Re: SMM Charter 1
Aatu Koskensilta
(I have unilaterally added news.groups to the Newsgroups-line. Adjust
follow-ups as you see fit.)
Bart Goddard <godd...@netscape.net> writes:
> I tried to take everyone's comments into consideration.
> I think less is more here, so I've tried to make the
> charter as spartan as possible. I put a "1" in the
> header, in case we need extensive revisions in the
> next draft. Be aware that besides this document, there
> will another which explains this one in detail and
> includes all the minutia.
>
> Sci.Math.Mod
>
> This newsgroup, sci.math.mod, is for the discussion of
> mathematics. This includes mathematics at all levels,
> mathematics education, history of mathematics, mathematical
> resources, such as journals, software, websites, and
> conference announcements.
>
> Posting Guidelines:
>
> The proposed guidelines are as follows:
>
> 1. Postings which are blatantly off-topic will be rejected.
>
> 2. Posting containing publically unacceptable language,
> personal attacks, racist or political rants, or other forms
> of "fighting words" will be rejected.
>
> 3. Repetitive postings and threads which have degenerated to
> the "is so/is not" level are subject to rejection.
>
> 4. Cross-posted articles are generally rejected, as replies
> from an unmoderated group can place undue burden on the
> moderators.
>
> 5. Accepted posts much be in ASCII only, although the group
> is allowed to change this in the future, should it become
> advisable.
>
> Duties of the Moderators:
>
> 1. To enforce the guidelines given above.
>
> 2. Create and maintain a readily accessable FAQ, including
> this charter and explanations of the moderation guidelines.
>
> Guidelines for the removal of a moderator are as follows:
>
> 1. An RFD on the removal of a moderator must be posted to
> news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, and sci.math.mod,
> with the follow-ups sent to news.groups.
>
> 2. Should there be a consensus that a vote is appropriate, a
> CFV will be issued by a third party, to last not less than
> two weeks and not more than 30 days. This ballot will
> include the following options:
>
> a. Should <name> moderator be removed? (Y/N)
>
> b. The replacement moderator should be: <name>
>
> If more than 2/3 of the voters agree that the moderator
> should be removed, and there are no more than 100 no votes,
> then the top name in section b becomes the new moderator.
> Each ballot can contain a vote for one and only one new
> moderator.
>
> 3. Initial moderators: <names>
Well, there you have it, a now probably a bit dated proposal for a
moderated mathematics group. First, some background for
news.groupies. The idea of a moderated mathematics group, for posts and
topics possibly falling below the standards of solemnity and seriousness
in sci.math.research, has cropped up occasionally. This time it seems
more people are interested in the notion. This is mostly because of one
Martin Musatov, a renowned performance artists and screenwriter who has
lately been conducting a peculiar experiment on sci.math and related
groups, posting thousands of messages of apparently random[1]
drivel. There's also your usual cast of cranks, loons, trolls, people
valiantly battling stagnant orthodoxy, and people valiantly if with
baffling perseverance battling the formerly mentioned, etc. etc. In
other words, sci.math's a brisk and lively corner of news.
There have been numerous more-or-less specific suggestions regarding the
moderation policy etc. Alas, I fear many people taking part in the
discussion are not very familiar with the mechanics social and technical
of Usenet. Before I let the good people of news.groups have their say,
I'll voice the following thoughts that so trouble me. First, I'm not at
all convinced we need another moderated group, in addition to
sci.math.research. There's loads of rubbish in sci.math, but mostly it's
easily filtered, and while I feel[2] for Google groupies and users of
MathForum (another web interface to news) who can but grate their teeth
in anger, lacking as they do any means of doing away with the garbage, I
don't think the limitations of web interfaces should dictate decisions
Usenetical. Second, from what I can tell, none of the proposed
moderators have any technical experience, either with moderation, or
dealing with all sorts of e-mail, NNTP, etc. issues. Third, I doubt most
people realise how much hard work goes into getting a group propagated,
setting up moderation software. Fourth, the part in the above quoted
guidelines about procedure for moderator removal is out of touch with
the harsh realities.
I may have had other grievances, but I've quite forgotten what they were
by now. Ah yes, the name should be sci.math.moderated.
Most of the blather about a new moderated mathematics group has been in
the following threads:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/browse_thread/thread/855fe654b74d0376
(Message-ID: <Xns9C6B9F6AE3B85go...@74.209.136.95>)
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/browse_thread/thread/9bb588302be7e237
(Message-ID: <2009081322...@agora.rdrop.com>)
Finally, a few words for the sci.mathers. The Big-8 group creation
procedure went through an upheaval a few years ago. If you're unfamiliar
with the current procedure, have a look at
http://www.big-8.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=policies:creation
There's also a bit about moderated groups on the Big-8 wiki:
http://www.big-8.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=faqs:moderation
News.groups is famously a very friendly group, where discussion is
conducted in an atmosphere of chirpy cheerfulness, in the spirit of
holding-of-hands, kittens, the brotherhood of all men, feeding the poor,
and all things good. Expect to receive good advice from the
news.groupies, who offer such advice unselfishly and with great
kindness. Alas, not all members of the Big-8 Management Board read
news.groups, though some do. According to the current B8MB policy,
official group proposals (formal and informal) go to
news.groups.proposals, the scope of which has been recently -- well, not
/that/ recently -- widened to cover pre-RFD discussions as well.
As to myself, I used to be a moderator (for news.groups.proposals),
stopped being a moderator, and then became a moderated once again (for
news.admin.announce).
PS. I received an e-mail with malformed headers from an unknown person,
asking whether I'd like to help with the moderation. As is probably
obvious from this post, I don't much care for the idea of a new
moderated group. I'm nevertheless perfectly willing to assist in any way
I can if enough people feel it's a good idea, and if the B8MB seem to
incline towards voting for the group -- I'm even more opposed to the
idea of a dead moderated mathematics group than I'm to that of a live
one.
Footnotes:
[1] Musatov has stated, if my memory does not play me false, his
purpose is to amass a volume of news articles, to form a proof that all
problems in the complexity class NP (for "non-deterministic polynomial
time") are also in P (for "polynomial time"), in order to donate the
resulting proof to charity. While this goal is certainly laudable --
there are many poor and famished people who would no doubt be thrilled
by such a proof -- Musatov's antics have been perceived slightly
distracting by some.
[2] This is, I believe, technically known as lying through one's teeth.
--
Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.kos...@uta.fi)
"Wovon mann nicht sprechen kann, dar�ber muss man schweigen"
- Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
Brian Mailman
>> The proposed guidelines are as follows:
>>
>> 1. Postings which are blatantly off-topic will be rejected.
What about postings that are only somewhat offtopic?
>> Guidelines for the removal of a moderator are as follows:
>>
>> 1. An RFD on the removal of a moderator must be posted to
>> news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, and sci.math.mod, with the
>> follow-ups sent to news.groups.
That's not the purpose of NAN.
As for news.groups, what's the point? What Aatu sez below about
"reality" such as it might be. Moderator removal is an intranecine affair.
[...]
> This is mostly because of one Martin Musatov, a renowned performance
> artists and screenwriter who has lately been conducting a peculiar
> experiment on sci.math and related groups, posting thousands of
> messages of apparently random[1] drivel.
Does this person morph, or change addresses? That is, is it possible to
simply filter out those messages if one wishes?
[...]
> Third, I doubt most people realise how much hard work goes into
> getting a group propagated,
That's the tough part. If you can talk the bambies into sending a
newgroup message (an easily done exercise) then comes having to get the
group added on servers worldwide.
B/
Aatu Koskensilta
> Aatu Koskensilta wrote:
>
>> This is mostly because of one Martin Musatov, a renowned performance
>> artists and screenwriter who has lately been conducting a peculiar
>> experiment on sci.math and related groups, posting thousands of
>> messages of apparently random[1] drivel.
>
> Does this person morph, or change addresses?
Yes, very incompetently.
> That is, is it possible to simply filter out those messages if one
> wishes?
It is not at all difficult.
Martin X. Moleski, SJ
> ... According to the current B8MB policy,
>official group proposals (formal and informal) go to
>news.groups.proposals, the scope of which has been recently -- well, not
>/that/ recently -- widened to cover pre-RFD discussions as well.
Let's distinguish, if we may.
Only formal RFDs that pass the sanity tests go to n.a.n.:
http://www.big-8.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=policies:discouraged
If an RFD gets published in n.a.n., the board requests that
discussion of it be reflected in (not confined to) n.g.p.
The board allows informal RFDs in n.g.p, but in no way
requires that they be published there. The idea of "informal"
implies that proponents get to perform to self-set standards
in the way they present their ideas.
> ... I'm even more opposed to the
>idea of a dead moderated mathematics group than I'm to that of a live
>one. ...
Me, too.
FWIW, I've set up a wiki version of the NetNews Moderator's Handbook,
with the permission of Kent Landfield:
http://moleski.net/dokuwiki/blog/modtoc
It's been a while since I worked on it. I think I may have
repaired a few links and eliminated some old e-mail addresses.
Then again, maybe not ...
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.
Brian Mailman
> The board allows informal RFDs in n.g.p, ...
So you do admit that the bambies control the group, and not the
moderators as you've denied. Cool.
B/
Brian Mailman
> Brian Mailman <bmai...@sfo.invalid> writes:
>
>> Aatu Koskensilta wrote:
>>
>>> This is mostly because of one Martin Musatov, a renowned performance
>>> artists and screenwriter who has lately been conducting a peculiar
>>> experiment on sci.math and related groups, posting thousands of
>>> messages of apparently random[1] drivel.
>>
>> Does this person morph, or change addresses?
>
> Yes, very incompetently.
>
>> That is, is it possible to simply filter out those messages if one
>> wishes?
>
> It is not at all difficult.
Even Martin Musatov's? I'm not a fan of creating a moderated group for
the purpose of exclusion.
B/
Bart Goddard
news:G_OdnTIWp5cH3Q3X...@supernews.com:
> Even Martin Musatov's? I'm not a fan of creating a moderated group for
> the purpose of exclusion.
As we've said, no one will be excluded. Everyone, however, will
have to stay on topic (which is quite broad) and fairly civil.
Musatov can post all the math he wants, as long as he doesn't
just repeat the same stuff over and over, and people can respond
to his math all they want, as long as they leave his mother out
of it.
Bart
--
Cheerfully resisting change since 1959.
William Elliot
> Brian Mailman <bmai...@sfo.invalid> wrote in
>
>> the purpose of exclusion.
>
> As we've said, no one will be excluded. Everyone, however, will
> have to stay on topic (which is quite broad) and fairly civil.
> Musatov can post all the math he wants, as long as he doesn't
> just repeat the same stuff over and over, and people can respond
> to his math all they want, as long as they leave his mother out
> of it.
>
which is not allowed by the current guidelines for not being sensible.
Bart Goddard
@agora.rdrop.com:
Yes, it may be vacuous, but nevertheless true.
B.
Brian Mailman
> Brian Mailman <bmai...@sfo.invalid> wrote in
> news:G_OdnTIWp5cH3Q3X...@supernews.com:
>
>> Even Martin Musatov's? I'm not a fan of creating a moderated group for
>> the purpose of exclusion.
