An Unofficial vote re: proposed split
Karina Wright
that God and the majority are on their side. Let's try something:
With no comments (try to keep this at least a semblance of rational), do the
regular members (as opposed to the persons who have been posting here as a
DIRECT result of this "discussion") support:
1) The complete change of alt.fan.furry into a moderated group
2) The creation of a moderated group (name to be determined later) to exist
in conjunction with alt.fan.furry
3) Leave everything alone.
This is in no way official and if everyone plays fair and answers with just
ONE of their aliases, we may actually get an HONEST feel for the mood of the
group as a whole about this whole thing.
LancerAdvanced
>1) The complete change of alt.fan.furry into a moderated group
Nay...
>2) The creation of a moderated group (name to be determined later) to exist
Yea...
>3) Leave everything alone.
Excluded by 1) & 2)
Ian Williams
"You can have it- Now, Correct, Fancy, Pick 2..."
Kai Robinson
news:GqoM3.202$2N.1...@news.abs.net...
> Everybody is busy arguing back and forth amongst themselves, each claiming
> that God and the majority are on their side. Let's try something:
>
> With no comments (try to keep this at least a semblance of rational), do
the
> regular members (as opposed to the persons who have been posting here as a
> DIRECT result of this "discussion") support:
>
This one.
Karina Wright
diespa...@best.com
Bev Clark/Steve Gallacci
Bahumat
Bahumat
Karina Wright wrote:
>
> Everybody is busy arguing back and forth amongst themselves, each claiming
> that God and the majority are on their side. Let's try something:
>
> With no comments (try to keep this at least a semblance of rational), do the
> regular members (as opposed to the persons who have been posting here as a
> DIRECT result of this "discussion") support:
>
> 1) The complete change of alt.fan.furry into a moderated group
>
> 2) The creation of a moderated group (name to be determined later) to exist
Mk9Hawk
No. We need a spot where no one can "legally" cancel out a post simply because
they don't like it themselves.
>2) The creation of a moderated group (name to be determined later) to exist
>in conjunction with alt.fan.furry
Yes. If people want a group that is under one person's control, have one
specifically set up for it that follows standard naming conventions (such as
alt.fan.furry.moderated).
>3) Leave everything alone.
That would work best, but no one wants it.
Darmon C. Thornton
exist
> in conjunction with alt.fan.furry
Aye.
M. Mitchell Marmel
>
> 1) The complete change of alt.fan.furry into a moderated group
Yea.
--
============================================================================
M. Mitchell Marmel \ Scattered, smothered, covered, chunked,
Drexel University \ whipped, beaten, chained and pierced.
Department of Materials Engineering \ *THE BEST HASHBROWNS IN THE WORLD!*
Fibrous Materials Research Center \ marm...@dunx1.ocs.drexel.edu
============================================================================
TaliVisions Homepage: http://www.pages.drexel.edu/grad/marmelmm/Talivisions/index.html
Victry 'Vixy' Hyzenthlay
> that God and the majority are on their side. Let's try something:
>
> With no comments (try to keep this at least a semblance of rational), do
the
> regular members (as opposed to the persons who have been posting here as a
> DIRECT result of this "discussion") support:
>
I most definately support number one, first and foremost.
>
> 2) The creation of a moderated group (name to be determined later) to
exist
> in conjunction with alt.fan.furry
Number two as an alternative, though I suggest a little twist this
time, because it has been tried before with little or no success. Bring out
the new newsgroup(s?), nuke AFF, wait a certain amount of time to allow the
new groups to gain circulation and readership, then restore AFF. Should
keep most patrons happy, save the trolls.
>
> 3) Leave everything alone.
Not acceptable, not even considered.
(P.S. If we do get new newsgroups, let's get a definate statement about what
their purpose is. Even if it is as broad as 'discussion of the furry
community'. Just so long as something is stated so there is no argument
about it afterward.)
=========+=========+=========+=========+=========+=========+=====
Victry 'love long and perspire; Vixy' Hyzenthlay / Technofox and
personal Vixen. "YIP!" / Furry Fan with a Furry Lifestyle... AND
a life! ;> / http://members.Xoom.com/Vixy
Please post any response to this newsgroup. Thanks.
Robert M. Guthrie
<kar...@cafekarina.org> wrote:
>1) The complete change of alt.fan.furry into a moderated group
Yes
>2) The creation of a moderated group (name to be determined later) to exist
>in conjunction with alt.fan.furry
N/A
>3) Leave everything alone.
N/A
Hangdog
> 3) Leave everything alone.
I vopte for #3
--Hangdog
mcgruff
> 3) Leave everything alone.
First choice.
> 2) The creation of a moderated group (name to be determined later) to exist
> in conjunction with alt.fan.furry
Second choice. Would give the lifestyler furry fans and animal-sex
fetishists a place to play.
RebelSqurl
>Everybody is busy arguing back and forth amongst themselves, each claiming
>that God and the majority are on their side. Let's try something:
>
>With no comments (try to keep this at least a semblance of rational), do the
>regular members (as opposed to the persons who have been posting here as a
>DIRECT result of this "discussion") support:
>
>2) The creation of a moderated group (name to be determined later) to exist
>in conjunction with alt.fan.furry
This has my support.
-- Jeff "Reb" Pierce
Hangdog
This is not really possible: a new group would have to be set up and
the old group "cordoned off" by use of cancelbots. I oppose *the
latter half of that* on principal, and will work actively and
vigorously against it, as will enough people inside and outside aff to
make it an ultimately unworkable plan.
2) Set up a new moderated aff group and leave the old one alone.
I will not oppose this. I will not, however, participate in the
moderated group if I think it in any way legitimizes bestiality or
bestialists.
3) Leave everything as it is.
I think this is ideal. Let there be at least one arena where everyone
who wants can say whatever's on their alleged minds. Yes, that means
the bestialists too, but I think that ultimately works *against*
them. And at least they can't claim they're here on an explicit
invitation.
