RFD: uk.radio.amateur.moderated

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)

This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the following changes
in the uk.* Usenet hierarchy:

create moderated newsgroup uk.radio.amateur.moderated

Newsgroup line:
uk.radio.amateur.moderated Amateur radio and related matters (Moderated)


*** ALL DISCUSSION MUST TAKE PLACE IN UK.NET.NEWS.CONFIG ***

This is not a Call for Votes (CFV); you cannot vote at this time.
Further procedural details are given below.

RATIONALE: uk.radio.amateur.moderated

The long-standing newsgroup uk.radio.amateur has, for a considerable
time, been suffering from a large volume of abusive, trolling, flaming
and off-topic posts. The net effect of this has been to stifle on-
topic discussion of amateur radio matters and on-topic threads often
degenerate into open warfare. Such is the hostility between certain
posters that these abusive, harassing and unpleasant conflagrations
have resulted in real-world issues, including police investigations,
and at least one known court case. Perusal of the group via Google
will provide much evidence that these issues have been ongoing for
many years. Recently, there has been an influx of spam/flood postings
which have led to further inhibition of the group's primary use; the
discussion of amateur radio.

I therefore propose that we should create:

uk.radio.amateur.moderated


CHARTER:
uk.radio.amateur.moderated

This group is for the discussion of all matters relating to the
hobby of amateur radio. Moderation will be used to ensure that the
group remains civil, pleasant, and sympathetic to all users of the
group and to the wider uk.* hierarchy.

An FAQ will be posted to the group on a regular basis (suggestion
monthly).

Binary postings are forbidden, as are HTML postings.

The moderators may, as they see fit to achieve these goals: approve,
reject, robomodorate, whitelist, blacklist, make enquiries, write and
change detailed procedures or policies, delegate, and/or take other
reasonable measures.

In case of disagreement amongst the moderators, the majority of the
moderation panel shall prevail; in case of deadlock, the status quo
shall remain. The moderation panel may vote to dismiss or appoint
moderators.

Constructive discussion of the moderation policy is permitted in the
newsgroup itself; extensive metadiscussion and any accusations of
misconduct by moderators should be posted to uk.net.news.moderation.

uk.radio.amateur will remain as unmoderated alternatives; articles which
are unsympathetic (for example, personal attacks and accusations of
acting in bad faith) may be posted there or to other unmoderated groups
in uk.*.

END CHARTER

INITIAL MODERATORS

Myself, Stephen Thomas Cole & TBD (if deemed appropriate. Additional
moderators can and will be added after group creation).

INITIAL MODERATION POLICY

Postings should be conducive to a civil and pleasant atmosphere,
and remain sympathetic to all contrinutors. Each moderator will
accept or reject postings based on their own judgement.

All matters relating to the hobby of amateur radio are to be
considered on-topic and will be authorised. The discussion in the
group will be UK-centric, but posts relating to the hobby of amateur
radio in a global sense will also be considered on-topic and will be
allowed. General, off-topic, discussion will also be considered
acceptable and will be regarded as "rag-chewing" (to use the amateur
radio slang) and will be authorised.

Matters that will be regarded as STRICTLY forbidden are in the sphere
of personal attacks, derogatory statements against individuals,
communities, organizations or races, baiting of others and floods of
irrelevant messages. Such postings will be disregarded and if such
postings emanate from previously whitelisted posters, warnings will be
issued with the ultimate sanction of blacklisting being referred to.

Disagreement about the best way to moderate newsgroups, and
disrespectful criticism of specific behaviours, is off topic. The
moderators will be vigilant to ensure that discussions remain civil
and interesting, avoiding problems such as invective and repetition.

Announcements of events are permitted at the moderators' discretion.
Commercial advertising of products and services is not permitted.
The moderators may permit private sales of amateur radio related
products and services by existing posters at their discretion.

The moderators will operate a whitelist system: new posters' messages
will be manually moderated by whichever moderator happens to get to
them first. Individual moderators may, when they consider a poster
sensible, add the poster to the whitelist; whitelisted posters'
messages will thereafter be posted automatically. Individual
moderators may remove a poster from the whitelist, when they post
inappropriate or borderline messages.

Decisions by individual moderators to approve or reject a posting, or
to close a thread, may be appealed to the whole moderation panel. The
panel would prefer this to be done privately to make it easier for the
panel to overrule a mistaken moderator without anyone losing face.

This policy will be updated by the moderation panel as they see fit.

END MODERATION POLICY

PROCEDURE:

This is a request for discussion, not a call for votes. In this phase of
the process, any potential problems with the proposal should be raised
and resolved. The discussion period will continue for a minimum of 10
days, starting from when this RFD is posted to uk.net.news.announce
(i.e. until March 26th) after which a Call For Votes (CFV) may be
posted by a neutral vote taker if the discussion warrants it.
Alternatively, the proposal may proceed by the fast-track method. Please
do not attempt to vote until this happens.

This RFD attempts to comply fully with the "Guidelines for Group Creation
within the UK Hierarchy" as published regularly in uk.net.news.announce
and is available from http://www.usenet.org.uk/guidelines.html (the UK
Usenet website). Please refer to this document if you have any questions
about the process.

DISTRIBUTION:

This RFD has been posted to the following newsgroups:
uk.net.news.announce
uk.net.news.config
uk.radio.amateur

Proponent:
Stephen Thomas Cole <steve....@gmail.com>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 1.4.10
Charset: noconv

iQCVAwUBUUMIPGOfGXkh8vHZAQE4ogP+LIJDOl6q8yFB4Z8schcF6OCr2dbjYpa3
BfCULbZdDMHdhaYPBirR6Eiw9tPtBQ7t5ySsx8mgRrby3/crHdyKNNHMm2XlOfTN
blPA4hmHAJEh2FKwRQ7SCkMvkoBiJafSn1FvkkW6ks0uhW8ERfPjw3V2KHrY0VNC
sfLALxsb03A=
=gaJK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[RipeCrisbies]

On Fri, 15 Mar 2013 11:33:05 +0000, Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:

Responses in line.

> The long-standing newsgroup uk.radio.amateur has, for a considerable
> time, been suffering from a large volume of abusive, trolling, flaming
> and off-topic posts.

UKRA has suffered it's share of abusive, childish and dictatorial posters
but is not that bad when compared to Usenet in general. I would suggest
that whilst a fair amount of off topic posting occurs these posts are
often pertinent to those with wide interests. The level of trolling is
much the same as any other usenet news group with a similar amount of
traffic.

No reason to create what will most likely be a low traffic news group,
better learn how to use a kill file.

> Such is the hostility between certain
> posters that these abusive, harassing and unpleasant conflagrations have
> resulted in real-world issues, including police investigations,
> and at least one known court case.

A personal antagonism between two individuals and any subsequent legal
action by the offended party is not a good reason to create a moderated
news group.

>
> I therefore propose that we should create:
>
> uk.radio.amateur.moderated
>
>
> CHARTER:
> uk.radio.amateur.moderated
>
> This group is for the discussion of all matters relating to the hobby of
> amateur radio. Moderation will be used to ensure that the group remains
> civil, pleasant, and sympathetic to all users of the group and to the
> wider uk.* hierarchy.
>

>

> The moderators may, as they see fit to achieve these goals: approve,
> reject, robomodorate, whitelist, blacklist, make enquiries, write and
> change detailed procedures or policies, delegate, and/or take other
> reasonable measures.
>
> In case of disagreement amongst the moderators, the majority of the
> moderation panel shall prevail; in case of deadlock, the status quo
> shall remain. The moderation panel may vote to dismiss or appoint
> moderators.

Perhaps something like a Yahoo! Groups would be more suitable for
creating a group with the high of control that is being suggested here.
It certainly works and the owners/moderators can decide who they want in
their group, what they can say and how they say it.

>
> END CHARTER
>
> INITIAL MODERATORS
>
> Myself, Stephen Thomas Cole & TBD (if deemed appropriate. Additional
> moderators can and will be added after group creation).
>
> INITIAL MODERATION POLICY
>

> Disagreement about the best way to moderate newsgroups, and
> disrespectful criticism of specific behaviours, is off topic. The
> moderators will be vigilant to ensure that discussions remain civil and
> interesting, avoiding problems such as invective and repetition.
>
> Announcements of events are permitted at the moderators' discretion.

>

> The moderators will operate a whitelist system: new posters' messages
> will be manually moderated by whichever moderator happens to get to them
> first. Individual moderators may, when they consider a poster sensible,
> add the poster to the whitelist; whitelisted posters'
> messages will thereafter be posted automatically. Individual moderators
> may remove a poster from the whitelist, when they post inappropriate or
> borderline messages.
>
> Decisions by individual moderators to approve or reject a posting, or to
> close a thread, may be appealed to the whole moderation panel. The panel
> would prefer this to be done privately to make it easier for the panel
> to overrule a mistaken moderator without anyone losing face.
>
> This policy will be updated by the moderation panel as they see fit.

Again, perhaps something like a Yahoo! Group would be more suitable for
creating a group with the high of control that is being suggested here.

There are plenty of moderated groups that cover amateur radio and aspects
of the hobby in the uk. Again, Yahoo! has nay number of groups cover most
aspect of the hobby. The web is littered with such groups that have
little or no traffic and this would be proliferation for the sake of it!

Perhaps the proposer could push the Radio Society of Great Britain to set
up the kind of group that he wants.


Charlie Ivermee.


--
M0WYM
www.radiowymsey.org

Sales @ radiowymsey
http://stores.ebay.co.uk/Sales-At-Radio-Wymsey/

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

In article
<rfd1-uk.radio.amateur.moderated-20130315113305$20...@matrix.darkstorm.co.uk>,

Stephen Thomas Cole <steve....@gmail.com> wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>
> This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the following changes
> in the uk.* Usenet hierarchy:
>
> create moderated newsgroup uk.radio.amateur.moderated
>

My thanks to Control for posting this RFD.

There has already been a long and interesting debate on this matter in
uk.radio.amateur, and I hope that those who have contributed to that
thread will likewise make contributions here. There have been a few issues
raised in ukra that I will raise in this RFD in due course as there are a
few ways in which the proposal can be refined, and I am sure that those
who post in this thread will help me to find further ways of refinement.

The first, and probably most pressing, point is relating to the proposed
name of the group. uk.radio.amateur was created before the UK.* naming
conventions came into being so is inherently "non-standard". I have
proposed "uk.radio.amateur.moderated" as the name of the new group, which
will also be non-standard. I do believe, however, that there is a case for
an exception being made in this instance as the moderated group is clearly
an off-shoot of the older one, a sister if you will, and will cover the
same topic-base albeit moderated. If the new group was placed in the
uk.rec.radio.* hierarchy, it would sit alongside uk.rec.radio.cb in the
grouplist, a group with a much weaker thematic relationship than with
uk.radio.amateur and I believe that this would lead to either confusion
amongst new users browsing the grouplist or the group not being as easily
found as the existing one.

I will gladly receive advice on that matter.

--
-------------------
Stephen Thomas Cole
-------------------

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

In article <khv3j5$96u$1...@dont-email.me>, RipeCrisbies
<Gnom...@lympledger.co.uk> wrote:

> Responses in line.

Likewise.

> UKRA has suffered it's share of abusive, childish and dictatorial posters
> but is not that bad when compared to Usenet in general. I would suggest
> that whilst a fair amount of off topic posting occurs these posts are
> often pertinent to those with wide interests. The level of trolling is
> much the same as any other usenet news group with a similar amount of
> traffic.