>
> As we've said, no one will be excluded. Everyone, however, will
> have to stay on topic (which is quite broad) and fairly civil.
The key word here is "fairly." It's difficult to moderate for civility
without creating a padded playpen, and it's a slippery slope down to it.
Take a look at news.admin.net-abuse.blocklisting (nanab) for a group
that has a fairly good balance.
B/
Dave Sill
> ... There's loads of rubbish in sci.math, but mostly it's
> easily filtered, and while I feel[2] for Google groupies and users of
> MathForum (another web interface to news) who can but grate their teeth
With Greasemonkey, Firefox can filter Google Groups. E.g.:
http://www.penney.org/ggkiller.html
-Dave
Axel Vogt
Or use a mail / newsreader like Thunderbird for NGs. Then you
simply define the filter by "from contains gmail.com" etc.
Adam H. Kerman
>>>... There's loads of rubbish in sci.math, but mostly it's
>>>easily filtered, and while I feel[2] for Google groupies and users of
>>>MathForum (another web interface to news) who can but grate their teeth
>>>in anger, lacking as they do any means of doing away with the garbage,
>>>...
>>With Greasemonkey, Firefox can filter Google Groups. E.g.:
>>http://www.penney.org/ggkiller.html
>Or use a mail / newsreader like Thunderbird for NGs. Then you
>simply define the filter by "from contains gmail.com" etc.
The From line has nothing whatsoever to do with where an article was injected.
Axel Vogt
I think Thunderbird takes the 'Originator' from the mail's header,
Originator: a...@doofus.chinet.com (Adam H. Kerman) in your case,
(while you sent via eternal-september.org)
Axel Vogt
No, it analyzes the header field From: "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com>.
Adam H. Kerman
>Let's distinguish, if we may.
>Only formal RFDs that pass the sanity tests go to n.a.n.:
Let's tell the truth: Only RFDs not written by certain authors go to n.a.n.
The Board interferes with moderation of news.announce.newgroups and
carries out its Usenet vendettas through rejections of RFDs.
Adam H. Kerman
>>>>http://www.penney.org/ggkiller.html
That header has nothing whatsover to do with what News server was used
to inject an article into Usenet either. Please stop guessing.
Axel Vogt
See my immediate correction, Thunderbird uses the header field "From".
And in most cases the poster will use an email from there, so it is
enough.
David Bernier
In March 2008, I got NewsProxy to work with TeraNews.
It took some time, but was worth the effort.
Cf.:
http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.math/msg/cd2f25443da48da7
That was the first post where I wrote that it worked
for me, but not the last, I think.
David Bernier
Peter J Ross
<aatu.kos...@uta.fi> wrote:
> Brian Mailman <bmai...@sfo.invalid> writes:
>
>> Aatu Koskensilta wrote:
>>
>>> This is mostly because of one Martin Musatov, a renowned performance
>>> artists and screenwriter who has lately been conducting a peculiar
>>> experiment on sci.math and related groups, posting thousands of
>>> messages of apparently random[1] drivel.
Does it constitute spew, and thus abuse of the net?
>> Does this person morph, or change addresses?
>
> Yes, very incompetently.
>
>> That is, is it possible to simply filter out those messages if one
>> wishes?
>
> It is not at all difficult.
I find it amusing that a bunch of mathematicians are unable to work
out how to use killfiles.
--
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
Bart Goddard
news:slrnh95p7...@pjr.gotdns.org:
> I find it amusing that a bunch of mathematicians are unable to work
> out how to use killfiles.
The trouble is having to add 10 things to the killfile every
day. My killfile is so long, it takes about an hour to process
incoming messages through it.
Adam H. Kerman
>>>>>> http://www.penney.org/ggkiller.html
You're flat out wrong.
Google introduced Google Groups a long time ago, buying out Deja's
archives. gmail is merely a few years old. Posters through Google Groups
use whatever the hell email addresses they like. Plenty of Usenet users
have gmail addresses but would never dream of posting to Usenet via
Google Groups.
Anybody can use any address they like to post to Usenet. Authenticating
a From line has never been a prerequisite for posting to Usenet. That's
why there are forgeries and spoofed addresses and invalid addresses.
People may post with an actual mailbox that hasn't been checked in
years. Spammers post through Google Groups and sure as hell haven't set
up legitimate addresses in any domain, even if the spam isn't using
forged email addresses.
You do not know what you are talking about.
Please withdraw your correction and both guesses. What you posted isn't
germane to the issue of kill filing articles posted through Google Groups.
Peter J Ross
<godd...@netscape.net> wrote:
> Peter J Ross <p...@example.invalid> wrote in
> news:slrnh95p7...@pjr.gotdns.org:
>
>> I find it amusing that a bunch of mathematicians are unable to work
>> out how to use killfiles.
>
> The trouble is having to add 10 things to the killfile every
> day. My killfile is so long, it takes about an hour to process
> incoming messages through it.
There are various ways in which your killfile could probably be
optimised for speed and accuracy. Merely pressing "k" may not be the
most efficient method.
I haven't seen anybody from sci.math asking for advice about
killfiling in news.software.readers. Advice on killfiling is easy to
find, if one asks in the right place.
Seriously: do the supporters of this proposal really want to abandon
(and consequently damage) sci.math? Why not try ignoring the trolls,
kooks, troll-feeders and kook-feeders instead?
Note, btw, that non-Euclidean geometry is very silly indeed. The idea
that -1 can have a square root is very silly indeed. The general
theory of relativity is very silly indeed.
The plan to exclude silly stuff from a mathematical newsgroup worries
me. A small part of today's silliness may be tomorrow's orthodoxy.
"The Great One"
"Peter J Ross" <p...@example.invalid> wrote in message
news:slrnh95p7...@pjr.gotdns.org...
> In news.groups on Fri, 21 Aug 2009 21:57:50 +0300, Aatu Koskensilta
> <aatu.kos...@uta.fi> wrote:
>
> > Brian Mailman <bmai...@sfo.invalid> writes:
> >
> >> Aatu Koskensilta wrote:
> >>
> >>> This is mostly because of one Martin Musatov, a renowned
performance
> >>> artists and screenwriter who has lately been conducting a peculiar
> >>> experiment on sci.math and related groups, posting thousands of
> >>> messages of apparently random[1] drivel.
>
> Does it constitute spew, and thus abuse of the net?
>
> >> Does this person morph, or change addresses?
> >
> > Yes, very incompetently.
> >
> >> That is, is it possible to simply filter out those messages if one
> >> wishes?
> >
> > It is not at all difficult.
>
> I find it amusing that a bunch of mathematicians are unable to work
> out how to use killfiles.
> --
> PJR :-)
Yet they can prove that you are homomorphic to Boy George...
--
John C.
"The Great One"
"Peter J Ross" <p...@example.invalid> wrote in message
> Seriously: do the supporters of this proposal really want to abandon
> (and consequently damage) sci.math? Why not try ignoring the trolls,
> kooks, troll-feeders and kook-feeders instead?
They've seen you attempting to ignore me and failing !!
> Note, btw, that non-Euclidean geometry is very silly indeed. The idea
> that -1 can have a square root is very silly indeed. The general
> theory of relativity is very silly indeed.
Giving excellent evidence that YOU are indeed "Silly"......
--
John C. (Most excellent Math teacher)
Art Deco
wrote:
> "Peter J Ross" <p...@example.invalid> wrote in messagenews:slrnh95p7...@pjr.gotdns.org...
>
>
>
>
>
> > In news.groups on Fri, 21 Aug 2009 21:57:50 +0300, Aatu Koskensilta
>
> > > Brian Mailman <bmail...@sfo.invalid> writes:
>
> > >> Aatu Koskensilta wrote:
>
> > >>> This is mostly because of one Martin Musatov, a renowned
> performance
> > >>> artists and screenwriter who has lately been conducting a peculiar
> > >>> experiment on sci.math and related groups, posting thousands of
> > >>> messages of apparently random[1] drivel.
>
> > Does it constitute spew, and thus abuse of the net?
>
> > >> Does this person morph, or change addresses?
>
> > > Yes, very incompetently.
>
> > >> That is, is it possible to simply filter out those messages if one
> > >> wishes?
>
> > > It is not at all difficult.
>
> > I find it amusing that a bunch of mathematicians are unable to work
> > out how to use killfiles.
> > --
> > PJR :-)
>
> Yet they can prove that you are homomorphic to Boy George...
> --
> John C.
LOL!
Good one, John C.
--
Art Deco
Art Deco
Kathy Morgan
> Peter J Ross <p...@example.invalid> wrote in
> news:slrnh95p7...@pjr.gotdns.org:
>
> > I find it amusing that a bunch of mathematicians are unable to work
> > out how to use killfiles.
>
> The trouble is having to add 10 things to the killfile every
> day. My killfile is so long, it takes about an hour to process
> incoming messages through it.
If most of the noise is from the same person, there probably is
something in the headers that you can use to killfile without having to
constantly adjust the killfiles. For instance, you may be able to
killfile based on the path rather than the From name/address.
--
Kathy
M-Theory
Dear Kathy, Goddard, and all,
Mathforum.org I admire because there were two occasions where my
character were unfairly attacked and I had been deemed by anonymous
attackers a mental defect or sworn my mother was a whore by anonymous
attackers and I wrote a kind professional and legal letter to the
webmaster at Mathforum.org who removed the post. No one complained
because it was apparent that calling someone falsely a mental defect
or mother a whore had very little to do with math. I think there
should be recourse available for those offended similarly. As the
things most not related to math stand very little chance of
professional scrutiny in good faith. These hateful cowards (those who
fist and foot and tooth hate my theories for some reason and are
annoyed by even my own threads I begin which they do not even have to
read) vex me greatly. Why be so angry about something that they
supposedly can just as easily ignore? It makes not sense. What else do
they do these people that they are so bothered when I start my own
threads and others respond and I not interfere with them on their
threads?
Mathforum.org has led a fine example. Others should follow.
Hatred should not be allowed in civil math. Anyone who cries foul
after their post screaming about Nazi's and whores is taken down
stands to expose what is really staked in the USENET Sci.Math forum.
Musatov
Bart Goddard
kmo...@spamcop.net:
>> The trouble is having to add 10 things to the killfile every
>> day. My killfile is so long, it takes about an hour to process
>> incoming messages through it.
>
> If most of the noise is from the same person, there probably is
> something in the headers that you can use to killfile without having to
> constantly adjust the killfiles. For instance, you may be able to
> killfile based on the path rather than the From name/address.
My biggest annoyance isn't Musatov, but the "cheap Nikes" sorts
of posts. I killfiled "Cindy" about a half dozen times, and
she still kept appearing. I couldn't figure out anything
that would consistently block her. And if I could have, the
bot writers would have figured out a way around it in a couple
days.
Spambots are good at changing IP addresses, paths, names,
etc., and they do it a lot.
Steve Bonine
> Why not try ignoring the trolls,
> kooks, troll-feeders and kook-feeders instead?
You continue to toss out this concept like it was a real alternative.