Yes, it means having to put up with the occasional troll, but so
what? This is UseNet--moreso, this is alt.* If fewer regulars here
acted like cliche drag queens auditioning for the lead in _Tosca_, the
trolls wouldn't be a problem.
And if someone hadn't dragged in Peter daSilva to save us from
ourselves, the current debate over usenet theory and structure
wouldn't be taking place here.
But this requires an effort that, minimal as it is, most aff-ers can't
seem to muster. Fine. Let them have their moderated group and ignore
the people they don't want to hear. That's their decision and their
right. It is *not* their right to make that decision for me by
destroying an open forum.
--Hangdog
LLBF/TINBF
ilr
1) The complete change of alt.fan.furry into a moderated group
Though this isn't working well. 1/3 of the people voting here are just more assholes
(yes, assholes.) who showed up just make hell, and have almost nothing to do with
furries/anthropomorphics. Here, suck on this!: If someone can't prove they're a fan,
artist, or writer, they aren't allowed in our club, and aren't allowed a vote. After all,
that's all we're really after here, is to keep things ===> on topic <===.
That's right! Get rid of the fringe elements that are attaching themselves to our
fandom, (Sound familiar???) which means all those trolls attacking AFF, Erik mouse,
and any other online facets they never had any initial interest in.
I was going to vote #2. But considering the above, I think a little punitive
action is in order for this new fringe element . TO HELL WITH TROLLS!!!
--- i l r
Jim Doolittle
> 2) Set up a new moderated aff group and leave the old one alone.
>
> I will not oppose this. I will not, however, participate in the
> moderated group if I think it in any way legitimizes bestiality or
> bestialists.
alt.fan.furry is not, and never has been about bestiality. Neither would
any new group created. I completely fail to understand why you persist in
thinking that it does. Now, a.l.f on occaision does, and that's one of the
reasons why I don't read that group. If anything, having a moderated
version of aff would ensure that bestiality is not discussed, as it is not
a proper topic for the newsgroup.
I suppose, that the second option would probably be the best, just to keep
the usenet twinks happy. Although, I'd much rather see a moderated group
in the rec.arts.* hierarchy.
Oh, and on giving the matter of last night a bit of thought, I'm actually
highly amused that you asked me to remove all of your FL articles. It just
goes to show that you and Burned Fur just like to whine and fling mud
about the supposed problems in fandom, instead of participating in
positive activities to better it.
-Jim
--------------------------------------------------------------
| Jim Doolittle CornWuff Press |
| dool...@tbcnet.com http://www.cornwuff.com |
| Art Show Director, Midwest FurFest |
| http://www.furfest.org |
--------------------------------------------------------------
Richard de Wylfin
> Everybody is busy arguing back and forth amongst themselves, each claiming
> that God and the majority are on their side. Let's try something:
>
> With no comments (try to keep this at least a semblance of rational), do the
> regular members (as opposed to the persons who have been posting here as a
> DIRECT result of this "discussion") support:
>
> 1) The complete change of alt.fan.furry into a moderated group
No.
> 2) The creation of a moderated group (name to be determined later) to exist
> in conjunction with alt.fan.furry
Yes.
> 3) Leave everything alone.
No.
> This is in no way official and if everyone plays fair and answers with just
> ONE of their aliases, we may actually get an HONEST feel for the mood of the
> group as a whole about this whole thing.
I appreciate it.
--
David Pogue really likes his a.p.i.h.n.a. T-shirt!
http://www.bloomington.in.us/~dwylfin/possessiveits/index.html
Harris O'Malley
<kar...@cafekarina.org> wrote:
>Everybody is busy arguing back and forth amongst themselves, each claiming
>that God and the majority are on their side. Let's try something:
>
>With no comments (try to keep this at least a semblance of rational), do the
>regular members (as opposed to the persons who have been posting here as a
>DIRECT result of this "discussion") support:
>
>1) The complete change of alt.fan.furry into a moderated group
Yea
ilr
> in the rec.arts.* hierarchy.
>
>
this would be really cool IMO, as far as classification goes.
ilr
Whoops, retract that statement. replace it with:
1/3 of the people commenting here on aff in general, not this exact thread.
Al Goldman
>
>1) The complete change of alt.fan.furry into a moderated group
>
>2) The creation of a moderated group (name to be determined later) to exist
>in conjunction with alt.fan.furry
#2 is my choice, outside the ALT hierarchy. #1 a distant second.
Al Goldman
I've just seen the most heroic dog on television. He pulled a toddler from
the path of a speeding car, then pushed a criminal in front of it.
Mr. Burns, The Simpsons.
Hangdog
> In article <38024941...@pdq.net>, Hangdog <peter....@pdq.net> wrote:
>
>
> > 2) Set up a new moderated aff group and leave the old one alone.
> >
> > I will not oppose this. I will not, however, participate in the
> > moderated group if I think it in any way legitimizes bestiality or
> > bestialists.
>
> alt.fan.furry is not, and never has been about bestiality. Neither would
> any new group created. I completely fail to understand why you persist in
> thinking that it does.
So long as the moderators or "whitelist" chosen do not include any admitted
bestialists, that would be true. However, I have seem indications that they will
indeed include such people. As I lack control over anyone's actions in the
matter but my own, I've elected not to participate in that group if bestialists
are in any way explicitly included--through charter, whitelist, or as moderators.
Now: is your objection to my choosing the company I keep, or to my expressing
the reasons for that choice?
> Now, a.l.f on occaision does, and that's one of the
> reasons why I don't read that group. If anything, having a moderated
> version of aff would ensure that bestiality is not discussed, as it is not
> a proper topic for the newsgroup.
We are in complete agreement on these points.
> I suppose, that the second option would probably be the best, just to keep
> the usenet twinks happy. Although, I'd much rather see a moderated group
> in the rec.arts.* hierarchy.
Actually, what you propose would be ideal.
> Oh, and on giving the matter of last night a bit of thought, I'm actually
> highly amused that you asked me to remove all of your FL articles. It just
> goes to show that you and Burned Fur just like to whine and fling mud
> about the supposed problems in fandom, instead of participating in
> positive activities to better it.
