Serious Reservations about the new split/moderation of a.f.f.
J. J. Novotny
Thanksgiving Dinner right now :), but I think that this is so important
that it can't wait.
I may very well be in the minority here, but I'd like to speak out my
concerns about the ideas proposed recently about killing a.f.f. and
replacing it with more "politically correct" ideas about the way people
think a newsgroup should run. Yes, there are problems with the way that
the group runs today, but they should be handled with more discretion
and intelligence than the ideas that are being proposed.
And what is being proposed? I believe that it's the restriction of the
virtue of free speech upon which UseNet was founded. The idea is to
moderate the new a.f.f with a bot that would only approve certain
posters and leave others to post into space. However, this raises
problems. Who will be approved? Who will not be approved? What would
cause someone's removal from the list? How would newbies know what to
do? None of these topics have been adequately discussed. From what I can
tell, the only criterion is based on the way Peter has set up his bot.
This is not good enough.
To my eyes, this technique is being designed not because the group is
not functional. It is proposed to keep out, yes, some cross-posting
trolls, but also to silence some regular posters who aren't seen as very
nice. In particular, the name StukaFox comes to mind. Now Stuka and I
have had a few arguments in the past, and I strongly disagree with some
of what he says. I also strongly support his right to say these things
in a.f.f. He is not just a cross-posting troll, but also a person with
what appears to be legitimate complaints about the fandom. And however
crude he might be, he's also one of the 20 or so most intelligent
posters to the group.
Well, now it appears I'm a big StukaFox fan. That's not what this is
about. It's about how dissenting viewpoints are necessary and important
for a free exchange of ideas. We should strongly oppose censorship and
allow free speech. I'll quote from one of my earlier posts.
J. M. Mill pointed out the same thing in one
of his essays: free speech is good because -- the suppressed point might
be true; even if it isn't true it might contain a portion of the truth;
only by a collision of ideas will the truth be uncovered; and that
debate makes us value the truth so that it doesn't become hollow dogma.
How does shutting out critics of the fandom help it in any way? Does it
just lead us to blindness or does it lead to the truth? And where do we
stop? Might we extend this list to include notable Burned Furs? Xydexx?
Chuck Melville? Richard Chandler? Even Dr. Cat? All of these people have
been political and angry at some point in time?
Here are some better solutions:
1) Ignore or filter out people you don't like -- you don't have to read
everything.
2) Read every post -- but just don't respond to topics you aren't
interested in.
3) Challenge ideas posted if you don't like them, just be polite and
intelligent about it.
4) Ignore the group and spend your time on different issues.
5) Go to the bleachers ... or to the new alt.arts.anthro group that Brad
Austin has so kindly set up recently.
6) Attempt to create a newsgroup in the big six hierarchy about this
topic. For instance, rec.arts.anthro. Spam attacks on big six groups
tend to be taken more seriously. It also lends the topic more
legitimacy. I *would* support this idea.
All I know is that we can't just start letting people post here
depending on whether they are "nice" or not. I've many a times heard
folks say that if "conservatives" don't like porn they ust shouldn't
look. Well, how about ... if you don't like Melville or Stuka just don't
read their posts. Discretion and judgment are virtues. They look good on
us. Let's not expect others to make our minds up for us and tell what we
should or should not see just so certain sensitive people can avoid
experiencing any discomfort (obviously illicit illegal activities are
exempt from this BTW).
We pride ourselves on being oh-so-openminded and tolerant. Well, if we
want to make a virtue out of small-l liberalism, we gotta make an
attempt to live up to its goals.
And this isn't liberalism. And this isn't one of its goals.
Best;
J. J.
Karl Xydexx Jorgensen
> To my eyes, this technique is being designed not because the group is
> not functional. It is proposed to keep out, yes, some cross-posting
> trolls, but also to silence some regular posters who aren't seen as very
> nice. In particular, the name StukaFox comes to mind.
Stukafox doesn't care what furry fandom's image is.
The only reason he posts any of this stuff is to get a reaction. I'd
almost be willing to bet that he's not even interested in furry fandom.
His only purpose on this newsgroup is to troll and stir up trouble.
Remember how he said AFF has always been a flamepit? With people like
him posting, it surely always will be.
> How does shutting out critics of the fandom help it in any way?
Nobody is shutting out critics of the fandom; they can post to
alt.fan.furry.politics or alt.flame.furry. What is being proposed is
the creation of a newsgroup for the discussion of
anthropomorphics---what alt.fan.furry SHOULD be about---where all the
screaming and ranting that has nothing to do with furry fandom is
off-topic.
Personally, I'd rather talk about funny animals than zoophilia. I think
most people on this newsgroup (rather, the dwindling number of people
who actually still bother reading AFF) would rather talk about funny
animals than zoophilia, too.
It's not a great solution, but if having a moderated newsgroup is what
it takes to make a furry newsgroup that's actually worth reading, then
so be it.
> We pride ourselves on being oh-so-openminded and tolerant. Well, if we
> want to make a virtue out of small-l liberalism, we gotta make an
> attempt to live up to its goals.
I think you're too late. These flamewars have been going on for years
now, and given the current situation they're only going to continue.
I think a moderated alt.fan.furry is long overdue at this point.
____________________________________________________________
Xydexx Squeakypony
Put the FURRY back in alt.fan.furry!
http://www.smart.net/~xydexx/anthrofurry/homepage.htm
Chuck Melville
<3800EB94...@cc.umanitoba.ca>...
> I may very well be in the minority here, but I'd like to speak out my
> concerns about the ideas proposed recently about killing a.f.f. and
> replacing it with more "politically correct" ideas about the way people
> think a newsgroup should run. Yes, there are problems with the way that
> the group runs today, but they should be handled with more discretion
> and intelligence than the ideas that are being proposed.
>
> And what is being proposed? I believe that it's the restriction of the
> virtue of free speech upon which UseNet was founded. The idea is to
> moderate the new a.f.f with a bot that would only approve certain
> posters and leave others to post into space. However, this raises
> problems. Who will be approved? Who will not be approved? What would
> cause someone's removal from the list? How would newbies know what to
> do? None of these topics have been adequately discussed. From what I can
> tell, the only criterion is based on the way Peter has set up his bot.
> This is not good enough.
>
> To my eyes, this technique is being designed not because the group is
> not functional. It is proposed to keep out, yes, some cross-posting
> trolls, but also to silence some regular posters who aren't seen as very
> nice. In particular, the name StukaFox comes to mind. Now Stuka and I
> have had a few arguments in the past, and I strongly disagree with some
> of what he says. I also strongly support his right to say these things
> in a.f.f. He is not just a cross-posting troll, but also a person with
> what appears to be legitimate complaints about the fandom. And however
> crude he might be, he's also one of the 20 or so most intelligent
> posters to the group.
As of yet, I have seen nothing posted by Stukafox to justify that
observation. All I have ever seen posted by him are childish rants and
vicious personal attacks on various folks here on the ng, regardless of
whether or not anyone deserved them; even to the point of making fun of
some folks' infirmiries, as in his posts to Mike Curtis. I'm willing to
support free and open dialogue here on any topic within the parameters of
this specific ng, but I don't believe that extends to slurs, slander,
deliberate insults, and pointless obscenities that are posted only for the
intent of their own amusement. Let's not fool ourselves; Stuka and his
brethren are not interested in intelligent conversation or debate --
they're here purely for the sake of making cheap shots. They've said so
several times. Freedom of speech is not a license for anarchy; even the
Supreme Court has never (to my knowledge) been able to agree over whether
or not public obscenity was a matter of Speech or of Conduct (and thus not
protected by the Free Speech clause in the Bill of Rights).
These guys are net abusers, with no concern whatever for netiquette or
rules, except for when they think they might be able to hide behind them
and continue with their games. As abusers, they've squandered their
priveleges here on the net, and, I would say, on their ISP accounts. If
they don't want to participate, if all they want is to continue being
grade-A assholes, then I say they've forfeited any right to post here. I'm
not certain what the usenet rules allow in such cases, but I reccommend
banning them, if possible.
> Well, now it appears I'm a big StukaFox fan. That's not what this is
> about. It's about how dissenting viewpoints are necessary and important
> for a free exchange of ideas. We should strongly oppose censorship and
> allow free speech. I'll quote from one of my earlier posts.
>
> J. M. Mill pointed out the same thing in one
> of his essays: free speech is good because -- the suppressed point might
> be true; even if it isn't true it might contain a portion of the truth;
> only by a collision of ideas will the truth be uncovered; and that
> debate makes us value the truth so that it doesn't become hollow dogma.
>
> How does shutting out critics of the fandom help it in any way? Does it
> just lead us to blindness or does it lead to the truth? And where do we
> stop? Might we extend this list to include notable Burned Furs? Xydexx?
> Chuck Melville? Richard Chandler? Even Dr. Cat? All of these people have
> been political and angry at some point in time?
But we haven't -seen- any criticism from the trollers. We've seen rants,
taunts and mocking. We've seen no sign of an intent to communicate or
offer criticism; just grade-school games. Criticism requires more than
insults and put-downs; it requires examination, explanation, and serious
argument on critical points. And by their own admissions, they just don't
give a shit to begin with. Their position is without defense.
My understanding at this stage is that the split is primarily to cut down
on the trolling. And the branching off will give us definite definable
categories in which to post on particular subjects within the Furry chain,
so what's the problem? The level of debate we have here on AFF will still
continue on the unmoderated board, and folks wanting to keep to a milder
level and chat in a friendly manner about books and films and such will
have a moderated board. Having been on a moderated private board, I don't
see that as being difficult to take.
--
-Chuck Melville-
"Little one, I would like to see -anyone- -- prophet, king or -god- --
persuade a thousand cats to do -anything- at the same time."
-Neil Gaiman; The Sandman: A Dream of a Thousand
Cats
diespa...@best.com
: These guys are net abusers, with no concern whatever for netiquette or
: rules, except for when they think they might be able to hide behind them
: and continue with their games. As abusers, they've squandered their
: priveleges here on the net, and, I would say, on their ISP accounts. If
: they don't want to participate, if all they want is to continue being
: grade-A assholes, then I say they've forfeited any right to post here. I'm
: not certain what the usenet rules allow in such cases, but I reccommend
: banning them, if possible.
:
This is why people like you, Chuck, should be banned from the Usenet.
Can't handle free speech? Go to AOL.
mcgruff
<umno...@cc.umanitoba.ca> posted to alt.fan.furry:
> Hi. I'm just in the valley of darkness between Thanksgiving Brunch and
> Thanksgiving Dinner right now :), but I think that this is so important
> that it can't wait.
