sci.math.moderated Guidelines
Bart Goddard
Here's my notes on what I think would make good guidelines.
Please discuss. I give an outline first and give my thoughts
below.
I. Guidelines for posts:
1. No spam.
2. No venom.
3. On topic.
4. Banned topics.
5. No Nym shifting.
6. Ascii only
7. No posing.
II. Guidelines for moderators:
1. Posting guidelines posted weekly.
2. Direct banned/off topic posts to sci.math.
3. Keep discussion lively.
4. Accept headers with "MODERATOR".
5. Impose header restrictions for some posters/topics.
III. Other discussion items.
1. Homework.
2. "mod" vs. "moderated."
My comments:
I. 1. No spam. This includes commercial posts and also
political rants (including racist and conspiracy rants.)
I. 2. No venom. This means first, no gross language and name-
calling. But also "polite" insults along the lines of "Dude, you
need to learn to read and your mother should be spanked for
not aborting you." This is a fuzzy area, and the moderators
will have to make a judgement call on a case by case basis.
A paragraph running someone down is, in my opinion, just as evil and
pointless as calling someone a donkey raper. Yet, we expect
some discussions to become heated, and a bit of venting is
to be expected. (And even enjoyed by onlookers.) The goal is
to prevent threads from degenerating.
I.3. The topic is "math" and this includes kindergarten through
research, math ed, conference announcements, biographical info
about mathematicians, and probably some other things. An off-topic
post is NOT redeemed by tacking on "Ob Math: Ain't Cantor's proof
wonderful."
I.4. Some topics have a natural tendency to degenerate and to
take over the group. E.g., .9 repeating, Cantor, Goedel.
The moderators may cut off a thread or even ban such a topic
for a set amount of time.
I.5. Anonymous posting is allowed, but a poster should choose
an identity and stay with it. If the need arises to change
identities, then this should be announced with the first post
under the new identity. "Hi, this is the poster formerly known
as The Doofus. I'm now posting under the name "The Dork."
I.6. We should start out as an ASCII only group. If there
is sufficient call for expanding the standards, then we could
allow some other formats. But we want to be universally
readable.
I.7. Posing as another poster is strictly forbidden.
II.1. A short welcoming messages should be composed, stating the
guidelines and pointing to a website with detailed information.
This should be posted weekly. The website needs to be constructed.
II.2. Threads/topics that are banned are directed to sci.math.
Follow-ups to threads that are killed can be set to sci.math.
II.3. The goal is to keep the discussion lively. The moderators
should feel free to adjust standards as necessary. This means that
we have a "fuzzy" moderation system, which in turn means that
moderation won't always be applied equally. Complaints of the
form "Last year you passed Joe's post on .9 repeating, but now
you won't pass mine" are met with "Sorry, but things change,
and we're only human. Please try again later."
II.4. If someone has a complaint about moderation, they may
post with a header beginning with "MODERATOR". Such a post
is automatically passed, as is any ensuing discussion. The
exception being when the poster is obviously using this
venue to get a non-moderation-related post passed.
II.5. If there is sufficient noise from the group about a
particular poster, the moderators may impose a header restriction
on that poster, so that he is readily filtered. E.g., "Doofus"
may be required to begin all his headers with "DD".
III.1. This is just an item for discussion. My feeling is that
naive posters of homework problems simply be passed and let
the group deal with them. They're not that noisy after all.
III. 2 This is another item for discussion. I've been calling
the proposed group "sci.math.moderated" and William Elliot has
been calling it "sci.math.mod." Certainly shorter is better,
but since "mod" is a math term, we may not want to use it.
Comments more than welcome.
OK, back to grading finals.
Bart
--
Cheerfully resisting change since 1959.
pubkeybreaker
> Here's my notes on what I think would make good guidelines.
> Please discuss. �I give an outline first and give my thoughts
> below.
>
> I. �Guidelines for posts:
>
> 1. �No spam.
> 2. �No venom.
> 3. �On topic.
> 4. �Banned topics.
> 5. �No Nym shifting.
> 6. �Ascii only
> 7. �No posing.
> I.3. �The topic is "math" and this includes kindergarten through
> research, math ed, conference announcements, biographical info
> about mathematicians, and probably some other things.
It should NOT, however, include the endless "Einstein
was wrong", "relativity is wrong" posts, even though
such posts may contain some purported mathematics and
even though physics and math are related.
Also, if one is going to discuss ALGORITHMS, do not
present CODE.
> II.2. �Threads/topics that are banned are directed to sci.math.
Or sci.physics.
Cliff B
I.3 in response to this and the follow-up point by pubkeybreaker, I
would be inclined to declare physics as off-topic
II.2 why redirect off-topic posts to sci.math? Won't this create more
work for the moderators and more rubbish in sci.math?
II.4 I would favour a no-appeals, moderator's decision is final
system. Perhaps moderation could be reviewed periodically to ensure
no-one is being too draconian, but this should not prejudice the
'fuzzy' system you propose in II.3
Dave
> Here's my notes on what I think would make good guidelines.
> Please discuss. I give an outline first and give my thoughts
> below.
>
> I. Guidelines for posts:
>
> 1. No spam.
> 2. No venom.
> 3. On topic.
> 4. Banned topics.
> 5. No Nym shifting.
> 6. Ascii only
> 7. No posing.
I would add
8. No cross-posting.
If the topic is math, there is no need to cross-post to sci.physics or
anywhere else.
Dave
Frederick Williams
>
> I think these guidelines are excellent. I just have a few comments
>
> I.3 in response to this and the follow-up point by pubkeybreaker, I
> would be inclined to declare physics as off-topic
I disagree. The difference between mathematics and physics is hard to
define.
> II.2 why redirect off-topic posts to sci.math? Won't this create more
> work for the moderators and more rubbish in sci.math?
>
> II.4 I would favour a no-appeals, moderator's decision is final
> system. Perhaps moderation could be reviewed periodically to ensure
> no-one is being too draconian, but this should not prejudice the
> 'fuzzy' system you propose in II.3
>
--
Which of the seven heavens / Was responsible her smile /
Wouldn't be sure but attested / That, whoever it was, a god /
Worth kneeling-to for a while / Had tabernacled and rested.
Frederick Williams
I disagree. The difference between mathematics and physics is hard to
define.
--
Frederick Williams
I don't think those topics should be banned. Someone may learn
something by reading a thread that begins with a claim that who thinks
(say) that .9 recurring isn't 1 (one). Similar with Cantor and G\"odel.
> I.5. Anonymous posting is allowed, but a poster should choose
> an identity and stay with it. If the need arises to change
> identities, then this should be announced with the first post
> under the new identity. "Hi, this is the poster formerly known
> as The Doofus. I'm now posting under the name "The Dork."
>
> I.6. We should start out as an ASCII only group.
Agreed.
> If there
> is sufficient call for expanding the standards, then we could
> allow some other formats.
Could but shouldn't!
> But we want to be universally
> readable.
Hard to reproduce symbols should be spelt out in TeX, e.g. \neg for the
intuitionists negation sign when it is discussed along side the
classical ~. Pointers to places where these can be looked up could
posted once a month.
>
> I.7. Posing as another poster is strictly forbidden.
>
> II.1. A short welcoming messages should be composed, stating the
> guidelines and pointing to a website with detailed information.
> This should be posted weekly. The website needs to be constructed.
>
> II.2. Threads/topics that are banned are directed to sci.math.
No, I hope that Matusov and his congeners will get bored and sci.math
will once again become readable. That is less likely to happen if it is
used a dumping ground.
> Follow-ups to threads that are killed can be set to sci.math.
>
> II.3. The goal is to keep the discussion lively. The moderators
> should feel free to adjust standards as necessary. This means that
> we have a "fuzzy" moderation system, which in turn means that
> moderation won't always be applied equally. Complaints of the
> form "Last year you passed Joe's post on .9 repeating, but now
> you won't pass mine"
I'd pass all such posts, after all they are mathematics. That they
contain incorrect mathematics is beside the point: any long thread will.
> are met with "Sorry, but things change,
> and we're only human. Please try again later."
>
> II.4. If someone has a complaint about moderation, they may
> post with a header beginning with "MODERATOR". Such a post
> is automatically passed, as is any ensuing discussion. The
> exception being when the poster is obviously using this
> venue to get a non-moderation-related post passed.
>
> II.5. If there is sufficient noise from the group about a
> particular poster, the moderators may impose a header restriction
> on that poster, so that he is readily filtered. E.g., "Doofus"
> may be required to begin all his headers with "DD".
>
> III.1. This is just an item for discussion. My feeling is that
> naive posters of homework problems simply be passed and let
> the group deal with them. They're not that noisy after all.
>
> III. 2 This is another item for discussion. I've been calling
> the proposed group "sci.math.moderated" and William Elliot has
> been calling it "sci.math.mod." Certainly shorter is better,
> but since "mod" is a math term, we may not want to use it.
It's not important.
> Comments more than welcome.
Thanks for the post.
Frederick Williams
>
> No, I hope that Matusov ...
"Musatov" sorry.
Penny Hassett
I agree - if banned posts are redirected to sci.math then the pests will
try sci.math.moderated first and shrug their shoulders when it gets
shunted. This will create a lot of work. What's more, the moderators
will be responsible for putting spam on sci.math.
>
>> Follow-ups to threads that are killed can be set to sci.math.
>>
>> II.3. The goal is to keep the discussion lively. The moderators
>> should feel free to adjust standards as necessary. This means that
>> we have a "fuzzy" moderation system, which in turn means that
>> moderation won't always be applied equally. Complaints of the
>> form "Last year you passed Joe's post on .9 repeating, but now
>> you won't pass mine"
>
> I'd pass all such posts, after all they are mathematics. That they
> contain incorrect mathematics is beside the point: any long thread will.
>
>> are met with "Sorry, but things change,
>> and we're only human. Please try again later."
>>
>> II.4. If someone has a complaint about moderation, they may
>> post with a header beginning with "MODERATOR". Such a post
>> is automatically passed, as is any ensuing discussion. The
>> exception being when the poster is obviously using this
>> venue to get a non-moderation-related post passed.
>>
>> II.5. If there is sufficient noise from the group about a
>> particular poster, the moderators may impose a header restriction
>> on that poster, so that he is readily filtered. E.g., "Doofus"
>> may be required to begin all his headers with "DD".
>>
>> III.1. This is just an item for discussion. My feeling is that
>> naive posters of homework problems simply be passed and let
>> the group deal with them. They're not that noisy after all.
Homework is fine. It's low volume, usually obvious and often
unconcealed. I don't think there is anything wrong with saying "I can't
do this" and it's usually met with the response "what did you try?"
Mark Murray
> Here's my notes on what I think would make good guidelines.
> Please discuss. I give an outline first and give my thoughts
> below.
Cool!
> I. Guidelines for posts:
>
> 1. No spam.
> 2. No venom.
> 3. On topic.
> 4. Banned topics.
> 5. No Nym shifting.
> 6. Ascii only
> 7. No posing.
