moderation of alt.pagan
Brigid
voted against it before, but I'm reconsidering it now. The cross-posts
to all the other newsgroup about subjuects that don't belong here are
killing us! Really, my delete button can only take so much, and it hurts
my tendons (sp?) to wear them out.
So here's a voive for moderation. Let everyone have their say, but no
more SPAM, no more off-topic cross-posts. For Goddess' sake, where do
you think the flames originate?
I'm not saying that we shouldn't let through the "burning in hell"
threads--I think they're rather funny--but the Hitler posts and other
posts too numerous to mention must go! Why do you think I post here so
rarely? I'm a full time student, and don't have time to wade throught the
crap I find in this group. The good gets lost among the bad, and I can't take
the time to pick it out.
Anyway, I probably won't see responces to this post, for the same reason.
Diatribe over! But there's work to be done. Until then, I'll spend most
of my newsgroup time over in alt.religion.wicca.
This group has promise--us Pagans have promise--but we have to stop the
cross-posts. That's the majority of the problem. I vote for moderation
for this reason alone.
bright the day,
Brigid
(who has had a change of heart regarding moderation)
******************************************************************************
Brigid *"Why is it when you talk to God you're praying,
P.O. Box 591824 * but when God talks to you, you're nuts?"
San Francisco, CA 94159-1824* Monica, in
* _Touched By An Angel_
******************************************************************************
United States Constitution, Amendment 1:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or
prohibiting the free excercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,
or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
petition the Government for a redress of grievances." --Dec. 15, 1791
*NO CENSORSHIP ON THE NET!*
Neil
I agree entirely. The amount of crap on here is just getting stupid.
Im sure Im missing some interesting posts due to the HUGE amount of
excrement that is getting cross-posted.
I think this group (and alt.relegion.wicca is speedily heading the
same way) needs moderating to get rid of the vast number of spamming
cross-posts.
Brigid <nwi...@ecst.csuchico.edu> wrote:
Neil.
fn...@tcp.co.uk
"The softest of all things can sudue the hardest things in the
world. Only Nothing can enter into emptiness. Hence I know the
potency of non-action. Few learn the lessons of Silence. Few
seek the fruits of non-action." Tao Te Ching XLIII
frj
>I agree entirely. The amount of crap on here is just getting stupid.
>Im sure Im missing some interesting posts due to the HUGE amount of
>excrement that is getting cross-posted.
>I think this group (and alt.relegion.wicca is speedily heading the
>same way) needs moderating to get rid of the vast number of spamming
>cross-posts.
The Alt group heirarchy cannot be moderated, thats why they are alts.
If you want a moderated group you have to go thru the system to get
one added - good luck, its not that easy to add a new group AND
convince systems to carry it.
Mailing lists seem to be the best way to handle things in regards to
real communication.
But like any private group, you are subject to the whims and demands
of the moderator. If you don't like it all you can do is leave and set
up your own mailing list.
Joe
Joe Teller
Web Page URL: http://www.tiac.net/users/frj/pagan.html
Email : f...@tiac.net
Lorrie Wood
why some of the cooler, more technical heads on here have proposed
a second group, alt.pagan.moderated, to be founded upon the principles
espoused by Usenet admins everywhere (i.e., discussinon in alt.config).
Before you do, however, think about who you're gonna get for
this admittedly thankless job.
I have proposed (bulding on past suggestions) that the moderator
not be a mdoerator *per se*, but more like a caretaker of a list of
people who are trusted not to be stupid. Any time someone not on this
ok listposts to apm for the first time, the post has to be approved --
but after that it's handled by software. Clean and painless. Said
moderator should be someone you can trust to only remove people from
the list if they're being total and complete assholes (temporarily,
permaanently, whateever). I am neither proposing to write the automod
software, OR be the psychotic loon watching over it -- but it should
be someone who's been on alt.pagan awhile, knows the ropes. Then
no-one should ideaally be banned simply for being unpopular, but because
they're trying to tell us we'll burn in hell or some like shit.
And it unequivocally should be after we've beaten off te
infiltrators, Grillo threads and all. Do you really want them voting?
Think before you leap, in short.
And Brigid? I'm sure pine has killfile capability... killing
topics and authors is easy stuff, or I'd've left this group long since.
-- Lorrie, who WOULD leave anyway, except then they'd win...
--
Communications "decency" protest: This legislation is a fucking
abortion of justice, passed by cocksuckers interested only in pandering
to the twisted, perverse desires of the religious right for control over
discussions of tits, cocks, cunts and other "non-approved" subjects.
Brigid
Someone gave me an idea for hunting spammers the other day. I don't know
what it's worth, but for what it is, I'll pass it along. He said that a
bunch of spam hunters hang out in news.admin.net-abuse.misc. This might
be a good place to start.
However...
For those of us who wish to abandon this group and set up a soc.
moderated group, here here! I vote yes! But may I suggest soc.pagan
instead of soc.religion.pagan, because some people (though not me!) would
take umbrage with what they do being called a religion.
blessings in moderation, ;)
Brigid
The Polsons
>
> WayStone=)
Sounds perfect to me... I'm sick of all the drek too, and I can't killfile
either.
*********************************************************
Willow Polson, Editor pol...@sirius.com
Recreating History Magazine
"The Resource for Living History Enthusiasts of All Eras"
*********************************************************
Lance A. Brown
> For those of us who wish to abandon this group and set up a soc.
> moderated group, here here! I vote yes! But may I suggest soc.pagan
> instead of soc.religion.pagan, because some people (though not me!) would
> take umbrage with what they do being called a religion.
The chances of getting a newsgroup named soc.pagan created are very
close to nil because second level newsgroups in the "Big-7" are
actively discouraged by the folks who are involved with and manage the
creation of new mainstream USENET newsgroups.
I think soc.religion.pagan or soc.religion.paganism are most
appropriate for a moderated newsgroup for paganism.
After someone else wrote the initial draft of the RFD and Charter for
soc.religion.unitarian-univ I submitted it and was the person
"responsible" for it during the RFD and CFV period. Getting a new
s.r.* group started isn't *that* hard. The major points to consider
are:
1. Selecting the moderator(s)
2. Writing the Charter for the newsgroup.
3. Setting the moderation policy based on the Charter.
4. Implementing the moderation mechanism.
I see Items 1. and 2. being the most difficult to hash out for a pagan
soc.religion.* newsgroup.
--[Lance]
Aazari
If anybody knows how I can activate it, PLEASE let me know! I've
been trying for months to find out and have found nothing. It would help
me immensely if I could go through a.p without having to delete
everything by hand.
Aazari
******************************************************************************
Aazari Cantharess Imag...@blkbox.com
Aazari's Web,P.O. Box 1006,Texas City TX,77592-1006
A newszine seeking fresh talent in the Pagan community
******************************************************************************
Brigid
Like I believe I stated in an earlier post. there are people willing to
moderate. The problem is getting people to agree on *who*. I know Jim
Hamp (the Hampster) has expressed an interest to me, but since he's not
Pagan I think many people would have a problem with him. (He would be
totally fair in my not so humble opinion, but others who don't know him
wouldn't know that. Additionally, he's only been around since late last
year. I *would* vote for him myself, though--in a heartbeat.)
Surely someone else out there would like to take the job if Jim is found
unsuitable?
Come on folks. We've got to get the *crap* out of here if we're going to
progress as an online community!
moderate blessings, ;-)
Lorrie Wood
Brigid <nwi...@ecst.csuchico.edu> wrote:
>
>For those of us who wish to abandon this group and set up a soc.
>moderated group, here here! I vote yes! But may I suggest soc.pagan
>instead of soc.religion.pagan, because some people (though not me!) would
>take umbrage with what they do being called a religion.
Big 7 groups (that is, everything not a regional or alt) have
to follow a very strict hierarchy. In that hierarchy, we would best fit
under soc.religion.
soc.pagan would probably not be acceptable to the High Lords of
Usenet. Probaility approaching 1, actually.
-- Lorrie
Naomi Schoenfeld
<Pine.HPP.3.91.96031...@abyss.ecst.csuchico.edu>, Brigid
writes:
>I know Jim
>Hamp (the Hampster) has expressed an interest to me, but since he's not
>Pagan I think many people would have a problem with him.
WayStone
Jeliza Patterson
>> How does soc.religion.paganism sound?
>>
>> WayStone=)
>
>Sounds perfect to me... I'm sick of all the drek too, and I can't killfile
>either.
I assume you mean a moderated group? (Just being big 7 won't slow the
drek, unfortunately.)
Jeliza,
former moderator, soc.support.youth.gay-lesbian-bi
--
--
jpat...@tufts.edu, http://www.tufts.edu/~jpatters/
Fineart Forum, http://www.msstate.edu/Fineart_Online/home.html
Tsunami Gallery, http://www.tufts.edu/~jpatters/tsunami/
Lynn Calvin
>Hi!
>Like I believe I stated in an earlier post. there are people willing to
>moderate.
I believe that if people were interested in the effort, you could
probably get through a soc.religion.pagan without too much trouble.
Your could probably also do pretty well with a robomoderator, that
would strip out cross posts and filter questionable stuff to human
moderators. Go to Dejanews and look at stuff in news.admin.net-abuse
miscellaneous on the capabilities of robomoderation.
Soc.religion.unitarian-univ is robomoderated, and stays pretty clear
of junk thereby, I think. soc.religion.quaker is unmoderated and is
considering moving to moderation, because of spam and cross-posts, but
mostly because of cross-posts.
The big issue is that the moderators do have *full* control of the
newsgroup, and depending on other factors there are circumstances in
which this might be seen by some as a problem. (See the history of
soc.feminism for example.)
I would love to see a moderated soc.religion.pagan.
Brigid
will be except that:
1) it must be accessible to the largest number of people possible, i.e.
people must be offered it on their system; and
2) it must be moderated.
Other than this, I really don't care how it's done, human or
robot--whatever. The only problem with human moderators is some people
will inherently *not* trust the person, whoever they are.
let's get it together!
Cher
> Brigid <nwi...@ecst.csuchico.edu> wrote:
> >
> >For those of us who wish to abandon this group and set up a soc.
> >moderated group, here here! I vote yes! But may I suggest soc.pagan
> >instead of soc.religion.pagan, because some people (though not me!) would
> >take umbrage with what they do being called a religion.
>
I just put my vote in for alt.pagan.moderated (keeping alt.pagan intact);
but keeping religion out of the name. I don't have a religion.
Black Widow
Larry Caldwell
lab...@dg-rtp.dg.com (Lance A. Brown) wrote:
> After someone else wrote the initial draft of the RFD and Charter for
> soc.religion.unitarian-univ I submitted it and was the person
> "responsible" for it during the RFD and CFV period. Getting a new
> s.r.* group started isn't *that* hard. The major points to consider
> are:
> 1. Selecting the moderator(s)
> 2. Writing the Charter for the newsgroup.
> 3. Setting the moderation policy based on the Charter.
> 4. Implementing the moderation mechanism.
> I see Items 1. and 2. being the most difficult to hash out for a pagan
> soc.religion.* newsgroup.
Just so everybody's familiar with the procedure:
RFC means Request For Comments, and MUST be posted in news.groups. The
comment period is usually 30 days, and revised RFC's are sometimes
posted, which resets the clock on the comment period.
CFV means Call For Votes, which is conducted by an independent third
party, by email. Typically, voters must divulge their full name, which
is publicly posted with the vote results. To create a big-7 group the
vote in favor must be a 3/2 majority, with 100 more yes votes than no
votes.
-- Larry
Lorrie Wood
Jeliza Patterson <jpat...@emerald.tufts.edu> wrote:
>
>I assume you mean a moderated group? (Just being big 7 won't slow the
>drek, unfortunately.)
All soc.religion groups must be moderated. soc.religion.quaker was
the exception, because nobody bothers the Friends, but they're thinking
of going to it because of the crossposts and spammers.
Chris Samuel
pol...@sirius.com (The Polsons) wrote:
> > How does soc.religion.paganism sound?
> >
> > WayStone=)
>
> Sounds perfect to me... I'm sick of all the drek too, and I can't killfile
> either.
Actually, that sounds like the best alternative I've heard of so far!
Much better than alt.pagan.moderated, and it should give us better
propogation as well.
Now all we need is a moderator (or team thereof).
bb!
Chris
--
Christopher Samuel "I stand on these hills, and I watch Her at night,
Malvern, Worcs, UK. A thousand square miles, and a million orange lights,
Wounded and scarred She lies silent in pain,
j...@discordia.ukuu.org.uk Raped and betrayed in this cold acid rain." - NMA
Ursa
>In article <polsons-1303...@ppp028-sc2.sirius.com> pol...@sirius.com (The Polsons) writes:
>>> How does soc.religion.paganism sound?
>>>
>>> WayStone=)
Sounds good...keep alt.pagan intact though.
Ursa
_______________________________________________
He's *your* god
They're *your* rules
*You* burn in hell
___________...@erinet.com_____________
theraven
no more than 3 related newsgroups (e.g. soc.religion.pagan, alt.pagan,
alt.religion.wicca).
Second line of defense is a panel of moderators (so they can transfer the
positions seamlessly in case they retire or...)
Flames, as long as on topic or related to a post, are fine with me. I
like reading a well written, on-topic flame (i.e. Ounce). Mere name calling
doesn't count, although I'm capable of both.
Before the juveniles with their grillo, alanis, and meow meow crap
started up, I would have left before supporting moderation. However, the
level of inane spam and juvenile crossposts on usenet in general has made
me reconsider.
There is a move afoot on INN to limit (i.e. cancel?) crossposts. I have
been informed by my sysop that if this goes through, my system will
comply.
The fact is, Usenet in general is being buried under trash, and
there has got to be a way to stop it, or it will end up like CB radio did
when it was no longer required to get a real license - kids and trash.
Didn't anyone tell these yahoos that the net is not a toy, or "family"
entertainment?
Ravan, disgusted
"Don't let the bytes bug you"
James Hamp
: In article <4ih6f7$o...@pipe3.nyc.pipeline.com>,
: Naomi Schoenfeld <ways...@nyc.pipeline.com> wrote:
: >
: >Sounds excellent to me..... makes no difference what he believes =)
: I thought that the fact he was a Zen Christian utterly devoted to
: learning *all* sides of the truth made him pretty decent, although I
: *know* many of the standing population will have varigated fits.
: -- Lorrie
: --
: Communications "decency" protest: This legislation is a fucking
: abortion of justice, passed by cocksuckers interested only in pandering
: to the twisted, perverse desires of the religious right for control over
: discussions of tits, cocks, cunts and other "non-approved" subjects.
<blush> Thanks, Lorrie. I'm willing to volunteer, after I graduate in a
few weeks, at least tentatively, though my SO may have something to say
if it starts taking up too, too much of my time.