>
> Well, now it appears I'm a big StukaFox fan. That's not what this is
> about. It's about how dissenting viewpoints are necessary and important
> for a free exchange of ideas. We should strongly oppose censorship and
> allow free speech. I'll quote from one of my earlier posts.
>
> J. M. Mill pointed out the same thing in one
> of his essays: free speech is good because -- the suppressed point might
> be true; even if it isn't true it might contain a portion of the truth;
> only by a collision of ideas will the truth be uncovered; and that
> debate makes us value the truth so that it doesn't become hollow dogma.
>
> How does shutting out critics of the fandom help it in any way? Does it
> just lead us to blindness or does it lead to the truth? And where do we
> stop? Might we extend this list to include notable Burned Furs? Xydexx?
> Chuck Melville? Richard Chandler? Even Dr. Cat? All of these people have
> been political and angry at some point in time?
>
> Here are some better solutions:
>
> 1) Ignore or filter out people you don't like -- you don't have to read
> everything.
>
> 2) Read every post -- but just don't respond to topics you aren't
> interested in.
>
> 3) Challenge ideas posted if you don't like them, just be polite and
> intelligent about it.
>
> 4) Ignore the group and spend your time on different issues.
>
> 5) Go to the bleachers ... or to the new alt.arts.anthro group that Brad
> Austin has so kindly set up recently.
>
> 6) Attempt to create a newsgroup in the big six hierarchy about this
> topic. For instance, rec.arts.anthro. Spam attacks on big six groups
> tend to be taken more seriously. It also lends the topic more
> legitimacy. I *would* support this idea.
>
> All I know is that we can't just start letting people post here
> depending on whether they are "nice" or not. I've many a times heard
> folks say that if "conservatives" don't like porn they ust shouldn't
> look. Well, how about ... if you don't like Melville or Stuka just don't
> read their posts. Discretion and judgment are virtues. They look good on
> us. Let's not expect others to make our minds up for us and tell what we
> should or should not see just so certain sensitive people can avoid
> experiencing any discomfort (obviously illicit illegal activities are
> exempt from this BTW).
>
> We pride ourselves on being oh-so-openminded and tolerant. Well, if we
> want to make a virtue out of small-l liberalism, we gotta make an
> attempt to live up to its goals.
>
> And this isn't liberalism. And this isn't one of its goals.
> Best -J. J.
It seems to me that Mr. Peter da Silva is jumping the gun on this one.
There has been NO discussion on a.f.f. about these proposed changes (prior
to the past day or two), but it looks like da Silva has already begun to
implement his "Master Plan."
Who died and made him boss of alt.fan.furry? There's certainly been NO
vote as to whether da Silva is suitable to serve as moderator and --
judging from his rude and arrogant behavior in the past -- I'd have to say
that he would NOT be a good person to serve as any group moderator.
It appears more and more that da Silva simply wishes to silence the people
he doesn't personally care for, or whose opinions he disagrees with. All
I can say is that this is utter nonsense and that Mr. da Silva does NOT
speak for the majority of people who post/read alt.fan.furry.
Bev Clark/Steve Gallacci
from going too far off topic/getting personal/nasty and seeing how the
bulk of traffic here (alt.fan.furry) becomes little more than pissing
contests or worse, the idea of moderation is a welcome proposal.
It would be nice to actually keep things to on-topic traffic on the
genre, especially as several individuals have stated that their only
"mission" in being here has been to attack and antagonize the fans.
Despite claims to the contrary, this is not about supressing legitimate
debate, but removing off-topic and gratutitusly inflammitory speach.
While alt.fan.furry is not by any means the sole definer of what the
genre and fandom is all about, it would be nice for it to at least have a
semblence of relevency to the fandom and genre instead of the nasty
and divergent flamefest that it is currently notorious for.
diespa...@best.com
: In article <3800EB94...@cc.umanitoba.ca>, "J. J. Novotny"
: <umno...@cc.umanitoba.ca> posted to alt.fan.furry:
Jumping the gun, nothing! Sneaky's running across the finish
line and yelling "I WON!" three days before the race has even
been called.
: There has been NO discussion on a.f.f. about these proposed changes (prior
: to the past day or two), but it looks like da Silva has already begun to
: implement his "Master Plan."
He's tried to sneak this through in the past, but he gets caught
every time. He knows he has no authority to do what he's trying
to do, so he hopes he can bluff-bluster-and-bullshit his way
into getting everyone to buy into his lie of legitamacy.
: Who died and made him boss of alt.fan.furry?
His imagination.
: There's certainly been NO
: vote as to whether da Silva is suitable to serve as moderator and --
: judging from his rude and arrogant behavior in the past -- I'd have to say
: that he would NOT be a good person to serve as any group moderator.
He had NO authority to be, or to elect, a moderator in an
unmoderated Usenet group. He hopes he can bull his way around
this fact.
: It appears more and more that da Silva simply wishes to silence the people
: he doesn't personally care for, or whose opinions he disagrees with.
(*ding ding ding ding*)!
We have a WINNAH!
Sneaky da Silva has been trying to pull this stunt for years.
He hopes to make AFF a nice, safe place for animal rapists
by denying groups like Burned Fur a forum to discuss this critical
issue.
Don't believe me?
Look at the number of times he's tried to relegate Burned Fur
topics to his pet (and almost non-propogated) newsgroup. Now
look at how many times he's done the same for the animal rapists
from ALF who have invaded this newsgroup.
: All I can say is that this is utter nonsense and that Mr. da Silva does NOT
: speak for the majority of people who post/read alt.fan.furry.
He speaks for no one but himself, which is why his motion is denied.
mcgruff
Clark/Steve Gallacci) wrote:
I use no filters and have no problems at all reading this newsgroup.
There's no need for a split or moderation. Sounds more like some people
just want to silence others whom they disagree with.
Peter da Silva
mcgruff <mcg...@netcom.com> wrote:
>Who died and made him boss of alt.fan.furry? There's certainly been NO
>vote as to whether da Silva is suitable to serve as moderator and --
>judging from his rude and arrogant behavior in the past -- I'd have to say
>that he would NOT be a good person to serve as any group moderator.
I have alrady told you three times that I have no interest in actually being
the moderator, and I'm pretty sure I've cc-ed you in mail on one of them (if
not, I apologise for forgetting to). One of the existing proposals in the
thread that was already underway (and that you apparently missed) about a
moderation team would be a better idea. I just think it better that this
process operate through the normal moderation process rather than a cancelbot.
I'm leaving this post in alt.fan.furry to make sure you see it this time,
but please direct your ensuing followups to alt.config or a.f.f.politics.
--
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.
Forrest
J. J. Novotny <umno...@cc.umanitoba.ca> wrote :
>How does shutting out critics of the fandom help it in any way? Does it
>just lead us to blindness or does it lead to the truth? And where do we
>stop?
This present discussion is not and never was about criticism of the fandom;
it is not and never was about meaningful discourse; and it is not and never
was about freedom of speech in the First Amendment sense.
"Resort to epithets or personal abuse is not in any proper sense
communication of information or opinion safeguarded by the Constitution, and
its punishment as a criminal act would raise no question under that
instrument."
Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 309, 310 S., 60 S.Ct. 900, 906, 128
A.L.R. 1352.
Sergi
Silva) totally goes like:
>In article <mcgruff-ya0240800...@news.supernews.com>,
>mcgruff <mcg...@netcom.com> wrote:
>>Who died and made him boss of alt.fan.furry? There's certainly been NO
>>vote as to whether da Silva is suitable to serve as moderator and --
>>judging from his rude and arrogant behavior in the past -- I'd have to say
>>that he would NOT be a good person to serve as any group moderator.
>
>I have alrady told you three times that I have no interest in actually being
>the moderator, and I'm pretty sure I've cc-ed you in mail on one of them (if
>not, I apologise for forgetting to). One of the existing proposals in the
>thread that was already underway (and that you apparently missed) about a
>moderation team would be a better idea. I just think it better that this
>process operate through the normal moderation process rather than a cancelbot.
>
>I'm leaving this post in alt.fan.furry to make sure you see it this time,
>but please direct your ensuing followups to alt.config or a.f.f.politics.
I'll direct my followups wherever I feel like, Fuckface. What are you going to
do, netcop me? <snicker>
--
Sergi, KotAGoR XXX
"I do not deny that I am a moron. Do you still have the okra
up your ass?" -Manny of the Jiffy Club, 7/21/99
alt.romath: Proud Sponsor of the Miss American Achievement Awards 2000
FREE JOSHUA KRAMER! NO JUSTICE, NO PEACE!
diespa...@best.com
: J. J. Novotny <umno...@cc.umanitoba.ca> wrote :
:>How does shutting out critics of the fandom help it in any way? Does it
:>just lead us to blindness or does it lead to the truth? And where do we
:>stop?
: This present discussion is not and never was about criticism of the fandom;
: it is not and never was about meaningful discourse; and it is not and never
: was about freedom of speech in the First Amendment sense.
Bullshit, Forrest. Keep right on spouting that lie.
Fucking censor.
: "Resort to epithets or personal abuse is not in any proper sense
: communication of information or opinion safeguarded by the Constitution, and
: its punishment as a criminal act would raise no question under that
: instrument."
: Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 309, 310 S., 60 S.Ct. 900, 906, 128
: A.L.R. 1352.
BAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAH!!
Now the furry nutcase is gonna call the cops on us!
Hangdog
If, however, part of that plan involves deactivating THIS group, I am opposed
to it.
Regardless, I am very sorry to see people abandoning an open forum because
they can't handle a few trolls.
Two words: Esau's pottage.
--Hangdog
LLBF/TINBF
mcgruff
Silva) wrote:
> I'm leaving this post in alt.fan.furry to make sure you see it this time,
> but please direct your ensuing followups to alt.config or a.f.f.politics.
I see that you are already cancelling posts that you deem 'inappropriate'
for alt.fan.furry. Trying to keep people on a.f.f. in the dark, so that
they can't see you sneaking around and censoring posts?
FYI, a.f.f.politics is NOT a well-distributed newsgroup, so I'm not
bothering to post my response there. Supernews (the second-largest news
service) carries only are alt.fan.furry, alt.fan.furry.bleachers, and
alt.fan.furry.muck.
ilr
Bev Clark/Steve Gallacci <bev...@netcom.com> wrote in message news:7tr5bh$k...@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com...