Nothing inherently wrong with any of these, but they kinda read
like the aftermath of Musatov-fuelled mayhem. I think it may be
better to go for more generally nettiquette-based guidelines,
and let the moderator(s) sort out the specific miscreants.
Pehaps a mention of standards :-) like
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Netkeeping_Seal_of_Approval
> II. Guidelines for moderators:
>
> 1. Posting guidelines posted weekly.
> 2. Direct banned/off topic posts to sci.math.
> 3. Keep discussion lively.
> 4. Accept headers with "MODERATOR".
> 5. Impose header restrictions for some posters/topics.
I guess this is a paraphrase of general moderator duties. Point 4
seems too specific, but there must be a way of appealing the moderator(s)'
actions. Not a biggie.
> III. Other discussion items.
>
> 1. Homework.
> 2. "mod" vs. "moderated."
Point 1 valid. Point 2 depressingly inevitable. A rather trivial
thing to bicker ;-) over.
M
--
Mark Murray
William Elliot
> I think these guidelines are excellent. I just have a few comments
>
> I.3 in response to this and the follow-up point by pubkeybreaker, I
> would be inclined to declare physics as off-topic
>
Mathematical physics is not off topic.
> II.2 why redirect off-topic posts to sci.math? Won't this create more
> work for the moderators and more rubbish in sci.math?
>
Don't send them there because they'd be off topic there also.
William Elliot
> I would add
> 8. No cross-posting.
>
> If the topic is math, there is no need to cross-post to sci.physics or
> anywhere else.
>
Incorrect. Discussion about mathematical education is appropiately cross
posted to sci.math and those with physics and algorithm problems have
found it useful to cross post to sci.math. Excessive cross posting
and cross posting from non-science, political, philosphical groups has
been problematic. Cross posting from just a philosphical group can be
acceptable if it's about logic.
David Bernier
I generally concur. But there is (perhaps) room for improvement:
a post banned by sci.math.moderated must not be redirected
to sci.math if it comes up short by 30% or more, must
be redirected to sci.math if it comes up short
by 10% or less, and for 10 to 30% short, the moderators
_may_ redirect, on a best effort at recovery basis, first
looking at 11% short , then 12% short, as time allows,
where the charter would try to emphasize that the
mods. are not compensated for their work.
David B.
David Bernier
Perhaps sci.math.* would count as 1 posting family,
sci.physics.* as 1 posting family, and
"everything else" as 1 posting family.
Then postings to family sci.math.* and sci.physics.research
include John Baez. Maybe I'd go for
sci.math, sci.physics.research & the to be
sci.math.moderated as Ok, but not if we replace
sci.physics; if someone wishes to post something
with math and physics, but can't get it through
sci.physics.research, then they'd have to drop
sci.physics . There are far too many cranks in
sci.physics and crossposting to
sci.physics and sci.math.moderated, if
posted, would be seen by 100 cranks, who might
sometimes reply, so more work for the
sci.math.moderated mods.
David B.
William Elliot
> II. Guidelines for moderators:
>
> 1. Posting guidelines posted weekly.
Yes.
> 2. Direct banned/off topic posts to sci.math.
No, sci.math doesn't want them.
> 3. Keep discussion lively.
That's not the responsibility of a moderator.
> 4. Accept headers with "MODERATOR".
To talk with a moderator, post with the subject "Moderator".
Post will not be posted to sci.math.mod be will be answered
by moderator (or ignored if inappropriate).
Have you read sci.math.research guidelines?
> 5. Impose header restrictions for some posters/topics.
>
No, let's keep it simple.
> III. Other discussion items.
>
> 1. Homework.
Homework is ok. A good reply will help rather that do.
> 2. "mod" vs. "moderated."
>
A tiffle. sci.math.mod is my preference.
> My comments:
>
> I. 1. No spam. This includes commercial posts and also
> political rants (including racist and conspiracy rants.)
That and other stuff is handled simply as being off topic.
> I. 2. No venom. This means first, no gross language and name-
> calling. But also "polite" insults along the lines of "Dude, you
> need to learn to read and your mother should be spanked for
> not aborting you." This is a fuzzy area, and the moderators
> will have to make a judgment call on a case by case basis.
> A paragraph running someone down is, in my opinion, just as evil and
> pointless as calling someone a donkey raper. Yet, we expect
> some discussions to become heated, and a bit of venting is
> to be expected. (And even enjoyed by onlookers.) The goal is
> to prevent threads from degenerating.
>
As this group is open to all and all ages, it needs to have a G(enral
viewing) rating. Calling it "vemon" is too venomous.
Let's keep it simple.
Rudeness and vulgarity aren't allowed. We don't need to
define it. Yes it's somewhat subjective, but as this is a
public forum, standards of decor are to be higher than decor
in, for example, the men's or women's locker.
Personal attacks are rude. Attacks on an idea are acceptable.
> I.3. The topic is "math" and this includes kindergarten through
> research, math ed, conference announcements, biographical info
> about mathematicians, and probably some other things. An off-topic
> post is NOT redeemed by tacking on "Ob Math: Ain't Cantor's proof
> wonderful."
>
Mathematics, elementary to advanced, history of math, math education,
mathematical resources. If it isn't any of that, then it's off topic.
> I.4. Some topics have a natural tendency to degenerate and to
> take over the group. E.g., .9 repeating, Cantor, Goedel.
> The moderators may cut off a thread or even ban such a topic
> for a set amount of time.
>
Are the moderators, like sci.math.research, to review each post for
mathematical content? Yes, I've gotten helpful rejections from
sci.math.research, some recoverable, some back to the drawing board.
Are the moderators to judge mathematical incompetence?
Let it pass on through, that stuff is not the hassle to
filter out as off topic stuff.
> I.5. Anonymous posting is allowed, but a poster should choose
> an identity and stay with it. If the need arises to change
> identities, then this should be announced with the first post
> under the new identity. "Hi, this is the poster formerly known
> as The Doofus. I'm now posting under the name "The Dork."
>
Naw, too complex.
> I.6. We should start out as an ASCII only group. If there
> is sufficient call for expanding the standards, then we could
> allow some other formats. But we want to be universally
> readable.
>
Ascii and simple TeX are the establish standard.
There's no need to build another tower of Babel.
> I.7. Posing as another poster is strictly forbidden.
>
More rudeness.
> II.1. A short welcoming messages should be composed, stating the
> guidelines and pointing to a website with detailed information.
> This should be posted weekly. The website needs to be constructed.
>
What website?
> II.2. Threads/topics that are banned are directed to sci.math.
> Follow-ups to threads that are killed can be set to sci.math.
>
No.
> II.3. The goal is to keep the discussion lively. The moderators
> should feel free to adjust standards as necessary. This means that
> we have a "fuzzy" moderation system, which in turn means that
> moderation won't always be applied equally. Complaints of the
> form "Last year you passed Joe's post on .9 repeating, but now
> you won't pass mine" are met with "Sorry, but things change,
> and we're only human. Please try again later."
>
The goal is to have an unpolluted news group.
Lively discussions are the responsibility of the participants.
Does .9999... require reviewing the mathematical correctness?
No, let's not judge people by how much they've learned.
Those who claim to have a wonderful proof and don't post it
or have web address where it is, are off topic braggarts.
I can prove Euler's theorem in 25 seconds is not math.
> II.4. If someone has a complaint about moderation, they may
> post with a header beginning with "MODERATOR". Such a post
> is automatically passed, as is any ensuing discussion. The
> exception being when the poster is obviously using this
> venue to get a non-moderation-related post passed.
>
Allowing that will get you endless harangues about censorship
and unending quibbles about moderation instead of mathematics.
No. Let them address the moderate directly as I suggested.
> II.5. If there is sufficient noise from the group about a
> particular poster, the moderators may impose a header restriction
> on that poster, so that he is readily filtered. E.g., "Doofus"
> may be required to begin all his headers with "DD".
>
No. This is group isn't to be self moderated.
Again, posts about so and so, is off topic.
I think is making things too complicated
and adding to the burden of the moderators.
Better is for the participants to learn to ignore
those who refuse to hear the replies given them.
> III.1. This is just an item for discussion. My feeling is that
> naive posters of homework problems simply be passed and let
> the group deal with them. They're not that noisy after all.
>
sci.math does well with them, offering help without solutions.
Requests for solution manuals and posts offering solution manuals
are not mathematical resources.
> III. 2 This is another item for discussion. I've been calling
> the proposed group "sci.math.moderated" and William Elliot has
> been calling it "sci.math.mod." Certainly shorter is better,
> but since "mod" is a math term, we may not want to use it.
>
Ah, all the better.
Herman Jurjus
>
> Better is for the participants to learn to ignore
> those who refuse to hear the replies given them.
If that would work, we wouldn't need a new ng, would we?
--
Cheers,
Herman Jurjus
Bart Goddard
@agora.rdrop.com:
What I was thinking here was that, if .9 repeating were to
be banned for a time, then the threads would be sent to sci.math.
They wouldn'g be off topic.
Further, what I meant by "sending" them there, wasn't really
"forwarding", but just telling the rejected poster that he
has another venue for his post.
B.
Herman Jurjus
> II.3. [...] The moderators
> should feel free to adjust standards as necessary.
Let me see if i understand this correctly.
In a previous post, you brought up posting guidelines as a safeguard
against arbitrary ruling by the moderators. And now all of a sudden, you
want to put it explicitly in the posting guidelines that the moderators
can change moderation policy as per their own fads and whims?
(<grin>)
--
Cheers,
Herman Jurjus
Bart Goddard
news:h6gqv...@news3.newsguy.com:
> William Elliot wrote:
>> On Tue, 18 Aug 2009, Dave wrote:
>>
>>> I would add
>>> 8. No cross-posting.
>>>
>>> If the topic is math, there is no need to cross-post to sci.physics
or
>>> anywhere else.
>>>
>> Incorrect. Discussion about mathematical education is appropiately
>> cross posted to sci.math and those with physics and algorithm problems
>> have found it useful to cross post to sci.math. Excessive cross
posting
>> and cross posting from non-science, political, philosphical groups has
>> been problematic. Cross posting from just a philosphical group can be
>> acceptable if it's about logic.
>
> Perhaps sci.math.* would count as 1 posting family,
> sci.physics.* as 1 posting family, and
> "everything else" as 1 posting family.
>
> Then postings to family sci.math.* and sci.physics.research
> include John Baez. Maybe I'd go for
> sci.math, sci.physics.research & the to be
Perhaps we need a list of things that "attract closer scrutiny".
Our published guidelines will mention that cross-posting is a
red flag. Not necessarily banned, but needing good justification.
Presumably, much of the moderation will evolve to automatic.
Everything that Gerry Myerson posts would be automatically
approved by the bot (and have a gold star appended.) Everything
selling solution manuals automatically rejected by the bot.
Cross-posted articles would get a look.
B.
Bart Goddard
@agora.rdrop.com:
> Are the moderators, like sci.math.research, to review each post for
> mathematical content? Yes, I've gotten helpful rejections from
> sci.math.research, some recoverable, some back to the drawing board.
