[Admin - Comments Requested] Proposed Process for Charter Amendment
Russell Steinthal
There has recently been considerable discussion --- in the newsgroup
and in e-mail to and among the moderators --- regarding the ability of
"known" anti-Semites to post to SCJM. As we've consistently
indicated, the moderators believe the charter requires us to follow a
policy of moderating posts, not posters.
As has also been pointed out to us, however, "the charter is not
Torah," so we've begun considering possible ways in which the charter
could be amended to give us the flexibility to deal with the problem
while maintaining as much as possible of the "posts not posters"
philosophy. Although as a practical matter, we could unilaterally
adopt such an amendment, we'd ideally like to build as much consensus
as possible.
As a first step in that direction, we are publishing the following
document setting out a process for amending the charter. As we
explain in more detail (and perhaps more awkward language) below, we
would greatly appreciate your consideration of and comments on this
proposal. Once we've responded to comments and (hopefully) adopted a
charter amendment process, we'll then share our substantive thoughts
on how we can deal with the "anti-Semite" problem.
So to sum up, while we wanted to give you a preview of where we're
going with this, we'd like you to focus as much as possible on the
process at this point --- there will be time later to discuss the
merits of any proposed amendment.
-Russell
for the moderators of soc.culture.jewish.moderated
By unanimous vote, the moderators of soc.culture.jewish.moderated
have approved the publication of the following notice:
A. SUMMARY
Recognizing that circumstances will on occasion require the amendment
of the newsgroup's charter, the moderators propose to establish a
process to solicit and consider the views of as many newsgroup
participants as possible.
Comments on this proposal must be received on or before December 5, 2005
to be assured of consideration (see below for details).
B. RATIONALE
The principal responsibility of the moderators of any moderated Usenet
newsgroup, including soc.culture.jewish.moderated, is to determine
whether submissions should or should not be approved. To encourage
transparency, most (if not all) moderators publish a charter or other
guidelines describing how they intend to exercise their discretion.
(A charter is required as a condition of the creation of new moderated
newsgroups.) Since Usenet moderators' decisions as to the approval or
rejection of posts are essentially unreviewable by external authority,
they have historically possessed inherent and plenary authority to
change their newsgroups' charters in response to changed circumstances.
SCJM's charter and moderation policy have remained unchanged since the
newsgroup's creation, and the moderators have attempted to use our
best judgment to consistently and fairly apply the charter to the
submissions we receive. Although changes to the charter have
occasionally been proposed over those years, we have declined to make
any changes for two principal reasons. First, and most importantly,
we generally believe the present charter is in the best interests of
the newsgroup. An additional reason for our reluctance to change the
charter, however, has been a respect for the consensus of newsgroup
participants that accompanied its initial adoption, and the legitimacy
that that confers on our role as moderators.
There are, however, circumstances that would warrant the amendment of
the newsgroup's charter; as has been suggested to us, "the charter is
not Torah." In such cases, we would hope to act, as much as possible,
with the support (or at least without the opposition) of as many
newsgroup participants as possible. We believe the proposal described
below adequately balances our need for flexibility in adjusting the
charter to changed circumstances with our desire to stay within the
public consensus.
We have proposed that the charter revision policy itself serve as the
first test of that policy. Although we will, therefore, defer our
final vote on the adoption of the policy until after the comment
period, we intend to generally follow the policy as much as possible.
As a special exception, however, regardless of what vote is ultimately
required to adopt proposed amendments (an issue that is reserved for
comment in the proposal), we have agreed that this policy will only be
adopted by a unanimous vote of the moderators.
Although we haven't conducted any formal research, we are unaware of
any newsgroup with a similar published policy of inviting user comment
on charter revisions. This is, therefore, something of an experiment,
and we encourage you to share your civil, constructive comments,
whether in support or opposition.
C. PROPOSAL
The following procedure is contemplated to govern the consideration of
proposed amendments to the charter, moderation policy, or other
organic documents of soc.culture.jewish.moderated:
1. Initiation of a Proposal
A majority vote of the moderators will be required to approve the
formal publication of a charter revision proposal ("Proposal") in the
newsgroup. The Proposal will contain, at a minimum, the following
elements: (i) the full text of any proposed changes to the charter,
moderation policy, or other document (the "Proposed Amendments"); (ii)
an explanation of the rationale for the Proposed Amendments; (iii) a
request for comments on the Proposed Amendments; and (iv) the names of
moderators voting in favor of and in opposition to the publication of
the Proposal.
A moderator's vote to publish a Proposal is not necessarily intended
to indicate support for the Proposed Amendments. Any moderator who
votes in favor of or in opposition to the publication of the Proposal
may ask to have an individual statement included with the Proposal
when it is published.
2. Comment Period
Each Proposal will include a request for comments on the Proposed
Amendments, including whether the Proposed Amendments should be
adopted and any additional questions on which the moderators believe
public comment is warranted. Each Proposal will specify the means by
which comments will be received, and the deadline before which
comments must be received to be considered.
If the Proposal indicates that comments posted to the newsgroup will
be considered, the following rules will apply:
(i) All comments and discussion on the Proposal will occur in a
designated thread, which will be hand-moderated;
(ii) The ordinary charter and moderation policies will govern the
discussion on the Proposal in the newsgroup, including the
requirements of civil discussion. As a special exception, posts will
be considered on-topic if they respond to questions posed for comment
in the Proposal.
(iii) In moderating posts to the designated comment thread, the
moderators will apply the Charter without regard to whether a comment
is in support of or opposition to the Proposed Amendments.
Comments that do not comply with those rules, or for which the
submitter requests confidentiality, will be received by e-mail.
Please note that comments contained in rejected posts will *not*
necessarily be considered by all moderators, and so commenters are
encouraged to resubmit such comments by e-mail to the moderators.
3. Response to Comments
After the close of the comment period, the moderators will consider
all comments that have been received before taking a further vote on
the Proposed Amendments.
For each Proposed Amendment, the moderators may vote to (1) adopt the
Proposed Amendment; (2) adopt the Proposed Amendment with
modifications; (3) table further discussion of the Proposed Amendment;
or (4) publish a Supplemental Proposal requesting additional comment
and/or including modifications to the Proposed Amendments. A majority
vote of the moderators will be required to take any of those actions,
except that a super-majority of all moderators will be required to
adopt a Proposed Amendment, with or without modifications. (Note: The
specific majority to be required is an issue on which comment is
requested.) If the Proposal included multiple Proposed Amendments,
the moderators will vote independently on each Proposed Amendment,
unless the Proposal specified that certain Proposed Amendments would
be considered solely as a block.
After the vote, the moderators will prepare and post a Response to
Comments that will include, at a minimum: (i) a report of the
moderators' disposition of each Proposed Amendment, including the
votes of individual moderators; (ii) an explanation, approved by the
majority of the moderators, of the reasons for any modifications from
the Proposed Amendments that were adopted, and a response (in summary
form) to public comments that were considered but not adopted. It is
not expected that the moderators will respond to each comment, but
they will make a good faith effort to respond at least in summary
form. Any moderator may request that an individual statement be
included in the Response to Comments explaining his or her votes.
Unless the Response for Comments is accompanied by a Supplemental
Proposal, it will not be followed by an additional comment period.
Posters are, of course, encouraged to share their responses by e-mail.
Adopted amendments will take effect immediately upon publication of
the Response to Comments, unless the moderators direct otherwise.
4. Other issues
The moderators reserve the right to make exceptions to this policy in
extraordinary circumstances which, in their opinion, make application
of the policy impractical.
By unanimous agreement of the moderators, this policy will be adopted
only if, following the comment period, it is unanimously agreed to by
the moderators. It is contemplated that any further changes to this
policy will be considered in accordance with this policy.
D. REQUEST FOR COMMENTS
The moderators request comment on the following issues:
1. Should the proposed charter amendment policy be adopted?
2. Should a unanimous vote of the moderators be required to adopt a
Proposed Amendment? Should a 2/3 vote of all then-sitting moderators
be sufficient?
Comments should be sent to the moderators by e-mail to
scjm-mo...@scjm.jewish-usenet.org or posted as followups to this
thread in the newsgroup. Although the proposed policy is not yet
formally in effect, the rules stated above for newsgroup discussion
will be applied. To be considered, all comments must be received by
11:59 PM, Eastern time on Monday, December 5, 2005 . Submissions to the
newsgroup that are received after that time will be rejected as
untimely.
E. RECORD OF VOTE
The following moderators voted in favor of the publication of this
Proposal:
Henry Goodman, Eliyahu Rooff, Joel Shurkin, Russell Steinthal, Harry
Weiss
No moderators voted in opposition and no moderator requested the
inclusion of an individual statement.
--
Russell Steinthal <rm...@columbia.edu>
<ste...@steinthal.us>
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
> All:
>
> There has recently been considerable discussion --- in the newsgroup
> and in e-mail to and among the moderators --- regarding the ability of
> "known" anti-Semites to post to SCJM. As we've consistently
> indicated, the moderators believe the charter requires us to follow a
> policy of moderating posts, not posters.
>
> As has also been pointed out to us, however, "the charter is not
> Torah,"
Yasher Koach to whoever that was.
Yes. Unless you can figure at an _easier_ way to do it.
> 2. Should a unanimous vote of the moderators be required to adopt a
> Proposed Amendment? Should a 2/3 vote of all then-sitting moderators
> be sufficient?
Good question. How about 3/4 vote. First I think you should mention
the minimum number of moderators needed to consider the proposal.
Perhaps it should require "near" unanimity. That is, one holdout
can't stop it, but two can.
> Comments should be sent to the moderators by e-mail to
> scjm-mo...@scjm.jewish-usenet.org or posted as followups to this
> thread in the newsgroup. Although the proposed policy is not yet
> formally in effect, the rules stated above for newsgroup discussion
> will be applied. To be considered, all comments must be received by
> 11:59 PM, Eastern time on Monday, December 5, 2005 . Submissions to the
> newsgroup that are received after that time will be rejected as
> untimely.
>
> E. RECORD OF VOTE
>
> The following moderators voted in favor of the publication of this
> Proposal:
>
> Henry Goodman, Eliyahu Rooff, Joel Shurkin, Russell Steinthal, Harry
> Weiss
This was unecessary because you told us it was "unanimous". But I'll
take this opportunity to give you guys, individually and collectively,
a very big "Yasher Koach".
Moshe Schorr
It is a tremendous Mitzvah to always be happy! - Reb Nachman of Breslov
The home and family are the center of Judaism, *not* the synagogue.
Disclaimer: Nothing here necessarily reflects the opinion of Hebrew University
Dan Kimmel
"Russell Steinthal" <rm...@columbia.edu> wrote in message
news:dmgrt6$tvc$1...@falcon.steinthal.us...
>> D. REQUEST FOR COMMENTS
>
> The moderators request comment on the following issues:
>
> 1. Should the proposed charter amendment policy be adopted?
Yes.
> 2. Should a unanimous vote of the moderators be required to adopt a
> Proposed Amendment? Should a 2/3 vote of all then-sitting moderators
> be sufficient?
No. It shouldn't be solely up to the *moderators* at all.
Lisa
Russell Steinthal wrote:
> All:
>
> There has recently been considerable discussion --- in the newsgroup
> and in e-mail to and among the moderators --- regarding the ability of
> "known" anti-Semites to post to SCJM. As we've consistently
> indicated, the moderators believe the charter requires us to follow a
> policy of moderating posts, not posters.
I realize that you aren't asking about this particular issue, but while
I applaud the idea, in principle, that the charter can be amended, I am
appalled that the suggestion made by certain people that a person could
be barred from posting on SCJM because of external considerations could
be taken seriously at all.
There've been other issues regarding the charter in the past, and no
talk of amending it was ever given any serious attention by the
moderators. I find it very said that it took this entirely spurious
case to get us here.
> D. REQUEST FOR COMMENTS
>
> The moderators request comment on the following issues:
>
> 1. Should the proposed charter amendment policy be adopted?
Sure.
> 2. Should a unanimous vote of the moderators be required to adopt a
> Proposed Amendment? Should a 2/3 vote of all then-sitting moderators
> be sufficient?
I have a third suggestion. I think it should require "unanimous minus
one". I don't think 2/3 is sufficient for something as huge as
changing the charter, but I also don't think that one holdout should be
able to prevent it.
Lisa
Lisa
Short of something like I'd suggested in the past
(http://www.starways.net/scjr/), there's no way to establish who else
would have a right to vote. I could get all my friends to drop by and
vote if it was up to people in general. And there've been people
who've been gone for ages, but are still on the pass-through list. Jay
and Shelly have been gone, by their own choice, for a long time. Do
they get the same vote that you do? Karen Elizabeth and Darrin both
post, but not frequently. And one of them is cogent and intelligent,
while the other seems like an escapee from Creedmooor. Do you let one
of them vote, and not the other?
