CFD: splitting alt.fan.furry
Peter da Silva
The alt.fan.furry hierarchy is long overdue for a formal split of the root
group, and the recent attack, apparently by the same people who destroyed
alt.horror.werewolves, has proven an excellent opportunity to resolve the
issue once and for all.
alt.fan.furry.flame
There have been suggestions in the past that a dedicated "flame" group be
created. While it is popular to call these "advocacy" groups, I prefer to
be more honest and direct... though if people recommend a more genteel name
I will be quite willing to use alt.fan.furry.advocacy instead.
alt.fan.furry.misc (moderated)
This would replace the existing alt.fan.furry. The moderation would be sped
up by a "whitelist" bot that automatically approves messages frm people who
are known to post on topic. Other messages would be held for manual moderation.
Existing furrynet sites that already run the furrynet monitor bot will be
approached to host this moderation bot as well.
alt.fan.furry (moderated)
The existing group will be marked moderated, with a bot that simply rejects
all messages and directs the poster to the other groups in the hierarchy. This
bot will run on the same server as the other moderation bot.
alt.fan.furry.politics
This group is for discussion of "furry fandom" and the politics within the
group. It already exists. Discussion of splitting the hierarchy will be
crossposted here for readers who don't want to venture into alt.config.
alt.fan.furry.muck
This group is for discussion of online interactive role playing environments
with a furry theme, whether they use the "Fuzzball" muck software or not. It
is currently functioning primarily as an announcement group.
alt.fan.furry.bleachers
This group is an "in-character" discussion group. It already exists.
This message will be separately posted to the other alt.fan.furry groups with
followups directed to alt.fan.furry.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.
ScottZf
Peter da Silva <pe...@taronga.com> wrote in message
news:7tqlh3$k...@bonkers.taronga.com...
<snipped>
Why are you even bothering to bring this up in alt config?
Didn't you write this in Feb 1997 in message ID
<5e6vsa$g...@bonkers.taronga.com>
In article <5e68sf$e...@mow.physik.uni-bremen.de>,
Mark-Oliver Wolter <wol...@mow.physik.uni-bremen.de> wrote:
>pe...@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) wrote:
>>>I took a look on alt.config, and didn't see a single posting about it.
>>Nope. You won't see any alt.config postings about *any* of my groups.
>So all that stands between this group and those net.gurus who issue
>rmgroups for groups not discussed in alt.config is your name?
Nobody honors rmgroups in alt any more. And just having me issue a newgroup
doesn't mean anything... people will carry alt groups if they seem to have a
demand, based on on-topic traffic and users asking for it.
I mean, alt.animals.whales is hardly propogates, and I've sent out several
newgroups for it, and it got discussed at length... but there sure seems to
be traffic in alt.who.is.creating.all.these.silly.group.names (or whatever
the exact name of that group is).
Hangdog
1)The current trolling in aff in no way renders it unusable.
2)A new group automoderated by a "whitelist" would give explicit sanction to known
bestialists in the new group.
If the new group is created, *leave me OFF the "whitelist"*
(And you may want to come up with a different name for that list--a number of folks
in this fandom aren't "white")
--Hangdog
LLBF/TINBF
Peter da Silva
Things change. People change. Especially, the net changes. Altnet seems to
have become less chaotic and more usable in the past year. The number of
ISPs putting up with abuse has gone down, and the commercial abusers are
moving more and more to email because most of the new, naive users on the
net simply aren't bothering with Usenet and its related nets any more.
There's been three Septembers between when I wrote that and now. That's like
half a century in realtime.
Joshua Kramer
> [pardon for the previous empty post, finger slipped]
>
> The alt.fan.furry hierarchy is long overdue for a formal split of the root
> group, and the recent attack, apparently by the same people who destroyed
> alt.horror.werewolves, has proven an excellent opportunity to resolve the
> issue once and for all.
>
> alt.fan.furry.flame
> alt.fan.furry.misc (moderated)
> alt.fan.furry (moderated)
> alt.fan.furry.politics
> alt.fan.furry.muck
> alt.fan.furry.bleachers
I have never seen such a miserable proposal in my life.
Grow up, Pete. Try the not-so-control-freaky way:
> alt.fan.furry.moderated (moderated)
> alt.fan.furry
And all the dead already existing newsgroups.
What, do you want to dolphin more resonsible netizens into trolls again?
Back into retirement.
Peter da Silva
>1)The current trolling in aff in no way renders it unusable.
Opinions obviously differ on this point.
>2)A new group automoderated by a "whitelist" would give explicit sanction
>to known bestialists in the new group.
If they post about material more appropriate for another group, they won't
stay on the whitelist. If they don't, then why do you care?
>(And you may want to come up with a different name for that list--a number of folks
>in this fandom aren't "white")
The use of "black" and "white" in this context dates back to the Roman era,
and the Roman empire was notoriously colorblind... some of the emperors were
of North African origin and would be considered "black". But if the name is
a problem then I'll be happy to come up with a better term... how about
"fast track posters"?
Peter da Silva
> THIS is the guy who wants to be moderator. You can see where this
> is going already.
I have never said I wanted to be the moderator. I don't.
I have already solicited other candidates.
Robert M. Guthrie
What is foreseen timetable for the Group's split,
and how, and where, will one apply to the new
group's whitelist?.
Thank you
Robert
Karl Xydexx Jorgensen
> If they post about material more appropriate for another group, they won't
> stay on the whitelist. If they don't, then why do you care?
Seems to me the only folks who would oppose guidelines that would ensure
only on-topic posts went through are folks who wanted to try to post
stuff there that wasn't on-topic.
I think alt.fan.furry has needed moderating for a long time now.
> The use of "black" and "white" in this context dates back to the Roman era,
> and the Roman empire was notoriously colorblind... some of the emperors were
> of North African origin and would be considered "black". But if the name is
> a problem then I'll be happy to come up with a better term... how about
> "fast track posters"?
Why not just say "on-topic posters"?