>
> Are the moderators to judge mathematical incompetence?
No. See below.
> What website?
I'm trying to keep the moderator's workload down. It's
easier to point to a website of guidelines than to
endless repeat the rules.
>> II.3. The goal is to keep the discussion lively.
> The goal is to have an unpolluted news group.
>
> Lively discussions are the responsibility of the participants.
It's the responsibility of the moderators not to KILL
lively discussion with too heavy a hand.
> Does .9999... require reviewing the mathematical correctness?
> No, let's not judge people by how much they've learned.
No, the idea here is that the group may be tired of talking
about .9. Or .9 generates so much volume that other topics
get lost in the crud. So the moderators call a ban on
that topic for, say, a year, and inform attempted posters
that sci.math is available for such a discussion.
>> II.4. If someone has a complaint about moderation, they may
>> post with a header beginning with "MODERATOR". Such a post
>> is automatically passed, as is any ensuing discussion. The
>> exception being when the poster is obviously using this
>> venue to get a non-moderation-related post passed.
>>
> Allowing that will get you endless harangues about censorship
> and unending quibbles about moderation instead of mathematics.
>
> No. Let them address the moderate directly as I suggested.
The moderators wouldn't have to let "MODERATOR" threads run
indefinitely. The idea is that an "injured" party would feel
like he got a public hearing, and perhaps cause less trouble
if he didn't feel like he was being taken to a back room
and dealt with there.
>> II.5. If there is sufficient noise from the group about a
>> particular poster, the moderators may impose a header restriction
>> on that poster, so that he is readily filtered. E.g., "Doofus"
>> may be required to begin all his headers with "DD".
>>
> No. This is group isn't to be self moderated.
> Again, posts about so and so, is off topic.
>
> I think is making things too complicated
> and adding to the burden of the moderators.
I think this lessens the burden. If some poster is deluging
the group and people are complaining to the moderators to
ban him, the moderators would reply "we ban posts, not
people, and so as long as he's on topic, our hands are tied."
Meanwhile, everyone's griping. Solution: Require that person
to prepend something to his header. That way he can post
and all the gripers can filter.
The idea is to have a "lighter" form of discipline than
outright banning.
B.
Bart Goddard
@textnews.kpn.nl:
No, you don't understand correctly. The policy isn't changed,
it's just applied more or less strictly. Turning the volume
up and down on your radio doesn't require changing the knob.
B.
David Bernier
[...]
> II.2. Threads/topics that are banned are directed to sci.math.
> Follow-ups to threads that are killed can be set to sci.math.
I'm not sure about this. Those that use newsreaders and
access a news-server see less junk than those who read
at google groups, I believe. But yes, they _can_ be set,
with a sensible moderator probably choosing not to follow-up
to sci.math in case of Chinese sneakers for sale and other
junk that nobody who reads sci.math wants anyway.
So the idea would be that moderator discretion can or
should apply here.
> II.3. The goal is to keep the discussion lively. The moderators
> should feel free to adjust standards as necessary. This means that
> we have a "fuzzy" moderation system, which in turn means that
> moderation won't always be applied equally. Complaints of the
> form "Last year you passed Joe's post on .9 repeating, but now
> you won't pass mine" are met with "Sorry, but things change,
> and we're only human. Please try again later."
I think that's a good idea, because you've covered the most
egregious type of behavior already under other rules.
If the new newsgroup attracts some former sci.math
posters, and many readers wish not to see much about
0.99999 ... = 1, then sure, the moderators can adjust
level of maths., allowable [ opposite of pedant, say
pedestrian] pedestrian topics should be able to change.
Mind you, someone interested in understanding all about
what is meant by
lim_{n -> oo} [ sum_{k = 1, ... oo} 9/(10^k) ] = 1
is more acceptable than "My fried says
0.999... =/= 1, and I say 0.999... =1, who's right?"
On a more general note, the more detailed the
proposition put to ballot, the more it tries
to explain how it will work, the better I think.
That way people can make a more informed decision
on the proposed new NG.
David
Herman Jurjus
That's an invalid analogy and you know it.
--
Cheers,
Herman Jurjus
Frederick Williams
> Then postings to family sci.math.* and sci.physics.research
> include John Baez. Maybe I'd go for
> sci.math, sci.physics.research & the to be
> sci.math.moderated as Ok, but not if we replace
> sci.physics; if someone wishes to post something
> with math and physics, but can't get it through
> sci.physics.research, then they'd have to drop
> sci.physics . There are far too many cranks in
> sci.physics and crossposting to
> sci.physics and sci.math.moderated, if
> posted, would be seen by 100 cranks, who might
> sometimes reply, so more work for the
> sci.math.moderated mods.
>
> David B.
Does posting to two moderated groups cause a problem because if a post
is accepted for one group it accepted for the other without moderation?
Bart Goddard
No, it's valid. "Policy" and "standards" are different words
and mean different things here. Likewise "volume" and "knob"
are different words. You don't get to make a contradiction out
of "You said you wouldn't change the knob and now you're saying
to change the volume." Likewise, you don't get a contradiction
out of "You said the moderators had to abide by policy, but
now you say they can change the standards."
If I need to clarify: "Policy" refers to rules about what is
allowed and not allowed in posts. "Standards" refers to the
noise level. Heated debate is allowed, but the moderators
get to cut it off when there's more heat than light. That
standard is subjective, and needs to vary with the mood of
the group. .9 repeating is on topic. If the moderators think
it's taking over the group, they can ban it for a time. If
they think things have been too quiet, they can allow it again.
This is not a change in policy.
Herman Jurjus
If the standard varies, then 'what is allowed' also varies.
.9 repeating is on topic. If the moderators think
> it's taking over the group, they can ban it for a time. If
> they think things have been too quiet, they can allow it again.
> This is not a change in policy.
>
> B.
Right. So i did understand correctly, apparently.
You do want to put it explicitly in the posting guidelines that the
moderation team can change the actual moderation behavior as per their
own fads and whims.
Thanks for explaining.
Also thanks for the preview of the kind of jesuitism that we can expect
from the moderators of the new group.
--
Cheers,
Herman Jurjus
Bart Goddard
@textnews.kpn.nl:
> Right. So i did understand correctly, apparently.
> You do want to put it explicitly in the posting guidelines that the
> moderation team can change the actual moderation behavior as per their
> own fads and whims.
No you didn't. "Fads and whims" have nothing to do with it.
You keep wanting to make the moderators into kings. They
are not. They are volunteer servants. The motivation for
adjusting the standards is for the enjoyment of the group
as a whole, not because one got cut off in traffic that
morning.
But thanks for the preview of the incessant carping the
moderators will have to put up with.
See, e.g.,
http://users.rcn.com/sadams.enteract/winfaq.html
Especially item 104 about Lawsuits.
Marc Mertens
> Bart Goddard wrote:
> [...]
>
>> II.2. Threads/topics that are banned are directed to sci.math.
>> Follow-ups to threads that are killed can be set to sci.math.
>
> I'm not sure about this. Those that use newsreaders and
> access a news-server see less junk than those who read
> at google groups, I believe. But yes, they _can_ be set,
> with a sensible moderator probably choosing not to follow-up
> to sci.math in case of Chinese sneakers for sale and other
> junk that nobody who reads sci.math wants anyway.
> So the idea would be that moderator discretion can or
> should apply here.
>
Why not create another news group like sci.math.moderated.rejected and
redirect banned threads/topics to there. In this way we have a repository
for our killfile. If I find that the new newsgroup is well moderated I
could add all posters in sci.match.moderated.rejected to my killfile, which
helps reading other newsgroups as a lot of the spammers, cranks our trolls
tend to crosspost to other groups as well.
Phil Carmody
> On Aug 18, 4:40�pm, Bart Goddard <goddar...@netscape.net> wrote:
>> Here's my notes on what I think would make good guidelines.
>> Please discuss. �I give an outline first and give my thoughts
>> below.
>>
>> I. �Guidelines for posts:
>>
>> 1. �No spam.
>> 2. �No venom.
>> 3. �On topic.
>> 4. �Banned topics.
>> 5. �No Nym shifting.
>> 6. �Ascii only
>> 7. �No posing.
>
>> I.3. �The topic is "math" and this includes kindergarten through
>> research, math ed, conference announcements, biographical info
>> about mathematicians, and probably some other things.
>
> was wrong", "relativity is wrong" posts, even though
> such posts may contain some purported mathematics and
> even though physics and math are related.
>
> Also, if one is going to discuss ALGORITHMS, do not
> present CODE.
Disagree. However, if it is in code, it should be in a very
*human readable* language, with minimal non-human "punctuation"
and other artificialities. Looking at papers on algorithmics, most
algorithms are presented in a pseudocode that looks like a fucked
up non-ASCII version of pascal. That's just as unreadable as any
real computer language, and there's precisely no reason to prefer
it over them apart from some misplaced sense of tradition.
Phil
--
If GML was an infant, SGML is the bright youngster far exceeds
expectations and made its parents too proud, but XML is the
drug-addicted gang member who had committed his first murder
before he had sex, which was rape. -- Erik Naggum (1965-2009)
Phil Carmody
>> I.4. Some topics have a natural tendency to degenerate and to
>> take over the group. E.g., .9 repeating, Cantor, Goedel.
>> The moderators may cut off a thread or even ban such a topic
>> for a set amount of time.
>
> I don't think those topics should be banned. Someone may learn
> something by reading a thread that begins with a claim that who thinks
> (say) that .9 recurring isn't 1 (one). Similar with Cantor and G\"odel.
That's what FAQs are for. Posts that are simply FAQs should not
be propagated, as they contribute nothing. Anyone too lazy to
read the FAQ may feel hard done by, but so what, they shouldn't
be so bleedin' lazy?
OwlHoot
>
> I.3 in response to this and the follow-up point by pubkeybreaker,
> I would be inclined to declare physics as off-topic
Hang on though, what if it's a formal physics problem, like
some equation?
I realize many here might frown on some long ramble devoid
of equations (of the kind I've occasionally been guilty of
here in the past, but with the aim of possibly finding a
collaborator who might be able to help formalize it).
But surely there's a large overlap between maths and
physics, and ditto maths and economics, or biology,
etc.
Cheers
John Ramsden
Gerry Myerson
Bart Goddard <godd...@netscape.net> wrote:
> Everything that Gerry Myerson posts would be automatically
> approved by the bot (and have a gold star appended.)
Thanks. The check is in the mail.
--
Gerry Myerson (ge...@maths.mq.edi.ai) (i -> u for email)
Mensanator
wrote:
> In article <Xns9C6C56B549370goddardbenetscape...@74.209.136.95>,
> �Bart Goddard <goddar...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> > Everything that Gerry Myerson posts would be automatically
> > approved by the bot (and have a gold star appended.) �
>
> Thanks. The check is in the mail.
Uh, Gerry, you might want to rethink this.
Go look at Google Groups were you'll see that
"a" gold star is an insult, not a compliment.