I guess if Hesperos approves, I'd volunteer, but I want those chocolate
hot-tub backrubs Sekh mentioned in another thread. Why take on a job
without the perks?
Blessed Be
--Hampster
|*************************************************************************|
| Picture yourself in a boat on a river * |
| With tangerine trees and marmalade skies * Don't look in this |
| Suddenly someone appears at the turnstile * box--there's nothing |
| The girl with kaleidescope eyes * here to see. |
| *************************|
| -Paul McCartney- The Hampster |
| jh...@usa.net |
|*************************************************************************|
Gwen Saylor
>jpat...@emerald.tufts.edu (Jeliza Patterson) wrote:
>>In article <polsons-1303...@ppp028-sc2.sirius.com> pol...@sirius.com (The Polsons) writes:
>>>> How does soc.religion.paganism sound?
>>>>
>>>> WayStone=)
>Sounds good...keep alt.pagan intact though.
>Ursa
I hear you.... I'm not going anywhere.
I had a rotten time in my long, ugly experience
with moderation, and I think I'll avoid it the rest
of this lifetime.
Hen to Pan,
Gwen
dino
> Hi!
>
> Like I believe I stated in an earlier post. there are people willing to
> totally fair in my not so humble opinion, but others who don't know him
> wouldn't know that. Additionally, he's only been around since late last
> year. I *would* vote for him myself, though--in a heartbeat.)
>
> Surely someone else out there would like to take the job if Jim is found
> unsuitable?
>
> Come on folks. We've got to get the *crap* out of here if we're going to
> progress as an online community!
>
> moderate blessings, ;-)
> ******************************************************************************
> Brigid *"Why is it when you talk to God you're praying,
> P.O. Box 591824 * but when God talks to you, you're nuts?"
> San Francisco, CA 94159-1824* Monica, in
> * _Touched By An Angel_
> ******************************************************************************
> United States Constitution, Amendment 1:
> "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or
> prohibiting the free excercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,
> or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
> petition the Government for a redress of grievances." --Dec. 15, 1791
> *NO CENSORSHIP ON THE NET!*
>
>
>>>>
To: Blake,Danielle, Erik,etc.
just wanted to tell you hey! That I'm thinking about you and love you all! And to tell you to fucking call me sometime!!
Erik and Danielle have the number. C.U. soon!
David O. Pollard IV
>> Like I believe I stated in an earlier post. there are people willing to
>> moderate. The problem is getting people to agree on *who*. I know Jim
>> Hamp (the Hampster) has expressed an interest to me, but since he's not
>> Pagan I think many people would have a problem with him. (He would be
>> totally fair in my not so humble opinion, but others who don't know him
>> wouldn't know that. Additionally, he's only been around since late last
>> year. I *would* vote for him myself, though--in a heartbeat.)
OK, here's two potential sources of moderators:
1) The writers of the alt.pagan FAQ. We know the "know Paganism". They
are known and "generally" respected by the online community. And they
have a track record of working together.
2) I think the larger Pagan Organizations w(sh)ould have a vested interest
in encouraging the higher level of Pagan Dialouge that a moderated
soc.religion.pagan would provide. I see organizations that have a online
prescence (CAW, Pagan Federation, COG, CUUPS, etc.) as resources for the
online Pagan community and would hope that they motivated to provide
some of the staffing for a moderation team.
Brigid
> How about this: first line of defense is a modbot, limiting crossposts to
> no more than 3 related newsgroups (e.g. soc.religion.pagan, alt.pagan,
> alt.religion.wicca).
Sounds good to me.
> Flames, as long as on topic or related to a post, are fine with me. I
> like reading a well written, on-topic flame (i.e. Ounce). Mere name calling
> doesn't count, although I'm capable of both.
Yes! Yes! Yes! On topic flames should *NOT NOT NOT* be cut out.
> The fact is, Usenet in general is being buried under trash, and
> there has got to be a way to stop it, or it will end up like CB radio did
> when it was no longer required to get a real license - kids and trash.
> Didn't anyone tell these yahoos that the net is not a toy, or "family"
> entertainment?
For too many people it is a toy. Just like in the dorms, some people
consider the fire alarms toys and pull them for the hell of it...
> Ravan, disgusted
Take heart, Ravan, so am I. So am I.
b*b
Brigid
Karen McFarlin
<Pine.HPP.3.91.960318...@abyss.ecst.csuchico.edu>, Brigid
<nwi...@ecst.csuchico.edu> wrote:
> Folks, I really don't care *what* the name of this proposed new group
> will be except that:
>
> 1) it must be accessible to the largest number of people possible, i.e.
> people must be offered it on their system; and
>
> 2) it must be moderated.
>
> Other than this, I really don't care how it's done, human or
> robot--whatever. The only problem with human moderators is some people
> will inherently *not* trust the person, whoever they are.
>
>
> let's get it together!
> Brigid
No offence is meant and I hope that none is taken, but there has never
been an unassailable fortress built. It is always better to fight on open
ground. Has anyone considered guerrilla warfare? Regardless...
Faire you well with all my blessings.
Cairns; Highlanders melt into the bens and glens.
Donal
nwi...@ecst.csuchico.edu says...
>
>On 20 Mar 1996, theraven wrote:
>
>> How about this: first line of defense is a modbot, limiting crossposts to
>> no more than 3 related newsgroups (e.g. soc.religion.pagan, alt.pagan,
>> alt.religion.wicca).
>
>Sounds good to me.
I have heard enough talk. I am acting. I have downloaded the how-to docs from
news.announce.newgroups and am drafting an RFD for soc.religion.paganism
(moderated). I hope to have it ready to email to a few old-timers here on a.p.
for review and advice within a few days. Then, I will post it to a.p. for
comments from everyone. THEN I will post it to news.announce.newgroups and the
real battle begins.
I plan to implement a modbot similar to the one in use on
soc.religion.unitarian-univ with some personal adjustments to ease the job. It
will kill ANY post with more than 2 unrelated newsgroups. (I will keep a list
for it of 'approved' newsgroups that MAY be cross-posted to). After that, I
will begin adding threads and account names that are AUTOMATICALLY blocked.
Also, I will keep a list of account names that are AUTOMATICALLY approved.
After that, I will personally review and release all posts that the bot passes
to me for review. I will post a daily or weekly summary of all posts that were
rejected with user and subject.
This WILL be done, and done NOW! We cannot survive this BS much longer. PLEASE,
do NOT send me mail asking to be one of the alpha reviewers. I will choose them
myself.
---
Donal, The SysAdmin of The Brewers' Witch BBS
Proponent: soc.religion.paganism
<do...@brewich.com> http://www.brewich.com
Lorrie Wood
>How about this: first line of defense is a modbot, limiting crossposts to
>no more than 3 related newsgroups (e.g. soc.religion.pagan, alt.pagan,
>alt.religion.wicca).
There are more than three related newsgroups, though. The newage
group, the magickal hierarchy, the alt.religion hierarchy... limiting
to N crossposts is kinda silly. Totally automating any part of this process,
except rubberstamp approvals, it inherently quite dangerous. Least
restrictive means, least restrivive means...
>There is a move afoot on INN to limit (i.e. cancel?) crossposts. I have
>been informed by my sysop that if this goes through, my system will
>comply.
That would require either an overhaul of NNTP as we know it,
or people like today's spam cancellers who have a lower threshhold
for crossposts than they do now. Separate multiple posts have a lower
threshhold than crossposts, see news.admin.net-abuse.misc for details.
>The fact is, Usenet in general is being buried under trash, and
>there has got to be a way to stop it, or it will end up like CB radio did
>when it was no longer required to get a real license - kids and trash.
Actually, a former employer of mine swears by her CB. I've never
heard her complain about a low signal/noise ratios. Now that it's
fallen out of vogue for all but truckers and other long distance drivers
who don't want to put up with shit from cell phone companies, it's
useful again.
>Didn't anyone tell these yahoos that the net is not a toy, or "family"
>entertainment?
Ah, but it *is*! Or so the corps would like you to believe...
Lorrie Wood
>
>Sounds good...keep alt.pagan intact though.
Only problem with s.r.p is that it will take, and I'm not kidding,
MONTHS to get started. Literal months. We cannot survive that long.
An alt.pagan.moderated could be (although 'twould be a breach of nettiquette)
created in moments with a properly forged or even -- gasp! -- issued
newgroup message. We need software and an m.o. together first, though...
The best things in life ... are fantasy.
>How about this: first line of defense is a modbot, limiting crossposts to
>no more than 3 related newsgroups (e.g. soc.religion.pagan, alt.pagan,
>alt.religion.wicca).
>
>positions seamlessly in case they retire or...)
>
>like reading a well written, on-topic flame (i.e. Ounce). Mere name calling
>doesn't count, although I'm capable of both.
>
>started up, I would have left before supporting moderation. However, the
>level of inane spam and juvenile crossposts on usenet in general has made
>me reconsider.
>
>been informed by my sysop that if this goes through, my system will
>comply.
>
>there has got to be a way to stop it, or it will end up like CB radio did
>when it was no longer required to get a real license - kids and trash.
>entertainment?
>
>
>"Don't let the bytes bug you"
>
>abortion of justice, passed by cocksuckers interested only in pandering
>to the twisted, perverse desires of the religious right for control over
>discussions of tits, cocks, cunts and other "non-approved" subjects.
>
I hate to say it, but I kinda saw all this coming when internet connections
moved from the domain of academia, government and other scientificly oriented
organizations into the hands of commercial availability. When I first came
onto the net there were mostly *.edu addresses (including mine at the time),
a few *.gov, *.com and *.org. Now it seems to be mostly *.com. Not that I
think access should be limited to an elitist few, but with all the spammers
and trolls about, it seems to me that too many people have too much time on
their hands and not enough creativity to otherwise occupy themselves.
I know all spammers and trolls are not children and not all children are
spammers and trolls. But I don't think the electronic forum can handle much
more of this abuse. Should we all be forced to get a universal license
permitting use of the internet? Ugh. I hate the idea of adding another
beaurocracy to the already high populations of that species. Can we band
together and make trolling and spamming ``socially unacceptable?'' I think
we had better before `lawmakers' come in and take away yet another of our
freedoms.
PCVS
Lance A. Brown
> I have heard enough talk. I am acting. I have downloaded the how-to
> docs from news.announce.newgroups and am drafting an RFD for
> soc.religion.paganism (moderated). I hope to have it ready to email
> to a few old-timers here on a.p. for review and advice within a few
> days. Then, I will post it to a.p. for comments from everyone. THEN
> I will post it to news.announce.newgroups and the real battle
> begins.
Sounds good so far.
> I plan to implement a modbot similar to the one in use on
> soc.religion.unitarian-univ with some personal adjustments to ease
> the job. It will kill ANY post with more than 2 unrelated
> newsgroups. (I will keep a list for it of 'approved' newsgroups that
> MAY be cross-posted to). After that, I will begin adding threads and
> account names that are AUTOMATICALLY blocked. Also, I will keep a
> list of account names that are AUTOMATICALLY approved. After that,
> I will personally review and release all posts that the bot passes
> to me for review. I will post a daily or weekly summary of all posts
> that were rejected with user and subject.
Well, so much for the voluntary cooperative style of USENET on
soc.religion.paganism. If the RFD for s.r.p ends up much like the
above paragraph I will not be voting for it. Rejecting spam and
massively cross-posted articles is easy to do objectively. Going
beyond that is more difficult and I think could be better handled by a
small group of moderators working together. This also prevents the
group from being skewed by the biases of one person.
--[Lance]
The best things in life ... are fantasy.
>
>I had a rotten time in my long, ugly experience
>with moderation, and I think I'll avoid it the rest
>of this lifetime.
>
>Hen to Pan,
>Gwen
>
>
first thought it would be a good idea, but now I am not so certain. In all
the time I have been on the net I've never dealt with a moderated group. So
now I am thinking that whether or not a moderated pagan group turns up, the
good old alt.pagan should in and of itself remain as it is.
PCVS
Brigid
> In article <Pine.HPP.3.91.960321...@abyss.ecst.csuchico.edu>,
> nwi...@ecst.csuchico.edu says...
> >On 20 Mar 1996, theraven wrote:
> >> How about this: first line of defense is a modbot, limiting crossposts to
> >> no more than 3 related newsgroups (e.g. soc.religion.pagan, alt.pagan,
> >> alt.religion.wicca).
>
> I have heard enough talk. I am acting. I have downloaded the how-to docs from
> news.announce.newgroups and am drafting an RFD for soc.religion.paganism
> (moderated). I hope to have it ready to email to a few old-timers here on a.p.
> for review and advice within a few days. Then, I will post it to a.p. for
> comments from everyone. THEN I will post it to news.announce.newgroups and the
> real battle begins.
No! Please NOT soc.religion.pananism! Please, there are those who do
not what what they do called religion. Let's just stick with
alt.pagan.moderated. It'll make everyone happy, and be easier to set up.
> I plan to implement a modbot similar to the one in use on
> soc.religion.unitarian-univ with some personal adjustments to ease the job. It
> will kill ANY post with more than 2 unrelated newsgroups. (I will keep a list
> for it of 'approved' newsgroups that MAY be cross-posted to). After that, I
> will begin adding threads and account names that are AUTOMATICALLY blocked.
> Also, I will keep a list of account names that are AUTOMATICALLY approved.
> After that, I will personally review and release all posts that the bot passes
> to me for review. I will post a daily or weekly summary of all posts that were
> rejected with user and subject.
Bots are fine. Just please change the name of the newsgroup.
Last I heard, someone was talking to Jim Hamp (the Hampster) about him
moderating. He *has* volunteed, and as he's graduating from college
tomorrow, he'll have some time free.
> This WILL be done, and done NOW! We cannot survive this BS much longer. PLEASE,
> do NOT send me mail asking to be one of the alpha reviewers. I will choose them
> myself.
> ---
> Donal, The SysAdmin of The Brewers' Witch BBS
> Proponent: soc.religion.paganism
> <do...@brewich.com> http://www.brewich.com
b*b
Brigid
(alt.pagan.moderated NOW!)
star...@sirius.com
the answer. I can't (or have yet to figure out) how to killfile so I
get all of the drek full force. Is it possible to switch moderators,
cycle them once a week or once a month? If a person were to feel
unfairly treated they could try to get thier post through the next
round. Or perhaps along with (elected?) moderators we can have a few
posters from the newsgroup that will accept "questionable" posts and
re-evaluate them, with the power to veto the moderators discision. If
there were only three people willing to take up a post like this I
think the feelings of unrest might die down. I am barley able to chug
along the internet tech wise) but I am willing to help get this
organized.
Star...@sirius.com
Lorrie Wood
Chris Samuel <j...@discordia.ukuu.org.uk> wrote:
>
>Actually, that sounds like the best alternative I've heard of so far!