____________________________________________________________
Xydexx Squeakypony [ICQ: 7569393]
Xydexx's Anthrofurry Homepage
http://www.smart.net/~xydexx/anthrofurry/homepage.htm
Brian W. Antoine
> alt.fan.furry (moderated)
> The existing group will be marked moderated, with a bot that simply rejects
> all messages and directs the poster to the other groups in the hierarchy. This
> bot will run on the same server as the other moderation bot.
And you figure your chances of actually getting servers to honor the
newgroup message that makes the group moderated as what?
You might be better off just abandoning that group once and for all
and directing people to the replacement groups with an auto-posted FAQ
at least once a week.
--
(UniKyrn on IM, ICQ#27068798)
Brian W. Antoine briana @ iea|dogear|circuit .com
http://velar.ctrl-c.liu.se/
Peter da Silva
Brian W. Antoine <bri...@iea.com> wrote:
> You might be better off just abandoning that group once and for all
>and directing people to the replacement groups with an auto-posted FAQ
>at least once a week.
That's a good idea, too. Thanks.
M. Mitchell Marmel
>
> alt.fan.furry.flame
>
> alt.fan.furry.misc (moderated)
>
> alt.fan.furry (moderated)
>
> alt.fan.furry.politics
>
> alt.fan.furry.muck
>
> alt.fan.furry.bleachers
>
Looks good to me. A couple of questions:
1) Who's going to be responsible for overseeing the 'whitelist'?
2) Can you set up a mechanism for dealing with the morons threatening
all these "Dire Results"?
-MMM-
--
============================================================================
M. Mitchell Marmel \ Scattered, smothered, covered, chunked,
Drexel University \ whipped, beaten, chained and pierced.
Department of Materials Engineering \ *THE BEST HASHBROWNS IN THE WORLD!*
Fibrous Materials Research Center \ marm...@dunx1.ocs.drexel.edu
============================================================================
TaliVisions Homepage: http://www.pages.drexel.edu/grad/marmelmm/Talivisions/index.html
Jim Doolittle
> I am opposed, for two reasons:
>
> 1)The current trolling in aff in no way renders it unusable.
It certainly does. Actual discussion of ontopic material is disrupted, and
opening a newsgroup with over 100 posts to see that 95 of those are the
afore-mentioend trolls is not exactly condusive to a pleasant reading
experience.
> 2)A new group automoderated by a "whitelist" would give explicit
sanction to known
> bestialists in the new group.
A BS argument, as I've already pointed out in alt.fan.furry.
> If the new group is created, *leave me OFF the "whitelist"*
>
> (And you may want to come up with a different name for that list--a
number of folks
> in this fandom aren't "white")
No kidding. I have several friends who are of African or Asian descent in
the fandom. But the naming of the list has nothing to do with race. Why
the heck would it?
-Jim
--------------------------------------------------------------
| Jim Doolittle CornWuff Press |
| dool...@tbcnet.com http://www.cornwuff.com |
| Art Show Director, Midwest FurFest |
| http://www.furfest.org |
--------------------------------------------------------------
Peter da Silva
> Because if the people on AFF knew that Sneaky da Silva was planning
> to cancel all posts to this newsgroup, they might raise a stink.
It really sounds good when you say I'm planning on cancelling all the posts
in this group. Great theatrics. Doesn't sound nearly as good as I'm planning
on moderating it... and I'm not going to be personally involved in the
moderation process either. But of course that doesn't, you know, sound as
exciting.
Anyway, I think anyone who hasn't got the point yet is, like, not actually
a reader of the group.
So, like, let's pop over the the politics group so we don't further fuck up
alt.fan.furry in the meantime. Just in case, you know. Fair enough?
Can we make this the last post in this thread on a.f.f, please?
diespa...@best.com
: In article <38011654$0$2...@nntp1.ba.best.com>, <diespa...@best.com> wrote:
:> Because if the people on AFF knew that Sneaky da Silva was planning
:> to cancel all posts to this newsgroup, they might raise a stink.
: It really sounds good when you say I'm planning on cancelling all the posts
: in this group. Great theatrics. Doesn't sound nearly as good as I'm planning
: on moderating it... and I'm not going to be personally involved in the
: moderation process either. But of course that doesn't, you know, sound as
: exciting.
Quit trying to pull the wool over people's eyes, Peter.
Knowing you have NO authority to do what your proposing,
you're trying to bully though your own personal agenda.
1) Created AFF-M.
2) rmgrp AFF.
3) Cancelbot any posts made to AFF after the rmgrp
4) Force a moderator of your chosing on AFF-M.
Could you be just a little more blatent in your power grab.
And quit trying to hide your intentions by diverting your
posts to another newsgroup. The fate of AFF is DEFINITELY on-topic
on AFF!
Peter da Silva
ScottZf <sco...@dwave.net> wrote:
>It has already been pointed out that few servers even carry that group.
>And don't give out the crap that they should request their ISP to carry it
>just so they can participate in the discussion.
Then I guess they'll have to read it in alt.config.
And don't tell me that they won't know what's happening unless you tell them,
anyone who's missed this thread can't be reading the group at all.
Brian W. Antoine
> Brian W. Antoine <bri...@iea.com> wrote:
>> You might be better off just abandoning that group once and for all
>>and directing people to the replacement groups with an auto-posted FAQ
>>at least once a week.
> That's a good idea, too. Thanks.
You're welcome.
I just went through this kind of stuff over a regional hierarchy I
created about 10 years ago. After talking with people who I trusted,
I let the idiots keep what they'd corrupted and created something new.
The new rules corrected a couple of problems with the original creation
and set in place methods to deal with the kind of abuse that destroyed
it.
Sometimes, the patient isn't worth saving.
Peter da Silva
>In alt.config Peter da Silva <pe...@taronga.com> wrote:
>: In article <380126d4$0$2...@nntp1.ba.best.com>, <diespa...@best.com> wrote:
>:> 1) Created AFF-M.
>:> 2) rmgrp AFF.
>: YM "rename a.f.f to a.f.f.misc".
> Semantics. The name's different, the intent's the same.
That's the point I was making. Very good. Glad to see you're awake.
Peter da Silva
In article <7trdvg$24s$7...@nntpd.databasix.com>,
Sergi <se...@databasix.com> wrote:
>Same reason he answered my question about why he netcopped me (and everyone else
>who posted in a certain thread, apparently) in email rather than on Usenet.