Gerry Myerson
<4f161b56-fc14-4821...@l31g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
Mensanator <mensa...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Aug 19, 11:23?pm, Gerry Myerson <ge...@maths.mq.edi.ai.i2u4email>
> wrote:
> > In article <Xns9C6C56B549370goddardbenetscape...@74.209.136.95>,
> > ?Bart Goddard <goddar...@netscape.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Everything that Gerry Myerson posts would be automatically
> > > approved by the bot (and have a gold star appended.) ?
> >
> > Thanks. The check is in the mail.
>
> Uh, Gerry, you might want to rethink this.
>
> Go look at Google Groups were you'll see that
> "a" gold star is an insult, not a compliment.
Not to worry, the check was guaranteed to bounce.
Phil Carmody
> In article <Xns9C6C56B549370go...@74.209.136.95>,
> Bart Goddard <godd...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>> Everything that Gerry Myerson posts would be automatically
>> approved by the bot (and have a gold star appended.)
>
> Thanks. The check is in the mail.
I have no problem with such white-lists. I'd like to see the
system accountable, though, and like to know who and what
are on the robomatic white lists and black lists. And likewise
who the moderators are.
Frederick Williams
>
> Frederick Williams <frederick...@tesco.net> writes:
> >> I.4. Some topics have a natural tendency to degenerate and to
> >> take over the group. E.g., .9 repeating, Cantor, Goedel.
> >> The moderators may cut off a thread or even ban such a topic
> >> for a set amount of time.
> >
> > I don't think those topics should be banned. Someone may learn
> > something by reading a thread that begins with a claim that who thinks
> > (say) that .9 recurring isn't 1 (one). Similar with Cantor and G\"odel.
>
> That's what FAQs are for. Posts that are simply FAQs should not
> be propagated, as they contribute nothing. Anyone too lazy to
> read the FAQ may feel hard done by, but so what, they shouldn't
> be so bleedin' lazy?
There will be some posters (with a genuine mathematical problem) who
don't know what a FAQ is nor where to find it.
William Elliot
> William Elliot <ma...@rdrop.remove.com> wrote in news:20090819043723.W45888
> @agora.rdrop.com:
>
>> Are the moderators, like sci.math.research, to review each post for
>> mathematical content? Yes, I've gotten helpful rejections from
>> sci.math.research, some recoverable, some back to the drawing board.
>>
>> Are the moderators to judge mathematical incompetence?
>
> No. See below.
>
>> What website?
>
> I'm trying to keep the moderator's workload down. It's
> easier to point to a website of guidelines than to
> endless repeat the rules.
>
Good idea. Many servers allow a small web site with moderate traffic,
that should suffice.
>>> II.3. The goal is to keep the discussion lively.
>
>> The goal is to have an unpolluted news group.
>>
>> Lively discussions are the responsibility of the participants.
>
> It's the responsibility of the moderators not to KILL
> lively discussion with too heavy a hand.
>
That's a different matter.
>> Does .9999... require reviewing the mathematical correctness?
>> No, let's not judge people by how much they've learned.
>
> No, the idea here is that the group may be tired of talking
> about .9. Or .9 generates so much volume that other topics
> get lost in the crud. So the moderators call a ban on
> that topic for, say, a year, and inform attempted posters
> that sci.math is available for such a discussion.
>
Too complicated. Mathematical nonsense is off topic.
Either let it run through, especially if it's mathematically
coherent, stripped of rudeness, or toss it as math noise at
the every start. It's all right if such noisome noise is
sometimes let through and at other times blocked at the beginning
of the thread. We've not the time to legislate regulations for every
contingency of flea infestations. Let them be. If they cause too much
itching and scratching, then use some penny royal or if necessary, flea
powder.
>>> II.4. If someone has a complaint about moderation, they may
>>> post with a header beginning with "MODERATOR". Such a post
>>> is automatically passed, as is any ensuing discussion. The
>>> exception being when the poster is obviously using this
>>> venue to get a non-moderation-related post passed.
>>>
>> Allowing that will get you endless harangues about censorship
>> and unending quibbles about moderation instead of mathematics.
>>
>> No. Let them address the moderate directly as I suggested.
>
> The moderators wouldn't have to let "MODERATOR" threads run
> indefinitely. The idea is that an "injured" party would feel
> like he got a public hearing, and perhaps cause less trouble
> if he didn't feel like he was being taken to a back room
> and dealt with there.
>
Discussions about moderation are off topic.
If it's not, then you're asking for Musatov and possibly many others
such as JSH, .999..., Godel, Cantor, etc to infest sci.math.mod, in
defiance of the efforts to confine them to sci.math.
There may be one of the many newsgroups regarding
usenet, for moderating moderators' moderating where
they can air their beefs.
The moderated groups I've seen have venue for poster to moderator comment
about a particular rejection but not beyond.
There's too much in these guides lines that add undue burden upon the
moderators.
>>> II.5. If there is sufficient noise from the group about a
>>> particular poster, the moderators may impose a header restriction
>>> on that poster, so that he is readily filtered. E.g., "Doofus"
>>> may be required to begin all his headers with "DD".
>>>
>> No. This is group isn't to be self moderated.
>> Again, posts about so and so, is off topic.
>>
>> I think is making things too complicated
>> and adding to the burden of the moderators.
>
> I think this lessens the burden. If some poster is deluging
> the group and people are complaining to the moderators to
> ban him, the moderators would reply "we ban posts, not
> people, and so as long as he's on topic, our hands are tied."
Moderation and sci.math.mod policies are not mathematical
and hence off topic. Mathematical nonsense isn't mathematics
and is thus also off topic.
> Meanwhile, everyone's griping.
What if the moderators are just fed up?
> Solution: Require that person
> to prepend something to his header. That way he can post
> and all the gripers can filter.
JSH actually did volunteered to do just that. Musatov would never do that
and he'd can't be filtered even by address, as he has more alias that a
mob of career criminals.
> The idea is to have a "lighter" form of discipline than
> outright banning.
>
Some people refuse to accept the answers they get.
I'm for trashing all nonsense. Some however is well
written and merits an airing. After that, if they
still harangue how they are correct and what everybody
tells them is wrong, then into the trash bin.
If you want to allow select nonsense, then have one token for all of it
and require of all the gibbering gibbons to wear the same scarlet letter,
"Nonsense". That will make filtering all of them much easier, both for
the computer and for participants who don't want, over time, to have to
repeatedly add to an ever growing list of Nonsense tokens.
Musatov exceeds mathematical nonsense unto babbling buffoonery and is thus
denied the privilege of wearing a scarlet letter to remain in the village.
Be careful with tokens, they cannot be words or parts of a word less some
regular posters get undeservedly filtered from the brew. The convenient
thing about "Nonsense," beyond not needing an explanation to new comers,
is it's isn't a mathematical word and a thread with nonsense in the
subject is 99.44% pure nonsense about some nonsense.
----
Frederick Williams
> Mind you, someone interested in understanding all about
> what is meant by
>
> lim_{n -> oo} [ sum_{k = 1, ... oo} 9/(10^k) ] = 1
>
> is more acceptable than "My fried says
> 0.999... =/= 1, and I say 0.999... =1, who's right?"
More acceptable to you, or should be more acceptable to the new
newsgroup?
William Elliot
>>>> II.2. Threads/topics that are banned are directed to sci.math.
>>>
>>> No, I hope that Matusov and his congeners will get bored and sci.math
>>> will once again become readable. That is less likely to happen if it
>>> is used a dumping ground.
>>
>> I agree - if banned posts are redirected to sci.math then the pests
>> will try sci.math.moderated first and shrug their shoulders when it
>> gets shunted. This will create a lot of work. What's more, the
>> moderators will be responsible for putting spam on sci.math.
>
> I generally concur. But there is (perhaps) room for improvement: a post
> banned by sci.math.moderated must not be redirected to sci.math if it
> comes up short by 30% or more, must be redirected to sci.math if it
> comes up short by 10% or less, and for 10 to 30% short, the moderators
> _may_ redirect, on a best effort at recovery basis, first looking at 11%
> short , then 12% short, as time allows, where the charter would try to
> emphasize that the mods. are not compensated for their work.
Too complicated.
> David B.
>
Frederick Williams
Indeed so. You can include cooking in your etc: 'My recipe says "serves
eight" and there's only three of us...' is a respectable mathematical
problem that should not be excluded just because there are cookery
newsgroups that it might have gone to.
I don't think anything mathematical should be excluded. If someone
wants to argue that .9 recurring =/= 1, let them; they and others may
learn something from the ensuing discussion.
William Elliot
> William Elliot <ma...@rdrop.remove.com> wrote in news:20090819043222.G45888
> @agora.rdrop.com:
>
>> On Tue, 18 Aug 2009, Cliff B wrote:
>>
>>> I think these guidelines are excellent. I just have a few comments
>>>
>>> I.3 in response to this and the follow-up point by pubkeybreaker, I
>>> would be inclined to declare physics as off-topic
>>>
>> Mathematical physics is not off topic.
>>
>>> II.2 why redirect off-topic posts to sci.math? Won't this create more
>>> work for the moderators and more rubbish in sci.math?
>>>
>> Don't send them there because they'd be off topic there also.
>
> What I was thinking here was that, if .9 repeating were to
> be banned for a time, then the threads would be sent to sci.math.
> They wouldn't be off topic.
>
> Further, what I meant by "sending" them there, wasn't really
> "forwarding", but just telling the rejected poster that he
> has another venue for his post.
>
Naw, let them find sci.math on their own.
They aren't something you'd give to the Good Will.
If it weren't for the rotted materials,
you could send it to a recycling center.
Moderation is enough of a job without adding undue chores.
The trash were fretting over and wasting so much time upon,
doesn't merit a reply. They can reread the guide lines.
If a moderator chooses to explain a rejection, a prepared
robo-copy of the guide lines should suffice.
If a moderator chooses not to explain a rejection, then,
it it's important to the rejectee, they may ask why.
Allowing "Moderator" in the subject line will allow
those who want to know why the rejection, to ask the moderator
directly (outside of sci.math.mod) why they were rejected. A copy
of the guide line and maybe a comment should suffice for most.
The moderators may want a special email address to reply to the rejectees.
----
Herman Jurjus
> David Bernier wrote:
>
>> Mind you, someone interested in understanding all about
>> what is meant by
>>
>> lim_{n -> oo} [ sum_{k = 1, ... oo} 9/(10^k) ] = 1
>>
>> is more acceptable than "My fried says
>> 0.999... =/= 1, and I say 0.999... =1, who's right?"
>
> More acceptable to you, or should be more acceptable to the new
> newsgroup?
If there's a good FAQ, both posts can be rejected with a short
pre-formatted message 'This is treated in our FAQ, which you can find
here: ...'.
--
Cheers,
Herman Jurjus
Herman Jurjus
> If a moderator chooses to explain a rejection, a prepared
> robo-copy of the guide lines should suffice.
Why not work with a small number of fixed reasons (+ standard
pre-formatted messages), with no more than a link to the guidelines?