It's probably fair to say that statements regarding the level of trolling
are entirely subjective. I know that that logic works both ways.

I will use the Google Groups archive when I have a little more time later
on to compile a list of data that breaks down the recent posts made to
ukra into trolling/abuse and non-trolling/abuse contributions and report
back. Off the top of my head, in the last 48 hours alone, besides the 250+
post thread that I started on the topic of a moderated group (which itself
contained quite a few unpleasent attacks and abuse) the large bulk of
messages posted to ukra has been part of a crapflood and an ongoing troll
war.

>
> No reason to create what will most likely be a low traffic news group,

Most of Usenet is low-traffic these days. It's quality we're after, not
quantity.

> better learn how to use a kill file.
>

If the only way to comfortably use a newsgroup is to employ elaborate and
time-consuming filtering techniques (kill-files, watch lists etc) then I'd
argue that that alone is evidence that there are serious issues with the
group.

> A personal antagonism between two individuals and any subsequent legal
> action by the offended party is not a good reason to create a moderated
> news group.
>

No. But we're talking about much wider antagonisms held generally in
addition to the very real and very pointed conflicts that have occurred
between the two parties to which (I presume) you refer.

>
> Perhaps something like a Yahoo! Groups would be more suitable for
> creating a group with the high of control that is being suggested here.
> It certainly works and the owners/moderators can decide who they want in
> their group, what they can say and how they say it.
>

My response to this suggestion is to point you towards the sad end that
Geocities suffered at the hands of Yahoo. Geocities lasted a very long
time, had been used by many, many millions of people through it's life and
was still used by millions when shut down (the web is littered with dead
Geocities links). Yahoo made an arbitrary decision to shut it down. I'd
fear that a similar arbitrary decision could very easily be made in
reference to their Groups section. Usenet is a protocol and system that
has endured for several decades and likely will endure for several more.
It makes absolute sense, in my eyes, to invest time in Usenet over Yahoo
Groups.

> Again, perhaps something like a Yahoo! Group would be more suitable for
> creating a group with the high of control that is being suggested here.
>
> There are plenty of moderated groups that cover amateur radio and aspects
> of the hobby in the uk. Again, Yahoo! has nay number of groups cover most
> aspect of the hobby. The web is littered with such groups that have
> little or no traffic and this would be proliferation for the sake of it!

The (supposed) failure or success of web based services shouldn't have any
bearing on a discussion regarding Usenet.

>
> Perhaps the proposer could push the Radio Society of Great Britain to set
> up the kind of group that he wants.
>
>

An independent entity, by amateurs for amateurs, is preferable to relying
on a governing body to administrate.

Thank you for your contributions. They are valuable and appreciated.

[John Benn]

"Stephen Thomas Cole" <steve....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:rfd1-uk.radio.amateur.moderated-20130315113305$20...@matrix.darkstorm.co.uk...

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>
> This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the following changes
> in the uk.* Usenet hierarchy:
>
> create moderated newsgroup uk.radio.amateur.moderated
>
> Newsgroup line:
> uk.radio.amateur.moderated Amateur radio and related matters (Moderated)

I find the biggest problem with the existing unmoderated group is the amount
of spam/floods. This makes it very difficult to see the genuine messages.
I have tried filtering but only with limited success.

The other problem is the volume of posts which are completely off-topic and
would be better discussed elsewhere. I would like to see a moderated group
containing posts about amateur radio and related technical topics only.

One thing that is important is that everyone will be welcome to use the
group. Acceptance or rejection of posts should not depend on the identity
of the poster. Moderation should be based on content only.

[RipeCrisbies]

On Fri, 15 Mar 2013 11:33:05 +0000, Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:

> suffering from a large volume of abusive, trolling, flaming and
> off-topic posts.

It's amusing to compare the amount of swearing and abuse in UKRA with
that in uk.net.news.config, maybe you should get that moderated too!

[John Benn]

"RipeCrisbies" <Gnom...@lympledger.co.uk> wrote in message
news:khv6ar$96u$1...@dont-email.me...

> On Fri, 15 Mar 2013 11:33:05 +0000, Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:
>
>> suffering from a large volume of abusive, trolling, flaming and
>> off-topic posts.
>
> It's amusing to compare the amount of swearing and abuse in UKRA with
> that in uk.net.news.config, maybe you should get that moderated too!

It would be inappropriate for that group to be moderated for obvious
reasons.

[Brian Morrison]

On Fri, 15 Mar 2013 13:06:40 -0000
John Benn wrote:

> The other problem is the volume of posts which are completely
> off-topic and would be better discussed elsewhere. I would like to
> see a moderated group containing posts about amateur radio and
> related technical topics only.

uk.r.a. pre-dates charters and naming conventions, and hence there is
effectively no control over what is off-topic. Personally I am entirely
happy with the status quo and see no need to change anything.

--

Brian Morrison

[RipeCrisbies]

On Fri, 15 Mar 2013 13:11:13 +0000, Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:


>
>
> Most of Usenet is low-traffic these days.

The technical Usenet groups that I use have a similar amount of traffic,
I suspect that a moderated version of UKRA will have around 5% of those
groups

>It's quality we're after, not
> quantity.

Not sure who the "we" are but unless there's 20 or 30 regular posters it
won't work.

The technical Usenet groups that I use have a similar amount of traffic
to UKRA, I suspect that a moderated version of UKRA will have around 5%
of those groups

> If the only way to comfortably use a newsgroup is to employ elaborate
> and time-consuming filtering techniques (kill-files, watch lists etc)
> then I'd argue that that alone is evidence that there are serious issues
> with the group.

I'm sorry, it may be a technical issue or the software you've used but it
is a very simple process to put a poster in a kill file: Highlight the
post(er) and two clicks in PAN.

>
> No. But we're talking about much wider antagonisms held generally in
> addition to the very real and very pointed conflicts that have occurred
> between the two parties to which (I presume) you refer.

As I've said elsewhere, it's all small beer compared to some newsgroups,
sci.electronics.design for example.

>
> My response to this suggestion is to point you towards the sad end that
> Geocities suffered at the hands of Yahoo.

Many entities have disappeared over the time I've been online but Yahoo
groups prosper. As for arbitrary shut downs, you might want to look at
the way ISPs are dropping Usenet. That could be a problem for people that
can't handle a killfile!

>
> The (supposed) failure or success of web based services shouldn't have
> any bearing on a discussion regarding Usenet.

Of course it does, they represent the alternative ways of having
conversations and have the kind of controls you feel is needed.

> An independent entity, by amateurs for amateurs, is preferable to

relyinon a governing body to administrate.

But it won't be any more independent, more likely less, than the RSGB.



Charlie.

[GM4DHJ /M ...]

"Stephen Thomas Cole" <steve....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:rfd1-uk.radio.amateur.moderated-20130315113305$20...@matrix.darkstorm.co.uk...

good....that should get rid of all those G8 radio telephone users and
Professionals.......shame they won't let brian on there due to his abusive
posting history...

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

In article <khv69o$n78$1...@dont-email.me>, "John Benn"

<mrbenn...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> I find the biggest problem with the existing unmoderated group is the amount
> of spam/floods. This makes it very difficult to see the genuine messages.
> I have tried filtering but only with limited success.
>

Agreed. It is difficult to follow threads or find new postings when the
floods are ongoing and at their worst, the floods make the group
unbearable. Again, if the only way to use the group is to invest an
inordinate amount of time and energy in filtering, then the battle must be
lost.

> The other problem is the volume of posts which are completely off-topic and
> would be better discussed elsewhere. I would like to see a moderated group
> containing posts about amateur radio and related technical topics only.
>

I'm less concerned about this, personally. I envisage a space for
"rag-chewing" in the group, on whichever topic. The red line for me is
abuse, which the off-topic threads in ukra often (usually?) descend into.
If the potential for abusive behaviour is removed, then off-topic chit
chat should be welcomed.

> One thing that is important is that everyone will be welcome to use the
> group. Acceptance or rejection of posts should not depend on the identity
> of the poster. Moderation should be based on content only.

Absolutely, wholeheartedly agree. Moderation should 100% be carried out on
the content and not the poster. This should be written into the
charter/moderation policy.

Thanks for contributing John, much appreciated.

[Brian Morrison]

On Fri, 15 Mar 2013 12:50:30 +0000
Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:

> The first, and probably most pressing, point is relating to the
> proposed name of the group. uk.radio.amateur was created before the
> UK.* naming conventions came into being so is inherently
> "non-standard". I have proposed "uk.radio.amateur.moderated" as the
> name of the new group, which will also be non-standard. I do believe,
> however, that there is a case for an exception being made in this
> instance as the moderated group is clearly an off-shoot of the older
> one, a sister if you will, and will cover the same topic-base albeit
> moderated. If the new group was placed in the uk.rec.radio.*
> hierarchy, it would sit alongside uk.rec.radio.cb in the grouplist, a
> group with a much weaker thematic relationship than with
> uk.radio.amateur and I believe that this would lead to either
> confusion amongst new users browsing the grouplist or the group not
> being as easily found as the existing one.

Since the existing group is named in a non-standard manner it is
actually more difficult to find than a group in the uk.rec.radio
hirearchy for people who are expecting new groups to appear there.

I am opposed to letting the moderated group have the same name stem as
the existing group, I am philosophically opposed to moderated groups
and want no association with any such new group which I will not use
myself.

--

Brian Morrison

[Brian Morrison]

On Fri, 15 Mar 2013 13:28:23 +0000 (UTC)
RipeCrisbies wrote:

> Of course it does, they represent the alternative ways of having
> conversations and have the kind of controls you feel is needed.

It's worth pointing out that there are exactly 3 moderated groups in
the uk.* hierarchy. One of those is uk.legal.moderated, where the need
for moderation is apparently agreed between the users of the group for
good and understandable reasons. Another is uk.rec.cycling.moderated
which is the focus of some considerable unhappiness from its users and
is most certainly not agreed on by a majority of posters who wish to
be heard.

I know which of the two models I expect to see any such new moderated
group becoming, assuming that it attracts enough traffic to become
viable.

--

Brian Morrison

[Brian Morrison]

On Fri, 15 Mar 2013 13:39:13 +0000
Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:

> It is difficult to follow threads or find new postings when the
> floods are ongoing and at their worst, the floods make the group
> unbearable.

From your perspective perhaps. If I remove my filters I can scan the
subject and from columns and immediately know which posts are worth my
attention and which are not. I would certainly not view that as
"unbearable".

--

Brian Morrison

[Richard Kettlewell]

Brian Morrison <b...@fenrir.org.uk> writes:
> RipeCrisbies wrote:
>
>> Of course it does, they represent the alternative ways of having
>> conversations and have the kind of controls you feel is needed.
>
> It's worth pointing out that there are exactly 3 moderated groups in
> the uk.* hierarchy.

There are 10.

