In rec.gambling.blackjack Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine <d...@xemu.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> That is not exactly the situation of alt.religion.scientology, if thatDidn't mean to imply our problems were in the ARS league. In fact, I left
> is what you are hinting, by any even mildly sane evaluation. The
> "Church" of $cientology is a bunch of killers and extortionists whose
> own founder admits taking up the guise of religion merely for accounting
> purposes. Nor was it founded by the clams then invaded by critics who
> tried to destroy their discussions, but founded by people critical of
> their actions and -- while both sides are wellcome -- the clams have at
> various times tried to wipe it out with spam barrages and RMGROUPs.
a post a couple of months ago pointing out that we should be glad Doogie
is such an incompetent net.nincompoop (it took him two YEARS to learn to
quote), and it was ARS I had in mind when I said that. Others like to
point out that he never gets around to filing 99%+ of the lawsuits he
threatens. It could be a lot worse, to be sure.
> We also suffer from a malicious [non-Scn] troll like that you describe.Geez. As if the clams weren't bad enough...!
> Question: why don't you use a killfile? And a mass killfileThere are a few people using killfilters, but on the whole appeals to
> reccomendation?? Presumably there must be a combination of the
> troll (a) having active supporters, (b) people who ought to know
> better saying "you mustn't shout at the troll", and (c) rubbernecks
> who can't help being attracted to watch a trainwreck. Preaching
> moderation doesn't work. One or two people who would rather avoid
> this crap deliberately confronting the troll hard may be a better
> way to persuade others to killfile him/her than mild reccomendation.
simply ignore Doogie have not worked. Part of the problem is that we are
talking about people who have made their hobby the micro-analysis of a
proposition which is marginal even when it is very good, and most of us
are allergic to the idea of ignoring data, even when the data *are* a
train wreck. Anyway, enough good contributors fail to use killfilters
themselves and respond to the Doogie that, unless one possesses a fairly
sophisticated killfilter, one finds it killing posts one would want to
read because their authors also respond to the Doogie a lot.
A number of people /have/ tried confronting Doogie, but he has the skin of
> I'm not against moderation generally. It fits where the subject matterWith the exception of Doogie, most people would say that the topic of
> has onvius boundaries and is IN ITSELF noncontentious, so there is a
> consensus what reasonably belongs and what doesn't (I think it's a very
> bad idea for extreme religious or political controversies).
casino advantage play is just such a thing -- it is mostly math with a
component of "cover," or measures necessary to get away with things the
casino would rather you not do. Only Doogie and a few people who seem to
possess the same set of keyboard macros consistently insist that such play
is impossible *at all*, and that *any* discussion of it is equivalent to
fraud and must be vigorously resisted.
> I think youThe R.G.B.M. charter contains wording like this, and the proposed
> should consider what your [?robo-]moderation setup would look like.
> Considering the other debate at the moment, perhaps it should be by
> lists of persons, who provide a real address or unposted X-Real-Address
> which is writen to codesigned and must return that codesigned message on
> first posting. And "Persons who are persistently disruptive or repeat
> the same text to a disruptive extent may, in the last resort and by
> consensus of the moderators be removed from the list."
robomoderation setup has been described on the NG. The charter calls for
R.G.B. to continue to exist "as a bastion of free speech." The proposed
moderators have done quite a good job on this, which is one reason I feel
so bitter about the possibility that their hard work on our behalf will be
> >It seems to me that if villagers had to vote on whether to buildIt has frequently been pointed out that Doogie & clones will have R.G.B.
> >walls, and people from outside the village could vote, and there were
> >dozens of people who hated walls who travelled from village to village
> >voting down wall proposals, the result would be a field day for pirates,
> >and nobody with any brains would bother trying to build anything
> >worthwhile since it would eventually be destroyed anyway. In any case
> >this is exactly what has happened to rec.gambling.blackjack; in order to
> >get worthwhile discussion, I have to go to http://www.bj21.com and pay
> >$25 per year to defray the costs of the webserver.
> What's missing from your evaluation is an "alt" newsgroup. Anybody
> can found one and, de facto, people go round RMGROUPing obsolete ones
> on the basis of inactivity. Yes, not everybody takes every alt group---
> you might jhave to actively request it where you want it---but any
> reasonable person can see that is the obvious outcome of the free
> creation on demand and deletion when inactive of newsgroups. It exists.
> It is called "alt". Why not use it. The "we've been censored" mob
> would also have a place to put "banned" articles -- they could put them
> in the old unmoderated group, which could co-exist for those who wanted
> it. There is thus rrom to live & let live for all viewpoints willing to
> do so, and the only behaviour stopped is the ability to coerce others.
all to themselves once the rest of us flee to more pleasant climes, but
somehow this has not caused them to be in favor of the new group. A bully
is not happy when he has the playground all to himself -- he needs to be
able to push the other kids around, too, or it isn't fun.
The possibility of a .alt group has been mentioned, and we may explore
> >I am reminded of howWell, it would be better than nothing...
> >unpleasantly un-anarchic it is every time I log on and still do not see
> >"rec.gambling.blackjack passes" among the new messages on my server.
> how about "alt.gambling.blackjack has been created"?
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.