> As i am already in several newsgroups that are moderated to keep them
> from going too far off topic/getting personal/nasty and seeing how the
> bulk of traffic here (alt.fan.furry) becomes little more than pissing
> contests or worse, the idea of moderation is a welcome proposal.
> It would be nice to actually keep things to on-topic traffic on the
> genre, especially as several individuals have stated that their only
> "mission" in being here has been to attack and antagonize the fans.
>
> Despite claims to the contrary, this is not about supressing legitimate
> debate, but removing off-topic and gratutitusly inflammitory speach.
>
> While alt.fan.furry is not by any means the sole definer of what the
> genre and fandom is all about, it would be nice for it to at least have a
> semblence of relevency to the fandom and genre instead of the nasty
> and divergent flamefest that it is currently notorious for.
>
At first, in the FUR.* hierarchies, the Pictures and Stories forums
had little discussion to offer and AFF wasn't as bad. But it really
seems to have gotten incoherent right now. Meanwhile, those
Fur.* groups have gotten a much higher ratio of discussion, almost
4:1 on every picture or story.
I'd like to see a "fur.fan.furry" that isn't exactly a binary group,
but unlike the ALT version, allows occasional binaries. This would be
great for promoting new Portfolios and comix with sample pics/ Ad-illos.
And also could divert alot of the discussion in the fur.-Binary forums
into a more discussion-related forum(the intended discussion groups
don't seem to be working very well, but a main-hub with as many posts
as AFF, [the sincere posts of course], could really work)
-Ilr
Allen Kitchen
"J. J. Novotny" wrote:
> And what is being proposed? I believe that it's the restriction of the
> virtue of free speech upon which UseNet was founded. The idea is to
> moderate the new a.f.f with a bot that would only approve certain
> posters and leave others to post into space. However, this raises
> problems. Who will be approved? Who will not be approved? What would
> cause someone's removal from the list? How would newbies know what to
> do? None of these topics have been adequately discussed. From what I can
> tell, the only criterion is based on the way Peter has set up his bot.
> This is not good enough.
>
There will be several other furry newsgroups where people can scream
and yell and complain about the zoos which have to be here because they
say they so. Freedom of speech does not give one to walk into a
theater and scream "Fire," which is what the current load of trolls and
some others are engaging in.
When dealing with anything that is moderated, some vigilance is needed
to ensure those guarding the gates do not abuse their positions. But to
simply leave the city gates undefended because some guard may or may not
be a model citizen leads to the city's destruction. Be wary, but give it
a chance please.
AFF has been in need of a repair for quite some time.
> To my eyes, this technique is being designed not because the group is
> not functional. It is proposed to keep out, yes, some cross-posting
> trolls, but also to silence some regular posters who aren't seen as very
> nice. In particular, the name StukaFox comes to mind. Now Stuka and I
> have had a few arguments in the past, and I strongly disagree with some
> of what he says. I also strongly support his right to say these things
> in a.f.f. He is not just a cross-posting troll, but also a person with
> what appears to be legitimate complaints about the fandom. And however
> crude he might be, he's also one of the 20 or so most intelligent
> posters to the group.
Your opinion. And nobody would keep you from expressing it, even in
a moderated group. But since Stuka is a known harasser and pest on the
group, his posts would need to be accepted/rejected manually by a moderator.
I have no problem with that. If someone behaves badly, he can't act surprised
when others treat him like he's behaving badly.
> J. M. Mill pointed out the same thing in one
> of his essays: free speech is good because -- the suppressed point might
> be true; even if it isn't true it might contain a portion of the truth;
And what part of name-calling contains the truth, hmm?
> How does shutting out critics of the fandom help it in any way? Does it
> just lead us to blindness or does it lead to the truth?
Hey, I'm a critic. When I see a problem, I point it out. But to decry things
over and over just because "this isn't your father's fandom" is silly and
wasteful. If a person enjoys part of furry (and you don't have to enjoy it all)
then they should stay in fandom, and AFF. If they don't, then they should get
out and quit trying to destroy everyone else's good time. But AFF needs to
be fixed before it can be anything like a fandom forum.
There are some things some people do that bothers me, yes. Unlike others, I
claim it's a small number causing the troubles and they are best dealt with
as such. Name the name, and state the offense. It is no more right for us
to paint a group of people as "Freaks" because of the actions of a few, than
it is for mundanes to paint all furrys as such for the same reasons.
Let's solve the problem with surgical strikes; not carpet bombing. And let's
start by expelling the most blatant of trolls, who are not furries, do not
post on topic, and thus have no reason to be posting here.
Allen Kitchen (shockwave)
ilr
Hangdog <peter....@pdq.net> wrote in message news:38012DE8...@pdq.net...
> ...I just won't be part of it.
>
> If, however, part of that plan involves deactivating THIS group, I am opposed
> to it.
>
> Regardless, I am very sorry to see people abandoning an open forum because
> they can't handle a few trolls.
>
And you seem to be enjoying the hell out of it. I think you're part of it.
J. J. Novotny
Karl Xydexx Jorgensen wrote:
> Stukafox doesn't care what furry fandom's image is.
Sometimes this free speech thing *is* truly difficult to defend.
::smiles::
I know that Stuka can be a real pest. Hell, he's nailed me before a few
times. But I've also seen a few posts from him that are reasonable and
well-thought out. He does seem to have become more volatile lately, I'll
admit. I was just using him as an extreme example. It's a principle
thang, I guess.
> Nobody is shutting out critics of the fandom; they can post to
> alt.fan.furry.politics or alt.flame.furry. What is being proposed is
> the creation of a newsgroup for the discussion of
> anthropomorphics---what alt.fan.furry SHOULD be about---where all the
> screaming and ranting that has nothing to do with furry fandom is
> off-topic.
As I've posted before, I don't like the way this has been handled. Free
speech could easily be mangled. Could someone become scared to state
their opinion for fear of losing their "green light"? I think that this
could have a chilling effect on public discourse.
> Personally, I'd rather talk about funny animals than zoophilia.
Yep. Yep. Seconded. Coz "furry fandom is all about anthropomorphics". :)
I like stuff that's on topic too. I just have a different solution about
how to achieve this. But it requires restraint and that everyone buy
into it. That's the crazy part. :/
> It's not a great solution, but if having a moderated newsgroup is what
> it takes to make a furry newsgroup that's actually worth reading, then
> so be it.
I'm just disappointed that it's come to this. But could someone please
explain to me why the current group has to die just because a moderated
group has been created?
> I think you're too late.
Yeah. I had just hoped some kind of team, like a Burned Fur Mark II
could have put things back together again here. But they didn't act
proactively. So it goes. Thanks.
mcgruff wrote:
> I use no filters and have no problems at all reading this newsgroup.
> There's no need for a split or moderation. Sounds more like some
> people
> just want to silence others whom they disagree with.
Yes. That's the best solution. I use "ignore thread" liberally. It's
easy to kill the threads that have been parachuted in. Thank you. Your
common sense is much appreciated.
Bev Clark/Steve Gallacci wrote:
> Despite claims to the contrary, this is not about supressing
> legitimate
> debate, but removing off-topic and gratutitusly inflammitory speach.
I worry about that. We are wandering into grey areas without nailing
down specifics. How can we be sure that people who have been known to be
critical (but on-topic) won't be left out?
diespa...@best.com (aka StukaFox) wrote:
>
> Welcome to the Usenet. Don't like it? Don't use it. And
> especially don't infringe on the ability of post because
> you don't like the direction of the conversation.
Charming as always, Mike. Yet, you are, of course, absolutely right. I
wonder why so many can't just learn to ignore the cross-posts and
trolls.
Chuck Melville wrote:
> I'm willing to
> support free and open dialogue here on any topic within the parameters
> of this specific ng, but I don't believe that extends to slurs, slander,
> deliberate insults, and pointless obscenities that are posted only for
> the intent of their own amusement.
Like I said, I'm not in agreement with that stuff either. But let's not
throw an open environment out the window because of a few vile insults.
Better to learn who has nothing to offer and killfile them (without
putting a "shout out" about it).
> Let's not fool ourselves; Stuka and
> his brethren are not interested in intelligent conversation or debate --
> they're here purely for the sake of making cheap shots.
Random made an intelligent reply to me on WFRR. Of course, 90% of the
time he rants. But that other 10%?
> These guys are net abusers, with no concern whatever for netiquette or
> rules, except for when they think they might be able to hide behind
> them and continue with their games.
Of course, some of these people are pretty vile. Ignore them. As I said,
where does this stop? There are many potential moderators here who would
not let *you* post to the new group. And a couple who wouldn't let *me*
post there. We need assurances that free speech won't be compromised. I
haven't seen these assurances yet. And I am going to demand them.
> My understanding at this stage is that the split is primarily to cut down
> on the trolling. And the branching off will give us definite definable
> categories in which to post on particular subjects within the Furry
> chain, so what's the problem?
That posts made to an existing unmoderated newsgroup with good intent
will be auto-botted out of existence. That some people with a bad
previous posting record may not be able to post to the new group
depending on the whim of a yet unnamed moderator. That free speech is
being manhandled.
Forrest wrote:
>
> This present discussion is not and never was about criticism of the
> fandom;
> it is not and never was about meaningful discourse; and it is not and
> never
> was about freedom of speech in the First Amendment sense.
I (and you) can't be sure of this without more details. We don't even
know who the moderator would be. And of course it isn't about the First
Amendment (Congress ain't passing no law here), but it is about the
freedoms for which UseNet was designed.
mcgruff wrote:
> It appears more and more that da Silva simply wishes to silence the
> people
> he doesn't personally care for, or whose opinions he disagrees with.
> All
> I can say is that this is utter nonsense and that Mr. da Silva does
> NOT
> speak for the majority of people who post/read alt.fan.furry.
Although I thank you for your support, why the hell did you cross-post
this to alt.fan.eric, for example? You're not helping things here. And
Mr. da Silva doesn't intend any malice (I don't think), he just hasn't
thought this thing through.
And, unfortunately, the majority does seem to support him.
Allen Kitchen wrote:
> When dealing with anything that is moderated, some vigilance is needed
> to ensure those guarding the gates do not abuse their positions. But
> to
> simply leave the city gates undefended because some guard may or may
> not
> be a model citizen leads to the city's destruction. Be wary, but give
> it
> a chance please.
Hallelujah! Thank you for seeing my point. There are dangers inherent in
this. No, I'm not going to make this a kicking and screaming over my
dead body kinda thing. (coz I don't like screaming. :) ), but it's
disappointing that everyone's agreeing to this before they know the
details.
