[PROPOSAL] Create moderated version of ba.broadcast, ba.broadcast.moderated
Mark Roberts
ba.broadcast.moderated Bay Area TV/Radio issues. (Moderated)
From the original 1992 ba.broadcast charter by Eliot Lear
<le...@yeager.corp.sgi.com>:
"This group is here for discussions, comments and program reminders about
broadcast media in the San Francisco Bay Area, both radio and
television. It also includes cable systems and TVRO/BCRO in the SF Bay
Area. It does not include scanner, ham radio or other action here in
the SF Bay Area; these may be addressed in another newsgroup at another
time. Issues of national interest should be posted to one of the groups
in rec.arts.tv or rec.radio."
Proposed 2009 updates to original ba.broadcast charter for
ba.broadcast.moderated:
The purpose of the newsgroup is to discuss the practice of broadcasting,
including programming, sales and management, engineering, broadcast
technology, and emerging trends and technologies in broadcasting and
related media.
This group is intended as a moderated alternative to the existing
newsgroup ba.broadcast. Moderation will be utilized to enforce civil
tone and on-topic content, including rejection of inappropriate
articles, and closing of existing threads if they become sufficiently
uncivil or off-topic. Uncivil tone includes insults, name-calling, and
other ad hominem attacks. Off-topic content includes that not
reasonably related to the practice of broadcasting in the Bay Area. For
example, articles that discuss how a radio host runs his or her show
would be considered on-topic. Articles that are entirely about the
contents of radio or TV shows (except in those instances where the
subject matter is actually about radio or TV) would be considered
off-topic. Such articles should instead be submitted to
alternative forums.
In addition, the following are prohibited:
* Chain letters.
* Posts in HTML.
* SPAM.
* Binaries, apart from PGP signatures, X-Face headers, and other
ancillary article meta-data.
* Forgery of valid e-mail addresses.
* Excessive morphing/nym-shifting.
* Copyright violations. Pointers to news articles, blogs, etc. on
this topic are welcome but are required to comply with fair use
standards.
* Personal attacks and flames, as defined by the moderation team.
* Links to "objectionable" web content, including pornographic sites,
sites encouraging illegal activities, or sites deemed unacceptable
by the moderation team. The moderation team will cursorily check
the contents of specific links to confirm on-topic content, but
acceptance for posting does not imply endorsement or approval of
the entire present or future contents of that web site.
* Discussion of moderation decisions. See below for information on
appealing moderator action.
Implementation and management of this new newsgroup:
If approved by the readership, the new newsgroup will be created by a
standard, PGP-signed, Usenet newgroup control message sent by the
Bay-Area Managed Hierarchy (ba.*) Administrator, Ron Escheverri:
http://usenet.trigofacile.com/hierarchies/index.py?see=BA
Usenet sites that accept such control messages automatically will create
the newsgroup immediately. Readers at other sites are requested to ask
their local administrators to create the new newsgroup manually after
the newgroup control message is posted. The moderation team will be
available to assist with this.
In order to minimize duplication of articles, and encourage wider
propagation of the new moderated newsgroup, simultaneous crossposting
between ba.broadcast and ba.broadcast.moderated will be encouraged.
Participation in this simultaneous crossposting scheme is completely
voluntary. Posters of initial articles in threads will make the
voluntary choice to add ba.broadcast.moderated and one other unmoderated
newsgroup to the Newsgroups line when posting. Those following up to
these crossposted threads will make a voluntary choice whether to keep
ba.broadcast.moderated or any other newsgroup on the Newsgroups line, or
remove them. Followups may be directed by default to any subset of the
newsgroups on the Newsgroups line (or via E-mail to "poster") by
specifying them on an appropriate Followup-To line. In short, the
readers will control what they post, where they post it, and what
default destinations they want for any followups. This proposed
crossposting scheme does not change any of these long-standing features
of Usenet and newsreader software.