--
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/

[Matthew Vernon]

Brian Morrison <b...@fenrir.org.uk> writes:

> On Fri, 15 Mar 2013 13:28:23 +0000 (UTC)
> RipeCrisbies wrote:
>
>> Of course it does, they represent the alternative ways of having
>> conversations and have the kind of controls you feel is needed.
>
> It's worth pointing out that there are exactly 3 moderated groups in
> the uk.* hierarchy. One of those is uk.legal.moderated, where the need

Actually, there are 10, listed at
http://www.usenet.org.uk/moderated.html

uk.announce
uk.answers
uk.gay-lesbian-bi
uk.legal.moderated
uk.net.news.announce
uk.org.bcs.announce
uk.people.bdsm.personals
uk.rec.cycling.moderated
uk.religion.christian
uk.religion.jewish

Matthew

--
`O'-----0 `O'---. `O'---. `O'---.
\___| | \___|0-/ \___|/ \___|
| | /\ | | \ | |\ | |
The Dangers of modern veterinary life

[Matthew Vernon]

REMOVEste...@REMOVEgmail.com (Stephen Thomas Cole) writes:

> The first, and probably most pressing, point is relating to the proposed
> name of the group. uk.radio.amateur was created before the UK.* naming
> conventions came into being so is inherently "non-standard". I have
> proposed "uk.radio.amateur.moderated" as the name of the new group, which
> will also be non-standard. I do believe, however, that there is a case for
> an exception being made in this instance as the moderated group is clearly
> an off-shoot of the older one, a sister if you will, and will cover the
> same topic-base albeit moderated. If the new group was placed in the
> uk.rec.radio.* hierarchy, it would sit alongside uk.rec.radio.cb in the
> grouplist, a group with a much weaker thematic relationship than with
> uk.radio.amateur and I believe that this would lead to either confusion
> amongst new users browsing the grouplist or the group not being as easily
> found as the existing one.

My feeling is that uk.radio.amateur.moderated would be the most
appropriate name, despite it being non-standard - the other moderated
versions of unmoderated groups follow this convention.

[Dr Zoidberg]

"Stephen Thomas Cole" <steve....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:rfd1-uk.radio.amateur.moderated-20130315113305$20...@matrix.darkstorm.co.uk...

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>
> This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the following changes
> in the uk.* Usenet hierarchy:
>
> create moderated newsgroup uk.radio.amateur.moderated
>
> Newsgroup line:
> uk.radio.amateur.moderated Amateur radio and related matters (Moderated)
>
>
> *** ALL DISCUSSION MUST TAKE PLACE IN UK.NET.NEWS.CONFIG ***
>
> This is not a Call for Votes (CFV); you cannot vote at this time.
> Further procedural details are given below.
>
> RATIONALE: uk.radio.amateur.moderated
>
> The long-standing newsgroup uk.radio.amateur has, for a considerable
> time, been suffering from a large volume of abusive, trolling, flaming
> and off-topic posts. The net effect of this has been to stifle on-
> topic discussion of amateur radio matters and on-topic threads often
> degenerate into open warfare. Such is the hostility between certain
> posters that these abusive, harassing and unpleasant conflagrations
> have resulted in real-world issues, including police investigations,
> and at least one known court case. Perusal of the group via Google
> will provide much evidence that these issues have been ongoing for
> many years. Recently, there has been an influx of spam/flood postings
> which have led to further inhibition of the group's primary use; the
> discussion of amateur radio.
>

The group does look to be in a pretty crappy state at the mo.

At a first glance, this proposal seems reasonable.
What plans do you have for moderation software if it's created?


--
Alex

[Percy Picacity]

Amateur radio does seem to attract some dogmatic characters. I fear a
moderated group would become the property of a tiny clique, especially
with such a rigid charter. I really do not support this proposal,
although I admit I lurk more than post in ukra at present. I retire
today, so this may change to a pattern of dogmatic and slightly
demented assertiveness as I stake my claim to ukra territory.

--

Percy Picacity

[Spike]

Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:


> CHARTER:

> uk.radio.amateur.moderated
>
> This group is for the discussion of all matters relating to the
> hobby of amateur radio. Moderation will be used to ensure that the
> group remains civil, pleasant, and sympathetic to all users of the
> group and to the wider uk.* hierarchy.

> This policy will be updated by the moderation panel as they see fit.

[1] This wording would be seen as normal for North Korea.

The proposer has been involved in extensive discussions on
uk.radio.amateur since raising the topic of a moderated group. Among
other things he has shown considerable difficulty in realising that
while words might hold a particular meaning for him, they do not
necessarily hold the same meaning for others. Therefore, it
necessarily follows that unless the meanings of words are agreed
upon beforehand, in voting 'for' the new group one has no idea of what
the moderation policy actually means or how it will be enforced in
practice, apart from the expressions of pious hopes about human
nature.

[2] 'Tone'

In one reply to me regarding his inexperience with kill-files and
watch-lists, which are used by most of the regular posters of ukra,
the proposer insisted that he did not want to use those, but was
happy to proceed to moderate any new group. It was mentioned that
the KF/WL approach was on an entirely individual basis whereas in his
proposal he would be acting in loco parentis on behalf of the
users of the new group, most of which are well experienced in life
matters and so need no hand-holding. Additionally, he confirmed that
my posting, which was not abusive, would have been rejected for its
'tone'. It is to be noted that 'tone' is not mentioned above and
therefore remains undefined, but clearly will be a factor in the
moderation process. Again, one has no idea of what the moderation
policy actually means or how it will be enforced in practice.

[3] Age and inexperience

The proposer currently holds a restricted form of licence, and appears
unaware of much of the rich history of Amateur Radio or
uk.radio.amateur. The group has survived more than 20 years in its
unmoderated and unchartered form. That a newcomer who is unwilling to
gain experience in using software local to him to determine what he
wishes to see or not see could be said to completely unsuitable to
moderate an Amateur Radio usergroup for those with more experience
than him in the various fields of life, Amateur Radio, or
uk.radio.amateur.

[4] Conclusion

With discussion phrases from the proposer such as "I know what civil
behaviour is and I know what constitutes abusive behaviour. This
knowledge will suffice", the only wise choice is to vote against
this ill-thought-through, nanny-state, I-know-what's-good-for-you
approach. YKIMS.

--
Spike

[Tony]

In uk.net.news.config, Matthew Vernon <mat...@debian.org> wrote:

>REMOVEste...@REMOVEgmail.com (Stephen Thomas Cole) writes:
>
>> The first, and probably most pressing, point is relating to the proposed
>> name of the group. uk.radio.amateur was created before the UK.* naming
>> conventions came into being so is inherently "non-standard". I have
>> proposed "uk.radio.amateur.moderated" as the name of the new group, which
>> will also be non-standard. I do believe, however, that there is a case for
>> an exception being made in this instance as the moderated group is clearly
>> an off-shoot of the older one, a sister if you will, and will cover the
>> same topic-base albeit moderated. If the new group was placed in the
>> uk.rec.radio.* hierarchy, it would sit alongside uk.rec.radio.cb in the
>> grouplist, a group with a much weaker thematic relationship than with
>> uk.radio.amateur and I believe that this would lead to either confusion
>> amongst new users browsing the grouplist or the group not being as easily
>> found as the existing one.
>
>My feeling is that uk.radio.amateur.moderated would be the most
>appropriate name, despite it being non-standard - the other moderated
>versions of unmoderated groups follow this convention.

It's certainly something that merits discussion, when reviewing the name, I
considered this section from the guidelines.

http://www.usenet.org.uk/newsgroup.names.html

Group similar subjects together, in the same hierarchy if possible, so that
people looking for a related subject will have a good idea where to find
it. It is often better to put a new group with others in an approximately
right "place" than to insist on getting the name precise at the expense of
putting the group in a different area that many potential users will not
look at. Although nowadays many people search for newsgroups to read by
keyword, it is still often easier to find a newsgroup by browsing the
hierarchy - & of course, good hierarchy placement does not adversely affect
keyword searching.

However, that paragraph can be used to defend both placements.
--
Tony Evans
Saving trees and wasting electrons since 1993
blog -> http://perceptionistruth.com/
books -> http://www.bookthing.co.uk/
[ anything below this line wasn't written by me ]

[Brian Morrison]

On Fri, 15 Mar 2013 14:03:18 +0000
Richard Kettlewell wrote:

> Brian Morrison <b...@fenrir.org.uk> writes:
> > RipeCrisbies wrote:
> >
> >> Of course it does, they represent the alternative ways of having
> >> conversations and have the kind of controls you feel is needed.
> >
> > It's worth pointing out that there are exactly 3 moderated groups in
> > the uk.* hierarchy.
>
> There are 10.
>

I should have said "that have .moderated in their names".

I don't know much about such groups in general, I don't wish to post to
them.

--

Brian Morrison

[Brian Morrison]

On Fri, 15 Mar 2013 14:12:01 -0000
Dr Zoidberg wrote:

> The group does look to be in a pretty crappy state at the mo.

It's in an exactly similar state to that it's been in for many years.

--

Brian Morrison

[Richard Kettlewell]

Brian Morrison <b...@fenrir.org.uk> writes:
> Richard Kettlewell wrote:
>> Brian Morrison <b...@fenrir.org.uk> writes:
>>> RipeCrisbies wrote:

>>>> Of course it does, they represent the alternative ways of having
>>>> conversations and have the kind of controls you feel is needed.
>>>
>>> It's worth pointing out that there are exactly 3 moderated groups in
>>> the uk.* hierarchy.
>>
>> There are 10.
>
> I should have said "that have .moderated in their names".

There are only 2 uk.* groups with .moderated in the name.

> I don't know much about such groups in general, I don't wish to post
> to them.

I don’t believe anybody is suggesting that you be forced to do so.

--
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/

[RipeCrisbies]

On Fri, 15 Mar 2013 13:39:13 +0000, Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:

> Again, if the only way to use the group is to invest an inordinate
> amount of time and energy in filtering, then the battle must be lost.

Again, in a decent newsreader, one highlight and two clicks. Three or
four times a week. Hardly inordinate. Nothing compared to moderating a
news group unless that's what lights your candle.

[Brian Morrison]

On Fri, 15 Mar 2013 14:50:37 +0000
Richard Kettlewell wrote:

> > I should have said "that have .moderated in their names".
>
> There are only 2 uk.* groups with .moderated in the name.

uk.local.yorkshire.moderated appears in my server's group list.

--

Brian Morrison

[Brian Morrison]

On 15 Mar 2013 14:50:18 GMT
Huge wrote:

> On 2013-03-15, Stephen Thomas Cole
> <REMOVEste...@REMOVEgmail.com> wrote:
> > In article <khv3j5$96u$1...@dont-email.me>, RipeCrisbies
> ><Gnom...@lympledger.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> Responses in line.
> >
> > Likewise.
> >
> >> UKRA has suffered it's share of abusive, childish and dictatorial
> >> posters but is not that bad when compared to Usenet in general.
>
> You jest. UKRA is a cesspit.
>

It's a matter of opinion isn't it? I don't think it is a cesspit.

--

Brian Morrison

[Brian Morrison]

On 15 Mar 2013 14:53:23 GMT
Huge wrote:

> On 2013-03-15, Brian Morrison <b...@fenrir.org.uk> wrote:
> > On Fri, 15 Mar 2013 14:12:01 -0000
> > Dr Zoidberg wrote:
> >
> >> The group does look to be in a pretty crappy state at the mo.
> >
> > It's in an exactly similar state to that it's been in for many
> > years.
>

> Indeed. It's been a cesspit for years.

Which is a matter of opinion, and may not concern some people even if
they think it is.

--

Brian Morrison

[Tony]

Your news provider doesn't honour proper Usenet control messages,

2009-02-12 12:11:36 rfd uk.local.yorkshire.moderated-remove
2009-12-31 15:38:24 rmgroup uk.local.yorkshire.moderated

The group was removed in 2009.

[RipeCrisbies]

On Fri, 15 Mar 2013 14:50:18 +0000, Huge wrote:

> You jest. UKRA is a cesspit.

That's what this discussion needs: objective, informed and unemotional
ideas put across in neutral language.