> AFF has been in need of a repair for quite some time.
Agreed. I just feel restraint is a better solution.
(in reference to J.S. Mill)
> And what part of name-calling contains the truth, hmm?
A similar charge was leveled against James Joyce. .... see what I mean!
The slippery slope the downward road, a little folding of the hands,
yadda yadda.
But thank you for your much-needed wariness and caution!
Hangdog wrote:
>
> ...I just won't be part of it.
>
> If, however, part of that plan involves deactivating THIS group, I am
> opposed
> to it.
>
> Regardless, I am very sorry to see people abandoning an open forum
> because
> they can't handle a few trolls.
^_^
I knew there had to be someone out there who had some serious concerns
about this. Just you and me, kid, I guess ... oh, and David Formosa.
Thank you, Peter. Thank you, David.
::sigh:: It looks like everyone else is all in favour of the plan,
though. I will try to get some safeguards and concessions built in.
And just one more time for everyone. NO, I don't like the trolling and
the insults and the cross-posts either. But I also value free and open
speech on these forums. And a solution to our problems that doesn't
respect this does *not* make me happy.
Best;
J. J.
Hangdog
> Hangdog <peter....@pdq.net> wrote in message news:38012DE8...@pdq.net...
> > ...I just won't be part of it.
> >
> > If, however, part of that plan involves deactivating THIS group, I am opposed
> > to it.
> >
> > Regardless, I am very sorry to see people abandoning an open forum because
> > they can't handle a few trolls.
> >
> A few trolls? The traffic in this forum has recently tripled.
>
> And you seem to be enjoying the hell out of it. I think you're part of it.
And your proof of *any* of these assertions would be...?
--Hangdog
LLBF/TINBF
Cipher
mcgruff, mcg...@netcom.com writes:
>I use no filters and have no problems at all reading this newsgroup.
>There's no need for a split or moderation. Sounds more like some people
>just want to silence others whom they disagree with.
>
Imagine that, someone controlling what they want to read and what they
wish to discard.
How novel!
I have no problem with a moderated group, but this one needs to be left
intact. It's obvious from the comments that there is a serious split
about Peter's idea. It is not universally acclaimed.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
)\ ( ) /( Cipher
)-(0^^0)-( Proud Member, Netscum Alumni Association
)/ \\// \( Protect privacy, boycott Intel:
(oo) http://www.bigbrotherinside.org
o@o ~~ o@o PGP Public Key available at my website or via finger
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Cipher
pe...@taronga.com writes:
>I'm leaving this post in alt.fan.furry to make sure you see it this time,
>but please direct your ensuing followups to alt.config or a.f.f.politics.
>
Why do you wish the discussion of this split/destruction not to be
discussed here?
diespa...@best.com
: What do you think?
That your actions to date make you a censorous bastard.
Quit trying to hide your actions against alt.fan.furry in another
newsgroup. Those people have a right to know what hateful shit
you're planning against them.
Bev Clark/Steve Gallacci
>Clark/Steve Gallacci) wrote:
>
>> from going too far off topic/getting personal/nasty and seeing how the
>> bulk of traffic here (alt.fan.furry) becomes little more than pissing
>> contests or worse, the idea of moderation is a welcome proposal.
>> It would be nice to actually keep things to on-topic traffic on the
>> genre, especially as several individuals have stated that their only
>> "mission" in being here has been to attack and antagonize the fans.
>>
>> debate, but removing off-topic and gratutitusly inflammitory speach.
>>
>> genre and fandom is all about, it would be nice for it to at least have a
>> semblence of relevency to the fandom and genre instead of the nasty
>> and divergent flamefest that it is currently notorious for.
>
>
>There's no need for a split or moderation. Sounds more like some people
>just want to silence others whom they disagree with.
Not really. Part of the problem is the the dumb tendency for lookyloos,
otherwise disintrested parties to take a peek, and then being unable to
resist the urge to jump in. But the major issue is that of deliberate
attackers jumping into otherwise innocious threads and provoking
flammage.
It might seem patronizing as well as censorious or repressive, but being
fannish, all too many participants seem on the verge of childish tantrums
half the time, and having to play babysetter may become as important a
role for the moderator as anything else.
Frankly, I'm a tired old man and life is too short to have to put up with
the extream noise to signal that fills the ng, as well as the negativity
that stains the fandom.
Steve Gallacci, the guy who's work helped create the fandom as we
originally knew it.
Chuck Melville
<7tra9r$qea$1...@nntp4.atl.mindspring.net>...
> I have no problem with a moderated group, but this one needs to be left
> intact. It's obvious from the comments that there is a serious split
> about Peter's idea. It is not universally acclaimed.
>
Don't be so sure. So far, I've only seen two serious objections posted to
the split. All other objections are made by the trolls and abusers who
brought this situation around in the first place, and as they are neither
serious nor regular posters to this ng, their votes don't count. (Of
-course- they don't want a moderated group; who would they have to harass
then?) So far, at this point of time, the majority appears to be in favor
of the split.
diespa...@best.com
: Frankly, I'm a tired old man and life is too short to have to put up with
: the extream noise to signal that fills the ng, as well as the negativity
: that stains the fandom.
Welcome to the Usenet. Don't like it? Don't use it. And
especially don't infringe on the ability of post because
you don't like the direction of the conversation.
: Steve Gallacci, the guy who's work helped create the fandom as we
: originally knew it.
While appreciated, honestly, your time has passed. It happens
to all of us. Thank you for Albedo. Thank you for your contribution.
Things are different now, 'tho.
diespa...@best.com
: Don't be so sure. So far, I've only seen two serious objections posted to
: the split.
Try learning to read.
All other objections are made by the trolls and abusers who
: brought this situation around in the first place, and as they are neither
: serious nor regular posters to this ng, their votes don't count.
*flunk*
You fail -- off to AOL with you.
Bev Clark/Steve Gallacci
>Bev Clark/Steve Gallacci <bev...@netcom.com> wrote:
>
>: Frankly, I'm a tired old man and life is too short to have to put up with
>: the extream noise to signal that fills the ng, as well as the negativity
>: that stains the fandom.
>
>
> Welcome to the Usenet. Don't like it? Don't use it. And
> especially don't infringe on the ability of post because
> you don't like the direction of the conversation.
Why should I surrender a potential asset and forum to louts? If there was
value to the discussion, I'd welcome it. But it simply isn't happening.
At minimum it is verbal combat as entertainment for some at the expense
of others.
>
>: Steve Gallacci, the guy who's work helped create the fandom as we
>: originally knew it.
>
> While appreciated, honestly, your time has passed. It happens
> to all of us. Thank you for Albedo. Thank you for your contribution.
> Things are different now, 'tho.
>
What and Why?
A fandom going through schism is all too common(a history of SF fandom
woudl be a good example of compeating contol of the "true fandom")
Much of the current issue is about non-genre fans (netfans, convention or
social fans, lifestylers, or their various freinds or enemies) seeking
some kind of dominance or control over the name, at least, of "furry", and
of outlets like a.f.f.
The major complaint is not of simple differences of opinion in matters of
reasoned debate, but of overt antagonistic attack and provocation,
ususally for the doubious "entertainment" value of flammage.
That effort, along with stupid stunts in other venues, has gone so far as to
make "furry" a pejoritive in some circles, likley the actual agenda of some.
Being loud and confrontational doesn't make one right and I see no reason
to give up the venue to malicious bullies.
diespa...@best.com
:>Bev Clark/Steve Gallacci <bev...@netcom.com> wrote:
:>
:>: Frankly, I'm a tired old man and life is too short to have to put up with
:>: the extream noise to signal that fills the ng, as well as the negativity
:>: that stains the fandom.
:>
:>
:> Welcome to the Usenet. Don't like it? Don't use it. And
:> especially don't infringe on the ability of post because
:> you don't like the direction of the conversation.
: Why should I surrender a potential asset and forum to louts?
Because you simply have no choice in the matter. Those
"louts" are within their rights to post here, under the
ideals the Usenet runs on. If you wish to remove their
ability to post based on some idea of moral certitude,
you yourself must be willing to give up YOUR ability to post
under the moral certitide of someone else. Once that happens,
we go straight to might-makes-right, and the person with
the best cancelbot and the most lienent ISP wins.
BTW, AFF is a totally usable forum right now. Wanna see what
a really trashed newsgroup looks like? Go take a gander at
alt.horror.werewolves.
: If there was
: value to the discussion, I'd welcome it. But it simply isn't happening.
: At minimum it is verbal combat as entertainment for some at the expense
: of others.
That's your OPINION, and nothing else. Others feel there's nothing
wrong with the newsgroup as it stands. There's no "invasion" or
"cancelbot". Just a lot of thin-skinned people bawling like babies
over the occasional on-topic flamewar here.
Sorry, that doesn't justify wholesale censorship.
: The major complaint is not of simple differences of opinion in matters of
: reasoned debate, but of overt antagonistic attack and provocation,
: ususally for the doubious "entertainment" value of flammage.
: That effort, along with stupid stunts in other venues, has gone so far as to
: make "furry" a pejoritive in some circles, likley the actual agenda of some.
That you feel strongly about this is your right. Taking away the
ability for others to voice a differing opinion is censorship.
Like I told someone else, if you don't like the freedom of speech
that's inherant in the Usenet, go pay AOL to play den mom for you.
: Being loud and confrontational doesn't make one right and I see no reason
: to give up the venue to malicious bullies.
Because the second you try to take away the ability for those
"malicious bullies" to post their opposing view, in whatever manner
they see fit, you become one of them and your own posts can be
cancelled with equal moral certainty.
I've trolled, fought, flamed, argued, debated, yelled, bellowed,
sworn, spit and cast hate in this newsgroup to the tune of close
to 10,000 posts in the last decade, and I've hated a good many
people and opinions here, but I've never ONCE issued a cancel due
to fundamental belief that if I can remove someone else's posts,
they can remove mine.
But if someone wants to lay down a party line and say "Cross this
and you're cancelled", then there's nothing from stopping me from
firing up my copy of Hipcrime's little toy and cancelflood through
the first open server I find.
diespa...@best.com
: AFF has been in need of a repair for quite some time.
In your humble opinion that is not shared by others.
: Your opinion. And nobody would keep you from expressing it, even in
: a moderated group. But since Stuka is a known harasser and pest on the
: group, his posts would need to be accepted/rejected manually by a moderator.
: I have no problem with that. If someone behaves badly, he can't act surprised
: when others treat him like he's behaving badly.
