[PROPOSAL] Create moderated version of ba.broadcast, ba.broadcast.moderated [LAST CALL FOR COMMENTS]
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.
Summary of Discussion:
Discussion in both ba.config and ba.broadcast brought forth the
following arguments for and against the creation of
ba.broadcast.moderated:
FOR:
* Absence of personal attacks on individual posters
* Posts would be more likely to be on-topic
* Fewer off-topic posts (a/k/a "noise") would appear
* More professionals working in the business will participate in
the moderated newsgroup
AGAINST:
* Concern that a moderator would use the moderated newsgroup to
answer criticism made in the unmoderated newsgroup
* Censorship
Straw Poll:
FOR:
Angie Coiro <angie...@yahoo.com>
Copie <cop...@hotmail.com
John Higdon <hi...@kome.com>
Phil Kane <phil...@nov.shmovz.ka.pop>
David Kaye <sfdav...@yahoo.com
Patty Winter <pat...@wintertime.com>
Mark Roberts <bab...@cosmos-monitor.com>
Paul W. Schleck <psch...@novia.net>
Stratum101 <j.co...@cross-comp.com>
Mike Ward <mw...@iname-remove-this-part.com>
AGAINST:
Bozo <Bozo_D...@37.com>
Colonel Jake <Sergea...@comcast.net>
Nomen Nescio <nob...@dizum.com> (footnote #1)
Footnote:
1: as expressed in ba.broadcast
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.
Posts rejected by the bot or by a moderator will be returned to the
poster via e-mail. Moderators may at their option include an
explanation for rejection of the post.
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
2009-06-13 Reposted to ba.broadcast and ba.config due to an effort
by "Colonel Jake", Sergea...@comcast.net, to cancel the post
2009-06-17 2nd RFD/Last Call for Comments
--
Mark Roberts
Stratum101
> For example, articles that discuss
> how a radio host runs his or her show would be considered on-topic.
Therefore, this proposed stupidity is biased toward
stations that have "hosts", that is, radio listener
call-in talk formats. Not television. Not
public radio. Not so-called classical music
radio.
The purpose of the proposed newsgroup is to
talk about KGO.
I strongly support its creation in the hope
that its moderators will follow the example
of one of its moderators and disappear
permanently.
John T
> For your newsgroups file:
> ba.broadcast.moderated Bay Area TV/Radio issues. (Moderated)
>
>
Count me in the "YES" column.
John T.
Ciccio
> Copie <copi...@hotmail.com
> John Higdon <hi...@kome.com>
> Phil Kane <phil.k...@nov.shmovz.ka.pop>
> David Kaye <sfdavidk...@yahoo.com
> Patty Winter <pat...@wintertime.com>
> Mark Roberts <babc...@cosmos-monitor.com>
> Paul W. Schleck <pschl...@novia.net>
> Stratum101 <j.coll...@cross-comp.com>
> Mike Ward <mw...@iname-remove-this-part.com>
My vote is never swayed by a celebrity endorsement. In this instance,
however, if Copie gives this a thumb's up, I vote yea.
Ciccio
John Slade
"Mark Roberts" <bab...@cosmos-monitor.com> wrote in message
news:79tnj0F...@mid.individual.net...
> For your newsgroups file:
> 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.
I vote yes.
John
Peter Lawrence
I'll just say good luck on keeping the moderated newsgroup alive. Just
about all the moderated newsgroup I knew of died a slow death because
the moderators move on with the lives (or literally die off) and there's
no one left to fill their shoes.
In that vein, I think the three member initial moderation team is just
too small. It would be wise to add at least two more people to the
moderation team. I could easily see two of the three moderators being
off-line on vacation or on business at the same time, leaving the third
moderator overwhelmed.
I think having five moderators would be the minimum I would start out with.
- Peter
Patty Winter
In article <h1ek2c$pkf$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
Peter Lawrence <humm...@aol.com> wrote:
[couple hundred lines of quoted text deleted]
>Mark Roberts wrote:
>>
>> Initial Moderation Team:
>>
>> Patty Winter <pat...@wintertime.com>
>> Mark Roberts <bab...@cosmos-monitor.com>
>> John Higdon <hi...@kome.com>
>>
>> Temporary Volunteer Moderators:
>>
>> Steve Bonine <s...@pobox.com> (Moderator of news.groups.proposals)
>> Kathy Morgan <kmo...@aptalaska.net> (Co-Chair of Big-8 Board)
>>
> I think the three member initial moderation team is just
>too small. It would be wise to add at least two more people to the
>moderation team.