[Tony]

In uk.net.news.config, Stephen Thomas Cole <steve....@gmail.com> wrote:

> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>
>This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the following changes
>in the uk.* Usenet hierarchy:

Out of interest, why was the initial post you made to uk.radio.amateur
asking for views on an RFD cross-posted to alt.steve?

[John Benn]

"Brian Morrison" <b...@fenrir.org.uk> wrote in message
news:20130315132...@surtees.fenrir.org.uk...

> On Fri, 15 Mar 2013 13:06:40 -0000
> John Benn wrote:
>
>> The other problem is the volume of posts which are completely
>> off-topic and would be better discussed elsewhere. I would like to
>> see a moderated group containing posts about amateur radio and
>> related technical topics only.
>

> uk.r.a. pre-dates charters and naming conventions, and hence there is
> effectively no control over what is off-topic. Personally I am entirely
> happy with the status quo and see no need to change anything.

Nobody is going to stop you using it.

[Spike Mitty & Co]

On Fri, 15 Mar 2013 14:50:18 +0000, Huge wrote:

> On 2013-03-15, Stephen Thomas Cole <REMOVEste...@REMOVEgmail.com>
> wrote:
>> In article <khv3j5$96u$1...@dont-email.me>, RipeCrisbies
>><Gnom...@lympledger.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> Responses in line.
>>
>> Likewise.
>>
>>> UKRA has suffered it's share of abusive, childish and dictatorial
>>> posters but is not that bad when compared to Usenet in general.
>

> You jest. UKRA is a cesspit.

I run a watch list based on about 70 regular posters.

All I see is a useful, interesting, mostly on-topic group populated with experienced Radio Amateurs.

The great thing is that *I* have tailored it for *me*, and it affects no-one else.

The proposal for a moderated group resembles a sledgehammer wielded by a toddler and used to crack a nut.

--
Spike, of Spike Mitty & Co

[Ian Jackson]

In article <rfd1-uk.radio.amateur.moderated-20130315113305$20...@matrix.darkstorm.co.uk>,

Stephen Thomas Cole <steve....@gmail.com> wrote:

>The long-standing newsgroup uk.radio.amateur has, for a considerable
>time, been suffering from a large volume of abusive, trolling, flaming
>and off-topic posts.

I looked at the group and it does seem in a bad state.

>INITIAL MODERATORS
>
>Myself, Stephen Thomas Cole & TBD (if deemed appropriate. Additional
>moderators can and will be added after group creation).

I think your proposal would gain credibility if you lined up a panel
of generally-highly-thought-of volunteer moderators and named them in
the proposal. That would make it clear that you had a good base of
active support from the group.

It would also help ally fears that the group would be your private
fiefdom. (Although people will now be along to say, falsely, that
urcm is my private fiefdom.)

I suggest you solicit nominations for moderators, and then exercise
your own judgement to filter the results.

What are your plans for hosting ?

In practice I think you have two or three obvious options:

* I'd probably be willing to host your moderation on my server
chiark.greenend.org.uk.

* You can do the hosting yourself.

* It may be possible for you to use the system used by
uk.legal.moderated; however it seems to be running unattended, its
administrator having taken an extended leave of absence, so I
wouldn't recommend this.

--
Ian Jackson personal email: <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
These opinions are my own. http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/
PGP2 key 1024R/0x23f5addb, fingerprint 5906F687 BD03ACAD 0D8E602E FCF37657

[Matthew Vernon]

Huge <Hu...@nowhere.much.invalid> writes:

> Everything on usenet is a matter of opinion.

You're entitled to your view, but I must disagree.

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

In article <aqgpjs...@mid.individual.net>,

Spike <Aero.Spike@S&T.invalid> wrote:
>
> [1] This wording would be seen as normal for North Korea.
>
> The proposer has been involved in extensive discussions on
> uk.radio.amateur since raising the topic of a moderated group. Among
> other things he has shown considerable difficulty in realising that
> while words might hold a particular meaning for him, they do not
> necessarily hold the same meaning for others. Therefore, it
> necessarily follows that unless the meanings of words are agreed
> upon beforehand, in voting 'for' the new group one has no idea of what
> the moderation policy actually means or how it will be enforced in
> practice, apart from the expressions of pious hopes about human
> nature.
>

I'm hoping that the RFD will help in pinning down exactly what language
is needed to make clear that which is unwelcome and would be rejected.
The charter/moderation rules in this 1st RFD are a draft, a work in
progress. I'd gladly receive the benefit of your contributions on
getting this right Spike.

> [2] 'Tone'
>
> In one reply to me regarding his inexperience with kill-files and
> watch-lists, which are used by most of the regular posters of ukra,
> the proposer insisted that he did not want to use those, but was
> happy to proceed to moderate any new group. It was mentioned that
> the KF/WL approach was on an entirely individual basis whereas in his
> proposal he would be acting in loco parentis on behalf of the
> users of the new group, most of which are well experienced in life
> matters and so need no hand-holding. Additionally, he confirmed that
> my posting, which was not abusive, would have been rejected for its
> 'tone'. It is to be noted that 'tone' is not mentioned above and
> therefore remains undefined, but clearly will be a factor in the
> moderation process. Again, one has no idea of what the moderation
> policy actually means or how it will be enforced in practice.
>

You're misrepresenting what actually was said. I'd encourage any
interested parties to navigate to uk.radio.amateur and read through the
thread that I started yesterday on the matter, and to which Spike
refers. It contains some good discussion, along with plenty of flaming.

> [3] Age and inexperience
>
> The proposer currently holds a restricted form of licence, and appears
> unaware of much of the rich history of Amateur Radio or
> uk.radio.amateur. The group has survived more than 20 years in its
> unmoderated and unchartered form. That a newcomer who is unwilling to
> gain experience in using software local to him to determine what he
> wishes to see or not see could be said to completely unsuitable to
> moderate an Amateur Radio usergroup for those with more experience
> than him in the various fields of life, Amateur Radio, or
> uk.radio.amateur.
>

I am a foundation licence holder, being a relative newcomer to amateur
radio, and am currently working my way through studies to achieve higher
licence classes. This is not a fact that I have ever tried to disguise.
Nor do I consider it particularly relevant in a discussion concerning
the moderation of a putative newsgroup. I hope that this RFD will help
to form a charter that is straight-forward and easy to moderate.
Advanced knowledge of technical amateur radio matters is not a
prerequisite in policing and rejecting abusive postings to a newsgroup.

> [4] Conclusion
>
> With discussion phrases from the proposer such as "I know what civil
> behaviour is and I know what constitutes abusive behaviour. This
> knowledge will suffice", the only wise choice is to vote against
> this ill-thought-through, nanny-state, I-know-what's-good-for-you
> approach. YKIMS.

Again, misrepresenting what was said by removing from context.

[Brian Morrison]

On Fri, 15 Mar 2013 14:59:09 +0000
Tony wrote:

> In uk.net.news.config, Brian Morrison <b...@fenrir.org.uk> wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 15 Mar 2013 14:50:37 +0000
> >Richard Kettlewell wrote:
> >
> >> > I should have said "that have .moderated in their names".
> >>
> >> There are only 2 uk.* groups with .moderated in the name.
> >
> >uk.local.yorkshire.moderated appears in my server's group list.
>
> Your news provider doesn't honour proper Usenet control messages,
>
> 2009-02-12 12:11:36 rfd uk.local.yorkshire.moderated-remove
> 2009-12-31 15:38:24 rmgroup uk.local.yorkshire.moderated
>
> The group was removed in 2009.

I don't think I've refreshed the list so I may well have collected this
a long time ago.

The removal in 2009 explains why I thought there were 3 such groups.

--

Brian Morrison

[Brian Morrison]

On Fri, 15 Mar 2013 15:03:40 -0000

John Benn wrote:

> "Brian Morrison" <b...@fenrir.org.uk> wrote in message
> news:20130315132...@surtees.fenrir.org.uk...
> > On Fri, 15 Mar 2013 13:06:40 -0000
> > John Benn wrote:
> >
> >> The other problem is the volume of posts which are completely
> >> off-topic and would be better discussed elsewhere. I would like to
> >> see a moderated group containing posts about amateur radio and
> >> related technical topics only.
> >
> > uk.r.a. pre-dates charters and naming conventions, and hence there
> > is effectively no control over what is off-topic. Personally I am
> > entirely happy with the status quo and see no need to change
> > anything.
>
> Nobody is going to stop you using it.
>

However, if there were a moderated group, I expect that you would
migrate there and abandon uk.r.a. That means that I would no longer see
your contributions, which I do not wish to happen. As things stand, I
can see your contributions and filter out what I do not wish to see.

--

Brian Morrison

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

In article <khva49$cak$1...@dont-email.me>,
"Dr Zoidberg" <AlexNOOOO!!!!!!!!@drzoidberg.co.uk> wrote:

> "Stephen Thomas Cole" <steve....@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:rfd1-uk.radio.amateur.moderated-20130315113305$20...@matrix.darkstorm.co.u
> k...
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

> >
> > REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
> >
> > This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the following changes
> > in the uk.* Usenet hierarchy:
> >

> > create moderated newsgroup uk.radio.amateur.moderated
> >
> > Newsgroup line:
> > uk.radio.amateur.moderated Amateur radio and related matters (Moderated)
> >
> >
> > *** ALL DISCUSSION MUST TAKE PLACE IN UK.NET.NEWS.CONFIG ***
> >
> > This is not a Call for Votes (CFV); you cannot vote at this time.
> > Further procedural details are given below.
> >
> > RATIONALE: uk.radio.amateur.moderated

> >
> > The long-standing newsgroup uk.radio.amateur has, for a considerable
> > time, been suffering from a large volume of abusive, trolling, flaming

> > and off-topic posts. The net effect of this has been to stifle on-
> > topic discussion of amateur radio matters and on-topic threads often
> > degenerate into open warfare. Such is the hostility between certain
> > posters that these abusive, harassing and unpleasant conflagrations
> > have resulted in real-world issues, including police investigations,
> > and at least one known court case. Perusal of the group via Google
> > will provide much evidence that these issues have been ongoing for
> > many years. Recently, there has been an influx of spam/flood postings
> > which have led to further inhibition of the group's primary use; the
> > discussion of amateur radio.

> >
> The group does look to be in a pretty crappy state at the mo.
>

> At a first glance, this proposal seems reasonable.
> What plans do you have for moderation software if it's created?

Hi Alex. I'm happy to admit that this will be my first foray into
newsgroup moderation, so I am learning as I go and am still researching
the options. If you have any advice on that front, I will be glad to
receive it. I operate Macintosh exclusively, so will require a
compatible solution. I do have a server running here that I could run
robots on. I have found STUMP (http://www.algebra.com/~ichudov/stump/)
and that looks like it *could* be a sound solution to start with, but as
I say,I am researching still.

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

In article <20130315134...@surtees.fenrir.org.uk>,
Brian Morrison <b...@fenrir.org.uk> wrote:

> On Fri, 15 Mar 2013 13:39:13 +0000
> Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:
>
> > It is difficult to follow threads or find new postings when the
> > floods are ongoing and at their worst, the floods make the group
> > unbearable.
>
> From your perspective perhaps. If I remove my filters I can scan the
> subject and from columns and immediately know which posts are worth my
> attention and which are not. I would certainly not view that as
> "unbearable".

Different people have different thresholds of patience I guess. Seeing
dozens or hundreds of crapflood postings wash through the group on a
regular basis drives me, and others, up the wall.

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

In article <khvbni$2ut$1...@matrix.darkstorm.co.uk>,

Thank you Matthew, Tony for the input on the group name. Very
interesting.