The ba.broadcast.moderated moderation team will use the Secure,
Team-Based Usenet Moderation Program (STUMP) to manage the newsgroup:
http://www.algebra.com/~ichudov/stump/
To reduce the risks of technical problems and delayed or lost articles
during this proposed newsgroup's startup, the moderation team will set
up initial moderation services at Public-Access Internet and Unix, New
York City (Panix):
for the cost of $100/year. Panix already hosts several other Usenet
newsgroup moderation teams running STUMP. Members of the consultation
team below will assist with this initial installation.
Services in the Bay area were evaluated, but the team felt that they
could not be stood up quickly enough, offer necessary technical features
such as installed software tools and web site hosting like Panix, be
cost-competitive with Panix, be as reliable as Panix, or offer technical
support as responsive as Panix. Starting up at Panix for the first year
will give us 12 months of breathing room, and a reliable backup, while
we continue to seek out and evaluate Bay-area alternatives for
moderation software hosting. Further suggestions about reliable
Unix-shell Internet account services in the Bay area that could meet our
technical requirements and budget would be welcome.
The STUMP robot (or "'bot") will scan all submitted posts. Each post
will be either automatically approved, rejected, or sent to the
moderators for manual review. The moderator 'bot will enforce the
following guidelines:
* Postings must be in plain text. In particular no HTML or mixed text
and HTML posts will be allowed. Messages that are
multipart/alternative will be automatically filtered to pass just
the text/plain version to the newsgroup.
* No binary postings of any sort will be accepted. Exceptions will be
made for cryptographic signatures and such.
* Messages must not continue a thread that has been "closed" by the
moderators.
Individual posters may be temporarily banned for consistently violating
the group charter. Posters who feel that their posts have been unfairly
rejected or banned, either for specific content or by a specific
moderator, may appeal the decision. They may do so by writing the
moderation team at the Administrative Contact address below. The
moderation team will discuss and vote on the appeal and respond within
14 days if the appeal is successful. The moderation team will also
reply within 14 days to unsuccessful submitters of any appeal that is
on-topic, reasoned, civilly stated, and is not substantially an attempt
to revisit the subject matter and arguments of a previous unsuccessful
appeal.
Multiple temporary bans, attempting to circumvent the ban, or abuse of
the appeal system may result in a permanent ban.
Initial Moderation Team:
Patty Winter <pat...@wintertime.com>
Mark Roberts <bab...@cosmos-monitor.com>
John Higdon <hi...@kome.com>
Temporary Volunteer Moderators:
(These temporary volunteers have agreed to serve for the first 6-12
months of the newsgroup's life, during which time a list of pre-approved
or "white-listed" users will be built based on approved submissions, and
additional moderators will be recruited from the Bay-Area broadcast
community.)
Steve Bonine <s...@pobox.com> (Moderator of news.groups.proposals)
Kathy Morgan <kmo...@aptalaska.net> (Co-Chair of Big-8 Board)
Consultants:
Paul W. Schleck <psch...@novia.net>
Phil Kane <phil...@nov.shmovz.ka.pop>
Article Submissions: ba-broadcas...@panix.com
Administrative Contact: ba-broadcast-mo...@panix.com
Proponent:
Mark Roberts <bab...@cosmos-monitor.com>
Change History:
2009-05-30 1st RFD
2009-06-10 Posted to ba.broadcast and ba.config
--
Mark Roberts
Stratum101
> Initial Moderation Team:
>
> Patty Winter <pat...@wintertime.com>
> Mark Roberts <babc...@cosmos-monitor.com>
> John Higdon <hi...@kome.com>
Just go, hideous people. And don't
come back. Having idiots like Eunice
and Higgerton as censors is beyond
belief. I'm glad to have done my part in
driving them away.
Wait, you deserve some kind of theme. For
a word portrait, I give you 16-year-old
Stephen Dedalus sitting in dread while
a celibrate priest long past his physical
prime lectures guilt-ridden adolescent boys
on sins of the flesh, particularly the act (never
explicitly stated) of masturbation.
For a picture portrait, I give you
Grant Wood's "American Gothic".
--
A pair of tornados passed
over here at 7:15 pm, CDT. Interesting.