I'd also like it to be up to the regulars. But there's no real
definition of that, so I don't see how you can suggest that it be up to
anyone other than the moderators. At least not without some sort of
explanation on your part.
Lisa
Dan Kimmel
"Lisa" <li...@starways.net> wrote in message
news:1133271108.1...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Voting to amend the charter should be open to the exact same population that
voted on the charter in the first place (and I don't mean going over who
voted for the charter and restricting the franchise to them).
The idea that hundreds of people are going to vote on an amendment to the
charter of a newsgroup they don't participate in is little short of
ludicrous.
ToooooMuchCoffeeMan
"Dan Kimmel" <daniel...@rcn.com> wrote:
> The idea that hundreds of people are going to vote on an amendment to the
> charter of a newsgroup they don't participate in is little short of
> ludicrous.
I don't know about that. Ratfucking has a long and [dis]honorable
history, and it would be trivially easy under the circumstances you
propose.
Given that the number of moderators will likely remain small, I'm not
sure it makes sense to argue over whether, for example, a 2/3 or 3/4
supermajority is better. (E.g. if there are 5 moderators, 2/3 and 3/4
both resolve to 4.) Moshe Shorr's suggestion
> Perhaps it should require "near" unanimity. That is, one holdout
> can't stop it, but two can.
seems more sensible.
Steve Goldfarb
>Russell Steinthal wrote:
>> All:
>>
>> There has recently been considerable discussion --- in the newsgroup
>> and in e-mail to and among the moderators --- regarding the ability of
>> "known" anti-Semites to post to SCJM. As we've consistently
>> indicated, the moderators believe the charter requires us to follow a
>> policy of moderating posts, not posters.
>I realize that you aren't asking about this particular issue, but while
>I applaud the idea, in principle, that the charter can be amended, I am
>appalled that the suggestion made by certain people that a person could
>be barred from posting on SCJM because of external considerations could
>be taken seriously at all.
For the record, I wholeheartedly agree with Lisa on this issue. While
discussing the specifics of this matter are perhaps off-topic here, the
simple fact that none of us are in fact "known" in any real sense should
preclude the idea of banning "known" anythings, including "known
anti-semites." From a more practical POV, if jewha...@hotmail.com is a
"known anti-semite," what about jewha...@hotmail.com? No such "lifetime
ban" has any hope of being effective.
>There've been other issues regarding the charter in the past, and no
>talk of amending it was ever given any serious attention by the
>moderators. I find it very said that it took this entirely spurious
>case to get us here.
Also agreed.
>> D. REQUEST FOR COMMENTS
>>
>> The moderators request comment on the following issues:
>>
>> 1. Should the proposed charter amendment policy be adopted?
>Sure.
I vote "sure" as well.
>> 2. Should a unanimous vote of the moderators be required to adopt a
>> Proposed Amendment? Should a 2/3 vote of all then-sitting moderators
>> be sufficient?
>I have a third suggestion. I think it should require "unanimous minus
>one". I don't think 2/3 is sufficient for something as huge as
>changing the charter, but I also don't think that one holdout should be
>able to prevent it.
If the moderation team were democratically selected then I'd support this
approach 100%. As they aren't, then I'm less enthusiastic about it,
although I think majority-1 might make more sense than simply 2/3
majority. I'm not opposed to a "full vote" if there's some reasonably
practical way to achieve it.
--s
>Lisa
--
Eliyahu
OTOH, the idea that trolls and anti-Semites would invite all their
buddies to participate is a very conceivable one.
In any case, please note that the original request with this thread is
that comments be emailed to the moderators and not posted to the group.
Eliyahu
Steve Goldfarb
>OTOH, the idea that trolls and anti-Semites would invite all their
>buddies to participate is a very conceivable one.
Could be. Perhaps there's a way to deal with that, though.
>In any case, please note that the original request with this thread is
>that comments be emailed to the moderators and not posted to the group.
Now there's suitable rallying cry for a charter amendment -- permitting
moderation meta-conversations within suitably titled threads.
--s
>Eliyahu
--
The Creedmoor Chronicler
deserves at least nine.......
James Kahn
Yes, I don't like secrecy with these sorts of discussions.
I also agree with Dan, being uncomfortable with having the moderators
alone deciding on charter amendments. Think about the rules for
amending the U.S. Constitution, for example. Congress can't do it alone,
it can only _initiate_ a proposal. And a proposal can come from the
state legislatures as well.
And I like Lisa's way of thinking for deciding on voter eligibility.
If that's viewed as too cumbersome to implement each time there is a
proposal, another possibility is to have a sort of "Board of Directors,"
made up of "regulars" (by Lisa's definition), distinct from the moderators,
who could vote on amendments. Like Thomas Jefferson, I am wary of too
much centralized authority!
--
Jim
New York, NY
(Please remove "nospam." to get my e-mail address)
http://www.panix.com/~kahn
Lisa
Eliyahu wrote:
>
> OTOH, the idea that trolls and anti-Semites would invite all their
> buddies to participate is a very conceivable one.
>
> In any case, please note that the original request with this thread is
> that comments be emailed to the moderators and not posted to the group.
With all due respect, Eliyahu, the request said:
> Comments should be sent to the moderators by e-mail to
> scjm-moderat...@scjm.jewish-usenet.org or posted as followups to this
> thread in the newsgroup.
I understood that as meaning that either one was acceptable. I would
hope that most of the discussion would happen in the newsgroup, since
it really does affect us all.
Lisa
Lisa
Steve Goldfarb wrote:
> In <1133278126.3...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> "Eliyahu" <lro...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>
> >OTOH, the idea that trolls and anti-Semites would invite all their
> >buddies to participate is a very conceivable one.
>
> Could be. Perhaps there's a way to deal with that, though.
Can't see what it might be. Again, other than the criteria in the SCJR
proposal.
> >In any case, please note that the original request with this thread is
> >that comments be emailed to the moderators and not posted to the group.
>
> Now there's suitable rallying cry for a charter amendment -- permitting
> moderation meta-conversations within suitably titled threads.
I second that. With the caveat that such suitably titled threads be
started fresh, rather than allowing people to simply modify the subject
line in an already existing thread to include [META], or whatever.
Lisa
Lisa
Steve Goldfarb wrote:
> In <1133269957.5...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> "Lisa" <li...@starways.net> writes:
>
> >I realize that you aren't asking about this particular issue, but while
> >I applaud the idea, in principle, that the charter can be amended, I am
> >appalled that the suggestion made by certain people that a person could
> >be barred from posting on SCJM because of external considerations could
> >be taken seriously at all.
>
> For the record, I wholeheartedly agree with Lisa on this issue. While
> discussing the specifics of this matter are perhaps off-topic here, the
> simple fact that none of us are in fact "known" in any real sense should
> preclude the idea of banning "known" anythings, including "known
> anti-semites." From a more practical POV, if jewha...@hotmail.com is a
> "known anti-semite," what about jewha...@hotmail.com? No such "lifetime
> ban" has any hope of being effective.
Although I think that an e-mail address such as jewhater*@anything
should be bannable regardless of content. Just as there are certain
buzzwords that trip a bear trap in the moderation software, I'd hope
that that machinery also looks at addresses.
Lisa
Steve Goldfarb
>Steve Goldfarb wrote:
>> In <1133278126.3...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> "Eliyahu" <lro...@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>
>> >OTOH, the idea that trolls and anti-Semites would invite all their
>> >buddies to participate is a very conceivable one.
>>
>> Could be. Perhaps there's a way to deal with that, though.
>Can't see what it might be. Again, other than the criteria in the SCJR
>proposal.
I don't have anything specific in mind, just didn't want to preclude the
idea. Given that this NG does have a history, maybe something like
requiring that "authorized voters" have participated in the NG at some
point, that is, have had one or some number of approved posts within some
time period. That would be fair, I think. (wouldn't work for a new group,
which is I believe what your proposal was addressing, but might work
here).
I don't know if Russell's software tracks approved postings by email
address, but if it did then this would be simple. If it doesn't, it's not
so easy, but how many different people have posted over, say, the last 12
months? Can't be THAT many. People could even be required to do the
homework themselves, that is, include a Google link to a "qualifying"
post in their vote.
>> >In any case, please note that the original request with this thread is
>> >that comments be emailed to the moderators and not posted to the group.
>>
>> Now there's suitable rallying cry for a charter amendment -- permitting
>> moderation meta-conversations within suitably titled threads.
>I second that. With the caveat that such suitably titled threads be
>started fresh, rather than allowing people to simply modify the subject
>line in an already existing thread to include [META], or whatever.
Sounds reasonable.
--s
>Lisa
--
Micha Berger
on this matter than those of us who use their efforts. Since when
do the users of a free service get the same say as its providers?
That's beyond democracy.
Yes, if they set up criteria few will live with, the group will die. But
the people actually putting in the work should have the authority to
stop the masses from moves that will overly increase their work load.
You need something that will give them veto power; maybe require a
supermajority specifically of moderators and Russell.
-mi
--
Micha Berger Man is equipped with such far-reaching vision,
mi...@aishdas.org yet the smallest coin can obstruct his view.
http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter
Fax: (270) 514-1507
Joel Shurkin
1133282899.6...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com, "Lisa"
<li...@starways.net> wrote:
>
I, incidentally, agree also.
J (as a moderator)
Joel N. Shurkin
Baltimore, Maryland
On the web at: www.shurkin.us
Blogs: http://cabbageskings.blogspot.com
http://yussel.blogspot.com
---
"Ignorantia non est argumentum."
Baruch Spinoza
Lisa
Joel Shurkin wrote:
> On 11/29/05 11:50 AM, in article
> 1133282899.6...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com, "Lisa"
> <li...@starways.net> wrote:
>
> > Steve Goldfarb wrote:
> >>
> >> Now there's suitable rallying cry for a charter amendment -- permitting
> >> moderation meta-conversations within suitably titled threads.
> >
> > I second that. With the caveat that such suitably titled threads be
> > started fresh, rather than allowing people to simply modify the subject
> > line in an already existing thread to include [META], or whatever.
> >
> > Lisa
>
> >
> I, incidentally, agree also.
>
> J (as a moderator)
Although, actually, I think that an occasion like Joel and Steven and
me all agreeing on something should be grounds for adoption by
acclamation, no?
Lisa
in...@rambam.biz
me all agreeing on something should be grounds for adoption by
acclamation, no? Lisa
Absolutely. You, Joel and Steven are our version of the Rambam, the Rif
and the Rosh. Simcha
Lisa
In that order?
Lisa
Steve Goldfarb
>Although, actually, I think that an occasion like Joel and Steven and
>me all agreeing on something should be grounds for adoption by
>acclamation, no?
Without a doubt. Maybe even grounds for a new holiday :-)
Seriously, though, I really do think that agreement by the three of us
would be a highly reliable indicator of something likely to be agreed to
by the majority of regular posters here.
--s
>Lisa
--
Dan Kimmel
Thank you for saving me the bother of looking it up.
Dan Kimmel
"ToooooMuchCoffeeMan" <tooooomu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:tooooomuchcoffee-89...@news.newsguy.com...
> In article <UcKdnZJzJIhewxHe...@rcn.net>,
> "Dan Kimmel" <daniel...@rcn.com> wrote:
>
> > The idea that hundreds of people are going to vote on an amendment to
the
> > charter of a newsgroup they don't participate in is little short of
> > ludicrous.
>
> I don't know about that. Ratfucking has a long and [dis]honorable
> history, and it would be trivially easy under the circumstances you
> propose.
>
> Given that the number of moderators will likely remain small, I'm not
> sure it makes sense to argue over whether, for example, a 2/3 or 3/4
> supermajority is better. (E.g. if there are 5 moderators, 2/3 and 3/4
> both resolve to 4.) Moshe Shorr's suggestion
>
Then why even bother? The complaint since the start of this newsgroup is
that too much power was concentrated in the hands of the moderators. This
ensures that will continue with no check upon them.
Lisa
The difference is, I think, that the moderators don't perceive
themselves as being able to deviate from the charter. That's why we've
had some strict-constructionist stuff in the past.
There may be situations where the moderators, as individuals, might
want to do X, but since they've committed honorably to the charter,
they do Y. With this proposal, if you or I or anyone else raises X as
a proposal, the moderators who agree will feel empowered to put the
proposal into effect.
Anarchy and totalitarianism are just extremes. There's a big grey area
in the middle.
Lisa
Arthur Kamlet
Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
>I think the people who invest time running scjm should have more say
>on this matter than those of us who use their efforts. Since when
>do the users of a free service get the same say as its providers?
>That's beyond democracy.