>Peter doesn't like to have to explain his actions to the people they effect in
>places where those people can see them.
I fail to see how sending a message to the person effected by my action
qualifies as hiding it from the person effected by my action. This is one
of those Zen things, isn't it?
Peter da Silva
I don't think it's gone that far yet.
Any comment on the "flame" versus "advocacy" issue?
Forrest
Ostrich! <") <ost...@fysh.org> :
> I like the proposal, except that I'd rather see alt.fan.furry simply
> become moderated - I see no reason for alt.fan.furry.misc. The
> issues which are supposed to be discussed there are the core issues
> of the fandom, rather than miscellany.
I would prefer an ending of .moderated over .misc, but the results would be
the same.
Peter da Silva
>> group, and the recent attack, apparently by the same people who destroyed
>> alt.horror.werewolves, has proven an excellent opportunity to resolve the
>> issue once and for all.
>I like the proposal, except that I'd rather see alt.fan.furry simply
>become moderated - I see no reason for alt.fan.furry.misc. The
>issues which are supposed to be discussed there are the core issues
>of the fandom, rather than miscellany.
I'm an agnostic on the "misc" issue. I proposed ".misc" simply because it's
more practical to create a new moderated group, and if it gets created even
without a rename it can serve a useful purpose. I would rather rename it than
have two groups for the same topic in the same hierarchy, though.
If there is a preference for ".furry" as opposed to ".furry.misc" for the
moderated main group I'll be happy to bring that up again, but you can see
the flames my doubly-diluted original proposal has already spawned... it's
a shame that people are so opposed to change.
Peter da Silva
Gary L. Burnore <dont...@not.to.me.anyway> wrote:
>No reason for a misc. You have alt.fan.furry. If deshitforbrains wants a
>moderated group and if you do too, fine. Make one. alt.fan.furry.moderated
If you have a serious proposal that doesn't involve insults and invective and
doesn't involve letting a.f.f sink into the mud, please feel free to bring it
up any time you feel like it.
Peter da Silva
Gary L. Burnore <dont...@not.to.me.anyway> wrote:
Posting a message asking people to politely contact the ISPs of people
invading the group is "hiding it". This is another Zen thing, right? The
purloined letter schtick?
Peter da Silva
prefer I not mail you I won't]
In article <01bf1390$30084550$bb354bd1@whitefang>,
Artax <bo...@address.com> wrote:
>No, not by the same people. The alt.fan.karl-malden.nose crew were
>involved in both, but they are just pawns in the recent vandalism of
>alt.fan.furry. They were delibrately lured there by other people.
Hmmm. Someone posted a message that we shouldn't upset "Hawk" or he's trash
us like he trashed the werewolves group. I don't have that message still in
my spool, alas, or I'd be able to quote more directly.
Perhaps you can explain the phylogeny of these fellows more completely, in
email if you prefer.
>I prefer alt.fan.furry.advocacy. People will be more likely to
>actually use it.
That's three votes for advocacy, no votes for flame.
>> The existing group will be marked moderated, with a bot that simply
>rejects
>> all messages and directs the poster to the other groups in the hierarchy.
>This
>> bot will run on the same server as the other moderation bot.
>No. I don't care how many new groups you want to create, but leave
>existing unmoderated alt.* groups alone. Let your new moderated
>group succeed or fail on its own merits. Don't try to force people
>to move to a moderated group by taking away the unmoderated
>alternative.
OK, either alt.fan.furry is "a flame group" as you claim, in which case the
new "advocacy" group is its replacement. Or it's a discussion group, as I
claim, in which case the moderated group is the replacement. Or I will be
unable to successfully get the group marked moderated, in which case the point
is moot. In all three cases every single poster will still have a group to post
in which carries the traffic that they prefer.
In any case your preference for "advocacy" is noted.
Peter da Silva
silverpelican <silver...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>silverpelican is a little bit lost. Isn't it the usual convention to
>have a RFD before the CVV? Or did that already happen and silverpelican
>missed it?
CFD stands for "call for discussion".
I'm an old fogey. In my day they hadn't come up with this newfangled
terminology. Plus we had to paint the 1s and 0s on atoms of interstellar
hydrogen ourselves.
Allen Kitchen
Peter da Silva wrote:
> alt.fan.furry (moderated)
>
> The existing group will be marked moderated, with a bot that simply rejects
> all messages and directs the poster to the other groups in the hierarchy. This
> bot will run on the same server as the other moderation bot.
I approve, and volunteer to assist in the pass/fail analysis of the posts.
I'll help restore this group to on-topic posts as best I can.
Allen Kitchen (shockwave)
Peter da Silva
Gary L. Burnore <dont...@not.to.me.anyway> wrote:
You appear to be under the mistaken impression that I consider what you refer
to as "netcopping" to be a bad thing. Before I "netcopped" anyone I posted a
message to all the involved groups suggesting that people inform people's
ISPs that their customers were involved in ongoing net abuse. This somehow
has mutated in your mind into "hiding". Hiding in plain sight...
You must have a very rich internal life.
Peter da Silva
Allen Kitchen <all...@blkbox.com> wrote:
>I approve, and volunteer to assist in the pass/fail analysis of the posts.
>I'll help restore this group to on-topic posts as best I can.
I assume this means:
1. You're volunteering to help moderate the group. (Thank you)
2. You prefer that the moderated group be named "alt.fan.furry"
rather than "alt.fan.furry.misc".
Both noted.
Peter da Silva
Artax <bo...@address.com> wrote:
>That wasn't Hawk. [explanation]
Damn, that's simply twisted.
>This is pure, unmitigated, Grade-A bullshit. alt.* groups are not
>interchangable. You can't rmgroup one and newgroup another one to
>replace it and call that a harmless change.
Over the short term there will be some disruption, yes. That's why I
have simply created replacement groups in the past. I do believe that
the lesser harm, however, is going through the process and taking some
loss in propogation over the short term rather than letting things fester
indefinitely.
>At the very least
>you're going to be replacing a group with good propogation with
>groups that will have near-zero propogation for the first few
>months.