When an editor and a contributor disagree this completely on matters of such
import (for I surely think sexual abuse and free speech are matters of import),
the best thing for both parties to do is to part company. I'd hoped that you
could handle it civilly, but a year in furry fandom has inured me to
disappointment. Very well, Mr. Doolittle: have a nice life, and enjoy the
company *you've* chosen to keep.
--Hangdog
LLBF/TINBF
Forrest
Jim Doolittle <dool...@tbcnet.com> wrote :
>alt.fan.furry is not, and never has been about bestiality. Neither would
>any new group created.
If memory serves, Xydexx has suggested that the new charter specifically
exclude such non-anthropomorphic topics; I concur.
Donald E. Sanders
****************************************************************
In article <GqoM3.202$2N.1...@news.abs.net>, kar...@cafekarina.org
says...
> With no comments (try to keep this at least a semblance of rational), do the
> regular members (as opposed to the persons who have been posting here as a
> DIRECT result of this "discussion") support:
I no longer consider myself a regular member, but since I have posted
here on numerous occasions, I will add my input.
>
> 1) The complete change of alt.fan.furry into a moderated group
I would support this idea, only if it will allow the smooth flow
of traffic on this newsgroup. (I must note that I am not happy
with the idea of using a 'White List' but in this chase, I should not
complain)
>
> 2) The creation of a moderated group (name to be determined later) to exist
> in conjunction with alt.fan.furry
This idea I would also support as stated in my above reply.
>
> 3) Leave everything alone.
I can no longer support the newsgroup remaining in the same state
it is now.
(Returning to 'Read Only' mode.)
--
Don Sanders
Dsan Tsan on #furry of Yiffnet
RoadKill Fur (Sun baked sorta but not burned!)
Amateur Artist at Roll Yer Own Graphics
http://www.dreamscape.com/dsand101/dsan.htm
(my furry page) Email dsan...@future.dreamscape.com
Karina Wright
ilr <i...@rof.net> wrote in message news:7ttn5k$b1b$1...@crucigera.fysh.org...
Well, yes, that's why when I sent the message, I asked that the non-group
members please not vote. And, glancing over the list who have so far, it
seems to be pretty much working out that way.
I'm trying to decide from your other message that rather than #2, you're
going with #1 (conversion of the group in toto)? Is this right? Just
trying to keep the tally correct.
ttfn/Karina
diespa...@best.com
: I was going to vote #2. But considering the above, I think a little punitive
: action is in order for this new fringe element . TO HELL WITH TROLLS!!!
This is the reason that no one in this newsgroup is trustable
as a moderator. I'd let HFW or the folks at The Nose do it
before I'd let anyone on this group.
Jim Doolittle
<bct...@hotmail.com> wrote:
A most excellent idea. You do have to have standards for your moderators
to judge posts by, after all.
Doodles
1) The complete change of alt.fan.furry into a moderated group
Aye
Baloo Ursidae
> Karina Wright wrote:
> 1) The complete change of alt.fan.furry into a moderated group
I second that.
--
Baloo
Karl Xydexx Jorgensen
> 1) The complete change of alt.fan.furry into a moderated group
Yes.
> 2) The creation of a moderated group (name to be determined later) to exist
> in conjunction with alt.fan.furry
Yes.
> 3) Leave everything alone.
No.
____________________________________________________________
Xydexx Squeakypony [ICQ: 7569393]
Xydexx's Anthrofurry Homepage
http://www.smart.net/~xydexx/anthrofurry/homepage.htm
Karl Xydexx Jorgensen
> >Forrest wrote:
> > If memory serves, Xydexx has suggested that the new charter specifically
> > exclude such non-anthropomorphic topics; I concur.
>
> A most excellent idea. You do have to have standards for your moderators
> to judge posts by, after all.
I don't come here to talk about Z-philia, and I think most everyone else
doesn't want to talk about it either. Since there's no reason to discuss
it in a group about anthropomorphics, it should be made off-topic,
period.
Hey, if it works, we get a newsgroup where furry fans spend time talking
about anthropomorphic artwork, writing, comics, movies, cartoons, &c.
Imagine, a newsgroup furry fans could actually be proud to show to
outsiders!
Will it happen? I sure hope so.
Karina Wright
<diespa...@best.com> wrote in message
news:380285a8$0$2...@nntp1.ba.best.com...
> Karina Wright <kar...@cafekarina.org> wrote:
>
>
> : Well, yes, that's why when I sent the message, I asked that the
non-group
> : members please not vote. And, glancing over the list who have so far,
it
> : seems to be pretty much working out that way.
>
>
>
> I do hope you're nixxing the votes of the Lifestylers who've
> suddenly started showing up here. They already have a newsgroup.
>
> For awhile, anyway.
By non-group members, I meant (and only meant) the people whose messages
have been popping up in this newsgroup as a direct response to the
cross-posting of all these split messages.
I'm not nixxing anybody. I have no desire, interest or authority to censor
anybody's vote. This ain't (as I mentioned in the header) in any way
official. This was just to get a feel for how the regular denizens of this
group felt about its fate because everyone was trying to claim victory for
their specific interest group and I wanted to try to get an even-handed
perspective on it.
At the moment, voting is pretty well split between 1 and 2 with only 2
people voting outright for #3 and a couple of people wistfully wishing that
it was still a valid option.
rune....@worldnet.att.mil
unmoderated group? If it's such a swell idea people will choose on their
own.
Obviously: #2
If someone doesn't like this sandbox they can go get their own. Keep
their group-grabbing hands off this one.
"They can have my newsgroup when they pry it from my cold dead hands."
- Bumper sticker
J. J. Novotny
> 1) The complete change of alt.fan.furry into a moderated group
This has been rejected by Peter da Silva. It is fortunately no longer an
option.
>
> 2) The creation of a moderated group (name to be determined later) to
> exist
> in conjunction with alt.fan.furry
>
> 3) Leave everything alone.