It sure sounds great. Just ignore the trolls and they will go away.
And, indeed, they would.
But there's a little detail that gets in the way -- it's simply not
going to happen that all of the participants of the newsgroup will
miraculously develop the discipline to do that. No matter how much
effort is expended trying to educate them, some people are simply
incapable of ignoring trolls. The efforts to educate folks just add to
noise in the newsgroup.
It's the same "solution" as using killfiles. To you, setting up
killfiles is an interesting exercise. But the vast majority of the
participants in a newsgroup are there for the discussion and have no
desire to climb the learning curve of setting up killfiles. Why should
they when they can find reasonable discussions elsewhere that don't
require constant effort to combat the noise problem?
It would be wonderful if the solution to the issue of a newsgroup full
of noise were simply to say "Don't feed the trolls" and "Use killfiles".
Can you point to even one real world example of where that technique
worked?
Jesse F. Hughes
> My biggest annoyance isn't Musatov, but the "cheap Nikes" sorts
> of posts.
So killfile on subject lines. The words "cheap" and "Nikes" are good
bets.
--
Jesse F. Hughes
"Certainly he who can digest a second or third fluxion need
not, methinks, be squeamish about any point in divinity."
George Berkeley, 1734
Axel Vogt
To keep it simple: most users will not or even can not change the their
domain. Hence the filters work in most cases. Not perfect, but simple,
quite efficient and without additional tools. It will do for you as
well.
Aatu Koskensilta
> To keep it simple: most users will not or even can not change the
> their domain.
What domain are you talking about?
> Hence the filters work in most cases. Not perfect, but simple, quite
> efficient and without additional tools. It will do for you as well.
You're being silly. Why not just filter out posts originating from
Google Groups if you want to filter out posts originating from Google
Groups?
--
Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.kos...@uta.fi)
"Wovon mann nicht sprechen kann, dar�ber muss man schweigen"
- Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
Bart Goddard
news:871vn0o...@phiwumbda.org:
> Bart Goddard <godd...@netscape.net> writes:
>
>> My biggest annoyance isn't Musatov, but the "cheap Nikes" sorts
>> of posts.
>
> So killfile on subject lines. The words "cheap" and "Nikes" are good
> bets.
And then the next subject line says "cheep" or "n!kes" and then
the next says "CH33P" or "nykes", and the next says.....
There's nothing "simple" about using killfiles effectively.
It's a _daily_ chore to update and modify, and I already have
a job. I like this job. I used to program. I did not like
that job. So I don't want to spend even 5 minutes every
damn day reprogramming my filters.
Besides, there's something philosophically and deeply
disturbing about an attitude where the solution to a
victimization problem is to put more burden on the victim.
Axel Vogt
> Axel Vogt <&nor...@axelvogt.de> writes:
>
>> To keep it simple: most users will not or even can not change the
>> their domain.
>
> What domain are you talking about?
>
>> Hence the filters work in most cases. Not perfect, but simple, quite
>> efficient and without additional tools. It will do for you as well.
>
> You're being silly. Why not just filter out posts originating from
> Google Groups if you want to filter out posts originating from Google
> Groups?
TsTsTs ... that's what I say. If you ever looked into Thunderbird you
see that it only handles subject, from, date. Hence ...
Brian Mailman
> Peter J Ross wrote:
>
>> Why not try ignoring the trolls,
>> kooks, troll-feeders and kook-feeders instead?
>
> You continue to toss out this concept like it was a real alternative.
Because it is.
I'm sure if your bamby Masters espoused it, you'd be fighting tooth and
nail to prove nothing else would work.
B/
Brian Mailman
> My biggest annoyance isn't Musatov, but the "cheap Nikes" sorts
> of posts.
That's done on the server level. Not everyone sees those (I don't for
the most part, for example). If you subscribed to a server that had
better spam filtering, you wouldn't see most of it.
What you're saying is that you're willing to have the moderators'
mailboxes flooded with spam, to save your reading time.
B/
Son of Serpent Esq
> Steve Bonine wrote:
>> Peter J Ross wrote:
>>
>>> Why not try ignoring the trolls,
>>> kooks, troll-feeders and kook-feeders instead?
>>
>> You continue to toss out this concept like it was a real alternative.
>
> Because it is.
It was. Usenet has changed. Quit living in the past.
M-Theory
Aatu Koskensilta schrieb:
> (I have unilaterally added news.groups to the Newsgroups-line. Adjust
> follow-ups as you see fit.)
>
> Bart Goddard <godd...@netscape.net> writes:
>
> > I tried to take everyone's comments into consideration.
> > I think less is more here, so I've tried to make the
> > charter as spartan as possible. I put a "1" in the
> > header, in case we need extensive revisions in the
> > next draft. Be aware that besides this document, there
> > will another which explains this one in detail and
> > includes all the minutia.
> >
> > Sci.Math.Mod
> >
> > This newsgroup, sci.math.mod, is for the discussion of
> > mathematics. This includes mathematics at all levels,
> > mathematics education, history of mathematics, mathematical
> > resources, such as journals, software, websites, and
> > conference announcements.
> >
> > Posting Guidelines:
> >
> > The proposed guidelines are as follows:
> >
> > 1. Postings which are blatantly off-topic will be rejected.
> >
> > 2. Posting containing publically unacceptable language,
> > personal attacks, racist or political rants, or other forms
> > of "fighting words" will be rejected.
> >
> > 3. Repetitive postings and threads which have degenerated to
> > the "is so/is not" level are subject to rejection.
> >
> > 4. Cross-posted articles are generally rejected, as replies
> > from an unmoderated group can place undue burden on the
> > moderators.
> >
> > 5. Accepted posts much be in ASCII only, although the group
> > is allowed to change this in the future, should it become
> > advisable.
> >
> > Duties of the Moderators:
> >
> > 1. To enforce the guidelines given above.
> >
> > 2. Create and maintain a readily accessable FAQ, including
> > this charter and explanations of the moderation guidelines.
> >
> > Guidelines for the removal of a moderator are as follows:
> >
> > 1. An RFD on the removal of a moderator must be posted to
> > news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, and sci.math.mod,
> > with the follow-ups sent to news.groups.
> >
> > 2. Should there be a consensus that a vote is appropriate, a
> > CFV will be issued by a third party, to last not less than
> > two weeks and not more than 30 days. This ballot will
> > include the following options:
> >
> > a. Should <name> moderator be removed? (Y/N)
> >
> > b. The replacement moderator should be: <name>
> >
> > If more than 2/3 of the voters agree that the moderator
> > should be removed, and there are no more than 100 no votes,
> > then the top name in section b becomes the new moderator.
> > Each ballot can contain a vote for one and only one new
> > moderator.
> >
> > 3. Initial moderators: <names>
>
> Well, there you have it, a now probably a bit dated proposal for a
> moderated mathematics group. First, some background for
> news.groupies. The idea of a moderated mathematics group, for posts and
> topics possibly falling below the standards of solemnity and seriousness
> in sci.math.research, has cropped up occasionally. This time it seems
> more people are interested in the notion. This is mostly because of one
> Martin Musatov, a renowned performance artists and screenwriter who has
> lately been conducting a peculiar experiment on sci.math and related
> groups, posting thousands of messages of apparently random[1]
> valiantly battling stagnant orthodoxy, and people valiantly if with
> baffling perseverance battling the formerly mentioned, etc. etc. In
> other words, sci.math's a brisk and lively corner of news.
>
> There have been numerous more-or-less specific suggestions regarding the
> moderation policy etc. Alas, I fear many people taking part in the
> discussion are not very familiar with the mechanics social and technical
> of Usenet. Before I let the good people of news.groups have their say,
> I'll voice the following thoughts that so trouble me. First, I'm not at
> all convinced we need another moderated group, in addition to
> sci.math.research. There's loads of rubbish in sci.math, but mostly it's
> easily filtered, and while I feel[2] for Google groupies and users of
> MathForum (another web interface to news) who can but grate their teeth
> don't think the limitations of web interfaces should dictate decisions
> Usenetical. Second, from what I can tell, none of the proposed
> moderators have any technical experience, either with moderation, or
> dealing with all sorts of e-mail, NNTP, etc. issues. Third, I doubt most
> people realise how much hard work goes into getting a group propagated,
> setting up moderation software. Fourth, the part in the above quoted
> guidelines about procedure for moderator removal is out of touch with
> the harsh realities.
>
> I may have had other grievances, but I've quite forgotten what they were
> by now. Ah yes, the name should be sci.math.moderated.
>
> Most of the blather about a new moderated mathematics group has been in
> the following threads:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/browse_thread/thread/855fe654b74d0376
> (Message-ID: <Xns9C6B9F6AE3B85go...@74.209.136.95>)
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/browse_thread/thread/9bb588302be7e237
> (Message-ID: <2009081322...@agora.rdrop.com>)
>
> Finally, a few words for the sci.mathers. The Big-8 group creation
> procedure went through an upheaval a few years ago. If you're unfamiliar
> with the current procedure, have a look at
>
> http://www.big-8.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=policies:creation
>
> There's also a bit about moderated groups on the Big-8 wiki:
>
> http://www.big-8.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=faqs:moderation
>
> News.groups is famously a very friendly group, where discussion is
> conducted in an atmosphere of chirpy cheerfulness, in the spirit of
> holding-of-hands, kittens, the brotherhood of all men, feeding the poor,
> and all things good. Expect to receive good advice from the
> news.groupies, who offer such advice unselfishly and with great
> kindness. Alas, not all members of the Big-8 Management Board read
> news.groups, though some do. According to the current B8MB policy,
> official group proposals (formal and informal) go to
> news.groups.proposals, the scope of which has been recently -- well, not
> /that/ recently -- widened to cover pre-RFD discussions as well.
>
> As to myself, I used to be a moderator (for news.groups.proposals),
> stopped being a moderator, and then became a moderated once again (for
> news.admin.announce).
>
> PS. I received an e-mail with malformed headers from an unknown person,
> asking whether I'd like to help with the moderation. As is probably
> obvious from this post, I don't much care for the idea of a new
> moderated group. I'm nevertheless perfectly willing to assist in any way
> I can if enough people feel it's a good idea, and if the B8MB seem to
> incline towards voting for the group -- I'm even more opposed to the
> idea of a dead moderated mathematics group than I'm to that of a live
> one.
>
> Footnotes:
> [1] Musatov has stated, if my memory does not play me false, his
> purpose is to amass a volume of news articles, to form a proof that all
> problems in the complexity class NP (for "non-deterministic polynomial
> time") are also in P (for "polynomial time"), in order to donate the
> resulting proof to charity. While this goal is certainly laudable --
> there are many poor and famished people who would no doubt be thrilled
> by such a proof -- Musatov's antics have been perceived slightly
> distracting by some.
>
> [2] This is, I believe, technically known as lying through one's teeth.