>
>Yes, if they set up criteria few will live with, the group will die. But
>the people actually putting in the work should have the authority to
>stop the masses from moves that will overly increase their work load.
>
>You need something that will give them veto power; maybe require a
>supermajority specifically of moderators and Russell.
That sounds reasonable.
--
__
Art Kamlet ArtKamlet @ AOL.com Columbus OH K2PZH
Arthur Kamlet
>In that order?
I thought there's no before or after here?
Eliyahu
discussion on the moderator's list serve. The main reason I would
encourage responses to the moderators directly, though is that while
not all moderators have the time to read through the newsgroup on a
daily basis, all do check their email several times a day, and this
increases the certainty that all will see the responses. It also
allows input which people may not feel comfortable posting for the
general public for one reason or another...
Eliyahu
Lisa
Eliyahu wrote:
> You're correct, and I was relying on memory from an earlier part of the
> discussion on the moderator's list serve. The main reason I would
> encourage responses to the moderators directly, though is that while
> not all moderators have the time to read through the newsgroup on a
> daily basis, all do check their email several times a day, and this
> increases the certainty that all will see the responses. It also
> allows input which people may not feel comfortable posting for the
> general public for one reason or another...
Hmm... while I can see having the moderators be the ones who make the
decisions, maybe, I think there's far too much that happens behind the
scenes. More than anything else, it's the feeling that there's a
secretive group making decisions without letting us know what's going
on that responsible for a lot of the ill-will towards SCJM and the
moderation team.
I suggest that you encourage people *not* to respond via e-mail. If
the moderators can't be troubled to read this newsgroup, or at the very
least this one thread, then they certainly shouldn't be empowered to
make changes in the charter.
You say that e-mailing will "increase the certainty that all will see
the responses", you're using the word "all" to refer to the moderators.
The only "all" that's relevant here, that I can see, is the rest of
us.
And in fact, now that I think about it, I see a lot of merit in what
Dan posted about who should be able to decide on this amendment to the
charter. There was a CFV for the creation of this newsgroup, and it
was based on the original charter. Any further changes would be
extremely problematic, as they would result in a charter other than the
one which passed the CFV. That seems wrong to me.
Lisa
Eliyahu
Lisa wrote:
> Steve Goldfarb wrote:
> > In <1133269957.5...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> "Lisa" <li...@starways.net> writes:
> >
> > >I realize that you aren't asking about this particular issue, but while
> > >I applaud the idea, in principle, that the charter can be amended, I am
> > >appalled that the suggestion made by certain people that a person could
> > >be barred from posting on SCJM because of external considerations could
> > >be taken seriously at all.
It's not just "external considerations," but the specific facts of
those considerations that would get someone barred. People who are not
only anti-Semites, but who come here to further their agenda have no
business being allowed even an innocuous posting. Would you approve of
postings by Hamas or KKK members just because they didn't say anything
bad at the time? We wouldn't let them into our synagogues or community
centers, and I see no reason to let them in here, no matter how well
they're behaved at the moment. As Judge Kent so aptly expressed it in
Bradshaw v. Unity Marine Corporation, Inc., et al, "... at the end of
the day, even if you put a calico dress on it and call it Florence, a
pig is still a pig." And a bigot is still a bigot, even if he puts on
a clean suit and says nice things for a change.
> >
> > For the record, I wholeheartedly agree with Lisa on this issue. While
> > discussing the specifics of this matter are perhaps off-topic here, the
> > simple fact that none of us are in fact "known" in any real sense should
> > preclude the idea of banning "known" anythings, including "known
> > anti-semites." From a more practical POV, if jewha...@hotmail.com is a
> > "known anti-semite," what about jewha...@hotmail.com? No such "lifetime
> > ban" has any hope of being effective.
>
> Although I think that an e-mail address such as jewhater*@anything
> should be bannable regardless of content. Just as there are certain
> buzzwords that trip a bear trap in the moderation software, I'd hope
> that that machinery also looks at addresses.
>
Since new posters are automatically hand-moderated, it shouldn't take
software to pick them out. The incoming posts show the addresses of the
poster.
Eliyahu
Paul S. Wolf
Power is concentrated in the hands of the moderators in ALL Moderated
newsgroups, by definition. The people that run Usenet (moderators of
news.announce.newgroups) won't even entertain a proposal for a vote to
change a charter (or at least they wouldn't until the recent discussion
to change the procedure for creating newsgroups which is still in flux.)
So having the moderators decide on a change in the charter, without
putting it to a vote of the readers, is the general rule.
--
Paul S. Wolf, P.E. mailto:paul....@alum.wpi.edu
Past President, Great Lakes Region, Federation of Jewish Men's Clubs
fla...@verizon.net
I concur.
Susan
fla...@verizon.net
On 29-Nov-2005, "Eliyahu" <lro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> As Judge Kent so aptly expressed it in
> Bradshaw v. Unity Marine Corporation, Inc., et al, "... at the end of
> the day, even if you put a calico dress on it and call it Florence, a
> pig is still a pig."
I love it! Where did you hear/read/see this??
Susan
Lisa
Eliyahu wrote:
> Lisa wrote:
> > Steve Goldfarb wrote:
> > > In <1133269957.5...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> "Lisa" <li...@starways.net> writes:
> > >
> > > >I realize that you aren't asking about this particular issue, but while
> > > >I applaud the idea, in principle, that the charter can be amended, I am
> > > >appalled that the suggestion made by certain people that a person could
> > > >be barred from posting on SCJM because of external considerations could
> > > >be taken seriously at all.
>
> It's not just "external considerations," but the specific facts of
> those considerations that would get someone barred. People who are not
> only anti-Semites, but who come here to further their agenda have no
> business being allowed even an innocuous posting. Would you approve of
> postings by Hamas or KKK members just because they didn't say anything
> bad at the time?
Yes. Without reservation, 100% yes. If they post within the charter,
I expect the post to be approved. Furthermore, if I were a moderator,
which God forbid, and it doesn't look as though hell is in any danger
of freezing over any time soon, I will tell you right now that I'd put
through a post from Abu Jihad or Hans Nazi or even Robert Kaiser, so
long as the post conformed to the rules.
I'm extremely troubled by the idea that you wouldn't.
> We wouldn't let them into our synagogues or community
> centers, and I see no reason to let them in here, no matter how well
> they're behaved at the moment.
Eliyahu, you work in the legal world. Why don't you go and ask someone
whether you could legitimately kick someone out of a JCC for being a
Nazi if they don't show it in the JCC.
> As Judge Kent so aptly expressed it in
> Bradshaw v. Unity Marine Corporation, Inc., et al, "... at the end of
> the day, even if you put a calico dress on it and call it Florence, a
> pig is still a pig." And a bigot is still a bigot, even if he puts on
> a clean suit and says nice things for a change.
That's not for you to decide. Tell me, Eliyahu, did you ever think I'd
get on the automoderated list? Think back to when you first saw me
posting. Do you doubt that there were people (the Peskin person, for
instance) who would have cheerfully banned me permanently from SCJM?
You are making a huge mistake here, and you will live to regret it if
you succeed.
Russell, if you're out there, please tell me that you're not actually
in agreement with this nonsense. On the Internet, no one knows you're
a dog. We all know that. And people change all the time. The CFV
approved a charter that dealt with posts; not with people. I put up
with an awful lot since SCJM was created. I've changed my posting
style, and you all have changed the strictness of your moderation. And
I think both changes have been for the better. But if this newsgroup
*ever* decides to bar people from posting because of external reasons,
you will have seen the last of me. I will not be associated with such
a fascist policy. And I don't think I'm the only one. In fact, I'm
prepared to expend an inordinate amount of time and energy to ensure
that I'm not.
The SCJ community lost a lot of valued posters when SCJM was created.
You'll lose even more if you do this.
I can't believe this is even being discussed. Honest to God, I can't.
Lisa
Andy Katz
wrote:
>I will not be associated with such
>a fascist policy. And I don't think I'm the only one.
Indeed, you are not.
Andy Katz
____________________________________________
"There's more to being a Jew than jewelry!"
Charlotte York, "Sex & The City"
The Simpsons
Bastard Nation
http://www.bastards.org
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
>> D. REQUEST FOR COMMENTS
>>
>> The moderators request comment on the following issues:
>>
>> 1. Should the proposed charter amendment policy be adopted?
>
> Sure.
>
>> 2. Should a unanimous vote of the moderators be required to adopt a
>> Proposed Amendment? Should a 2/3 vote of all then-sitting moderators
>> be sufficient?
>
> I have a third suggestion. I think it should require "unanimous minus
> one". I don't think 2/3 is sufficient for something as huge as
> changing the charter, but I also don't think that one holdout should be
> able to prevent it.
GMTA. My sentiments exactly.
Moshe Schorr
It is a tremendous Mitzvah to always be happy! - Reb Nachman of Breslov
The home and family are the center of Judaism, *not* the synagogue.
Disclaimer: Nothing here necessarily reflects the opinion of Hebrew University
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
>
> In any case, please note that the original request with this thread is
> that comments be emailed to the moderators and not posted to the group.
No. Quoting from the original post;
Comments should be sent to the moderators by e-mail to
scjm-mo...@scjm.jewish-usenet.org or posted as followups
to this thread in the newsgroup.
End Quote
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
>>> Now there's suitable rallying cry for a charter amendment -- permitting
>>> moderation meta-conversations within suitably titled threads.
>>
>> I second that. With the caveat that such suitably titled threads be
>> started fresh, rather than allowing people to simply modify the subject
>> line in an already existing thread to include [META], or whatever.
>>
> I, incidentally, agree also.
I've been asking for that for years.
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
> Joel Shurkin wrote:
>> "Lisa" <li...@starways.net> wrote:
>> > Steve Goldfarb wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Now there's suitable rallying cry for a charter amendment -- permitting
>> >> moderation meta-conversations within suitably titled threads.
>> >
>> > I second that. With the caveat that such suitably titled threads be
>> > started fresh, rather than allowing people to simply modify the subject
>> > line in an already existing thread to include [META], or whatever.
>> >
>>
>> J (as a moderator)
>
> Although, actually, I think that an occasion like Joel and Steven
> and me all agreeing on something should be grounds for adoption
> by acclamation, no?
I noticed that as well, and am cheering!
Eliyahu
Paul S. Wolf wrote:
>
>
> Power is concentrated in the hands of the moderators in ALL Moderated
> newsgroups, by definition. The people that run Usenet (moderators of
> news.announce.newgroups) won't even entertain a proposal for a vote to
> change a charter (or at least they wouldn't until the recent discussion
> to change the procedure for creating newsgroups which is still in flux.)
>
> So having the moderators decide on a change in the charter, without
> putting it to a vote of the readers, is the general rule.
>
better for the group if it was opened for input anyhow. Usenet is not
a democracy when it comes to moderated newsgroups. The moderators try
to run it as a sort of republic, but there's really no means available
to contest or challenge their decisions. Moderated newsgroups are, by
their very nature, totalitarian when you get right down to it. There
are some groups (misc.legal.moderated comes to mind) where discussions
of moderation aren't allowed at all, where anything even vaguely
off-topic is prohibited, where there are strict rules about ratio of
quoted material to new material, and where no one has auto-approval.
This group, OTOH, is pretty liberal as moderated newsgroups go.
Keep in mind that being a moderator doesn't have any extra benefits or
perks. No one gets paid for it, many folks kvetch while few ever say
thank you, and it takes time that could be used for other more relaxing
and enjoyable things. The amendments mean more work for the moderators
-- especially Russell -- and no one would be proposing them if it
didn't benefit the community.
People forget that this is a free forum, in that no one pays a nickel,
a shilling, a pfennig, a kopek or a sheckel for the right to post here,
and yet people often carry on as if they were spending ten thousand a
year for its use and it were the center of their lives. IOW, relax and
enjoy it, folks. We're discussing amendments to make it a better
place, a friendlier place, a more enjoyable place -- not to satisfy a
craving for power, control and dominion.
Eliyahu
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
> Dan Kimmel wrote:
>> > "Dan Kimmel" <daniel...@rcn.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > Given that the number of moderators will likely remain small, I'm not
>> > sure it makes sense to argue over whether, for example, a 2/3 or 3/4
>> > supermajority is better. (E.g. if there are 5 moderators, 2/3 and 3/4
>> > both resolve to 4.) Moshe Shorr's suggestion
>>
>> Then why even bother? The complaint since the start of this
>> newsgroup is that too much power was concentrated in the hands of
>> the moderators. This ensures that will continue with no check
>> upon them.
That is not entirely accurate. My long-standing complaint is that the
moderators are too much of "strict constructionists" and refuse to
allow _discussion_ of the Charter. This thread is for me a breath of
fresh air.
> The difference is, I think, that the moderators don't perceive
> themselves as being able to deviate from the charter. That's why
> we've had some strict-constructionist stuff in the past.