We could swing either 2 or 3. If we do 2, we need to clarify the charter
and related procedures before starting it up. We also need safeguards to
make speech there as free as possible given the charter. There are also
some things we could do to the existing group to make it more palatable
-- i.e. define more clearly in the FAQ what is on topic, and add an FAQ
about killfiles and how to maximize your UseNet enjoyment by avoiding
trolls.
I'll start another thread on this later.
Thanks for the survey.
Best;
Jeff
Hangdog
> Do you have so little tolerance
> for people who approach the problem differently than you?
"Tolerance"
"You keep using that word--I don't think it means what you think it means" --Inuego
Montoya
In my original post, I attempted to outline why the proposed structures of a
moderated group could give legitimacy to the animal abusers in this fandom.
Reviewing it now, I see that I could have stated more clearly that I thought these
would be *unintended* consequences. Perhaps this is what Mr. Doolittle objected
to--though he has never said so in any of his replies. Regardless, if he or anyone
took offense at the ommission, I apologize for the misunderstanding. I would have
offered it sooner had they pointed it out.
Regardless, I concluded by saying that I, personally, would not participate in any
group which I thought sanctioned bestialists or their practices.
I did not say I would try to rmgroup the forum or cancel their messages (as has been
suggested by other people who dislike a certain n forum or certain messages)
I did not insist that anyone do as I was proposing to do.
I did not even claim that anyone shared my opinion (though I've received e-mail from
a few who do).
This may demonstrate an extremity of conviction (though I think it is not extreme
given the issues involved).
But how, precisely, does it demonstrate a lack of _tolerance_?
--Hangdog
Michael Pena
I am in favor of option number 2.
Sincerely,
Michael Angel Peña(AKA Sparrow...A Rabbit)
Artist-Laughing Rabbit Graphics
http://lonestar.texas.net/~sparrow/sparrow.htm
"Karina Wright" <kar...@cafekarina.org> wrote:
>Everybody is busy arguing back and forth amongst themselves, each claiming
>that God and the majority are on their side. Let's try something:
>
>With no comments (try to keep this at least a semblance of rational), do the
>regular members (as opposed to the persons who have been posting here as a
>DIRECT result of this "discussion") support:
>
>1) The complete change of alt.fan.furry into a moderated group
>
>2) The creation of a moderated group (name to be determined later) to exist
>in conjunction with alt.fan.furry
>
>3) Leave everything alone.
>
diespa...@best.com
Wayd Wolf
Karina Wright <kar...@cafekarina.org> wrote in message
news:GqoM3.202$2N.1...@news.abs.net...
> Everybody is busy arguing back and forth amongst themselves, each
claiming
> that God and the majority are on their side. Let's try something:
>
> With no comments (try to keep this at least a semblance of
rational), do the
> regular members (as opposed to the persons who have been posting
here as a
> DIRECT result of this "discussion") support:
>
> 1) The complete change of alt.fan.furry into a moderated group
Bad idea. Otherwise well thought of furs will turn into complete
censorial assholes. Censorship is one of the strongest of all human
drives. Humans will kill to enforce it. Read your history, all.
Guaranteed to unite disparate factions against the censors though.
Gotta love that irony.
> 2) The creation of a moderated group (name to be determined later)
to exist
> in conjunction with alt.fan.furry
Definitely a good idea. The best and the one I'd go with.
Elsewhere the concept of a "best of" was raised. Sounds good. But who
decides and how? Do the nonstop and nonsense exchanges about
bestiality and whatnot get included on the idea they are serious
discussions? Why not have the moderators flip that all off to the
a.f.f.politics group? Why not moderators filing posts one by one to
specialized groups under a higher hierarchy? Sounds like the fur.*
set-up which has not nearly as much traffic as was anticipated.
This would require LOTS of thought, planning, and inclusion. Even
the lease sensible furs need to have a voice. Or else, we quite
rightly condemn ourselves by our actions to the title of censors.
That would make us no better than the creeps committing a veritable
social equivalent of a Denial of Service attack on this group.
> 3) Leave everything alone.
My second choice and with one modification. Raise holy hell with
the ISPs of the trolls. There *are* certain provisions in most AUPs
which will get people in hot water should they choose to be an ass.
And if you need help going after them, contact a network technician
near you. Many spend a lot of time going after amatuer crackers who
bounce off of open proxies as it is. These twinks are a lot less
sophisticated than that.
> This is in no way official and if everyone plays fair and answers
with just
> ONE of their aliases, we may actually get an HONEST feel for the
mood of the
> group as a whole about this whole thing.
>
>
That's my say on it.
-Wayd Wolf, still writing for who knows what reason...
diespa...@best.com
: Jim Doolittle wrote:
:> >Forrest wrote:
:> > If memory serves, Xydexx has suggested that the new charter specifically
:> > exclude such non-anthropomorphic topics; I concur.
:>
:> A most excellent idea. You do have to have standards for your moderators
:> to judge posts by, after all.
: I don't come here to talk about Z-philia, and I think most everyone else
: doesn't want to talk about it either.
"I am a zoophile"
-- KArl Jorgensen on AFF.
"If I want to say furry fandom is about a herd of masturbating
reindeer, I'll say it"
-- Karl Jorgensen of AFF.
You lie like a carpet, Karl.
Brendan Dunn
>Jim Doolittle wrote:
>> Oh, and on giving the matter of last night a bit of thought, I'm actually
>> highly amused that you asked me to remove all of your FL articles. It just
>> goes to show that you and Burned Fur just like to whine and fling mud
>> about the supposed problems in fandom, instead of participating in
>> positive activities to better it.
>
>When an editor and a contributor disagree this completely on matters of such
>import (for I surely think sexual abuse and free speech are matters of import),
>the best thing for both parties to do is to part company. I'd hoped that you
>could handle it civilly, but a year in furry fandom has inured me to
>disappointment. Very well, Mr. Doolittle: have a nice life, and enjoy the
>company *you've* chosen to keep.
Okay, I think I'm missing something here.