>
Unless the premise is false. Which I believe it is:
Google Groups 21 Aug 2009 ... [1] Musatov has stated, if my memory
does not play me false, his purpose is to amass a volume of news
articles, to form a proof that all ...http://groups.google.de/group/
sci.math/msg/1e267773ac628710
> --
> Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.kos...@uta.fi)
>
> "Wovon mann nicht sprechen kann, dar�ber muss man schweigen"
> - Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
Jesse F. Hughes
> "Jesse F. Hughes" <je...@phiwumbda.org> wrote in
> news:871vn0o...@phiwumbda.org:
>
>> Bart Goddard <godd...@netscape.net> writes:
>>
>>> My biggest annoyance isn't Musatov, but the "cheap Nikes" sorts
>>> of posts.
>>
>> So killfile on subject lines. The words "cheap" and "Nikes" are good
>> bets.
>
> And then the next subject line says "cheep" or "n!kes" and then
> the next says "CH33P" or "nykes", and the next says.....
>
> There's nothing "simple" about using killfiles effectively.
> It's a _daily_ chore to update and modify, and I already have
> a job. I like this job. I used to program. I did not like
> that job. So I don't want to spend even 5 minutes every
> damn day reprogramming my filters.
I honestly don't see much spam in this group, so I suppose my filters
are reasonably well-tuned.[1]
> Besides, there's something philosophically and deeply
> disturbing about an attitude where the solution to a
> victimization problem is to put more burden on the victim.
I don't know anything about victims. I just know that my solution is
working reasonably well for me.
Yes, spam can be annoying. The world would be better if there were no
spam. But giving up on sci.math and creating a moderated group is an
awfully ambitious reaction to spam -- and problematic, too, since it
seems that many people want moderation for other reasons than spam.
Anyway, by all means, do whatever you wish. I'm not trying to talk
you into or out of anything at all. I just thought you'd like to know
that there are easier solutions if your main problem is spam.
Footnotes:
[1] Probably my most effective scoring rule is the following:
((&
(|
("from" "gmail.com")
("from" "googlemail.com")
("from" "163.com"))
(!
("references" ".+" r)))
-90))
If a post comes from one of those three sources and does not follow-up
a previous post, then I score the post low. This has removed the
majority of the spam posts, I think.
--
"But if one of YOU [publicly supports me], [...] what you get out of it
is worldwide fame and recognition. Names like Wiles, Ribet and Taylor
will disappear from the history books or become footnotes, while yours
will be there, no matter who you are." --James S. Harris
Jesse F. Hughes
Moreover, since he has volunteered to be a moderator, he's willing to
have his own mailbox flooded with spam --- just so that he can see
less spam.
--
Jesse F. Hughes
"Of course, my ability to admit my mistakes and correct them is a
trait that many of you seem to never have properly appreciated."
-- JSH, discussing his 1463rd "proof" of Fermat's Last Theorem.
Bart Goddard
> Brian Mailman <bmai...@sfo.invalid> writes:
>
>> Bart Goddard wrote:
>>
>>> My biggest annoyance isn't Musatov, but the "cheap Nikes" sorts
>>> of posts.
>>
>> That's done on the server level. Not everyone sees those (I don't for
>> the most part, for example). If you subscribed to a server that had
>> better spam filtering, you wouldn't see most of it.
>>
>> What you're saying is that you're willing to have the moderators'
>> mailboxes flooded with spam, to save your reading time.
>
> Moreover, since he has volunteered to be a moderator, he's willing to
> have his own mailbox flooded with spam --- just so that he can see
> less spam.
More accurately, I'm willing to have _a_ mailbox fill with crap,
have a bot sort through it with black and white lists and other
filters, and then put the graylist where the moderators can get
at it. Then I'm willing to get at it.
Later, when I'm in the mood to read about math, I can enjoy
sci.math.moderated.
I guess I'm weird that way: I'd like to cook the meal completely
and serve it and enjoy it, rather than pick at the food in
little sips while I'm cooking.
pandora
> Peter J Ross wrote:
>
>> Why not try ignoring the trolls,
>> kooks, troll-feeders and kook-feeders instead?
>
> You continue to toss out this concept like it was a real alternative.
It most definitely is.
> It sure sounds great. Just ignore the trolls and they will go away.
> And, indeed, they would.
Yes, they would. They are trolling for *attention*. Take that away from
them and they WILL go away.
> But there's a little detail that gets in the way -- it's simply not
> going to happen that all of the participants of the newsgroup will
> miraculously develop the discipline to do that. No matter how much
> effort is expended trying to educate them, some people are simply
> incapable of ignoring trolls. The efforts to educate folks just add to
> noise in the newsgroup.
So, because *some* aren't educateable (according to you), then the behavior
continues? Why not ignore the uneducateable as well?
> It's the same "solution" as using killfiles. To you, setting up
> killfiles is an interesting exercise. But the vast majority of the
> participants in a newsgroup are there for the discussion and have no
> desire to climb the learning curve of setting up killfiles.
I see. Drive the car but do NOT under any circumstances, learn to drive it
beforehand. Yeah, that works.
> Why should
> they when they can find reasonable discussions elsewhere that don't
> require constant effort to combat the noise problem?
Because "Wherever you go, there you are."
> It would be wonderful if the solution to the issue of a newsgroup full
> of noise were simply to say "Don't feed the trolls" and "Use killfiles".
> Can you point to even one real world example of where that technique
> worked?
Yes, here.
:-)
Jesse F. Hughes
> More accurately, I'm willing to have _a_ mailbox fill with crap,
> have a bot sort through it with black and white lists and other
> filters, and then put the graylist where the moderators can get
> at it. Then I'm willing to get at it.
Er, yeah. But if killfiles (and scoring files) are hopelessly
ineffective because they require constant attention -- as you
suggested previously -- then your bot won't do much good, will it?
Surely, it will be just as difficult to filter out spam for cheap
Nikes when moderating a group as it is to filter out the same spam
while reading a group.
> Later, when I'm in the mood to read about math, I can enjoy
> sci.math.moderated.
> I guess I'm weird that way: I'd like to cook the meal completely
> and serve it and enjoy it, rather than pick at the food in
> little sips while I'm cooking.
Er, surely you will *still* skip the majority of posts in a moderated
newsgroup, right? After all, you aren't interested in every
mathematical topic under the sun, are you? So, I reckon you'll still
be picking at your food.
As I said, if you really think a moderated group is the solution to
your problems, then have at it. I suspect that a person who hates
filtering out crap when reading the newsgroups will hate filtering out
crap when moderating a newsgroup, but good luck.
Bart Goddard
> Bart Goddard <godd...@netscape.net> writes:
>
>> More accurately, I'm willing to have _a_ mailbox fill with crap,
>> have a bot sort through it with black and white lists and other
>> filters, and then put the graylist where the moderators can get
>> at it. Then I'm willing to get at it.
>
> Er, yeah. But if killfiles (and scoring files) are hopelessly
> ineffective because they require constant attention -- as you
> suggested previously -- then your bot won't do much good, will it?
You're very close to getting my "Great Cesar's Ghost is this Guy
Full of Shit or What?" award for the week.
1. I didn't say "hopeless ineffective".
2. I made it clear what the difference was between A.
trying to read math with background noise and B. taking
care of the background noise, and then reading the math.
> As I said, if you really think a moderated group is the solution to
> your problems, then have at it.
Then be quiet for while. Your comments thus far have been
remarkably pointless.
Bart Goddard
edneNnnZCd0AnXn...@scnresearch.com:
>> It sure sounds great. Just ignore the trolls and they will go away.
>> And, indeed, they would.
>
> Yes, they would. They are trolling for *attention*. Take that away from
> them and they WILL go away.
That's the conventional wisdom, but I've yet to see it work.
If it's a true statement, it's vacuously true.
And some trolls _don't_ want attention. They have other
issues.
Jesse F. Hughes
> "Jesse F. Hughes" <je...@phiwumbda.org> wrote in
> news:87ocq3o...@phiwumbda.org:
>
>> Bart Goddard <godd...@netscape.net> writes:
>>
>>> More accurately, I'm willing to have _a_ mailbox fill with crap,
>>> have a bot sort through it with black and white lists and other
>>> filters, and then put the graylist where the moderators can get
>>> at it. Then I'm willing to get at it.
>>
>> Er, yeah. But if killfiles (and scoring files) are hopelessly
>> ineffective because they require constant attention -- as you
>> suggested previously -- then your bot won't do much good, will it?
>
> You're very close to getting my "Great Cesar's Ghost is this Guy
> Full of Shit or What?" award for the week.
Oh, I might be, but tell ya what. We'll make a little wager.
You think that maintaining a killfile is too distracting and so want
to start up a moderated alternative to sci.math. I think that's a
strange reaction to a spam problem, but I'm prob'ly full of shit.
Let's return to the subject in two years time. If your moderated
newsgroup is active (and you're still involved in it) and if you judge
the entire operation a success, then I owe you a quarter. Otherwise,
you owe me a quarter.
There, that'll make our dispute interesting! And now, there's nothing
more to say until August 25, 2011.
Good luck!
(Just to be fair: if I've given up reading sci.math, then I'll give
you a quarter for that, too. You stand to make half a buck in just
two years!)
--
Jesse F. Hughes
"It is a clear sign that something is very, very, very wrong, as human
beings are, well human. Maybe some people think that mathematicians
are not, but I disagree. They are human beings." -- James S. Harris
Aratzio
Koskensilta <aatu.kos...@uta.fi> got double secret probation for
writing:
>Axel Vogt <&nor...@axelvogt.de> writes:
>
>> To keep it simple: most users will not or even can not change the
>> their domain.
>
>What domain are you talking about?
>
>> Hence the filters work in most cases. Not perfect, but simple, quite
>> efficient and without additional tools. It will do for you as well.
>
>You're being silly. Why not just filter out posts originating from
>Google Groups if you want to filter out posts originating from Google
>Groups?
Plants need food.
Google is shit.
Filters clean out the shit.
Why do you hate the Earth?
Bart Goddard
> You think that maintaining a killfile is too distracting and so want
> to start up a moderated alternative to sci.math.
Good example. This little fact you've just stated has been
obvious from the beginning. The whole reason these threads
started was because some of us would rather start up a
moderated group than to keep screwing with our killfiles.
Yet, you make the statement. All I can say is "yes, we
know." And maybe "duh." It's a pointless comment.
Steve Bonine
art of debate, news.groups style:
Brian Mailman wrote:
> Steve Bonine wrote:
>> Peter J Ross wrote:
>>
>>> Why not try ignoring the trolls,
>>> kooks, troll-feeders and kook-feeders instead?
>>
>> You continue to toss out this concept like it was a real alternative.
>
> Because it is.
Step 1 is to simply state that your opinion is right and the other is
wrong. No logic, explanation, facts, or examples are required.
> I'm sure if your bamby Masters espoused it, you'd be fighting tooth and
> nail to prove nothing else would work.
Step 2 is to insult the other person. This seals the deal. Now it's
obvious to even the most casual observer that all one must do to quiet a
troll-filled newsgroup is tell the participants to ignore the trolls.
Step 3 is to snip the rest of the original article. After all, you've
demolished the premise, so there's no need to continue. Examples of
this ever having worked? Certainly those are not required. A
three-word rebuttal plus a personal attack takes care of anything.
Thank you Brian for the fine teaching aid.