It shouldn't be too hard to prepare a small piece of software for the
moderators, so that they can classify incoming mails with one press of a
button. 'FAQ', 'off-topic', 'spam', 'venom', 'non-ascii', 'accepted',
etc. The robo system could initially suggest a classification, and the
moderator makes the final decision. Something like that.
> If a moderator chooses not to explain a rejection, then,
> it it's important to the rejectee, they may ask why.
>
> Allowing "Moderator" in the subject line will allow
> those who want to know why the rejection, to ask the moderator
> directly (outside of sci.math.mod) why they were rejected. A copy
> of the guide line and maybe a comment should suffice for most.
>
> The moderators may want a special email address to reply to the rejectees.
--
Cheers,
Herman Jurjus
David Bernier
> David Bernier wrote:
>
>> Mind you, someone interested in understanding all about
>> what is meant by
>>
>> lim_{n -> oo} [ sum_{k = 1, ... oo} 9/(10^k) ] = 1
>>
>> is more acceptable than "My fried says
>> 0.999... =/= 1, and I say 0.999... =1, who's right?"
>
> More acceptable to you, or should be more acceptable to the new
> newsgroup?
>
It's more acceptable to me. But if the new group had a FAQ, and
that question was answered in the FAQ (about limits), I think
there would be less reason for the mods. to approve
than with no FAQ. So I'd favor keeping an up-to-date
FAQ to try to keep the level higher.
I'm not sure about crank theories. Maybe a few posts a week
per crank theorist is Ok.
Perhaps a list of 10 top things one would like changed
in sci.math, if that were possible, can serve to
figure out what's desirable in the moderated group.
David Bernier
Ben Bacarisse
<snip>
> I.6. We should start out as an ASCII only group. If there
> is sufficient call for expanding the standards, then we could
> allow some other formats. But we want to be universally
> readable.
I'd go the other way: start out accepting ASCII or UTF-8 and pull back
if that is a problem. Symbols are so useful in mathematics that I'd
encourage the use of them.
Of course, it may be that it is already know that UTF-8 is still a
problem for some widely used client or other, in which case consider
the "pulling back" to have happened already.
<snip>
--
Ben.
Bart Goddard
news:4A8D10C9...@tesco.net:
> Phil Carmody wrote:
>> That's what FAQs are for. Posts that are simply FAQs should not
>> be propagated, as they contribute nothing. Anyone too lazy to
>> read the FAQ may feel hard done by, but so what, they shouldn't
>> be so bleedin' lazy?
>
> There will be some posters (with a genuine mathematical problem) who
> don't know what a FAQ is nor where to find it.
If they have a math problem, their post will likely pass, so
no problem. And if it doesn't pass, at the very least, the
robotic rejection slip will point to the FAQ.
Bart Goddard
6E3A81.165...@feeder.eternal-september.org:
>> > Thanks. The check is in the mail.
>>
>> Uh, Gerry, you might want to rethink this.
>>
>> Go look at Google Groups were you'll see that
>> "a" gold star is an insult, not a compliment.
>
> Not to worry, the check was guaranteed to bounce.
Did you know the Australian dollar sign is just the
US dollar sign upside down?
Bart Goddard
@textnews.kpn.nl:
>> If a moderator chooses to explain a rejection, a prepared
>> robo-copy of the guide lines should suffice.
>
> Why not work with a small number of fixed reasons (+ standard
> pre-formatted messages), with no more than a link to the guidelines?
It seems like a link to the guidelines itself would suffice.
My vision of moderation is that a bot will do triage.
Whitelisted posters are passed. The obvious things are
rejected. The left-overs are looked at by human eyes.
Both the human and the bot rejections get an (automatically
sent) form letter of the shape:
Thank you for posting to sci.math.mod. This is a moderated
group, and your submission has been rejected. The main reason
for rejecting a submission is that it is "off topic", and
the topic here is "mathematics." As much of
our moderation is done automatically, we realize that your
submission may have unjustly been rejected. We are happy to
review your submission again if you will contact the moderators
directly at a(at)b(dot)c. But first we ask that you visit this
website:
httpslashslashcolon
and review our guidelines. It helps us immensely (and we are
deeply grateful) if you can work out the problem yourself. But
again, we are happy to review your submission. It could be
just that we haven't taught our robots well enough yet.
Cordially,
The Moderators.
The website will then have the charter, guidelines for submission,
current moderators and policies, FAQ, etc.
At least once per day, (I'm hoping more often) a moderator will
"run the script" which will pass the whitelist, reject the blacklist
and send the above note to the rejects (although I suppose the
script would be clever enough not to bother with sending rejections
to spammers) and present the graylist to the moderator, who does
"yes/no" to each one. The "no's" get the above note also.
Frederick Williams
> If there's a good FAQ, both posts can be rejected with a short
> pre-formatted message 'This is treated in our FAQ, which you can find
> here: ...'.
It is possible that a person who believes (or has been told) that
0.999... =/= 1 won't understand the FAQ or may wish to discuss what the
FAQ says. Not everyone who claims that 0.999... =/= 1 is an obnoxious
roll; some people are ignorant even of quite simple things and they
_must not_ be scared away.
Moderation should be governed by one rule:
If it's about mathematics allow it, otherwise don't.
The trouble is I have no idea how one defines what is 'about
mathematics' (nor I suspect does anyone else :-).
Bart Goddard
>> No, the idea here is that the group may be tired of talking
>> about .9. Or .9 generates so much volume that other topics
>> get lost in the crud. So the moderators call a ban on
>> that topic for, say, a year, and inform attempted posters
>> that sci.math is available for such a discussion.
>>
> Too complicated. Mathematical nonsense is off topic.
>
> Either let it run through, especially if it's mathematically
> coherent, stripped of rudeness, or toss it as math noise at
> the every start. It's all right if such noisome noise is
> sometimes let through and at other times blocked at the beginning
> of the thread.
I don't see the difference between what I've said and what
you've said. The moderators decide that we've had enough
of .9 repeating for a while, and it's rejected as nonsense.
Another time, they decide that it might be fine to let let
another freshman class run through the argument(s) again.
I'm starting to think however, that the policy ought to be
to pass it as math, and then cut the thread off when it
inevitably degenerates. I'm going with Bob's (pubkeybreaker's)
tack of rejecting "repetitive" stuff. That would make the
three things to reject: 1. Off topic, 2. venom (or vitriol,
if you want to soften it a bit), 3. repetitive posts.
That way "mathematical nonsense", while it will appear, won't
grow into a mighty oak.
Frederick Williams
> I'm not sure about crank theories. Maybe a few posts a week
> per crank theorist is Ok.
My problem is this: if someone proposes or defends a crank theory is
because they are a crank or because they are excusably ignorant?
> Perhaps a list of 10 top things one would like changed
> in sci.math, if that were possible, can serve to
> figure out what's desirable in the moderated group.
That's a good idea. And it begins rather easily:
1. Absolutely no adverts for Viagra, trainers, etc.
but so many other things are on the margin.
Bart Goddard
@agora.rdrop.com:
> Discussions about moderation are off topic.
>
> If it's not, then you're asking for Musatov and possibly many others
> such as JSH, .999..., Godel, Cantor, etc to infest sci.math.mod, in
> defiance of the efforts to confine them to sci.math.
I realize this, but we don't have to pass all moderation posts
or discuss them at all. I just think it would be wise to let
a person complain in public, perhaps allow him one post ranting
about the moderators, so that his steam is vented. I think
this would reduce the number of festering wounds, and in the end,
reduce our workload.
Also, besides disgruntled posters, it may well be that the group
should talk about some policy or other. A discussion about
whether .9 repeating should be permanently banned seems appropriate
for the group.
Frederick Williams
> Of course, it may be that it is already know that UTF-8 is still a
> problem for some widely used client or other, in which case consider
> the "pulling back" to have happened already.
Can you help me with an experiment? Please post some UTF-8 characters
just so I can see if my ageing Netscape can cope with them. Thanks.
Herman Jurjus
> Herman Jurjus <hju...@hetnet.nl> wrote in news:4a8d1e02$0$1653$703f8584
> @textnews.kpn.nl:
>
>>> If a moderator chooses to explain a rejection, a prepared
>>> robo-copy of the guide lines should suffice.
>> Why not work with a small number of fixed reasons (+ standard
>> pre-formatted messages), with no more than a link to the guidelines?
>
> It seems like a link to the guidelines itself would suffice.
> My vision of moderation is that a bot will do triage.
> Whitelisted posters are passed. The obvious things are
> rejected. The left-overs are looked at by human eyes.
>
> Both the human and the bot rejections get an (automatically
> sent) form letter of the shape:
Right. No room/need for custom comments; costs way too much time.
> Thank you for posting to sci.math.mod. This is a moderated
> group, and your submission has been rejected. The main reason
> for rejecting a submission is that it is "off topic", and
> the topic here is "mathematics." As much of
> our moderation is done automatically, we realize that your
> submission may have unjustly been rejected. We are happy to
> review your submission again if you will contact the moderators
> directly at a(at)b(dot)c. But first we ask that you visit this
> website:
>
> httpslashslashcolon
>
> and review our guidelines. It helps us immensely (and we are
> deeply grateful) if you can work out the problem yourself. But
> again, we are happy to review your submission. It could be
> just that we haven't taught our robots well enough yet.
>
> Cordially,
> The Moderators.
The text above is very good: friendly tone and avoiding harshness at all
cost (it's irritating enough for the poster that post got rejected).
> The website will then have the charter, guidelines for submission,
> current moderators and policies, FAQ, etc.
Don't forget to spend a sentence or two about the
background/history/reason for the moderated group, preferably in the
same non-offensive, purely-pragmatic tone as the above.
> At least once per day, (I'm hoping more often) a moderator will
> "run the script" which will pass the whitelist, reject the blacklist
> and send the above note to the rejects (although I suppose the
> script would be clever enough not to bother with sending rejections
> to spammers) and present the graylist to the moderator, who does
> "yes/no" to each one. The "no's" get the above note also.
>
> B.
Spam and blacklist/whitelist cases will be handled by triggers, i hope,
directly after receiving the post? Reduces the irritation of delays.
--
Cheers,
Herman Jurjus
Frederick Williams
>
> III. Other discussion items.
>
> 1. Homework.
>
> III.1. This is just an item for discussion. My feeling is that
> naive posters of homework problems simply be passed and let
> the group deal with them. They're not that noisy after all.
Agreed. If it's mathematics homework then it's mathematics and should
pass. If readers object to answering homework questions let them say so
in a reply to the OP.
Ben Bacarisse
> Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>
>> Of course, it may be that it is already know that UTF-8 is still a
>> problem for some widely used client or other, in which case consider
>> the "pulling back" to have happened already.
>
> Can you help me with an experiment? Please post some UTF-8 characters
> just so I can see if my ageing Netscape can cope with them. Thanks.