How is the disagreement between you and Jim so complete? He made clear
his viewpoint that he thinks sexual abuse (and I'm sure of people) is
dead wrong. You made your view on that abundantly clear, too, and it
seems to match his (and mine, and that of many others) very closely.
The difference seems to be that you want to take an active approach to
making certain that the newsgroup doesn't become a forum for pro-abuse
discussions, and he feels a more passive approach is appropriate,
waiting for pro-zoo posts to happen before coming down on them. Is this
so irreconcilable of a difference? I myself think I lean more towards
Jim's viewpoint. Maybe this is because I generally only skim a.f.f.,
and never see pro-zoo threads.
It's a good cause...it shouldn't fracture because of trivialities.
The company Jim has decided to keep is very, very similar to the company
you've decided to keep on this issue. Do you have so little tolerance
for people who approach the problem differently than you?
-Brendan
RebelSqurl
<wo...@your.door> writes:
>> 2) The creation of a moderated group (name to be determined later) to exist
>> in conjunction with alt.fan.furry
>
> Definitely a good idea. The best and the one I'd go with.
>Elsewhere the concept of a "best of" was raised. Sounds good. But who
>decides and how? Do the nonstop and nonsense exchanges about
>bestiality and whatnot get included on the idea they are serious
>discussions? Why not have the moderators flip that all off to the
>a.f.f.politics group? Why not moderators filing posts one by one to
>specialized groups under a higher hierarchy? Sounds like the fur.*
>set-up which has not nearly as much traffic as was anticipated.
That's true, the fur.* groups have little traffic, but that may be due to lack
of propagation as much as anything. They've only recently been added to AOL's
newsgroup reader, for example. The same problem plagues a.f.f.politics, which
is why that isn't as viable an option for this discussion as some think -- you
can't post there if you can't even access it!
> This would require LOTS of thought, planning, and inclusion. Even
>the lease sensible furs need to have a voice. Or else, we quite
>rightly condemn ourselves by our actions to the title of censors.
>That would make us no better than the creeps committing a veritable
>social equivalent of a Denial of Service attack on this group.
There is admittedly a fine line between moderation and censorship. The basic
idea behind the proposed a.f.f. restructuring is not to squelch free speech,
but to squelch off-topic and *deliberately* inflammatory postings that have no
content to speak of. I think if the moderation rules are spelled out very
clearly and carefully, we can avoid any censorship charges that might arise.
Plus, leaving the original a.f.f. unmoderated gives everyone and anyone a place
to say their piece. So option 2 might represent the best compromise we can
come up with.
-- Jeff "Reb" Pierce
P.S. -- Karina, don't count this as a vote for #2. I already voted for that
option, and don't want to stuff the ballot box! ;)
Baloo Ursidae
> By non-group members, I meant (and only meant) the people whose messages
> have been popping up in this newsgroup as a direct response to the
> cross-posting of all these split messages.
Besides, many of the lifestylers used to frequent here until folks started
getting abusive and intollerant to anybody who didn't think exactly like
them (BF, trolls, etc) and left. They're seeing an opportunity to be able
to talk about more fannish things again that are furry, yet definately off
topic on alt.lifestyle.furry, without being abused. You say its not going
on? Open your eyes folks.
If you want evidence what this kind of abuse does to people in the real
world, go to http://slashdot.org/, look in the boxes on the right side,
and read John Katz articles on 'voices from the hellmouth' and 'the price
of being different.'
> I'm not nixxing anybody. I have no desire, interest or authority to censor
> anybody's vote. This ain't (as I mentioned in the header) in any way
> official. This was just to get a feel for how the regular denizens of this
> group felt about its fate because everyone was trying to claim victory for
> their specific interest group and I wanted to try to get an even-handed
> perspective on it.
Thank you.
> At the moment, voting is pretty well split between 1 and 2 with only 2
> people voting outright for #3 and a couple of people wistfully wishing that
> it was still a valid option.
--
Baloo
Baloo Ursidae
> That's true, the fur.* groups have little traffic, but that may be due to lack
> of propagation as much as anything. They've only recently been added to AOL's
> newsgroup reader, for example. The same problem plagues a.f.f.politics, which
> is why that isn't as viable an option for this discussion as some think -- you
> can't post there if you can't even access it!
AOL claims to carry them, but AOL does not carry any furrynet groups, just
groups with the same name. fur.control has messages fairly quickly when a
leak to AOL (or any other national ISP) happens. They're keeping it small
and taking very careful moderation safeguards to prevent spam.
> There is admittedly a fine line between moderation and censorship. The basic
> idea behind the proposed a.f.f. restructuring is not to squelch free speech,
> but to squelch off-topic and *deliberately* inflammatory postings that have no
> content to speak of. I think if the moderation rules are spelled out very
> clearly and carefully, we can avoid any censorship charges that might arise.
> Plus, leaving the original a.f.f. unmoderated gives everyone and anyone a place
> to say their piece. So option 2 might represent the best compromise we can
> come up with.
Basically we're forcing an adjustment in the signal to noise ratio.
--
Baloo
Baloo Ursidae
> If someone doesn't like this sandbox they can go get their own. Keep
> their group-grabbing hands off this one.
They aren't grabbing any groups. Mr. da Silva created this group, its his
to decide what to do with really.
--
Baloo
-= Hawk =-
scribbled:
On that, you're 100% wrong. Sending a control message in no way transfers
ownership of a newsgroup to anyone.
--
In my dreams the world is black
and blood clots in pools around
the corpses that litter the street
and little children with knives
lie in wait outside your door.
Baloo Ursidae
> Hangdog <peter....@pdq.net> wrote:
> : So long as the moderators or "whitelist" chosen do not include any admitted
> : bestialists, that would be true. However, I have seem indications that they will
> : indeed include such people.
Hangdog, practice some self-moderation and use a killfile occasionally and
ignore the people you don't like, instead of ramming it down other folks
throats. Sometimes ignorance is bliss.