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

In article <khv7ln$96u$1...@dont-email.me>,
RipeCrisbies <Gnom...@lympledger.co.uk> wrote:

> On Fri, 15 Mar 2013 13:11:13 +0000, Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:
>
>
> >
> >
> > Most of Usenet is low-traffic these days.
>
> The technical Usenet groups that I use have a similar amount of traffic,
> I suspect that a moderated version of UKRA will have around 5% of those
> groups

A similar amount of traffic to ukra with trolls included or with trolls
removed?

>
> >It's quality we're after, not
> > quantity.
>
> Not sure who the "we" are but unless there's 20 or 30 regular posters it
> won't work.
>

The royal 'we'... heh... But seriously, to state that it "won't work" is
a pretty definitive stance. If participation is slow to build, well,
we're here for the long-term! I think that the value in having a clean,
polite, uncluttered moderated group will be high in attracting amateurs
to become new posters, whereas now many will be turned off when they
first read ukra due to the volume of madness that happens there daily.


> The technical Usenet groups that I use have a similar amount of traffic
> to UKRA, I suspect that a moderated version of UKRA will have around 5%
> of those groups
>
> > If the only way to comfortably use a newsgroup is to employ elaborate
> > and time-consuming filtering techniques (kill-files, watch lists etc)
> > then I'd argue that that alone is evidence that there are serious issues
> > with the group.
>
> I'm sorry, it may be a technical issue or the software you've used but it
> is a very simple process to put a poster in a kill file: Highlight the
> post(er) and two clicks in PAN.
>

Again, the issue is less about figuring out how to block the noise
(which will be more or less difficult depending on the individual's
knowledge and news software) and more about conceding that if the group
can only be used with extensive filtering, then there must be a problem.

> >
> > No. But we're talking about much wider antagonisms held generally in
> > addition to the very real and very pointed conflicts that have occurred
> > between the two parties to which (I presume) you refer.
>
> As I've said elsewhere, it's all small beer compared to some newsgroups,
> sci.electronics.design for example.
>

Issues elsewhere should not really be used as justification in
tolerating issues in ukra.

> >
> > My response to this suggestion is to point you towards the sad end that
> > Geocities suffered at the hands of Yahoo.
>
> Many entities have disappeared over the time I've been online but Yahoo
> groups prosper. As for arbitrary shut downs, you might want to look at
> the way ISPs are dropping Usenet. That could be a problem for people that
> can't handle a killfile!

Geocities prospered until Yahoo killed it on a whim. There was a huge
outcry at the time, it was not an action that had no effect. it
obliterated a decade and a half of web history and will likely be
regarded as a tragedy in the future.

>
> >
> > The (supposed) failure or success of web based services shouldn't have
> > any bearing on a discussion regarding Usenet.

>
> Of course it does, they represent the alternative ways of having
> conversations and have the kind of controls you feel is needed.
>

> > An independent entity, by amateurs for amateurs, is preferable to
> relyinon a governing body to administrate.
>
> But it won't be any more independent, more likely less, than the RSGB.
>
>

I'm not sure I follow this point Charlie. Can you go again?

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

In article <20130315134...@surtees.fenrir.org.uk>,
Brian Morrison <b...@fenrir.org.uk> wrote:

> On Fri, 15 Mar 2013 13:28:23 +0000 (UTC)
> RipeCrisbies wrote:
>
> > Of course it does, they represent the alternative ways of having
> > conversations and have the kind of controls you feel is needed.
>

> It's worth pointing out that there are exactly 3 moderated groups in

> the uk.* hierarchy. One of those is uk.legal.moderated, where the need
> for moderation is apparently agreed between the users of the group for
> good and understandable reasons. Another is uk.rec.cycling.moderated
> which is the focus of some considerable unhappiness from its users and
> is most certainly not agreed on by a majority of posters who wish to
> be heard.
>
> I know which of the two models I expect to see any such new moderated
> group becoming, assuming that it attracts enough traffic to become
> viable.

I hope to achieve and will be aiming for the gold standard set by
uk.legal.moderated.

[Molly Mockford]

At 11:33:05 on Fri, 15 Mar 2013, Stephen Thomas Cole
<steve....@gmail.com> wrote in
<rfd1-uk.radio.amateur.moderated-20130315113305$20...@matrix.darkstorm.co.
uk>:

>The long-standing newsgroup uk.radio.amateur has, for a considerable
>time, been suffering from a large volume of abusive, trolling, flaming
>and off-topic posts.

I have looked at the group, sorted it by poster, checked a few posts for
each of the most prolific posting IDs, and took a few minutes to
killfile around 20 posting IDs. This reduced the available posts to a
very readable set - they included, of course, some posts from people who
appear to be silly or tedious, but such posts were not abusive, trolling
or flaming. I will not see what sort of traffic appears in the group
over the next few days, subject to filtering by my killfile.

Just a few points to start with:

>and off-topic posts.

It makes little sense to complain about off-topic posts in the rationale
when the RFD specifically makes provision for off-topic discussions.

>INITIAL MODERATORS
>
>Myself, Stephen Thomas Cole & TBD (if deemed appropriate. Additional
>moderators can and will be added after group creation).

At first I thought this represented a set of three posting IDs, but then
I realised that it is in fact only one person. This is a seriously bad
idea; if the only moderator goes under a bus, the group will die with
him. I strongly suggest that at least three initial moderators are
named in the charter. Otherwise, the subheading should be changed to
read "INITIAL MODERATOR" (i.e. in the singular) to make it clear that
this is a one-man show.

>The moderators will be vigilant to ensure that discussions remain civil
>and interesting, avoiding problems such as invective and repetition.

Very dangerous. What you personally may see as not being interesting
may be regarded by others as extremely interesting, and vice versa. Just
because a subject has been discussed before does not mean that it can
never be discussed again, possibly encouraging different posters to take
part and even express different points of view. If members of the group
do not think a subject interesting, they will not discuss it; it can
therefore do little harm to pass an otherwise acceptable post merely
because the moderator thinks it is uninteresting or repetitious.
--
Molly - I don't speak for the Committee. I speak for me.
Nature loves variety. Unfortunately, society hates it. (Milton
Diamond Ph.D.)
My Reply-To address *is* valid, though may not be so for ever.

[Molly Mockford]

At 15:21:47 on Fri, 15 Mar 2013, Huge <Hu...@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote
in <aqgskbF...@mid.individual.net>:

>On 2013-03-15, Ian Jackson <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>> In article
>><rfd1-uk.radio.amateur.moderated-20130315113305$20...@matrix.darkstorm.c

>>o.uk>,
>> Stephen Thomas Cole <steve....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> * I'd probably be willing to host your moderation on my server
>> chiark.greenend.org.uk.
>

>Steve, under no circumstances do this, unless you want to be tarred with the
>same brush as Jackson.

Just a heads-up for those who might not otherwise realise: the Ian
Jackson (chiark) of uk.rec.cycling.moderated is not the same as the Ian
Jackson (demon) who posts to uk.radio.amateur.

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

In article <6ds08i....@news.alt.net>,
Percy Picacity <k...@under.the.invalid> wrote:

> On 2013-03-15 13:40:17 +0000, Brian Morrison said:
>
> > On Fri, 15 Mar 2013 13:28:23 +0000 (UTC)
> > RipeCrisbies wrote:
> >
> >> Of course it does, they represent the alternative ways of having
> >> conversations and have the kind of controls you feel is needed.
> >
> > It's worth pointing out that there are exactly 3 moderated groups in
> > the uk.* hierarchy. One of those is uk.legal.moderated, where the need
> > for moderation is apparently agreed between the users of the group for
> > good and understandable reasons. Another is uk.rec.cycling.moderated
> > which is the focus of some considerable unhappiness from its users and
> > is most certainly not agreed on by a majority of posters who wish to
> > be heard.
> >
> > I know which of the two models I expect to see any such new moderated
> > group becoming, assuming that it attracts enough traffic to become
> > viable.
>

> Amateur radio does seem to attract some dogmatic characters. I fear a
> moderated group would become the property of a tiny clique, especially
> with such a rigid charter. I really do not support this proposal,
> although I admit I lurk more than post in ukra at present. I retire
> today, so this may change to a pattern of dogmatic and slightly
> demented assertiveness as I stake my claim to ukra territory.

Hi percy, thanks for contributing.

Yes, there are certainly some "characters" within amateur radio...

I would contest that the charter is rigid, it outlines that on and
off-topic posting is permitted as long as it falls within accepted
standards of conduct. All that is not permitted would be postings that
are of an abusive nature, contain personal attacks or act as "baiting".
If conduct is kept to a standard that does not contain these elements,
then it will be authorised.

[Spike Mitty & Co]

On Fri, 15 Mar 2013 15:21:54 +0000, Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:

> In article <aqgpjs...@mid.individual.net>,
> Spike <Aero.Spike@S&T.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> [1] This wording would be seen as normal for North Korea.
>>
>> The proposer has been involved in extensive discussions on
>> uk.radio.amateur since raising the topic of a moderated group. Among
>> other things he has shown considerable difficulty in realising that
>> while words might hold a particular meaning for him, they do not
>> necessarily hold the same meaning for others. Therefore, it
>> necessarily follows that unless the meanings of words are agreed upon
>> beforehand, in voting 'for' the new group one has no idea of what the
>> moderation policy actually means or how it will be enforced in
>> practice, apart from the expressions of pious hopes about human nature.
>>
>>
> I'm hoping that the RFD will help in pinning down exactly what language
> is needed to make clear that which is unwelcome and would be rejected.
> The charter/moderation rules in this 1st RFD are a draft, a work in
> progress. I'd gladly receive the benefit of your contributions on
> getting this right Spike.

They say that 'experience is what you get just after you realise you need it', and I have a feeling that as this
matter unfolds you're going to get more than you may have bargained for.

In the spirit of the Amateur Radio licence, you are going to have to experiment and teach yourself, and you will
gain much experience from it. In that cause, I'm not going to reword things for you or help you out of the hole
you have dug for yourself.

>> [2] 'Tone'
>>
>> In one reply to me regarding his inexperience with kill-files and
>> watch-lists, which are used by most of the regular posters of ukra, the
>> proposer insisted that he did not want to use those, but was happy to
>> proceed to moderate any new group. It was mentioned that the KF/WL
>> approach was on an entirely individual basis whereas in his proposal he
>> would be acting in loco parentis on behalf of the users of the new
>> group, most of which are well experienced in life matters and so need
>> no hand-holding. Additionally, he confirmed that my posting, which was
>> not abusive, would have been rejected for its 'tone'. It is to be noted
>> that 'tone' is not mentioned above and therefore remains undefined, but
>> clearly will be a factor in the moderation process. Again, one has no
>> idea of what the moderation policy actually means or how it will be
>> enforced in practice.
>>
>>
> You're misrepresenting what actually was said. I'd encourage any
> interested parties to navigate to uk.radio.amateur and read through the
> thread that I started yesterday on the matter, and to which Spike
> refers. It contains some good discussion, along with plenty of flaming.

I would encourage anyone to read that thread too, but there's an awful lot of it.

You made a number of fundamental errors, in that you started to illustrate what your moderation policy was
going to be like and what it might contain. Further, you hung an albatross round your neck by using the 'tone'
word in regard to what you would and wouldn't pass as a moderator. Now you are back-tracking, but hopefully
you learnt something from that, again in the spirit of the Amateur Licence.