Jesse F. Hughes
Yet, of all the things I wrote in that post, this one, solitary
sentence is the only one you've reacted to. Funny choice, that!
--
Jesse F. Hughes
"I get to make things move just by saying a few things. When I post
now the math world has to tremble, even if it does so quietly, hoping
that no one else notices." -- James S. Harris has the power.
Bart Goddard
> Yet, of all the things I wrote in that post, this one, solitary
> sentence is the only one you've reacted to. Funny choice, that!
Well, what was I supposed to do? You cherry picked your criticisms.
In spite of the extensive deliberations on this topic, you boiled
it all down to one thing and "argued" against by merely repeating it
in a derisive tone. <shrug> Did you address what has been touted
as the main advantage of establishing a "clean" sci.math? (Namely,
re-attracting many of the interesting people who've left.) No,
that doesn't fit into your narrow little "So, you don't like spam
and now yer gonna moderate it." Yes, I'm going to moderate it,
because the main reason I don't like spam is because it drove off
most of the people who made this group interesting in the 90's.
And by moderating, I'm hoping to make participation rewarding
enough to make it worth their while to post occasionally. If
they do, I'll be much happier.
It's not like these points are hard to follow.
Herman Jurjus
> "Jesse F. Hughes" <je...@phiwumbda.org> wrote in
> news:87eiqzn...@phiwumbda.org:
>
>> Yet, of all the things I wrote in that post, this one, solitary
>> sentence is the only one you've reacted to. Funny choice, that!
>
> Well, what was I supposed to do? You cherry picked your criticisms.
> In spite of the extensive deliberations on this topic, you boiled
> it all down to one thing and "argued" against by merely repeating it
> in a derisive tone. <shrug> Did you address what has been touted
> as the main advantage of establishing a "clean" sci.math? (Namely,
> re-attracting many of the interesting people who've left.) No,
> that doesn't fit into your narrow little "So, you don't like spam
> and now yer gonna moderate it." Yes, I'm going to moderate it,
> because the main reason I don't like spam is because it drove off
> most of the people who made this group interesting in the 90's.
Was spam really the cause? I have the impression that most of these
people had different reasons for leaving the group. For example, some
left the academic world and got real jobs. Others came to prefer other
activities than math (say, mountain bicycling) or came to prefer other
media, like web forums, blogging or (good grief!) peer-reviewed journals.
All of this makes it unlikely that we can make them come back by getting
rid of spam.
Oh, and PS: Jesse's remarks so far were not irrelevant; they were spot on.
--
Cheers,
Herman Jurjus
Bart Goddard
@textnews.kpn.nl:
> All of this makes it unlikely that we can make them come back by getting
> rid of spam.
>
Only if it's true. Every time I mention sci.math in conversation,
I hear, "Oh, I used to read that. There got to be too much garbage."
I don't think the mass exodus was due to people leaving mathematics.
Bart Goddard
> Oh, and PS: Jesse's remarks so far were not irrelevant; they were spot
> on.
>
It's possible to be both. If you keep saying something that is
"spot on", but everyone else is already painfullly aware of it,
then it's not a relevant comment.
Herman Jurjus
> Herman Jurjus <hju...@hetnet.nl> wrote in news:4a950a41$0$1643$703f8584
> @textnews.kpn.nl:
>
>> All of this makes it unlikely that we can make them come back by getting
>> rid of spam.
>>
>
> Only if it's true. Every time I mention sci.math in conversation,
> I hear, "Oh, I used to read that. There got to be too much garbage."
But was the garbage spam?
--
Cheers,
Herman Jurjus
Herman Jurjus
> Herman Jurjus <hju...@hetnet.nl> wrote in
> news:4a950a41$0$1643$703f...@textnews.kpn.nl:
>
>> Oh, and PS: Jesse's remarks so far were not irrelevant; they were spot
>> on.
>>
>
> It's possible to be both. If you keep saying something that is
> "spot on", but everyone else is already painfullly aware of it,
> then it's not a relevant comment.
Somehow you got the point without getting the point, then.
--
Cheers,
Herman Jurjus
Bart Goddard
@textnews.kpn.nl:
You're hanging around too many quilting bees. Those sorts
of quips work on silly old biddies. Not so much on me.
Bart Goddard
>> Only if it's true. Every time I mention sci.math in conversation,
>> I hear, "Oh, I used to read that. There got to be too much garbage."
>
> But was the garbage spam?
Does it matter? We propose to moderate the garbage away, whether
it's spam or flame wars or nonsensical math-like gibberish.
Whatever drove them away, if it's gone, maybe they'll come back.
We used to have 50 good posters, who knew mathematics and enjoyed
talking about it and answering questions. Now we have 3. It used
to be that by following certain threads, one could learn quite a
bit about a new topic. Now one is lucky to get a referral to a
useful article.
Bart Goddard
news:slrnh961n...@pjr.gotdns.org:
>> The trouble is having to add 10 things to the killfile every
>> day. My killfile is so long, it takes about an hour to process
>> incoming messages through it.
>
> There are various ways in which your killfile could probably be
> optimised for speed and accuracy. Merely pressing "k" may not be the
> most efficient method.
Supposing my killfile is fine-tuned to Ninja level, that's just
one guy, who's not that interesting of a poster, participating more
comfortably. There's some elderly mathematicians, many of
gentle spirit, who would participate (who used to participate) who
really ought not to have to learn yet another skill just so they
can play with us. How am I going to get their killfiles up to
Ninja status?
Steve Bonine
> Herman Jurjus <hju...@hetnet.nl> wrote:
>
>>> Only if it's true. Every time I mention sci.math in conversation,
>>> I hear, "Oh, I used to read that. There got to be too much garbage."
>> But was the garbage spam?
> Does it matter? We propose to moderate the garbage away, whether
> it's spam or flame wars or nonsensical math-like gibberish.
> Whatever drove them away, if it's gone, maybe they'll come back.
You can hope, and the only way to know for sure is to launch the
moderated group and see what happens.
You're making a number of assumptions that are tenuous.
You're assuming that the only reason these folks left is a low
signal-to-noise ratio in the group. I'm sure that that's the case for
some of them, but I'm equally sure that there are other factors
involved. People move on for many reasons.
You're assuming that you can create a high signal-to-noise ratio in the
new group. To achieve this you must not only correctly remove what
these people think is noise, but you must attract signal. You must
attract enough people to create a meaningful discussion so that you can
attract people. Getting that initial critical mass of participants can
be difficult.
You're assuming that these folks' appetite for discussions on the topic
of math isn't being satiated in ways other than Usenet. If they're
perfectly happy participating in web forums or mailing lists or
journals, it's unlikely that they will choose to reduce the amount of
time that they spend there in order to return to Usenet. The only way
you'll attract them back is to provide a discussion that's better than
the one they're involved in someplace else.
Finally, you're assuming that magic will happen and a moderation
platform will appear from which you can moderate a Usenet newsgroup.
Several people have sounded the alarm that you've not addressed this
issue at all.
Paul W. Schleck
Hash: SHA1
In <7fks04F...@mid.individual.net> Steve Bonine <s...@pobox.com> writes:
>Bart Goddard wrote:
>> Herman Jurjus <hju...@hetnet.nl> wrote:
>>
[...]
>Finally, you're assuming that magic will happen and a moderation
>platform will appear from which you can moderate a Usenet newsgroup.
>Several people have sounded the alarm that you've not addressed this
>issue at all.
No need for magic. A description of a low-cost, proven, turnkey
solution that is used by at least 8 other moderation teams at a Unix
shell-account ISP that has been in business for 20 years, along with an
offer of assistance from those teams, has been sent via E-mail to
William and Bart.
- --
Paul W. Schleck
psch...@novia.net
http://www.novia.net/~pschleck/
Finger psch...@novia.net for PGP Public Key
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (SunOS)
iD8DBQFKlUQ06Pj0az779o4RAneOAJ9zxZZwufhnitLTiH/WH9hNmF9ewwCgyhAb
X2qkcgCseieDOOqfxjqjZDM=
=ly/8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Bart Goddard
@mid.individual.net:
> Finally, you're assuming that magic will happen and a moderation
> platform will appear from which you can moderate a Usenet newsgroup.
> Several people have sounded the alarm that you've not addressed this
> issue at all.
How on earth did you come up with this? Did I ever say "I think
a platform will appear by magic?" Did _anyone_? Second, are any
of the "several people" involved in e-mail discussion which has
been happening between the voluteers?
We know what we have to come up with, and we're working on it.
No one, I may assure you, has suggested "magic."
Steve Bonine
> No need for magic. A description of a low-cost, proven, turnkey
> solution that is used by at least 8 other moderation teams at a Unix
> shell-account ISP that has been in business for 20 years, along with an
> offer of assistance from those teams, has been sent via E-mail to
> William and Bart.
Thank you, Paul. Your efforts to assist people who are considering a
moderated Usenet newsgroup are much appreciated and have been key to the
success of several projects.
However, I will point out that "low cost" does not mean "free". With
the exception of the amazingly defensive response I just read, I've seen
not even an acknowledgment from the proponents that this is an issue,
and no indication that anyone cares enough about the new group to cough
up actual coin of the realm.
Doug Freyburger
> Herman Jurjus <hjur...@hetnet.nl> wrote:
>
> >> Only if it's true. Every time I mention sci.math in conversation,
> >> I hear, "Oh, I used to read that. There got to be too much garbage."
>
> > But was the garbage spam?
>
> Does it matter?
Generally users don't care in the least what the source of
noise is. Among news admins there is discussion of
"abuse on UseNet" versus "abuse of UseNet". Among
former posters who've abandoned UseNet because of the
noise not one has ever cared in the least about the
distinction. Few even care about troll versus kook versus
kookologist versus spam. It's all noise.
> We propose to moderate the garbage away, whether
> it's spam or flame wars
That's a good plan and it is not difficult to do. Be generous
in approving posts and folks will think you are a good
moderator.
> or nonsensical math-like gibberish.
This is problematical. Advances in science have often been
considered gibberish by scientists of the prior generation.
As this is true in science I think it likely to be true in math
as well. Be generous in approving posts and I think the
topics will get to obviously crossing the line fairly quicky.
> Whatever drove them away, if it's gone, maybe they'll come back.
Unlikely. On topics other than math I've corresponded with
plenty of former UseNet posters who left because of the noise
and who have no interest in coming back. It's the same as
in products - If you get a lemon product but now you have a
good product, do you have any interest in going back just
because someone tells you the problem has been solved?
> We used to have 50 good posters, who knew mathematics and enjoyed
> talking about it and answering questions. Now we have 3. It used
> to be that by following certain threads, one could learn quite a
> bit about a new topic. Now one is lucky to get a referral to a
> useful article.
Focus on keeping the quality up to be able to draw new posters.
Bart Goddard
@mid.individual.net:
> no indication that anyone cares enough about the new group to cough
> up actual coin of the realm.
>
Again, you're not looking in the right place. There's been
at least one offer to help pay. And there's been at least one
solid offer from a university to provide physical support.
I'd call that "indication."
Bart Goddard
46341d...@24g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
>> or nonsensical math-like gibberish.