> I fail to see how allowing on topic posts that have nothing to do with
> z-philia would in any way be promoting said activity. Presumably, some of
> those you know or assume to be z-philes post to other usenet groups on
> topics not related to z-philia. Do you automatically boycott those as
> well? It sounds like what you really oppose is a group that doesn't allow
> you to personally attack others for things that don't appear anywhere in
> their posts. If that's enough to keep you off the new group then good
> riddance.
Really. Hangdog should watch a huge dose of those new tollerance
promoting public service announcements featuring Judy Sheppard.[1]
> :> Now, a.l.f on occaision does, and that's one of the
> :> reasons why I don't read that group. If anything, having a moderated
> :> version of aff would ensure that bestiality is not discussed, as it is not
> :> a proper topic for the newsgroup.
> : We are in complete agreement on these points.
Wow, cool, I agree with that, too. It may never happen again...
> So if it's not discussed on the new group, I fail to see what your problem
> is. Since there will be no discussion pro or con about it, there isn't any
> conflict that should arise either way.
Same here.
--
Baloo
[1] Judy Sheppard's son, Matthew, was killed because he was not straight.
rune....@worldnet.att.mil
>
> rune....@worldnet.att.mil wrote:
>
> > If someone doesn't like this sandbox they can go get their own. Keep
> > their group-grabbing hands off this one.
>
> They aren't grabbing any groups. Mr. da Silva created this group, its his
> to decide what to do with really.
No, it is not. There is no pink slip for a newsgroup. You don't get to
"own" an alt. group. That point has been made many times in this
discussion.
If anyone can be said to own a alt group it is the posters. Any
individual that tries to claim one has a severe ego problem.
Newsgroups exist and thrive or shrivel due to the servers that carry
them and the people that post to them. If either fails to support a
group it dries up and dies. The will of the person who creates it
doesn't matter a whit. Witness alt.fan.furry.politics and its stunning
success.
I don't care who created this group. It is not their private property
after all these years.
Go back and read the thread. It's been hashed out already.
Richard Chandler - WA Resident
Preferred
> 2) The creation of a moderated group (name to be determined later)
> to exist in conjunction with alt.fan.furry
Second choice
> 3) Leave everything alone.
Not an option.
--
The greatest tragedy is that the same species that achieved space flight,
a cure for polio, and the transistor, is also featured nightly on COPS.
-- Richard Chandler
Spammer Warning: Washington State Law now provides civil penalties for UCE.
Forrest
> 1) The complete change of alt.fan.furry into a moderated group
No - politically impossible and technically unfeasible
> 2) The creation of a moderated group (name to be determined later) to
> exist in conjunction with alt.fan.furry
Yes.
-= Hawk =-
>Baloo Ursidae wrote:
>>
>> rune....@worldnet.att.mil wrote:
>>
>> > If someone doesn't like this sandbox they can go get their own. Keep
>> > their group-grabbing hands off this one.
>>
>> They aren't grabbing any groups. Mr. da Silva created this group, its his
>> to decide what to do with really.
>
>No, it is not. There is no pink slip for a newsgroup. You don't get to
>"own" an alt. group. That point has been made many times in this
>discussion.
>
>If anyone can be said to own a alt group it is the posters. Any
>individual that tries to claim one has a severe ego problem.
Actually it's the property of the news admins who ever so nicely carry it
for your use.
Forrest
Baloo Ursidae <ba...@ursine.dyndns.org> wrote :
>
> > If someone doesn't like this sandbox they can go get their own. Keep
> > their group-grabbing hands off this one.
>
> They aren't grabbing any groups. Mr. da Silva created this group, its his
> to decide what to do with really.
Please don't do this -- it exacerbates a non-AFF flamewar that unfortunately
impinges on us.
ilr
> : I was going to vote #2. But considering the above, I think a little punitive
> : action is in order for this new fringe element . TO HELL WITH TROLLS!!!
>
>
> This is the reason that no one in this newsgroup is trustable
> as a moderator. I'd let HFW or the folks at The Nose do it
> before I'd let anyone on this group.
What the hell does that mean? Sounds like you're implying that
I was impartial at one point or something. Because, obviously
I'm not everyone, and you're saying that everyone is untrustable.
But don't worry to much about me though. As long as there's another
candidate who can moderate late at night (from around 10:00 pm up
to 4:00 am), I won't even consider a run for moderator. If you're
wondering who I'd vote for, here they are.
(note that these are people who actually seem to have the time to moderate)
Dr. Cat (Not that I'm implying you have too much time on your hands Dr. Cat ;)
Richard Chandler (Not that trying to stick it to anatomically incorrect artists ;)
Vixy Hayznthal (We need more women in office. Sorry Richard ;)
I wish I could vote for Hangdog if he ran, but he just talked about
besti@lity a little too much.
I wish I could vote for Cerulean, but his visits seem too infrequent.
I wish I could vote for Forrest, but I'm not sure what his dislikes are.
He barely ever reveals them.
And there's about 20 other people I'd like to vote for too, but they
just don't seem to have the time either, so I won't mention them since
they #1> they don't seem to have the time #2> haven't shown interest.
xSincere apologies if I've insulted anyone personally mentioned here.
--- i l r
ilr
> : I don't come here to talk about Z-philia, and I think most everyone else
> : doesn't want to talk about it either.
>
>
>
> "I am a zoophile"
>
> -- KArl Jorgensen on AFF.
>
And You're a troll, what's your point? , but no one has been ruled out of the moderated
group yet, not even you.
> "If I want to say furry fandom is about a herd of masturbating
> reindeer, I'll say it"
WYP? He said "a herd of masturbating reindeer" not "masturbating a herd of reindeer".
> -- Karl Jorgensen of AFF.
>
>
>
> You lie like a carpet, Karl.
Actually, people can change. You're proof enough of that.
Xydexx and Farlo have been almost disappointingly non-confrontational
lately. That's a huge change from last year, and you know it.
I liked you when you were a burned fur, atleast then you had
some level of remorse, other members of the fandom supporting you,
and showed concern for the welfare of the fandom in return.
But now you have the distinction of being the cause of a moderated AFF.