I went outside after an EBS alert
on KERA-FM, scanned the sky and
saw a roundish, low black cloud moving
rapidly east-northeastward directly toward me,
and decided it was probably a tornado in
formation. However, I could not
see any rotation. I went back inside and
suddenly noticed a terrific gust outside that
blowing leaves horizontally past my window.
Lasted maybe 30 seconds accompanied by
extremely heavy rain that lasted another 15
minutes. Some component of the wind was caused
by rain pressure, but the velocity was
great enough to be dangerous to
stand any further where I'd been
standing a minute earlier.
Everyone else saw it too. It did some minor
damage just west and east of here.
See www.wfaa.com for details.
They're all talking about a 2.7 earthquake
that "rocked" the Dallas-Ft Worth area yesterday.
Not quite as fascinating to me.
mjdix
> For your newsgroups file:
> ba.broadcast.moderated Bay Area TV/Radio issues. (Moderated)
>
> From the original 1992 ba.broadcast charter by Eliot Lear
>
> "This group is here for discussions, comments and program reminders about
> broadcast media in the San Francisco Bay Area, both radio and
> television. It also includes cable systems and TVRO/BCRO in the SF Bay
> Area. It does not include scanner, ham radio or other action here in
> the SF Bay Area; these may be addressed in another newsgroup at another
> time. Issues of national interest should be posted to one of the groups
> in rec.arts.tv or rec.radio."
>
> Proposed 2009 updates to original ba.broadcast charter for
> ba.broadcast.moderated:
>
> The purpose of the newsgroup is to discuss the practice of broadcasting,
> including programming, sales and management, engineering, broadcast
> technology, and emerging trends and technologies in broadcasting and
> related media.
>
I have an alternative and perhaps simpler and cheaper suggestion,
based on an offer Mr. Higdon made the other day:
Create a local group that exists only on his newsgroup server. (E.G.
kome.broadcast) Then let every one of the elect have access to John's
server. This assumes most people are running a newsreader that permits
multiple hosts.
No need to moderate: If someone acts up, kick him off and change the
password.
spamtrap1888
> ba.broadcast.moderated Bay Area TV/Radio issues. (Moderated)
>
> From the original 1992 ba.broadcast charter by Eliot Lear
I tried to reply to this yesterday; sorry if it shows up twice:
The goal is to have a ba.broadcast group with a high signal-to-noise
ratio. Participants in the chi.* hierarchy solved the problem a
different way. One of the participants set up a server to propagate
new, local groups. Trustworthy participants were invited to join, and
given the password. Participants had to use newsreaders that didn't
balk at multiple newshosts, of course.
Now, Mr. Higdon had volunteered to let people dispossessed by att use
his newsserver. All that he would have to do to achieve the effect of
a moderated newsgroup, is create a local newsgroup on his server, say,
"kome.broadcast", and give the password to trusted people.
Participants could reimburse John for his costs.
No one would have to pay a hosting company, or take on the task of
reading messages. If an invitee abused the privilege, he could be
booted off. The password would be changed, and the new password sent
to the good guys. Participants could reimburse John for his costs.
Angie
Angie
cop...@hotmail.com
> ba.broadcast.moderated Bay Area TV/Radio issues. (Moderated)
>
> From the original 1992 ba.broadcast charter by Eliot Lear
> John Higdon <hi...@kome.com>
>
> Temporary Volunteer Moderators:
>
> (These temporary volunteers have agreed to serve for the first 6-12
> months of the newsgroup's life, during which time a list of pre-approved
> or "white-listed" users will be built based on approved submissions, and
> additional moderators will be recruited from the Bay-Area broadcast
> community.)
>
> Steve Bonine <s...@pobox.com> (Moderator of news.groups.proposals)
>
> Consultants:
>
> Paul W. Schleck <pschl...@novia.net>
> Phil Kane <phil.k...@nov.shmovz.ka.pop>
>
> Article Submissions: ba-broadcast-modera...@panix.com
> Administrative Contact: ba-broadcast-moderated-requ...@panix.com
>
> Proponent:
>
> Mark Roberts <babc...@cosmos-monitor.com>
>
> Change History:
>
> 2009-05-30 1st RFD
> 2009-06-10 Posted to ba.broadcast and ba.config
>
> --
> Mark Roberts
yay!!!!
chris319
new group, or is it if one has to ask, he isn't permitted?