>I think having five moderators would be the minimum I would start out with.
As noted in the RFD, there are five people on the moderation team, two
of whom will be replaced by users of the goroup as soon as possible.
Patty
PN2222A
> ba.broadcast.moderated Bay Area TV/Radio issues. (Moderated)
>
>
> From the original 1992 ba.broadcast charter by Eliot Lear
> <le...@yeager.corp.sgi.com>:
>
> "This group is here for discussions, comments and program reminders
> about broadcast media in the San Francisco Bay Area, both radio and
> television. It also includes cable systems and TVRO/BCRO in the SF
> Bay Area. It does not include scanner, ham radio or other action
> here in the SF Bay Area; these may be addressed in another
> newsgroup at another time. Issues of national interest should be
> posted to one of the groups in rec.arts.tv or rec.radio."
>
>
> Proposed 2009 updates to original ba.broadcast charter for
> ba.broadcast.moderated:
>
> The purpose of the newsgroup is to discuss the practice of
> broadcasting, including programming, sales and management,
> engineering, broadcast technology, and emerging trends and
> technologies in broadcasting and related media.
>
Comment in favor of the moderated newsgroup.
Will posts about imaginary radio stations be on topic, or not?
PN2222A
Patty Winter
In article <lFC_l.157$kA....@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com>,
PN2222A <pn2...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>Comment in favor of the moderated newsgroup.
>
>Will posts about imaginary radio stations be on topic, or not?
LOL! I would suspect not, but I'll clarify that with the other
moderators.... :-)
Patty
Mark Roberts
If they are imaginary stations, then they wouldn't be located in
the Bay Area and posts about them would likely be considered off-topic.
--
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.
Rick Calicura
perhaps posted just twice since I've been reading this group.
Having never participated in a moderated group, it sounds interesting
and i would feel it could be a positive thing for the professionals. I
would only hope that lurkers might continue to be allowed and maybe a
post once-in-awhile.
Of course, I can always go back to BA Broadcast for watching the zoo.
If I have a vote, I would cast it with a YEA.
Rick
Patty Winter
In article <2009061917504916807-rick@nospammactinkercom>,
Rick Calicura <ri...@nospammactinker.com> wrote:
>
>Having never participated in a moderated group, it sounds interesting
>and i would feel it could be a positive thing for the professionals. I
>would only hope that lurkers might continue to be allowed and maybe a
>post once-in-awhile.
Rick, "lurkers" are ABSOLUTELY welcome to participate if the new
group is approved!
From what some industry folks have said, there are likely to be
more broadcast professionals participating in the new group than
are willing to put up with the trolls in the unmoderated group,
but that in no way means that non-industry people are unwelcome.
In fact, we hope that folks like you who have posted only rarely
in ba.broadcast will feel more inclined to participate when you
know that you won't be flamed by resident troublemakers. And if
the group were only industry people, it would suffer from not
having the viewpoint of radio listeners and television viewers.
Thank you for recording your vote regarding the new group.
Patty
John Higdon
Patty Winter <pat...@wintertime.com> wrote:
> From what some industry folks have said, there are likely to be
> more broadcast professionals participating in the new group than
> are willing to put up with the trolls in the unmoderated group,
> but that in no way means that non-industry people are unwelcome.
> In fact, we hope that folks like you who have posted only rarely
> in ba.broadcast will feel more inclined to participate when you
> know that you won't be flamed by resident troublemakers. And if
> the group were only industry people, it would suffer from not
> having the viewpoint of radio listeners and television viewers.
Let me add the the original point of having these groups (both moderated
and un-moderated) on Usenet is to make them available to all people, in
and out of the industry. There are plenty of venues available to
broadcast industry personnel to hold discussions, but these venues are
not available to non-industry people.
So it certainly is, as you point out, a come-one, come-all policy...on
both ba.broadcast and ba.broadcast.moderated alike.
--
John Higdon
+1 408 ANdrews 6-4400
AT&T-Free At Last
Stratum101
Eunice writes:
> In fact, we hope that folks like you who have posted only rarely
> in ba.broadcast will feel more inclined to participate when you
> know that you won't be flamed by resident troublemakers.
(Cue up music from "Psycho".)
I vote Yes for creation of the moderated newsgroup.