>
> There may be situations where the moderators, as individuals, might
> want to do X, but since they've committed honorably to the charter,
> they do Y. With this proposal, if you or I or anyone else raises X as
> a proposal, the moderators who agree will feel empowered to put the
> proposal into effect.
>
> Anarchy and totalitarianism are just extremes. There's a big grey area
> in the middle.
You said it beautifully Lisa, thanks.
Eliyahu
Lisa wrote:
> Eliyahu wrote:
> > You're correct, and I was relying on memory from an earlier part of the
> > discussion on the moderator's list serve. The main reason I would
> > encourage responses to the moderators directly, though is that while
> > not all moderators have the time to read through the newsgroup on a
> > daily basis, all do check their email several times a day, and this
> > increases the certainty that all will see the responses. It also
> > allows input which people may not feel comfortable posting for the
> > general public for one reason or another...
>
> Hmm... while I can see having the moderators be the ones who make the
> decisions, maybe, I think there's far too much that happens behind the
> scenes. More than anything else, it's the feeling that there's a
> secretive group making decisions without letting us know what's going
> on that responsible for a lot of the ill-will towards SCJM and the
> moderation team.
Most moderated groups have staff that are far less visible and much
more "secretive" than here, and discussions there about moderation
policy won't even see the light of day. The reason we asked for
feedback is to get a feeling for how the community here feels about
changes to the charter. It's not open to a public vote, nor is there a
mechanism for such.
>
> I suggest that you encourage people *not* to respond via e-mail. If
> the moderators can't be troubled to read this newsgroup, or at the very
> least this one thread, then they certainly shouldn't be empowered to
> make changes in the charter.
>
> You say that e-mailing will "increase the certainty that all will see
> the responses", you're using the word "all" to refer to the moderators.
> The only "all" that's relevant here, that I can see, is the rest of
> us.
No, it's not. To be blunt, the power to change the charter or the way
the newsgroup is run lies solely in the hands of the moderators.
Ultimately, in fact, it is in Russell's hands, as he owns and controls
the SCJM server, and has the power to completely shut down the group if
he wished. This has happened with moderated newsgroups in the past, and
will happen with others in the future. Look at uk.religion.jewish or
soc.culture.jewish.holocaust, both of which have become defunct for
that reason. Now, no one is going to close this group down, nor does
anyone on the staff wish to, but my point is that moderated newsgroups
are not a democracy, and like it or not, there's no way to make them
into democracies. The best ones will be socialist republics, and the
worst will be dictatorships. I believe that this one falls into the
former category. The moderators listen to questions and complaints (in
fact, this discussion was generated by complaints about anti-Semites
posting here), they participate in the discussions, and they try to act
in the interests of the newsgroup community.
Eliyahu
>
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
> Lisa wrote:
>> Eliyahu wrote:
>> >
>> > In any case, please note that the original request with this thread is
>> > that comments be emailed to the moderators and not posted to the group.
>>
>> With all due respect, Eliyahu, the request said:
>>
>> > Comments should be sent to the moderators by e-mail to
>> > scjm-moderat...@scjm.jewish-usenet.org or posted as followups to this
>> > thread in the newsgroup.
>>
>> I understood that as meaning that either one was acceptable. I would
>> hope that most of the discussion would happen in the newsgroup, since
>> it really does affect us all.
>>
> You're correct, and I was relying on memory from an earlier part of the
> discussion on the moderator's list serve. The main reason I would
> encourage responses to the moderators directly, though is that while
> not all moderators have the time to read through the newsgroup on a
> daily basis, all do check their email several times a day, and this
> increases the certainty that all will see the responses. It also
> allows input which people may not feel comfortable posting for the
> general public for one reason or another...
Two good reasons to write to the mods directly. But since this is a
thread _dedicated_ to this discussion I think only the second reason
you give is germane. And having the discussion in public may show
that there is much common ground. I'm still flabergasted at the
thought of Lisa Steve and Joel being in such agreement. And me too!
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
Oy, now _you're_ sounding like a "strict constructionist". :-)
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
> On 11/29/2005 2:17 PM, Dan Kimmel wrote:
>> "ToooooMuchCoffeeMan" <tooooomu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>
>>>sure it makes sense to argue over whether, for example, a 2/3 or 3/4
>>>supermajority is better. (E.g. if there are 5 moderators, 2/3 and 3/4
>>>both resolve to 4.) Moshe Shorr's suggestion
>>
>> Then why even bother? The complaint since the start of this newsgroup is
>> that too much power was concentrated in the hands of the moderators. This
>> ensures that will continue with no check upon them.
>
> Power is concentrated in the hands of the moderators in ALL Moderated
> newsgroups, by definition. The people that run Usenet (moderators of
> news.announce.newgroups) won't even entertain a proposal for a vote to
> change a charter (or at least they wouldn't until the recent discussion
> to change the procedure for creating newsgroups which is still in flux.)
>
> So having the moderators decide on a change in the charter, without
> putting it to a vote of the readers, is the general rule.
Hmm, this should satisfy Lisa's concerns.
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
Well, so far only the_idea_ of how to make changes is being discussed.
And I welcome this discussion wholeheartedly. Once it's approved,
hopefully, there will be time to discuss _specific_ changes. Whether
the change that prompted this discussion will be accepted or not, it
had the affect of allowing _discussion_ for which I am grateful.
Dan Kimmel
"Eliyahu" <lro...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1133334911.0...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> No, it's not. To be blunt, the power to change the charter or the way
> the newsgroup is run lies solely in the hands of the moderators.
> Ultimately, in fact, it is in Russell's hands, as he owns and controls
> the SCJM server, and has the power to completely shut down the group if
> he wished. This has happened with moderated newsgroups in the past, and
> will happen with others in the future. Look at uk.religion.jewish or
> soc.culture.jewish.holocaust, both of which have become defunct for
> that reason. Now, no one is going to close this group down, nor does
> anyone on the staff wish to, but my point is that moderated newsgroups
> are not a democracy, and like it or not, there's no way to make them
> into democracies. The best ones will be socialist republics, and the
> worst will be dictatorships. I believe that this one falls into the
> former category. The moderators listen to questions and complaints (in
> fact, this discussion was generated by complaints about anti-Semites
> posting here), they participate in the discussions, and they try to act
> in the interests of the newsgroup community.
And when the interests of the community and the moderators diverge, they act
in the interest of the moderators. A benevolent dictatorship is still a
dictatorship.
Dan Kimmel
<mos...@mm.huji.ac.il> wrote in message
news:2005Nov3...@mm.huji.ac.il...
> Well, so far only the_idea_ of how to make changes is being discussed.
> And I welcome this discussion wholeheartedly. Once it's approved,
> hopefully, there will be time to discuss _specific_ changes. Whether
> the change that prompted this discussion will be accepted or not, it
> had the affect of allowing _discussion_ for which I am grateful.
>
<sigh> And if the moderators, in the benevolence, decide such discussion is
no longer appropriate, this *privilege* will be taken away from us.
As Benjamin Franklin noted, those who would give up their freedom in
exchange for security usually end up with neither.
Dan Kimmel
Pretty odd coming from a person so enraged by a recent discussion he quit
the group. And I say this as one of the many people who pleaded with you to
come back and are glad you did.
This isn't about the money. I have no idea what it costs Russell to
maintain what ever magical computer stuff he has to do, but if it was
onerous and he asked for doantions I'm sure many of us would give what we
could. This is about an attitude.
I have no interest in how other moderated groups do it. That's like saying
Bush should be allowed to torture prisoners because Iran and North Korea are
much worse. Or that a little Ba'al worship is okay because we're not
engaging in child sacrifice.
"Relax and enjoy it" is the punchline to an old, sick joke. It's not an
answer.
Traditionally the moderators (whoever they have been at a given time) have
been Bushlike in never admitting making a mistake, and having only changed
their behavior when there was a major uproar. I don't follow every thread
and haven't had any personal problems of late, but the fact that we're now
discussing letting the moderators make unilateral changes (our "input," in
the end, is meaningless) so that they can ban the "wrong" people from the
newsgroup based on nothing they've posted here is troublesome, to say the
least.
Being able to amend the charter is a good idea. Doing it any way other than
how the charter was passed in the first place is not.
Don Levey
> Eliyahu wrote:
> >
> > It's not just "external considerations," but the specific facts of
> > those considerations that would get someone barred. People who are not
> > only anti-Semites, but who come here to further their agenda have no
> > business being allowed even an innocuous posting. Would you approve of
> > postings by Hamas or KKK members just because they didn't say anything
> > bad at the time?
>
> Yes. Without reservation, 100% yes. If they post within the charter,
> I expect the post to be approved. Furthermore, if I were a moderator,
> which God forbid, and it doesn't look as though hell is in any danger
> of freezing over any time soon, I will tell you right now that I'd put
> through a post from Abu Jihad or Hans Nazi or even Robert Kaiser, so
> long as the post conformed to the rules.
>
> I'm extremely troubled by the idea that you wouldn't.
>
> ...
>
> I can't believe this is even being discussed. Honest to God, I can't.
>
Likewise. While the current subject seems to be a discussion of _how_
to make any changes, those changes themselves are something I find
disturbing. If one judges the person rather than their words and deeds
*in this forum*, where does one draw the line?
--
Don Levey If knowledge is power,
Framingham, MA and power corrupts, then...
NOTE: email server uses spam filters; mail sent to sal...@the-leveys.us
will be used to tune the blocking lists.
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
Hear hear. While I fall into the category of those who gripe, I
don't think I'm in the category of those who never say thanks.
Lisa
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il wrote:
> "Paul S. Wolf" <paul....@alum.wpi.edu> writes:
> > On 11/29/2005 2:17 PM, Dan Kimmel wrote:
> >
> > So having the moderators decide on a change in the charter, without
> > putting it to a vote of the readers, is the general rule.
>
> Hmm, this should satisfy Lisa's concerns.
You're kidding, right? I mean, have I ever given any indication of
being the kind of person who is satisfied with "Well, everyone else
does it that way"?
Lisa
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
I was refering more to the _reason_ Paul gave as to _why_ it's done
that way on Usenet.
To answer your question; "no".
Dan Kimmel
"Lisa" <li...@starways.net> wrote in message
news:1133326131.2...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
I agree with you completely except for one important detail: you left out
"l'havdil."
You may not agree with or like Robert Kaiser but to compare him to Nazis or
terrorists is just out of line.
ToooooMuchCoffeeMan
"Dan Kimmel" <daniel...@rcn.com> wrote:
But unlike a dictatorship the community is free to leave, to vote with
their feet as a well-known chowderhead once put it, if they feel the
moderators are no longer serving their interests. I assume a certain
amount of good faith on the part of the moderators, that they actually
want to serve the interests of the community. Sometimes it takes more
than simply counting snouts to figure out the best way to do so.
In any case, to get back to the root question of this sub-thread,
whatever process is ultimately decided on for amending the charter will
be decided solely by the moderators. So if as Eliyahu says, not every
moderator has a chance to read every message in the newsgroup, and if
you want your comments to be taken into account by the moderators as
they make their decisions, it just seems sensible to at least copy them
by email rather than complaining that it indicates exactly what they
said.
ToooooMuchCoffeeMan
amk...@earthlink.net (Andy Katz) wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 05:03:15 +0000 (UTC), "Lisa" <li...@starways.net>
> wrote:
> >I will not be associated with such
> >a fascist policy. And I don't think I'm the only one.
>
> Indeed, you are not.
>
I think "fascist" is a bit overheated in this context but I agree
wholeheartedly with the substance of Lisa's comments.
Dan Kimmel
Any many have, to the detriment of this newsgroup.
I assume a certain
> amount of good faith on the part of the moderators, that they actually
> want to serve the interests of the community. Sometimes it takes more
> than simply counting snouts to figure out the best way to do so.
>
> In any case, to get back to the root question of this sub-thread,
> whatever process is ultimately decided on for amending the charter will
> be decided solely by the moderators. So if as Eliyahu says, not every
> moderator has a chance to read every message in the newsgroup, and if
> you want your comments to be taken into account by the moderators as
> they make their decisions, it just seems sensible to at least copy them
> by email rather than complaining that it indicates exactly what they
> said.
Just pick up the ring and let everyone else assume you were bowing.
Dan Kimmel
"Don Levey" <Don_...@the-leveys.us> wrote in message
news:m3mzjm4...@dauphin.the-leveys.us...
> "Lisa" <li...@starways.net> writes:
>
> > Eliyahu wrote:
>
> > >
> > > It's not just "external considerations," but the specific facts of
> > > those considerations that would get someone barred. People who are
not
> > > only anti-Semites, but who come here to further their agenda have no
> > > business being allowed even an innocuous posting. Would you approve of
> > > postings by Hamas or KKK members just because they didn't say anything
> > > bad at the time?