>Much better than alt.pagan.moderated, and it should give us better
>propogation as well.
The only drawback is that it will take six months to create a
Big 7 group.
-- Lorrie
--
Brigid
> soc.religion.paganism. If the RFD for s.r.p ends up much like the
> above paragraph I will not be voting for it. Rejecting spam and
> massively cross-posted articles is easy to do objectively. Going
> beyond that is more difficult and I think could be better handled by a
> small group of moderators working together. This also prevents the
> group from being skewed by the biases of one person.
>
> --[Lance]
If I may be so bold as to mention his name yet *again*, and agree with
Lorrie here, Jim Hamp is completely agendaless, and as he's not Pagan and
has no leanings toward *any* group, he's the perfect moderator. He
doesn't hate anybody because they're a certain tradition or anything.
(Whereas I've been in the Craft 4 years now and have definite opinions on
things.)
I think automatic disaprooval (by a bot) for the mass of cross-posts is
good, but automatic approoval may not be. For example, I post frequently
to a moderated newsgroup. While most of my posts are fine, occatioanlly
one may be a bit far off base or topic and will be rejected. And anyway,
people could use this to worm their way into the group and start trouble
once they know their posts will be automatically approoved. No,
automatic approoval would be a bad mistake.
let's get it together folks!
Brigid
(who knows when it's time to fold up her cards and walk away from a
group--and it's time NOW!)
pan
>
> In article <Pine.HPP.3.91.960321...@abyss.ecst.csuchico.edu>,
> nwi...@ecst.csuchico.edu says...
> >
> >On 20 Mar 1996, theraven wrote:
> >
> >> How about this: first line of defense is a modbot, limiting crossposts to
> >> no more than 3 related newsgroups (e.g. soc.religion.pagan, alt.pagan,
> >> alt.religion.wicca).
> >
>
> I have heard enough talk. I am acting. I have downloaded the how-to docs from
> news.announce.newgroups and am drafting an RFD for soc.religion.paganism
> (moderated). I hope to have it ready to email to a few old-timers here on a.p.
> for review and advice within a few days. Then, I will post it to a.p. for
> comments from everyone. THEN I will post it to news.announce.newgroups and the
> real battle begins.
>
> soc.religion.unitarian-univ with some personal adjustments to ease the job. It
> will kill ANY post with more than 2 unrelated newsgroups. (I will keep a list
> for it of 'approved' newsgroups that MAY be cross-posted to). After that, I
> will begin adding threads and account names that are AUTOMATICALLY blocked.
> Also, I will keep a list of account names that are AUTOMATICALLY approved.
> After that, I will personally review and release all posts that the bot passes
> to me for review. I will post a daily or weekly summary of all posts that were
> rejected with user and subject.
>
> do NOT send me mail asking to be one of the alpha reviewers. I will choose them
> myself.
>
> ---
> Donal, The SysAdmin of The Brewers' Witch BBS
> Proponent: soc.religion.paganism
> <do...@brewich.com> http://www.brewich.com
Bravo!
Is it too late to consider soc.pagan rather than soc.religion.pagan?
Some pagans are religious, some are not.
Pan
Gwen Saylor
> Moderating an existing newsgroup is well-nigh impossible. That is
>why some of the cooler, more technical heads on here have proposed
>a second group, alt.pagan.moderated, to be founded upon the principles
>espoused by Usenet admins everywhere (i.e., discussinon in alt.config).
> Before you do, however, think about who you're gonna get for
>this admittedly thankless job.
> I have proposed (bulding on past suggestions) that the moderator
>not be a mdoerator *per se*, but more like a caretaker of a list of
>people who are trusted not to be stupid. Any time someone not on this
>ok listposts to apm for the first time, the post has to be approved --
>but after that it's handled by software. Clean and painless. Said
>moderator should be someone you can trust to only remove people from
>the list if they're being total and complete assholes (temporarily,
>permaanently, whateever). I am neither proposing to write the automod
>software, OR be the psychotic loon watching over it -- but it should
>be someone who's been on alt.pagan awhile, knows the ropes. Then
>no-one should ideaally be banned simply for being unpopular, but because
>they're trying to tell us we'll burn in hell or some like shit.
> And it unequivocally should be after we've beaten off te
>infiltrators, Grillo threads and all. Do you really want them voting?
If we beat them off, why leave?
> Think before you leap, in short.
> And Brigid? I'm sure pine has killfile capability... killing
>topics and authors is easy stuff, or I'd've left this group long since.
>-- Lorrie, who WOULD leave anyway, except then they'd win...
Gwen
theraven
# In article <4ioksu$q...@news.wco.com>, theraven <ther...@wco.com> wrote:
# >How about this: first line of defense is a modbot, limiting crossposts to
# >no more than 3 related newsgroups (e.g. soc.religion.pagan, alt.pagan,
# >alt.religion.wicca).
#
# There are more than three related newsgroups, though. The newage
# group, the magickal hierarchy, the alt.religion hierarchy... limiting
# to N crossposts is kinda silly. Totally automating any part of this process,
# except rubberstamp approvals, it inherently quite dangerous. Least
# restrictive means, least restrivive means...
It's rarely on topic for any more than three of them. The least
restrictive means is not using a live moderator. That can, potentially,
become the most restrictive means. Besides, since when is the newage
stuff on-topic here? I never see newage crossposts, except for trolls
from outsiders to both.
# >There is a move afoot on INN to limit (i.e. cancel?) crossposts. I have
# >been informed by my sysop that if this goes through, my system will
# >comply.
#
# That would require either an overhaul of NNTP as we know it,
# or people like today's spam cancellers who have a lower threshhold
# for crossposts than they do now. Separate multiple posts have a lower
# threshhold than crossposts, see news.admin.net-abuse.misc for details.
I don't know the details. I heard about it from my sysop.
# >The fact is, Usenet in general is being buried under trash, and
# >there has got to be a way to stop it, or it will end up like CB radio did
# >when it was no longer required to get a real license - kids and trash.
#
# Actually, a former employer of mine swears by her CB. I've never
# heard her complain about a low signal/noise ratios. Now that it's
# fallen out of vogue for all but truckers and other long distance drivers
# who don't want to put up with shit from cell phone companies, it's
# useful again.
Only after 10-15 years, and bad reception conditions. It was, in the
early 80's, a cesspool. Now the brat pack junks up the net, instead.
# >Didn't anyone tell these yahoos that the net is not a toy, or "family"
# >entertainment?
#
# Ah, but it *is*! Or so the corps would like you to believe...
Maybe I'll go back to CB. It's cheaper than cellular. (side note: when
I was a kid, my mom used the CB like some people use their cell phones -
to announce when she was due in, ask about groceries, etc. She had to
take a test, pay a fee, and could be bounced if she didn't use her call
letters.)
Ravan
"Don't let the bytes bug you"
Communications "decency" protest: This legislation is a fucking
Cher
> In article <4inm78$2...@eri1.erinet.com>, Ursa <fire...@erinet.com> wrote:
> >
> >Sounds good...keep alt.pagan intact though.
>
> Only problem with s.r.p is that it will take, and I'm not kidding,
> MONTHS to get started. Literal months. We cannot survive that long.
> An alt.pagan.moderated could be (although 'twould be a breach of nettiquette)
> created in moments with a properly forged or even -- gasp! -- issued
> newgroup message. We need software and an m.o. together first, though...
>
> -- Lorrie
>
I'm also agree with this! In fact, I'm looking so forward to a new
system that I've started reading, reading, reading, and writing, writing,
writing; but I won't be posting, posting, posting until the new newsgroup
is formed. They get lost in all the flames, and like many others we've
tried desperately to put enough discussion on to compete with all the
garbage; but it wasn't enough.
Black Widow
Brigid
> >MONTHS to get started. Literal months. We cannot survive that long.
We've survived this long while the dreck has continued to pile up. Given
the ease of carriers carrying soc groups, that might be the answer over
the possible demise of another alt group. (Okay, so I don't understand all
the jargon--I'm getting there.)
I can't killfile with a mainframe system (as far as I know), but I'd be
willing to hang around and wade for a while if I knew a soc group was
coming soon.
> Given the benefits of having a big 8 newsgroup (better propogation,
> fewer problems with future moderation changes, the possibility of
> the near-death of alt.* in a few years....), I think that s.r.p
> is the way to go, even if it means we have to limp along with an
> unmoderated alt.pagan for a few more months.
Fully agreed. Let's look at things long term folks, and not jump into
another alt group just to save time.
This is being cross-posted to alt.config.
b*b
Brigid
nwi...@sfsu.edu
StarOwl
>In article <4inm78$2...@eri1.erinet.com>, Ursa <fire...@erinet.com> wrote:
>>
>>Sounds good...keep alt.pagan intact though.
> Only problem with s.r.p is that it will take, and I'm not kidding,
>MONTHS to get started. Literal months. We cannot survive that long.
I don't know about that. I have seen several of my favorite newsgroups
take a plunge in S/N ratios over the past two years. If anything,
from my perspective it looks like the S/N decline has leveled off, albeit
at abysmal levels.
Given the benefits of having a big 8 newsgroup (better propogation,
fewer problems with future moderation changes, the possibility of
the near-death of alt.* in a few years....), I think that s.r.p
is the way to go, even if it means we have to limp along with an
unmoderated alt.pagan for a few more months.
However, if we *must* have moderation now with an alt.pagan.moderated,
may I suggest:
1. Be sure and discuss the new group on alt.config, per the
quasi-official guidelines. There are a couple of news
admins out there who auto-rmgroup the dozens of alt.
groups created not following "approved" methods. Also,
some sites refuse to auto-newgroup just any alt.* group
but will carry alt.* groups that have been discussed on
alt.config.
Poor propogation is the bane of the existence of any new
alt.* group. If there is to be an a.p.m, give it a
fighting chance at having decent propogation.
2. Go ahead with an RFD for s.r.p anyway, and have the a.p.m
moderator(s) be the one(s) proposed for s.r.p. If/when
s.r.p comes into being, have the moderators redirect all
a.p.m traffic to the new group. I don't think there would be
a problem with having two alt.pagan-esque groups. Three
groups might dilute the population too much.
--
___ "Reader, suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of
<*,*> Congress. But I repeat myself." -- Mark Twain
[`-']
-"-"- sta...@triskele.com http://www.rahul.net/starowl
--
Cher
> In article <4ioksu$q...@news.wco.com>, theraven <ther...@wco.com> wrote:
> >How about this: first line of defense is a modbot, limiting crossposts to
> >no more than 3 related newsgroups (e.g. soc.religion.pagan, alt.pagan,
> >alt.religion.wicca).
>
> There are more than three related newsgroups, though. The newage
> group, the magickal hierarchy, the alt.religion hierarchy... limiting
> to N crossposts is kinda silly. Totally automating any part of this process,
> except rubberstamp approvals, it inherently quite dangerous. Least
> restrictive means, least restrivive means...
>
Does a human monitor limit the crossposts to 3 related newsgroups, or are
they working on just the content of the information. Thereby, it really
doesn't matter if it is crossposted to any related groups or which ones
as long as they are related. It's the content of the post is what is
important.
Not very long ago we were discussing crossposting pros/cons and it was
made clear to me that it is necessary to crosspost to various related
groups when making announcements, etc.; and not feasible at all to limit
this for this purpose. I was told that the problem was the content of
what is being crossposted, when you have it taken to the extremes (spams,
etc.)
So another question, does the bot have to designate which three
newsgroups it will allow crossposting to; or can it just be set up to
limit the number of newsgroups (anything over three newsgroups will be
rejected)? Again, this will not stop someone from crossposting from two
other non-related newsgroups, but it will reduce the noise level some.
>
(snip)
Black Widow
Cher
> On 20 Mar 1996, theraven wrote:
>
(snip due to space)
> > Flames, as long as on topic or related to a post, are fine with me. I
> > like reading a well written, on-topic flame (i.e. Ounce). Mere name calling
> > doesn't count, although I'm capable of both.
>
> Yes! Yes! Yes! On topic flames should *NOT NOT NOT* be cut out.
I also agree, but I don't think a bot system determines the content of
what is in the posts. Therefore, I think that it means that all flames
would be staying.
(snip)
> > Ravan, disgusted
> b*b
> Brigid
>
Black Widow
Brigid
> >with moderation, and I think I'll avoid it the rest
> >of this lifetime.
> >
> >Hen to Pan,
> >Gwen
> >
> Wow, there seem to be more decries against moderation than for it. I had at
> first thought it would be a good idea, but now I am not so certain. In all
> the time I have been on the net I've never dealt with a moderated group. So
> now I am thinking that whether or not a moderated pagan group turns up, the
> good old alt.pagan should in and of itself remain as it is.
>
> PCVS
<Brigid shakes head.> I've had experience in one moderated newsgroup (am
still there) and things are going fine. And I for one will remain a
newly converted voice for *moderation*. I've been on and off alt.pagan
for over a year now, and the place has really gone downhill. Something
*must* be done, *NOW*! The old alt.pagan will always be here for those
heartier than me who wish to keep fighting. Me, I'm handing in my
walking papers and leaving as soon as a moderated group gets going. If
nothing is done, I will no longer be on alt.pagan or alt.religion.wicca,
which is also going to the dogs.
I see moderation as the only answer.
b*b
Brigid
nwi...@sfsu.edu
Gwen Saylor
>> >Sounds good...keep alt.pagan intact though.
>> Only problem with s.r.p is that it will take, and I'm not kidding,
>> MONTHS to get started. Literal months. We cannot survive that long.
>> An alt.pagan.moderated could be (although 'twould be a breach of nettiquette)
>> created in moments with a properly forged or even -- gasp! -- issued
>> newgroup message. We need software and an m.o. together first, though...
>> -- Lorrie
>I'm also agree with this! In fact, I'm looking so forward to a new
>system that I've started reading, reading, reading, and writing, writing,
>writing; but I won't be posting, posting, posting until the new newsgroup
>is formed. They get lost in all the flames, and like many others we've
>tried desperately to put enough discussion on to compete with all the
>garbage; but it wasn't enough.
>Black Widow
Fine. Just say once and for all that you intend to leave alt.pagan
alone, forming a new group called alt.pagan moderated.
Question: Why did you crosspost to alt.config?
Gwen
Lorrie Wood
The best things in life ... are fantasy. <hrsv...@hrs.gsfc.nasa.gov> wrote:
>
>Wow, there seem to be more decries against moderation than for it. I had at
Actually, I've only seen one person come out against moderation
*at all* so far, and that's Gwen. She's certainly entitled to her
opinion, but she' sin the minority.