Once again, your opinion. IF you're going to post to the Usenet,
at least understand the underlying values of it.
BTW, there's no way you can stop me from appointing myself moderator
and "accepting or rejecting" your posts as well. (smile)
Open servers are so fun. :)
: And what part of name-calling contains the truth, hmm?
Freedom of Speech: don't like it? Go to AOL.
: Let's solve the problem with surgical strikes; not carpet bombing. And let's
: start by expelling the most blatant of trolls, who are not furries, do not
: post on topic, and thus have no reason to be posting here.
"Troll" is your opinion, too.
I can lable you the same, and cancel your posts based on that
decision.
I hope you understand the pandora's box you're opening. It's not
as simple as it looks.
D. J. Green
> This is why people like you, Chuck, should be banned from the Usenet.
> Can't handle free speech? Go to AOL.
Hey, censor the people you think are advocating censorship. Wonder why we
never thought of that before...
--
"Life isn't fair" is a truism. It is *not* a license.
diespa...@best.com
: In article <38010966$0$2...@nntp1.ba.best.com>, <diespa...@best.com> wrote:
:> This is why people like you, Chuck, should be banned from the Usenet.
:> Can't handle free speech? Go to AOL.
: Hey, censor the people you think are advocating censorship. Wonder why we
: never thought of that before...
Pretty much what this whole thing amounts to: who is going to
censor who.
diespa...@best.com
: Hangdog <peter....@pdq.net> wrote in message news:38012DE8...@pdq.net...
:> ...I just won't be part of it.
:>
:> If, however, part of that plan involves deactivating THIS group, I am opposed
:> to it.
:>
:> Regardless, I am very sorry to see people abandoning an open forum because
:> they can't handle a few trolls.
:>
: A few trolls? The traffic in this forum has recently tripled.
Thank da Silva and his netcopping for that.
: And you seem to be enjoying the hell out of it. I think you're part of it.
Oh, goody! The paranoia begins already:
"That one looks JEWISH / and that one's a COON / who let alla
this RIFF-RAFF into this ROOM? / There's one smoking a JOINT /
and another's got SPOTS! / If I had my way / I'd have all of
you --
CANCELLED!"
-= Hawk =-
>In article <7tr5bh$k...@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>, bev...@netcom.com (Bev
>Clark/Steve Gallacci) wrote:
>
>> As i am already in several newsgroups that are moderated to keep them
>> from going too far off topic/getting personal/nasty and seeing how the
>> bulk of traffic here (alt.fan.furry) becomes little more than pissing
>> contests or worse, the idea of moderation is a welcome proposal.
>> It would be nice to actually keep things to on-topic traffic on the
>> genre, especially as several individuals have stated that their only
>> "mission" in being here has been to attack and antagonize the fans.
>>
>> Despite claims to the contrary, this is not about supressing legitimate
>> debate, but removing off-topic and gratutitusly inflammitory speach.
>>
>> While alt.fan.furry is not by any means the sole definer of what the
>> genre and fandom is all about, it would be nice for it to at least have a
>> semblence of relevency to the fandom and genre instead of the nasty
>> and divergent flamefest that it is currently notorious for.
>
>
>I use no filters and have no problems at all reading this newsgroup.
>There's no need for a split or moderation. Sounds more like some people
>just want to silence others whom they disagree with.
Naa, I support the creation of a moderated group, then Peter and his whiny
control freak friends can go play god's censor somewhere else, I see no need
to remove, destroy, or change the status of the existing aff, that's just a
power play.
Go create your moderated group, Peter, and leave the unmoderated group
alone.
--
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.
Peter da Silva
>I like stuff that's on topic too. I just have a different solution about
>how to achieve this. But it requires restraint and that everyone buy
>into it. That's the crazy part. :/
Well, we've tried that. For years. It's obviously not working.
>I'm just disappointed that it's come to this. But could someone please
>explain to me why the current group has to die just because a moderated
>group has been created?
It doesn't. My proposal includes moderating alt.fan.furry, and I'm currently
still leaning that way, but none of it is cast in stone... that's why I'd
like you all to come over to a.f.f.p and alt.config and discuss it. That's
why it's all still in pieces... it's a work in progress.
I don't know who's going to moderate it. It's not gonna be me. I don't know
who's going to run it. I proposed a "fast track" / "whitelist" bot to avoid
concerns about delays, but if people don't like it there's plenty of other
ways to handle the moderation.
I'd like to end up with a new proposal, one that can be presented BACK to the
group and where the group can vote on whether to implement it and what
specific names and procedures will be put in place. But does this all need to
be hashed out in a.f.f which, as noted, is overflowing?
Sergi
Silva) totally goes like:
>In article <01bf13a2$66f05780$bb354bd1@whitefang>,
>Artax <bo...@address.com> wrote:
>>Peter da Silva wrote:
>>> In article <7trk2q$1g0$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
>>> silverpelican <silver...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>> >silverpelican sees nothing wrong with creating a moderated group if
>>> >folks want it. silverpelican does have an idealogical objection to the
>>> >expressed intention to kill off the unmoderated version by gagging it
>>> >to death.
>
>>> How do you see this as different from the splitting of, say, comp.lang.perl
>>> and the renaming of the base group that happens in any such split?
>
>>It's different because comp.lang.perl is in the Big-8.
>
>And how exactly does that make it different?
>
If you don't know, you should go and read a couple FAQs before you bring your
idiotic ideas here.
<flush>
-= Hawk =-
scribbled:
>
>
>"J. J. Novotny" wrote:
>
>> And what is being proposed? I believe that it's the restriction of the
>> virtue of free speech upon which UseNet was founded. The idea is to
>> moderate the new a.f.f with a bot that would only approve certain
>> posters and leave others to post into space. However, this raises
>> problems. Who will be approved? Who will not be approved? What would
>> cause someone's removal from the list? How would newbies know what to
>> do? None of these topics have been adequately discussed. From what I can
>> tell, the only criterion is based on the way Peter has set up his bot.
>> This is not good enough.
>>
>
>There will be several other furry newsgroups where people can scream
>and yell and complain about the zoos which have to be here because they
>say they so. Freedom of speech does not give one to walk into a
>theater and scream "Fire," which is what the current load of trolls and
>some others are engaging in.
>
>When dealing with anything that is moderated, some vigilance is needed
>to ensure those guarding the gates do not abuse their positions. But to
>simply leave the city gates undefended because some guard may or may not
>be a model citizen leads to the city's destruction. Be wary, but give it
>a chance please.
>
>AFF has been in need of a repair for quite some time.
>
>> To my eyes, this technique is being designed not because the group is
>> not functional. It is proposed to keep out, yes, some cross-posting
>> trolls, but also to silence some regular posters who aren't seen as very
>> nice. In particular, the name StukaFox comes to mind. Now Stuka and I
>> have had a few arguments in the past, and I strongly disagree with some
>> of what he says. I also strongly support his right to say these things
>> in a.f.f. He is not just a cross-posting troll, but also a person with
>> what appears to be legitimate complaints about the fandom. And however
>> crude he might be, he's also one of the 20 or so most intelligent
>> posters to the group.
>
>Your opinion. And nobody would keep you from expressing it, even in
>a moderated group. But since Stuka is a known harasser and pest on the
>group, his posts would need to be accepted/rejected manually by a moderator.
>I have no problem with that. If someone behaves badly, he can't act surprised
>when others treat him like he's behaving badly.
>
>> J. M. Mill pointed out the same thing in one
>> of his essays: free speech is good because -- the suppressed point might
>> be true; even if it isn't true it might contain a portion of the truth;
>
>And what part of name-calling contains the truth, hmm?
>
>> How does shutting out critics of the fandom help it in any way? Does it
>> just lead us to blindness or does it lead to the truth?
>
>Hey, I'm a critic. When I see a problem, I point it out. But to decry things
>over and over just because "this isn't your father's fandom" is silly and
>wasteful. If a person enjoys part of furry (and you don't have to enjoy it all)
>then they should stay in fandom, and AFF. If they don't, then they should get
>out and quit trying to destroy everyone else's good time. But AFF needs to
>be fixed before it can be anything like a fandom forum.
>
>There are some things some people do that bothers me, yes. Unlike others, I
>claim it's a small number causing the troubles and they are best dealt with
>as such. Name the name, and state the offense. It is no more right for us
>to paint a group of people as "Freaks" because of the actions of a few, than
>it is for mundanes to paint all furrys as such for the same reasons.
>
>Let's solve the problem with surgical strikes; not carpet bombing. And let's
>start by expelling the most blatant of trolls, who are not furries, do not
>post on topic, and thus have no reason to be posting here.
Peter's suggestion of rmgrouping and then changing the status of AFF to
moderated and rejecting all articles IS carpet bombing, and censorship.
diespa...@best.com
: that's why I'd like you all to come over to a.f.f.p and alt.config and discuss it.
It has been repeatedly pointed out to you that most people do NOT
get your little pet .politics group. Discussing destroying AFF
belongs on AFF.
: I don't know who's going to moderate it. It's not gonna be me. I don't know
: who's going to run it. I proposed a "fast track" / "whitelist" bot to avoid
: concerns about delays, but if people don't like it there's plenty of other
: ways to handle the moderation.
None of which are 'legal' in the Usenet scheme, therefor it's a dead
idea.
: But does this all need to be hashed out in a.f.f which, as noted, is overflowing?
Thanks to YOU, Peter! Gonna blame THIS shitstorm on trolls? The
only troll is YOU.
AFF is ON-TOPIC on AFF.
-= Hawk =-
>In article <01bf13a2$66f05780$bb354bd1@whitefang>,
>Artax <bo...@address.com> wrote:
>>Peter da Silva wrote:
>>> In article <7trk2q$1g0$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
>>> silverpelican <silver...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>> >silverpelican sees nothing wrong with creating a moderated group if
>>> >folks want it. silverpelican does have an idealogical objection to the
>>> >expressed intention to kill off the unmoderated version by gagging it
>>> >to death.
>
>>> How do you see this as different from the splitting of, say, comp.lang.perl
>>> and the renaming of the base group that happens in any such split?
>
>>It's different because comp.lang.perl is in the Big-8.
>
>And how exactly does that make it different?
Because many servers auto-accept changes to the Big-8 hierarchy and totally
ignore changes or newgroup messages in alt unless their users request it?
I'll say it again, if you want a moderated group, go for it, but leave the
existing unmoderated group alone.
