting post. I can't understand just what you are trying to achieve with posts like this one.
Thomas -- Thomas Lee - t...@psp.co.uk A member of, but not speaking for, The Big-8 Management Board
On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 18:31:14 +0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman wrote in Message-Id: <hds5ph$fra$1@news.albasani.net>:
> Goodness. As ftp.isc.org isn't a News server with users, that doesn't > appear to be a useful thing to do.
Perhaps not but when you open a news server you have to get an active list from somewhere and that seems to be the acknowledged source. Of course choosing to remain in sync with it after that point in time is one of a number of options for maintaining a fluid list of groups. As you don't like my method and clearly don't like the b8mb methods either, what would you propose server admins should do?
>I have no idea how many users you have.
Only a couple of hundred. It's a free service that's not really advertised. I run it mainly as a testing bed for Cleanfeed.
> Delay? It's not as if any of these groups went dormant yesterday. So > why bother to do it at all?
I suppose that is an option but not one that fills me with any great confidence. Surely part of what makes the big-8 different to alt is that it *is* proactively managed?
> A useful thing to do would be to discover where these topics are > discussed on Usenet and to discuss issues affecting the dormant > moderated groups in those groups, but Bambi won't do actual work, just > this nonsensical busy work.
In some respects that makes good sense to me, although I would have thought anyone could take on the task of bringing a relevant audience to this group to take part in discussion about a groups future. This seems especially poignant if the topic has moved to a home outside of the big-8.
Adam H. Kerman wrote: > Delay? It's not as if any of these groups went dormant yesterday. So > why bother to do it at all?
The effort makes the newsgroup list more useful. If someone wants to do it, why stand in their way?
> A useful thing to do would be to discover where these topics are > discussed on Usenet and to discuss issues affecting the dormant > moderated groups in those groups, but Bambi won't do actual work, just > this nonsensical busy work.
So why don't you do this "useful thing", Adam, instead of complaining that someone else isn't doing it.
I agree that finding a potential audience would improve the odds of reviving the moderated newsgroups. It just seems a bit odd to, at the same time, complain that the job shouldn't be done ("why bother to do it at all?") and to complain that additional effort is justified to "discover where these topics are discussed on Usenet".
Steve Crook <st...@mixmin.net> wrote: >On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 18:31:14 +0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman wrote: >>Goodness. As ftp.isc.org isn't a News server with users, that doesn't >>appear to be a useful thing to do. >Perhaps not but when you open a news server you have to get an active >list from somewhere and that seems to be the acknowledged source. Of >course choosing to remain in sync with it after that point in time is >one of a number of options for maintaining a fluid list of groups. As >you don't like my method and clearly don't like the b8mb methods either, >what would you propose server admins should do?
A lot of servers create groups with an archived newgroup message on user request, which seems a reasonable policy. Shirley you're not doing it for all hierarchies, just certain ones that you take?
>>Delay? It's not as if any of these groups went dormant yesterday. So >>why bother to do it at all? >I suppose that is an option but not one that fills me with any great >confidence. Surely part of what makes the big-8 different to alt is >that it *is* proactively managed?
When one's control messages are ignored, it's just not a useful thing to keep sending more.
>>A useful thing to do would be to discover where these topics are >>discussed on Usenet and to discuss issues affecting the dormant >>moderated groups in those groups, but Bambi won't do actual work, just >>this nonsensical busy work. >In some respects that makes good sense to me, although I would have >thought anyone could take on the task of bringing a relevant audience to >this group to take part in discussion about a groups future. This seems >especially poignant if the topic has moved to a home outside of the >big-8.
I don't advocate for counting on a potential audience for Usenet on another medium, unless there's some compelling reason like a mailing list server being shut down or a simultaneous realization that lots of Web boards truly suck.
Steve Bonine <s...@pobox.com> wrote: >Adam H. Kerman wrote: >>Delay? It's not as if any of these groups went dormant yesterday. So >>why bother to do it at all? >The effort makes the newsgroup list more useful. If someone wants to do >it, why stand in their way?
How about coming over here and repainting my living room instead?
>>A useful thing to do would be to discover where these topics are >>discussed on Usenet and to discuss issues affecting the dormant >>moderated groups in those groups, but Bambi won't do actual work, just >>this nonsensical busy work. >So why don't you do this "useful thing", Adam, instead of complaining >that someone else isn't doing it.
We've had this discussion about ethics before, so kindly don't change the subject. This is about the ethics of hierarchy management.
>I agree that finding a potential audience would improve the odds of >reviving the moderated newsgroups. It just seems a bit odd to, at the >same time, complain that the job shouldn't be done ("why bother to do it >at all?") and to complain that additional effort is justified to >"discover where these topics are discussed on Usenet".
Thomas Lee <t...@psp.co.uk> wrote: >Adam H. Kerman <a...@chinet.com> writes >>Steve Bonine <s...@pobox.com> wrote: >>>Steve Crook wrote: >>>>I probably haven't lurked for the decades required to understand what >>>>this is about. Why is group removal such a contentious issue? In >>>>instances where moderated groups are dead and have no moderator, why >>>>even delay in getting rid of them? >>>It's not really a contentious issue. . . . >>Thanks, Squirrel Steve, for speaking on behalf of all who aren't aware >>of this discussion. Of course it's not contentious if it's hidden. >>Yet another opportunity for your ad hominem attacks, of course... >And calling Steve "Squirrel Steve" is what type of attack.
Well, it's inappropriate since it's not about the Treehouse. Withdrawn. I should have said vicious attack poodle.
>You used to be amusing - but get less so with each passing insulting >post. I can't understand just what you are trying to achieve with posts >like this one.
I'm sure someone will be along shortly to explain it to you.
In message <7mdqe4F3hio4...@mid.individual.net>, Steve Bonine <s...@pobox.com> writes
>Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>> Delay? It's not as if any of these groups went dormant yesterday. So >> why bother to do it at all?
>The effort makes the newsgroup list more useful. If someone wants to >do it, why stand in their way?
>> A useful thing to do would be to discover where these topics are >> discussed on Usenet and to discuss issues affecting the dormant >> moderated groups in those groups, but Bambi won't do actual work, just >> this nonsensical busy work.
>So why don't you do this "useful thing", Adam, instead of complaining >that someone else isn't doing it.
Because that's not why he's here. He's here for the game - and he is good at it.
>I agree that finding a potential audience would improve the odds of >reviving the moderated newsgroups. It just seems a bit odd to, at the >same time, complain that the job shouldn't be done ("why bother to do >it at all?") and to complain that additional effort is justified to >"discover where these topics are discussed on Usenet".
>Oh. Wait. The key word there is "complain".
The key word is "game" - complain is one of many components.
Mornington Crescent.
Thomas -- Thomas Lee - t...@psp.co.uk A member of, but not speaking for, The Big-8 Management Board
|