>> [3] Age and inexperience
>>
>> The proposer currently holds a restricted form of licence, and appears
>> unaware of much of the rich history of Amateur Radio or
>> uk.radio.amateur. The group has survived more than 20 years in its
>> unmoderated and unchartered form. That a newcomer who is unwilling to
>> gain experience in using software local to him to determine what he
>> wishes to see or not see could be said to completely unsuitable to
>> moderate an Amateur Radio usergroup for those with more experience than
>> him in the various fields of life, Amateur Radio, or uk.radio.amateur.
>
> I am a foundation licence holder, being a relative newcomer to amateur
> radio, and am currently working my way through studies to achieve higher
> licence classes. This is not a fact that I have ever tried to disguise.
> Nor do I consider it particularly relevant in a discussion concerning
> the moderation of a putative newsgroup. I hope that this RFD will help
> to form a charter that is straight-forward and easy to moderate.
> Advanced knowledge of technical amateur radio matters is not a
> prerequisite in policing and rejecting abusive postings to a newsgroup.

As no-one has accused you of hiding anything, I wonder why you feel the need to defend that.

As far as "Advanced knowledge of technical amateur radio matters is not a prerequisite in policing and rejecting
abusive postings to a newsgroup" is concerned, you have a lot to learn about what newsgroups are really about,
if you're going to moderate one.

>> [4] Conclusion
>>
>> With discussion phrases from the proposer such as "I know what civil
>> behaviour is and I know what constitutes abusive behaviour. This
>> knowledge will suffice", the only wise choice is to vote against this
>> ill-thought-through, nanny-state, I-know-what's-good-for-you approach.
>> YKIMS.
>
> Again, misrepresenting what was said by removing from context.

Feel free to supply the context.

You can probably gather that you have lost my goodwill through your approach to this matter.

I don't wish you ill, I'm not that sort of person, but as Amateur Radio is about self-training, then you'll self-train to
levels I suspect you never anticipated.

[Brian Morrison]

On Fri, 15 Mar 2013 15:28:56 +0000

Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:

> In article <20130315134...@surtees.fenrir.org.uk>,
> Brian Morrison <b...@fenrir.org.uk> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 15 Mar 2013 13:39:13 +0000
> > Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:
> >
> > > It is difficult to follow threads or find new postings when the
> > > floods are ongoing and at their worst, the floods make the group
> > > unbearable.
> >
> > From your perspective perhaps. If I remove my filters I can scan the
> > subject and from columns and immediately know which posts are worth
> > my attention and which are not. I would certainly not view that as
> > "unbearable".
>
> Different people have different thresholds of patience I guess.
> Seeing dozens or hundreds of crapflood postings wash through the
> group on a regular basis drives me, and others, up the wall.

You think it doesn't drive me crazy too? That's why I have learned how
to deal with it.

You do realise it's extremely likely that the culprits will throw
massive amounts of this stuff into the suggested new group, and as they
all post via Google Groups you stand very little chance of stopping
them via any abuse mechanisms?

--

Brian Morrison

[Brian Morrison]

On Fri, 15 Mar 2013 15:01:44 +0000
Tony wrote:

> In uk.net.news.config, Stephen Thomas Cole <steve....@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
> >
> >This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the following
> >changes in the uk.* Usenet hierarchy:
>
> Out of interest, why was the initial post you made to uk.radio.amateur
> asking for views on an RFD cross-posted to alt.steve?

He gets a lot of people asking him that ;-)

--

Brian Morrison

[Percy Picacity]

Neither do I. And I think a group dominated by the self-selected Great
and Good of amateur radio would be a sorry place indeed.


--

Percy Picacity

[Molly Mockford]

At 15:35:39 on Fri, 15 Mar 2013, Molly Mockford
<nospam...@mollymockford.me.uk> wrote in
<W8vuCKRL$zQR...@molly.mockford>:

>I will not see what sort of traffic appears in the group over the next
>few days, subject to filtering by my killfile.

s/not/now/ - ain't it always after you've posted that you spot the typo?

[Brian Morrison]

On 15 Mar 2013 15:10:11 +0000 (GMT)

Ian Jackson wrote:

> In article
> <rfd1-uk.radio.amateur.moderated-20130315113305$20...@matrix.darkstorm.co.uk>,
> Stephen Thomas Cole <steve....@gmail.com> wrote:
> >The long-standing newsgroup uk.radio.amateur has, for a
> >considerable time, been suffering from a large volume of abusive,
> >trolling, flaming and off-topic posts.
>
> I looked at the group and it does seem in a bad state.

A matter of opinion.

>
> >INITIAL MODERATORS
> >
> >Myself, Stephen Thomas Cole & TBD (if deemed appropriate. Additional
> >moderators can and will be added after group creation).
>
> I think your proposal would gain credibility if you lined up a panel
> of generally-highly-thought-of volunteer moderators and named them in
> the proposal. That would make it clear that you had a good base of
> active support from the group.

I suspect that it will be difficult to find volunteer moderators from a
significant section of the active posters in the group, who from my
perspective appear not to want a moderated group created. If all the
moderators are of a common or similar view with regard to the creation
of a moderated group then I can't see anyone who has posts to it
rejected being prepared to accept the resulting situation.

>
> It would also help ally fears that the group would be your private
> fiefdom. (Although people will now be along to say, falsely, that
> urcm is my private fiefdom.)

It will only allay fears if there is general agreement that such a
group is needed, otherwise it's just a fait accompli.

>
> I suggest you solicit nominations for moderators, and then exercise
> your own judgement to filter the results.
>
> What are your plans for hosting ?
>
> In practice I think you have two or three obvious options:
>
> * I'd probably be willing to host your moderation on my server
> chiark.greenend.org.uk.
>
> * You can do the hosting yourself.
>
> * It may be possible for you to use the system used by
> uk.legal.moderated; however it seems to be running unattended, its
> administrator having taken an extended leave of absence, so I
> wouldn't recommend this.
>

It had never occurred to me that additional infrastructure is needed
for moderation. It makes me even more convinced that this is a bad idea
and should not go ahead.

Any comments here are not aimed at you Ian BTW.

--

Brian Morrison

[Brian Morrison]

On Fri, 15 Mar 2013 15:39:14 +0000
Molly Mockford wrote:

> At 15:21:47 on Fri, 15 Mar 2013, Huge <Hu...@nowhere.much.invalid>
> wrote in <aqgskbF...@mid.individual.net>:
>
> >On 2013-03-15, Ian Jackson <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> >> In article
> >><rfd1-uk.radio.amateur.moderated-20130315113305$20...@matrix.darkstorm.c
> >>o.uk>,
> >> Stephen Thomas Cole <steve....@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> * I'd probably be willing to host your moderation on my server
> >> chiark.greenend.org.uk.
> >
> >Steve, under no circumstances do this, unless you want to be tarred
> >with the same brush as Jackson.
>
> Just a heads-up for those who might not otherwise realise: the Ian
> Jackson (chiark) of uk.rec.cycling.moderated is not the same as the
> Ian Jackson (demon) who posts to uk.radio.amateur.

Fairly simple to recognise the difference between them.

--

Brian Morrison

[Brian Howie]

In message
<rfd1-uk.radio.amateur.moderated-20130315113305$20...@matrix.darkstorm.co.
uk>, Stephen Thomas Cole <steve....@gmail.com> writes

> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>
>This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the following changes
>in the uk.* Usenet hierarchy:
>

> create moderated newsgroup uk.radio.amateur.moderated

Setting aside the pros and cons of moderation, surely this newsgroup
belongs in the uk.rec hierarchy. e.g. with uk.rec.radio.cb . The
proposed location of the group compounds the anomaly of that of the
un-moderated group. An opportunity exists to correct this, but would
require a separate RFD.

Brian
--
Brian Howie

[Brian Morrison]

On 15 Mar 2013 15:21:47 GMT

Huge wrote:

> On 2013-03-15, Ian Jackson <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:

> > In article
> > <rfd1-uk.radio.amateur.moderated-20130315113305$20...@matrix.darkstorm.co.uk>,
> > Stephen Thomas Cole <steve....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > * I'd probably be willing to host your moderation on my server
> > chiark.greenend.org.uk.
>

> Steve, under no circumstances do this, unless you want to be tarred
> with the same brush as Jackson.
>

You seem to be in favour of moderated groups and yet you're being
fairly personal about Ian Jackson, I thought this is what the moderated
group is supposed to prevent?

--

Brian Morrison

[Brian Morrison]

On Fri, 15 Mar 2013 15:35:39 +0000
Molly Mockford wrote:

> I have looked at the group, sorted it by poster, checked a few posts
> for each of the most prolific posting IDs, and took a few minutes to
> killfile around 20 posting IDs. This reduced the available posts to
> a very readable set - they included, of course, some posts from
> people who appear to be silly or tedious, but such posts were not
> abusive, trolling or flaming.

Interesting, that matches my own findings quite well.

--

Brian Morrison

[Percy Picacity]

On 2013-03-15 15:50:41 +0000, Molly Mockford said:

> At 15:35:39 on Fri, 15 Mar 2013, Molly Mockford
> <nospam...@mollymockford.me.uk> wrote in
> <W8vuCKRL$zQR...@molly.mockford>:
>
>> I will not see what sort of traffic appears in the group over the next
>> few days, subject to filtering by my killfile.
>
> s/not/now/ - ain't it always after you've posted that you spot the typo?

Sadly, I think you''ll find some of the most prolific and inane posters
morph into multiple new IDs on a daily basis. However, their
vocabulary and social background is such that the new IDs are almost
always immediately identifiable.

--

Percy Picacity

[Brian Morrison]

uk.r.a.'s name indicates its age and heritage, I really would not want
to see it changed.

And if a change required that a charter be created then I would be very
strongly against.

--

Brian Morrison

[Brian Morrison]

On Fri, 15 Mar 2013 15:53:27 +0000
Percy Picacity wrote:

> >> You jest. UKRA is a cesspit.
> >>
> >
> > It's a matter of opinion isn't it? I don't think it is a cesspit.
>
> Neither do I. And I think a group dominated by the self-selected
> Great and Good of amateur radio would be a sorry place indeed.

There is ample evidence to show just that in other places.

--

Brian Morrison

[Percy Picacity]

Off course, the your interpretation of the description 'off-topic' begs
the question of what should be on topic. Over the several years I have
read ukra it has always been seen as a discussion group *for* radio
amateurs and interested parties to discuss whatever exercises them, and
NOT a group solely for the discussion of amateur radio. You seem
rather dogmatically to have made an opposite assumption. More the
personality trait of a cabal guru than of a good moderatorator , I fear.

--

Percy Picacity

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

In article <khvd17$5c5$2...@matrix.darkstorm.co.uk>, to...@darkstorm.co.uk wrote:

> In uk.net.news.config, Stephen Thomas Cole <steve....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
> >
> >This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the following changes
> >in the uk.* Usenet hierarchy:
>

> Out of interest, why was the initial post you made to uk.radio.amateur
> asking for views on an RFD cross-posted to alt.steve?

Hi Tony. When I returned to Usenet last year, as part of a wider vintage
computing hobby, I began to archive my posts to alt.steve (vanity, hey!)
with the idea of a long-term project developing out of it with regards to
how vintage tech can still be put to effective use today. My main Usenet
machine is a vintage Macintosh (posting on it right now) and I must admit
to getting quite the kick out of being productive on it with equally
(supposedly) obselete protocols like Usenet and IRC. After the first few
posts in that thread, I stopped crossposting as I didn't feel it
particularly appropriate once the debate started to gather steam and I
decided to go the RFD route.