Like me, she just posts a lot. 8-)
-- Lorrie
--
Karen McFarlin
<Pine.HPP.3.91.960321...@abyss.ecst.csuchico.edu>, Brigid
<nwi...@ecst.csuchico.edu> wrote:
> On 20 Mar 1996, theraven wrote:
>
> > How about this: first line of defense is a modbot, limiting crossposts to
> > no more than 3 related newsgroups (e.g. soc.religion.pagan, alt.pagan,
> > alt.religion.wicca).
>
> Sounds good to me.
>
> > Flames, as long as on topic or related to a post, are fine with me. I
> > like reading a well written, on-topic flame (i.e. Ounce). Mere name
calling
> > doesn't count, although I'm capable of both.
>
> Yes! Yes! Yes! On topic flames should *NOT NOT NOT* be cut out.
>
> > The fact is, Usenet in general is being buried under trash, and
> > there has got to be a way to stop it, or it will end up like CB radio did
> > when it was no longer required to get a real license - kids and trash.
> > Didn't anyone tell these yahoos that the net is not a toy, or "family"
> > entertainment?
>
> For too many people it is a toy. Just like in the dorms, some people
> consider the fire alarms toys and pull them for the hell of it...
>
> > Ravan, disgusted
>
> Take heart, Ravan, so am I. So am I.
Desperation is far from wisdom. Panic has an ugly smell - like burnt
flesh. Is there some way to turn the "spammers" messages back on
themselves? To make it costly for them to cross-post? Think! I'm not a
technocrat - I don't know a lot about computers - but there must be a way
to reverse the crap. Maybe a group hex with a specific series of key
strokes? Walls will not protect you.
I'd rather fight!
Cairns McPhail; Sola Virtus nobilitat! Claidheamhmor at the ready.
>
> b*b
> Brigid
John P. Raynor
>:
Distribution:
Brigid (nwi...@ecst.csuchico.edu) wrote:
: <Brigid shakes head.> I've had experience in one moderated newsgroup (am
: still there) and things are going fine. And I for one will remain a
: newly converted voice for *moderation*. I've been on and off alt.pagan
: for over a year now, and the place has really gone downhill.
I've got to agree. I've been reading, and periodically posting to,
"Alt.Pagan" at least a couple of years, and I've noticed a real increase
in wasted bandwidth. Although there have always been would-be Christian
missionaries posting their unwanted material (and I strongly suspect there
always will be), the amount of sheer idiot ranting and raving - and
strange crost-posts ("Grillo," "Mentos," and so forth) - has definitely
increased. Moderate moderation would be a good thing. If nothing else,
robotically wiping out cross-posting (except, perhaps, to "Alt.Magick"
and/or "Alt.Religion.Wicca") would be a big step in the right direction,
and would require very little thought or effort. The current
Signal/Noise ratio is just far too low.
- J. Raynor
Donal
>
>On Thu, 21 Mar 1996, Brigid wrote:
>
>
>what is in the posts. Therefore, I think that it means that all flames
>would be staying.
That is correct, but when the flames on a topic have outlived there relevance,
or the flames turn ugly and personal, I would add the thread to the 'bots
killfile. We must remember that everyone in s.r.p. should be friends, or at
least behave in a roughly civil way towards one another, even those that
disagree with them. Hence, even Eros would be welcome, but I will watch his ass
like a hawk! :)
---
Donal, The SysAdmin of The Brewers' Witch BBS <do...@brewich.com>
Proponent: soc.religion.paganism
Donal
>
>Donal <do...@brewich.com> writes:
>
>> I plan to implement a modbot similar to the one in use on
>> soc.religion.unitarian-univ with some personal adjustments to ease
>> the job. It will kill ANY post with more than 2 unrelated
>> newsgroups. (I will keep a list for it of 'approved' newsgroups that
>> MAY be cross-posted to). After that, I will begin adding threads and
>> account names that are AUTOMATICALLY blocked. Also, I will keep a
>> list of account names that are AUTOMATICALLY approved. After that,
>> I will personally review and release all posts that the bot passes
>> to me for review. I will post a daily or weekly summary of all posts
>> that were rejected with user and subject.
>
>soc.religion.paganism. If the RFD for s.r.p ends up much like the
>above paragraph I will not be voting for it. Rejecting spam and
>massively cross-posted articles is easy to do objectively. Going
>beyond that is more difficult and I think could be better handled by a
>small group of moderators working together. This also prevents the
>group from being skewed by the biases of one person.
This is good feedback, and I thank you. One of the options is for me to set up
the bot in such a way that it will accept a limited set of commands for
adjustments to the auto-lists from certain 'trusted' users. These 'trusted'
users would have to be selected in some way but we can surely manage that. As
far as the bias of one person goes, those who know me know that the only bias I
have is one against standing by and watching the international pagan community
lose the only decent place they have had to converse to a bunch of spammers and
guerilla posters. The killed-post summaries will ensure that EVERYONE knows
EXACTLY how I am applying my moderator's powers so that we will NOT have
personal bias involved. How about if I also archive all killed posts for a
certain length of time and allow email-retrieval by ANYONE via a request to the
bot? Would these steps alleviate your misgivings? I truly want to know!
---
Donal, The SysAdmin of The Brewers' Witch BBS
Proponent: soc.religion.paganism
do...@brewich.com
Donal
nwi...@ecst.csuchico.edu says...
>If I may be so bold as to mention his name yet *again*, and agree with
>Lorrie here, Jim Hamp is completely agendaless, and as he's not Pagan and
>has no leanings toward *any* group, he's the perfect moderator. He
>doesn't hate anybody because they're a certain tradition or anything.
>(Whereas I've been in the Craft 4 years now and have definite opinions on
>things.)
I would be vehemently AGAINST handing moderation of our new group to a
non-pagan, no matter HOW unbiased he or she is. I will never kill a post simply
because it is from a non-pagan, but I must insist on this point.
>I think automatic disaprooval (by a bot) for the mass of cross-posts is
>good, but automatic approoval may not be. For example, I post frequently
>to a moderated newsgroup. While most of my posts are fine, occatioanlly
>one may be a bit far off base or topic and will be rejected. And anyway,
>people could use this to worm their way into the group and start trouble
>once they know their posts will be automatically approoved. No,
>automatic approoval would be a bad mistake.
If an approved poster consistently posts inappropritely, she/he could be
removed from the auto-ok list. This would mean I would have to manually ok
their posts until they proved they can be trusted again. If a horribly
off-topic and disruptive thread takes on a life of it's own the thread would be
added to the kill list which would supercede the approved poster list.
Also, ANY killed post would get an email back to the author informing them of
the action taken and the bot's reason for doing so. The post could then be
editted and re-submitted.
Donal
from
>> news.announce.newgroups and am drafting an RFD for soc.religion.paganism
>> (moderated). I hope to have it ready to email to a few old-timers here on >
>
>not what what they do called religion. Let's just stick with
>alt.pagan.moderated. It'll make everyone happy, and be easier to set up.
It is time we had a home in the big 8, and I am prepared to do it.
alt.pagan.moderated would have limited distribution and hence limited effect.
There many sites that no longer even CARRY alt newsgroups,much less allow new
alt groups to be created.
>> I plan to implement a modbot similar to the one in use on
>> soc.religion.unitarian-univ with some personal adjustments to ease the job.
>
>Bots are fine. Just please change the name of the newsgroup.
I understand the reaction to the word 'religion', but it is what we are. This
is not a hobby or a lifestyle, although certainly lifestyle choices are
involved. This is a religious movement and should be treated as such. It is
time that soc.religion had us represented.
>Last I heard, someone was talking to Jim Hamp (the Hampster) about him
>moderating. He *has* volunteed, and as he's graduating from college
>tomorrow, he'll have some time free.
I am sorry, but he is not a SysAdmin so would have limited ability to configure
and run the bot, much less the moderation. Also, as a graduate he may lose his
university account and there would be an intruption in the moderation. I have
been here for almost 5 years now, and plan to be here forever.
One more thing. I know that there is alot of discussion to hash out the way
this will be done, but it WILL be done, one way or another. It is my WILL to do
so, and as I will, so mote it be! I hope that it will become OUR WILL, and I
sincerly hope that, when the time comes, I can count on your vote to help
create this group, in whatever form it is finally proposed.
Blessed Be
---
Donal, The SysAdmin of The Brewers' Witch BBS <do...@brewich.com>
Proponent: soc.religion.paganism
Donal
>
>So another question, does the bot have to designate which three
>newsgroups it will allow crossposting to; or can it just be set up to
>limit the number of newsgroups (anything over three newsgroups will be
>rejected)? Again, this will not stop someone from crossposting from two
>other non-related newsgroups, but it will reduce the noise level some.
The bot I am proposing would have a list of 'approved' newsgroups for
crossposts. These would be VERY liberal. It would count the number of
non-approved newsgroups inthe newsgroups: line and kill a post that exceeded
some preset limit (2 or 3, I should think). THat should do it!
BTW: I just noticed that THIS thread was crossposted to alt.config. I have
removed it from the Newsgroups: line for now, as I do not think the discussion
has reache the point that we need the whole world to be reading it. I will
continue to do so with my other replies to this thread... for now.
hor...@islandnet.com
that people can post non-Pagan-related messages on. I would prefer alt.pagan to be
moderated that forming a soc.religion.paganism newsgroup. Anyway, that's my
two-bits worth.
- Bryony
Moriarty
>
> Actually, I've only seen one person come out against moderation
>*at all* so far, and that's Gwen. She's certainly entitled to her
>opinion, but she' sin the minority.
>
> Like me, she just posts a lot. 8-)
>
>-- Lorrie
is something that is prescribed to those who have a mature and creative
mind. Unfortunately there are not too many left. I guess that I am one
of those people who doesn’t like to be told to be quiet...
Moderation = Censorship = The End of Creativity
Blessings,
Brother Moriarty
___________________________________________________________________________
"I will only complicate you, trust in me and fall as well."
Brother Moriarty 10006...@Compuserve.Com
___________________________________________________________________________
StarOwl
Brigid <nwi...@ecst.csuchico.edu> writes:
>No! Please NOT soc.religion.pananism! Please, there are those who do
>not what what they do called religion. Let's just stick with
>alt.pagan.moderated. It'll make everyone happy, and be easier to set up.
I think you underestimate the propogation challenges faced by new
alt groups. A Big 8 newsgroup would have better propogation, perhaps
even better than alt.pagan already does.
Also, if we were to create an a.p.m, wouldn't there be a problem
with any future change in moderators. If the proposed a.p.m moderator
has to retire a few months after the group's creation, how do you
expect to get a new moderator acknowledged throughout alternet?
I agree that placing the newsgroup in the soc.religion heirarchy
is unfortunate, but any other alternative would likely cause a
formal proposal to fail.
>Last I heard, someone was talking to Jim Hamp (the Hampster) about him
>moderating. He *has* volunteed, and as he's graduating from college
>tomorrow, he'll have some time free.
*chuckle* I thought that when I graduated. Boy was I ever wrong....
StarOwl
>gw...@wave.park.wy.us (Gwen Saylor) writes...
>>I had a rotten time in my long, ugly experience
>>with moderation, and I think I'll avoid it the rest
>>of this lifetime.
>>
>Wow, there seem to be more decries against moderation than for it. I had at
>first thought it would be a good idea, but now I am not so certain.
In the days before robomoderation, in the times before spam, in the
era long-gone that preceeded the never-ending September, and back
before poor propogation was a net.wide problem, many of us
developed a bad taste for moderated groups. Newsgroups moderated
by humans tend to be much slower-paced than the free-for-all
environment that many people like in a moderated newsgroup.
Also, more than one human moderator has been known to let personal
bias show through hir actions.
However, the past few years have seen several new banes popup in
netnews -- spam, and widely crossposted flamefests. We've also
seen several newsgroups adopt some form of robomoderation, to
better handle news traffic, and to reduce claims of biasedness.
I personally still don't like the concept of moderated newsgroups.
Years ago, a few too many of my on-topic posts to one newsgroup
were eliminated by a moderator who disagreed with my views. Even
though I like to try and keep and open mind, I have a bias against
moderated newsgroups...especially ones where controversial topics
are discussed.
However, I dislike spam, trolls, and mega-crossposts even more
than I dislike moderation.
If the moderation guidelines were limited to canceling spam, overly-
crossposted articles, and obvious trolls, I doubt that the restraints
of moderation would chafe too badly...especially considering the
benefits of the increased S/N ratio.
Pan
>
> Desperation is far from wisdom. Panic has an ugly smell - like burnt
> flesh. Is there some way to turn the "spammers" messages back on
> themselves? To make it costly for them to cross-post? Think! I'm not a
> technocrat - I don't know a lot about computers - but there must be a way
> to reverse the crap. Maybe a group hex with a specific series of key
> strokes? Walls will not protect you.
Unix and are on the appropriate machine you can point your mailer to
a target site and send mail every 2-3 seconds. Watch out!
With some newsreader software it is possible to use a killfile, or other
filter.
You can try forwarding the messages to the offender and setting your reply
field and follow up field appropriately.
These methods have failed to have any appreciative effect.
>
> I'd rather fight!
> Cairns McPhail; Sola Virtus nobilitat! Claidheamhmor at the ready.
When it is time to fight ... be sure to pick the time, manner and method.
some info that might be of use:
RFD = Request For Discussion
CFV = Call For Votes
ISP = Internet Service Provider
rogue ISP = an ISP that does not follow UUNET guidelines or requirements
i.e.; maintaining an abuse@_____.___ address,
maintaining a postmaster@_____.___ address
even if these do exist at a site, rogues will bounce mail
rather than read and respond to complaints about their users
At responsible sites, emailing SysAdmin@____.___ is the best
to do. Include a copy, with full headers, of the objectionable
email. Generally, postings to usenet newsgroups is NOT handled
by this method.
newsgroups news.admin.net-abuse.misc
news.announce.newgroups (CFV results are here and elsewhere)
news.answers (source of FAQ's)
advice - There are a number of people who are spamming the net in general.
If you read the news.___ groups, you will learn too soon about this.
Some newsgroups contain nothing but spew from these people and are
their homebases i.e.; news.admin.policy
news.admin.censorship
alt.censorship
alt.culture.usenet
alt.uunet.stock-crash
and others
**** It would help to have a FAQ for this group. When the RFD and CFV
begins there will be people voting who have never participated in
a.pagan. To have a FAQ available to them (and to tell them it is
available) saves time and makes the effort look better.
FAQ's are usually mainted by someone in the group and posted to
news.answers
opinion - Starowl's idea of developing alt.pagan.moderated in parallel
with soc.religion.pagan (or alternative!) is excellent
I've participated in a few CFV's over the years and the move
from alt.___ to alt.____.moderated to comp.___.___ or soc.___.__
is a well trod path.