Why didn't you ever participate in threads about favorite artists, animals
comics or any of the other stuff hobbyists tend to discuss?
--- i l r
Forrest
ilr <i...@rof.net> wrote :
> I wish I could vote for Forrest, but I'm not sure what his dislikes are.
> He barely ever reveals them.
Barbarism.
"I'm a true rural man, but I believe in civilization, and civilization means
cities, and everything we are has come from the fact that that that that we
are a city species..." -- Terry Pratchett
Weyfour WWWWolf (Urpo Lankinen)
<kar...@cafekarina.org> wrote:
>1) The complete change of alt.fan.furry into a moderated group
Seems fair.
--
$_='%?&%[=&+=?%=[%&+&%[*?]&=&~[;&+&{=?[?&%&[&{[%&^=?=[&%&]=?%~&~[?&+&~YiFF!
=[=~| Weyfour WWWWolf (aka. Urpo Lankinen), a lupine technomancer |=?*_=}?]
%}&};| ICQ:4291042 | www...@iki.fi | http://www.iki.fi/wwwwolf/ |&;&=~?]';
tr/?~=*;%&[{}]+_^ (),.:@\/\n0-9!|a-zA-Z/0-9acde/d; $_=pack("H*",$_); print;
diespa...@best.com
: They aren't grabbing any groups. Mr. da Silva created this group, its his
: to decide what to do with really.
BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT!!!!!
*flunk!*
Idiot.
Ucalegon
available, but (2) is OK. I gather (1) won't fly in any case.
Always carry a grapefruit, Treesong
Acag, Treesong (ucal...@aol.com)
Doug Winger
It's moved over to email, even, so I figure I have to at least go
through the motions of "sharing my opinion" publically just so people will
leave me out of it. No, I'm not all that put out or annoyed by being
contacted- rest assured on that point- but I am lazy and not all that
concerned about it enough to not be loath of bothering to write about it.
My credentials, just so folks know that I have some idea of what I'm
talking about: I was there for the Grand Unification, and even ran a
uunet/email feed point off SUNY's system back in the dark ages when it was
all bang paths and Internic was just a gleam in some strange people's eye.
I remember when _any_ advertising was verboten. I ran it until something
called "the Web" was being bandied about. I was also a junior site admin
for an aerospace company as well as a sysop on a major commercial service,
and ran around on a number of others for many years, and have the phone
bills and incipient ulcers to prove it.
As for my take on the current strife; I've seen it before. I've seen the
twits and the wannabe Netgods rush the ramparts, I've seen the cries of,
"Censorship! You mean ol' Nazis!" from both sides and seen the grand plans
of "We gotta DO something!" being stridently cried out to the very small
world. I've seen the flames grow to firestorms and the poor bastards
caught out in the open being bundled off into refugee status as the
newsgroup burned around them.
Now, we move onto my opinion, as futile as it's going to be. Leave
a.f.f. as-is and form the damned moderated group. If you can get the
numbers necessary, move it to the rec.* groups, where propagation is a lot
more likely. Make sure the charter is ironclad enough where the
professional assholes can be locked out and that their ISP and the
netadmin will have to take notice of their shennanigans.
Considering that this newsgroup is in alt territory and taking how
things work into consideration, that's about the most practical and doable
thing, providing something is done. Any other course will likely lead to a
slow death for the group and fast frustration for those involved.
Moderate on the simple basis of no gratuitous personal attacks or spam.
Yes, even the mean ol' nasty people will still show up, but they will be
forced to keep at least some minimal semblance of discussing things rather
than their normal tossing molotov Junior HIgh School level insults at the
passersby. Have as many moderators as you can get, but allow any _one_ to
pass a post and make liberal use of that planned whitelist. Keep in mind
that just because it's annoying to you does not mean it's something to be
tracked down and killed. On the other hand, put transgressions on a three
strikes and you're out basis, and make that stick _permanently_ as
possible.
To close, I'll simply opine that this too shall pass. As is usual with
Usenet, the normal rough seas have performed a storm surge over the levees
for the entertainment of the few and a lot of noise and seriousness has
resulted. In fact, some people are actively encouraging it, as they just
love surfing over the innocent's bodies.
If you really want it to get to the point of leaving the group an empty
wasteland, bereft of any meaningful content, you just keep treating it
like it's the End of The World and scurrying about plugging fingers into
the dikes. You'll find that you soon run out of fingers that way. The
better way is to simply pack up and move to a higher ground around town,
and either learn to put up with a few people trying to earn their postgrad
twit degree or learn to killfile efficiently (something I've finally
gotten around to doing, myself). Screaming about it will likely just
attract the wrong people's attention.
You can, of course, pack up and move to the fancier neighborhood up
North of the alt.* groups and behind the protected property of the rec.*
area, but you have to pony up the down payment in body count for that.
Knowing what I do of uunet- as outdated as it might be- that might not be
possible.
Right, that's done then. Sorry if I can't work up the proper degree of
concern or outrage, but I've been around too long and have grown too old
to spare the energy to do so.
- Doug
-"C'mon! AFF can't be _that_ bad!"- Doug Winger, 1993
Peter da Silva
Doug Winger <essgr...@idt.net> wrote:
> Right, that's done then. Sorry if I can't work up the proper degree of
>concern or outrage, but I've been around too long and have grown too old
>to spare the energy to do so.
You cribbed from "A Fire Upon The Deep" for that message, didn't you? If
not, you ought to read it, it's a tremendous book.
--
This is The Reverend Peter da Silva's Boring Sig File - there are no references
to Wolves, Kibo, Discordianism, or The Church of the Subgenius in this document
Executive Vice President, Corporate Communications, Entropy Gradient Reversals.
-= Hawk =-
scribbled:
> Futility, but what the hell?
> Now, we move onto my opinion, as futile as it's going to be. Leave
>a.f.f. as-is and form the damned moderated group. If you can get the
>numbers necessary, move it to the rec.* groups, where propagation is a lot
>more likely. Make sure the charter is ironclad enough where the
>professional assholes can be locked out and that their ISP and the
>netadmin will have to take notice of their shennanigans.