> >
> > Yes. Without reservation, 100% yes. If they post within the charter,
> > I expect the post to be approved. Furthermore, if I were a moderator,
> > which God forbid, and it doesn't look as though hell is in any danger
> > of freezing over any time soon, I will tell you right now that I'd put
> > through a post from Abu Jihad or Hans Nazi or even Robert Kaiser, so
> > long as the post conformed to the rules.
> >
> > I'm extremely troubled by the idea that you wouldn't.
> >
> > ...
> >
> > I can't believe this is even being discussed. Honest to God, I can't.
> >
> Likewise. While the current subject seems to be a discussion of _how_
> to make any changes, those changes themselves are something I find
> disturbing. If one judges the person rather than their words and deeds
> *in this forum*, where does one draw the line?
"One" doesn't draw the line.
Only the moderators get to decide that.
Don Levey
Lisa
Dan Kimmel wrote:
> "ToooooMuchCoffeeMan" <tooooomu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:tooooomuchcoffee-EF...@news.newsguy.com...
> >
> > their feet as a well-known chowderhead once put it, if they feel the
> > moderators are no longer serving their interests.
>
> Any many have, to the detriment of this newsgroup.
And others haven't. Also to the detriment of this newsgroup.
Lisa
ToooooMuchCoffeeMan
"Dan Kimmel" <daniel...@rcn.com> wrote:
> Just pick up the ring and let everyone else assume you were bowing.
Dan, by all means, continue if you wish to post your comments in a venue
where you've already been told that the people you hope to influence may
not see them. <shrug> That's your business. I'd prefer, however, that
you not insult me for pointing that out.
Lisa
Dan Kimmel wrote:
> "Lisa" <li...@starways.net> wrote in message
> news:1133326131.2...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > I expect the post to be approved. Furthermore, if I were a moderator,
> > which God forbid, and it doesn't look as though hell is in any danger
> > of freezing over any time soon, I will tell you right now that I'd put
> > through a post from Abu Jihad or Hans Nazi or even Robert Kaiser, so
> > long as the post conformed to the rules.
> >
> > I'm extremely troubled by the idea that you wouldn't.
>
> I agree with you completely except for one important detail: you left out
> "l'havdil."
>
> You may not agree with or like Robert Kaiser but to compare him to Nazis or
> terrorists is just out of line.
<sigh> I'm just so bloody tired of this. I thought that the fact that
I used myself as an example of someone who might have gotten banned for
things not relevant to a specific post would have made it clear -- even
to you -- that DYNAMICS AND CONCRETES ARE NOT THE SAME THING. I didn't
do any comparing whatsoever, and I'll thank you to keep your dishonest
"I'm going to jump on anything Lisa says" out of this thread.
Lisa
bac...@vms.huji.ac.il
>
> Eliyahu wrote:
>> > Steve Goldfarb wrote:
>> > > In <1133269957.5...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> "Lisa" <li...@starways.net> writes:
>> > >
>> > > >I realize that you aren't asking about this particular issue, but while
>> > > >I applaud the idea, in principle, that the charter can be amended, I am
>> > > >appalled that the suggestion made by certain people that a person could
>> > > >be barred from posting on SCJM because of external considerations could
>> > > >be taken seriously at all.
>>
>> those considerations that would get someone barred. People who are not
>> only anti-Semites, but who come here to further their agenda have no
>> business being allowed even an innocuous posting. Would you approve of
>> postings by Hamas or KKK members just because they didn't say anything
>> bad at the time?
>
> I expect the post to be approved. Furthermore, if I were a moderator,
> which God forbid, and it doesn't look as though hell is in any danger
> of freezing over any time soon, I will tell you right now that I'd put
> through a post from Abu Jihad or Hans Nazi or even Robert Kaiser, so
> long as the post conformed to the rules.
>
> I'm extremely troubled by the idea that you wouldn't.
>
I assure you that if the change is not approved, I and many others
will leave. I for one will not tolerate antisemites and missionaries
posting on SCJM.
>
> The SCJ community lost a lot of valued posters when SCJM was created.
> You'll lose even more if you do this.
>
These people left because their posts were being moderated. The very
fact of moderation irritated them.
> I can't believe this is even being discussed. Honest to God, I can't.
We part ways Lisa. If the amendment isn't approved many of us will
leave.
Josh
>
> Lisa
>
Steve Goldfarb
>It's not just "external considerations," but the specific facts of
>those considerations that would get someone barred. People who are not
>only anti-Semites, but who come here to further their agenda have no
>business being allowed even an innocuous posting. Would you approve of
>postings by Hamas or KKK members just because they didn't say anything
>bad at the time? We wouldn't let them into our synagogues or community
>centers, and I see no reason to let them in here, no matter how well
>they're behaved at the moment. As Judge Kent so aptly expressed it in
>Bradshaw v. Unity Marine Corporation, Inc., et al, "... at the end of
>the day, even if you put a calico dress on it and call it Florence, a
>pig is still a pig." And a bigot is still a bigot, even if he puts on
>a clean suit and says nice things for a change.
>> >
How would I know that anon...@hotmail.com was a Hamas member? We're all
nothing but a bunch of email addresses here. I have no idea if you are who
you say you are, and in fact postings speculating about someone's actual
identity are prohibited by the charter.
If a specific email address submits something anti-semitic, then that post
should be rejected. If they continue to do so perhaps that email address
can be suspended for some period of time.
That's as far as it should go, in my opinion. I want the moderators to
stay out of my "real life."
--s
--
bac...@vms.huji.ac.il
> "Lisa" <li...@starways.net> writes:
>
>> Eliyahu wrote:
>
>> >
>> > It's not just "external considerations," but the specific facts of
>> > those considerations that would get someone barred. People who are not
>> > only anti-Semites, but who come here to further their agenda have no
>> > business being allowed even an innocuous posting. Would you approve of
>> > postings by Hamas or KKK members just because they didn't say anything
>> > bad at the time?
>>
>> Yes. Without reservation, 100% yes. If they post within the charter,
>> I expect the post to be approved. Furthermore, if I were a moderator,
>> which God forbid, and it doesn't look as though hell is in any danger
>> of freezing over any time soon, I will tell you right now that I'd put
>> through a post from Abu Jihad or Hans Nazi or even Robert Kaiser, so
>> long as the post conformed to the rules.
>>
>> I'm extremely troubled by the idea that you wouldn't.
>>
>> ...
>>
>> I can't believe this is even being discussed. Honest to God, I can't.
>>
> Likewise. While the current subject seems to be a discussion of _how_
> to make any changes, those changes themselves are something I find
> disturbing. If one judges the person rather than their words and deeds
> *in this forum*, where does one draw the line?
You would thus allow a Nazi or Xtian missionary into your house?
SCJM is "our" house. I don't want scum here that I wouldn't want
in my own house.
Josh
bac...@vms.huji.ac.il
I just got it: you want to vote ? YOU HAVE TO PAY DUES! Seriously, Russell
could put a PAYPAL site on the jewish-usenet server. Those who pay dues
(members of the SCJM society) can vote. The cost per person would be
minimal. There's no reason why Russell has to bear the costs of running
and paying for the computer and server all by himself. The process would
be very democratic.
>
> I have no interest in how other moderated groups do it. That's like saying
> Bush should be allowed to torture prisoners because Iran and North Korea are
> much worse. Or that a little Ba'al worship is okay because we're not
> engaging in child sacrifice.
>
> "Relax and enjoy it" is the punchline to an old, sick joke. It's not an
> answer.
>
> Traditionally the moderators (whoever they have been at a given time) have
> been Bushlike in never admitting making a mistake, and having only changed
> their behavior when there was a major uproar. I don't follow every thread
> and haven't had any personal problems of late, but the fact that we're now
> discussing letting the moderators make unilateral changes (our "input," in
> the end, is meaningless) so that they can ban the "wrong" people from the
> newsgroup based on nothing they've posted here is troublesome, to say the
> least.
>
SCJM is part of USENET. If a poster spouts virulently antisemitic or
Xtian missionary material on one USENET group, he/she can't demand that
they be allowed to post (even "innocuous" material) on SCJM. SCJM is
our home. The same way wouldn't let a Nazi inter your house, you shouldn't
let one on SCJM.
> Being able to amend the charter is a good idea. Doing it any way other than
> how the charter was passed in the first place is not.
>
>
Josh
Don Levey
>
>
> You would thus allow a Nazi or Xtian missionary into your house?
> SCJM is "our" house. I don't want scum here that I wouldn't want
> in my own house.
>
Indeed, I have. They've left very confused, but as long as they
behave themselves I've not had any problems. Then again, for my
house I pay the mortgage. Here we do NOT pay the mortgage. I see
you've suggested contributing to Russell (which is not a bad idea).
But that only pays for his portion, not the entire internet of
connected *private* networks which carry this traffic to your ISP.
This is not analagous to our home, but rather to a public restaurant
or meeting house. They can't exclude someone based upon who they are,
only based upon their behaviour in that forum. Those other patrons
of such an establishment who disapprove are not required to stay.
I find it amusing, by the way, that in a place where some people
complain about perceived heavy-handed moderation, some people (some
of the same, perhaps?) are complaining about NOT excluding people,
regardless of the content of their posts.
Steve Goldfarb
>> Likewise. While the current subject seems to be a discussion of _how_
>> to make any changes, those changes themselves are something I find
>> disturbing. If one judges the person rather than their words and deeds
>> *in this forum*, where does one draw the line?
>You would thus allow a Nazi or Xtian missionary into your house?
>SCJM is "our" house. I don't want scum here that I wouldn't want
>in my own house.
But this isn't your house. You explicitly do not have any right to control
who is allowed to post here. Welcome to Usenet.
You don't like it? Join or create a by-invitation-only discussion group as
several people here have done. But that's not usenet. That's not nor
should it be SCJM.
This is NOT your house.
--s
>Josh
--
Steve Goldfarb
>SCJM is part of USENET. If a poster spouts virulently antisemitic or
>Xtian missionary material on one USENET group, he/she can't demand that
>they be allowed to post (even "innocuous" material) on SCJM. SCJM is
>our home. The same way wouldn't let a Nazi inter your house, you shouldn't
>let one on SCJM.
And how would you know what a poster does in other groups? Are you going
to be the internet cop? Are you going to demand that each poster "show his
papers" before you'll let them post? Do we have to provide our social
security numbers or the equivlant so that you can run a background check
on us before you deem us suitable to be in your company?
This is usenet. Anyone can submit a post. For free. If the content is
contrary to the charter than the mods shouldn't post it. That's it.
If you don't like it (and many don't) then this is not the medium for you.
Fortunately other forums exist.
--s
--
Henry Goodman
> > Lisa wrote:
> > > Steve Goldfarb wrote:
> > > > In <1133269957.5...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>
"Lisa" <li...@starways.net> writes:
> > > >
> > > > >I realize that you aren't asking about this particular issue,
but while
> > > > >I applaud the idea, in principle, that the charter can be
amended, I am
> > > > >appalled that the suggestion made by certain people that a
person could
> > > > >be barred from posting on SCJM because of external
considerations could
> > > > >be taken seriously at all.
> >
> > those considerations that would get someone barred. People who
are not
> > only anti-Semites, but who come here to further their agenda have
no
> > business being allowed even an innocuous posting. Would you
approve of
> > postings by Hamas or KKK members just because they didn't say
anything
> > bad at the time?
>
> Yes. Without reservation, 100% yes. If they post within the
charter,
> I expect the post to be approved. Furthermore, if I were a
moderator,
> which God forbid, and it doesn't look as though hell is in any
danger
> of freezing over any time soon, I will tell you right now that I'd
put
> through a post from Abu Jihad or Hans Nazi or even Robert Kaiser, so
> long as the post conformed to the rules.
>
> I'm extremely troubled by the idea that you wouldn't.
>
> > centers, and I see no reason to let them in here, no matter how
well
> > they're behaved at the moment.
>
someone
> whether you could legitimately kick someone out of a JCC for being a
> Nazi if they don't show it in the JCC.
>
> > Bradshaw v. Unity Marine Corporation, Inc., et al, "... at the end
of
> > the day, even if you put a calico dress on it and call it
Florence, a
> > pig is still a pig." And a bigot is still a bigot, even if he
puts on
> > a clean suit and says nice things for a change.
>
created.
> You'll lose even more if you do this.
>
can't.
>
For a long time now I have done my best to carry out the policy of
moderate the post not the poster. I and the other moderators have come
in for a lot of stick from several regular posters, both on the
newsgroup and by email to the moderators' list, because we have
allowed what they call "well-known anti-Semites or missionaries" to
post. The impression I have is that the majority of regular posters
would like to keep out some of these people which is the main reason
for starting this discussion. I have no axe to grind on this
particular issue and will do whatever appears to be the majority view.