Moderation can be done well or poorly. How this will be done
should be thoroughly discussed. The use of a bot is a beast of
the same ilk. When it is time to formally propose the new
group it would be better if everyone who cares about alt.pagan
to be ready to actively discuss why it should be formed and be
ready to vote for it.
My personal prefererence is for soc.pagan
Pan
pagan (from [Latin] {paganus - country dweller})
dictionary definiton - One who is not Christian, Muslim, Jew: heathen
lionel pepper
>I'm also agree with this! In fact, I'm looking so forward to a new
>system that I've started reading, reading, reading, and writing, writing,
>writing; but I won't be posting, posting, posting until the new newsgroup
>is formed. They get lost in all the flames, and like many others we've
>tried desperately to put enough discussion on to compete with all the
>garbage; but it wasn't enough.
>Black Widow
Don't you believe it Cher. Despite all the dross in the newsgroup,
the names that do put in sensible, interesting and worhtwhile posts do
get noticed (largely) and your technique of generating new succinct
header lines does at least get your posts read.
I do not have time to spend ploughing through more than a few posts to
alt.pagan, let alone making frequent postings myself, so tend to scan
through very quickly and select only relatively few interesting
headers - it avoids most of the flames and spam but often causes me to
miss something wothwhile. The whole process would greatly benefit
from a moderated group - as soon as possible.
Blithe blessings
lionel
theraven
#
# Desperation is far from wisdom.
Disgust does not equal desperation.
# Panic has an ugly smell - like burnt flesh.
True.
# Is there some way to turn the "spammers" messages back on
# themselves? To make it costly for them to cross-post? Think! I'm not a
# technocrat - I don't know a lot about computers - but there must be a way
# to reverse the crap.
I'm not a geek either. I have asked my sysadmin for suggestions, and I
kiilfile and/or redirect crap to alt.flame and alt.stupidity.
# Maybe a group hex with a specific series of keystrokes? Walls will not
# protect you.
That I'm working on. A binding against non-relevant crossposts,
triggered by to many commas in the newsgroups line, or any crossposts to
alt.christnet.*. However, it is not easy to precisely define what is to be
bound and while not interfering with honest seekers or plain mistakes.
# I'd rather fight!
Find them, first. Most use forged addresses.
# Cairns McPhail; Sola Virtus nobilitat! Claidheamhmor at the ready.
Just be careful where you swing it.
Ravan
"Don't let the bytes bug you"
Communications "decency" protest: This legislation is a fucking
Cher
this:
1) I'm looking for a newsgroups where I can discuss things, have my
own thoughts challenged and ask the numerous questions without all the
tension, frustration, etc. associated with spams, etc. I get enough shit
dumped on me, and have looked to this newsgroup to be one of the havens
of acquiring insight, friendship and even "motherly correction" (although
mother sometimes has a swift hand).
2) I'm looking for a newsgroups that talks about pagan perspectives
on life issues, whether it be fishing, crafts, lifestyles, practices,
beliefs, etc. But I'm not looking for (insert another religion or
philosophy system which is not pagan) perspective, if I wanted one then
I'd join the various newsgroups (alt.fishing, alt.crafts, alt.christnet,
etc.).
If soc.religion.paganism and a bot system will do this, then I'm for it.
I'm not that familiar with the technical ins/outs, and I've only been
exposed to a monitor, so I am a bit nervous about what the bot system
will do. If it improves the current newsgroup half fold, then it is
enough -- if it does more, than it is even better. Perfection will only
depend on the person, as each of us have our own ideas of what would be
perfect... I'm willing to settle for just "better".
I'd hope that the new system will at least change the current posting to
3/4 of the posts to be pagan and the rest crap; rather than the way it is
now (3/4 posts crap and 1/4 pagan). If social.religion.paganism can offer
this, please let me know.
I also have one concern left, and that is with trying to figure out how
to do the first posting. I don't think I could figure it out in this
lifetime, and I'm wondering how many others (new and long time posters) are
like myself, and would not be able to do this also.
Black Widow
NightStalker
>In article <22MAR199...@hrs.gsfc.nasa.gov>,
>>Wow, there seem to be more decries against moderation than for it. I had at
>*at all* so far, and that's Gwen. She's certainly entitled to her
>opinion, but she' sin the minority.
> Like me, she just posts a lot. 8-)
Well, heaven forbid that there be only one against it. :) I, too, am
against moderation. In the almost 6 years that I've been here, the traffic
on the group ranges from 80 to 300 or so messages a day. The higher end
of the scale usually occurs when there is a lot of crossposting, like we
have now.
Each time it gets that high moderation is discussed. And it usually
gets "voted" down. I believe that the last time it was discussed,
alt.religion.wicca ended up being created, in the hopes that mor
discussions on wicca might occur without the spamming.
I started reading alt.pagan because it *was* unmoderated. And I
think that it should remain so. If you are unhappy with the group,
then you are well within your rights to start a new one. But I
think that there are many people out here that haven't voiced an
opinion yet, and that a lot of them are against moderation.
Hawke
*******************************************************************************
"A "practical joker" deserves applause for his wit according to its quality.
Bastianado is about right. For exceptional wit one might grant keelhauling.
But staking him out to an anthill should be reserved for the very wittiest."
- Lazarus Long
wind...@asylum.sf.ca.us
*******************************************************************************
Lance A. Brown
> This is good feedback, and I thank you. One of the options is for me
> to set up the bot in such a way that it will accept a limited set of
> commands for adjustments to the auto-lists from certain 'trusted'
> users. These 'trusted' users would have to be selected in some way
> but we can surely manage that.
This would go a long way towards making me comfortable.
Some notes on my viewpoint: I am the person who honcho'd the creation
of soc.religion.unitarian-univ. I didn't write the original RFD, but
took it over after the first round of revisions to it on UUS-L and ran
it through the RFD/CFV process. This is not a particularly hard
process. I am also one of the Co-Moderators for s.r.u-u at present.
> As far as the bias of one person goes, those who know me know that
> the only bias I have is one against standing by and watching the
> international pagan community lose the only decent place they have
> had to converse to a bunch of spammers and guerilla posters.
Aside: Not exactly true. The Pagan Digest remains a very high
quality discussion forum for pagans worldwide. The only drawback is
it is not as interactive as a newsgroup.
> The killed-post summaries will ensure that EVERYONE knows EXACTLY
> how I am applying my moderator's powers so that we will NOT have
> personal bias involved. How about if I also archive all killed posts
> for a certain length of time and allow email-retrieval by ANYONE via
> a request to the bot? Would these steps alleviate your misgivings? I
> truly want to know!
I am primarily interested in preventing off-topic traffic without
damaging on-topic material. I think having summary data on rejection
patterns, and the current set of filters available on demand via email
would be enough. I don't know of any moderated groups that post
regular summaries of rejected posts.
In Summary: I am strongly FOR a moderated pagan newsgroup handled by
a small group of people operating in a fashion that
prevents one person's viewpoint from skewing what is
considered "on-topic". Moderation should be applied to
limit spam, off-topic traffic, and perhaps maintain a
reasonable level of discourse. Wild flames and heated
personal attacks rarely offer useful information or
dialogue. I guess a mix of the moderation style of
soc.religion.unitarian-univ, soc.religion.shamanism, and
soc.religion.christian is what I want.
Namaste,
--[Lance]
Lance A. Brown
> In article <4ioksu$q...@news.wco.com>, theraven <ther...@wco.com> wrote:
>> How about this: first line of defense is a modbot, limiting crossposts to
>> no more than 3 related newsgroups (e.g. soc.religion.pagan, alt.pagan,
>> alt.religion.wicca).
> There are more than three related newsgroups, though. The newage
> group, the magickal hierarchy, the alt.religion hierarchy... limiting
> to N crossposts is kinda silly. Totally automating any part of this process,
> except rubberstamp approvals, it inherently quite dangerous. Least
> restrictive means, least restrivive means...
The people who helped write the charter and RFD for
soc.religion.unitarian-univ made a deliberate decision to not allow
cross-posted articles in s.r.u-u. This limits the flame wars that
result from cross-posted articles (whether the set of groups posted to
is appropriate or not), and prevents alt.flame trolls and similar
mischief. Combining this with an automatic reject filter for spam
such as MAKE.MONEY.FAST has done a very good job of limiting the
off-topic traffic on s.r.u-u.
I've come to believe that cross-posting to more than about 3 groups is
un-needed and most often cross-posting is not needed at all.
--[Lance]
Cher
> Fine. Just say once and for all that you intend to leave alt.pagan
> alone, forming a new group called alt.pagan.moderated.
>
That's exactly what people are talking about. Leaving alt.pagan intact
and forming another group alt.pagan.moderated or other. The reasons are
numerous, but one is directed at your concerns of censorship. By keeping
alt.pagan intact, then there are no restrictions of any kind; but there
will also be a group where we can discuss things in peace. If there was
only a group called alt.pagan.moderated and not alt.pagan, then I'd be
voicing my opinions to have an alt.pagan created. It gives the best of
both worlds -- we need them both.
> Question: Why did you crosspost to alt.config?
Because servers like mine and others will not accept a new alt group,
unless there is a public demand for it. I've been told that by posting
to alt.config also, then it increases the chance of it being accepted by
your server.
>
> Gwen
>
Black Widow
Donal
>
> Donal, private mails to me have brought up questions about your
>temper and your eagerness to hit the cancel button. Also, the incident
>with a particular raving idiot and some cancel messages came up. As I
>recall, you weren't doing anything particularly bad, but that needs to be
>cleared up in a public forum, so that whispers in back corners do not
>sabotage us all.
OK, for those who were not here 4 years ago when that incident happened, let me
go over the basic points. First off, let me explain something about the
software I am running. I use Waffle BBS software for Unix, although back then I
was using the DOS version. I would receive a news feed via UUCP and the users
woudl read it FROM MY BOX, not through an outside news server. Waffle has a
little 'quirk' regarding CANCEL msgs. Although a user can only CANCEL their own
messages, a SysAdmin (anyone with level 9 privs on my bbs) can CANCEL ANY
message and it will go out to the world, although it does NOT forge the
author's name. This means that MOST news servers will honor it as an
administrative CANCEL.
You are familiar with the "Aryan Brotherhood/Prison Rape" thread? If I remember
correctly it was one of those. I was reading alt.pagan when I saw this message.
It so disgusted and angered me that, without really thinking about it, I
CANCELled it. Since I was logged on as me (level 9) it sent out an
administrative CANCEL message.
When it was brought to me, I immediately issued an apology for the CANCEL but,
due to a screw-up with my feed at the time, the apology never made it to the
world. I, however, did not know that and continued on for several weeks
ignoring all further BS about it because I had already apologized and had no
desire to do so twice. BTW, I apologized for the action, not for my reaction to
the post. It was and is off-topic for alt.pagan and, as moderator, I would kill
it. I just did not have the groups general permission to do what I did AT THAT
TIME.
Anyway, that is pretty much the story. It burned out in a couple weeks and is
almost NEVER mentioned except by that person whenever he shows his face over
here, usually to once again bring up the subject of Prison Rape and the Aryan
Brotherhood (seems to be a PERSONAL topic with him, know what I mean?)
As a result of that incident I made a second public apology and swore to the
group that I would NEVER CANCEL another message in alt.pagan without a very
unanimous request to do so. I have kept that promise for 4 years. Few marriages
last that long these days.
.
> There is, of course, the matter of what some perceive to be an overly
>short temper on your part, I hope that your draft of th RFD will show
>exactly *what* criteria you will use to disallow articles; not only because
>of what some have pointedout in this area, but also in case you are
>unable to run the moderation bot, someone else wil have to be drafted --
>and trusted.
I have no patience for spammers and poseurs, and those who have no stomach to
stand up and say what they really mean. I am standing up and putting
considerable resources where my mouth is. I have watched this thread
(moderation) rise and die repeatedly over the years and have decided that if
someone, like me, does not do something about it it will NEVER happen, so I am
doing it. Does that make me short? Perhaps. There are many demands on my time
and this will be one more.
As to my criteria for moderation? It will be spelled out VERY explicitly in the
group charter. There will also be a MAJOR check in the fact that my bot will
post a killed-post summary daily with msg #, author and subject. Anyone who
wants to can send an email to the bot requesting an email copy of the post (by
msg #) to verify that I am NOT abusing my position. I have NEVER seen a
moderator permit that level of scrutiny over the process, but I will do it.
>>If an approved poster consistently posts inappropritely, she/he could be
>>removed from the auto-ok list. This would mean I would have to manually ok
>>their posts until they proved they can be trusted again. If a horribly
>>off-topic and disruptive thread takes on a life of it's own the thread would
>>be added to the kill list which would supercede the approved poster list.
>
> Again, under which criteria will a thread be added to this kill
>list? Will snowball fights go there? Chocolate rituals? The plan that had
>Hampster as moderator was going to evolve a series of rules to safeguard
>against swelling egos. Who's gonna watch the watchers?
Snowball fights will probably go there. Chocolate rituals will not.
Given the Summary and Archive-Request features, the whole WORLD will be
watching the watcher. (BTW, I should point out that you did not define
"inappropriate post" when you asked my your question. You merely asked "What
would happen if an approved user began consistently posting inappropriately?"
and I answered your question.)
> Will you be the only one at the modbot's reins, Donal? Any one
>person there is inherently dangerous.
No more inherently dangerous than any other system. Initially, I WILL be the
only one at the reins, but I hope to change that after a shakedown period while
I continue to expand and refine the modbot. After that, I should be able to
allow some scheme of co-moderators to assist me.
>>Also, ANY killed post would get an email back to the author informing them of
>>the action taken and the bot's reason for doing so. The post could then be
>>editted and re-submitted.
>
> Good. Also bruited about in e-mail to me was that you, as moderator,
>would have an excellent opportunity to forward FAQ's to people who needed
>FAQ'ing, and thus alleviate that common problem, as well.
I already planned to have some kind of function on the admin interface for the
bot so that I just push a button and automatically reply with the FAQ.
> Would you be willing to do so? It may also entail a file of
>volunteers from a few traditions to help guide newbies. Asking for a FAQ
>should not, obviously, put one on the ok-to-post list unconditionally.
Obviously... :)
--
Donal, The SysAdmin of The Brewers' Witch BBS <do...@brewich.com>
http://www.brewich.com ftp://ftp.brewich.com Proponent: soc.religion.paganism
Houston rep, Council of the Magickal Arts http://www.brewich.com/org/cma
Mike Stalnaker
In article <4j2k88$m...@lurch.sccsi.com>, Donal <do...@brewich.com> wrote:
>In article <Pine.HPP.3.91.960322...@abyss.ecst.csuchico.edu>,
>nwi...@ecst.csuchico.edu says...
>>doesn't hate anybody because they're a certain tradition or anything.
>>(Whereas I've been in the Craft 4 years now and have definite opinions on
>>things.)