There are ways to reduce this effect, such as creating the new groups some
time before removing the old ones. These are not new problems and the
solutions to them are well known and understood. And they work.
I'm not talking about blithely issuing a flood of group creation and
deletion messages in some Usenet equivalent of a nuclear bomb, the transition
has to be carefully managed in a gradual fashion, and the exact nature of
the transition is one of the reasons for having a discussion in the first
place.
It may be that we run the groups in parallel for months, maybe a year, and
then re-evaluate them. But don't just dismiss the process just because it's
rare in Altnet (it has been done, mind... I took alt.sources.amiga from
unmoderated to moderated and back again). It's been applied successfully
time and again in other hierarchies.
In any case what I posted is a "proposal". It's subject to change. If it
wasn't subject to change I wouldn't have called it a proposal.
Peter da Silva
> I decline this nomination on the grounds bias on Allen's part
> against certain posters to AFF.
Then propose someone with a contrary bias to co-moderate. I'm not sure which
"side" he's on, but if you added (say) Chuck and Xydexx I imagine most people
would be satisfied.
diespa...@best.com
:> 1) Created AFF-M.
:> 2) rmgrp AFF.
: YM "rename a.f.f to a.f.f.misc".
Semantics. The name's different, the intent's the same.
AFF will be destroyed as a usable group where anyone can post, free
of your censorial methods.
:> 3) Cancelbot any posts made to AFF after the rmgrp
: Only messages with forged approval, as is normal for moderated groups.
The Real Politik of what Sneaky is saying here is "Only posts
that I approve of", because those are the only posts that
will carry the AFF-M "Seal of Approval". Don't toe the party
line? Sorry -- your post is cancelled. Don't like it?
Tough shit.
Ain't that right, Peter? No WONDER you don't want people on AFF
reading what you plan to do to their group.
: If it was a "power grab" I'd be a lot more subtle. When all is said and
: done I want to be completely out of the process, with someone else running
: the bot and other people doing the moderating.
"Toe the party line or be cancelled"
That's ALL this amounts to.
Naked-power-grab.
: My proposal is a lot less aggressive than what people were discussing before
: I made it.
You're making a shit sandwhich that you expect everyone else
to eat, and think your sandwhich is better because you suggested
whole wheat instead of white bread.
Quit trying to hide your little coup attempt by diverting posts to
a newsgroup no one carries. You're not fooling anyone with this
attempt at underhanded sneakiness.
silverpelican
pe...@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) wrote:
> [pardon for the previous empty post, finger slipped]
>
> The alt.fan.furry hierarchy is long overdue for a formal split of the
root
> group, and the recent attack, apparently by the same people who
destroyed
> alt.horror.werewolves, has proven an excellent opportunity to resolve
the
> issue once and for all.
>
>
> There have been suggestions in the past that a dedicated "flame"
group be
> created. While it is popular to call these "advocacy" groups, I
prefer to
> be more honest and direct... though if people recommend a more
genteel name
> I will be quite willing to use alt.fan.furry.advocacy instead.
>
> alt.fan.furry.misc (moderated)
>
> This would replace the existing alt.fan.furry. The moderation would
be sped
> up by a "whitelist" bot that automatically approves messages frm
people who
> are known to post on topic. Other messages would be held for manual
moderation.
> Existing furrynet sites that already run the furrynet monitor bot
will be
> approached to host this moderation bot as well.
>
> alt.fan.furry (moderated)
>
> The existing group will be marked moderated, with a bot that simply
rejects
> all messages and directs the poster to the other groups in the
hierarchy. This
> bot will run on the same server as the other moderation bot.
>
>
> This group is for discussion of "furry fandom" and the politics
within the
> group. It already exists. Discussion of splitting the hierarchy will
be
> crossposted here for readers who don't want to venture into
alt.config.
>
> alt.fan.furry.muck
>
> This group is for discussion of online interactive role playing
environments
> with a furry theme, whether they use the "Fuzzball" muck software or
not. It
> is currently functioning primarily as an announcement group.
>
> alt.fan.furry.bleachers
>
> This group is an "in-character" discussion group. It already exists.
>
> This message will be separately posted to the other alt.fan.furry
groups with
> followups directed to alt.fan.furry.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.
>
have a RFD before the CVV? Or did that already happen and silverpelican
missed it?
There is no Lumber Cartel and silverpelican is not unit# 1932.
"It was necessary to destroy the village in order
to save it". Tet,1968
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Ostrich! <)
> group, and the recent attack, apparently by the same people who destroyed
> alt.horror.werewolves, has proven an excellent opportunity to resolve the
> issue once and for all.
>
become moderated - I see no reason for alt.fan.furry.misc. The
issues which are supposed to be discussed there are the core issues
of the fandom, rather than miscellany.
-Ostrich! <")
Artax
> The alt.fan.furry hierarchy is long overdue for a formal split of the root
> group, and the recent attack, apparently by the same people who destroyed
> alt.horror.werewolves
No, not by the same people. The alt.fan.karl-malden.nose crew were
involved in both, but they are just pawns in the recent vandalism of
alt.fan.furry. They were delibrately lured there by other people.
> alt.fan.furry.flame
>
> There have been suggestions in the past that a dedicated "flame" group be
> created. While it is popular to call these "advocacy" groups, I prefer to
> be more honest and direct... though if people recommend a more genteel name
> I will be quite willing to use alt.fan.furry.advocacy instead.
I prefer alt.fan.furry.advocacy. People will be more likely to
actually use it.
> alt.fan.furry (moderated)
>
> The existing group will be marked moderated, with a bot that simply rejects
> all messages and directs the poster to the other groups in the hierarchy. This
> bot will run on the same server as the other moderation bot.
No. I don't care how many new groups you want to create, but leave
existing unmoderated alt.* groups alone. Let your new moderated
group succeed or fail on its own merits. Don't try to force people
to move to a moderated group by taking away the unmoderated
alternative.
a res. | Artax
r p c | (Brad Austin)
t x o |
ax@i m | Oceanside, CA USA
silverpelican
> >have a RFD before the CVV? Or did that already happen and
silverpelican
> >missed it?
>
LMAO!