--
Henry Goodman
henry dot goodman at virgin dot net
(writing as a moderator)
Lisa
Henry Goodman wrote:
> "Lisa" <li...@starways.net> wrote in message
> news:1133326131.2...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
> moderate the post not the poster.
And I for one appreciate it.
> I and the other moderators have come
> in for a lot of stick from several regular posters, both on the
> newsgroup and by email to the moderators' list, because we have
> allowed what they call "well-known anti-Semites or missionaries" to
> post. The impression I have is that the majority of regular posters
> would like to keep out some of these people which is the main reason
> for starting this discussion. I have no axe to grind on this
> particular issue and will do whatever appears to be the majority view.
Well, please bear in mind that you're unlikely ever to get e-mails from
people thanking you for allowing such posts through. It's transparent
to us. So all you're hearing is the people who are kvetching. In this
thread, you're finding out that many of us disagree.
I might add that this is a very good reason to allow [META] threads.
And for the record, I think those are permissible according to the
charter as it stands now. I know that the mods have argued in the past
that such discussions are "off-topic". This thread itself stands as an
argument to the contrary.
Lisa
bac...@vms.huji.ac.il
> In <dmkqeq$h7o$1...@falcon.steinthal.us> bac...@vms.huji.ac.il writes:
>
>
>>SCJM is part of USENET. If a poster spouts virulently antisemitic or
>>Xtian missionary material on one USENET group, he/she can't demand that
>>they be allowed to post (even "innocuous" material) on SCJM. SCJM is
>>our home. The same way wouldn't let a Nazi inter your house, you shouldn't
>>let one on SCJM.
>
>
> And how would you know what a poster does in other groups? Are you going
> to be the internet cop? Are you going to demand that each poster "show his
> papers" before you'll let them post? Do we have to provide our social
> security numbers or the equivlant so that you can run a background check
> on us before you deem us suitable to be in your company?
Let the moderators spend 2 minutes on //groups.google.com to check
WHO the "new" poster is. This is a MODERATED group; this group is
NOT a open USENET group.
>
> This is usenet. Anyone can submit a post. For free. If the content is
> contrary to the charter than the mods shouldn't post it. That's it.
>
No, the moderators should do a cursory check on //groups.google.com
to see WHO the NEW poster is. We have had 7-8 missionaries on this
group over the past 4 years spouting their garbage and it took up to
two weeks to get them out, after their damage was done. I still remember
the "Orthodox rabbi' (who was a Xtian missionary)writing how it was
perfectly OK to light fire on shabbat. It took TWO WEEKS to get the
trash out.
> If you don't like it (and many don't) then this is not the medium for you.
> Fortunately other forums exist.
>
I have been on USENET since 1986.
Josh
> --s
> --
>
Dan Kimmel
In case you hadn't noticed, I was *agreeing* with you. So keep your
persecution fantasies to yourself.
Steve Goldfarb
>> And how would you know what a poster does in other groups? Are you going
>> to be the internet cop? Are you going to demand that each poster "show his
>> papers" before you'll let them post? Do we have to provide our social
>> security numbers or the equivlant so that you can run a background check
>> on us before you deem us suitable to be in your company?
>Let the moderators spend 2 minutes on //groups.google.com to check
>WHO the "new" poster is. This is a MODERATED group; this group is
>NOT a open USENET group.
OK - I did a google on gru...@gmail.com -- don't see any anti-semitic
posts. The guy has a foul mouth, perhaps, but nothing anti-semitic. So, I
guess he gets a "pass" then, right?
Also, SCJM is indeed an "open usenet group." The fact that it's moderated
doesn't change that. Moderated does NOT mean "members only."
>>
>> This is usenet. Anyone can submit a post. For free. If the content is
>> contrary to the charter than the mods shouldn't post it. That's it.
>>
>No, the moderators should do a cursory check on //groups.google.com
>to see WHO the NEW poster is. We have had 7-8 missionaries on this
>group over the past 4 years spouting their garbage and it took up to
>two weeks to get them out, after their damage was done. I still remember
>the "Orthodox rabbi' (who was a Xtian missionary)writing how it was
>perfectly OK to light fire on shabbat. It took TWO WEEKS to get the
>trash out.
I think it is perfectly OK to light a fire on shabbat too. Does that mean
I ought to be banned from the group? Also, the moderators are busy enough
as it is -- why should they do even 2 minutes of research on new posters?
>> If you don't like it (and many don't) then this is not the medium for you.
>> Fortunately other forums exist.
>>
>I have been on USENET since 1986.
Then I would have assumed you'd know how it works by now. Of course for
all I know you're really Ian Schier, and the real Dr Josh Backon has never
even heard of the internet. Can you prove differently, solely within this
forum? I don't think so.
--s
--
Steve Goldfarb
bac...@vms.huji.ac.il wrote:
> No, the moderators should do a cursory check on //groups.google.com
> to see WHO the NEW poster is. We have had 7-8 missionaries on this
> group over the past 4 years spouting their garbage and it took up to
> two weeks to get them out, after their damage was done. I still remember
> the "Orthodox rabbi' (who was a Xtian missionary)writing how it was
> perfectly OK to light fire on shabbat. It took TWO WEEKS to get the
> trash out.
Just to be clear, for the record, it's not that I want missionaries and
anti-semites to post here, it's just that I don't think there's an
appropriate way to keep them out. In my opinion attempting to judge
posters rather than posts is a bad idea both from a pragmatic
POV(there's no effective way to do it) as well as from a philosophical
one.
If we're going to start banning people, perhaps we should ban people
who insist on responding to people they consider "unwelcome." If you
don't feed the trolls, they'll go away.
Further, if you know - or even suspect - that a poster is an
anti-semite or missionary, then just killfile him or her. And if
they're offensive posts get into your inbox anyway because a regular
keeps inciting someone you'd killfiled, then killfile him or her too.
--s
Yisroel Markov
<henry....@virgin.net> said:
>"Lisa" <li...@starways.net> wrote in message
>news:1133326131.2...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
[snip]
>> I think both changes have been for the better. But if this
>newsgroup
>> *ever* decides to bar people from posting because of external
>reasons,
>> you will have seen the last of me. I will not be associated with
>such
>> a fascist policy. And I don't think I'm the only one. In fact, I'm
>> prepared to expend an inordinate amount of time and energy to ensure
>> that I'm not.
>>
>> The SCJ community lost a lot of valued posters when SCJM was
>created.
>> You'll lose even more if you do this.
>>
>> I can't believe this is even being discussed. Honest to God, I
>can't.
>>
>> Lisa
>
>For a long time now I have done my best to carry out the policy of
>moderate the post not the poster.
Yes, and thank you.
>I and the other moderators have come
>in for a lot of stick from several regular posters, both on the
>newsgroup and by email to the moderators' list, because we have
>allowed what they call "well-known anti-Semites or missionaries" to
>post. The impression I have is that the majority of regular posters
>would like to keep out some of these people which is the main reason
>for starting this discussion. I have no axe to grind on this
>particular issue and will do whatever appears to be the majority view.
FTR, I'm with Lisa and Steve on this one. Any user who doesn't like a
specific poster can always killfile.
Yisroel "Godwrestler Warriorson" Markov - Boston, MA Member
www.reason.com -- for unbiased analysis of the world DNRC
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Judge, and be prepared to be judged" -- Ayn Rand
bac...@vms.huji.ac.il
In article <dml2h0$j7o$1...@reader2.panix.com>, "Steve Goldfarb" <s...@panix.com> writes:
> In <dml1qk$cp9$1...@falcon.steinthal.us> bac...@vms.huji.ac.il writes:
>
>>> And how would you know what a poster does in other groups? Are you going
>>> to be the internet cop? Are you going to demand that each poster "show his
>>> papers" before you'll let them post? Do we have to provide our social
>>> security numbers or the equivlant so that you can run a background check
>>> on us before you deem us suitable to be in your company?
>
>
>>Let the moderators spend 2 minutes on //groups.google.com to check
>>WHO the "new" poster is. This is a MODERATED group; this group is
>>NOT a open USENET group.
>
> OK - I did a google on gru...@gmail.com -- don't see any anti-semitic
> posts. The guy has a foul mouth, perhaps, but nothing anti-semitic. So, I
> guess he gets a "pass" then, right?
I see you missed Susan's THREE posts: that this antisemitic trash
is forging her husband's email address. And trust me: there's only
one Gary Rumain in the United States.
>
> Also, SCJM is indeed an "open usenet group." The fact that it's moderated
> doesn't change that. Moderated does NOT mean "members only."
>
>>>
>>> This is usenet. Anyone can submit a post. For free. If the content is
>>> contrary to the charter than the mods shouldn't post it. That's it.
>>>
>
>>No, the moderators should do a cursory check on //groups.google.com
>>to see WHO the NEW poster is. We have had 7-8 missionaries on this
>>group over the past 4 years spouting their garbage and it took up to
>>two weeks to get them out, after their damage was done. I still remember
>>the "Orthodox rabbi' (who was a Xtian missionary)writing how it was
>>perfectly OK to light fire on shabbat. It took TWO WEEKS to get the
>>trash out.
>
> I think it is perfectly OK to light a fire on shabbat too. Does that mean
> I ought to be banned from the group? Also, the moderators are busy enough
> as it is -- why should they do even 2 minutes of research on new posters?
Not when you claim to an "Orthodox rabbi" when you're really a Xtian
missionary.
>
>>> If you don't like it (and many don't) then this is not the medium for you.
>>> Fortunately other forums exist.
>>>
>
>>I have been on USENET since 1986.
>
> Then I would have assumed you'd know how it works by now. Of course for
> all I know you're really Ian Schier, and the real Dr Josh Backon has never
> even heard of the internet. Can you prove differently, solely within this
> forum? I don't think so.
>
You could email me. I use my REAL email address on this forum. I would
answer your questions.
Josh
> --s
> --
>
fla...@verizon.net
On 30-Nov-2005, ToooooMuchCoffeeMan <tooooomu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> But unlike a dictatorship the community is free to leave, to vote with
> their feet as a well-known chowderhead once put it, if they feel the
> moderators are no longer serving their interests. I assume a certain
> amount of good faith on the part of the moderators, that they actually
> want to serve the interests of the community.
I agree.
The mdoerators have a tough job trying to please everyone, but
they are still doing the job.
Susan
fla...@verizon.net
On 30-Nov-2005, "Dan Kimmel" <daniel...@rcn.com> wrote:
> <mos...@mm.huji.ac.il> wrote in message
> news:2005Nov3...@mm.huji.ac.il...
> > Well, so far only the_idea_ of how to make changes is being discussed.
> > And I welcome this discussion wholeheartedly. Once it's approved,
> > hopefully, there will be time to discuss _specific_ changes. Whether
> > the change that prompted this discussion will be accepted or not, it
> > had the affect of allowing _discussion_ for which I am grateful.
> >
>
> <sigh> And if the moderators, in the benevolence, decide such discussion
> is
> no longer appropriate, this *privilege* will be taken away from us.
>
> As Benjamin Franklin noted, those who would give up their freedom in
> exchange for security usually end up with neither.
Thus driving *everyone* away, killing the group.
But they're not that stupid.
I agree with you in principle when it comes to things that people
can't easily fight against, but this isn't one of them.
Susan
fla...@verizon.net
On 30-Nov-2005, bac...@vms.huji.ac.il wrote:
> I just got it: you want to vote ? YOU HAVE TO PAY DUES! Seriously, Russell
> could put a PAYPAL site on the jewish-usenet server. Those who pay dues
> (members of the SCJM society) can vote. The cost per person would be
> minimal. There's no reason why Russell has to bear the costs of running
> and paying for the computer and server all by himself. The process would
> be very democratic.
I am truly stupid: it never occurred to me that Russell or ANYONE
was incurring extra costs for this.
Russell - how much shold everyone be kicking in (vote or no vote)?
Susan
fla...@verizon.net
On 30-Nov-2005, "Henry Goodman" <henry....@virgin.net> wrote:
> For a long time now I have done my best to carry out the policy of
> moderate the post not the poster. I and the other moderators have come
> in for a lot of stick from several regular posters, both on the
> newsgroup and by email to the moderators' list, because we have
> allowed what they call "well-known anti-Semites or missionaries" to
> post.
And I hope that you answered that you were scrupulously following the rules
as set.
The impression I have is that the majority of regular posters
> would like to keep out some of these people which is the main reason
> for starting this discussion.
I had always thought that it was the main reason this group was founded.
> I have no axe to grind on this
> particular issue and will do whatever appears to be the majority view.
And thank you for doing the job thus far.