And iven if Copeland is there, I won't post to it.
bozo
> >
> Straw Poll:
>
> FOR:
> Angie Coiro <angieco...@yahoo.com>
> Copie <copi...@hotmail.com
> John Higdon <hi...@kome.com>
> Phil Kane <phil.k...@nov.shmovz.ka.pop>
> David Kaye <sfdavidk...@yahoo.com
> Patty Winter <pat...@wintertime.com>
> Mark Roberts <babc...@cosmos-monitor.com>
> Paul W. Schleck <pschl...@novia.net>
> Stratum101 <j.coll...@cross-comp.com>
>
> AGAINST:
> Bozo <Bozo_De_N...@37.com>
> Colonel Jake <SergeantY...@comcast.net>
Excuse me but I'm neither for or against moderation. I just know this
group ain't going anywhere and a new moderated group won't accomplish
what you expect either. A moderated group is just another high-tech
term for a private club, one of the oldest social inventions ever
devised to keep the riffraff out, and that's all well and good, I'd
consider belonging too if I had the assets and bonifides to belong ...
but like Groucho said some time ago, "I'd never join a club that'd
have me as a member" ... Besides, it's sort of pathetic and funny to
see a guy belong to clubs and organizations he can't afford. That's
like paying to be a wannabe. But if you want to be, go ahead, you and
the pretty social secretary just have to understand one thing, you're
excluding people, that's the task, the main and only job, everything
else is meaningless. Whatever you do though, I can assure you one
thing, the moderated wannabes are going to be just as fatiguing and a
lot less entertaining than the unmoderated ones already here. Goood
luuuuck.
-BdN-
cop...@hotmail.com
Don'tcha just love how all of the cretins (who are the catalysts for
the moderated group in the first place) are the only ones bitching?
hahahahaha
They are suddenly stripped of the pathetic little piece of power that
they thought they had and those of us who are leaving because we want
constructive dialogue are leaving them to stew in their own filth all
alone .
If Stratum, Leans, Ras, Bozo or Jake fall in the forest and no one is
around, do they make a noise?
hahahaha
NOPE
copie
Stratum101
Boy, one can understand why this piece of work doesn't
see the wrong he did in setting up his ex-friend,
Bernie Ward. He's stupid.
Here, let me address him directly instead of
talking about him. I'll use upper case in case
he's also impaired in his other senses.
ACTUALLY, STUPID, I SUPPORT CREATION
OF THE NEW GROUP. I'M NOT BITCHING AT
ALL. YOU'LL BE THERE, NOT HERE.
So he'll cross-post. Well, we've got that covered
too.
IF YOU CROSS-POST FROM YOUR NEW
HOME-TO-BE, YOU MAY BE EXPOSING
YOURSELF TO TRICKLE-DOWN CONTAMINATION
OF YOUR OWN FOOD SUPPLY. TO
BORROW FROM THE ANCIENTS, "DON'T
SHIT WHERE YOU EAT AND VICE-VERSA."
There. I guess I told him!
copie
And you call ME stupid???
Lol
Bye bye loser.
Tom
> ba.broadcast.moderated Bay Area TV/Radio issues. (Moderated)
>
Finally.
I can't wait.
Stratum101
> Read your incohearant post.
>
> And you call ME stupid???
<Enable CopelandAddress mode>
IT'S NOT "INCOHEARANT" AT
ALL. THAT'S WHY YOU HAVE
A PROBLEM.
<Normal mode restored>
Colonel Jake
I got this?,
"BIG-GIANT-URGE!!!,...., toO [CMSG] Create moderated version
of ba.broadcast, ba.broadcast.moderated [LAST CALL FOR COMMENTS],
in a new poastings Subject field!!!..."
What do you?,
"Think about that?!?!?! (Mark Roberts)..."
Discussion?
Colonel Jake
<cop...@hotmail.com>
<3044795c-9e1b-408d...@i28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>
:
:
<snipped for brevity>
: Don'tcha just love how all of the cretins<SLAP>
:
YoU SToOPID-FUCK!,
"If I really want toO!!! (YoU SToOPID-FUCKING-GoOGLER),....,
I could [CMSG] this threads proposal, and cancel it
RIGHT-TEH-FUCKING-OUT!!! (right now)..."
I have?,
"Already done it once!!!,...., and I can do it again?!?!?!..."
(stoOpid-mOtherfucking-goOgling-azzhOle)
*talk about having power around here*
(I'm a USENET GoD (you copie motherfucker))
�,.,�
:And then some...
`^'^�
:
: copie<SLAP<dat'FUCKING-GoOGLER>>
:
<from Teh BoOk of Colonel Jake'ster>
Colonel Jake 3:1 - "Thats for GoDDAMNED sure!!!..."
Alan
It seems a good idea to me.
Alan