> I'm an old fogey. In my day they hadn't come up with this newfangled
> terminology. Plus we had to paint the 1s and 0s on atoms of
interstellar
> hydrogen ourselves.
history lately.
> --
> 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.
>
without screwing it up with a bot or something. Otherwise the bitching,
flaming, etc, will just go on and on, and the noise in NANAU will go up
again. After all, what difference does it make, up or down?
Farlo
>I have never said I wanted to be the moderator. I don't.
>
>I have already solicited other candidates.
*sniff* *sniff* Nobody asked ME to mod the new group. *sniff*
--
Farlo
Urban fey dragon
"Worship my magic space monkey or he'll napalm you."
"Yes, my e-mail address is valid. It just doesn't look valid."
Farlo
>A couple of questions:
>
>1) Who's going to be responsible for overseeing the 'whitelist'?
Good question!
It's like one of my fav movie quotes: "Who ... gets to be God#1?".
Artax
> In article <01bf1390$30084550$bb354bd1@whitefang>,
> Artax <bo...@address.com> wrote:
> >involved in both, but they are just pawns in the recent vandalism of
> >alt.fan.furry. They were delibrately lured there by other people.
>
> us like he trashed the werewolves group. I don't have that message still in
> my spool, alas, or I'd be able to quote more directly.
That wasn't Hawk. That was Mike Beebe a.k.a. StukaFox. And he wasn't
claiming responsibility for destroying alt.horror.werewolves. He was
just saying he would do the same thing to alt.fan.furry that was done
to a.h.w.w. a.h.w.w. was destroyed by the alt.fan.karl-malden.nose
crew as revenge against the Follower of the Clawed Albino.
> Perhaps you can explain the phylogeny of these fellows more completely, in
> email if you prefer.
Mike Beebe is out to destroy Furry Fandom, and he thinks he can do
that by vandalizing all discussion fora that he thinks are used by
Furry Fans. So far he's targeted alt.fan.furry, alt.lifestyle.furry,
and the Burned Fur Message Board.
Hawk is an idiot who's stalking a kook named Erik McDarby, apparently
just for entertainment value. He follows him everywhere and cross-
posts everything to alt.usenet.kooks and several Erik McDarby vanity
groups. He followed Erik to alt.fan.furry, noticed it was a fertile
place to troll and set up shop. Later he saw Mike Beebe vandalizing
alt.lifestyle.furry and decided that looked like fun and joined in.
Erik McDarby is simply insane, and seriously thinks he's living in a
cartoon. Either that or its an incredibly elaborate and subtle act of
trolling as performance art.
All the rest is mostly people from alt.usenet.kooks and
alt.fan.karl-malden.nose replying to cross-posts without much
awareness of where they're going.
> > > The existing group will be marked moderated, with a bot that simply rejects
> > > all messages and directs the poster to the other groups in the hierarchy. This
> > > bot will run on the same server as the other moderation bot.
>
> > No. I don't care how many new groups you want to create, but leave
> > existing unmoderated alt.* groups alone. Let your new moderated
> > group succeed or fail on its own merits. Don't try to force people
> > to move to a moderated group by taking away the unmoderated
> > alternative.
>
> OK, either alt.fan.furry is "a flame group" as you claim, in which case the
> new "advocacy" group is its replacement. Or it's a discussion group, as I
> claim, in which case the moderated group is the replacement. Or I will be
> unable to successfully get the group marked moderated, in which case the point
> is moot. In all three cases every single poster will still have a group to post
> in which carries the traffic that they prefer.
This is pure, unmitigated, Grade-A bullshit. alt.* groups are not
interchangable. You can't rmgroup one and newgroup another one to
replace it and call that a harmless change. At the very least
you're going to be replacing a group with good propogation with
groups that will have near-zero propogation for the first few
months. Nor can you depend on the new groups ever achieving the
same propogation as the one you replaced. There are other reasons,
but that one alone is plenty.
a res. | Artax
r p c | (Brad Austin)
t r o |
M. Mitchell Marmel
> I would prefer an ending of .moderated over .misc, but the results would be
> the same.
I like .moderated and .flame, myself. Succinct and to the point.
-MMM-
--
============================================================================
M. Mitchell Marmel \ Scattered, smothered, covered, chunked,
Drexel University \ whipped, beaten, chained and pierced.
Department of Materials Engineering \ *THE BEST HASHBROWNS IN THE WORLD!*
Fibrous Materials Research Center \ marm...@dunx1.ocs.drexel.edu
============================================================================
TaliVisions Homepage: http://www.pages.drexel.edu/grad/marmelmm/Talivisions/index.html
-= Hawk =-
>In article <939606657.9015.0...@news.demon.co.uk>,
>Ostrich! <") <ost...@fysh.org> wrote:
>>In alt.config Peter da Silva <pe...@taronga.com> wrote:
>>> The alt.fan.furry hierarchy is long overdue for a formal split of the root
>>> group, and the recent attack, apparently by the same people who destroyed
>>> alt.horror.werewolves, has proven an excellent opportunity to resolve the
>>> issue once and for all.
>
>>I like the proposal, except that I'd rather see alt.fan.furry simply
>>become moderated - I see no reason for alt.fan.furry.misc. The
>>issues which are supposed to be discussed there are the core issues
>>of the fandom, rather than miscellany.
>
>I'm an agnostic on the "misc" issue. I proposed ".misc" simply because it's
>more practical to create a new moderated group, and if it gets created even
>without a rename it can serve a useful purpose. I would rather rename it than
>have two groups for the same topic in the same hierarchy, though.
>
>If there is a preference for ".furry" as opposed to ".furry.misc" for the
>moderated main group I'll be happy to bring that up again, but you can see
>the flames my doubly-diluted original proposal has already spawned... it's
>a shame that people are so opposed to change.
YM: other than the fact that it's practically impossible to change the
status of an existing alt group?
Create your moderated group, leave your netcopping, whining and control
issues there.
--
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
Peter da Silva
silverpelican <silver...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>Wish you would just let them-these guys-have their unmoderated group
>without screwing it up with a bot or something.
The problem is, the bitching and screaming is, with a few exceptions, not
coming from the folks who would end up "having their unmoderated group".