>
>I would be vehemently AGAINST handing moderation of our new group to a
>non-pagan, no matter HOW unbiased he or she is. I will never kill a post simply
>because it is from a non-pagan, but I must insist on this point.
Okay. Why? Frankly, it's this narrow view of "The moderator must be
someone with a belief system somewhat similar to mine" that leads to trouble
in the first place.
I'd far rather have someone totally clueless about the topic being moderated,
but CLUEFUL about what needs to be done to moderate a discussion, handle
the job, than someone with a set of beliefs that will, at some point, get
in the way of doing a good job.
--Mike
Brigid
*Any* new newsgroup formed will leave alt.pagan completely untouched. A.p
will always be a.p. We are trying to form a new group--either alt.pagan
moderated, or soc.religion.pagan.
b*b
Brigid
nwi...@sfsu.edu
******************************************************************************
Brigid *"Why is it when you talk to God you're praying,
P.O. Box 591824 * but when God talks to you, you're nuts?"
San Francisco, CA 94159-1824* Monica, in
* _Touched By An Angel_
******************************************************************************
United States Constitution, Amendment 1:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or
prohibiting the free excercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,
or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
petition the Government for a redress of grievances." --Dec. 15, 1791
*NO CENSORSHIP ON THE NET!*
Brigid
> >> I have heard enough talk. I am acting. I have downloaded the how-to docs
> from
> >> news.announce.newgroups and am drafting an RFD for soc.religion.paganism
> >> (moderated). I hope to have it ready to email to a few old-timers here on >
> It is time we had a home in the big 8, and I am prepared to do it.
> alt.pagan.moderated would have limited distribution and hence limited effect.
> There many sites that no longer even CARRY alt newsgroups,much less allow new
> alt groups to be created.
Okay. I have to agree with this. I know that whatever happens, I want my
ystem to carry the new newsgroup.
> I understand the reaction to the word 'religion', but it is what we are. This
> is not a hobby or a lifestyle, although certainly lifestyle choices are
> involved. This is a religious movement and should be treated as such. It is
> time that soc.religion had us represented.
To you and me maybe, but not to *everybody*. Still, I'd be willing if it
made the difference in whether systems carried it or not.
> >Last I heard, someone was talking to Jim Hamp (the Hampster) about him
> >moderating. He *has* volunteed, and as he's graduating from college
> >tomorrow, he'll have some time free.
>
> I am sorry, but he is not a SysAdmin so would have limited ability to configure
> and run the bot, much less the moderation. Also, as a graduate he may lose his
> university account and there would be an intruption in the moderation. I have
> been here for almost 5 years now, and plan to be here forever.
One: I talked to Jim earlier today. His account is changing, but it will
be done within days of this writing. He graduated this past weekend and
it won't take long to get a new account.
As for his not being a SysAdmin, sure, but can't he still help out a great
deal. No, he hasn't been here long, but he plans to stay, and for what
it's worth, I vouch for him. (And I *have* been around for over a year
now and would like to think most people know me.)
How about sharing moderation duties?
b*b
Brigid
nwi...@sfsu.edu
apt...@netcom.com
: Lorrie Wood <lor...@mellers1.psych.berkeley.edu> writes:
: --[Lance]
I like what Lance says. I crosspost to at most, one other group, from
here, and that is alt.religion.wicca. Is there any way to limit
crossposts to specific related groups?
I'd very much like to see a moderated Pagan group. I'd be happoer if
there were co-moderators, so no one person had to carry the whole load,
and no one person could cancel a post on hir own say-so. Even two
co-moderators would keep each other from dominating.
I have no problem with the Hampster as moderator. He's a CHristian,
true, but he's also a magickally inclined, Pag-Symp open mind. He could
be more objective about things than any of us Pagani, I think. I trust
the Hampster and would gladly vouch for him, Gardnerian style.
Donal, on the other hand, is a Pagan. He is also, like me, inclined to
be a bit one-way. He'd be great as a balance to the Hampster. Neither
could overrule t'other, but they would have to come to agreement. Looks
good to me.
Nina
--
Donal
>
>Donal <do...@brewich.com> writes:
>
>> [snip]
>
>of soc.religion.unitarian-univ. I didn't write the original RFD, but
>took it over after the first round of revisions to it on UUS-L and ran
>it through the RFD/CFV process. This is not a particularly hard
I definitely would like to see a copy of the RFD for s.r.u-u, if you could send
it to me? :)
>Aside: Not exactly true. The Pagan Digest remains a very high
>quality discussion forum for pagans worldwide. The only drawback is
>it is not as interactive as a newsgroup.
And you prove my point. Pagan-l is a MODERATED mail-list and it has a very high
signal-to-noise ratio. What we have in alt.pagan today is off the bottom of the
scale.
>would be enough. I don't know of any moderated groups that post
>regular summaries of rejected posts.
But few other groups have the level of paranoia as regards authority that
Pagans in general do, so I feel the summary is a necessity. I can also make the
complete filters available by the same modbot commands that retrieve rejected
posts.
>In Summary: I am strongly FOR a moderated pagan newsgroup handled by
> a small group of people operating in a fashion that
> prevents one person's viewpoint from skewing what is
> considered "on-topic". Moderation should be applied to
> limit spam, off-topic traffic, and perhaps maintain a
> reasonable level of discourse. Wild flames and heated
I assure you that I do plan to eventually disperse the moderation among a pool
of individuals, but initially I feel it must be a one man show... at least
until I get all the bugs out of the bot! :)
Donal
>
>I also have one concern left, and that is with trying to figure out how
>to do the first posting. I don't think I could figure it out in this
>lifetime, and I'm wondering how many others (new and long time posters) are
>like myself, and would not be able to do this also.
That was ONE of the proposed moderation systems, but it is NOT what I am
proposing for soc.religion.paganism. Do not worry. You will just post to it.
Your newserver will automatically forward your post, via email, to the
moderator (Me, probably) and s/he will then approve or reject it and post it.
--
Donal, The SysAdmin of The Brewers' Witch BBS <do...@brewich.com>
http://www.brewich.com ftp://ftp.brewich.com Proponent: soc.religion.paganism
Houston rep Council of the Magickal Arts http://www.brewich.com/org/cma
Baird Stafford
do...@brewich.com (Donal) wrote:
>In article <Pine.HPP.3.91.960322...@abyss.ecst.csuchico.edu>,
>nwi...@ecst.csuchico.edu says...
>>If I may be so bold as to mention his name yet *again*, and agree with
>>Lorrie here, Jim Hamp is completely agendaless, and as he's not Pagan and
>>has no leanings toward *any* group, he's the perfect moderator. He
>>doesn't hate anybody because they're a certain tradition or anything.
>>(Whereas I've been in the Craft 4 years now and have definite opinions on
>>things.)
>
>I would be vehemently AGAINST handing moderation of our new group to a
>non-pagan, no matter HOW unbiased he or she is. I will never kill a post simply
>because it is from a non-pagan, but I must insist on this point.
I'm afraid I'll have to disagree with Donal's position on this one.
Granted, I'm working from a statistically insignificant sample (myself),
but *I* could not guarantee, as sole moderator (were such a thing to happen
which, Powers willing, it never will) not to favor the Craft over Asatru or
any of the myriad solitary faiths. I would not consciously *choose* to
bias my moderation, but so much of my religious training and theosological
meditations have been within that context that it is practically bone-deep
in me. I could guarantee the attempt, in other words, but not the result.
As a result, I am innately suspicious of any neoPagan who claims to be able
to act in a wholly unjudgemental manner when it comes to evaluating the
worth of articles written by persons not of his or her own faith.
On the other hand, I *could* guarantee to be wholly evenhanded when
moderating a xian newsgroup. Disputes of doctrine among 'em are
inconsequential to my view of the world: I truly don't care whether the
Father is of one substance with the Son or not (to use as an example an
ancient, hmm . . . . well, the winners branded it a "heresy"). It seems to
me, therefore, that a non-Pagan might well have an easier time of herding
this passel of cats than would a Pagan.
>>I think automatic disaprooval (by a bot) for the mass of cross-posts is
>>good, but automatic approoval may not be. For example, I post frequently
>>to a moderated newsgroup. While most of my posts are fine, occatioanlly
>>one may be a bit far off base or topic and will be rejected. And anyway,
>>people could use this to worm their way into the group and start trouble
>>once they know their posts will be automatically approoved. No,
>>automatic approoval would be a bad mistake.
>
>If an approved poster consistently posts inappropritely, she/he could be
>removed from the auto-ok list. This would mean I would have to manually ok
>their posts until they proved they can be trusted again. If a horribly
>off-topic and disruptive thread takes on a life of it's own the thread would be
>added to the kill list which would supercede the approved poster list.
I have a great deal of difficulty with this statement, particularly with
the bit about, "until they proved they can be trusted again." Trusted by
whom? To do what? All of us make errors in judgement; and furthermore,
what is doctrine for some of us has been proven time and time again to be
anathema to others. Rejection of a post because the moderator does not,
personally, agree with what may be a believe held honestly and deeply would
seem to me to subvert the intent of a group which is (or should be) meant
to promote rather than squelch discussion. I don't suppose (I *hope*)
Donal didn't mean this the way it sounded, because I'd hate for any
international newsgroup to be nothing more than a reflection of one local
BBS.
>Also, ANY killed post would get an email back to the author informing them of
>the action taken and the bot's reason for doing so. The post could then be
>editted and re-submitted.
>
>---
>Donal, The SysAdmin of The Brewers' Witch BBS
>Proponent: soc.religion.paganism
><do...@brewich.com>
>
Blessed be,
Baird
mark
lor...@mellers1.psych.berkeley.edu (Lorrie Wood) wrote:
> In article <22MAR199...@hrs.gsfc.nasa.gov>,
> The best things in life ... are fantasy. <hrsv...@hrs.gsfc.nasa.gov> wrote:
> >
> >Wow, there seem to be more decries against moderation than for it. I had at
>
> Actually, I've only seen one person come out against moderation
> *at all* so far, and that's Gwen. She's certainly entitled to her
> opinion, but she' sin the minority.
>
> Like me, she just posts a lot. 8-)
>
against moderation for the nearly five years I've been on a.p....but
this is ridiculous. I'd guess that half the posts, for *months*, are
spams.
In email, I've commented on what I suggested a year or two ago: an
automoderator (a program to moderate), which would reject only stuff
that the newsgroup had voted to ban, such as posts with "christ" in
the Newsgroups: line, which would cut out the crossposts from all
of the Xian newsgroups; "limbaugh", which would cut out the Dittohead
attacks, and "kibo", of course, for obvious reasons.
Beyond that, give everyone the benefit of the doubt, and only reject
them after a vote and agreement of the majority of those voting,
over, say, a one-week period.
mark "I agree with what Lorrie says below"
Cher
> Don't you believe it Cher. Despite all the dross in the newsgroup,
> the names that do put in sensible, interesting and worhtwhile posts do
> get noticed (largely) and your technique of generating new succinct
> header lines does at least get your posts read.
>
(snip)>
> Blithe blessings
>
> lionel
>
>
Actually, I don't really believe it; but I do get discouraged and
frustrated from time to time. I don't kill file, because I want to see
what's going on; and believe me there are times that posts look "lost".
Maybe I'm a sucker for punishment, but I can't help feeling that using my
kill file is maybe just another form of turning my back on what is really
happening within the newsgroup. Yes, I can kill file but I also know that
the posts still exist, and I won't know to what extent, who's doing it,
where it is being cross-posted to, etc. It's sort of like making your own
little world which is comfortable, but to do so you have to ignore the
rest of the world. I really don't want to ignore the rest of the world --
it always has a habit of interfering in my tiny little world and ruining
it.
Okay, before everyone who kill files gets upset -- I also understand the
need for having our own comfortable little world. That's one of the
reasons I so desperately want to see a moderated group -- that will be the
safe haven where I can ignore the rest of the world as the need arises.
And, I'm not saying it is wrong or right to kill file either; however, I
am sharing my own reasons for not doing so, whether you agree with them or
not.
Black Widow
Mothermay
> I have no problem with the Hampster as moderator. He's a CHristian,
> true, but he's also a magickally inclined, Pag-Symp open mind. He could
> be more objective about things than any of us Pagani, I think. I trust
> the Hampster and would gladly vouch for him, Gardnerian style.
>
> Donal, on the other hand, is a Pagan. He is also, like me, inclined to
> be a bit one-way. He'd be great as a balance to the Hampster. Neither
> could overrule t'other, but they would have to come to agreement. Looks
> good to me.
>
> Nina
> --
>
This is probably the best solution to the mess we are in that I have heard
so far. I like tag-team moderation.
I DO have one question regarding all the cross-posting: Is it possible,
instead of declaring *which* groups to crosspost to, to limit any
correspondence to having X amount of crosspostings, followups, etc? Is
this a programmable filter? I don't know. Anybody?
"Words are, of course, the most powerful drug used by mankind."
--Rudyard Kipling
_______________________________________________________________
Mothermay may...@buffnet.net
Ailsa Murphy
mark <whit...@gagme.wwa.com> wrote:
>I don't post anywhere *near* as much as I used to...and I've been
>against moderation for the nearly five years I've been on a.p....but
>this is ridiculous. I'd guess that half the posts, for *months*, are
>spams.
>
me neither. the content and clentele changed and it just didn't
feel like home anymore. but like you said, this is riduculous.
>In email, I've commented on what I suggested a year or two ago: an
>automoderator (a program to moderate), which would reject only stuff
>that the newsgroup had voted to ban, such as posts with "christ" in
>the Newsgroups: line, which would cut out the crossposts from all
>of the Xian newsgroups; "limbaugh", which would cut out the Dittohead
>attacks, and "kibo", of course, for obvious reasons.
>
that would be my preference as well, although i would prefer to reject
anything with the string "christ" anywhere in the headers, as well as
anything with "satan" anywhere in the headers. (not because i consider
satanists evil or non-pagan, just because the topic has been done to death.)
and no human moderators at all. anythingt that passes the autobot, passes.
if we still don't like it, oh well. it'll be like the old days, where
every september, we get a bunch of trolls from silly freshmen.
>Beyond that, give everyone the benefit of the doubt, and only reject
>them after a vote and agreement of the majority of those voting,
>over, say, a one-week period.
>
i disagree. many people with valuable insights are also terribly
abrasive, and would probably be kicked by a majority vote (anybody
old enough to remember Clay Bond?). and our abrasive brethren and
sistren have a lot of interesting stuff to contribute too.
> mark "I agree with what Lorrie says below"
>
>> Communications "decency" protest: This legislation is a fucking
>> abortion of justice, passed by cocksuckers interested only in pandering
>> to the twisted, perverse desires of the religious right for control over
>> discussions of tits, cocks, cunts and other "non-approved" subjects.