>
> This is problematical. Advances in science have often been
> considered gibberish by scientists of the prior generation.
Not really. At least not this sort of gibberish. We already
know that .9999... = 1, that it's impossible to trisect a
general angle, that Cantor's proof is valid, etc. No "advance"
in mathematics is going to come from someone who doesn't
understand that Cantor's proof is valid.
Discussion of these issues would be a fine topic on sci.math.moderated.
It's the unending arguments from the kooks and kookologists which
simply repeat the same unfounded statements ("it's the next number
below one", or "Your a moron") over and over, that we think need
to be filtered out.
Martin X. Moleski, SJ
<Xns9C73722E6E588go...@74.209.136.88>:
> ... We already
>know that .9999... = 1, that it's impossible to trisect a
>general angle, that Cantor's proof is valid, etc. No "advance"
>in mathematics is going to come from someone who doesn't
>understand that Cantor's proof is valid.
>Discussion of these issues would be a fine topic on sci.math.moderated.
>It's the unending arguments from the kooks and kookologists which
>simply repeat the same unfounded statements ("it's the next number
>below one", or "You're a moron") over and over, that we think need
>to be filtered out.
I think the mods are well within their rights to pass
judgment on the mathematical arguments that are tendered
to a moderated group.
I'm not sure what's the best way to phrase this part of
the moderation policy. I think it's covered by the
word "sensible" in the draft:
"Posts are required to be on topic, sensible,
devoid of rudeness and vulgarity, and non-commercial.
Posts asking for or offering solution manuals are rejected."
A FAQ could be posted to the group from time to time
giving some fuller expansion of what is "sensible"
and providing some examples of "nonsense."
The odds of crushing an authentic advance in mathematics
by not allowing the genius to post in sci.math.mod seems
quite small to me. No genius is going to let a little
setback like that keep him or her from developing and
advocating the new breakthrough. If it takes root
and bears fruit in the mathematical community, at some
point the mods may have to eat crow and apologize to
the genius.
Something like this may have happened with fractals,
chaos theory, fuzzy logic, and the like. That's life.
On balance, I think it is for the good of the group
that five mathematicians and Usenet denizens are
willing to act as peer reviewers for the content that
appears in the newsgroup.
Weeding out flames, abuse, and other non-mathematical
noise is not that hard.
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.
David Bernier
Fred Galvin, a set theorist, is one who would post from google groups.
I think google groups has more commercial spam than aioe.org or
newsguy.com . It's true that a moderated group would have
less spam anywhere one chooses to read it.
Probably not everyone who reads sci.math would be ready to invest in
the time needed to optimize filters.
If sci.math.moderated could be robo-moderated, with the
moderators adjusting the robo-moderator a few times a week
or twice a day, then the delay from "hitting return" to
posting would be quite small (supposedly). With
human moderators, I'm wondering what the delay might
be, i.e. the typical delay in a 95% range.
David Bernier
Martin X. Moleski, SJ
> ... With
>human moderators, I'm wondering what the delay might
>be, i.e. the typical delay in a 95% range.
I don't have any stats.
So much depends on the type of moderation mechanism
selected and on the way in which the mods process
the queue.
One system I use sends e-mail to mods picked at
random from the active mod list. If a post comes
to me for moderation, the lag might be from a
few minutes to half a day (I don't have a mobile
e-mail device).
Another system that I use sends all the mods a
notice that posts are awaiting moderation on a
website. That system probably speeds up the
throughput at the expense of having all but
the first mod see an empty queue when they
react to the e-mail notification. The page-based
system does allow several mods to see a post
and vote on whether it should be approved.
The first system lets one mod decide what to
do about a post (we do consult in e-mail if
there is a doubt, but the mod who gets the
post may approve it without consulting).
Some posts get lost in transit or get shredded
by our host software:
http://rasnm.carracing.com/nntpprob.htm
The delay imposed by moderation is one the
"Pitfalls" that Russ Allbery talks about.
This is the price that one pays for gaining
some control over what appears in a newsgroup.
Bart Goddard
> With
> human moderators, I'm wondering what the delay might
> be, i.e. the typical delay in a 95% range.
>
I volunteered to do the day-to-day grunt work, provided
someone else "set things up." (I don't want to learn some
things.) It's one huge job to "get things going." It's
another huge job to run the day-to-day things. In other
words, I don't know what's technically possible.
However, my vision is that (eventually) the bot will do
trioge immediately, so whitelisted sources should appear
quickly. Further, the bot places the graylist on a website
to which the moderators log in as they please, and dispense
with as many messages as they please.
I feel confident that I (I'm not speaking for the other
volunteers) can go for years checking the website every
day and keep the queue moving. I'm confident because for
years I've had a "surfing routine." I spend a lot of time
at my desk, and every so often, I need to look up from my
work and stretch my neck. My habit is to then check on
the various sites that I...uh...like to check on:
1. where's the Dow just now, 2. CNN to see if any more
ugly people have died, 3. Craigslist to see if anyone
wants to buy my wife's NordicTrak, 4. The 5 newsgroups I
read. 5. The "other" e-mail accounts I have. 6. The two
blogs I read.
I tend to do the cycle a few times per day (not all of it
every time.) So my plan is to add the moderation site to
my little OCD routine.
All that to say: Unscientifically, my gut guess is that
we're going to average a 3 hours delay during US daytime
hours.
Jim Ferry
> Doug Freyburger <dfrey...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:3c9471ac-4131-47a3-b7b6-
> 46341d91d...@24g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
>
> >> or nonsensical math-like gibberish.
>
> > This is problematical. Advances in science have often been
> > considered gibberish by scientists of the prior generation.
>
> Not really. At least not this sort of gibberish. We already
> know that .9999... = 1, that it's impossible to trisect a
> general angle, that Cantor's proof is valid, etc.
But a general angle has measure 1 (relative to itself), so to
trisect it, one merely takes 1 = .999... + e0 (the smallest
positive number above 0), and constructs .333... + e0/3.
e0/3 = 0 because it's non-negative and smaller than e0, so
we must only construct the angle .333.... To do this, we
just form the bijection between the (countable) list of all
possible constructions and the (countable) list of real
numbers, and look for where .333... occurs in the list.
This construction of the trisection of a general angle
therefore proves that .999 is less than 1, and that
Cantor's proof is invalid, while also providing a proof
of (or possibly a counterexample to) Fermat's Last Theorem.
Paul W. Schleck
Hash: SHA1
Shades of the nascent throwaway newsgroup comp.compression.random! :-)
Possibly another way to express this sentiment would be
"non-falsifiable." Assertions made in postings should conceivably be
statable as a hypothesis that could fit into some kind of
"proof-theoretic" framework such that they could be tested, proven, or
disproven, at least in principle. Some things are arguably off the
table, such as the three examples that Bart gives above, as they have
been proven or disproven in the current "proof-theoretic" framework of
known mathematics, and no attempt has been made to suggest an alternate
framework in which the contradictory assertion can be stated as a
falsifiable hypothesis.
To put it another way, if the moderators find that a given submission
reminds them of the words of physicist Wolfgang Pauli:
"This isn't right. This isn't even wrong."
then that's a strong hint that it would not be appropriate for the new
moderated newsgroup.
The recently-reactivated sci.space.tech newsgroup also has a sensible
editorial policy:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.space.tech/browse_thread/thread/181219e22ba86df1
excerpted as follows:
"Posts that include cites, equations and proven science and technology
references are preferred. If you want to discuss esoteric subjects such
as FTL, anti-gravity and other non-proven scientific principles, please
make sure to have recent and citable references for the topic. Pie in
the sky posts will generally be rejected."
>The odds of crushing an authentic advance in mathematics
>by not allowing the genius to post in sci.math.mod seems
>quite small to me. No genius is going to let a little
>setback like that keep him or her from developing and
>advocating the new breakthrough. If it takes root
>and bears fruit in the mathematical community, at some
>point the mods may have to eat crow and apologize to
>the genius.
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
- - Carl Sagan
>Something like this may have happened with fractals,
>chaos theory, fuzzy logic, and the like. That's life.
>On balance, I think it is for the good of the group
>that five mathematicians and Usenet denizens are
>willing to act as peer reviewers for the content that
>appears in the newsgroup.
>Weeding out flames, abuse, and other non-mathematical
>noise is not that hard.
> Marty
No, not at all, if the experiences of other successful newsgroups are
any guide.
- --
Paul W. Schleck
psch...@novia.net
http://www.novia.net/~pschleck/
Finger psch...@novia.net for PGP Public Key
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (SunOS)
iD8DBQFKlXhY6Pj0az779o4RAj6eAJ9/pz2XpYmjWgV16QDgpkzMADLjXACgwBAt
UFBL8rVXSgrzxLCEoGozqTc=
=dKI3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
David Bernier
> David Bernier <davi...@videotron.ca> wrote in
> news:h73pa...@news3.newsguy.com:
>
>> With
>> human moderators, I'm wondering what the delay might
>> be, i.e. the typical delay in a 95% range.
>>
>
> I volunteered to do the day-to-day grunt work, provided
> someone else "set things up." (I don't want to learn some
> things.) It's one huge job to "get things going." It's
> another huge job to run the day-to-day things. In other
> words, I don't know what's technically possible.
>
> However, my vision is that (eventually) the bot will do
> trioge immediately, so whitelisted sources should appear
> quickly. Further, the bot places the graylist on a website
> to which the moderators log in as they please, and dispense
> with as many messages as they please.
If the bot could give an index of badness from 0 to 100,
0 being "very very good", and 100 "terribly bad",
and then ordered the submissions from lowest badness
index to highest badness index in the moderation queue,
then the moderators could look at the least bad first.
With no more "very good" to "good", they could look at
the very worst. Possibly a "probability of accept"
could be calculated as a function of the index.
And the set theorist used "Butch Malahide" as
a nickname.
Some have said John Baez has something, or else
there's the Breidbart index, and possibly others.
David Bernier
Bart Goddard
news:c0d0df43-7e40-43ef...@c14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
> But a general angle has measure 1 (relative to itself), so to
> trisect it, one merely takes 1 = .999... + e0 (the smallest
> positive number above 0), and constructs .333... + e0/3.
> e0/3 = 0 because it's non-negative and smaller than e0, so
> we must only construct the angle .333.... To do this, we
> just form the bijection between the (countable) list of all
> possible constructions and the (countable) list of real
> numbers, and look for where .333... occurs in the list.
> This construction of the trisection of a general angle
> therefore proves that .999 is less than 1, and that
> Cantor's proof is invalid, while also providing a proof
> of (or possibly a counterexample to) Fermat's Last Theorem.
>
"Accepted."
Martin X. Moleski, SJ
<Xns9C737CE05D725go...@74.209.136.98>:
> ... It's
>another huge job to run the day-to-day things. ...
In my experience, on average, that's not true.
It's pretty routine. I help to moderate two newsgroups.
I doubt that it takes as much as five minutes a day
when things are working well.
>However, my vision is that (eventually) the bot will do
>triage immediately, so whitelisted sources should appear
>quickly. Further, the bot places the graylist on a website
>to which the moderators log in as they please, and dispense
>with as many messages as they please.