Mark Roberts
| On Jun 10, 8:17 pm, Mark Roberts <babcast-propo...@gmail.com> wrote:
|
| > Initial Moderation Team:
| >
| > Patty Winter <pat...@wintertime.com>
| > Mark Roberts <babc...@cosmos-monitor.com>
| > John Higdon <hi...@kome.com>
|
| Just go, hideous people. And don't
| come back. Having idiots like Eunice
| and Higgerton as censors is beyond
| belief. I'm glad to have done my part in
| driving them away.
Is this a comment in favor of ba.broadcast.moderated, or against
it? Aside from that, it seems your argument is ad hominem in
nature. If you have issues with any of the individuals listed
above, including me, I would recommend that you bring it up to us
directly and specifically in e-mail. This discussion isn't the
place for that.
--
Mark Roberts - E-Mail address is valid but I don't use Google Groups
If you quote, please quote only relevant passages and not the whole article.
Mark Roberts
remember to leave that off for the purposes of this discussion.
spamtrap1888 <spamtr...@gmail.com> had written:
|
| The goal is to have a ba.broadcast group with a high signal-to-noise
| ratio. Participants in the chi.* hierarchy solved the problem a
| different way. One of the participants set up a server to propagate
| new, local groups. Trustworthy participants were invited to join, and
| given the password. Participants had to use newsreaders that didn't
| balk at multiple newshosts, of course.
There are several difficulties. Many people are not aware the
private NNTP servers exist and, where they do exist, they seem to
be not well used. They require extra set-up in some, if not all,
newsreaders. The natural place for someone to go when starting up
his or her newsreader is to go to the default location that is set
up.
Beyond that, a private NNTP server is little different from a web forum
in practical effect. Someone actually "owns" it, whereas no one "owns"
Usenet in the aggregate. This is a point that is important to some
Usenet users.
The proposal team felt that the best approach was to make the
proposal and determine the level of interest for a full-fledged
Usenet newsgroup. That's where the intended audience is. Over the
years, ba.broadcast has developed a distinct community and a
distinct "flavor" in its discussions. It does seem to be more
heavily oriented toward engineering issues than, say,
radio-info.com, which is more oriented toward radio programming
ins-and-outs. There is a place for both. The moderation proposal is
being brought forward as a way to preserve the ba.broadcast
community of interest despite an apparently increasing number of
off-topic posts. One part of that community is its public
accessibility. A private NNTP server would, by definition, not be
accessible to the public. And they definitely would not be
accessible from Google Groups where, like it or not, more and more
people are reading newsgroups, owing to the number of
connectivity-oriented ISPs that are doing away with Usenet service
as an added-value feature.
I can make the argument more simply: to take a "private club"
approach (which is essentially your proposal), it would be easier to simply
set up a mailing list. But ba.broadcast itself was an outgrowth of
a mailing list, established, as I understand it, because discussions
on mailing lists don't scale up well (among other things).
Mark Roberts
| On Jun 11, 6:17 pm, "Eric C. Weaver" <w...@sigma.net> wrote:
| > On Jun 11, 3:07 pm, Stratum101 <j.coll...@cross-comp.com> wrote:
| >
| > > The obvious abuse by Higmonds
| >
| > How old are you? 9?
|
| Exactly why this is such a good idea. Once the nonsense is gone, you
| will see more broadcast professionals participate.
|
| This newsgroup has been turned into a cesspool by a handful of
| maggots. The majority of us first found this place because we wanted
| to talk about broadcasting in the Bay Area. A place to do that online
| without the slander, gossip and malicious crap that we've seen here
| over the past several years is welcome.
|
| You'd be amazed at the number of people working in the industry who
| lurk but don't participate because of the Ras's and the Stratum's.
|
| Good job folks! Looking forward to the new spot!
Thanks for the good word. We're trying (as best we can) to have the
discussion in ba.config, which is specifically for newsgroup setup
discussions. Hence I have set the followups to that gorup.