Otherwise I'd be happy to, but I'm getting positive responses from people on
both sides of the flame wars *inside* the group. You ever see one of those
movies where a bunch of bandits unite a warring township into driving them
out?
You know, if the bandits would just blow away, maybe we'd end up with a
result more to their liking. There's a variety of opinions here, and I'm
trying to make sense of them and come up with a solution everyone can live
with.
-= Hawk =-
>Peter da Silva wrote:
>> The alt.fan.furry hierarchy is long overdue for a formal split of the root
>> group, and the recent attack, apparently by the same people who destroyed
>> alt.horror.werewolves
>
>No, not by the same people. The alt.fan.karl-malden.nose crew were
>involved in both, but they are just pawns in the recent vandalism of
>alt.fan.furry. They were delibrately lured there by other people.
>
>> alt.fan.furry.flame
>>
>> There have been suggestions in the past that a dedicated "flame" group be
>> created. While it is popular to call these "advocacy" groups, I prefer to
>> be more honest and direct... though if people recommend a more genteel name
>> I will be quite willing to use alt.fan.furry.advocacy instead.
>
>I prefer alt.fan.furry.advocacy. People will be more likely to
>actually use it.
>
>> alt.fan.furry (moderated)
>>
>> The existing group will be marked moderated, with a bot that simply rejects
>> all messages and directs the poster to the other groups in the hierarchy. This
>> bot will run on the same server as the other moderation bot.
>
>No. I don't care how many new groups you want to create, but leave
>existing unmoderated alt.* groups alone. Let your new moderated
>group succeed or fail on its own merits. Don't try to force people
>to move to a moderated group by taking away the unmoderated
>alternative.
Wow, a voice of reason from the furries, I wonder if Peter will bother to
hear it.
Peter da Silva
-= Hawk =- <ha...@lart.com> wrote:
>>Hmmm. Someone posted a message that we shouldn't upset "Hawk" or he's trash
>>us like he trashed the werewolves group. I don't have that message still in
>>my spool, alas, or I'd be able to quote more directly.
>Funny, I've NEVER once posted in the werewolves group, your information is
>flawed.
I apologise for promoting misinformation, and I apologise for any damage to
your reputation that I have caused.
According to Artax I misinterpreted something Mike Beebe said.
Peter da Silva
> I wouldn't, Peter. Nice try at ramming this plan down our throats.
Do you understand the word "discussion", Mike? Do you understand the word
"proposal"? These words mean "this is a proposal. It is subject to change,
and I would like to discuss changes and modify it to best fit the situation
before taking any action".
If it was a plan set in stone I'd have called it that.
But you know all this, 'cos you've been reading these threads and I've said
this same thing a bunch of times.
Artax
> In article <01bf139d$e6076220$bb354bd1@whitefang>,
> Artax <bo...@address.com> wrote:
> >you're going to be replacing a group with good propogation with
> >groups that will have near-zero propogation for the first few
> >months.
>
> time before removing the old ones. These are not new problems and the
> solutions to them are well known and understood. And they work.
>
> I'm not talking about blithely issuing a flood of group creation and
> deletion messages in some Usenet equivalent of a nuclear bomb, the transition
> has to be carefully managed in a gradual fashion
Then you can drop the pretense that what you're proposing is "renaming" or
"moving" alt.fan.furry. In fact you're obfuscating things by calling it a
single proposal at all. You're proposing to do a sequence of things that
need to be evaluated individually.
Let's fast forward to a point several months in the future. Let's say
you've already created the new sub-groups under alt.fan.furry, and you're
ready to get rid of alt.fan.furry itself. There are three possible cases:
Case 1 - All the "legitimate" traffic on alt.fan.furry will have moved
to the moderated group. In this case there is no need to change
alt.fan.furry's moderation status or set up a cancelbot. Just issue an
rmgroup and it will be as dead as an alt.* group can get.
Case 2 - Some of the traffic will have moved to the moderated group and
some will stay in alt.fan.furry. Having a choice between two viable
groups on the same subject, those favoring moderation will generally
migrate to the new group and those opposed will generally stay in the
old one. Your proposal to change a.f.f to a moderated group and
robo-cancel all posts in it will therefore be almost unanimously against
the will of the people who will be using it at that time.
Case 3 - Not enough traffic ever moves to the moderated group to make it
viable. In this case firstly you will never achieve good propogation,
and secondly your attempt to change a.f.f.'s moderation status will
basically constitute an act of sabotage against a successful unmoderated
group in order to try to salvage a failed moderated group.
> But don't just dismiss the process just because it's
> rare in Altnet (it has been done, mind... I took alt.sources.amiga from
> unmoderated to moderated and back again).
It was done at a time when Usenet was so small that it couldn't support
multiple newsgroups on the same subject, and when people actually found
newsgroups on subjects they were interested in by walking the hierarchy
tree. Times have changed.
> It's been applied successfully
> time and again in other hierarchies.
Other hierarchies are different.
> In any case what I posted is a "proposal". It's subject to change. If it
> wasn't subject to change I wouldn't have called it a proposal.
So listen to what people are telling you and drop the plan to cancel posts
in alt.fan.furry. By including that you're making this about a thousand
times more controversial than it needs to be.
a res. | Artax
r p c | (Brad Austin)
t x o |
Farlo
>In any case what I posted is a "proposal". It's subject to change. If it
>wasn't subject to change I wouldn't have called it a proposal.
Here's another option to splitting AFF:
Make a moderated mailing list like on e-groups.
It's much less work than a newsgroup and easier to
maintain, with no "cancellations" required.
Benefits:
Can be read online - no need to download anything
Message "Approval" cannot be forged
Can get daily summary
Can set others as moderators
Can be fully automatic to fully manual (and in-between)
I am very happy with it.
Peter da Silva
Artax <bo...@address.com> wrote:
>Then you can drop the pretense that what you're proposing is "renaming" or
>"moving" alt.fan.furry. In fact you're obfuscating things by calling it a
>single proposal at all. You're proposing to do a sequence of things that
>need to be evaluated individually.