Susan
fla...@verizon.net
On 30-Nov-2005, bac...@vms.huji.ac.il wrote:
> In article <dml2h0$j7o$1...@reader2.panix.com>, "Steve Goldfarb"
> <s...@panix.com> writes:
> > In <dml1qk$cp9$1...@falcon.steinthal.us> bac...@vms.huji.ac.il writes:
> >
> >>> And how would you know what a poster does in other groups? Are you
> >>> going
> >>> to be the internet cop? Are you going to demand that each poster "show
> >>> his
> >>> papers" before you'll let them post? Do we have to provide our social
> >>> security numbers or the equivlant so that you can run a background
> >>> check
> >>> on us before you deem us suitable to be in your company?
> >
> >
> >>Let the moderators spend 2 minutes on //groups.google.com to check
> >>WHO the "new" poster is. This is a MODERATED group; this group is
> >>NOT a open USENET group.
> >
> > OK - I did a google on gru...@gmail.com -- don't see any anti-semitic
> > posts. The guy has a foul mouth, perhaps, but nothing anti-semitic. So,
> > I guess he gets a "pass" then, right?
>
>
> I see you missed Susan's THREE posts: that this antisemitic trash
> is forging her husband's email address.
Rather just his name.
He doesn't know my husband's e-mail address.
And he was only able to get my husband's name because (if anyone
remembers *years* ago) I used to have to post under his name when
we had just one account.
And trust me: there's only
> one Gary Rumain in the United States.
And we know *all* the other Rumains in the country - and there are
no Gary Rumains in London, where this trash is posting from.
Susan
Joel Shurkin
On 11/30/05 1:19 PM, in article dmkqeq$h7o$1...@falcon.steinthal.us,
"bac...@vms.huji.ac.il" <bac...@vms.huji.ac.il> wrote:
>
> SCJM is part of USENET. If a poster spouts virulently antisemitic or
> Xtian missionary material on one USENET group, he/she can't demand that
> they be allowed to post (even "innocuous" material) on SCJM. SCJM is
> our home. The same way wouldn't let a Nazi inter your house, you shouldn't
> let one on SCJM.
>
I would like to point out that no one is obliged or forced to answer anyone.
It's sort of like the people who complain about what's on television. They
forget there is an on/off switch. It seems to me that if one of the
crackpots posts one of those innocuous messages, the proper response is to
ignore him or her. Then, they go away.
J
>
>
>>
>
> Josh
>
>
>
Joel Shurkin
On 11/30/05 3:24 PM, in article dml1qk$cp9$1...@falcon.steinthal.us,
"bac...@vms.huji.ac.il" <bac...@vms.huji.ac.il> wrote:
> In article <dmkrul$evp$3...@reader2.panix.com>, "Steve Goldfarb" <s...@panix.com>
> writes:
>> In <dmkqeq$h7o$1...@falcon.steinthal.us> bac...@vms.huji.ac.il writes:
>>
>>
>>> SCJM is part of USENET. If a poster spouts virulently antisemitic or
>>> Xtian missionary material on one USENET group, he/she can't demand that
>>> they be allowed to post (even "innocuous" material) on SCJM. SCJM is
>>> our home. The same way wouldn't let a Nazi inter your house, you shouldn't
>>> let one on SCJM.
>>
>>
>> And how would you know what a poster does in other groups? Are you going
>> to be the internet cop? Are you going to demand that each poster "show his
>> papers" before you'll let them post? Do we have to provide our social
>> security numbers or the equivlant so that you can run a background check
>> on us before you deem us suitable to be in your company?
>
>
> Let the moderators spend 2 minutes on //groups.google.com to check
> WHO the "new" poster is. This is a MODERATED group; this group is
> NOT a open USENET group.
No, man! The moderators spend a great deal of time doing this and we don't
have time to do credit checks on new posters. We isn't paid for this and
some of us actually have jobs.
>
>
>>
>> This is usenet. Anyone can submit a post. For free. If the content is
>> contrary to the charter than the mods shouldn't post it. That's it.
>>
>
> No, the moderators should do a cursory check on //groups.google.com
> to see WHO the NEW poster is. We have had 7-8 missionaries on this
> group over the past 4 years spouting their garbage and it took up to
> two weeks to get them out, after their damage was done. I still remember
> the "Orthodox rabbi' (who was a Xtian missionary)writing how it was
> perfectly OK to light fire on shabbat. It took TWO WEEKS to get the
> trash out.
What was damaged, Josh? Who was damaged? What the hell are you talking
about? If you don't like what the guy said, either say so or ignore him. In
the latter case, he will eventually go away when no one bites his bait. Did
his words somehow contaminate your computer?
And, incidentally, I drive to synagogue and throw light switches. So do most
of us.
J
Ken Bloom
> In <1133278126.3...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> "Eliyahu" <lro...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>>OTOH, the idea that trolls and anti-Semites would invite all their
>>buddies to participate is a very conceivable one.
>
> Could be. Perhaps there's a way to deal with that, though.
>
>>In any case, please note that the original request with this thread is
>>that comments be emailed to the moderators and not posted to the group.
>
> Now there's suitable rallying cry for a charter amendment -- permitting
> moderation meta-conversations within suitably titled threads.
I don't think that's the best idea -- I'm concerned that proposing
requests to moderate someone out of the group entirely, or to remove
robomoderation, when made in public would be lashon hara. I recently saw
a rather distasteful request to remove robomoderation from one of our
regulars, and do not believe such things should be in public on the
newsgroup.
(anticipating replies)
No. I don't think greater transparency is justified for specifics like
that. I think the if you're going to suggest that a poster should be
blocked or hand moderated, then in that case the moderators are
generally going to look unfavorably on such a request, for one simple
reason: if they were favorable to it, they would have done it already,
before you made your request.
Generalities can start on the private moderation list and be posted here
if that's necessary.
--Ken Bloom
--
I usually have a GPG digital signature included as an attachment.
See http://www.gnupg.org/ for info about these digital signatures.
Harry Weiss
> In article <dmkrul$evp$3...@reader2.panix.com>, "Steve Goldfarb" <s...@panix.com> writes:
> > In <dmkqeq$h7o$1...@falcon.steinthal.us> bac...@vms.huji.ac.il writes:
> >
> >
> >>SCJM is part of USENET. If a poster spouts virulently antisemitic or
> >>Xtian missionary material on one USENET group, he/she can't demand that
> >>they be allowed to post (even "innocuous" material) on SCJM. SCJM is
> >>our home. The same way wouldn't let a Nazi inter your house, you shouldn't
> >>let one on SCJM.
> >
> >
> > And how would you know what a poster does in other groups? Are you going
> > to be the internet cop? Are you going to demand that each poster "show his
> > papers" before you'll let them post? Do we have to provide our social
> > security numbers or the equivlant so that you can run a background check
> > on us before you deem us suitable to be in your company?
> Let the moderators spend 2 minutes on //groups.google.com to check
> WHO the "new" poster is. This is a MODERATED group; this group is
> NOT a open USENET group.
We get complaints about how long it takes for some posts to appear. I
personally check posts for moderation prior to Shacharis in the morning,
during lunch break and during evening hours. If I need to spend the extra
time checking each new poster on google, that would through out the
morning and noon time reviews.
> >
> > This is usenet. Anyone can submit a post. For free. If the content is
> > contrary to the charter than the mods shouldn't post it. That's it.
> >
> No, the moderators should do a cursory check on //groups.google.com
> to see WHO the NEW poster is. We have had 7-8 missionaries on this
> group over the past 4 years spouting their garbage and it took up to
> two weeks to get them out, after their damage was done. I still remember
> the "Orthodox rabbi' (who was a Xtian missionary)writing how it was
> perfectly OK to light fire on shabbat. It took TWO WEEKS to get the
> trash out.
Some people who people claimed are missionaies were shown not to be
missionaries. If we do make a change, it will be based on input by
posters about who an unkown poster is.
> > If you don't like it (and many don't) then this is not the medium for you.
> > Fortunately other forums exist.
> >
> I have been on USENET since 1986.
> Josh
> > --s
> > --
> >
--
Harry J. Weiss
hjw...@panix.com
Steve Goldfarb
>> OK - I did a google on gru...@gmail.com -- don't see any anti-semitic
>> posts. The guy has a foul mouth, perhaps, but nothing anti-semitic. So, I
>> guess he gets a "pass" then, right?
>I see you missed Susan's THREE posts: that this antisemitic trash
>is forging her husband's email address. And trust me: there's only
>one Gary Rumain in the United States.
What does a post from Susan prove? Your point was that by simply googling,
one could find antisemitic comments by this poster. I didn't find any. No
one said anything about using someone else's name as being grounds for a
ban - is that a new category you'd like to add to missionary or
anti-semite?
>> >>>> If you don't like it (and many don't) then this is not the medium
for you. >>>> Fortunately other forums exist. >>>> >> >>>I have been on
USENET since 1986. >> >> Then I would have assumed you'd know how it works
by now. Of course for >> all I know you're really Ian Schier, and the real
Dr Josh Backon has never >> even heard of the internet. Can you prove
differently, solely within this >> forum? I don't think so. >>
>You could email me. I use my REAL email address on this forum. I would
>answer your questions.
You claim you're using your real email address - but I have no way of
proving that. Once back in college I had a dozen email aliases, including
Linus Pauling. So I could have sent you an email from (the equivlent of)
linus....@umich.edu. Does that prove I was Linus? All it proves is
that your email address works and that you - whoever you REALLY are - are
responding.
--s
>> --s >> -- >>
--
Harry Weiss
> Steve Goldfarb wrote:
> > moderation meta-conversations within suitably titled threads.
> I don't think that's the best idea -- I'm concerned that proposing
> requests to moderate someone out of the group entirely, or to remove
> robomoderation, when made in public would be lashon hara. I recently saw
> a rather distasteful request to remove robomoderation from one of our
> regulars, and do not believe such things should be in public on the
> newsgroup.
If we are talking about anti semites Lashon hara would not be a problem.
> (anticipating replies)
> No. I don't think greater transparency is justified for specifics like
> that. I think the if you're going to suggest that a poster should be
> blocked or hand moderated, then in that case the moderators are
> generally going to look unfavorably on such a request, for one simple
> reason: if they were favorable to it, they would have done it already,
> before you made your request.
Actually we do pay attention to what people tell us. We often do not
notice things, especially if it is in a thead that we have no interest in.
> Generalities can start on the private moderation list and be posted here
> if that's necessary.
> --Ken Bloom
> --
> I usually have a GPG digital signature included as an attachment.
> See http://www.gnupg.org/ for info about these digital signatures.
--
Harry J. Weiss
hjw...@panix.com
Asher N
news:dmkjsc$q59$1...@reader2.panix.com:
Anybody ever thought of the sheer impossibility of doing this? Most of us
use throwaway addresses to post on Usenet. If I was banned from this
group, I could be back within 5 minutes with a new address. We have no
choice but to moderate the contents, not the senders.
Eliyahu
Steve Goldfarb wrote:
> In <dml1qk$cp9$1...@falcon.steinthal.us> bac...@vms.huji.ac.il writes:
>
>
> >No, the moderators should do a cursory check on //groups.google.com
> >to see WHO the NEW poster is. We have had 7-8 missionaries on this
> >group over the past 4 years spouting their garbage and it took up to
> >two weeks to get them out, after their damage was done. I still remember
> >the "Orthodox rabbi' (who was a Xtian missionary)writing how it was
> >perfectly OK to light fire on shabbat. It took TWO WEEKS to get the
> >trash out.
>
> I think it is perfectly OK to light a fire on shabbat too. Does that mean
> I ought to be banned from the group?
No; the ones we'd like to ban are the ones who would light a fire on
Shabbat and use it to burn Jews.
Also, the moderators are busy enough
> as it is -- why should they do even 2 minutes of research on new posters?
There are ways to deal with that. And it's not uncommon to go for
weeks without anyone new showing up. What we've had recently is a
spate of overflow from SCJ coming here for their own amusement.
>
> >> If you don't like it (and many don't) then this is not the medium for you.
> >> Fortunately other forums exist.
> >>
>
> >I have been on USENET since 1986.
>
> Then I would have assumed you'd know how it works by now. Of course for
> all I know you're really Ian Schier, and the real Dr Josh Backon has never
> even heard of the internet. Can you prove differently, solely within this
> forum? I don't think so.
>
Of course not. (At the same time, a lot of us have had IRL contact with
various posters here and can attest to who they are; each with
different posters.) But when someone posts extensively elsewhere
espousing hatred of Jews and suddenly shows up here with "innocent"
questions, it's not that hard to figure out what's going on.