>
-ailsa, ditto
--
Jack do you never sleep? Does the Green still run deep in your heart?
Or do these changing times, motorways, powerlines, keep us apart?
Well, I don't think so. I saw some grass growing through the pavement today.
- Jethro Tull an...@spdcc.com is Ailsa N.T. Murphy
John Boyne
> I like what Lance says. I crosspost to at most, one other group, from
> here, and that is alt.religion.wicca. Is there any way to limit
> crossposts to specific related groups?
Yes. The only problem with that is when some new group is created that
someone wants to (legitimately) cross-post to or from. Does this new
group get added? By who? When? How? (depends a lot on how you set it up
in the first place). My preference is to list the groups cross-posts
are *not* accepted from, but this is harder since it's a much longer
list.
> I'd very much like to see a moderated Pagan group. I'd be happoer if
> there were co-moderators, so no one person had to carry the whole load,
> and no one person could cancel a post on hir own say-so. Even two
> co-moderators would keep each other from dominating.
Agreed. Three would be better, but more could get clumsy. I prefer odd
numbers of moderators because that way they are less likely to tie in
a vote on any decisions.
> I have no problem with the Hampster as moderator. He's a CHristian,
> true, but he's also a magickally inclined, Pag-Symp open mind. He could
> be more objective about things than any of us Pagani, I think. I trust
> the Hampster and would gladly vouch for him, Gardnerian style.
I'd also trust him. Totally.
> Donal, on the other hand, is a Pagan. He is also, like me, inclined to
> be a bit one-way. He'd be great as a balance to the Hampster. Neither
> could overrule t'other, but they would have to come to agreement. Looks
> good to me.
Sounds good to me too. IMO there should always be more than one moderator,
if nothing else, there is someone to keep at it while one is away or ill
or whatever.
>
> Nina
John
-- />>=- Magic is what we call science
This rubbish is from /< when we don't understand it
John Boyne *[==========((*))||>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>=-
jo...@nuldev.demon.co.uk \< Science is what we call magic
#include <stddisclaimer.h> \>>=- when we think we do...
Brigid
> alt groups. A Big 8 newsgroup would have better propogation, perhaps
> even better than alt.pagan already does.
>
> Also, if we were to create an a.p.m, wouldn't there be a problem
> with any future change in moderators. If the proposed a.p.m moderator
> has to retire a few months after the group's creation, how do you
> expect to get a new moderator acknowledged throughout alternet?
<Brigid bows to the logic.>
> I agree that placing the newsgroup in the soc.religion heirarchy
> is unfortunate, but any other alternative would likely cause a
> formal proposal to fail.
It *is* unfortunate, but I now admit to speaking of something I have no
knowledge of and am sorry. From everythingI'm heard, soc.religion.pagan
may be unfortunate, but is the best idea anyway.
> >Last I heard, someone was talking to Jim Hamp (the Hampster) about him
> >moderating. He *has* volunteed, and as he's graduating from college
> >tomorrow, he'll have some time free.
>
> *chuckle* I thought that when I graduated. Boy was I ever wrong....
He *already* workd full time. He'd just be using the time he used to
spend at night school to help moderate the new group.
b*b
Brigid
nwi...@sfsu.edu
Brigid
> : un-needed and most often cross-posting is not needed at all.
>
> : --[Lance]
I'm been known to post to up to *5* groups, not all of them related, but
all valid to my post. It scares me that I may not be able to do this
anymore under the new group.
> I have no problem with the Hampster as moderator. He's a CHristian,
> true, but he's also a magickally inclined, Pag-Symp open mind. He could
> be more objective about things than any of us Pagani, I think. I trust
> the Hampster and would gladly vouch for him, Gardnerian style.
>
> Donal, on the other hand, is a Pagan. He is also, like me, inclined to
> be a bit one-way. He'd be great as a balance to the Hampster. Neither
> could overrule t'other, but they would have to come to agreement. Looks
> good to me.
>
> Nina
Nina, thank you very much for your kind words. I will let Jim know. I'm
sure he will be honored.
On the subject of opinions now, I, in my not so humble opinion, think
Donal and Jim would be great as co-moderators and balence each other.
*Any* Pagan who moderates this group will have biases, including me if I
was so inclided to moderate, which I *am not*. ;)
And Nina, Jim is more than just sympathetic. In my long talks with him
(yes, I know him personally), he comes across as quite Pagan. Though he
would never use the term on himself, I would call him a Christo-Pagan.
blessings,
Brigid
(who is still here *only* because a moderated group with *trusted*
moderators is needed so badly)
Bob Clevenger
>> Would you be willing to do so? It may also entail a file of
>>volunteers from a few traditions to help guide newbies. Asking for a FAQ
>>should not, obviously, put one on the ok-to-post list unconditionally.
>
>Obviously... :)
Uhh, so what *would* put one on the "OK-to post" list?
I download the headers for this group every day, and get the bodies of
some of them to read. Far too few seem to be worth the time to
download them. Would I be allowed to ask a question? Would I be
allowed to get an answer? Would I have to know three passwords and a
secret? I feel that paganism has a relevance to my life, but I'm not a
religious person; is that OK?
All in all, I think that soc.religion.paganism is a good idea, and you
sound like a good choice for moderator (you're willing to do it!).
-=Bob=- in Ontario, Calif.
NRA, CRPA, SCA, IOOF, N6MLV
Freedom means letting other people do things you don't like.
John Boyne
may...@buffnet.net "Mothermay" writes:
> I DO have one question regarding all the cross-posting: Is it possible,
> instead of declaring *which* groups to crosspost to, to limit any
> correspondence to having X amount of crosspostings, followups, etc? Is
> this a programmable filter? I don't know. Anybody?
Yes. This can be done in any of several ways by a bot. The offending
message can be simply discarded, or it can be automatically returned to
the poster with a short explanation of the reason for bouncing it, or
it can be forwarded to a human moderator to review and take any action
deemed appropriate (including allow it if warranted).
I feel that this would be preferable to limiting cross-posts to specific
groups.
> "Words are, of course, the most powerful drug used by mankind."
> --Rudyard Kipling
> _______________________________________________________________
> Mothermay may...@buffnet.net
>
John
Baird Stafford
wind...@apocalypse.org (NightStalker) wrote:
>lor...@mellers1.psych.berkeley.edu (Lorrie Wood) writes:
>>In article <22MAR199...@hrs.gsfc.nasa.gov>,
>>The best things in life ... are fantasy. <hrsv...@hrs.gsfc.nasa.gov> wrote:
>>>Wow, there seem to be more decries against moderation than for it. I had at
>> Actually, I've only seen one person come out against moderation
>>*at all* so far, and that's Gwen. She's certainly entitled to her
>>opinion, but she' sin the minority.
>> Like me, she just posts a lot. 8-)
>
>Well, heaven forbid that there be only one against it. :) I, too, am
>against moderation. In the almost 6 years that I've been here, the traffic
>on the group ranges from 80 to 300 or so messages a day. The higher end
>of the scale usually occurs when there is a lot of crossposting, like we
>have now.
>
>Each time it gets that high moderation is discussed. And it usually
>gets "voted" down. I believe that the last time it was discussed,
>alt.religion.wicca ended up being created, in the hopes that mor
>discussions on wicca might occur without the spamming.
>
>I started reading alt.pagan because it *was* unmoderated. And I
>think that it should remain so. If you are unhappy with the group,
>then you are well within your rights to start a new one. But I
>think that there are many people out here that haven't voiced an
>opinion yet, and that a lot of them are against moderation.
>
>Hawke
I've "voted" against moderation on a rather regular basis for almost as
long as six years, but always before the moderation seemed designed to
replace rather than supplement alt.pagan. *This* discussion seems to focus
on creating a moderated group "in addition to" not "instead of" ap. Were
we once again discussing the second option ("instead of"), my vote would
again be against. As it is, the proposition seems to me to offer a win/win
scenario, giving me not one but two places in which to discuss matters
important to me.
Blessed be,
Baird
lionel pepper
>I'd very much like to see a moderated Pagan group. I'd be happier if
>and no one person could cancel a post on hir own say-so. Even two
>co-moderators would keep each other from dominating.
>I have no problem with the Hampster as moderator. He's a CHristian,
>true, but he's also a magickally inclined, Pag-Symp open mind. He could
>be more objective about things than any of us Pagani, I think. I trust
>the Hampster and would gladly vouch for him, Gardnerian style.
>Donal, on the other hand, is a Pagan. He is also, like me, inclined to
>be a bit one-way. He'd be great as a balance to the Hampster. Neither
>could overrule t'other, but they would have to come to agreement. Looks
>good to me.
The third potential moderator who should be entered for consideration
is Chris Samuel. Check back - it was Chris who started the ball
rolling on this debate for moderation of alt.pagan.
Chris does have sys-admin experience, is pagan and already has the
moderation experience from running the uk-p...@mono.org list. For
the UK, this is an excellent discussion forum which benefits greatly
from the moderation by the eradication of spams and trolls and by the
general high quality and politeness of discussion amongst pagans (and
the occasional Christian) of fairly disparate beliefs and paths.
The creation of soc.religion.pagan (and I strongly hope that it will
go forward soon) has clearly become desirable as the way to make this
forum sensible and tolerable and to give the 'respectability' that is
less possible with an alt.* newsgroup. Providers and carriers of
newsgroups are sometimes inclined to purge alt.* newsgroups when
seeking to reduce bandwidth or when frightened off by anti-internet
and funie lobbies. My own provider had a purge of the alt.* groups
last year and I lost alt.pagan for a few days whilst waiting for them
to be deafened by the screams of protest. There appears to have been
a similar loss of groups at some of the UK universities this week too.
The creation of a soc. newsgroup for pagans will crearly take some
months and much can change in respect of subscribers and of potential
moderators in that time. I like what I hear about Jim Hamp and the
respect he is attributed as a non-pagan. Donal is also clearly keen
and capable as a potential moderator. Chris Samuel also has the
experience and ability to formulate and configure a screening bot and
to act as moderator or one of a team of moderators.
Blithe blessings,
lionel pepper
Nan Alexander
snip
>am drafting an RFD for soc.religion.paganism
Good idea, even if it takes a while.
>I plan to implement a modbot similar to the one in use on
>soc.religion.unitarian-univ with some personal adjustments to ease the job. It
>will kill ANY post with more than 2 unrelated newsgroups. (I will keep a list
>for it of 'approved' newsgroups that MAY be cross-posted to)
Very good idea.
snip
>After that, I
>will begin adding threads and account names that are AUTOMATICALLY blocked.
>Also, I will keep a list of account names that are AUTOMATICALLY approved.
>After that, I will personally review and release all posts that the bot passes
>to me for review.
snip
Bad idea. IMHO, no matter how you slice it, it's censorship. Plus,
how much will this slow things down? Say, for instance, the Radical
Faeries throw up a last-minute action at the St. Pat's parade, or a
major Pagan gathering is cancelled due to a quirk of Mercury...these
things do happen, and timeliness is important.
BB
>This WILL be done, and done NOW! We cannot survive this BS much longer. PLEASE,
>do NOT send me mail asking to be one of the alpha reviewers. I will choose them
>myself.
>---
>Donal, The SysAdmin of The Brewers' Witch BBS
>Proponent: soc.religion.paganism
><do...@brewich.com> http://www.brewich.com
Larry Caldwell
Brigid <nwi...@ecst.csuchico.edu> wrote:
> I can't killfile with a mainframe system (as far as I know), but I'd be
> willing to hang around and wade for a while if I knew a soc group was
> coming soon.
Almost certainly you can killfile with a mainframe system. Both unix
and VMS have version of trn that support some of the most flexible
killing techniques in all of netdom. You can even kill any post
crossposted to over x number of newsgroups.
Read news.software.readers for details of killfiles.
-- Larry
Donal
>: un-needed and most often cross-posting is not needed at all.
>
>here, and that is alt.religion.wicca. Is there any way to limit
>crossposts to specific related groups?
The bot I have propsed will keep a list of 'approved' or 'related' newsgroups
(alt.religion.wicca, alt.magick.anything, talk.religion.newage,
alt.religion.asatru, etc). Any of these would be allowed but there would be a
limit (1 or 2) outside this list before the bot removed soc.religion.paganism
from the newsgroups line and passed it back to a server.
>I'd very much like to see a moderated Pagan group. I'd be happoer if
>there were co-moderators, so no one person had to carry the whole load,
>and no one person could cancel a post on hir own say-so. Even two
>co-moderators would keep each other from dominating.
No matter how you set it up, only one moderator is needed to kill one post. The
bot would, however, randomly disperse the posts amongt the list of moderators
and would publish reports of who is killing what so EVERYONE can watch.
>I have no problem with the Hampster as moderator. He's a CHristian,
>true, but he's also a magickally inclined, Pag-Symp open mind. He could
>be more objective about things than any of us Pagani, I think. I trust
>the Hampster and would gladly vouch for him, Gardnerian style.
>
>Donal, on the other hand, is a Pagan. He is also, like me, inclined to
>be a bit one-way. He'd be great as a balance to the Hampster. Neither
>could overrule t'other, but they would have to come to agreement. Looks
>good to me.
Please do not ascribe your biases to me. I am opinionated when it is only my
opinion, but I have taken great pains to reman neutral in the administration of
my BBS and would do likewise with soc.religion.paganism.
It is like the judge that, when asked for his opinion, said that so long as he
has the robes on he HAS no opinion.
--
Donal, The SysAdmin of The Brewers' Witch BBS <do...@brewich.com> (713)272-7350
Donal
>
>In article <4j2k88$m...@lurch.sccsi.com>,
>do...@brewich.com (Donal) wrote:
>
>>I would be vehemently AGAINST handing moderation of our new group to a
>>non-pagan, no matter HOW unbiased he or she is. I will never kill a post
simply
>
>>because it is from a non-pagan, but I must insist on this point.
>
>I'm afraid I'll have to disagree with Donal's position on this one.
>Granted, I'm working from a statistically insignificant sample (myself),
>but *I* could not guarantee, as sole moderator (were such a thing to happen
>which, Powers willing, it never will) not to favor the Craft over Asatru or
I have convinced by others that my original statement on this subject was a
little to quick. I would have to say that, after reflection, I could accept a
non-pagan as one of a group of moderators,but the majority of the moderators
should always be Pagan.
>>If an approved poster consistently posts inappropritely, she/he could be
>>removed from the auto-ok list. This would mean I would have to manually ok
>>their posts until they proved they can be trusted again. If a horribly
>>off-topic and disruptive thread takes on a life of it's own the thread would
>>added to the kill list which would supercede the approved poster list.