--
-------------------
Stephen Thomas Cole
-------------------

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

In article <aqgqmu...@mid.individual.net>, use...@huge.org.uk wrote:

> On 2013-03-15, Stephen Thomas Cole <REMOVEste...@REMOVEgmail.com> wrote:
> > In article
> ><rfd1-uk.radio.amateur.moderated-20130315113305$20...@matrix.darkstorm.co.uk>,

> > Stephen Thomas Cole <steve....@gmail.com> wrote:
> >

> >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

> >>
> >> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
> >>
> >> This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the following changes
> >> in the uk.* Usenet hierarchy:
> >>

> >> create moderated newsgroup uk.radio.amateur.moderated
>
> Excellent idea. uk.radio.amateur has been a festering cesspit for years.
>
> [8 lines snipped]

>
> > The first, and probably most pressing, point is relating to the proposed
> > name of the group. uk.radio.amateur was created before the UK.* naming
> > conventions came into being so is inherently "non-standard". I have
> > proposed "uk.radio.amateur.moderated" as the name of the new group, which
> > will also be non-standard. I do believe, however, that there is a case for
> > an exception being made in this instance as the moderated group is clearly
> > an off-shoot of the older one, a sister if you will, and will cover the
> > same topic-base albeit moderated. If the new group was placed in the
> > uk.rec.radio.* hierarchy, it would sit alongside uk.rec.radio.cb in the
> > grouplist, a group with a much weaker thematic relationship than with
> > uk.radio.amateur and I believe that this would lead to either confusion
> > amongst new users browsing the grouplist or the group not being as easily
> > found as the existing one.
> >

> > I will gladly receive advice on that matter.
>
> In theory, it should be in the uk.rec.radio.* hierarchy. In practice, it
> should probably be be uk.radio.amateur.moderated. Wherever it is, it's a
> good idea.

Thank you for the support. I do genuinely believe that this proposal is a
sound idea that will, in the long run, benefit amateur radio and it's
operators as well as Usenet and it's readers.

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

In article <JVymeKIy...@b-howie.demon.co.uk>, Brian Howie

Hello Brian, thanks for contributing.

Yes, the name is an issue for debate. So far, the consensus is leaning
towards naming in line with ukra in contravention of the naming
guidelines, although that is not set in stone and I expect to see more
debate on it as the RFD progresses.

[Molly Mockford]

At 16:04:31 on Fri, 15 Mar 2013, Percy Picacity <k...@under.the.invalid>
wrote in <6ds6bh....@news.alt.net>:

One thing I haven't yet spotted is any troll-wrestling; in other words,
otherwise on-topic posters compulsively replying to and arguing with the
trolling and flaming posts. So far the only replies to topics
originated by posters in my killfile are from other posters in my
killfile.

It was largely the inability of certain regular posters to
uk.rec.cycling to deny themselves the indulgence of troll-wrestling
which led to the formation of urcm.

[Steve Firth]

Huge <Hu...@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
[snip]

> In theory, it should be in the uk.rec.radio.* hierarchy. In practice, it
> should probably be be uk.radio.amateur.moderated. Wherever it is, it's a
> good idea.

I agree, but I don't agree that this draft of the RFD is fit for purpose.
It smells too much like point scoring. A neutral approach that goes for the
"not hurtful to others" criterion would be better as would some dialogue
between the proponent and the ulm moderation team who seem to do the best
job of moderation in the UK hierarchy.

Ban the behaviour not the individual and attempt to be scrupulously neutral
in decision making or else you get moderators tied down playing silly games
with the trolls.

--
<•DarWin><|
_/ _/

[Steve Firth]

Stephen Thomas Cole <steve....@gmail.com> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>

> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>
> This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the following changes
> in the uk.* Usenet hierarchy:
>
> create moderated newsgroup uk.radio.amateur.moderated

The first concern for me is that the RFD appears to take no account of the
years of misery that have followed from the poorly drafted RFD that was
used for the creation of urcm. This RFD has a lot of what I would consider
as verbal hand waving, and also a lot of recrimination which isn't
necessary.

I would prefer to see the RFD redrafted to omit the point scoring and for
the principles of moderation to be drawn largely from the
uk.legal.moderated charter.

--
<•DarWin><|
_/ _/

[Brian Howie]

In message
<rfd1-uk.radio.amateur.moderated-20130315113305$20...@matrix.darkstorm.co.
uk>, Stephen Thomas Cole <steve....@gmail.com> writes

> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>
>This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the following changes
>in the uk.* Usenet hierarchy:
>
> create moderated newsgroup uk.radio.amateur.moderated

Setting aside the pros and cons of moderation, surely this newsgroup
belongs in the uk.rec hierarchy. e.g. with uk.rec.radio.cb . The
proposed location of the group compounds the anomaly of that of the
un-moderated group. An opportunity exists to correct this, but would
require a separate RFD.

Brian

--
Brian Howie

[Brian Morrison]

Both very important points, thank you for noting them.

--

Brian Morrison

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

In article <W8vuCKRL$zQR...@molly.mockford>, Molly Mockford

<usene...@mollymockford.me.uk> wrote:

> I have looked at the group, sorted it by poster, checked a few posts for
> each of the most prolific posting IDs, and took a few minutes to
> killfile around 20 posting IDs. This reduced the available posts to a
> very readable set - they included, of course, some posts from people who
> appear to be silly or tedious, but such posts were not abusive, trolling
> or flaming. I will not see what sort of traffic appears in the group
> over the next few days, subject to filtering by my killfile.
>
> Just a few points to start with:
>
> >and off-topic posts.
>
> It makes little sense to complain about off-topic posts in the rationale
> when the RFD specifically makes provision for off-topic discussions.
>

Fair point. The main driving force behind this proposal is to remove the
possibility of personal attacks, abuse and crapfloods, each of which ukra
has been inundated with for years. The RFD should reflect that
unambiguously.

> >INITIAL MODERATORS
> >
> >Myself, Stephen Thomas Cole & TBD (if deemed appropriate. Additional
> >moderators can and will be added after group creation).
>
> At first I thought this represented a set of three posting IDs, but then
> I realised that it is in fact only one person. This is a seriously bad
> idea; if the only moderator goes under a bus, the group will die with
> him. I strongly suggest that at least three initial moderators are
> named in the charter. Otherwise, the subheading should be changed to
> read "INITIAL MODERATOR" (i.e. in the singular) to make it clear that
> this is a one-man show.
>

Noted. It has been suggested elsewhere in the thread that it would be
useful to scout for independent moderators in the first instance to make
the proposal more robust. I will look into this.

> >The moderators will be vigilant to ensure that discussions remain civil
> >and interesting, avoiding problems such as invective and repetition.
>
> Very dangerous. What you personally may see as not being interesting
> may be regarded by others as extremely interesting, and vice versa. Just
> because a subject has been discussed before does not mean that it can
> never be discussed again, possibly encouraging different posters to take
> part and even express different points of view. If members of the group
> do not think a subject interesting, they will not discuss it; it can
> therefore do little harm to pass an otherwise acceptable post merely
> because the moderator thinks it is uninteresting or repetitious.

Again, fair point, and the proposal/charter will need to be unambiguous in
what is permitted and what actions the moderators are allowed to take.

Thank you Molly for your valuable contributions.

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

In article <hIC*05...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>,

ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk (Ian Jackson) wrote:

> >INITIAL MODERATORS
> >
> >Myself, Stephen Thomas Cole & TBD (if deemed appropriate. Additional
> >moderators can and will be added after group creation).
>

> I think your proposal would gain credibility if you lined up a panel
> of generally-highly-thought-of volunteer moderators and named them in
> the proposal. That would make it clear that you had a good base of
> active support from the group.
>

> It would also help ally fears that the group would be your private
> fiefdom. (Although people will now be along to say, falsely, that
> urcm is my private fiefdom.)
>

> I suggest you solicit nominations for moderators, and then exercise
> your own judgement to filter the results.

This is an excellent suggestion Ian, and I will be investigating this
further. Would uk.net.news.moderation be a good place to start looking for
such?

>
> What are your plans for hosting ?
>
> In practice I think you have two or three obvious options:
>

> * I'd probably be willing to host your moderation on my server
> chiark.greenend.org.uk.
>

> * You can do the hosting yourself.
>
> * It may be possible for you to use the system used by
> uk.legal.moderated; however it seems to be running unattended, its
> administrator having taken an extended leave of absence, so I
> wouldn't recommend this.

Thank you for the offer, but I will likely look to host myself.

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

In article <20130315155...@surtees.fenrir.org.uk>, Brian Morrison

<b...@fenrir.org.uk> wrote:

> I suspect that it will be difficult to find volunteer moderators from a
> significant section of the active posters in the group, who from my
> perspective appear not to want a moderated group created. If all the
> moderators are of a common or similar view with regard to the creation
> of a moderated group then I can't see anyone who has posts to it
> rejected being prepared to accept the resulting situation.
>

Maybe I misread Ian's suggestion, but I took it to mean parties otherwise
unrelated to ukra. If I'm wrong on that, then fair enough. If there are,
however, volunteer moderators in uk.* who do it for a hobby, then that
*should* go a long way to allay fears, right?

>
> It had never occurred to me that additional infrastructure is needed
> for moderation. It makes me even more convinced that this is a bad idea
> and should not go ahead.
>

I was aware that software was needed, and that a server was desirable.
Software I can download and learn, a server I already have. If your fears
are to do with longevity, then please say so as we can fold them into the
debate and come up with solutions.

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

In article <20130315155...@surtees.fenrir.org.uk>, Brian Morrison
<b...@fenrir.org.uk> wrote:

I should add a short note to my .sig about it... :)

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

In article <20130315154...@surtees.fenrir.org.uk>, Brian Morrison

Perhaps, but why let the devils win the war by just giving up?

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

In article <6ds6mp....@news.alt.net>, Percy Picacity

This is a fair point. The proposal needs refining to remove this
ambiguity. Personal attacks, abuse and crapflooding is really all that I
object to in ukra and would look to moderate out of any new group.

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

In article
<1883467272385052927.744329%steve%-mallo...@news.eternal-september.org>,

Noted, and I will investigate.

Thanks Steve.

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

In article
<822783156385053562.520524%steve%-mallo...@news.eternal-september.org>,

Agreed on all fronts, particularly the last point.

The RFD needs tweaking. I will investigate all that you say here.

[Brian Morrison]

On Fri, 15 Mar 2013 16:48:31 +0000
Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:

> In article <20130315154...@surtees.fenrir.org.uk>, Brian
> Morrison <b...@fenrir.org.uk> wrote:
>
> >
> > You do realise it's extremely likely that the culprits will throw
> > massive amounts of this stuff into the suggested new group, and as
> > they all post via Google Groups you stand very little chance of
> > stopping them via any abuse mechanisms?
> >
>
> Perhaps, but why let the devils win the war by just giving up?
>

I don't know how much effort it takes to moderate u.r.c.m., but I would
be unsurprised to discover that it's more than is needed to deal with
the original problems in u.r.c. By that token, "winning" will involve
more grinding repetitive moderation than "losing".

--

Brian Morrison

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

In article <O6hIjlVz...@molly.mockford>, Molly Mockford

<usene...@mollymockford.me.uk> wrote:
>
> One thing I haven't yet spotted is any troll-wrestling; in other words,
> otherwise on-topic posters compulsively replying to and arguing with the
> trolling and flaming posts. So far the only replies to topics
> originated by posters in my killfile are from other posters in my
> killfile.
>

It shouldn't take too long...