That is *exactly* the same argument that Steve Boursy used to hold on to
his "pet" news.admin group until someone had to set it moderated to get
him to let go of it. Then, because a lot of people were still using "B"
news back then, a bunch of sites bounced his next message back to him and
he went on a multi-year rampage about Dave Lawrence "spamming" him.
Luckily that problem is in the past... no B news site could handle even a
fractional feed at today's volumes.
None of this is new, we went through this whole argument back in the Big 7
(as it was then) when splits were originally tried.
>It was done at a time when Usenet was so small that it couldn't support
>multiple newsgroups on the same subject, and when people actually found
>newsgroups on subjects they were interested in by walking the hierarchy
>tree.
I didn't *move* the group, I changed its moderation status. And put up with
the spam from all the "B" news sites.
>> In any case what I posted is a "proposal". It's subject to change. If it
>> wasn't subject to change I wouldn't have called it a proposal.
>So listen to what people are telling you and drop the plan to cancel posts
>in alt.fan.furry.
There is no "plan to cancel posts in alt.fan.furry" in the proposal.
| alt.fan.furry (moderated)
|
| The existing group will be marked moderated, with a bot that simply rejects
| all messages and directs the poster to the other groups in the hierarchy. This
| bot will run on the same server as the other moderation bot.
This bot will receive messages mailed to it by the moderation software and
send back an appropriate rejection notice. It is not a cancelbot.
This is like the "plan to retromoderate alt.fan.furry" that I also haven't
proposed and that people are flaming me for.
Peter da Silva
> Now, all posturing aside, I appreciate what you've done in the past,
> especially with alt.animals.dolphins. However, this ain't
> alt.animals.dolphins,
Which is why I have said, from about the very first message in this collection
of threads, that I'm not planning on applying the same solution that I applied
in the case of alt.animals.dolphins. I said "I could, but I won't, and instead
let's talk about what we can do".
> and the only invasion here is the one you
> visited on AFF by netcopping the good folks at the Nose.
The invasion was already underway and OTHER PEOPLE were talking about setting
up cancelbots before I posted my first message on the subject.
According to Artax *you* were the one who invited them in. It's reasonable to
assume that your hysterical accusations since then are an attempt to hide your
complicity by laying the blame on me.
Artax
> > It was done at a time when Usenet was so small that it couldn't support
> > multiple newsgroups on the same subject, and when people actually found
> > newsgroups on subjects they were interested in by walking the hierarchy
> > tree.
>
> I didn't *move* the group, I changed its moderation status.
I know. My point was that back then if there was a desire to turn
an unmoderated group into a moderated group there were much better
reasons for wanting to change it in place instead of creating a new
competing group and letting the traffic go where it wants.
> There is no "plan to cancel posts in alt.fan.furry" in the proposal.
>
> | alt.fan.furry (moderated)
> |
> | The existing group will be marked moderated, with a bot that simply
rejects
> | all messages and directs the poster to the other groups in the
hierarchy. This
> | bot will run on the same server as the other moderation bot.
>
> This bot will receive messages mailed to it by the moderation software
and
> send back an appropriate rejection notice. It is not a cancelbot.
Hold the phone. I thought the point of setting alt.fan.furry to
moderated was so you could quasi-legitimately cancel "forged
approvals" in it. Now I don't understand. If you're not going
to cancel messages then what would your creative abuse of the
moderation flag accomplish that wouldn't be accomplished with a
simple rmgroup? All you would be doing is requesting that sites
redirect all a.f.f. posts to dev/null, instead of asking them to
drop the group entirely.
Kay Shapero
On <Oct 10 11:25>, pe...@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) wrote;
Pd>alt.fan.furry.flame
Pd>There have been suggestions in the past that a dedicated "flame"
Pd>group be created. While it is popular to call these "advocacy" groups,
Pd> I prefer to be more honest and direct... though if people recommend
Pd>a more genteel name
Pd>I will be quite willing to use alt.fan.furry.advocacy instead.
Has this tactic ever worked on the Internet? Anybody considerate enough to
confine themselves to such a group when sounding off would hardly be likely
to be a major flamer to begin with. Especially considering the lengths
some will go to to avoid being caught in a killfile, like changing
addresses, or substituting @ and 0 s for a and o in order to defeat
killfiles based on specific words. (btw guys - this not only makes you
look like a putz, it just gets another line added to the killfile...)
Pd>alt.fan.furry.misc (moderated)
Pd>alt.fan.furry (moderated)
Pd>The existing group will be marked moderated, with a bot that
Pd>simply rejects
Better, just leave alt.fan.furry alone, and create alt.fan.furry.moderated.
Less hassle, removes the "split" angle entirely, and makes it far more
likely you will actually accomplish something.
Baloo Ursidae
> Has this tactic ever worked on the Internet? Anybody considerate enough to
> confine themselves to such a group when sounding off would hardly be likely
> to be a major flamer to begin with. Especially considering the lengths
> some will go to to avoid being caught in a killfile, like changing
> addresses, or substituting @ and 0 s for a and o in order to defeat
> killfiles based on specific words. (btw guys - this not only makes you
> look like a putz, it just gets another line added to the killfile...)
This works on some of the older groups on the net that have a lower kook
level, and works quite well on rec.scouting.*. That heirarchy(sp?)'s
flame group is rec.scouting.issues, and its worked quite well there.
> Better, just leave alt.fan.furry alone, and create alt.fan.furry.moderated.
> Less hassle, removes the "split" angle entirely, and makes it far more
> likely you will actually accomplish something.
My feed picked up alt.fan.furry.moderated today. Although no posts to it
so far.
--
Baloo
Peter da Silva
Baloo Ursidae <ba...@ursine.dyndns.org> wrote:
>My feed picked up alt.fan.furry.moderated today. Although no posts to it
>so far.
Please send me the control message so I know who sent it out.
I have not created any such group. There is no moderator. There is no
moderation software. There is no charter. It's nowhere NEAR ready for
creation, even if that name is selected.
Brian W. Antoine
> I have not created any such group. There is no moderator. There is no
> moderation software. There is no charter. It's nowhere NEAR ready for
> creation, even if that name is selected.
Which is probably the point. It would appear that somebody wants to
pollute the namespace you're considering.