For the record, I am not a broadcast professional. I was once, but
that was a long time ago, and not in the Bay Area. I hope
that non-professionals would also feel welcome to participate and
to contribute to a ba.broadcast.moderated.
Mark Roberts
| Will participation in this group by by invitation only or will
| attempted posts be judged on an individual basis?
Anyone could post, with each post *at the start* being reviewed by
one of the moderators. I believe there is the desire, when there's
enough of a track record, to allow posts from any individual to
go through without review, with moderation (at that point) being
applied only when a specific problem comes up with a particular
post or with a particular poster who is not following the
guidelines in the charter. From what I have seen of similar
moderation setups, it'll usually be pretty obvious when that
happens.
(Follow-ups set to ba.config.)
Mark Roberts
| How does one find out if he will be permitted to participate in the
| new group, or is it if one has to ask, he isn't permitted?
Anyone can participate, i.e. it's not invitation-only. If a post
isn't approved by the moderators, I believe it will be sent
back to the poster. The RFD could be clearer on that point,
so this is useful feedback. Moderation will be based on the
content of the post except in the hopefully rare case of a
poster who has consistently abused the charter.
cop...@hotmail.com
> copi...@hotmail.com <copi...@hotmail.com> had written:
Absolutely!
I wasn't implying that only professionals should participate. I was
only bringing up the fact that more professionals WOULD participate in
the type of group you're forming.
Having professionals and enthusiasts alike posting will make this a
richer experience for everybody. Especially without the "George
Orwell" pseudo slanders and the off topic character assassinations by
wannabes and losers.
I'm behind you 100 %. Just let me know how I can help.
copie
Mark Roberts
|
| I wasn't implying that only professionals should participate. I was
| only bringing up the fact that more professionals WOULD participate in
| the type of group you're forming.
I didn't interpret it that way myself, but I saw the possibility
that someone could attempt to extend the point to reach that
conclusion, so I wanted to forestall that.
| I'm behind you 100 %. Just let me know how I can help.
Thanks, much appreciated.
cop...@hotmail.com
Not what I meant Mark.
I meant that with what you're proposing more broadcast professionals
WOULD participate. Having professionals and broadcasting enthusiasts
both contributing will make it a richer experience for everybody.
Especially without the "George Orwell" Anonymous slanders we see here.
I think the flack you're getting is from those who know that once
you're up and running, the trolls will be the only ones left here.
Let me know how I can help.
Bravo!!!
copie
Patty Winter
In article <79e09hF...@mid.individual.net>,
Mark Roberts <markrob...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>Anyone can participate, i.e. it's not invitation-only. If a post
>isn't approved by the moderators, I believe it will be sent
>back to the poster. The RFD could be clearer on that point,
>so this is useful feedback.
I don't think we need to spell out in the RFD all the details
about how moderation will be performed. The process you just
described is standard operating procedure for moderated groups.
Inappropriate postings (unless they're mass spam postings and
not worth replying to) will be returned to the poster with an
explanation of the reason for rejection. In some cases, we'd
be able to include hints on how to bring it into compliance.
I've done that lots of times in my Yahoo Groups with postings
that have gone just slightly outside the list rules.
Patty
Patty Winter
In article <0a8c2588-8215-4da9...@w9g2000pro.googlegroups.com>,
<cop...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>I wasn't implying that only professionals should participate. I was
>only bringing up the fact that more professionals WOULD participate in
>the type of group you're forming.
That would be wonderful, Copie! And I see that Angie has already
checked in with an enthusiastic thumbs up for the new group, too.
Tell your friends!
>I'm behind you 100 %. Just let me know how I can help.
You already have! Feedback here in ba.config is exactly what is
needed at this step. Thanks for posting your comments, Brian.
Patty
Angie
Thanks for the hard work on this, gang, and count me in. Really
looking forward to the moderated group.
Patty Winter
In article <84320927-6d39-4855...@q16g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>,
I'm seeing your postings just fine, Angie! Thank you for postings
your comments about the proposed group.
Patty
Stratum101
I think libel is the term you want.