Eliyahu
Eliyahu
Joel Shurkin wrote:
> On 11/30/05 1:19 PM, in article dmkqeq$h7o$1...@falcon.steinthal.us,
> "bac...@vms.huji.ac.il" <bac...@vms.huji.ac.il> wrote:
>
>
> >
> > SCJM is part of USENET. If a poster spouts virulently antisemitic or
> > Xtian missionary material on one USENET group, he/she can't demand that
> > they be allowed to post (even "innocuous" material) on SCJM. SCJM is
> > our home. The same way wouldn't let a Nazi inter your house, you shouldn't
> > let one on SCJM.
> >
>
> I would like to point out that no one is obliged or forced to answer anyone.
> It's sort of like the people who complain about what's on television. They
> forget there is an on/off switch.
What you overlook is that in your analogy, all that's being done by
ignoring them is turning down the volume. They're still here. It's
the moderators who control the on/off switch.
Eliyahu
Eliyahu
Steve Goldfarb wrote:
> In <dmkqeq$h7l$1...@falcon.steinthal.us> bac...@vms.huji.ac.il writes:
>
> >> Likewise. While the current subject seems to be a discussion of _how_
> >> to make any changes, those changes themselves are something I find
> >> disturbing. If one judges the person rather than their words and deeds
> >> *in this forum*, where does one draw the line?
>
>
> >You would thus allow a Nazi or Xtian missionary into your house?
> >SCJM is "our" house. I don't want scum here that I wouldn't want
> >in my own house.
>
> But this isn't your house. You explicitly do not have any right to control
> who is allowed to post here. Welcome to Usenet.
>
right to control who is allowed to post here. That's the underlying
concept in moderation. It's SCJ where no one has any right (or ability)
to control who posts there.
Eliyahu
Eliyahu
Steve Goldfarb wrote:
> In <dmld6k$k78$1...@falcon.steinthal.us> bac...@vms.huji.ac.il writes:
>
> >> OK - I did a google on gru...@gmail.com -- don't see any anti-semitic
> >> posts. The guy has a foul mouth, perhaps, but nothing anti-semitic. So, I
> >> guess he gets a "pass" then, right?
>
>
> >I see you missed Susan's THREE posts: that this antisemitic trash
> >is forging her husband's email address. And trust me: there's only
> >one Gary Rumain in the United States.
>
> What does a post from Susan prove? Your point was that by simply googling,
> one could find antisemitic comments by this poster. I didn't find any. No
> one said anything about using someone else's name as being grounds for a
> ban - is that a new category you'd like to add to missionary or
> anti-semite?
>
posts from someone who impersonates another person here. If someone
started posting here pretending to be your spouse and you protested, it
would be dealt with the same way.
>
> >> >>>> If you don't like it (and many don't) then this is not the medium
> for you. >>>> Fortunately other forums exist. >>>> >> >>>I have been on
> USENET since 1986. >> >> Then I would have assumed you'd know how it works
> by now. Of course for >> all I know you're really Ian Schier, and the real
> Dr Josh Backon has never >> even heard of the internet. Can you prove
> differently, solely within this >> forum? I don't think so. >>
>
> >You could email me. I use my REAL email address on this forum. I would
> >answer your questions.
>
> You claim you're using your real email address - but I have no way of
> proving that. Once back in college I had a dozen email aliases, including
> Linus Pauling. So I could have sent you an email from (the equivlent of)
> linus....@umich.edu. Does that prove I was Linus? All it proves is
> that your email address works and that you - whoever you REALLY are - are
> responding.
>
people here who've met and/or spoken with Josh to confirm that he is
exactly who he claims to be. Same thing with many other posters. We
interact off-board and IRL enough to have a pretty good idea of who is
whom.
>
Eliyahu
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
> "ToooooMuchCoffeeMan" <tooooomu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> "Dan Kimmel" <daniel...@rcn.com> wrote:
>>> "Eliyahu" <lro...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> No, it's not. To be blunt, the power to change the charter or the
>>>> way the newsgroup is run lies solely in the hands of the moderators.
snip
>>> And when the interests of the community and the moderators diverge,
>>> they act in the interest of the moderators. A benevolent
>>> dictatorship is still a dictatorship.
What exactly are you calling the "interests" of the moderators? They
have the thankless task of trying to run the NewsGroup according to
the Charter. Isn't that _exactly_ the interests of the community?
What you may have meant to say is that if their percieved _method_
of serving the community doesn't match yours, they use their method.
OK. That's why they're the moderators. Why not try to _be_ a
moderator for a while and see if it's so simple?
>> But unlike a dictatorship the community is free to leave, to vote
>> with their feet as a well-known chowderhead once put it, if they
>> feel the moderators are no longer serving their interests.
>
> Any many have, to the detriment of this newsgroup.
I agree that it's a shame many left. They may even blame the
moderators for it. That's why I'm so glad we're having this thread
to open up communication with he mods.
>> I assume a certain amount of good faith on the part of the
>> moderators, that they actually want to serve the interests of
>> the community. Sometimes it takes more than simply counting
>> snouts to figure out the best way to do so.
Precisely. And Dan, I don't see that assumtion in your posts.
>> In any case, to get back to the root question of this sub-thread,
>> whatever process is ultimately decided on for amending the charter will
>> be decided solely by the moderators. So if as Eliyahu says, not every
>> moderator has a chance to read every message in the newsgroup, and if
>> you want your comments to be taken into account by the moderators as
>> they make their decisions, it just seems sensible to at least copy them
>> by email rather than complaining that it indicates exactly what they
>> said.
I hope by now all the mods are following this thread. That's one of
the reasons it's a seperate special thread.
> Just pick up the ring and let everyone else assume you were bowing.
What _are_ you talking about? Do you think the mods are looking for
their own personal aggrandizement? What in the world for?
Moshe Schorr
It is a tremendous Mitzvah to always be happy! - Reb Nachman of Breslov
The home and family are the center of Judaism, *not* the synagogue.
Disclaimer: Nothing here necessarily reflects the opinion of Hebrew University
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
> "Steve Goldfarb" <s...@panix.com> writes:
>> bac...@vms.huji.ac.il writes:
>>
>>>SCJM is part of USENET. If a poster spouts virulently antisemitic or
>>>Xtian missionary material on one USENET group, he/she can't demand that
>>>they be allowed to post (even "innocuous" material) on SCJM. SCJM is
>>>our home. The same way wouldn't let a Nazi inter your house, you shouldn't
>>>let one on SCJM.
>>
>> to be the internet cop? Are you going to demand that each poster "show his
>> papers" before you'll let them post? Do we have to provide our social
>> security numbers or the equivlant so that you can run a background check
>> on us before you deem us suitable to be in your company?
>
> Let the moderators spend 2 minutes on //groups.google.com to check
> NOT a open USENET group.
>
>> This is usenet. Anyone can submit a post. For free. If the content is
>> contrary to the charter than the mods shouldn't post it. That's it.
>
> to see WHO the NEW poster is. We have had 7-8 missionaries on this
> group over the past 4 years spouting their garbage and it took up to
> two weeks to get them out, after their damage was done. I still remember
> the "Orthodox rabbi' (who was a Xtian missionary)writing how it was
> perfectly OK to light fire on shabbat. It took TWO WEEKS to get the
> trash out.
>
>> for you. Fortunately other forums exist.
>
> I have been on USENET since 1986.
It seems to me that this exchange is showing exactly what R warned us
would happen if SCJ became moderated. The idea was that the Charter
would decide what gets posted. And the Charter as it stands now does
not provide for "checking" a poster's bona fides. It's a problem. I'm
glad the moderators asked the question although I don't envy them
having to make a descision.
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
> "Henry Goodman" <henry....@virgin.net> wrote:
>
>> For a long time now I have done my best to carry out the policy of
>> moderate the post not the poster. I and the other moderators have come
>> in for a lot of stick from several regular posters, both on the
>> newsgroup and by email to the moderators' list, because we have
>> allowed what they call "well-known anti-Semites or missionaries" to
>> post.
>
> And I hope that you answered that you were scrupulously following
> the rules as set.
>
> The impression I have is that the majority of regular posters
>> would like to keep out some of these people which is the main
>> reason for starting this discussion.
>
> I had always thought that it was the main reason this group was
> founded.
Yes and no. The idea was to keep out the missionary and anti-semetic
posts. As Steve explained, it's almost impossible to keep out specific
posters based on outside considerations. There was _much_ discussion
when the Charter was being developed how best to make an enforcable
"rule" as to what we're going to keep out. The Charter as it stands
seems to me well-suited. The few odd posts of missionaries or
antisemites cannot go against the Charter so it's hard for them to
do much damage, if any. OTOH, nobody is _personally_ forbidden from
posting.
>> I have no axe to grind on this particular issue
>> and will do whatever appears to be the majority view.
>
> And thank you for doing the job thus far.
Agreed.
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
> On 30-Nov-2005, bac...@vms.huji.ac.il wrote:
>> "Steve Goldfarb" <s...@panix.com> writes:
>> > bac...@vms.huji.ac.il writes:
>> >>> And how would you know what a poster does in other groups? Are
>> >>> you going to be the internet cop? Are you going to demand that
>> >>> each poster "show his papers" before you'll let them post? Do
>> >>> we have to provide our social security numbers or the equivlant
>> >>> so that you can run a background check on us before you deem
>> >>> us suitable to be in your company?
>> >
>> >>Let the moderators spend 2 minutes on //groups.google.com to check
>> >>WHO the "new" poster is. This is a MODERATED group; this group is
>> >>NOT a open USENET group.
>> >
>> > OK - I did a google on gru...@gmail.com -- don't see any
>> > anti-semitic posts. The guy has a foul mouth, perhaps, but
>> > nothing anti-semitic. So, I guess he gets a "pass" then, right?
>>
>> I see you missed Susan's THREE posts: that this antisemitic trash
>> is forging her husband's email address.
>
> Rather just his name.
> He doesn't know my husband's e-mail address.
> And he was only able to get my husband's name because (if anyone
> remembers *years* ago) I used to have to post under his name when
> we had just one account.
>
> And trust me: there's only
>> one Gary Rumain in the United States.
>
> And we know *all* the other Rumains in the country - and there
> are no Gary Rumains in London, where this trash is posting from.
His ISP is from London how do you know where he is located. And just
to refresh my memory, why do you call him "trash". You can do this
via e-mail. No need to repeat "trash" here.
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
>> all nothing but a bunch of email addresses here. I have no idea if you
>> are who you say you are, and in fact postings speculating about
>> someone's actual identity are prohibited by the charter.
>>
>> If a specific email address submits something anti-semitic, then that
>> post should be rejected. If they continue to do so perhaps that email
>> address can be suspended for some period of time.
>>
>> That's as far as it should go, in my opinion. I want the moderators to
>> stay out of my "real life."
>
> of us use throwaway addresses to post on Usenet. If I was banned
> from this group, I could be back within 5 minutes with a new address.
> We have no choice but to moderate the contents, not the senders.
Actually Steve did point this out in a different post. Here he was
discussing the philosophical ramifications.
Marc Andrews
"Steve Goldfarb" <alfief...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1133384044....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
> bac...@vms.huji.ac.il wrote:
> > No, the moderators should do a cursory check on //groups.google.com
> > to see WHO the NEW poster is. We have had 7-8 missionaries on this
> > group over the past 4 years spouting their garbage and it took up to
> > two weeks to get them out, after their damage was done. I still remember
> > the "Orthodox rabbi' (who was a Xtian missionary)writing how it was
> > perfectly OK to light fire on shabbat. It took TWO WEEKS to get the
> > trash out.
>
> Just to be clear, for the record, it's not that I want missionaries and
> anti-semites to post here, it's just that I don't think there's an
> appropriate way to keep them out. In my opinion attempting to judge
> posters rather than posts is a bad idea both from a pragmatic
> POV(there's no effective way to do it) as well as from a philosophical
> one.
You know what, Steve, this whole thing is ridiculous. Because it assumes
that each vile and evil anti-Semitic Usenet kook will be considerate enough
to post here under the same name as he does in other places, thus nicely
allowing him to be banned. But all he has to do is to change his username
and email address in his Usenet client, and his post will appear in all its
glory.
What's the point?
Marc Andrews
<bac...@vms.huji.ac.il> wrote in message
news:dmkkfe$roi$1...@falcon.steinthal.us...
> I assure you that if the change is not approved, I and many others
> will leave. I for one will not tolerate antisemites and missionaries
> posting on SCJM.
Josh, no one wants those people posting on SCJM. But all they have to do is
change their posting name, and hey presto! Nobody knows it's them. I don't
think there's any realistic way to keep them out, if they ask a legitimate
question. Also, that legitimate question might help some genuine readers,
even if the original poster intended as some kind of bait. But in my few
years of reading this newsgroup, I can't say there have been so many
problems with anti-Semites or missionaries. One or two maybe, but nothing to
panic about.