--
Want to propose a newsgroup? Browse these links for help:
http://www.faqs.org/usenet/alt/
http://www.angelfire.com/tx/calame/create.html
http://www.gweep.bc.ca/~edmonds/usenet/good-newgroup.html
http://nylon.net/alt/newgroup.htm
For Help with Deja keyword search:
http://www.deja.com/help/help_lang.shtml
For Deja Power search:
http://www.exit109.com/~jeremy/news/deja.html
For proposing WebTV alt.discuss groups:
http://www.angelfire.com/az/OpenMind/adrules.html
Sergi
goes like:
Well, there's me, too, but I wouldn't have given a shit for AFF if it wasn't for
DaCensor's fuckheadedness.
> AFF is ON-TOPIC on AFF.
--
ilr
> And your proof of *any* of these assertions would be...?
>
You condoning every negative comment towards the fandom
that you reply to?
diespa...@best.com
: Well, there's me, too, but I wouldn't have given a shit for AFF if it wasn't for
: DaCensor's fuckheadedness.
Meow.
rune....@worldnet.att.mil
>
> As i am already in several newsgroups that are moderated to keep them
> from going too far off topic/getting personal/nasty and seeing how the
> bulk of traffic here (alt.fan.furry) becomes little more than pissing
> contests or worse, the idea of moderation is a welcome proposal.
> It would be nice to actually keep things to on-topic traffic on the
> genre, especially as several individuals have stated that their only
> "mission" in being here has been to attack and antagonize the fans.
>
> Despite claims to the contrary, this is not about supressing legitimate
> debate, but removing off-topic and gratutitusly inflammitory speach.
Except, who decides what is off-topic?
Someone here has already decided that discussions about THIS group's
fate are _off-topic_ HERE. What happens when they (or someone else)
decides they don't like discussion about guns or politics or real animal
behavior/biology or (fill in the blank)?
When that happens you won't even be able to protest because that too
will get cancelled.
Or maybe the king will decide that certain people should just plain be
blocked.
"Furry" is ill-defined at best. It is not like anime, firearms tech, or
automobiles, where plain lines can be drawn. The ruler of the group
would now get to mold the public image of the field to suit their own
tastes.
> While alt.fan.furry is not by any means the sole definer of what the
> genre and fandom is all about, it would be nice for it to at least have a
> semblence of relevency to the fandom and genre instead of the nasty
> and divergent flamefest that it is currently notorious for.
"The Village" is not paradise either. You can't have it both ways.
-= Hawk =-
>In article <38016CED...@cc.umanitoba.ca>,
>J. J. Novotny <umno...@cc.umanitoba.ca> wrote:
>>Yep. Yep. Seconded. Coz "furry fandom is all about anthropomorphics". :)
>>I like stuff that's on topic too. I just have a different solution about
>>how to achieve this. But it requires restraint and that everyone buy
>>into it. That's the crazy part. :/
>
>Well, we've tried that. For years. It's obviously not working.
>
>>I'm just disappointed that it's come to this. But could someone please
>>explain to me why the current group has to die just because a moderated
>>group has been created?
>
>It doesn't. My proposal includes moderating alt.fan.furry, and I'm currently
>still leaning that way, but none of it is cast in stone... that's why I'd
>like you all to come over to a.f.f.p and alt.config and discuss it. That's
>why it's all still in pieces... it's a work in progress.
It's already been pointed out to you that moderating aff is going to be
nearly impossible, create your moderated newsgroup, suggested name:
alt.fan.furry.moderated and leave the existing group to those who don't
want someone choosing what they can and can't read.
>I don't know who's going to moderate it. It's not gonna be me. I don't know
>who's going to run it. I proposed a "fast track" / "whitelist" bot to avoid
>concerns about delays, but if people don't like it there's plenty of other
>ways to handle the moderation.
>
>I'd like to end up with a new proposal, one that can be presented BACK to the
>group and where the group can vote on whether to implement it and what
>specific names and procedures will be put in place. But does this all need to
>be hashed out in a.f.f which, as noted, is overflowing?
There is no vote in alt, and there is still NO reason to try and exclude aff
from the discussion of it's own fate.
You've asked for rational discussion, I've given it. Create a moderated
group, leave the existing group alone, those who want the safety and quiet
of the moderated group will go there, those that don't, wont, but you don't
have the right to make that choice for anyone.
Peter da Silva
Wotan <wo...@deathpenguin.com> wrote:
>Becuase the method proposed by Petey (and being blindly endorsed by many
>others) has two major flaws. The first being, it is impossible to do.
>Retro-moderation is virtually impossible these days.
Where exactly in the proposal does it say I'm suggesting retromoderation?
It doesn't. Two bots are mentioned, but both are normal moderation bots.
There is nothing in the proposal about any cancel messages being sent.
Peter da Silva
-= Hawk =- <ha...@lart.com> wrote:
>It's already been pointed out to you that moderating aff is going to be
>nearly impossible,
That may be, but I've changed the moderation status of an alt group before
quite successfully. There have also been successful renames. The whole
alt.binaries hierarchy is the result of one.
It's hard, but it's not impossible.
>There is no vote in alt, and there is still NO reason to try and exclude aff
>from the discussion of it's own fate.
I've *run* votes in alt before. And I'm not trying to exclude anyone, but
since the attempt to cut the noise has backfired I've dropped it... but at
least leave folks something they can consistently killfile on.
>You've asked for rational discussion, I've given it. Create a moderated
>group, leave the existing group alone, those who want the safety and quiet
>of the moderated group will go there, those that don't, wont, but you don't
>have the right to make that choice for anyone.
I'm not trying to make the choice for anyone. I'm trying to give them a choice
that is actually a choice... between two peer groups rather than letting the
default choice be no change.
Peter da Silva
<rune....@worldnet.att.mil> wrote:
>Someone here has already decided that discussions about THIS group's
>fate are _off-topic_ HERE.
I was just trying to avoid having the inevitable netcop/netkook flame war
in this group. Instead I've mostly managed to demonstrate why a moderated
group is necessary. I would like to be able to claim that this was my intent
but, despite certain folks paranoia, I'm not that sneaky.
In any case since there's been a few people in the group who are strongly
opposed to holding the discussion in a subgroup, I'm going to quit trying.
I would like to at least ask people to use a consistent subject line so
folks who want to killfile the threads can do so.
>What happens when they (or someone else)
>decides they don't like discussion about guns or politics or real animal
>behavior/biology or (fill in the blank)?
That's why I'd like to set up a moderation mechanism in which every moderator
can approve any post, so no single person can decide what's off topic.
And yes I am aware that this will mean that you'll end up with the same
discussions going on, but at least they'll be unlikely to develop into
the utterly nasty and hateful flaming that's driven so many fine posters
from the group over the past several years.
-= Hawk =-
>In article <01bf13b4$f5493580$010010ac@whitefang>,
>Artax <bo...@address.com> wrote:
>>In the Big-8 all reorganization decisions are decided by formal votes.
>
>They weren't always. A formal mechanism had to be developed, and every
>part of that mechanism that you're looking at today was strongly resisted
>by some people. At the beginning, the idea of votes was controversial,
>and they were simply considered "advisory" for the folks running the
>news servers to accept or ignore.
That was then, this is now... to quote S.E. Hinton
-= Hawk =-
>In article <J40BOMqSqSgo4z...@4ax.com>,
>-= Hawk =- <ha...@lart.com> wrote:
>>It's already been pointed out to you that moderating aff is going to be
>>nearly impossible,
>
>That may be, but I've changed the moderation status of an alt group before
>quite successfully. There have also been successful renames. The whole
>alt.binaries hierarchy is the result of one.
>
>It's hard, but it's not impossible.
>
>>There is no vote in alt, and there is still NO reason to try and exclude aff
>>from the discussion of it's own fate.
>
>I've *run* votes in alt before. And I'm not trying to exclude anyone, but
>since the attempt to cut the noise has backfired I've dropped it... but at
>least leave folks something they can consistently killfile on.
>
>>You've asked for rational discussion, I've given it. Create a moderated
>>group, leave the existing group alone, those who want the safety and quiet
>>of the moderated group will go there, those that don't, wont, but you don't
>>have the right to make that choice for anyone.
>
>I'm not trying to make the choice for anyone. I'm trying to give them a choice
>that is actually a choice... between two peer groups rather than letting the
>default choice be no change.
Create a separate moderated group for those that feel they need it, period,
that solves all the problems aff has, the people who don't want an open
discussion group can use the moderated group, this soultion gives everyone
the choices they need.
-= Hawk =-
>In article <7ts2du$e6r$1...@nntpd.databasix.com>,
>Wotan <wo...@deathpenguin.com> wrote:
>>Becuase the method proposed by Petey (and being blindly endorsed by many
>>others) has two major flaws. The first being, it is impossible to do.
>>Retro-moderation is virtually impossible these days.
>
>Where exactly in the proposal does it say I'm suggesting retromoderation?
>
>It doesn't. Two bots are mentioned, but both are normal moderation bots.
>There is nothing in the proposal about any cancel messages being sent.
Except aff isn't moderated, and shouldn't be.
Peter da Silva
>It makes it different because there is a formal process that requires a
>pretty substantial mandate to pass muster. IF you were willing to set up a
>votecasting process and use the same pass/fail requirements that the big8
>groups do then I'd be perfectly happy to cast my vote and abide by the
>result.
I would be quite willing to do that. I don't think it would fly, or I
would have included that in the original message.
>As it is, there seems to be nothing stopping you from having your
>discussion period and then going ahead with your plan regardless of how
>the majority using the current group feel about it.
Apart from "it wouldn't work without consensus"?
The only reason I set up a bot for alt.animals.dolphins is because I had
the strong commitment of the regular readers of the group behind me. I'd
have to be even crazier than people think to go ahead without that.
And I think I've also mentioned that point a couple of times.
In any case, while the first posts from the regular readers were strongly
in favor of that scheme, there's obviously not the same sort of commitment
there, so that's not going to be in the next proposal.
I really don't like the name ".moderated". It precludes the option of
having multiple moderated groups on different topics without an unweildy
daisy chain of group names. There are sufficiently many subgroups in the
fandom that multiple moderated groups should remain an option.
>That should be a choice that's up to them, not you. I'd also set the
>moderation bot to reject articles crosposted between the groups.
That's pretty much a given. Moderated groups and crossposts are uneasy
partners at best.
-= Hawk =-
>In article <380189...@worldnet.att.mil>,
> <rune....@worldnet.att.mil> wrote:
>>Someone here has already decided that discussions about THIS group's
>>fate are _off-topic_ HERE.
