Serious Reservations about the new split/moderation of alt.fan.furry
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.
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!
Forrest
Peter da Silva <pe...@taronga.com> wrote :
>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 believe that was mine -- dual moderators of different viewpoints, who must
agree on the inappropriateness of a message before it can be disapproved,
thereby ensuring that no messages are eliminated purely on the basis of
their political content.
Peter da Silva
Forrest <bct...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>I believe that was mine -- dual moderators of different viewpoints, who must
>agree on the inappropriateness of a message before it can be disapproved,
>thereby ensuring that no messages are eliminated purely on the basis of
>their political content.
I think perhaps more than two moderators would be desirable. Since we're
dealing with a normal moderation process now, rather than retromoderation,
any moderator should be able to approve a message.
As for the "fast track" list, with enough moderators it could be set aside,
but any moderator should be able to remove someone from that list... with the
fact that they would be increasing their own workload by doing so, I suspect
the names removed would grow slowly if at all.
A mechanism to quickly add names to the fast-track list would also be
desirable... something as simple as returning a randomly generated tag
in email would do, or users who chose to use non-functional addresses could
contact moderators to have them added.
What do you think?
Forrest
Peter da Silva <pe...@taronga.com> wrote :
>>I believe that was mine -- dual moderators of different viewpoints, who
>>must agree on the inappropriateness of a message before it can be
>>disapproved, thereby ensuring that no messages are eliminated purely on
>>the basis of their political content.
>
>I think perhaps more than two moderators would be desirable. Since we're
>dealing with a normal moderation process now, rather than retromoderation,
>any moderator should be able to approve a message.
Two-to-disapprove versus any-one-to-approve can be equivalent in practice; I
have no particular objection.
Peter da Silva
In article <mcgruff-ya0240800...@news.supernews.com>,
mcgruff <mcg...@netcom.com> wrote:
>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.
I beg your pardon, I am doing no such thing. "this post" refers to the message
I was posting, not the one I was responding to.
Peter da Silva
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? Marking
the group as moderated is just a response to the general inability to perform
an effective rmgroup in alt.*, but it's really no different from any other
split.
Or are you objecting to the names of the moderated and unmoderated versions
of the group? That's certainly open to discussion... that's why I posted
the proposal for discussion in the first place. That's why it's called a
"proposal".
All you're seeing in news.net-abuse.usenet is the result of a bunch of folks
flaming about it because they've got personal issues with me. I am trying to
keep the discussion on topic and in the appropriate groups, but it's not
easy when some of these blokes get involved. I'll try harder to keep things
from causing problems elsewhere on the net.
Bahumat
> agree on the inappropriateness of a message before it can be disapproved,
> thereby ensuring that no messages are eliminated purely on the basis of
> their political content.
I like the idea. Seconded. A dual moderater system would work nicely.
Bahumat,
who likes the idea of a moderated furry newsgroup
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.
silverpelican
pe...@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) wrote:
> In article <mcgruff-ya0240800...@news.supernews.com>,
> mcgruff <mcg...@netcom.com> wrote:
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.
>
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
this
> process operate through the normal moderation process rather than a
cancelbot.
>
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.
>
posted to NANUA and possibly news.groups too.
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.
moderators. silverpelican did not expect this proposal to go anywhere.
However between the proposed "frontier justice" in which everybody is
lynched except the sheriff and a few Deputys and the moderators who
flame and then kill-file to stifle responses, the chances are looking
up.
Good work Pete!
--
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.
M. Mitchell Marmel
(snip)
> A mechanism to quickly add names to the fast-track list would also be
> desirable... something as simple as returning a randomly generated tag
> in email would do, or users who chose to use non-functional addresses could
> contact moderators to have them added.
>
> What do you think?
Agreed on all points.
--
============================================================================
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
silverpelican
> >folks want it. silverpelican does have an idealogical objection to
the
> >expressed intention to kill off the unmoderated version by gagging it
> >to death.
>
> 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.
>
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.
Artax
> 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.
a res. | Artax
r p c | (Brad Austin)
t x o |
ax@i m | Oceanside, CA USA
Peter da Silva
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.
Peter da Silva
silverpelican <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.
I'm interested in rational arguments on the topic. I'm not going to decide
what to do based on who posts most messages. It's just a damn proposal put
up for discussion, for heavens' sake.
>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.
I don't think it is. The groups currently flaming about it are not the
meowers, that I know of, and the meowers are not the usual troublemakers
in alt.fan.furry.
And this has nothing to do with payback... we've already gone down the
"create more groups" path and it hasn't worked out very well. It may be
we'll try it again, but that's not something for a bunch of outsiders to
decide for us.