>
> Considering that this newsgroup is in alt territory and taking how
>things work into consideration, that's about the most practical and doable
>thing, providing something is done. Any other course will likely lead to a
>slow death for the group and fast frustration for those involved.
That's been said several (ok, more than several) times, it would be easiest
and more practical to create a new moderated group and leave the existing
group to die or flourish on it's own merits, unfortunately most of the
people 'voting' about such options have little grasp of how usenet works, or
the problems involved in changing an existing group in alt.
rune....@worldnet.att.mil
>
> On Tue, 12 Oct 1999 01:37:21 -0400, rune....@worldnet.att.mil scribbled:
>
> >Baloo Ursidae wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> > If someone doesn't like this sandbox they can go get their own. Keep
> >> > their group-grabbing hands off this one.
> >>
> >> to decide what to do with really.
> >
> >"own" an alt. group. That point has been made many times in this
> >discussion.
> >
> >If anyone can be said to own a alt group it is the posters. Any
> >individual that tries to claim one has a severe ego problem.
>
> for your use.
Guess I didn't make that clear when I mentioned the servers that carry
the groups...
Doug Winger
Silva) wrote:
> In article <essgraph-2-12...@ppp-22.ts-7.lax.idt.net>,
> Doug Winger <essgr...@idt.net> wrote:
> > Right, that's done then. Sorry if I can't work up the proper degree of
> >concern or outrage, but I've been around too long and have grown too old
> >to spare the energy to do so.
>
> You cribbed from "A Fire Upon The Deep" for that message, didn't you? If
> not, you ought to read it, it's a tremendous book.
No, no cribbing. I live it. :)
It's now on my "Books to keep an eye out for" list, thanks.
- Doug
Darrel L. Exline
> With no comments (try to keep this at least a semblance of rational), do the
> regular members (as opposed to the persons who have been posting here as a
> DIRECT result of this "discussion") support:
>
No.
> 2) The creation of a moderated group (name to be determined later) to exist
> in conjunction with alt.fan.furry
Yes.
> 3) Leave everything alone.
No.
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| Darrel L. Exline "Your friendly neighborhood Polar Bear" |
| Director, "The ConFurence Group" -+- Co-Chair, "ConFurence" |
| 619-223-9482 http://polarden.org dar...@home.com |
|!! ConFurence 11: April 6 to April 9, 2000, Irvine Hilton !!|
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
sola...@don'tmesswithtexas.net
>2) The creation of a moderated group (name to be determined later) to exist
>in conjunction with alt.fan.furry
I vote for this, only because I suspect Dwight (and others) are correct
- there'll be too many news servers that won't honor the control messages
to change a.f.f's status for a "reboot" of a.f.f. as a moderated group to
work...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Fool! You have just signed the universe's death warrant!"
"I did? Uh... gee, I don't know if I'm authorized to sign that..."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
solarfox@DON'TMESSWITHtexas.net (Gary Akins jr.)
http://lonestar.texas.net/~solarfox
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Karina Wright
>
>in conjunction with alt.fan.furry
>
I am sending this as part of the original thread and as a new thread, sorry
for the dupe.
Thus far, with 32 votes in, the tally runs:
1 - 11 votes
2 - 15
3 - 2
3 or 2 - 2
2 or 3 - 1
1 or 2 - 2
There is a difference between 3 or 2 and 2 or 3 as far as wishful
preference, but they pretty much boild down to adding 3 more for number 2.
So far as I can tell, people did just vote with one alias and the
non-furry-newsgroup people left themselves out (thanks, folks).
The general consensus thus far seems that something definitely needs to be
done with the group in terms of moderation. By an overwhelming majority,
leaving things exactly as they are now fails miserably. By a reasonable
majority, however, it is agreed that the current newsgroup should remain in
place along with the creation of a second, moderated, newsgroup.
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
<kar...@cafekarina.org> wrote:
[...]
>2) The creation of a moderated group (name to be determined later) to exist
>in conjunction with alt.fan.furry
I vote for number 2
--
Please excuse my spelling as I suffer from agraphia. See
http://www.zeta.org.au/~dformosa/Spelling.html to find out more.
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
<victryNO-SPAM&@REMOVEjuno.com> wrote:
[...]
>> 2) The creation of a moderated group (name to be determined later) to
>> exist in conjunction with alt.fan.furry
>
> Number two as an alternative, though I suggest a little twist this
>time, because it has been tried before with little or no success. Bring out
>the new newsgroup(s?), nuke AFF, wait a certain amount of time to allow the
>new groups to gain circulation and readership, then restore AFF. Should
>keep most patrons happy, save the trolls.
Can't realy be done.
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
>And if someone hadn't dragged in Peter daSilva to save us from
>ourselves, the current debate over usenet theory and structure
>wouldn't be taking place here.
Dragged in? He was always here.
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
<gbur...@databasix.com> wrote:
[...]
>You are SO wrong there. It ceased to be his the second it was created. It
>belongs to the news admins. We're just nice enough to let it
>propagate.
We since when did you speek for the concenus of newsadmins?
Kay Shapero
> 1) The complete change of alt.fan.furry into a moderated group
No - see "worms, can of"
> 2) The creation of a moderated group (name to be determined later)
> to exist in conjunction with alt.fan.furry
Yes - assuming some unfortunate souls can be found to moderate it.
> 3) Leave everything alone.
No - As it stands you might as well just rename it alt.fan.furball...
Mark Severson
1) Yes
2) Yes
3) No
rune....@worldnet.att.mil
>
> On Mon, 11 Oct 1999 17:13:02 -0500, Hangdog <peter....@pdq.net> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >So long as the moderators or "whitelist" chosen do not include any admitted
> >bestialists, that would be true. However, I have seem indications
> >that they will indeed include such people.
>
> Given that the Z topic is in most likelyhoods going to be explicity
> off topic what have you got to fear?
That message was posted a week ago. Why bring it up now? Things have
changed since it was written and it no longer applies.