If it's relevant, which (recent and distant) history may well not be in
this immediate debate, the Google archive of the group really is quite
something and contains much of what you describe. As per the rationale,
these events have spilled over into real-life on occasions which resulted
in legal ramifications, at least twice.

[Molly Mockford]

At 16:38:52 on Fri, 15 Mar 2013, Stephen Thomas Cole
<REMOVEste...@REMOVEgmail.com> wrote in
<REMOVEsteve.t.col...@192.168.0.134>:

>In article <hIC*05...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>,
>ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk (Ian Jackson) wrote:

>> I suggest you solicit nominations for moderators, and then exercise
>> your own judgement to filter the results.
>
>This is an excellent suggestion Ian, and I will be investigating this
>further. Would uk.net.news.moderation be a good place to start looking for
>such?

No, it would be best to recruit moderators from the original group.
Furthermore, if possible try and obtain a balanced group with a range of
different opinions, rather than a group who all agree on everything.

[Brian Morrison]

On Fri, 15 Mar 2013 16:42:45 +0000
Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:

> >
> > It had never occurred to me that additional infrastructure is needed
> > for moderation. It makes me even more convinced that this is a bad
> > idea and should not go ahead.
> >
>
> I was aware that software was needed, and that a server was desirable.
> Software I can download and learn, a server I already have. If your
> fears are to do with longevity, then please say so as we can fold
> them into the debate and come up with solutions.

I was particularly concerned when I saw Ian Jackson's offer to host the
moderation for you. My other concerns are with the moderation effort,
you will need other people who are able to look after the server and
the software. All a bit burdensome for volunteer moderators wouldn't you
say?

--

Brian Morrison

[Tony]

In uk.net.news.config, REMOVEste...@REMOVEgmail.com (Stephen Thomas

Cole) wrote:

>In article <khvd17$5c5$2...@matrix.darkstorm.co.uk>, to...@darkstorm.co.uk wrote:
>
>> In uk.net.news.config, Stephen Thomas Cole <steve....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>> >
>> >This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the following changes
>> >in the uk.* Usenet hierarchy:
>>
>> Out of interest, why was the initial post you made to uk.radio.amateur
>> asking for views on an RFD cross-posted to alt.steve?
>
>Hi Tony. When I returned to Usenet last year, as part of a wider vintage
>computing hobby, I began to archive my posts to alt.steve (vanity, hey!)

You're aware that cross-posting and moderated groups don't mix very well
(it doesn't show up anywhere until approved, confusing people in
non-moderated groups)?
--
Tony Evans
Saving trees and wasting electrons since 1993
blog -> http://perceptionistruth.com/
books -> http://www.bookthing.co.uk/
[ anything below this line wasn't written by me ]

[Tony]

In uk.net.news.config, Brian Morrison <b...@fenrir.org.uk> wrote:

>On Fri, 15 Mar 2013 16:42:45 +0000
>Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:
>
>> >
>> > It had never occurred to me that additional infrastructure is needed
>> > for moderation. It makes me even more convinced that this is a bad
>> > idea and should not go ahead.
>> >
>>
>> I was aware that software was needed, and that a server was desirable.
>> Software I can download and learn, a server I already have. If your
>> fears are to do with longevity, then please say so as we can fold
>> them into the debate and come up with solutions.
>
>I was particularly concerned when I saw Ian Jackson's offer to host the
>moderation for you. My other concerns are with the moderation effort,
>you will need other people who are able to look after the server and
>the software.

Ian's offer is to do just that - host the moderation software and handle
the technical aspect. The proponent will still need to find people
prepared to check in with the moderation tool (whichever is chosen) and
actually approved non-whitelisted posts on some kind of regular basis.

[Brian Morrison]

On Fri, 15 Mar 2013 16:56:22 +0000
Molly Mockford wrote:

> Furthermore, if possible try and obtain a balanced group with a range
> of different opinions, rather than a group who all agree on
> everything.

This is a group mainly posted to by radio amateurs, it's unusual to
find any two that can agree on anything at all.

--

Brian Morrison

[RipeCrisbies]

On Fri, 15 Mar 2013 15:38:56 +0000, Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:

> 'm not sure I follow this point Charlie. Can you go again?

A group run by a cabal is not an independent entity. If nothing else UKRA
is an independent entity!


--
M0WYM
www.radiowymsey.org

Sales @ radiowymsey
http://stores.ebay.co.uk/Sales-At-Radio-Wymsey/

[Percy Picacity]

On 2013-03-15 16:24:19 +0000, Molly Mockford said:

> At 16:04:31 on Fri, 15 Mar 2013, Percy Picacity <k...@under.the.invalid>
> wrote in <6ds6bh....@news.alt.net>:
>
>> On 2013-03-15 15:50:41 +0000, Molly Mockford said:
>>
>>> At 15:35:39 on Fri, 15 Mar 2013, Molly Mockford
>>> <nospam...@mollymockford.me.uk> wrote in
>>> <W8vuCKRL$zQR...@molly.mockford>:
>>>
>>>> I will not see what sort of traffic appears in the group over the next
>>>> few days, subject to filtering by my killfile.
>>> s/not/now/ - ain't it always after you've posted that you spot the typo?
>>
>> Sadly, I think you''ll find some of the most prolific and inane posters
>> morph into multiple new IDs on a daily basis. However, their
>> vocabulary and social background is such that the new IDs are almost
>> always immediately identifiable.
>
> One thing I haven't yet spotted is any troll-wrestling; in other
> words, otherwise on-topic posters compulsively replying to and arguing
> with the trolling and flaming posts. So far the only replies to topics
> originated by posters in my killfile are from other posters in my
> killfile.
>
> It was largely the inability of certain regular posters to
> uk.rec.cycling to deny themselves the indulgence of troll-wrestling
> which led to the formation of urcm.

The trolls themselves seem to have one or two internecin feuds, largely
expressed in dialect. While bloodthirsty, their comments are largely
incomprehensible to outsiders.

--

Percy Picacity

[RipeCrisbies]

On Fri, 15 Mar 2013 16:59:38 +0000, Brian Morrison wrote:

> it's unusual to find
> any two that can agree on anything at all.

No it's not!

[Molly Mockford]

At 16:59:38 on Fri, 15 Mar 2013, Brian Morrison <b...@fenrir.org.uk>

:-)

[John Benn]

"Ian Jackson" <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in message
news:hIC*05...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk...

> I think your proposal would gain credibility if you lined up a panel
> of generally-highly-thought-of volunteer moderators and named them in
> the proposal. That would make it clear that you had a good base of
> active support from the group.
>
> It would also help ally fears that the group would be your private
> fiefdom. (Although people will now be along to say, falsely, that
> urcm is my private fiefdom.)
>

> I suggest you solicit nominations for moderators, and then exercise
> your own judgement to filter the results.
>

> What are your plans for hosting ?
>
> In practice I think you have two or three obvious options:
>
> * I'd probably be willing to host your moderation on my server
> chiark.greenend.org.uk.
>
> * You can do the hosting yourself.
>
> * It may be possible for you to use the system used by
> uk.legal.moderated; however it seems to be running unattended, its
> administrator having taken an extended leave of absence, so I
> wouldn't recommend this.

Stephen, ignore anything written above. This guy (Ian Jackson) created the
worst-run moderated newsgroup ever.

[John Benn]

"Stephen Thomas Cole" <REMOVEste...@REMOVEgmail.com> wrote in message
news:REMOVEsteve.t.col...@192.168.0.134...

Phew! That was a close one!

[Percy Picacity]

I agree. I often get quite irritated by my own statements, and
ultimately strongly disagree with them. In fact i begin to think you
are being quite unreasonable.

--

Percy Picacity

[rec.radio.amateur.moderated Admin]

In <hIC*05...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk> ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk (Ian Jackson) writes:

>In article <rfd1-uk.radio.amateur.moderated-20130315113305$20...@matrix.darkstorm.co.uk>,

>Stephen Thomas Cole <steve....@gmail.com> wrote:

>>The long-standing newsgroup uk.radio.amateur has, for a considerable
>>time, been suffering from a large volume of abusive, trolling, flaming
>>and off-topic posts.

>I looked at the group and it does seem in a bad state.

>>INITIAL MODERATORS
>>
>>Myself, Stephen Thomas Cole & TBD (if deemed appropriate. Additional
>>moderators can and will be added after group creation).

>I think your proposal would gain credibility if you lined up a panel
>of generally-highly-thought-of volunteer moderators and named them in
>the proposal. That would make it clear that you had a good base of
>active support from the group.

>It would also help ally fears that the group would be your private
>fiefdom. (Although people will now be along to say, falsely, that
>urcm is my private fiefdom.)

>I suggest you solicit nominations for moderators, and then exercise
>your own judgement to filter the results.

>What are your plans for hosting ?

>In practice I think you have two or three obvious options:

> * I'd probably be willing to host your moderation on my server
> chiark.greenend.org.uk.

> * You can do the hosting yourself.

> * It may be possible for you to use the system used by
> uk.legal.moderated; however it seems to be running unattended, its
> administrator having taken an extended leave of absence, so I
> wouldn't recommend this.

>--
>Ian Jackson personal email: <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
>These opinions are my own. http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/
>PGP2 key 1024R/0x23f5addb, fingerprint 5906F687 BD03ACAD 0D8E602E FCF37657


The rec.radio.amateur.moderated team offers its assistance in setting up
a copy of the moderation software that it uses, which is Secure,
Team-Based, Usenet Moderation Program (STUMP):

http://www.algebra.com/~ichudov/stump

on Panix:

http://www.panix.com

or on another suitable Unix or Linux host that can be configured to run
the software and associated tools, such as a UK-based one like Chiark,
as suggested by Ian above.

--
rec.radio.amateur.moderated Admin

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

In article <khvjpe$g9a$1...@matrix.darkstorm.co.uk>, to...@darkstorm.co.uk wrote:

> In uk.net.news.config, REMOVEste...@REMOVEgmail.com (Stephen Thomas
> Cole) wrote:
>
> >In article <khvd17$5c5$2...@matrix.darkstorm.co.uk>, to...@darkstorm.co.uk wrote:
> >
> >> In uk.net.news.config, Stephen Thomas Cole <steve....@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
> >> >
> >> >This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the following changes
> >> >in the uk.* Usenet hierarchy:
> >>
> >> Out of interest, why was the initial post you made to uk.radio.amateur
> >> asking for views on an RFD cross-posted to alt.steve?
> >
> >Hi Tony. When I returned to Usenet last year, as part of a wider vintage
> >computing hobby, I began to archive my posts to alt.steve (vanity, hey!)
>
> You're aware that cross-posting and moderated groups don't mix very well
> (it doesn't show up anywhere until approved, confusing people in
> non-moderated groups)?

Indeed, and I would not do so.

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

In article <khvlf7$11s$1...@reader2.panix.com>,
rec-radio-amateur...@panix.com (rec.radio.amateur.moderated

Admin) wrote:

>
> The rec.radio.amateur.moderated team offers its assistance in setting up
> a copy of the moderation software that it uses, which is Secure,
> Team-Based, Usenet Moderation Program (STUMP):
>
> http://www.algebra.com/~ichudov/stump
>
> on Panix:
>
> http://www.panix.com
>
> or on another suitable Unix or Linux host that can be configured to run
> the software and associated tools, such as a UK-based one like Chiark,
> as suggested by Ian above.

Thank you for that info. I am already aware of STUMP so am pleased to see
it being put forward as a useful tool by existing moderators and will
certainly take up your kind offer and contact you for further assistance
in due course.