Artax
> In article <01bf13a2$66f05780$bb354bd1@whitefang>,
> Artax <bo...@address.com> wrote:
> >Peter da Silva wrote:
> > > 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?
In the Big-8 reorganization decisions are decided by formal votes. In
alt.* reorganization decisions are ultimately decided by people voting
with their feet. Trying to change alt.fan.furry's moderation status
and robocancelling posts in it would subvert that process, and therefore
subvert the closest thing alt.* has to democracy.
> 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.
In the Big-8 if someone wants to split a group and other people oppose
it the people opposing it have the remedy that they can vote against
it. If you take the view that creating a sub-group in alt.* changes
what's on-topic for the parent group, then anyone who wants to effect a
split can do so simply by issuing a newgroup message, and people who
oppose the split have no remedy at all. That's unfair.
Peter da Silva
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.
>As I said before in another part of this thread, in alt.* all
>reorganization decisions are ultimately decided by people voting with
>their feet.
As they were in the '80s in Usenet.
>Trying to change alt.fan.furry's moderation status and
>robocancelling posts in it would subvert that process, and therefore
>subvert the closest thing alt.* has to democracy.
Apparently even *discussing* something less than "robocancelling posts"
subverts the nearest thing Altnet has to a democracy, given the reaction
I've had to a proposal that doesn't mention any such thing.
>In the Big-8 if someone wants to split a group and other people oppose
>it the people opposing it have the remedy that they can vote against
>it.
At the moment I am running an informal poll as to what the next iteration
of the proposal will say. Perhaps I should make that proposal a more formal
poll.
>If you take the view that creating a sub-group in alt.* changes
>what's on-topic for the parent group, then anyone who wants to effect a
>split can do so simply by issuing a newgroup message, and people who
>oppose the split have no remedy at all.
They have the remedy, as you said, of voting against it with their feet.
Artax
> >If you take the view that creating a sub-group in alt.* changes
> >what's on-topic for the parent group, then anyone who wants to effect a
> >split can do so simply by issuing a newgroup message, and people who
> >oppose the split have no remedy at all.
>
> They have the remedy, as you said, of voting against it with their feet.
Only by denying the legitimacy of the split and continuing to use
the ostensibly split group, which they can't do effectively if you
issue a new newgroup message setting it to moderated.
Perhaps I'm not being clear. I'm talking about the users voting
with their feet, not the news admins.
John Van Stry
Peter da Silva <pe...@taronga.com> wrote:
>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.
No, post followups HERE. This is about AFF< and it should be talked about in
AFF, not a poorly circulated newsgroup, or one that the members of THIS
group do not want to wade thru.
Stop being a twink in thsi Peter, it's underhanded.
And just who would this team be? Would we end up with a group not
unlike a certain muck, were a few 'morally superior' folks shout
down all the rest, and have caused those who were truely interested
in freedom of speech to leave?
Start a separate moderated group. Let people vote with their feet <keyboards>.
If folks won't go to it, then obviously they don't want it <duh>.
-Banner
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
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
[...]
>I think perhaps more than two moderators would be desirable. Since we're
>dealing with a normal moderation process now, rather than retromoderation,
>any moderator should be able to approve a message.
I have a possable problem with the two moderator scheam if we have a
number of moderators it would be possable for the to be a self
apporved flame war in the new newsgroup. I suggest that there be a
policy preventing self approval and forcing the moderator to submit
there posts to be moderated by another moderator.
--
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)
[...]
>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?
This happens because its tale's policy for this to happen. When
spilts happen in outher hyrakies this doesn't always happen. In this
cause the unmoderated furry fandom newsgroup is being renamed to
"flame/advokey" which I think is inapproprate.
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
[...]
>>Trying to change alt.fan.furry's moderation status and
>>robocancelling posts in it would subvert that process, and therefore
>>subvert the closest thing alt.* has to democracy.
>
>Apparently even *discussing* something less than "robocancelling posts"
>subverts the nearest thing Altnet has to a democracy, given the reaction
>I've had to a proposal that doesn't mention any such thing.
s/robocancelling posts/autorejecting posts/
Peter da Silva
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus) <dfor...@zeta.org.au> wrote:
>I have a possable problem with the two moderator scheam if we have a
>number of moderators it would be possable for the to be a self
>apporved flame war in the new newsgroup. I suggest that there be a
>policy preventing self approval and forcing the moderator to submit
>there posts to be moderated by another moderator.
I'd already thought of that, but rejected it because any moderator would
be in the "fast track" list anyway, and was thinking more along the lines
of policy solutions (the periodic moderator re-election process, for
example). However if we don't allow a moderator to approve their own posts
OR add themselves to the "fast track" list that would work too.