It isn't libel if I tell you in front of everyone that
in a format already tailored for the brain dead that
you Brian Copeland are singularly dull. It
happens to be the truth.
Now to say that you have the scruples
of a rat might be deemed moderately
libelous by other rats.
In accordance with a stated aim of the
RFD, I am cross-posting this to ba.broadcast.
Stratum101
Ah-choo. Ah-choo. Ah-choo. Okay, three gesundheits,
and Daddy's little girl can go to sleep. I'm not going
to read you any more Tolstoy tonight.
One of the nice things about these ostriches
burying their heads is that they won't have to read
any more "broadcastable" brain candy. For
instance, I think Dallas, which has blossomed
into this beautiful, leafy, politically blue city
completely different from the redneck place
where I lived briefly before and left in 1970
is a huge Bay Area story. People live
better here. They just have shitty weather
and 48 kinds of venemous snakes and
spiders. Scorpions too if you don't
keep the place clean.
Or am I the only Californian posting
here to have taken shelter from
an approaching tornado in the
past week? What they don't
tell out-of-towners is that civil
defense sirens go off all over the
place, and fortunately they
can't be confused for fire trucks.
Dunno why the local NPR station
still conducts beg-a-thons. They
just spent $18 megabucks acquiring
a second FM station. Maybe
some trillionaire over in Fort Worth
likes them. (If I'm not mistaken,
wasn't KQED-FM's last fund drive
goal for one million?)
I'm still trying to track down a
report that a major KGO advertiser
is permanently enjoined from doing
business in Texas, a state which is
well known for laxity in enforcing
unethical business practices. That
ought to be a pretty big Bay Area
story, too.
Mike Ward
wrote:
>For your newsgroups file:
>ba.broadcast.moderated Bay Area TV/Radio issues. (Moderated)
I'm not sure this officially counts as a "vote" or not, but count me
in as in favor.
David Kaye
ba.broadcast. I'm 100% in favor of creating the
ba.broadcast.moderated newsgroup.
John Higdon
<54e89d42-419b-45f7...@d19g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
mjdix <spamtr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I have an alternative and perhaps simpler and cheaper suggestion,
> based on an offer Mr. Higdon made the other day:
>
> Create a local group that exists only on his newsgroup server. (E.G.
> kome.broadcast) Then let every one of the elect have access to John's
> server. This assumes most people are running a newsreader that permits
> multiple hosts.
>
> No need to moderate: If someone acts up, kick him off and change the
> password.
For the record, my preference is for the standard group creation
proposal. This provides the easiest path for participation by everyone.
There may have been some confusion about my preferences because I had
offered to provide Usenet access from my private server for known
individuals who got bit by the AT&T Usenet Pullout.
I am all in favor of the creation of ba.broadcast.moderated (obviously).
--
John Higdon
+1 408 ANdrews 6-4400
AT&T-Free At Last
John Higdon
Mark Roberts <markrob...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I can make the argument more simply: to take a "private club"
> approach (which is essentially your proposal), it would be easier to simply
> set up a mailing list. But ba.broadcast itself was an outgrowth of
> a mailing list, established, as I understand it, because discussions
> on mailing lists don't scale up well (among other things).
I can confirm that. Mailing lists (which is how ba.broadcast began life)
soon become unwieldy and we were actually looking for a wider
participation. The Usenet distribution mechanism existed and of course
was a natural for this sort of thing (and many of us on the list were
running news servers anyway), so ba.broadcast was born.
Make no mistake: ba.broadcast has worked very well for many years. The
problem is that the net has reinvented itself over the past nearly two
decades, and many who would otherwise contribute to the real discussions
are put off my the noise which consists mainly of ad hominem and
political rants, with a sprinkling of nonsense from the real loons.
For me, sanitation through moderation is the absolute last resort. I
would hope to see the new group transparent in its procedures for the
legitimate contributors. And that means no "private club" appearance!
chris319
Scoop
.:.:.:.:.:.:.:. Neal Ross Attinson .:.:.:.:.:.:.:.
: Doing my best to complete the Nameless Mission :
.:.:.:.:.:. http://metaphorager.net .:.:.:.:.:.