>
>I was just trying to avoid having the inevitable netcop/netkook flame war
>in this group. Instead I've mostly managed to demonstrate why a moderated
>group is necessary. I would like to be able to claim that this was my intent
>but, despite certain folks paranoia, I'm not that sneaky.
You managed to what?! YOU took the discussion of this group OUT of this
group, repeatedly, without reason, without being asked to, and because you
caught fire for doing so you claim THAT'S reason for moderation?
>In any case since there's been a few people in the group who are strongly
>opposed to holding the discussion in a subgroup, I'm going to quit trying.
>
>I would like to at least ask people to use a consistent subject line so
>folks who want to killfile the threads can do so.
>
>>What happens when they (or someone else)
>>decides they don't like discussion about guns or politics or real animal
>>behavior/biology or (fill in the blank)?
>
>That's why I'd like to set up a moderation mechanism in which every moderator
>can approve any post, so no single person can decide what's off topic.
>
>And yes I am aware that this will mean that you'll end up with the same
>discussions going on, but at least they'll be unlikely to develop into
>the utterly nasty and hateful flaming that's driven so many fine posters
>from the group over the past several years.
Look, it's simple, go newgroup alt.fan.furry.moderated, then you can play
there to your hearts content, all the people here sick of flame wars can
join you, you can post a weekly or monthly polite reminder that the
moderated newsgroup exists for those that WANT it, why is this concept
so hard for you to grasp?
Hangdog
*pfsht!* I don't know what that has to do with the subject, let alone
how it "proves" your theory that I'm "part" of all this.
But if it makes you happy to believe that, I can't stop you. In fact,
if that makes you happy, this ought to make you overjoyed: I'm the one
*behind* all this. Yes, "ilr", I'm responsible for all these bad
people saying all these bad things about your hobby on this
newsgroup. And I did it all to persecute you. Yes, you. I'm your
personal scourge, sent by God to make your life miserable. And these
are my scourgettes--Hawk, Stuke, nutz, Wotan, take a bow (they do
whatever tI say, of course: I control their every move).
Pfah. No ilr, I never heard of these people before in my life, except
Stuka, and he's off doing his own thing. Yes, I think furry fandom is
lame--but I can say that on my own, here, or anywhere, with no backup
required, thank you.
Hangdog
Rebecca Ore
>
> In article <7tr6og$p...@bonkers.taronga.com>, pe...@taronga.com (Peter da
> Silva) wrote:
>
> > I'm leaving this post in alt.fan.furry to make sure you see it this time,
> > but please direct your ensuing followups to alt.config or a.f.f.politics.
>
> I see that you are already cancelling posts that you deem 'inappropriate'
> for alt.fan.furry. Trying to keep people on a.f.f. in the dark, so that
> they can't see you sneaking around and censoring posts?
Nope, he's not cancelling, just redirecting to his vanity joke group
that no reasonable server carries.
>
> FYI, a.f.f.politics is NOT a well-distributed newsgroup, so I'm not
> bothering to post my response there. Supernews (the second-largest news
> service) carries only are alt.fan.furry, alt.fan.furry.bleachers, and
> alt.fan.furry.muck.
We don't carry it either and we do carry alt.fan.furry.bleachers and
alt.fan.furry.muck.
I did snip alt.news.flame -- err, news.admin.net-abuse.usenet, since
we've got a truce running there.
Forrest
<rune....@worldnet.att.mil> :
> Except, who decides what is off-topic?
Current proposals call for multiple moderators, any of whom can pass a
message, and dual moderators of opposing politics, both of whom must agree
before a message can be blocked. Is this unreasonable?
mcgruff
<silver...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> I don't think the issue is your creation of a moderated group or even
> keeping the same name. The issue is as to your intention to cancel or
> otherwise shut down the groups which aren't moderated. silverpelican
> knows that you created the whole "furry" concept after, or during, The
> Great Re-naming and its sort of your legacy, your creation. But time
> passes and the "meow" business is innerlinked with the "furry" groups.
> So this is an emotional issue to a whole host of people.
> I can believe that you have been driven nutz by these guys but, really,
> you are above "payback" time, I think. Let them have their toys to play
> with.
> Your legacy is Usenet, not newsgroups anyway.
A bit of history here. Peter da Silva did create alt.fan.furry (it was
originally called alt.fan.albedo), but he does not OWN the newsgroup
alt.fan.furry. The newsgroup named a.f.f. was never intended to be
moderated. Also, Mr. da Silva did NOT create the term "furry," nor is he
considered an entity of any importance in furry fandom.
This should be VERY simple, but da Silva (in his control freak way) wants
to make it as difficult as possible. If da Silva wants a NEW, moderated
group, then he just needs to create an a.f.f.moderated. Or, he could just
create his own private mailing list, so that he can more easily control
content. Simple! DER!
Oh, and, if da Silva wants any sort of 'fair' discussion about this matter,
he needs to stop diverting this discussion over to his phantom/vanity
newsgroup alf.fan.furry.politics, which is carried by VERY FEW servers.
The discussion needs to be carried on IN the newsgroup that it most
affects: alt.fan.furry.
Peter da Silva
diespa...@best.com
: TEAR DOWN THE WALL!!
I have a collect call from Mr. Floyd to Mrs. Floyd. Will you accept the charges?
Dwight J. Dutton
> to
>the split. All other objections are made by the trolls and abusers who
>brought this situation around in the first place, and as they are neither
>serious nor regular posters to this ng, their votes don't count. (Of
>-course- they don't want a moderated group; who would they have to harass
>then?) So far, at this point of time, the majority appears to be in favor
>of the split.
Whether people are opposed to it or in favor of it is almost
meaningless. The degree of control being proposed just isn't possible
in an alt.* group. If you want a moderated group with some degree of
civility to it, create a group in the soc.* or rec.* heirarchy.
the alt.* series was , is and ever will be a total free for all. There
is no way that I know of to issue any sort of moderation commands in the
alt groups that will be accepted by news servers around the globe.
Witness for example the *original* iteration of alt.fan.furry from well
over a decade ago - it was named, for about a week from what I
understand, alt.fan.albedo. Then that group was renamed, and the
original title was suposed to disappear.
Well, alt.fan.albedo is still around 12 years later. Rmgrouping it
worked on *some* machines, but others kept it. Then afterwards the
machines that did drop it forgot about it, and now treated it as a new
group and picked it back up again. Pac bell now carries alt.fan.albedo,
for example.
I don't think, technically, that alt.anything can be moderated. Or
killed. It was never meant to work that way.
Create a soc.culture.anthropomorphics or a rec.arts.furry or some such.
that would legitimize the whole thing, create what is being asked for
without destroying what is being defended.
It's how usenet was set up. Is this too obvious for everyone?
======================
http://www.huzzah./com
======================
Flashcat
"J. J. Novotny" wrote:
(clip)
> And what is being proposed? I believe that it's the restriction of the
> virtue of free speech upon which UseNet was founded. The idea is to
> moderate the new a.f.f with a bot that would only approve certain
> posters and leave others to post into space. However, this raises
> problems. Who will be approved? Who will not be approved? What would
> cause someone's removal from the list? How would newbies know what to
> do? None of these topics have been adequately discussed. From what I can
> tell, the only criterion is based on the way Peter has set up his bot.
> This is not good enough.
Agreed, and consider this is from someone who has no use for the
care-in-choosing-words-which-borders-upon open-paranoia or the
convenient reworking of the language that the "real world" PC movement
has engendered.
The problem is that neither approach (the use of discretion in
posting or the automatic removal of items which might prove sticky) is a
wholly viable alternative.
If I had to make the choice, I'd opt for requesting more discretion
on the part of posters to, in effect, creating a happy dictatorship by a
'bot. It's somewhat ironic how many freedoms can be lost in so many
contexts, in the interests of "protecting" the freedoms of a given group
or strata. Precisely the reason I support no PC movements in any way
shape or form.
Then again, I don't generally enter into these flare-ups, in that
they serve no real function. Any fandom -- and any manifestation/forum
of that fandom -- will necessarily attract or generate abrasive
comments. Working with convention groups for about 10 years, I literally
saw a number go under through sheer in-fighting.
The survivors move to an altered version of their familiar path,
which then develops yet another splinter movement. And so it goes.
Entropy. Go fig'...
This reflects the simple truth of why the PC approaches never work as
anticipated: regardless of how much you modify something, you can never
satisfy everyone. The movement will of a necessity alienate a given
percent of the participants.
While I'm realistic to acknowledge that you'll never convince "x"
number of posters to stick to relevant topics, or not make slurs or
state jarring opinions, I'll always select self regulation over losing
the ability to make that choice to an automatic monitor.
John Van Stry
opposing politics? Opposing how?
-Banner
-------------------------------------------------------
Oh it is to laugh, Ha Ha
-Daffy Duck
Artax
> 5) Go to the bleachers ... or to the new alt.arts.anthro group that Brad
> Austin has so kindly set up recently.
I created alt.arts.anthro more than a year and a half ago. The only
thing recent is that it's suddenly achieved good propogation.
a res. | Artax
r p c | (Brad Austin)
t x o |
ax@i m | Oceanside, CA USA
barbara@.bookpro.com
wrote:
>In article <01bf13a2$66f05780$bb354bd1@whitefang>,
>Artax <bo...@address.com> wrote:
>>Peter da Silva wrote:
>>> In article <7trk2q$1g0$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
>>> silverpelican <silver...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>> >silverpelican sees nothing wrong with creating a moderated group if
>>> >folks want it. silverpelican does have an idealogical objection to the
>>> >expressed intention to kill off the unmoderated version by gagging it
>>> >to death.
>
>>> How do you see this as different from the splitting of, say, comp.lang.perl
>>> and the renaming of the base group that happens in any such split?
>
>>It's different because comp.lang.perl is in the Big-8.
>
>And how exactly does that make it different?
>
>It makes it harder, and it makes the process longer, but the goal is the
>same, and the social issues that drive the split are the same.
>
>You know, it used to be that the "big 8" had no mechanism for splitting groups.
>Splits and reorganizations were controversial when they were first tried, and
>all the same arguments were used against them. For the longest time they were
>massively opposed by ultra-conservative types who were afraid of the short
>term disruption they would cause, and because 'there were no rules allowing
>them'. Now they're part of "normal operating procedures".
>
>I don't see why they should be rejected out of hand here.