From Markus Kuhn's UTF-8 demos:
∮ E⋅da = Q, n → ∞, ∑ f(i) = ∏ g(i)
(contour-integral E dot-operator da = Q, n rightwards arrow infinity,
n-ary-summation f(i) = n-ary-product g(i))
⊥ < a ≠ b ≡ c ≤ d
(up-tack < a not-equal-to b identical-to less-than-or-equal-to d)
2H₂ + O₂ ⇌ 2H₂O, R = 4.7 kΩ, ⌀ 200 mm
(2H subscript-2 + O subscript-2 rightwards-harpoon-over-leftwards-
harpoon 2H subscript-2, R = 2.7 k Omega, diameter-sign 200 mm)
I've used lower-case hyphenated versions of the Unicode character
names.
I am not proposing huge swathes of symbols, of course. The occasional
not-equals may be more or less harmless these days (I really don't
know).
--
Ben.
Herman Jurjus
>> Both the human and the bot rejections get an (automatically
>> sent) form letter of the shape:
>>
>> Thank you for posting to sci.math.mod. This is a [...]
Now that i've seen the above name being used a few times, may i humbly
suggest that the name becomes 'sci.math.moderated' instead?
That's much more in line with the other newsgroups. Check the list for
yourself: hardly any .mod's, lots of .moderated's.
--
Cheers,
Herman Jurjus
Bart Goddard
>> If the topic is math, there is no need to cross-post to sci.physics
>> or anywhere else.
>>
> Incorrect. Discussion about mathematical education is appropiately
> cross posted to sci.math and those with physics and algorithm problems
> have found it useful to cross post to sci.math.
While it is appropriate to cross post in these situations, I
think it becomes a technical difficulty when one of the groups
is moderated. If a thread is a hot topic on alt.philosophy,
then the moderators get inundated with ALL of the follow-ups
from that group. (Because very few people bother to set
follow-ups, even if you ask nicely.) I think things can blow
up very quickly.
Herman Jurjus
> Here's my notes on what I think would make good guidelines.
> Please discuss. I give an outline first and give my thoughts
> below.
Can you (or anyone else) tell me what the advantage is of a moderated ng
over an archived mailing list, such as the FOM or listserv lists?
Setting it up and maintaining it will be a lot of work either way.
And if you're afraid for low traffic, you could post an invitation every
month to sci.math, or so, informing people about its location.
--
Cheers,
Herman Jurjus
pubkeybreaker
> On Aug 19, 2:58 am, Cliff B <cliff_b...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I would be inclined to declare physics as off-topic
>
> some equation?
Let's be careful about language here. I said physics, and not
"the mathematics behind physics". It is one thing to (say) discuss
the role of SU(3) in super-symmetry theory. It is another to
discuss a new proposed "mechanism" for (say) gravity without
backing it by appropriate math. I propose to ban discussions
of the latter type; i.e. discussion of physical theories devoid
of mathematics.
>
> I realize many here might frown on some long ramble devoid
> of equations
It is exactly this kind of post that I propose should be banned.
pubkeybreaker
wrote:
> OwlHoot wrote:
>
> > On Aug 19, 2:58 am, Cliff B <cliff_b...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>
> > > I.3 in response to this and the follow-up point by pubkeybreaker,
> > > I would be inclined to declare physics as off-topic
>
> > Hang on though, what if it's a formal physics problem, like
> > some equation?
>
> > I realize many here might frown on some long ramble devoid
> > of equations (of the kind I've occasionally been guilty of
> > here in the past, but with the aim of possibly finding a
> > collaborator who might be able to help formalize it).
>
> > But surely there's a large overlap between maths and
> > physics, and ditto maths and economics, or biology,
> > etc.
>
> Indeed so. You can include cooking in your etc: 'My recipe says "serves
> eight" and there's only three of us...' is a respectable mathematical
> problem that should not be excluded just because there are cookery
> newsgroups that it might have gone to.
>
> I don't think anything mathematical should be excluded. If someone
> wants to argue that .9 recurring =/= 1, let them; they and others may
> learn something from the ensuing discussion.
I think posts that are addressed by the FAQ should be banned.
The poster should be directed to the FAQ.
Frederick Williams
They're all garbled to me! Maybe I should update my news reader.
Bart Goddard
@textnews.kpn.nl:
> Can you (or anyone else) tell me what the advantage is of a moderated ng
> over an archived mailing list, such as the FOM or listserv lists?
Having things threaded is an advantage. For one thing, a topic gets
grouped for easy finding/ ignoring. For another, the tree shows you
who has responded to whom and allows for easy finding/ignoring of a
branch.
I'm also hoping that, with efficient moderation, sci.math.moderated
will have quicker turn-around. I'm hoping for an average delay of
3 or 4 hours (at least during daylight.)
Frederick Williams
>
> I think posts that are addressed by the FAQ should be banned.
The poster may not understand the FAQ (though no fault of his own). The
FAQ might even be wrong.
There is a genuine danger that people who don't know much maths will be
scared off.
> The poster should be directed to the FAQ.
--
Frederick Williams
>
> Herman Jurjus <hju...@hetnet.nl> wrote in news:4a8d1e02$0$1653$703f8584
> @textnews.kpn.nl:
>
> >> If a moderator chooses to explain a rejection, a prepared
> >> robo-copy of the guide lines should suffice.
> >
> > Why not work with a small number of fixed reasons (+ standard
> > pre-formatted messages), with no more than a link to the guidelines?
>
> It seems like a link to the guidelines itself would suffice.
> My vision of moderation is that a bot will do triage.
> Whitelisted posters are passed. The obvious things are
> rejected. The left-overs are looked at by human eyes.
>
> Both the human and the bot rejections get an (automatically
> sent) form letter of the shape:
>
> Thank you for posting to sci.math.mod. This is a moderated
> group, and your submission has been rejected. The main reason
> for rejecting a submission is that it is "off topic", and
> the topic here is "mathematics." As much of
> our moderation is done automatically, we realize that your
> submission may have unjustly been rejected. We are happy to
> review your submission again if you will contact the moderators
> directly at a(at)b(dot)c. But first we ask that you visit this
> website:
>
> httpslashslashcolon
>
> and review our guidelines. It helps us immensely (and we are
That should read "and read our guidelines."
> deeply grateful) if you can work out the problem yourself. But
> again, we are happy to review your submission. It could be
> just that we haven't taught our robots well enough yet.
>
> Cordially,
> The Moderators.
>
> The website will then have the charter, guidelines for submission,
> current moderators and policies, FAQ, etc.
>
> At least once per day, (I'm hoping more often) a moderator will
> "run the script" which will pass the whitelist, reject the blacklist
> and send the above note to the rejects (although I suppose the
> script would be clever enough not to bother with sending rejections
> to spammers) and present the graylist to the moderator, who does
> "yes/no" to each one. The "no's" get the above note also.
Apart from the nit pick this is all good stuff and I for one am grateful
for the thought you're putting into it.
Frederick Williams
>
> ... The moderators decide that we've had enough
> of .9 repeating for a while, and it's rejected as nonsense.
Nonsense _to whom_? What the moderators think is nonsense may not be
the same as what some (possibly badly taught through no fault of their
own) teenager thinks is nonsense.
Frederick Williams
> If it's not, then you're asking for Musatov and possibly many others
> such as JSH, .999..., Godel, Cantor, etc to infest sci.math.mod, in
> defiance of the efforts to confine them to sci.math.
I'm no JSH fan, but he does sometimes make mathematical posts and very
often he gets mathematical replies. His posts which are about nothing
but The Hammer coming down on the heads of the professors should of
course be rejected without more ado. It looks as if just about
everything that Musatov posts should be rejected. But Godel and
Cantor? Surely they died long ago?
Ben Bacarisse
> Ben Bacarisse wrote:
<snip>
>> From Markus Kuhn's UTF-8 demos:
>>
>> ∮ E⋅da = Q, n → ∞, ∑ f(i) = � g(i)
<snip>
> They're all garbled to me! Maybe I should update my news reader.
... and they come back unaltered in byte value but marked as
iso-11859-1, so they are garbled to me in the reply.
Oh well, not to worry. I don't want to force anyone to ditch a
favourite newsreader (I know how long it too me to find one like get
on with). I just though text/plain with charset utf-8 was not that
radical in 2009!
--
Ben.
Penny Hassett
For the record - these were perfect on Thunderbird except for the
diameter-sign coming out asa question-mark (and 2.7 k came out as 4.7 k ;-))
Penny Hassett
I submitted my name as a reluctant moderator and there is no way four of
me could do that. We have a day-job, meals, sleep and science-fiction to
fit in too.
Jesse F. Hughes
> Herman Jurjus <hju...@hetnet.nl> wrote in news:4a8d4d7e$0$1642$703f8584
> @textnews.kpn.nl:
>
>> Can you (or anyone else) tell me what the advantage is of a moderated ng
>> over an archived mailing list, such as the FOM or listserv lists?
>
> Having things threaded is an advantage. For one thing, a topic gets
> grouped for easy finding/ ignoring. For another, the tree shows you
> who has responded to whom and allows for easy finding/ignoring of a
> branch.
I don't get it. Can't most email programs also show threads in tree
form?
(I use Gnus for both email and news, but I assumed that threaded email
clients were common enough. Perhaps I'm just butt-wrong.)
> I'm also hoping that, with efficient moderation, sci.math.moderated
> will have quicker turn-around. I'm hoping for an average delay of
> 3 or 4 hours (at least during daylight.)
Again, not much difference for a listserv, is it?
--
Jesse F. Hughes
"Failure is not just a word. It's a verb."
-- James S. Harris failures remedial English
Bart Goddard
@news.eternal-september.org:
>> I'm also hoping that, with efficient moderation, sci.math.moderated
>> will have quicker turn-around. I'm hoping for an average delay of
>> 3 or 4 hours (at least during daylight.)
> I submitted my name as a reluctant moderator and there is no way four
of
> me could do that. We have a day-job, meals, sleep and science-fiction
to
> fit in too.
I'm not sure how much "that" is. There seems to be two catogories
of work. 1. Routine passing/rejecting of posts, 2. Other.
I don't have a feel for how much "other" is. But the routine
stuff shouldn't be that bad. Assuming we get good black and
white lists going, (and perhaps the bot takes care of them
immediately without us asking and with it asking us?) then how
many gray posts will be left? Suppose it's 100 per day.
Here's where my lack of technical knowledge shines. I don't
know what the physical set-up would/can be. Can we set up a
site where the posts queue up, and moderators can go at their
leisure, deal with _some_ of posts, and leaving the
queue shorter? Or do we have to have the bot send messages
in rotation to moderators?
If the "site" method would work, a moderator can log on, check
a box for pass or reject, hit "process" and the bot will
post the passes, send rejections to the rejects, and delete
those headers from the queue for the next moderator who
logs in.
I spend the bulk of my work day at my desk, and check the newsgroups
several times a day, along with the NYTimes, the Dow, and my e-mail.
It would be easy to add the site into my "oh let's take a break and
surf a bit" routine. So I'd expect to visit the queue at least twice
a day. This method also means that we don't have to make
special arrangements everytime someone goes on vacation.