--
(UniKyrn on IM, ICQ#27068798)
Brian W. Antoine briana @ iea|dogear|circuit .com
http://velar.ctrl-c.liu.se/
Robert M. Guthrie
Bieber) wrote:
>On 11 Oct 1999 18:26:27 -0500, pe...@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) (Peter
>da Silva) left the following spoor in alt.fan.furry:
>>>My feed picked up alt.fan.furry.moderated today.
>> Please send me the control message so I know who sent it out.
>Well, it hasn't made it to Mindspring/Netcom...
It popped up yesterday on News.Fysh.org out of the blue,...No
appeareances yet on other newsservers (Deja, BCandid, furry.ao.net, AOL,
Eathlink, Idt, FastPoint,...).
Tried a test post,... Nothing registers.
Who started it?,... And why?.
Robert
Richard Chandler - WA Resident
gbur...@databasix.com> writes:
> On 10 Oct 1999 21:36:02 -0500, in article <7triei$5o@
> bonkers.taronga.com>, pe...@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) wrote:
> >If you have a serious proposal that doesn't involve insults and
> >invective and doesn't involve letting a.f.f sink into the mud,
> >please feel free to bring it up any time you feel like it.
>
> Let me make it purrfectly clear. YOU don't get to decide what I
> post, where I post it or when. If you don't like my posts, please
> feel free to killfile me.
> Otherwise, shove it up your netcopping little ass.
>
> Fucking asshole netcop censors like you should have your modems broken
> FOR you.
WOW! Now THIS is what I would call a PERFECT justification for a Moderated
group, just so we don't have to put up with pissy little cunts like this.
--
The greatest tragedy is that the same species that achieved space flight,
a cure for polio, and the transistor, is also featured nightly on COPS.
-- Richard Chandler
Spammer Warning: Washington State Law now provides civil penalties for UCE.
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
[...]
>alt.fan.furry.flame
>
>There have been suggestions in the past that a dedicated "flame" group be
>created. While it is popular to call these "advocacy" groups, I prefer to
>be more honest and direct... though if people recommend a more genteel name
>I will be quite willing to use alt.fan.furry.advocacy instead.
>
>alt.fan.furry.misc (moderated)
>
>This would replace the existing alt.fan.furry. The moderation would be sped
>up by a "whitelist" bot that automatically approves messages frm people who
>are known to post on topic. Other messages would be held for manual moderation.
>Existing furrynet sites that already run the furrynet monitor bot will be
>approached to host this moderation bot as well.
What about an unmoderated newsgroup for people who wish to talk about
furry art but don't aggry with the modeation policy.
>alt.fan.furry (moderated)
>
>The existing group will be marked moderated, with a bot that simply rejects
>all messages and directs the poster to the other groups in the hierarchy. This
>bot will run on the same server as the other moderation bot.
I think aff should remain to take this role.
--
Please excuse my spelling as I suffer from agraphia. See
http://www.zeta.org.au/~dformosa/Spelling.html to find out more.
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
>In article <380126d4$0$2...@nntp1.ba.best.com>,
<diespa...@best.com> wrote:
>> 1) Created AFF-M.
>> 2) rmgrp AFF.
>
>YM "rename a.f.f to a.f.f.misc".
However aff.misc will be moderated. There should be an unmoderated
newsgroup there for people interested in a more free folowing
discusstion (but not flaming) and/or thouse people who dislike the
modetion policy.
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
[...]
>I'm an agnostic on the "misc" issue. I proposed ".misc" simply because it's
>more practical to create a new moderated group,
Personaly I think the name misc sucks. Also usenet tradtion has it
that misc groups are unmoderted.
>I would rather rename it than
>have two groups for the same topic in the same hierarchy, though.
A moderated newsgroup with an unmderated partner on the same topic is
a commen and quite workable combernation.
>If there is a preference for ".furry" as opposed to ".furry.misc" for the
>moderated main group I'll be happy to bring that up again, but you can see
>the flames my doubly-diluted original proposal has already spawned... it's
>a shame that people are so opposed to change.
I am not opposed to change, I just wish to see a good one.
Peter da Silva
Gary L. Burnore <dont...@not.to.me.anyway> wrote:
>Planning another round of netcopping?
I wasn't, but I'll thanks for the suggestion. I'll think about it.
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
[...]
>If you have a serious proposal that doesn't involve insults and invective and
>doesn't involve letting a.f.f sink into the mud, please feel free to bring it
>up any time you feel like it.
Create aff.moderated (or misc) and allow us to vote with our paws. If
all gose well the trolls will move the traffic into affm more
effectivly then your rmgroup would ever do.
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
>In article <7trhn1$vrp$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
>silverpelican <silver...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>silverpelican is a little bit lost. Isn't it the usual convention to
>>have a RFD before the CVV? Or did that already happen and silverpelican
>>missed it?
>
>CFD stands for "call for discussion".
I have it on good authority that it realy stands for Call for
Diatribes.
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
[...]
>It may be that we run the groups in parallel for months, maybe a year, and
>then re-evaluate them.
I have support for this, something along a time table like this
New newsgroups are created.
.
.
.
Time passes
.
.
.
We look at the new newsgroups and the current ones and decide what
we are going to do
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
[...]
>Then propose someone with a contrary bias to co-moderate. I'm not sure which
>"side" he's on, but if you added (say) Chuck and Xydexx I imagine most people
>would be satisfied.
Chuck has already said that he will not be involved in anything that
Xydexx is involved in.
Xydexx the Sesquipedalian Squeakypony
>Peter da Silva <peter%taronga.com> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >Then propose someone with a contrary bias to co-moderate. I'm not sure which
> >"side" he's on, but if you added (say) Chuck and Xydexx I imagine most people
> >would be satisfied.
>
> Chuck has already said that he will not be involved in anything that
> Xydexx is involved in.
For the record, I'm not interested in being a moderator.
Thanks for the thought, though.
_____________________________________________________
Xydexx Squeakypony, K.S.C. [ICQ: 7569393]
Xydexx's Anthrofurry Homepage:
http://www.smart.net/~xydexx/anthrofurry/homepage.htm
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.