I think that is probably the system that offers
the fastest turnaround time, on average.
>I feel confident that I (I'm not speaking for the other
>volunteers) can go for years checking the website every
>day and keep the queue moving. I'm confident because for
>years I've had a "surfing routine." I spend a lot of time
>at my desk, and every so often, I need to look up from my
>work and stretch my neck. My habit is to then check on
>the various sites that I...uh...like to check on:
>1. where's the Dow just now, 2. CNN to see if any more
>ugly people have died, 3. Craigslist to see if anyone
>wants to buy my wife's NordicTrak, 4. The 5 newsgroups I
>read. 5. The "other" e-mail accounts I have. 6. The two
>blogs I read.
Same here. For me the cycle is e-mail, newsgroups,
and two web forums. E-mail brings me the notification
of posts that need attention (either through e-mail
replies or through visiting a web page).
Come to think of it, I guess I moderate a handful of
small, quiet mailing lists, too (Mailman, Google,
& Yahoo).
>I tend to do the cycle a few times per day (not all of it
>every time.) So my plan is to add the moderation site to
>my little OCD routine.
>All that to say: Unscientifically, my gut guess is that
>we're going to average a 3 hours delay during US daytime
>hours.
Not with whitelisting in place. I'll bet that you get
well under one hour during US daytime hours. If you
can get some mods to help from elsewhere, you
should be able to keep stuff moving 24x7.
pandora
> pandora <pan...@peak.org> wrote in news:H-
> edneNnnZCd0AnXn...@scnresearch.com:
>
>>> It sure sounds great. Just ignore the trolls and they will go away.
>>> And, indeed, they would.
>>
>> Yes, they would. They are trolling for *attention*. Take that away from
>> them and they WILL go away.
>
> That's the conventional wisdom, but I've yet to see it work.
> If it's a true statement, it's vacuously true.
It's true IF one wishes it to be.
> And some trolls _don't_ want attention. They have other
> issues.
That may be BUT, you do have the capability of ignoring them, no?
> B.
>
Steve Bonine
> It's true IF one wishes it to be.
It's warm in Minnesota in the winter.
I wish.
Bart Goddard
news:Fc6dnYAfOsKLLwjX...@scnresearch.com:
>> And some trolls _don't_ want attention. They have other
>> issues.
>
> That may be BUT, you do have the capability of ignoring them, no?
I can ignore some things. But if I'm giving a lecture and
some bozos with bullhorns enter the back of the hall and
start babbling, is the best advice you can give "just ignore
them?"
No. I think I'll have them removed.
Adam H. Kerman
>pandora <pan...@peak.org> wrote:
>>>It sure sounds great. Just ignore the trolls and they will go away.
>>>And, indeed, they would.
>>Yes, they would. They are trolling for *attention*. Take that away from
>>them and they WILL go away.
>That's the conventional wisdom, but I've yet to see it work.
>If it's a true statement, it's vacuously true.
>And some trolls _don't_ want attention. They have other
>issues.
This is an amazing theory. Tell us more.
Adam H. Kerman
>>>And some trolls _don't_ want attention. They have other issues.
>>That may be BUT, you do have the capability of ignoring them, no?
>I can ignore some things. But if I'm giving a lecture and
>some bozos with bullhorns enter the back of the hall and
>start babbling, is the best advice you can give "just ignore
>them?"
>No. I think I'll have them removed.
Do you know what analogy is? That wasn't it.
You would leave them in the back of the hall, construct an entirely new
classroom elsewhere, then not let anyone from the old classroom ask
you any questions until each had been vetted, all for the benefit of
discussion that's just not going to happen given the long delay before
you let someone speak.
You lamed your opponents as "some bozos with bullhorns" but you didn't
answer the question as to why you've been feeding those you label trolls.
Aratzio
"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> got double secret probation for
writing:
Free entertainment from the anti-trolls is always a good starting
point. Even though they are "ignoring" the trolls they still fuss and
fume.
Now, about the bow tie?
Jesse F. Hughes
> Doug Freyburger <dfre...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:3c9471ac-4131-47a3-b7b6-
> 46341d...@24g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
>
>>> or nonsensical math-like gibberish.
>>
>> This is problematical. Advances in science have often been
>> considered gibberish by scientists of the prior generation.
>
> Not really. At least not this sort of gibberish.
Bart's absolutely right on this point. The distinction between novel
approaches and incoherent crankery is pretty easy to draw.
--
Jesse F. Hughes
"Most people don't even know what a rootkit is, so why should they
care about it."
-- Thomas Hesse, sony executive defends DRM-by-rootkit.
Bart Goddard
@news.eternal-september.org:
>>I can ignore some things. But if I'm giving a lecture and
>>some bozos with bullhorns enter the back of the hall and
>>start babbling, is the best advice you can give "just ignore
>>them?"
>
>>No. I think I'll have them removed.
>
> Do you know what analogy is? That wasn't it.
Of course it is. Analogies don't have to touch on
every point, just on one or a few. Indeed, it's impossible
for an analogy to touch on every point. And the point
here was "can you ignore them?" The answer is "not if
their too intrusive."
Every time I check newsgroups, my little reader gets
message counts. It reports something like 250 new messages
for sci.math every morning. (And I would have purged it the
previous evening.) When I click on sci.math, my reader
tends to pass only a couple dozen. So 90 percent of the
junk is filtered out. What's left? Of the 24 passing
messages, there are, typically, 6 "nikes", 3 "solution
manuals" 8 "trolls" and trollbaiters. So I _still_ have
to visually sort my way through their nonsense.
Math headers are often ugly and contain things Like "x>y"
or "a^2n". It's effort (maybe not a lot, but still) to
sort out the "UST-->>cheep nykes" from the "sol to x^3-3y^2=5"
stuff.
IF I want to read the math is MUST make this (perhaps small)
effort. I think that's the definition of "can't ignore."
Bart Goddard
@news.eternal-september.org:
>>And some trolls _don't_ want attention. They have other
>>issues.
>
> This is an amazing theory. Tell us more.
I know of one "troll" who simply pissed at the group.
He doesn't want attention, he just wants to post his
daily harangues at the rest of us. I have his 6 or
7 nyms killfiled so I rarely see his posts, and then
only when a newbie responds. After we instruct the
newbie, no prob.
The point here is, he's kept this up for _years_. My
first clear memory of him was 6 years ago. He gets
very little attention, yet he never goes away.
Perhaps in the strict definition of "troll", he's not
not one, since he's not "trolling for responses", but
we still call him one.
That same group has a guy we refer to as "the pervert."
Again, this is over years, I've never seen _anyone_
respond to his very sick posts, yet there they are,
just like clockwork.
In a different group (homebrewing) we had a guy who
got some responses, but his motiviation didn't seem to
be "attention", but "sociopathy." He'd post responses
to beginner questions that, if followed, would have
killed them. ("Just mix a cup of bleach in each
5 gallon batch to prevent infection".) So not "attention",
but twisted sociopath. Even though people would follow
up and say "Don't do that!!", eliciting such responses
didn't seem to be his motivation.
On yet another group, we have a guy named "Frank" who
has figured out that all religions have gone astray and
only he has the right answer. His mission is to spread
his bizarre gospel. He posts a couple times a day, and
I'm the only one who occasionally posts a sentence to
him. He never responds back. He's like a bot, who just
posts sermons. He also doesn't seem to be seeking
attention, just doing God's work.
Martin X. Moleski, SJ
>Bart Goddard <godd...@netscape.net> writes:
>
>> Doug Freyburger <dfre...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:3c9471ac-4131-47a3-b7b6-
>> 46341d...@24g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
>>> This is problematical. Advances in science have often been
>>> considered gibberish by scientists of the prior generation.
>> Not really. At least not this sort of gibberish.
>Bart's absolutely right on this point. The distinction between novel
>approaches and incoherent crankery is pretty easy to draw.
I think it is a distinction that can and should be made for
the good of the group.
There may be another Ramanujan out there, of course:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srinivasa_Ramanujan
Such geniuses will have to fill their notebooks with
inspired works while waiting to find their G. H. Hardy
to open doors for them.
Bart Goddard
news:8tqdnZBLc5wrfgjX...@supernews.com:
>>Bart's absolutely right on this point. The distinction between novel
>>approaches and incoherent crankery is pretty easy to draw.
>
> I think it is a distinction that can and should be made for
> the good of the group.
>
> There may be another Ramanujan out there, of course:
I think the talk has been pretty much on the side of
leniency. The consensus seems, at least to me, to be
to pass any sort of math. If someone wants to post their
"short proof of Fermat's last theorem", then I think
we'd let them. The cut-off comes when they persist in
error and the thread(s) become pointless repetition.
The typical thing is that a guy will post his "proof".
Then several people point out obvious errors. He
comes back merely repeating some "point" which doesn't
address the objections, but just restates his intuition.
No matter what anyone says, he just says "It's the next
number before 1" or some such.
So the moderators aren't judging the quality of the math
so much as the quality of the conversation. When they
judge it to be zero, (or the next number higher than
zero) then that's when the thread ends.
Personally, I _want_ people who are interested in math
to post, even if they have abysmal training. I share
their interest, and if we can help them along, swell.
Further, if in helping them, we hone our teaching and
expository skilss, then sweller.
In fact, if things turn out the way I want, sci.math.moderated
will benefit the "kooks" because snotty and vulgar responses
won't be passed. They get only genuine mathematical
feedback on their posts, and are granted a modicum of
respect, since we'll insist on at least some civility.
I know I've been doing most of the talking, and I want to
remind folks that I'm not speaking for the other volunteers.
I'm just trying to answer the arguments according to my
"vision", and that may not be the final reality.
Bart
Martin X. Moleski, SJ
<Xns9C73E37164230go...@74.209.136.94>:
> ... I'm not speaking for the other volunteers.
> I'm just trying to answer the arguments according to my
> "vision", and that may not be the final reality.
Some kind of dialogue along these lines is all the
board has to go on in judging whether a proposed
moderation team is liable to do a good job
moderating.
When a moderated group is created, it belongs to the
moderator(s) from then on. The only time the board
tries to evaluate the moderators is during the RFD
period; after that, they're on their own.
Herman Jurjus
Your posts keep giving me the impression (and others, too, i think) that
you're unwilling to even -hear- about the cost and other disadvantages.
You simply use every adversary post as a vehicle for the next step in
your lobby campaign.
But one good argument is better than twenty weak ones, and so far, i've
only heard very weak ones, unrealistic expectations, wishful thinking, etc.
Can you give -one- good argument why we should have this new moderated
group, as opposed to, say, a web based forum (perhaps with an nntp
interface to allow people to keep using their favorite readers)?
I'll give my argument in favor of the latter:
1) Many ISPs are considering to end usenet/nntp support in the near future.
2) If you're going to invest anyway in infrastructure and a team of
moderators/volunteers, why usenet?
--
Cheers,
Herman Jurjus
Herman Jurjus
> Herman Jurjus <hju...@hetnet.nl> wrote in
> news:4a9522a0$0$1644$703f...@textnews.kpn.nl:
>
>>> Only if it's true. Every time I mention sci.math in conversation,
>>> I hear, "Oh, I used to read that. There got to be too much garbage."
Just fyi: i already heard that in the (early) 1990s.
>> But was the garbage spam?
>
> Does it matter?
Yes, it matters, namely for the relevance of your argument.
In the best case, the new newsgroup will have the same threads, just
shorter (newbie question; expert answer; OP doesn't get it; repeat until
venom; moderator cuts it). Don't dream: such threads will also be
considered 'garbage' by most mathematicians.
If you want moderation: go ahead and try; but one good argument is
better than twenty bad ones, and the 'dream' of getting the posters from
the 90s back is unrealistic and therefore very weak as an argument.
IOW: surely you must have better arguments?
Better concentrate on those.
> We propose to moderate the garbage away, whether
> it's spam or flame wars or nonsensical math-like gibberish.
> Whatever drove them away, if it's gone, maybe they'll come back.
>
> We used to have 50 good posters, who knew mathematics and enjoyed
> talking about it and answering questions. Now we have 3. It used
> to be that by following certain threads, one could learn quite a
> bit about a new topic. Now one is lucky to get a referral to a
> useful article.
There is at least one current (good) poster whom i suspect is staying
here especially to shout at morons, seemingly as a kind of therapy
(perhaps because he's not allowed to spank his college students in the
class room?).
I would hate to see such phenomena die out. Sci.math is about the only
place in the world where you can observe mathematicians in the wild,
away from their protected habitats, when they're defenselessly
confronted by common sense questions, coming from normal people.
The new ng probably won't be half as valuable in that respect, but it
does threaten to kill the current 'paradise of fools'.
(Just my two cents worth.)
--
Cheers,
Herman Jurjus
Bart Goddard
> Your posts keep giving me the impression (and others, too, i think)
> that you're unwilling to even -hear- about the cost and other
> disadvantages.
This isn't rec.crafts.brewing (which is perhaps the most pleasant
Usenet group ever). Many or most of us have Ph.D's in math or
a related field. That may not mean we're clever, but it does mean
that we're professional scholars. Our reflex action to any
situation is to study the heck out of it. I would bet that
most of the volunteers did as I did, which was find out tons
about moderation before I opened my mouth.
Against every suggestion, no matter how smug, that we ought
to read this or that article (or even, laughably, "read it
twice", as if we weren't professional learners), the response
is "already did."
It's not that we don't appreciate the help, because we really
don't have experience here. But we have all the knowledge
possible from reading websites and FAQ's. Websites and FAQ's
are probably not a good substitute for experience, but
experience is going to come from only one direction.
On the other hand, there _are_ some things I am unwilling to hear
too much about. I volunteered to moderate under the condition
that someone else would set things up. Suggestions about
which software, and other technical things are really the
purview of the setter-upper. I've expressed my hope that
software can do this or that, and I've been assured it can.
(I.e., I asked, was answered, and your impression is that
we're not thinking about it. sic transit gloria mundi.)
We have one university that's agreed to let us do things
through them and I understand there's good and free software.
So the monetary costs seem to be taken care of. The
effort/time costs are split between the setter-upper
(whom I hope is William Elliot) and the drudges (me and
4 or 5 others.) I think the drudges realize what they're
getting into. If the setter-upper gets overwhelmed, at least
he has the comfort that his job is either finite or at
should get much easier after the initial period.
> You simply use every adversary post as a vehicle for
> the next step in your lobby campaign.
Isn't that what I'm supposed to be doing? If it's
truly an "adverary post", then shouldn't I respond to the
concerns raised?
> But one good argument is better than twenty weak ones, and so far,
> i've only heard very weak ones, unrealistic expectations, wishful
> thinking, etc.
Maybe you should read some of the posts twice. I think you're
missing some things.
> Can you give -one- good argument why we should have this new moderated
> group, as opposed to, say, a web based forum (perhaps with an nntp
> interface to allow people to keep using their favorite readers)?
Yes. And we have. Our experience is that the web-based fora attract
only a small, often specialized, subset of the people we want. Usenet
seems to be very universal. People in mud huts who have dial up
can traffic on Usenet (unless they want binaries) and we'd like them
to participate.
Surely it's no easier or cheaper to moderate a web-based forum than
a usenet forum. So given the equality of the costs, Usenet gives us
far more bang for the buck.
(I've observed two contrasting things: On rec.crafts.brewing, several
folks have announced, at various times, a great new web forum they've
started. These never seem to fly. OTOH, the same things happen
on alt.smokers.cigars, and several of the web-based fora are very
popular. I can only guess at what causes the difference: Cigar
guys are afficianados. There's a learning curve, but it's pretty
flat. You cut the top off, light the bottom and suck. So the
discussions are about developing one's palatte. It's really a
pretty narrow topic. Homebrewing, in contrast, is an active hobby,
and one can spend his whole life learning new brewing techniques
and trying new types of malt and hops. The discussions are
much more varied than cigar discussions.
So that's my guess as to why web fora fly in one area and not
in another. Specialized vs. generalized. And sci.math.moderated
should be generalized. So my guess is that a web forum won't
work (in my opinion, they haven't so far.)
> I'll give my argument in favor of the latter:
> 1) Many ISPs are considering to end usenet/nntp support in the near
> future.
I don't think Usenet is dying, as some are saying. I think it's
going through an adjustment, but when the smoke clears, I think
there will be a leaner, livelier Usenet. Probably more academic.
Most of our participants in sci.math have academic access, so
if ISP's drop usenet support, we may not notice much.
2) If you're going to invest anyway in infrastructure and a
> team of moderators/volunteers, why usenet?
See above about the "universality".
Bart Goddard
@textnews.kpn.nl:
> Bart Goddard wrote:
>> Herman Jurjus <hju...@hetnet.nl> wrote in
>> news:4a9522a0$0$1644$703f...@textnews.kpn.nl:
>>
>>
>>>> Only if it's true. Every time I mention sci.math in conversation,
>>>> I hear, "Oh, I used to read that. There got to be too much
garbage."
>
> Just fyi: i already heard that in the (early) 1990s.
>
>>> But was the garbage spam?
>>
>> Does it matter?
>
> Yes, it matters, namely for the relevance of your argument.
We've delineated what "garbage" means here: Spam, vitriol,
repetitive nonsense. That's the garbage that drove people
off, and it _doesn't_ matter for the sake of my argument,
whether the garbage is spam or vitriol.
> If you want moderation: go ahead and try; but one good argument is
> better than twenty bad ones,
Irrelevant, since we've given two good arguments and no bad ones.
> and the 'dream' of getting the posters from
> the 90s back is unrealistic and therefore very weak as an argument.
Obviously, since in the last 20 years, many of those posters
have gone to the Great Chalkboard in the Sky, or have retired.
The point isn't to get those exact guys back, but to be attractive
to the current and next generation.
> IOW: surely you must have better arguments?
> Better concentrate on those.
Even better: Refrain from calling an argument "weak" until
you understand it.
> There is at least one current (good) poster whom i suspect is staying
> here especially to shout at morons, seemingly as a kind of therapy
> (perhaps because he's not allowed to spank his college students in the
> class room?).
>
> I would hate to see such phenomena die out.
We've already had a more important phenomenon die out. There
was a sharp contrast between the university where I did my grad
work and the small college were I got my first job. At
university, I could walk down the hallway and find any number
of people who would be interested in looking at this hard
integral I couldn't work out, or who could point me to a
reference related to whatever I was working on. Then in
1990, I got employed. Small college, no library, the few
colleagues had given up being mathematicians years before.
In 1992 or 1993, I discovered usenet. Suddenly it was like
being back at university: all sorts of expertise readily
available. I think this revolutionized the academic atmosphere
and I think this is overlooked and taken for granted.
I'm at a large university now, so my hunger for collegiality
is met just fine without usenet. But there are quite a few
people who would be isolated without resources like sci.math.
Or that's how it was. That phenomenon has died out. I'd
much rather have it back (and that's the goal here) than
worry about losing the entertainment value of:
> Sci.math is about the only
> place in the world where you can observe mathematicians in the wild,
> away from their protected habitats, when they're defenselessly
> confronted by common sense questions, coming from normal people.
I realize that "normal" has lots of definitions in mathematics.
But this one is perhaps the most outre.
Herman Jurjus
[snip]
Replying also to your other post:
You haven't convinced me in the least.
But i will not reply in detail, for two reasons:
1) i think i've said enough (you didn't get it, but ok).
2) at least your dream is good; i just wished you wouldn't use such
blatant sales talk (plus accompanying strategy), but tried to really
address concerns.
--
Cheers,
Herman Jurjus
Bart Goddard
@textnews.kpn.nl:
> 1) i think i've said enough (you didn't get it, but ok).
>
> 2) at least your dream is good; i just wished you wouldn't use such
> blatant sales talk (plus accompanying strategy), but tried to really
> address concerns.
>
<yet another face palm> Right. _I_ didn't get it.
Herman Jurjus
> Herman Jurjus <hju...@hetnet.nl> wrote in news:4a96a537$0$1639$703f8584
> @textnews.kpn.nl:
>
>> 1) i think i've said enough (you didn't get it, but ok).
>>
>> 2) at least your dream is good; i just wished you wouldn't use such
>> blatant sales talk (plus accompanying strategy), but tried to really
>> address concerns.
>>
>
> <yet another face palm> Right. _I_ didn't get it.
Yes; you're answers were moot.
The only reason i don't answer is that you keep abusing my answers.
Can we now please stop this?
--
Cheers,
Herman Jurjus
Bart Goddard
@textnews.kpn.nl:
> Can we now please stop this?
You insult me, I defend myself, you insult me, I defend myself,
you insult me, I defend myself,....
It seems to me that the way to "stop this" is obvious.
Brian Mailman
> For our sci.math readers, please observe this textbook example of the
> art of debate, news.groups style:
>
> Brian Mailman wrote:
>> Steve Bonine wrote:
>>> Peter J Ross wrote:
>>>
>>>> Why not try ignoring the trolls,
>>>> kooks, troll-feeders and kook-feeders instead?
>>>
>>> You continue to toss out this concept like it was a real alternative.
>>
>> Because it is.
>
> Step 1 is to simply state that your opinion is right and the other is
> wrong. No logic, explanation, facts, or examples are required.
Why would I want to waste the time on you?
>> I'm sure if your bamby Masters espoused it, you'd be fighting tooth and
>> nail to prove nothing else would work.
>
> Step 2 is to insult the other person.
If truth insults so, so be it.
> Step 3 is to snip the rest of the original article.
Well, there's no need to reinforce the fact that you know how to type.
B/
Herman Jurjus
> Herman Jurjus <hju...@hetnet.nl> wrote in news:4a96aef5$0$1651$703f8584
> @textnews.kpn.nl:
>
>> Can we now please stop this?
>
> You insult me, I defend myself, you insult me, I defend myself,
> you insult me, I defend myself,....
Sorry, but now you insult me: when have i insulted you?
--
Cheers,
Herman Jurjus
Brian Mailman
You are an independent thinker and not a lickspittle of the bambies.
I really really really wish.
B/