OTOH, if it has to be e-mail, then (still assuming 100 gray
posts per day) you'd have to deal with 20 or 25. If we're all
doing that, according to our personal schedules, then there
should be a steady stream of posts being added during waking
hours, even if we each do our moderator duties once per day.
Bart Goddard
news:871vn6j...@phiwumbda.org:
> I don't get it. Can't most email programs also show threads in tree
> form?
I don't know. If mine does, I don't know how to make it do that,
and I normally don't have "threads" in my e-mail.
> Again, not much difference for a listserv, is it?
It's a good question, or at least a hard one. I subscribe
to one listserv, and all I can say is that the "feel" is
very different for me. Maybe this is because it's very
low traffic.
I guess another difference is that by using USENET, we'd
be more public. How is a casual surfer going to find us
unless he's looking specifically for a listserv? The
only observers of a listserv discussion will be people
already subscribed. That seems like it would take some
of the "lively" out of it.
Herman Jurjus
> "Jesse F. Hughes" <je...@phiwumbda.org> wrote in
> news:871vn6j...@phiwumbda.org:
>
>> I don't get it. Can't most email programs also show threads in tree
>> form?
>
> I don't know. If mine does, I don't know how to make it do that,
> and I normally don't have "threads" in my e-mail.
What reader do you have?
>> Again, not much difference for a listserv, is it?
>
> It's a good question, or at least a hard one. I subscribe
> to one listserv, and all I can say is that the "feel" is
> very different for me. Maybe this is because it's very
> low traffic.
>
> I guess another difference is that by using USENET, we'd
> be more public. How is a casual surfer going to find us
> unless he's looking specifically for a listserv? The
> only observers of a listserv discussion will be people
> already subscribed. That seems like it would take some
> of the "lively" out of it.
Casual surfer? You mean via google groups?
Readers who access via nntp, typically must first subscribe to a
newsgroup before they can read and post. So no casual visitors via that
route.
And if we want to draw the attention of people who know sci.math from
years ago, and now take an occasional peep to see what's cooking, we can
always post a periodic invitation on sci.math with the url of the
listserv. This may also work for casual google group visitors.
--
Cheers,
Herman Jurjus
Phil Carmody
> Frederick Williams <frederick...@tesco.net> writes:
>
>> Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>
>>> Of course, it may be that it is already know that UTF-8 is still a
>>> problem for some widely used client or other, in which case consider
>>> the "pulling back" to have happened already.
>>
>> Can you help me with an experiment? Please post some UTF-8 characters
>> just so I can see if my ageing Netscape can cope with them. Thanks.
>
> From Markus Kuhn's UTF-8 demos:
>
> ∮ E⋅da = Q, n → ∞, ∑ f(i) = ∏ g(i)
Replacing incorrectly-rendered symbols as '#', that looks like
# E#da = Q, n → #, # f(i) = # g(i)
> (contour-integral E dot-operator da = Q, n rightwards arrow infinity,
> n-ary-summation f(i) = n-ary-product g(i))
>
> ⊥ < a ≠ b ≡ c ≤ d
# < a # b # c ≤ d
> (up-tack < a not-equal-to b identical-to less-than-or-equal-to d)
>
> 2H₂ + O₂ ⇌ 2H₂O, R = 4.7 kΩ, ⌀ 200 mm
2H# + O# # 2H#O, R = 4.7 k#, # 200 mm
I'm reading in GNUS from a text console, which might put me in a
minority.
Phil
--
If GML was an infant, SGML is the bright youngster far exceeds
expectations and made its parents too proud, but XML is the
drug-addicted gang member who had committed his first murder
before he had sex, which was rape. -- Erik Naggum (1965-2009)
Stephen J. Herschkorn
Ben Bacarisse wrote:
Frederick Williams <frederick...@tesco.net> writes:Ben Bacarisse wrote:Of course, it may be that it is already know that UTF-8 is still a problem for some widely used client or other, in which case consider the "pulling back" to have happened already.Can you help me with an experiment? Please post some UTF-8 characters just so I can see if my ageing Netscape can cope with them. Thanks.
From Markus Kuhn's UTF-8 demos: ∮ E⋅da = Q, n → ∞, ∑ f(i) = ∠g(i) (contour-integral E dot-operator da = Q, n rightwards arrow infinity, n-ary-summation f(i) = n-ary-product g(i)) ⊥ < a ≠b ≡ c ≤ d (up-tack < a not-equal-to b identical-to less-than-or-equal-to d) 2H₂ + O₂ ⇌ 2H₂O, R = 4.7 kΩ, ⌀ 200 mm (2H subscript-2 + O subscript-2 rightwards-harpoon-over-leftwards- harpoon 2H subscript-2, R = 2.7 k Omega, diameter-sign 200 mm) I've used lower-case hyphenated versions of the Unicode character names. I am not proposing huge swathes of symbols, of course. The occasional not-equals may be more or less harmless these days (I really don't know).
They're all garbled to me! Maybe I should update my news reader.
Interesting: I could see them in Ben's post, but not in Frederick's quote of them. Exception: The "diameter-sign" (whatever that means) showed up as a question mark the first time, garbage in the quote.
-- Stephen J. Herschkorn sjher...@netscape.net Math Tutor on the Internet and in Central New Jersey
Bart Goddard
news:4A8D9BD6...@netscape.net:
>>They're all garbled to me! Maybe I should update my news reader.
>>
>
> Interesting: I could see them in Ben's post, but not in Frederick's
> quote of them.
I'd say the experiment was a success then. ASCII is universal.
At the moment, nothing else is.
Ben Bacarisse
<snip>
> I'm reading in GNUS from a text console, which might put me in a
> minority.
It comes down to the terminal and the font you use.
The real problem is when news readers quote material and can't support
the character set. Everyone then sees that messed up result. In your
case, there was no problem with the quoted material because Gnus knows
what to do even if the terminal can't show you some of the glyphs.
The answer is clear: single-byte encodings work better for Usenet. (I
don't want to say ASCII because very few posts actually use it.)
--
Ben.
Gerry Myerson
Bart Goddard <godd...@netscape.net> wrote:
> Gerry Myerson <ge...@maths.mq.edi.ai.i2u4email> wrote in news:gerry-
> 6E3A81.165...@feeder.eternal-september.org:
>
>
> >> > Thanks. The check is in the mail.
> >>
> >> Uh, Gerry, you might want to rethink this.
> >>
> >> Go look at Google Groups were you'll see that
> >> "a" gold star is an insult, not a compliment.
> >
> > Not to worry, the check was guaranteed to bounce.
>
> Did you know the Australian dollar sign is just the
> US dollar sign upside down?
Perhaps that explains why Australians generalise
where Americans generalize.
--
Gerry Myerson (ge...@maths.mq.edi.ai) (i -> u for email)
Gerry Myerson
Bart Goddard <godd...@netscape.net> wrote:
> I'm also hoping that, with efficient moderation, sci.math.moderated
> will have quicker turn-around. I'm hoping for an average delay of
> 3 or 4 hours (at least during daylight.)
Bearing in mind that your daylight is my nighttime.
David Bernier
> pubkeybreaker wrote:
>
>> I think posts that are addressed by the FAQ should be banned.
>
> The poster may not understand the FAQ (though no fault of his own). The
> FAQ might even be wrong.
>
> There is a genuine danger that people who don't know much maths will be
> scared off.
I'd suggest generally letting them pass, and then replies could
explain where to find the FAQ, and also the FAQ could be
improved and more questions included.
No one is obliged to answer a post about a question in the
FAQ. A sensible person will understand that they can ask
in sci.math, but some can be expected to be upset, so the
anti-abuse rules will apply to attempted abuse.
If sci.math.moderated comes to pass (i.e. exist), then
I think a good way to explain the purpose is through
the history, meaning what we're doing now.
These deliberations will explain why things were done the way
they were done. So maybe if someone wants to write digests of
the messages about sci.math.moderated, it would come in handy
some day. I might write one digest entry myself, if others
think it might be useful should the group come into existence.
David Bernier
The Sortov Institute
news:4A8D4215...@tesco.net...
> David Bernier wrote:
>
>> I'm not sure about crank theories. Maybe a few posts a week
>> per crank theorist is Ok.
>
> My problem is this: if someone proposes or defends a crank theory is
> because they are a crank or because they are excusably ignorant?
>
>> Perhaps a list of 10 top things one would like changed
>> in sci.math, if that were possible, can serve to
>> figure out what's desirable in the moderated group.
>
> That's a good idea. And it begins rather easily:
>
> 1. Absolutely no adverts for Viagra, trainers, etc.
>
> but so many other things are on the margin.
Good one :D
William Elliot
> William Elliot <ma...@rdrop.remove.com> wrote
>> Discussions about moderation are off topic.
>>
>> If it's not, then you're asking for Musatov and possibly many others
>> such as JSH, .999..., Godel, Cantor, etc to infest sci.math.mod, in
>> defiance of the efforts to confine them to sci.math.
>
> I realize this, but we don't have to pass all moderation posts
> or discuss them at all. I just think it would be wise to let
> a person complain in public, perhaps allow him one post ranting
> about the moderators, so that his steam is vented. I think
> this would reduce the number of festering wounds, and in the end,
> reduce our workload.
>
It could easily augment the workload.
> Also, besides disgruntled posters, it may well be that the group should
> talk about some policy or other. A discussion about whether .9
> repeating should be permanently banned seems appropriate for the group.
>
Discussions about sci.math.mod policy are off topic.
In the news.groups.*, news.admin.* or the news.* groups there
may likely be a newsgroup for discussing a newsgroup's policy.
A interesting group is
news.admin.net-abuse.usenet.
Let them air it out in an appropriate place.
A discussion about sci.math.mod policy is no more appropriate thana
discussion about math education theory is, while teaching a math class.
If you don't like the class or the teacher you ask for
an office visit or even visit the department head where
you can air your problem without interrupting the class.
Mariano Suárez-Alvarez
> On Thu, 20 Aug 2009, Bart Goddard wrote:
> > William Elliot <ma...@rdrop.remove.com> wrote
> >> Discussions about moderation are off topic.
>
> >> If it's not, then you're asking for Musatov and possibly many others
> >> such as JSH, .999..., Godel, Cantor, etc to infest sci.math.mod, in
> >> defiance of the efforts to confine them to sci.math.
>
> > I realize this, but we don't have to pass all moderation posts
> > or discuss them at all. I just think it would be wise to let
> > a person complain in public, perhaps allow him one post ranting
> > about the moderators, so that his steam is vented. I think
> > this would reduce the number of festering wounds, and in the end,
> > reduce our workload.
>
> It could easily augment the workload.
>
> > Also, besides disgruntled posters, it may well be that the group should
> > talk about some policy or other. A discussion about whether .9
> > repeating should be permanently banned seems appropriate for the group.
>
> Discussions about sci.math.mod policy are off topic.
Yet it seems to be on-topic on sci.math?
-- m
hdbanannah
world, things would be different, but unfortunately Musatov exists.
William Elliot
> William Elliot <ma...@rdrop.remove.com> wrote in
>>> If the topic is math, there is no need to cross-post to sci.physics
>>> or anywhere else.