Because the mechanics are different. In the Big 8, there is a trusted
newgrouper/rmgrouper, and most sites honor his control messages
(though I know of one that does not honor his rmgroups) because they
trust that all the issues have been ironed out before the control
message is sent. That allows for a measure of confidence in the
process.
In alt.*, anyone may newgroup and anyone may rmgroup. Anyone can try
to change the moderation status of a newsgroup for any reason, and
some people have tried as part of flame wars like what is apparently
going on in AFF. As contentious as this issue is and as public as it
has become, I think we can take it as given that if someone sends
newgroups that attempt to change the moderation status of
alt.fan.furry to moderated, someone else will send newgroup/booster
messages for the unmoderated alt.fan.furry. What happens then will
depend on how many sites (and which sites) honor each type, and the
result is likely to be a mixture of sites that have it moderated and
sites that have it unmoderated--with some likely to change with each
control message sent (if MSN's recent response to rmgrouping of
alt.config is anything to go by). That and the fact that many sites
don't honor cancels would seem to preclude the type of newsgroup you
have in mind.
BW
Hangdog
> ilr wrote:
>
> > A few trolls?
Hawk, Stukafox, and nutz. Those were the regulars until the
architecture shift came
up.
> The traffic in this forum has recently tripled.
Reall? 3x? What are the figures? And how many of those posts are
from trolls--and
how many are from people *who should know better* replying to trolls?
> > And you seem to be enjoying the hell out of it.
Actually I'm not. Not at all. But I don't go around making whiney
"Oh-isn't-this-*awful?*" and "You-trolls-just-*stop!*" posts to show
my displeasure;
that just encourages the trolls, and, besides, it's lame.
> I think you're part of it.
*GUFFAW!* I hope that was itself a troll-or at least a joke. No,
ilr, the people
whining at the trolls and acting like we're all going down with the
_Titanic_ are part
of it--part of the problem, that is. As much a part of it as the
trolls are. Because
trolls and their targets are part of the same system.
Look, lemme tell ya something about trolls: they go where the action
is. And they
have all of UseNet to choose from. If things cool off in one
newsgroup, they just
move to another. And there's *always* another. The only way to make
trolls stay in
your NG is to make that NG more interesting to them than any place
else on UseNet. And
it takes an enormous amount of effort to do this, effort like--oh,
say, tripling your
posting level? Writing long, anguished diatribes telling the trolls
they're *bad?*
(hint: they already know) Calling in Peter da Silva and his faithful
cancelbot?
But it's very easy to make trolls go away. Just ignore 'em. Heck,
trolling is one of
the *few* problems that can be made to go away by ignoring it! If you
need help,
there are killfiles: except for Stukafox, none of the trolls on a.f.f.
have been
morphing--and even Stuka's morphs are easy to see, and, therefore,
ignore if you
wish. If he really wanted to be nasty, he'd pick an innocuous "furry"
name like
"Swiftfoot Moonrunner" instead of "die_furries_die@diediedie" or some
such. Or you
can killfile on number of crossposts. Or subject thread. Or anything
that has "Erik
Mouse" in the title.
There are so many ways for you to ignore people you like--why do you
insist on having
a stranger ignore people for you? Of course if you decide to that's
you're right--but
you have no right to make that decision for me. Hence, as I said:
1) Make a new group if you want, but...
2) leave a.f.f. alone, and...
3) learn to handle trolls.
Hangdog
LLBF/TINBF
Petfox
> just lead us to blindness or does it lead to the truth? And where do we
> stop? Might we extend this list to include notable Burned Furs? Xydexx?
> Chuck Melville? Richard Chandler? Even Dr. Cat? All of these people have
> been political and angry at some point in time?
Hmm. We're humans, sort of, right? And as thinking things anthro
enough, mixing together good composition of creatures, herbivore,
carnivore.... What's the thing you're propable going to get? Big fight!
It's natural, saddly, but that's the way things are. I'm glad we haven't
yet those great virtual interfaces etc other gadgets to make net
-surfing and newsgroup -using hyperrealist. If A.F.F is now like pushing
head to the bee's nest, in future it would cause instant brain-damage. I
think one good idea would be to keep newbies away from there. I had been
there in the genre for several years, and yet reading A.F.F is about
certain way to get discouraged and depressed. But though it gives
visions (I'm not going to explain that :P) Anyway furry art will live
as long as people have will to do it despite existence or non-existence
of A.F.F, any other NG, any other single homepage, production, artist,
or 'specialist' <koff> <koff> exuse me, I was about to got choked to
laugh of that last one :)
Good night boys and girls, try to stay from killing each other.
Petfox
Peter da Silva
Irata <ir...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
>Frankly, given the lack of security inherent in the NNTP (the protocol of
>newsgroups) protocol, the idea of a bot culling out a predetermined (or as
>Chuck seems to ascribe - preordained) list of acceptable users, can be
>circumvented by anyone with some basic rudimentary TCP/IP knowledge. By
>following through with this, you will most assuredly be "drawing a line in
>the sand" that some will be eager to try to plow over.
Anyone with he knowhow and attitude to do so will also know other, simpler
ways to circumvent moderation, so this basically becomes an argument against
any moderated groups on the net. And yet they exist and work.
Irata
<01bf138f$97883380$2f88ddd1@kathleen>:
>Cipher <cip...@lart.com> wrote in article
><7tra9r$qea$1...@nntp4.atl.mindspring.net>...
>
>> I have no problem with a moderated group, but this one needs to be left
>> intact. It's obvious from the comments that there is a serious split
>> about Peter's idea. It is not universally acclaimed.
>>
>
> Don't be so sure. So far, I've only seen two serious objections
posted to
>the split. All other objections are made by the trolls and abusers who
>brought this situation around in the first place, and as they are neither
>serious nor regular posters to this ng, their votes don't count. (Of
>-course- they don't want a moderated group; who would they have to harass
>then?) So far, at this point of time, the majority appears to be in favor
>of the split.
>
Frankly, given the lack of security inherent in the NNTP (the protocol of
newsgroups) protocol, the idea of a bot culling out a predetermined (or as
Chuck seems to ascribe - preordained) list of acceptable users, can be
circumvented by anyone with some basic rudimentary TCP/IP knowledge. By
following through with this, you will most assuredly be "drawing a line in
the sand" that some will be eager to try to plow over.
Larry S. Fagen
Irata
<7tu728$t...@bonkers.taronga.com>:
>In article <6gvM3.8338$86.4...@typhoon.nyroc.rr.com>,
>Irata <ir...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
>>Frankly, given the lack of security inherent in the NNTP (the protocol of
>>newsgroups) protocol, the idea of a bot culling out a predetermined (or
as
>>Chuck seems to ascribe - preordained) list of acceptable users, can be
>>circumvented by anyone with some basic rudimentary TCP/IP knowledge. By
>>following through with this, you will most assuredly be "drawing a line
in
>>the sand" that some will be eager to try to plow over.
>
>Anyone with he knowhow and attitude to do so will also know other, simpler
>ways to circumvent moderation, so this basically becomes an argument
against
>any moderated groups on the net. And yet they exist and work.
>
They exist. That is true. They work? I don't have any evidence pro or con.
Although moderated groups have existed for a long time, the "flavor" of the
net has changed dramatically from the early post-arpanet days. The influx
of millions of new users each year will always include a certain percentage
of riff-raff people that cannot behave themselves in the real, let alone,
the cyber world. This has been exacerbated by the "ease" of net access.
These are facts of life, boys and girls. To try and wall yourself in and
think that the problem is going to go away is lunacy! What I sense in this
group is a lot of over reaction to what is (unfortunately) a part of life
on the Internet in general and in the newsgroups specifically. Is taking a
knee-jerk reaction going to solve these problems? I think not. It may
temporarily mask it, but becoming ostrich-like is not solving anything!
My friend Chuck Melville, judging by the tenor of the many posts he has
entered into this newsgroup lately, seems nearly desperate or frantic to
take some type of action. Of more than 50 posts of his that I have read (in
various threads,) the vast majority are on the subject of splitting A.F.F.
In fact, I have only seen one of his posts specifically not on that
subject! Chuck, you (and others) seem to be obsessed by this!!
Where will all this end? What is the answer? I don't know. But I do know
that running away into self-exile will solve nothing! Covering your head
with a towel (in true Hitchhikers Guide style) seems to make the problem go
away, but does it go away?
Larry Fagen
rune....@worldnet.att.mil
>
> <rune....@worldnet.att.mil> :
> > Except, who decides what is off-topic?
>
> Current proposals call for multiple moderators, any of whom can pass a
> message, and dual moderators of opposing politics, both of whom must agree
> before a message can be blocked. Is this unreasonable?
It would depend on the charter and individual quirks. If discussion of
lifesylers, BF, artists who don't come through with promised goods,
misbehavior at cons, etc. is declared off-topic in the charter it is
deadly for the free exchange of ideas and information.
If there are no written rules it goes into the nebulous state of the
mood the moderators are in and their crossover opinions. It's entirely
possible that two people who have opposing views on most things will
have the exact same bias in other areas.
rune....@worldnet.att.mil
>
> rune....@worldnet.att.mil wrote:
> : It would depend on the charter and individual quirks. If discussion of
> : lifesylers, BF, artists who don't come through with promised goods,
> : misbehavior at cons, etc. is declared off-topic in the charter it is
> : deadly for the free exchange of ideas and information.
>
> strict moderation policy. Certainly conventions, artist info, discussion
> on anthro comics, etc would be on topic. I'd support the sqaushing of
> argument for argument's sake though. If there were a post about some
> activity that the burned furs were going to hold or some reason to mention
> the lifestylers in a fandom oriented post that would be one thing. If it
> were simply the usual "X group is hurting the fandom! Whine! Bitch! Moan!"
> then I'd say post it to AFF and leave it off the moderated group. The
> whole point of doing this is to end up with a relatively flame and troll
> free forum.
Go back to the post I replied to and you will see that the talk at that
time was about THIS group, not a different one. Remember, the proposal
was to change AFF, not start a different, companion, group at that time.
Under that plan THIS group would have ceased to exist in its current
form. There would be no place to post it in such a case.
Liberty
>
> That may be, but I've changed the moderation status of an alt group before
> quite successfully. There have also been successful renames. The whole
> alt.binaries hierarchy is the result of one.
Ignoring control messages for Alt.* groups has become more and more common
place in the last year. It is a lot more difficult today than it used to be
--
Liberty ...
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Liberty :Freedom is first earned
liberty...@revolutionist.com :by demanding it. It's lost by
:forgetting its value.
-----------------------------------------------------------------