>
>I have a great deal of difficulty with this statement, particularly with
>the bit about, "until they proved they can be trusted again." Trusted by
>whom? To do what? All of us make errors in judgement; and furthermore,
You miss the point, and the original question. She asked, "How would you habdle
a person who is ON the approved list but who begins constantly posting
inappropriate posts?" Within that context I said that I would remove them from
the auto-approve list,meaning a live moderator would have to look at them.
There is only so much intelligence I can program into a 'bot! :)
Even then, the action to remove a user from the auto-approve list would be
taken only after warnings that they were posting inappropriately.
>what is doctrine for some of us has been proven time and time again to be
>anathema to others. Rejection of a post because the moderator does not,
>personally, agree with what may be a believe held honestly and deeply would
>seem to me to subvert the intent of a group which is (or should be) meant
>to promote rather than squelch discussion. I don't suppose (I *hope*)
>Donal didn't mean this the way it sounded, because I'd hate for any
>international newsgroup to be nothing more than a reflection of one local
>BBS.
This is why I have added the summary report tothe 'standard' modbot approach.
The summary report would tell EVERYONE exactly what is being killed and whym
and by whom. Also, any user could request from the 'bot, via email, and message
listed on the report.
These measure are to ensure that no moderator, me or anyone else, ever gets
into a position of having the freedom to fall into bad editorial habits. The
readers will keep us in line.
Lance A. Brown
> The only drawback is that it will take six months to create a
> Big 7 group.
Not quite. The minimum time I would say is somewhere around 65 to 90
days. This is from the first posting of the RFD in
news.announce.newgroup to when tale posts the newgrp message. If
there is a lot of discussion and re-hashing of the RFD and charter of
the newgroup things will take longer.
--[Lance]
Catherine L Bond
moderated group and are also quoting the First Amendment in
your .sig file??
;-)
Cathy, who is kinda an old fart, who only drops in
occasionally, who thinks the whole thing might be solved by
*ignoring* the spammers and raising the signal to noise ratio
in general. But if you do form a new group - someone e-mail me?
--
Catherine Bond
*****************************************************************************
cb...@leo.vsla.edu Library of Virginia, Richmond, VA
Standard disclaimers apply. Non-standard disclaimer:This is not an artichoke.
mark
ofalt.pagan! (Now, lessee, was your Sacred Food dark chocolate, or
semi-sweet?)
In article <DowAI...@spdcc.com>, an...@spdcc.com (Ailsa Murphy) wrote:
> In article <LZyVxUv1...@gagme.wwa.com>,
> mark <whit...@gagme.wwa.com> wrote:
>
> >I don't post anywhere *near* as much as I used to...and I've been
> >against moderation for the nearly five years I've been on a.p....but
> >this is ridiculous. I'd guess that half the posts, for *months*, are
> >spams.
> >
> me neither. the content and clentele changed and it just didn't
> feel like home anymore. but like you said, this is riduculous.
It just happened in the last three or four months. Lorrie suggests
that it is actually an attack from alt.syntax.tactical. I've checked
that newsgroup, and if it is, the real scum seem have moved to somewhere
else.
> >In email, I've commented on what I suggested a year or two ago: an
> >automoderator (a program to moderate), which would reject only stuff
> >that the newsgroup had voted to ban, such as posts with "christ" in
> >the Newsgroups: line, which would cut out the crossposts from all
> >of the Xian newsgroups; "limbaugh", which would cut out the Dittohead
> >attacks, and "kibo", of course, for obvious reasons.
> >
> that would be my preference as well, although i would prefer to reject
> anything with the string "christ" anywhere in the headers, as well as
> anything with "satan" anywhere in the headers. (not because i consider
> satanists evil or non-pagan, just because the topic has been done to death.)
Well, I'll disagree, since there *have* been reasonable and relevant
posts. CristoPagans with concerns (like Amanda) for example, or the
folks who really are seriously looking for a clue. I, personally,
would agree with the Satan business, since half or two-thirds of
the posts with that are spams or BRUN IN HAYULL, and the rest is
the same stuff over'nover'nover'nover, but some of 'em do have legit
discussions, and I don't feel that I have the right to do more than
hit 'n'.
> and no human moderators at all. anythingt that passes the autobot, passes.
> if we still don't like it, oh well. it'll be like the old days, where
> every september, we get a bunch of trolls from silly freshmen.
>
> >Beyond that, give everyone the benefit of the doubt, and only reject
> >them after a vote and agreement of the majority of those voting,
> >over, say, a one-week period.
> >
> i disagree. many people with valuable insights are also terribly
> abrasive, and would probably be kicked by a majority vote (anybody
> old enough to remember Clay Bond?). and our abrasive brethren and
> sistren have a lot of interesting stuff to contribute too.
Don't remember Bond, but Michael and Tim are out there. Dunno if this
has shown up in a post, but I *do* object to the "no ad hominem" clause
of the charter for exactly that reason.
mark
> apt...@netcom.com said...
> >Lance A. Brown (lab...@dg-rtp.dg.com) wrote:
> Please do not ascribe your biases to me. I am opinionated when it is only my
> opinion, but I have taken great pains to reman neutral in the administration of
> my BBS and would do likewise with soc.religion.paganism.
>
> It is like the judge that, when asked for his opinion, said that so long as he
> has the robes on he HAS no opinion.
Donal,
there's only one problem with the above: what happens when your system
crashes again, or you and your family get an offer you can't refuse,
and move, or you just get burned out from overwork, and someone else
takes over? Will all of us trust *them* to be as honorable as you?
*This* is the reason that several folks here have been chary of accepting
you as the "first among equals". And please, *don't* say that none of
the above will ever happen. I've told the same thing to someone else,
in a different situation, and they laughed it off...and they stayed
in the position, *after* they were burned out, and the group suffered
for it. Consider this, if you will, some concern for you and your
family: do you *really* want all the work that a.p. will involve,
forever taking you away from work and your family?
mark, the Silverdragon
Green
mi...@mellers1.psych.berkeley.edu "Mike Stalnaker" writes:
> I'd far rather have someone totally clueless about the topic being moderated,
> but CLUEFUL about what needs to be done to moderate a discussion, handle
> the job, than someone with a set of beliefs that will, at some point, get
> in the way of doing a good job.
Careful here. If a moderator is totally clueless about the topics of
Paganism, he or she may have a problem with light hearted postings
dealing with in-jokes amongst the Pagan community. We may lose
postings here and there because the moderator failed to recognise
valid submissions.
Maybe someone with a purely acedemic interest and a relatively
agnostic belief system could do the job.
******************************************* QUOTE OF THE DAY*****************
* You have just read the opinons of : * "Get him away from the kids!" *
* * --Jarvis Cocker, during his *
* --____GUIDION____-- * invasion of a performance *
* --_______-- * by Michael Jackson. *
* * *
**** You may need to go and lie down******* *
___Note. In the interests of communications decency, this sig. file contains
the words 'fuck', 'wank', 'anal warts' and 'Buchanan'.
Donal
>
>Donal,
>
> there's only one problem with the above: what happens when your system
>crashes again, or you and your family get an offer you can't refuse,
>and move, or you just get burned out from overwork, and someone else
>takes over? Will all of us trust *them* to be as honorable as you?
>
>*This* is the reason that several folks here have been chary of accepting
>you as the "first among equals". And please, *don't* say that none of
>the above will ever happen. I've told the same thing to someone else,
>in a different situation, and they laughed it off...and they stayed
>in the position, *after* they were burned out, and the group suffered
>for it. Consider this, if you will, some concern for you and your
>family: do you *really* want all the work that a.p. will involve,
>forever taking you away from work and your family?
Well, ANY system that can run Perl will be able to run the bot when I am
finished with it. As far as burnout, wait till you see the full RFD. The bot
will be doing much of the work, and the live moderation will be spread among at
least 5 ModKin (moderators). What MIGHT burn me out is the initial writing of
the bot, but I think I can handle THAT part! :)
Even if I decide I do not want to be a ModKin anymore, the bot can run almost
unattended on my system (or anyone elses) and ModKin can telnet in to edit/fix
the modbot as needed.
Like I said, wait till you see the RFD (in another few days, I think).
Blessed Be!
--
Donal, The SysAdmin of The Brewers' Witch BBS <do...@brewich.com> (713)272-7350
http://www.brewich.com ftp://ftp.brewich.com Proponent: soc.religion.paganism
Houston rep, Council of the Magickal Arts http://www.brewich.com/org/cma
Ailsa Murphy
mark <whit...@gagme.wwa.com> wrote:
>ailsa! Our own, dearly-beloved one-thirdofthedulyelectedtriplenet.ghoddess
>ofalt.pagan! (Now, lessee, was your Sacred Food dark chocolate, or
>semi-sweet?)
>
dark, if i remember right. also, i'm the mom, but i don't remember how
the other two divvied up who got to be virgin & who got to be crone.
do you?
>In article <DowAI...@spdcc.com>, an...@spdcc.com (Ailsa Murphy) wrote:
>> In article <LZyVxUv1...@gagme.wwa.com>,
>> mark <whit...@gagme.wwa.com> wrote:
>
>> >Beyond that, give everyone the benefit of the doubt, and only reject
>> >them after a vote and agreement of the majority of those voting,
>> >over, say, a one-week period.
>> >
>> i disagree. many people with valuable insights are also terribly
>> abrasive, and would probably be kicked by a majority vote (anybody
>> old enough to remember Clay Bond?). and our abrasive brethren and
>> sistren have a lot of interesting stuff to contribute too.
>
>Don't remember Bond, but Michael and Tim are out there. Dunno if this
>has shown up in a post, but I *do* object to the "no ad hominem" clause
>of the charter for exactly that reason.
well, after much lobbying on my part, it was removed. *grin* with
NO trace of self-interest on my part, REALLY!
>>
> mark "I agree with what Lorrie says below"
>> >
>> >> Communications "decency" protest: This legislation is a fucking
>> >> abortion of justice, passed by cocksuckers interested only in pandering
>> >> to the twisted, perverse desires of the religious right for control over
>> >> discussions of tits, cocks, cunts and other "non-approved" subjects.
>> >
>>
>> -ailsa, ditto
>>
-ailsa
The best things in life ... are fantasy.
After reading and considering the arguments for and against some sort of
moderated group name TBD, I have concluded that s.r.p. is the way to go
if only because it is more likely to be carried by most systems. alts are
not a stable lifeform in many places and I do think that is not a minor
consideration. As to the form of the moderation, it seems to me that a bot
filter with human moderators behind them would be the perfect combination.
As to who would be the human moderators, it obviously should be people who
are not of the same POVs, but who are fair and responsible. who are these
folks? Let's look at the posting histories of the volunteers and proposed
candidates. That should give us some idea of how they will act. Further, I'm
not entirely convinced it is as necessary as it is desireable that at least
one of the moderators has some bot or related experience. There may be folks
who would like to give time to writing the bot and maybe doing some of the
maintainace, but may not necessarily wish to devote further time to human
moderation tasks. Is this clear as mud. Well, IMHO anyway.
PCVS
DanaMorgan
Ailsa! Lorrie! Silverdragon! Aahh, to miss hot-tubbing with y'all.
Good luck with the "who's the moderator" issues -- after 18 months
gone, I've got no vote coming! But one more word of concern for
this group that I miss ... canna d/l it all for S/N ratio, as has been
mentioned. But really *do* miss the minds here present, and the
discussions of substance (and the chocolate hot tubs!).
To moderate? To create a bottleneck, perhaps. Though a team
approach would seem to be A Good Thing.
To create a new group? How well did alt.religion.wicca do at that?
Last time I checked, their S/N ration was pretty iffy too ... ??
A word of hope from the CB-land ... now that the kids are gone,
the community is back and still strong as it ever had been! So
perhaps there is some hope after all.
Blessings all round -- :Dana
(f/k/a FC...@Cleveland.Freenet.edu, now DanaM...@aol.com)
Lynn Calvin
x-post to be developed? There are lots of Unitarian Universalist
Pagans . . . Of course, I think that the UU bot posts messages that
are cross posted with all the other groups stripped away so that no
*thread* can be cross posted. (Lance, is that the correct description
of what happens?)
ther...@wco.com (theraven) wrote:
>Lorrie Wood wrote on 22 Mar 1996 09:24:55 GMT:
># In article <4ioksu$q...@news.wco.com>, theraven <ther...@wco.com> wrote:
># >How about this: first line of defense is a modbot, limiting crossposts to
># >no more than 3 related newsgroups (e.g. soc.religion.pagan, alt.pagan,
># >alt.religion.wicca).
>#
># There are more than three related newsgroups, though. The newage
># group, the magickal hierarchy, the alt.religion hierarchy... limiting
># to N crossposts is kinda silly.
Lynn Calvin
lca...@interaccess.com
Lorrie Wood
Lynn Calvin <lca...@interaccess.com> wrote:
>Um. . . raises hand timidly, how would the list of ok newsgroups to
>x-post to be developed? There are lots of Unitarian Universalist
>Pagans . . . Of course, I think that the UU bot posts messages that
>are cross posted with all the other groups stripped away so that no
>*thread* can be cross posted. (Lance, is that the correct description
>of what happens?)
That's probably what it does, but I know for a fact that s.r.u-u
doesn't allow any cross-posts. A shame, really, but it's effective.
Our plan will be to have a list of approved news groups, which I
think at the moment consists of alt.religion.*, alt.magick.*, alt.pagan,
and a couple of the soc.religion groups. And talk.religion.newage, I
think, but I'm not sure.
Anything crossposted to more than one group not on this list
will be sent to a human moderator (randomly selected from the group). They
can either reject it (which will post to all gropus *but* srp on
the message headers) or accept it. Also, the subject and message-id
will be stored so that follow-ups to that topic will be automatically
approved until it wanders off-topic (where it will start getting
killed-on-sight and sent once more to all groups but srp), or nothing
has been posted to it for a week of more (where it will be removed
from the list of auto-approved topics).
Superceding this rule is the one that says that all approved
posters can post wherever they damn well please, including alt.bigfoot
or whatever. Being an approved poster is easy -- any of the modkin will
be able to do it (or undo it, or do it again, etc), and all regular
posters should find it quite easy. That way, legitimate discussion
can be discussed at the fastest speed possible, questionable discussion
can be reviewed and then let on or booted, and for-real evil shit
(MMF, proselytizing, etc) can be rejected.
Let me make this clear: I *HATE* moderation. It's a whitewash
for censorship in any form, and not even that at worst. I'm on the
proposed list of mdoerators for soc.religion.pagan because I wanna
see it happen by the *least restrictive means* possible. Which means
filtering the most utter crap for the least cost in real signal.
If you have any ideas about what should be, or not be, in
this group, I invite you to send your ideas, comments, and questions
to srp-...@brewich.com. It'll send to all of us who're in charge
of this proposition, and we need your input! This ain't no oligarchy.
Hopefully, it never will be.
-- Lorrie
--