>>>
>> Incorrect. Discussion about mathematical education is appropriately
>> cross posted to sci.math and those with physics and algorithm problems
>> have found it useful to cross post to sci.math.
>
> While it is appropriate to cross post in these situations, I
> think it becomes a technical difficulty when one of the groups
> is moderated. If a thread is a hot topic on alt.philosophy,
> then the moderators get inundated with ALL of the follow-ups
> from that group. (Because very few people bother to set
> follow-ups, even if you ask nicely.) I think things can blow
> up very quickly.
>
An easy policy is no cross posting.
A better policy is some cross posting.
Cross posts from non-scientific groups wouldn't get through.
Yet why bother about cross posting? Let the post on through
based upon it's merit. If it's off topic, it's off topic.
If it's nonsense and much cross posted, toss it.
If it's incoherent or illogical nonsense, toss it.
Yet why are we attempting to prepare for every mode of nonsense?
What business plan has been able to prepare for all contingencies?
The moderators aren't reviewers. They toss the stuff that's off topic.
That will usually be quick and easy to determine from the subject or from
the first few lines. A determination of nonsense should not take long.
That way, the better, addressable nonsense will get through for whatever
it's worthless. Otherwise you become a reviewer.
Frederick Williams
> If sci.math.moderated comes to pass (i.e. exist), then
> I think a good way to explain the purpose is through
> the history, meaning what we're doing now.
>
> These deliberations will explain why things were done the way
> they were done. So maybe if someone wants to write digests of
> the messages about sci.math.moderated, it would come in handy
> some day. I might write one digest entry myself, if others
> think it might be useful should the group come into existence.
That's a good idea.
--
Frederick Williams
> Yet why bother about cross posting? Let the post on through
> based upon it's merit. If it's off topic, it's off topic.
> If it's nonsense and much cross posted, toss it.
> If it's incoherent or illogical nonsense, toss it.
>
> Yet why are we attempting to prepare for every mode of nonsense?
> What business plan has been able to prepare for all contingencies?
>
> The moderators aren't reviewers. They toss the stuff that's off topic.
> That will usually be quick and easy to determine from the subject or from
> the first few lines. A determination of nonsense should not take long.
> That way, the better, addressable nonsense will get through for whatever
> it's worthless. Otherwise you become a reviewer.
Am I right in my belief that if something is cross posted to two
moderated newsgroups and it is passed by one then it gets passed the
other without moderation because the Approved header has been set
already?
I may be wrong because I know nothing about technical matters, but I
think I heard this somewhere.
If it can happen I suspect that it'll be so infrequent as to be not
worth bothering about.
Frederick Williams
>
> In article <Xns9C6D5FEC68416go...@74.209.136.100>,
> Bart Goddard <godd...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> > I'm also hoping that, with efficient moderation, sci.math.moderated
> > will have quicker turn-around. I'm hoping for an average delay of
> > 3 or 4 hours (at least during daylight.)
>
> Bearing in mind that your daylight is my nighttime.
Having moderators spread across the time zones will be a good thing.
Aatu Koskensilta
> Am I right in my belief that if something is cross posted to two
> moderated newsgroups and it is passed by one then it gets passed the
> other without moderation because the Approved header has been set
> already?
Yes. In more detail, the article gets submitted to the moderators of
one group only, usually the first moderated group listed on the
Newsgroups-line. They can then contact the moderators of the other
moderated groups listed if they find it in their hearts but there's no
technical necessity to that; or they can just reject or approve the
message without any further consultation.
--
Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.kos...@uta.fi)
"Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, dar�ber muss man schweigen"
- Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
William Elliot
>>> about .9. Or .9 generates so much volume that other topics
>>> get lost in the crud. So the moderators call a ban on
>>> that topic for, say, a year, and inform attempted posters
>>> that sci.math is available for such a discussion.
>>>
>> Too complicated. Mathematical nonsense is off topic.
>>
>> Either let it run through, especially if it's mathematically
>> coherent, stripped of rudeness, or toss it as math noise at
>> the every start. It's all right if such noisome noise is
>> sometimes let through and at other times blocked at the beginning
>> of the thread.
>
> I don't see the difference between what I've said and what
> you've said. The moderators decide that we've had enough
> of .9 repeating for a while, and it's rejected as nonsense.
> another freshman class run through the argument(s) again.
>
> I'm starting to think however, that the policy ought to be
> to pass it as math, and then cut the thread off when it
> inevitably degenerates.
You got it!
> I'm going with Bob's (pubkeybreaker's) tack of rejecting "repetitive"
> stuff. That would make the three things to reject: 1. Off topic, 2.
> venom (or vitriol, if you want to soften it a bit), 3. repetitive posts.
>
We don't need to be like politicians passing legislation with too many
rules.
> That way "mathematical nonsense", while it will appear, won't
> grow into a mighty oak.
>
As far as I'm concern, it's the moderator's call if it's
repleating nonsense or not, Let it be at that. If the poster
laments "Moderator," the moderator may answer that it turned out to be
nonsense the first time it was posted.
William Elliot
It really isn't. However it's an improvement over
the voluminous off topic laments about off topic jerks.
pubkeybreaker
What should the policy be regarding posts that simply point to a URL
for the
content?
Bart Goddard
> Yet why are we attempting to prepare for every mode of nonsense?
>
Not "every", just the things that have been annoying us. There
are three things that the consensus agrees should be blocked.
These should be listed. (1. off topic, 2. venom, 3. repetition.)
In addition, we have tangential issues. ASCII only? Top-posting?
Over-quoting and formatting? Is moderation of the group itself
"on topic?" etc. These things don't add to the moderators
workload, but give the moderators the right to reject certain
posts. (Thereby making the job easier.)
If we just had one rule: "On Topic", then there's a lot of
stuff that would pass, which we're trying to get rid of.
E.g., a post attempting to discuss the _on topic_ issue
of why blacks should be segregated from whites in elementary
school, because the two races learn mathematics differently.
E.g., A perfectly sane, mathematically correct, and perhaps
interesting post, which is peppered with the F-word. ALSO
on topic.
E.g., A perfectly sane, mathematically correct post which
is either full of special characters, HTML, or is 50% ">"s.
It's on topic, but sheesh.
Anyway, it seems like the moderators don't have the "right"
to reject a post unless it violates the charter guidelines.
And it's only fair to let people know what the standards are.
One thing we haven't been clear about: The Charter is one
document and the FAQ is another. I expect that the Charter
will be as brief as possible. Many of the other things you
cite KISS against, are things being suggested for the FAQ.
The Charter should be general and broad enough to empower
the moderators to do their job. The FAQ should contain the
"mood" of the moderators, listing examples of things that
are acceptable and not.
From my experience, one of the major complaints of disgruntled
rejectees is "The moderator isn't following the Charter!!!!"
We need a charter we can point to and say "See I'm following
exactly what it says."
If you want to apply "KISS", then think about having too general
of a policy. In that case, we have to look at every post and
make a decision. If we a few clear guidelines, then the bots
can reject a lot of the noise (and accept a lot of the gold)
before we even see it.
Bart Goddard
news:828whdj...@A166.veli3.tontut.fi:
> Frederick Williams <frederick...@tesco.net> writes:
>
>> Am I right in my belief that if something is cross posted to two
>> moderated newsgroups and it is passed by one then it gets passed the
>> other without moderation because the Approved header has been set
>> already?
>
> Yes. In more detail, the article gets submitted to the moderators of
> one group only, usually the first moderated group listed on the
> Newsgroups-line. They can then contact the moderators of the other
> moderated groups listed if they find it in their hearts but there's no
> technical necessity to that; or they can just reject or approve the
> message without any further consultation.
>
In that case, I'm against cross posting.
Bart Goddard
8cd7-3be...@z28g2000vbl.googlegroups.com:
> What should the policy be regarding posts that simply point to a URL
> for the content?
My gut reaction was "pass", but then I realized that this is a
deeper issue. There's no guarantee that the link doesn't go
to Billy Bob's Solution Manual Emporium's website.
So a post may come in that is not clearly on or off topic. Is
the policy to be or "It must not be off topic" or
"It must be on topic?"
In the first case, a message with just a URL is not readily
seen to be off topic, so it's passed.
In the second case, such a message is not readily seen to be
on topic, so it's rejected.
My feeling is to go with the second case. A URL should be
accompanied by a description of what is to be found there.
If the description is on topic, it's passed. If it turns out
that the description is a lie, then the post is removed.
The moderators wouldn't have the duty (although they could)
to check out every URL. Lies would be uncovered in the group.
Aatu Koskensilta
> Anything goes in sci.math, in case you didn't notice. In an ideal
> world, things would be different, but unfortunately Musatov exists.
So because Musatov likes to post bizarre gibberish on sci.math every
should feel free to follow suit? This is not a very sound line of
thought.
--
Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.kos...@uta.fi)
"Wovon mann nicht sprechen kann, dar�ber muss man schweigen"
Aatu Koskensilta
> Discussions about sci.math.mod policy are off topic.
>
> In the news.groups.*, news.admin.* or the news.* groups there
> may likely be a newsgroup for discussing a newsgroup's policy.
There's news.admin.moderation, though it's been pretty dead for a while
now.
adamk
>
> > Anything goes in sci.math, in case you didn't
> notice. In an ideal
> > world, things would be different, but unfortunately
> Musatov exists.
>
> So because Musatov likes to post bizarre gibberish on
> sci.math every
> should feel free to follow suit? This is not a very
> sound line of
> thought.
>
I don't get the meekness of this group. I don't
like insulting and fighting in general, but using
aggressive posts has had some effect on musatov,
by his own admission -- while nothing else has.
While this is not my default method, I
think a unified front in this respect would be, I
think, helpful --and the only one I can think off
that would be likely to work.
Unfortunately,people like musatov function at
a very low level, and this approach is the only one
that is likely to work.
I am surprised at the meekness of sci.math in
defending something we all appreciate. While we all
prefer a peaceful, friendly resolution, something
needs to be done after all the amicable options have
been proven innefectual. And I cannot think of anything
other than pushing back.
> --
> Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.kos...@uta.fi)
>
> "Wovon mann nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man
> schweigen"
> - Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus
> s Logico-Philosophicus
Aatu Koskensilta
> I don't get the meekness of this group. I don't like insulting and
> fighting in general, but using aggressive posts has had some effect
> on musatov, by his own admission -- while nothing else has.
Take it to e-mail. The most prominent effect of your shouting insults at
Musatov has been a slight increase in pointless off-topic drivel on
sci.math.
> I am surprised at the meekness of sci.math in defending something
> we all appreciate. While we all prefer a peaceful, friendly
> resolution, something needs to be done after all the amicable options
> have been proven innefectual. And I cannot think of anything other
> than pushing back.
How about ignoring the silliness, or working on the moderated
mathematics group if that notion strikes your fancy?
--
Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.kos...@uta.fi)
"Wovon mann nicht sprechen kann, dar�ber muss man schweigen"
- Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus