Moderator Vacancy Investigation: soc.religion.christian
Alexander Bartolich
moderated group soc.religion.christian
This is a formal Moderator Vacancy Investigation (MVI), begun because
moderated newsgroup soc.religion.christian is not functioning,
and may have been abandoned by its moderator(s).
This investigation will attempt to verify the reasons for non-function,
and may result in the removal of the group or the selection and instal-
lation of a new moderator. In practice, the Big-8 Management Board
considers the third alternative--changing the status of the group from
moderated to unmoderated--as likely to cause more harm than good.
RATIONALE:
According to David Kleinecke the group has stopped functioning.
The last post was approved on 2009-09-30.
A probe post showed no result.
NEWSGROUPS LINE:
soc.religion.christian Christianity and related topics. (Moderated)
DISTRIBUTION:
news.announce.newgroups
news.groups.proposals
soc.religion.christian
soc.misc
CHARTER OF SOC.RELIGION.CHRISTIAN
n/a
HISTORY OF THE GROUP:
The first recorded newgroup control is dated 1991-05-23.
It contained a tagline but no charter.
PROPONENT:
Alexander Bartolich <alexander...@gmx.at>
PROCEDURE:
Those who wish to comment on this moderator vacancy investigation should
subscribe to news.groups.proposals and participate in the relevant
threads in that newsgroup.
To this end, the followup header of this MVI has been set to
news.groups.proposals.
For more information on the MVI process, please see
http://www.big-8.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=policies:mvi
CHANGE HISTORY:
2010-02-27 Probe post
2010-03-07 Moderator Vacancy Investigation
--
Steve Hayes
<alexander...@gmx.at> wrote:
>Those who wish to comment on this moderator vacancy investigation should
>subscribe to news.groups.proposals and participate in the relevant
>threads in that newsgroup.
The moderator did announce at the beginning of 2009 that he was thinking of
giving up being moderator for various reasons, including
1. Having to deal with enormous quantities of spam
2. The diminishing number of participants
3. The deteriorating quality of contributions.
Making it unmoderated would not be a good idea.
Finding a new moderator would be good, but it's probably a thankless task.
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
Charles Lindsey
> MODERATOR VACANCY INVESTIGATION (MVI)
> moderated group soc.religion.christian
>This is a formal Moderator Vacancy Investigation (MVI), begun because
>moderated newsgroup soc.religion.christian is not functioning,
>and may have been abandoned by its moderator(s).
>This investigation will attempt to verify the reasons for non-function,
>and may result in the removal of the group or the selection and instal-
>lation of a new moderator. In practice, the Big-8 Management Board
>considers the third alternative--changing the status of the group from
>moderated to unmoderated--as likely to cause more harm than good.
>RATIONALE:
>According to David Kleinecke the group has stopped functioning.
>The last post was approved on 2009-09-30.
>A probe post showed no result.
>NEWSGROUPS LINE:
>soc.religion.christian Christianity and related topics. (Moderated)
The group has been moderated by Charles Hedrick for as long as anyone can
remember (maybe even since its formation). From time to time he has
indicated a desire to give it up, and indeed the volume of postings has
been declining of late (in common with the rest of Usenet, of course).
But they had certainly not declined to zero at the time he finally gave
up, so I think the group was probably viable even then. It may well be
worth preserving if a new moderator can be found.
I would like to say that Charles was a moderator of the old school,
watching over the dicussions, calming them down, and truncating threads
when they had run their course. And his own comments in the discussions
(always delineated as such) were always helful, but carefully
non-partisan. Few other groups on usenet were moderated so well.
--
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: c...@clerew.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5
Alexander Bartolich
> [...]
> But they had certainly not declined to zero at the time he finally gave
> up, so I think the group was probably viable even then. It may well be
> worth preserving if a new moderator can be found.
David Kleinecke has volunteered to take over moderation.
Any thoughts on this?
> I would like to say that Charles was a moderator of the old school, [...]
Moderators can appoint their successors without consulting anyone. If
Charles is still around he can significantly shorten the proceedings.
Ciao
Alexander.
Helmut Richter
> Charles Lindsey wrote:
> > [...]
> > But they had certainly not declined to zero at the time he finally gave
> > up, so I think the group was probably viable even then. It may well be
> > worth preserving if a new moderator can be found.
To sum up: The comments by Steve Hayes, Bart Goddard, and Charles Lindsey
(which I condone all three) say that
- a moderated group like soc.religion.christian might be desirable if it
gains again momentum and
- the former split into s.r.c. and s.r.c.b.-s. is no longer justified by
traffic (IMHO it was never a real split by topic)
> David Kleinecke has volunteered to take over moderation.
> Any thoughts on this?
I remember his name, neither with positive nor with negative feelings
about him taking over such a job.
--
Helmut Richter
Timothy Sutter
Alexander Bartolich
moderated group soc.religion.christian
This is a formal Request for Discussion (RFD) to change moderators of
newsgroup soc.religion.christian, or to remove this group.
RATIONALE:
According to David Kleinecke the group has stopped functioning.
The last post was approved on 2009-09-30.
A probe post showed no result.
David Kleinecke sent a mail in which he volunteered to take over moderation.
Timothy Sutter wrote in news.groups.proposals that is willing to moderate it.
Message-ID: <4BA557...@lycos.com>
Perceived shortcomings of these offers:
- moderation team too small
- no policy for replacement of inactive members
- no concept for moderaton/revival of group
- no details on technical implementation
NEWSGROUPS LINE:
soc.religion.christian Christianity and related topics. (Moderated)
DISTRIBUTION:
news.announce.newgroups
news.groups.proposals
soc.religion.christian
soc.misc
CHARTER OF SOC.RELIGION.CHRISTIAN
n/a
HISTORY OF THE GROUP:
The first recorded newgroup control is dated 1991-05-23.
It contained a tagline but no charter.
PROPONENT:
Alexander Bartolich <alexander...@gmx.at>
PROCEDURE:
Those who wish to comment on this request to remove this newsgroup should
subscribe to news.groups.proposals and participate in the relevant threads
in that newsgroup.
To this end, the followup header of this RFD has been set to
news.groups.proposals.
In the course of the removal process four formal announcements are posted
(MVI, 1st RFD, 2nd RFD, and LCC), each taking two weeks. At the end of the
process the B8MB will vote on the issue.
Available options for soc.religion.christian are:
- leave the group as it is
- remove the group
For more information on the MVI process, please see
http://www.big-8.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=policies:mvi
CHANGE HISTORY:
2010-02-27 Probe post
2010-03-07 Moderator Vacancy Investigation
2010-03-21 1st RFD
--
Timothy Sutter
> Perceived shortcomings of these offers:
> - moderation team too small
> - no policy for replacement of inactive members
obviously, a few posts to various
christian focused newsgroups which say;
"soc.religion.christian is functioning again"
may bring some posters....then again, may not.
> - no concept for moderaton/revival of group
> - no details on technical implementation
if some kind person has moderation software
with some documentaion
,...like i said, i'm willing
i probably wouldn't be a "micromanager"
but, i would -moderate- it if that
makes any sense to anyone.
Timothy Sutter
>
> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
> moderated group soc.religion.christian
>
> This is a formal Request for Discussion (RFD) to change moderators of
> newsgroup soc.religion.christian, or to remove this group.
>
> RATIONALE:
>
> According to David Kleinecke the group has stopped functioning.
> The last post was approved on 2009-09-30.
> A probe post showed no result.
>
> David Kleinecke sent a mail in which he volunteered to take over moderation.
> Timothy Sutter wrote in news.groups.proposals that is willing to moderate it.
> Message-ID: <4BA557...@lycos.com>
>
> Perceived shortcomings of these offers:
> - moderation team too small
> - no policy for replacement of inactive members
> - no concept for moderaton/revival of group
> - no details on technical implementation
by the way, it was you, Alexander Bartolich,
who said this;
===
Incidentally I operate a news server and can offer a web-based modera-
tion software for free. Please don't feel deterred by technical or
financial issues.
message ID <Xns9D34B914A8967go...@74.209.136.81>
===
and so, you seem to be willing to make this available...
this wuld cover some of those details.
Timothy Sutter
> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
> moderated group soc.religion.christian
> This is a formal Request for Discussion (RFD) to change moderators of
> newsgroup soc.religion.christian, or to remove this group.
> RATIONALE:
> According to David Kleinecke the group has stopped functioning.
> The last post was approved on 2009-09-30.
> A probe post showed no result.
> David Kleinecke sent a mail in which he volunteered to take over moderation.
> Timothy Sutter wrote in news.groups.proposals that is willing to moderate it.
> Message-ID: <4BA557...@lycos.com>
> Perceived shortcomings of these offers:
> - moderation team too small
one person should be able to moderate such a newsgroup.
> - no policy for replacement of inactive members
people can come and go as they please.
if i were to moderate such a group,
i may seek out new participants, and some participants
may reappear on their own inasmuch as they may have been
trying to post in this group for some time as it has been
moribund only to moderation and not attempts to post.
which is to say, some people may have been attempting
to post all along and finding that the moderator simply
was not sending their postings up as it were, and so,
if the group became active again, posts and posters may
simply reappear as if by their own willingness.
> - no concept for moderaton/revival of group
as i have said, the lack of a moderator may be the
only barrier to a renewal of postings and if
moderation reappeared, posts may reappear.
> - no details on technical implementation
well, soemone around here said they had moderation software
for free and may be willing to part with a copy.
the time frame involved in setting up such details
probably would not be as long as the time frame that
the group has been moribund.
having said that, if -anyone- wishes to reestablish
soc.religion.christion as functioning newsgroup,
they could do so, and -you-, Alexander Bartolich,
could be contacted to reassess the situation again later
if the group simply remaioned moribund even with
functioning moderation.
i am willing to participate in such an endeavor but
if another christian feels that they would be better
suited to carry out such a function,
i certainly have no problem with that.
or, as you have indicated, if it would
take a larger group effort in itself,
i would be willing to participate...
if it reappears, i would like it to have a christian focus
and not a front for crafted anti-christian arguments.
i would not focus the group along denominational nor sectarian lines,
but, i would like it if it were actually christain focused.
i would say this no matter who moderates it.
etc.
DKleinecke
wrote:
> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
> moderated group soc.religion.christian
>
> This is a formal Request for Discussion (RFD) to change moderators of
> newsgroup soc.religion.christian, or to remove this group.
>
> RATIONALE:
>
> According to David Kleinecke the group has stopped functioning.
> The last post was approved on 2009-09-30.
> A probe post showed no result.
>
> David Kleinecke sent a mail in which he volunteered to take over moderation.
> Timothy Sutter wrote in news.groups.proposals that is willing to moderate it.
>
> Perceived shortcomings of these offers:
> - moderation team too small
> - no policy for replacement of inactive members
> - no concept for moderaton/revival of group
> - no details on technical implementation
>
> NEWSGROUPS LINE:
>
> soc.religion.christian Christianity and related topics. (Moderated)
>
> DISTRIBUTION:
>
> news.announce.newgroups
> news.groups.proposals
> soc.religion.christian
> soc.misc
>
> CHARTER OF SOC.RELIGION.CHRISTIAN
>
> n/a
>
> HISTORY OF THE GROUP:
>
> The first recorded newgroup control is dated 1991-05-23.
> It contained a tagline but no charter.
>
> PROPONENT:
>
>
> PROCEDURE:
>
> Those who wish to comment on this request to remove this newsgroup should
> subscribe to news.groups.proposals and participate in the relevant threads
> in that newsgroup.
>
> To this end, the followup header of this RFD has been set to
> news.groups.proposals.
>
> In the course of the removal process four formal announcements are posted
> (MVI, 1st RFD, 2nd RFD, and LCC), each taking two weeks. At the end of the
> process the B8MB will vote on the issue.
>
> Available options for soc.religion.christian are:
> - leave the group as it is
> - remove the group
>
> For more information on the MVI process, please see
>
> http://www.big-8.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=policies:mvi
>
> CHANGE HISTORY:
>
> 2010-02-27 Probe post
> 2010-03-07 Moderator Vacancy Investigation
> 2010-03-21 1st RFD
>
> --
You do understand that I have no desire to moderate
soc.religion.christian. You cannot expect anything from me except in
response to specific questions. I just don't want it to die.
If you can locate anyone else to be moderator please let me defer
immediately to them.
David Kleinecke
Timothy Sutter
>
> Perceived shortcomings of these offers:
> - moderation team too small
> - no policy for replacement of inactive members
> - no concept for moderaton/revival of group
> - no details on technical implementation
putting "approved" headers in is not a problem,
but, i'd have little desire to pay for
the 'privelege' of doing so.
i use free news servers
and, they are not no longer allowing 'control' messages
so, that's a drawback for me.
i'd -do- it,
but, i'm not interested in paying to do it.
soemone else would have to let the messages
accumulate on some site that i would have access to,
and allow me to post them from there,
and this seems unlikely,
i could accomodate gigabytes of mails
to my hard drive with not much problem,
but 'control' posting priveleges i don't have.
so...
maybe DKleinecke has a better
opportunity to see that through.
Timothy Sutter
>
> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
> moderated group soc.religion.christian
>
> This is a formal Request for Discussion (RFD) to change moderators of
> newsgroup soc.religion.christian, or to remove this group.
>
> RATIONALE:
>
> According to David Kleinecke the group has stopped functioning.
> The last post was approved on 2009-09-30.
> A probe post showed no result.
>
> David Kleinecke sent a mail in which he volunteered to take over moderation.
> Timothy Sutter wrote in news.groups.proposals that is willing to moderate it.
> Message-ID: <4BA557...@lycos.com>
>
> Perceived shortcomings of these offers:
> - moderation team too small
> - no policy for replacement of inactive members
> - no concept for moderaton/revival of group
> - no details on technical implementation
it does look a bit like this could cost me money,
and that, i don't have for this.
Jeffrey Goldberg
> Alexander Bartolich wrote:
>> Perceived shortcomings of these offers:
>> - moderation team too small
>> - no policy for replacement of inactive members
>> - no concept for moderaton/revival of group
>> - no details on technical implementation
>
>
> it does look a bit like this could cost me money,
>
> and that, i don't have for this.
It shouldn't cost you money, just time. But you will need to acquire
some technical skills. And you will need a dedicated email account for
moderation. I don't know what tools exist for the purpose, but I
suspect that you will need to use a fairly fully featured email program
for processing things.
I'm largely speculating, but I really don't think that money would be
involved. Others may be able to give you more information.
Cheers,
-j
--
Jeffrey Goldberg http://goldmark.org/jeff/
I rarely read HTML or poorly quoting posts
Reply-To address is valid
Timothy Sutter
> >> Perceived shortcomings of these offers:
> >> - moderation team too small
> >> - no policy for replacement of inactive members
> >> - no concept for moderaton/revival of group
> >> - no details on technical implementation
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > it does look a bit like this could cost me money,
> > and that, i don't have for this.
Jeffrey Goldberg wrote:
> It shouldn't cost you money, just time. But you will need to acquire
> some technical skills. And you will need a dedicated email account for
> moderation. I don't know what tools exist for the purpose, but I
> suspect that you will need to use a fairly fully featured email program
> for processing things.
time i can manage
wilingness i have
technical prowess i can acquire
"control message" priveleges, could be a problem.
news4all.se [sweden] may allow some control headers
[they will terminate accounts for;
"third party control messages"] TOS
which a moderator header would not be...
aioe.org simply blocks all control headers,
as -probably- does "eternal-spetember.org [mozarella]
though it's been a while since i tried...
x-privat.org [italia] probably blocks them as well,
but most ISPs do not provide news service anymore
and the ISP i currently use does not.
i'm not even sure if all .edu domains carry usenet anymore.
i would do it, still,
but, if it means paying for "control" priveleges,
i can't justify that, ...for myself.
...regards...
Jeffrey Goldberg
> Jeffrey Goldberg wrote:
>> It shouldn't cost you money, just time. But you will need to acquire
>> some technical skills.
> time i can manage
>
> wilingness i have
>
> technical prowess i can acquire
That really should be enough, but I will leave it for others more
experienced in these matters to judge.
> "control message" priveleges, could be a problem.
Ah. I hadn't thought of that.
Have you looked at Individual.net. They are not free, but they are very
inexpensive (10 Euro per year). They don't allow control messages as a
rule, but if you are a group moderator, you can have control messages
allowed.
http://individual.net/faq.php#1.11
It may be that other providers who say "no control messages" also have
mechanisms to make exceptions for moderators.
Timothy Sutter
> On 2010-03-22 3:15 PM, Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > Jeffrey Goldberg wrote:
> >> It shouldn't cost you money, just time. But you will need to acquire
> >> some technical skills.
> > time i can manage
> > wilingness i have
> > technical prowess i can acquire
> That really should be enough, but I will leave it for others more
> experienced in these matters to judge.
> > "control message" priveleges, could be a problem.
> Ah. I hadn't thought of that.
i can send a control message,
but this is a "test"
so, please, don't complain...
and, for reader.news4all.se
please, this is a test and not
a "third party control message"
as i understand the thing...
of course, volume may be low
and at my discretion, and i may need
formal permission from reader.news4all.se
this is just a test.
Timothy Sutter
> and at my discretion, and i may need
> formal permission from reader.news4all.se
as far as the possibility of me doing the moderation,
if, one of the big 8 administrators like Alexander Bartolich
asked for the formal permission for me to send control headers
though reader.news4all.se and perhaps, also, eternal-september.org
and maybe even aioe.org and maybe x-privat.org, [as back-ups
in case reader.news4all.se goes dead, which it does fromtime to time]
that would be more effective.
than having me ask.
if, you find someone else,
or simply remove the group,
then, these concerns are moot
and, i shall not lose sleep over it.
if you do agree on this,
i would still like the web based software
and maybe a little coaching
albeit, as far as actual moderation itself is concerned,
we'd all have to live with my discretion,
and, that may be something that you would
like to consider more carefully,
as, i may actually turn some posts away...
Steve Hayes
>Alexander Bartolich wrote:
>
>> Perceived shortcomings of these offers:
>
>> - moderation team too small
>> - no policy for replacement of inactive members
>
>
>obviously, a few posts to various
>christian focused newsgroups which say;
>
>"soc.religion.christian is functioning again"
>
>may bring some posters....then again, may not.
I've already posted something in some of them about the rfd.
Trouble is, most of the postings in most of them are off-topic spam, and
spammers aren't interestedf in a moderated ng.
Steve Hayes
wrote:
>On 2010-03-22 12:42 PM, Timothy Sutter wrote:
>> Alexander Bartolich wrote:
>
>>> Perceived shortcomings of these offers:
>>> - moderation team too small
>>> - no policy for replacement of inactive members
>>> - no concept for moderaton/revival of group
>>> - no details on technical implementation
>>
>>
>> it does look a bit like this could cost me money,
>>
>> and that, i don't have for this.
>
>It shouldn't cost you money, just time. But you will need to acquire
>some technical skills. And you will need a dedicated email account for
>moderation. I don't know what tools exist for the purpose, but I
>suspect that you will need to use a fairly fully featured email program
>for processing things.
>
>I'm largely speculating, but I really don't think that money would be
>involved. Others may be able to give you more information.
So can anyone explain what the technical requirements for moderating are?
Timothy Sutter
> >> Perceived shortcomings of these offers:
> >> - moderation team too small
> >> - no policy for replacement of inactive members
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> >obviously, a few posts to various
> >christian focused newsgroups which say;
> >"soc.religion.christian is functioning again"
> >may bring some posters....then again, may not.
Steve Hayes wrote:
> I've already posted something in some of them about the rfd.
> Trouble is, most of the postings in most of them are off-topic spam, and
> spammers aren't interestedf in a moderated ng.
i was thinking about that, and one _could_ ask
particular people who seem to post on topic
in various places if they'd like to participate,
as opposed to a blanket invitation.
one could scour websites with a topical focus
and send the owner a letter, etc.
there are some people who wander around posting URL's
to their websites exclusively, who may have an interest
in contributing to a moderated newsgroup.
etc etc.
as far as i can tell,
the mechanics of posting to a moderated newsgroup involve
placing this remark into the header of your post;
==
From: Steve Hayes <haye...@telkomsa.net>
Approved: <haye...@telkomsa.net>
==
and also, of course, the group postings
have to be redirected to your e-mail inbox
redirect soc.religion.christian ===> <haye...@telkomsa.net>
this redirection is implemented by
the "big 8" administration
i would suspect.
whereby, you get an inbox filled with newsgroup posts,
into which you must place the Approved header and send
off to the newsgroup as if you were posting them yourself,
while maintaining the integrity of the original poster's
Reference: lines and From: lines etc,
and also, you can toss out posts which you deem off topic, etc.
so, a specialized emal reader/sender would help
etc.
and also, moderation software, whereby you -could-
allow some regular posters to essentially be automatically
approved and bypass your direct consideration,
and perhaps send some posts directly ijto a junk file
if you deemed certain posts as 'off-topic'
based on a 'keyword' arrangement ....
you could do this all by hand, but,
some automated assitance
would make your life easier.
and you could keep volume low on purpose.
in fact, if you, Steve Hayes, were interested
in moderating soc-religion.christian
i'm sure you could manage...
maybe you would like to moderate it...
Alexander Bartolich
> [...]
> So can anyone explain what the technical requirements for moderating are?
Submissions to moderated groups are sent by news server via email, so
you need a mailbox.
Moderated posts are injected into Usenet just like regular posts, with
one tiny difference: You need to set the header "Approved:". Typically
this requires special permission from the operator of your news server.
And then you need some software to convert incoming email submissions
to approved Usenet posts. This part is actually trivial, requiring
about 50 lines of Perl. [1] The hard part is building some kind of GUI
around it.
The FAQ ends with a list of known software.
http://www.big-8.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=faqs:moderation
My contribution is Huhu.
http://albasani.net/huhu/overview.html
http://albasani.net/huhu/
--
[1] I still use such a configuration, for de.admin.net-abuse.news. All
you need is a shell account on a news server, a text mode news
client like mutt, and access to rnews. And now get off my lawn!
--
Steve Bonine
> one person should be able to moderate such a newsgroup.
A big reason that there are so many dead moderated newsgroups in the
big-8 is that they were moderated by one person, and that one person
disappeared. One of the things that I'd like to see happen as a result
of this cleanup process is that, in the rare case when there is interest
in continuing the operation of a newsgroup that has been moribund for a
couple of years, that a team of moderators be found. This allows for
vacations, equipment failure, illness, and other things that can disrupt
the operation of a moderated newsgroup if there is only one moderator.
If only one individual cares enough about a newsgroup to offer to
moderate it, especially given the moderation help from Alexander, that's
a suggestion that there's not enough interest in that topic to support a
newsgroup. I'm surprised, given a topic that I would expect to have
wide appeal, that we haven't seen more people step forward with offers
to help moderate soc.religion.christian. On the other hand this is
consistent with the dearth of interest we've seen for other newsgroups
in the soc.religion hierarchy.
Steve Hayes
<alexander...@gmx.at> wrote:
>Steve Hayes wrote:
>> [...]
>> So can anyone explain what the technical requirements for moderating are?
>
>Submissions to moderated groups are sent by news server via email, so
>you need a mailbox.
>
>Moderated posts are injected into Usenet just like regular posts, with
>one tiny difference: You need to set the header "Approved:". Typically
>this requires special permission from the operator of your news server.
>
>And then you need some software to convert incoming email submissions
>to approved Usenet posts. This part is actually trivial, requiring
>about 50 lines of Perl. [1] The hard part is building some kind of GUI
>around it.
It sounds as though it would be quite easy, IF one could get one's ISP to
provide a UUCP and NNTP feed. But that's the difficult part. Most ISPs
nowadays don't know what those are.
Alexander Bartolich
> [...]
> It sounds as though it would be quite easy, IF one could get one's
> ISP to provide a UUCP and NNTP feed. But that's the difficult part.
> Most ISPs nowadays don't know what those are.
Why do you need both UUCP and NNTP?
Why do need it from your Internet Service Provider?
It's easy if you use a traditional Unix environment. Do you?
--
Thomas Hochstein
> It sounds as though it would be quite easy, IF one could get one's ISP to
> provide a UUCP and NNTP feed. But that's the difficult part.
Not quite. UUCP is sometimes hard to get, but you don't need a NNTP
feed (unless you want to run your own newsserver), a regular account
(with permission to set Approved:) is sufficient. That shouldn't be a
problem; your usual free newsserver (individual.net, albasani.net,
eternal-september.org, solani.org come to mind; most of them, at least
the first two, will allow you to set Approved: if you're a moderator).
If you need a real NNTP feed (and have the necessary equipment on your
site, most notably a static IP and a 24/7 line), that is no big
problem either (as long as you know what you're doing); try
news.admin.peering for that.
> Most ISPs nowadays don't know what those are.
That may be true; but you don't need an ISP for that. :)
-thh
Timothy Sutter
> > one person should be able to moderate such a newsgroup.
Steve Bonine wrote:
> A big reason that there are so many dead moderated newsgroups in the
> big-8 is that they were moderated by one person, and that one person
> disappeared.
this may be true but this RFD is not aimed
at mandating multiple moderators but is aimed
at the preservation of a single group
# This is a formal Request for Discussion (RFD) to change moderators of
# newsgroup soc.religion.christian, or to remove this group.
this RFD has not been published far and wide
and was begun in the group that has been
moribund for 6 months and so, one may consider
the number of people who are aware of this RFD.
there are willing people and the system will
not be disrupted if this group is preserved.
if the group is removed, i will not lose sleep over it.
Alexander Bartolich
> [...]
> You do understand that I have no desire to moderate
> soc.religion.christian. You cannot expect anything from me except in
> response to specific questions. I just don't want it to die.
I am an engineer. I solve problems. Metaphysical concepts like "desire"
are beyond my utilitarian world view. However, I can give you the con-
straints of this project.
Moderated newsgroup soc.religion.christian is scheduled for a vote.
The voting period starts on April 22nd and will end one week later.
Eligible to vote are the members of the BIG 8 management board.
The members are listed here:
http://www.big-8.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=faqs:b8mb_members
Available options for soc.religion.christian are:
- keep group as it is (unlikely to get majority)
- remove group (the typical choice)
- appoint new moderators (if there are any candidates)
The mission statement of the B8MB is to maintain the canonical list of
newsgroups. In other words, it tries to be respected by news service
providers. Decisions of the B8MB should not only be in the interest of
concerned users, but also be good for the long-term prospects of the
hierarchy.
Moderators of a news group have near-absolute power on the group: [1]
- they decide what messages get approved or rejected
- they can add or remove co-moderators
- they can appoint successors
- they can effective close the group by ignoring any submission
Because of this we would like to be reasonable sure that a candidate
is sane, has the people skills necessary for his audience, and can
provide service 24/7/365.
You can ask for an extension to clarify the technical details, work
out a moderation concept, and so. But since this is your project we
expect your initiative.
--
[1] Technically there are three powers above moderators:
1. maintainers of the redirection service at ISC can change the
target of the submission address
2. hierarchy maintainers can remove the group or change its status
to unmoderated
3. news server operators can configure the group anyway they like
--
Steve Bonine
> My contribution is Huhu.
> http://albasani.net/huhu/overview.html
> http://albasani.net/huhu/
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it is my understanding that you are
willing to set up an account on your server for any bona fide moderator
to moderate their Usenet newsgroup. If this is the case, I don't
understand why we're having this long and involved discussion of the
details of how moderation works. All a potential moderator needs to
moderate the newsgroup is a web browser and the wherewithal to log in to
your huhu instance and approve posts.
This also makes it trivially easy to have multiple moderators, at least
from the technical perspective. (Getting them to agree and work
together might be a different issue.)
Timothy Sutter
> --
> [1] Technically there are three powers above moderators:
> 1. maintainers of the redirection service at ISC can change the
> target of the submission address
> 2. hierarchy maintainers can remove the group or change its status
> to unmoderated
> 3. news server operators can configure the group anyway they like
as of right now, if the object is to keep the group alive,
i am still willing to moderate it, even for some interim period.
which is to say, if someone else wanted to moderate it, i'd have
no trouble in giving them the keys, as it were, and letting them take
over.
whether they wanted to share duties is also not a problem with me.
i personally would not -force- the big 8 administration
to pry the keys from my clenched fist.
and, as of right now,
i think that the technical aspects =could be= overcome.
Timothy Sutter
> Moderators of a news group have near-absolute power on the group: [1]
> - they decide what messages get approved or rejected
> - they can add or remove co-moderators
> - they can appoint successors
> - they can effective close the group by ignoring any submission
> Because of this we would like to be reasonable sure that a candidate
> is sane, has the people skills necessary for his audience, and can
> provide service 24/7/365.
not all moderators send up messages continuously,
but wait and send up batches from time to time,
maybe even once daily or even weekly.
so, 24/7 is not -entirely- necessary.
i would be favorably inclined to grant8ng some posters
a "pre-approved" status and configuing some sort of
software that would insure this, with the caveat that
if such a person begins posting wildly off topic messages
that the "pre-approved" status may be revoked.
where, of course, "wildly off topic" is left
to the discretion of the moderator.
but, as i see it, if the moderator begins posting
in a manner that seems to be "net abusive"
then, obviously, there are ways
by which to stop it.
and so, life goes on...
as of right now, what i can say is,
there is some interest in keeping the newsgroup soc.religion.christian
alive and in its present form, albeit, with working moderation.
and this by more than one person, or even two.
there are other people who would like to see it kept alive.
i received an e-mail just this morning that said as much.
i asked that person to come here and chime in...
Bart Goddard
> not all moderators send up messages continuously,
> but wait and send up batches from time to time,
> maybe even once daily or even weekly.
>
> so, 24/7 is not -entirely- necessary.
This is true. In fact it's what we were used to
on srcb-s. Perhaps things were faster later when
Stephen had most things automated, but in the
heyday, the posts would appear only about once
per day, and sometimes a day or two would be
skipped. (This is a good thing in religious
discussions, since it forces everyone to stay
a bit cooler.)
> there are other people who would like to see it kept alive.
I guess my Plan A is to keep one or the other of
src or srcb-s alive, effectively combining the groups.
It seems to make the most sense to me to call the "new"
group src.
I wish this discussion was taking place a few months
later, since I'm involved in trying to get a moderated
math group going. If I had more experience at the
moment, I too might volunteer to (help) moderate
src.
Bart
--
Cheerfully resisting change since 1959.
Timothy Sutter
one problem with having multiple moderators
on a day-to-day basis is that threads could be
interrupted by having one moderator allow
a certain post by a given poster and
one moderator reject a certain post
by the same poster, simply because one moderator took
a more 'hard line' approach to enforcing any given charter,
or even, the appearance of multiple charters which would not be a
problem,
-but- this may be more suited to having a 'round robin' by months or
-maybe- weeks.
and not just x number of moderators working all the time.
for certain groups like soc.religion.christian that is, at least,
where charter policy may be a bit... discontiguous...
not a problem for me,
but -could- be a problem for someone else who would force
the big 8 administration to pry the keys from clenched fist.
etc.
Timothy Sutter
> [1] Technically there are three powers above moderators:
> 1. maintainers of the redirection service at ISC can change the
> target of the submission address
> 2. hierarchy maintainers can remove the group or change its status
> to unmoderated
> 3. news server operators can configure the group anyway they like
> --
what you'd like to avoid, is to have the big 8 administration
remove the group only to have the same group name and status
resubmitted in a subsequent RFD.
========
May 1 2010 big 8 removes soc.religion.christian
July 10 2010 John Henry Doe and company propose formation
of new moderated group called....soc.religion.christian
September 10 2010 soc.religion.christian is
approved and formed under big 8 administration.
========
this would be a greater waste of time
than simply keeping ity alive in some manner -now-
Kathy Morgan
> if, one of the big 8 administrators like Alexander Bartolich
>
> asked for the formal permission for me to send control headers
>
> though reader.news4all.se and perhaps, also, eternal-september.org
> and maybe even aioe.org and maybe x-privat.org, [as back-ups
> in case reader.news4all.se goes dead, which it does fromtime to time]
Well, your test message proves that usenet4all does not properly prevent
non-moderators from forging approvals, so you don't need anything from
the B8MB to use them. As for the others, you yourself, *IF you are
named as moderator*, can request the permission and refer them to the
article posted by the B8MB naming you as moderator.
--
Kathy, speaking only for myself and thoroughly disgusted by usenet4all
Kathy Morgan
> Approved: a20...@lycos.com
> From: Timothy Sutter <a20...@lycos.com>
(snip)
>
> i can send a control message, but this is a "test" so, please, don't
> complain...
>
>
> and, for reader.news4all.se
>
>
> please, this is a test and not a "third party control message" as i
> understand the thing...
Actually, this was not a control message at all. "Third party control
message" in the usenet4all TOS probably refers to canceling articles
posted by another.
This message was, however, an article with a forged approval, which is
one of the most serious possible offenses on Usenet. You are not a
moderator for either news.groups.proposals or soc.religion.christian.
Adding an approved header and posting to any group or groups for which
you are not the moderator is considered to be forgery, even if you use
your own valid email address in the approval line. If one wishes to
test his ability to add the approval line, he should do the testing in
an unmoderated group or in misc.test.moderated.
I understand that you didn't know any better, but it does make me
seriously question whether you have sufficient understanding of Usenet
and how it operates to be entrusted with authority of being a moderator.
I am also seriously disappointed in usenet4all that they permitted
someone who is not a moderator to post a forged approval. Well-run
servers do not allow this.
--
Kathy, member of B8MB but speaking just for myself
Timothy Sutter
>
> Timothy Sutter wrote in news:4BA8CE...@lycos.com:
>
> > not all moderators send up messages continuously,
> > but wait and send up batches from time to time,
> > maybe even once daily or even weekly.
> >
> > so, 24/7 is not -entirely- necessary.
>
> This is true. In fact it's what we were used to
> on srcb-s. Perhaps things were faster later when
> Stephen had most things automated, but in the
> heyday, the posts would appear only about once
> per day, and sometimes a day or two would be
> skipped. (This is a good thing in religious
> discussions, since it forces everyone to stay
> a bit cooler.)
>
> > there are other people who would like to see it kept alive.
>
> I guess my Plan A is to keep one or the other of
> src or srcb-s alive, effectively combining the groups.
> It seems to make the most sense to me to call the "new"
> group src.
the .alt hierarchy mentallity may have crept in to
the soc.religion hierarchy in some manner
and an "explosion" of similar groups
happened which tended to effect them all.
there are several soc.religion.christian.[dummy variable] groups.
someone has alsready mentioned that the groups may have had
no real distinction one from the other aside from usenet structuring
this makes for more moderators, which could be a good thing,
but, it may have divided the partcipants and audiance
in such a way so as to weaken them all.
so, "plan A" or some recombining of [dummy variable] groups
back into a single soc.religion.christian setting
seems perfectly reasonable.
the src.b-s RFD doesn't seem to have much traffic.
at least keep one.
Kathy Morgan
> but, as i see it, if the moderator begins posting in a manner that seems
> to be "net abusive" then, obviously, there are ways by which to stop it.
That's true if you are talking about abuse of the net, but abuse on the
net is extremely difficult to stop. A moderator who goes rogue, who
seems to be abusing his/her authority, probably would not be stopped.
The B8MB is not in general going to arbitrate disputes over whether or
not a moderator is performing their job properly. That's why it is
critically important that moderator candidates demonstrate they have the
proper qualifications, socially and technically, *before* they are
appointed to the position.
Steve Hayes
UUCP to receive as mail, NNTP to send back as news, but it's so long since i
used Unix that I've forgotten most of it. Anyway it doesn't sound feasible for
me, so there's no point in my volunteering to be moderator.
Doug Freyburger
>
>>> So can anyone explain what the technical requirements for moderating are?
I'll offer a different list.
1) Software that handles the moderation for you. While this can be done
using an e-mail client and an editor to insert the approved-by line
that's definitely the wrong way to go about it. It does not allow for
team moderation. There are several software packages available and
Marty has already posted a link to a list of them. Most such software
is freeware. There exist paid services to supply the software to you -
I pay for one of the groups I help moderate.
2a) A server to run the software on. It needs a static IP number and
that usually means it costs some money. It's possible to host a server
at a university or company that's willing to donate the tiny service
involved. I'm on three moderation teams and two of them run on servers
that are donated. Static IP numbers are an ISP function. 2b) It needs a
static domain name for e-mail and that could be provided by an ISP
without needing a static IP number. The static number and the static
name are not the same but they are interchangable for our purposes.
> It sounds as though it would be quite easy, IF one could get one's ISP to
> provide a UUCP and NNTP feed. But that's the difficult part. Most ISPs
> nowadays don't know what those are.
4a) An NSP account that allows approve-by lines so the moderation team
can act like a user (Alexander has already offered such an account) or
4b) A peering agreement with some NSP so the moderation team can act
like a server (the peering newsgroup was also mentioned in another
post). News service is not an ISP function though some ISPs still do
provide it. The acronym NSP stands for News Service Provider.
5) A human or humans willing to perform the moderation who understand
enough about UseNet to be able to do do. Educating someone to be able
to do it is not a technical issue but once they are in place they are a
technical issue of sorts.
One way the moderation team has been handled recently is a technical
moderator who configures the software and some number of topical
moderators who approve/reject articles and discuss policies for how to
set the filters in the software.
Timothy Sutter
of course, having said that,
if you find that several months from now,
after yopu've removed src.b-s
someone comes up with thr bright idea
to propose a new moderated group called
soc.religion.christian-bible.study
then, the same predicament will arise.
so, you may want to leave it up as well,
until you become certain.
> > I wish this discussion was taking place a few months
> > later, since I'm involved in trying to get a moderated
> > math group going. If I had more experience at the
> > moment, I too might volunteer to (help) moderate
> > src.
> >
> > Bart
> >
> > --
> > Cheerfully resisting change since 1959.
Timothy Sutter
>
> Timothy Sutter <a20...@lycos.com> wrote:
>
> > Approved: a20...@lycos.com
> > From: Timothy Sutter <a20...@lycos.com>
> (snip)
> >
> > i can send a control message, but this is a "test" so, please, don't
> > complain...
> >
> >
> > and, for reader.news4all.se
> > please, this is a test and not a "third party control message" as i
> > understand the thing...
> Actually, this was not a control message at all. "Third party control
> message" in the usenet4all TOS probably refers to canceling articles
> posted by another.
> This message was, however, an article with a forged approval, which is
> one of the most serious possible offenses on Usenet. You are not a
> moderator for either news.groups.proposals or soc.religion.christian.
> Adding an approved header and posting to any group or groups for which
> you are not the moderator is considered to be forgery,
'considered' to be a forgery and actually being
a forged message are two entirely different things.
i posted that message using my name and my e-mail address,
and, when one opens up a moderated group they see nothing
but posts that are already approved,
and using those messages alone as a criterion, they
can ascertain how those messages appeared in the first place,
and, when i do not see any message on the newsgroup that says,
"DO NOT, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, POST A SELF APPROVED MESSAGE"
i have no -other- criterion upon which to base my decision
to place the approved header into my message which will
result in my message appearing.
and this is what i did when i posted self approved
messages to soc.religion.christian several years ago.
i'm not at all sorry that i did it.
i'm not all that pressed about becoming
a moderator of a usenet news group.
i would do it as a -favor-.
i don't even like the concept -of-
usenet group moderation.
i think it's more of a hindrance
than any good it ever does,
-but- i'd still be willing to do it,
inasmuch as some people like it that way.
oh, i knew what i was doing...
and i'm not at all sorry about it.
-but-, i would still moderate the news group
if your cadre of friends decides that it would be ok.
but as i have said several times now,
i will lose no sleep over it being
removed or being moderated by someone else.
Timothy Sutter
i would still do the moderation if you want me to.
i ended that sentence in a period, not a preposition...
i still don't call my post a "forgery"
whether you feel it is a forgery or not.
but, don't get gripey with the swedes...
strictoy speaking, "approved" headers are not only used for moderation.
because "the creation of alt hierarchy newsgroups is unmoderated"
and yet, requires an approved header.
Paul W. Schleck
Hash: SHA1
>Alexander Bartolich wrote:
Based on my experiences in setting up moderated newsgroups, including
configuring moderation software and training teams, I have found that it
is still useful for moderators to understand some of the underlying
theory and low-level details of how newsgroup moderation works. I
appreciate Alexander Bartolich's efforts and generous hosting offers to
potential teams, but I am pretty sure that he would agree that it is not
possible to completely abstract the moderation of a newsgroup as a
turnkey black-box without some understanding of what is going on
under-the-hood. Fortunately, there are some good pre-written references
available that should be the first suggestions to make on this newsgroup
in response to general questions about how moderation works.
For example, the Big-8 Wiki has a page on moderation:
http://www.big-8.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=faqs:moderation
in the Links section at the bottom of that page is a link to a recovered
and mirrored copy of Kent Landfield's original "Netnews Moderator's
Handbook:"
http://moleski.net/newsgroups/landfield/
I would highly recommend that any potential volunteers to take over
moderation of this newsgroup read through the above links, and try to
develop specific questions based on the material if any of it is not
clear.
Right now, I see some potential volunteers that are trainable, but have
a ways to go in terms of being able to properly and reliably moderate a
newsgroup long-term, even with support such as Alexander's HuHu
moderation system. Unless a newsgroup was relatively low volume or
mostly automated (such as an announcement newsgroup), I would have
trouble voting in favor of a proposal to replace a single moderator with
another single moderator, particularly if they were not already deeply
experienced with the technical and policy aspects of moderation.
Organizing a team, obtaining necessary supporting resources, training
that team, and leading/motivating them to do cooperative work in
furtherance of a larger goal is a challenge. But then again, don't
Christians go out and build churches, minister to the faithful, do
missionary and conversion work, and other things that require teamwork,
cooperation, leadership, resource acquisition, and fundraising? Aren't
there motivated and interested clergy or other lay volunteers with
organizational and leadership experience out there who could help make
this happen?
My recommendations to the interested volunteers would be to ask for an
extension and use that time to try to form together as an organized
team, read the above material, asking specific questions if necessary,
and work with Alexander Bartolich on setting up moderation on his site.
- --
Paul W. Schleck
psch...@novia.net
http://www.novia.net/~pschleck/
Finger psch...@novia.net for PGP Public Key
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (SunOS)
iD8DBQFLqO9j6Pj0az779o4RAq1vAJsE9wEFcaC4pp6nw4fUirRYmDM6AACeNg2e
EB47Uy2WhN5oU9tX+2ab/nE=
=8O99
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Timothy Sutter
see, the strange thing is,
i could place an "approved" header in all of my posts
by default and it would appear in posts
to unmoderated newsgroups
and seem to serve no useful purpose,
much like an X: dummy header
and this would just happen to post
my messages into moderated news groups.
it would be my name and my default approved header
Timothy Sutter
> That's why it is
> critically important that moderator candidates demonstrate they have the
> proper qualifications, socially and technically, *before* they are
> appointed to the position.
is this what you had before?
the person who quit as moderator without saying a word,
sometimes it seemed like he hated the group
and wanted it to be torn down.
or wanted it kept as a biased argument -against- christianity
i'd rather it was torn down than for that to happen.... again
Doug Freyburger
>
> i would still do the moderation if you want me to.
As it stands there's no chance of that happening. There's been
discussion of a moderator needing to be trainable and at the moment
you're declining that training. Here's why:
> i still don't call my post a "forgery"
> whether you feel it is a forgery or not.
It's not a matter of feeling at all. It's a matter how how it's
defined in a UseNet context. Kathy already pointed out to you that it's
among the worse offenses there are on UseNet. When someone not a
moderator of a group approves a message that's defined as forging an
approval and it is grounds for having your account pulled at the first
offense. No warnings and no excuses. At the moment folks are declining
to complain in the hopes that you will start taking to the training
that's being presented to you.
Consolidating from one of your other posts:
> see, the strange thing is,
> i could place an "approved" header in all of my posts
> by default and it would appear in posts
> to unmoderated newsgroups
> and seem to serve no useful purpose,
> much like an X: dummy header
Sometimes headers are superfluous and sometimes they are crucial.
> and this would just happen to post
> my messages into moderated news groups.
Do that and someone will complain. The very first complaint will get
your account pulled on the spot. NSPs that fail to do this type of
enforcement see severe consequences by other NSPs.
> it would be my name and my default approved header
Not relevant to the UseNet technical definition of "forged approval".
Timothy Sutter
> > i would still do the moderation if you want me to.
Doug Freyburger wrote:
> As it stands there's no chance of that happening.
fine, bye...
Jeffrey Goldberg
> as of right now, if the object is to keep the group alive,
Then your best course of action would be to find people in addition to
yourself who would be willing to moderate. Among these people should be
some who are strong in your weak areas.
I am not on the management board (nor do I have any interest in this
group one way or the other), but if I were in a position to judge I
would be concerned about having you as a sole moderator of a big 8 group.
> i personally would not -force- the big 8 administration to pry the
> keys from my clenched fist.
Let me say up front that I have no question about your good intentions.
> and, as of right now, i think that the technical aspects =could be=
> overcome.
Please note that I am not saying any of the below to insult or embarrass
you. Nor do I want to diminish your enthusiasm for supporting src. But
I do think that you should be given an honest assessment of why at least
some people (well, maybe just one person) would be wary of you as a lead
or sole moderator.
My concerns aren't merely about technical knowledge of the mechanisms of
Usenet, but also come from certain things about your posting style.
Even the formatting of your messages and your quoting style reflect
over-all Usenet skills that don't live up to what I would expect from a
moderator.
The way you have responded to certain comments and your apparent lack of
initiative in learning some conventions and technology suggest to me
that it would be more difficult for you to acquire the needed skills
than it might be for others.
And although I don't for a moment question your motives, your
defensiveness about your "Approved" test gives me some reason to fear
that you could "go rogue" if things go badly.
I'm sorry for sounding so harsh. I don't know you, and can only judge
from the handful of posts that I've seen. But I can only form an
opinion based on the information I've seen. Were I managing the big 8
or running an newsserver, I would have some worries about having you be
a sole moderator.
As has been pointed out, one big role of the management board is the
persuade those who run news serves that the big8 hierarchy is in good
hands and that dead groups are not kept going. This means that they
need to be conservative in judging which groups to create or keep.
"Build it and they will come" is not an acceptable approach. However, I
agree that there really should be a demand for s.r.christian
(moderated). But it is a group that will live or die based on its
moderation.
Again, what I recommend is that you turn your laudable enthusiasm for
the group in the most productive direction: Try to find people with the
skills you lack who would be willing to act as moderators.
I should point out that many uk.religion.* groups are very well run, and
maybe you will find people there who would be willing to help rescue a
big 8 group.
-j
--
Jeffrey Goldberg http://goldmark.org/jeff/
I rarely read HTML or poorly quoting posts
Reply-To address is valid
David Bostwick
Just in case you're not gone yet...
I'm a current moderator who'd like to figure out how to reverse the general
decline in Usenet posts, if that's possible. You're going to let the guy who
you said hated the group, and wanted it torn down, win because you have to
follow someone else's rules? It sounds to me like you don't care any more
about the group than he does. If you want the group to survive, get over
yourself and do what's needed.
Timothy Sutter
> Just in case you're not gone yet...
it's not up to me.
i'm not interested in being the topic
i said i would do it.
beyond that,
it's not up to me.
Jeffrey Goldberg
> Doug Freyburger wrote:
>> As it stands there's no chance of that happening.
> fine, bye...
But there is still a positive role that you could play in helping the
group survive. As I said in another post, turn your enthusiasm for the
group in a positive direction by trying to recruit good moderators.
Steve Bonine
> it's not up to me.
>
> i'm not interested in being the topic
>
> i said i would do it.
>
>
> beyond that,
>
> it's not up to me.
Excuse me? If it's not up to you, who is it up to?
You have expressed an interest in moderating a newsgroup that could
become contentious. (There's a reason why discussion of politics and
religion is banned in many social contexts.) You have demonstrated no
ability to respond to constructive criticism, and a distinct
cluelessness in terms of Usenet norms. Yet I get the idea that you
expect the big-8 management board to anoint you as moderator. Perhaps I
am simply misunderstanding what you're trying to say.
As others have suggested, if you really care anything about this
newsgroup, find additional people and work with them to rescue the
newsgroup. I'll add . . . if you are really not interested, stop
expressing interest.
Timothy Sutter
> > it's not up to me.
> > i'm not interested in being the topic
> > i said i would do it.
> > beyond that,
> > it's not up to me.
Steve Bonine wrote:
> Excuse me? If it's not up to you, who is it up to?
if it was up to me,
it would already be up and running.
Timothy Sutter
> it would already be up and running.
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.religion.christian/topics
if you look at the traffic at the time it went dead,
it was quite low volume and wouldn't have needed
ten moderators, or even special software.
one person could post all those posts by hand.
5 a day at most.
if traffic picked up a bit
i could post want ads
in the group itself
soliciting help.
and, there probably isn't a post on the list
that i would have rejected outright.
the traffic may very well not rise
to over twenty posts a day
in teh very near future,
albeit, it could and i did happen to pick up DMOD
and am willing to do the moderation.
like i said
i have absolutely zero problem
in turning the group moderation over to someone else
if that someone else wants to do it,
but, the longer you ditz around about it,
the chances of total abandonment rise...
not that a usenet newsgroup and it's life or death
will mark the end of christianity,
but, some people still like
to post their acknowledgements on line
Helmut Richter
> You have expressed an interest in moderating a newsgroup that could become
> contentious.
I would have preferred to see some of the former contributors of src or
src-bc take over. David Kleinecke is one of them, the others not, as far
as I can remember.
Moreover, even though it is not the moderator's task to provide contiguous
text -- and he may even do his job without ever being noticed --
experience shows that the ability of forming complete English sentences
may be helpful, particularly for the non-native speakers of English such
as me.
--
Helmut Richter
Timothy Sutter
> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
> moderated group soc.religion.christian
> This is a formal Request for Discussion (RFD) to change moderators of
> newsgroup soc.religion.christian, or to remove this group.
removing moderation from soc.religion.christian
would be just fine.
Timothy Sutter
> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
> moderated group soc.religion.christian
> This is a formal Request for Discussion (RFD) to change moderators of
> newsgroup soc.religion.christian, or to remove this group.
whether this matter at all or not;
theoretically, if you need a moderator,
i've been configuring that DMOD program,
and, it functions for me as far as insering
an "approved" header on multiple e-mails
received from a POP source, and their subsequent
re-direction to a newsgroup.
i ran a few tests in an unmoderated newsgroup...
i sent myself some e-mails [unspecified address, here]
tehy come back to me, i look at them, and send them off
one at a time.
i still have to actually look at the messages.
but, if it has some sort of robo-mod function,
i'll look in to that.
even if you don't need me to help moderate.
i can do it.
and, one last [other] thing;
i'm sure you know your business,
but, my concerns over the "ditzing around" comment
were sort of about the fact that soc.religion.christian
is already an established group, and not one being
considered to become a group for the first time
where i realize -that- takes more time
to get the naming 'right' etc.
and that, the issue which i would
consider ancillary to -that- concern
is the one where the 'big8' administration may be considering
mandating multiple moderators, which it does not presently do,
but, which is -not- the issue in this RFD.
the issue -here- is one of moderator replacement or removal of group
and so, the 'big8' issue of a new moderator mandate,
i feel, is not sufficiently settled -within-
the 'big8' administration itself, so as to
interfere with this present issue of soc.religion.christian
and its remoderation or removal.
that should be settled separately from this matter.
having said that;
i'm still -willing- to help
and if at some later date, when the 'big8' administration has
its moderator policy settled and would like to mandate
multiple moderators across the board,
i would certainly have no difficulty relinquishing
my iron fisted grip on soc.religion.christian.
as of now, it's not necessary for this issue
to hold up the reviving of soc.religion.christian.
that's pretty much all...
take your time, no hurry
Steve Bonine
> and that, the issue which i would
> consider ancillary to -that- concern
> is the one where the 'big8' administration may be considering
> mandating multiple moderators, which it does not presently do,
>
> but, which is -not- the issue in this RFD.
>
> the issue -here- is one of moderator replacement or removal of group
>
> and so, the 'big8' issue of a new moderator mandate,
> i feel, is not sufficiently settled -within-
> the 'big8' administration itself, so as to
>
> interfere with this present issue of soc.religion.christian
>
> and its remoderation or removal.
>
> that should be settled separately from this matter.
In <80qg2e...@mid.individual.net> I said, "One of the things that I'd
like to see happen as a result of this cleanup process is that ... a
team of moderators be found." This is my own personal opinion and I
made that clear by using "things that I'd like to see."
From this you've come to the conclusion that the reason you're not
being picked as the moderator is that the board is "mandating multiple
moderators". I see no evidence that that's the case.
Given the level of interest shown in this newsgroup and the dearth of
qualified candidates for moderator, it is my personal opinion (is that
clear enough?) that the appropriate path is to remove it.
Bart Goddard
@news.albasani.net:
> Perceived shortcomings of these offers:
> - moderation team too small
> - no policy for replacement of inactive members
> - no concept for moderaton/revival of group
> - no details on technical implementation
To the second point: When Stephen Adams announced that
he was ceasing moderatin of srcb-s, I posted saying
that I would collect names of people who wanted to
be informed if another venue was opened. I now
have a short list of e-mail addresses who will be
informed if some sort of moderated group survives.
Dave Sill
>
> were sort of about the fact that soc.religion.christian
> is already an established group, and not one being
> considered to become a group for the first time
> where i realize -that- takes more time
> to get the naming 'right' etc.
>
>
> and that, the issue which i would
> consider ancillary to -that- concern
>
> is the one where the 'big8' administration may be considering
> mandating multiple moderators, which it does not presently do,
>
> but, which is -not- the issue in this RFD.
The B8MB is not considering mandating multiple moderators. And, while
the bar for getting control of an existing-but-abandoned moderated group
is lower than for a proposed new moderated group, we won't just hand
over a group to anyone who wants it. We've got to be convinced (1) that
the group is worth preserving, and (2) that the "moderation package" is
likely to be effective.
The moderation package consists of one or more moderators, a moderation
policy, and a moderation mechanism. We prefer a team of moderators to a
single moderator for robustness, but that's not mandatory. In any case,
all of the moderator candidates should demonstrate suitable technical
and interpersonal skills.
I'm not yet convinced that SRC is viable. I've seen no groundswell of
support and I think it may just be too general to be popular.
I'm also not yet convinced that you're a suitable moderator candidate.
-Dave
David Bostwick
This is sort of off-topic, but I have a question about your posting style,
Timothy.
Is there a problem with your formatting, or is it just my reader that has the
problem? Your paragraphs are all broken up, and it's difficult at times to
follow your thought. Several lines may be together, and then there will be
6-8 lines, each separated by a blank line. Some of the "orphan" lines go
together, and some don't. If it's just me, I'll hush, but if it's not, you
should probably fix it if possible.
Steve Hayes
There are alt.religion.christian and alt.religionchristianity available as
unmoderated alternatives.
soc.religion.christian was useful for avoiding all the off-topic spam on those
groups, but if there's no one willing and able to moderate it, then it will
have to go.
>I'm also not yet convinced that you're a suitable moderator candidate.
I wouldn't trust a modetrator who can't write proper English, and if it's just
that she shift key on hias computer isn't working, then someone with an
unreliable computer probably isn't the right one to handle moderation.
Paul W. Schleck
Hash: SHA1
In <4BAB67...@lycos.com> Timothy Sutter <a20...@lycos.com> writes:
>Alexander Bartolich wrote:
>> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>> moderated group soc.religion.christian
>> This is a formal Request for Discussion (RFD) to change moderators of
>> newsgroup soc.religion.christian, or to remove this group.
>whether this matter at all or not;
>theoretically, if you need a moderator,
As Alexander Bartolich has pointed out, theoretical discussions are
really outside the scope of this proposal. We can only approach this
from the pragmatic present reality of what needs to be done, who is
available to do it, and how they would go about doing it.
>i've been configuring that DMOD program,
>and, it functions for me as far as insering
>an "approved" header on multiple e-mails
>received from a POP source, and their subsequent
> re-direction to a newsgroup.
>i ran a few tests in an unmoderated newsgroup...
>i sent myself some e-mails [unspecified address, here]
>tehy come back to me, i look at them, and send them off
>one at a time.
>i still have to actually look at the messages.
>but, if it has some sort of robo-mod function,
>i'll look in to that.
Other suggested points to look into:
Can you elaborate on what kind of hosting environment you propose to run
DMOD or other moderation software? A PC at home at the end of a
consumer broadband connection? An account at a Unix shell ISP? A
co-located server sitting in a data center? Each of these successive
options implies greater organization, planning, and cost, but would also
offer greater reliability long-term.
Is your approach scalable and sharable? Demonstrating that you can
approve one article is only the first step in setting up a workflow to
ensure that potentially large numbers of articles can be promptly and
reliably reviewed and approved over an extended period of time. Can
your approach accommodate a substitute moderator if you need to
temporarily withdraw from moderation duties for vacation, illness, or
other outside obligations?
Is your incoming E-mail SPAM-filtered? It's my direct experience that
the moderator submission addresses of long-established newsgroups are
the targets of significant amounts of SPAM that will have to be dealt
with in some way, else will likely lead to failure of the moderator(s)
and the newsgroup. Usually this is via SPAM filtering tools such as
Spamassassin, SPF, etc., applied at a hosted server and ISP network
capacity level.
If at some point in the future you need to permanently resign as
moderator, can the facilities be easily transferred to the control of
another moderator?
>even if you don't need me to help moderate.
>i can do it.
>and, one last [other] thing;
>i'm sure you know your business,
>but, my concerns over the "ditzing around" comment
>were sort of about the fact that soc.religion.christian
>is already an established group, and not one being
>considered to become a group for the first time
>where i realize -that- takes more time
>to get the naming 'right' etc.
It may be an established newsgroup, but one that has fallen into disuse.
Part of the success in reactivating it would be to have a realistic plan
to provide prompt, fair, and durable services to accept, review, and
approve articles. That implies a qualified moderator, or moderation
team, with concrete, realistic plans. These plans should include
technical approaches, policy, and even publicity/marketing of the
newsgroup to encourage those to use it or return to using it. Usenet
usage and culture has changed much in the time that I have been using it
(about 20 years), so that what had worked in the past, and the
assumptions that were part of the newsgroup's original RFD, charter, and
usage patterns, may have to be revisited.
For example, take a look at rec.radio.info. For about 5 years, in the
absence of a moderator, it was on auto-pilot, with only a small number
of directly-approved articles appearing. When
rec.radio.amateur.moderated was proposed, then created, that moderation
team realized that it could incorporate rec.radio.info into its
moderation system (STUMP with a web interface and additional
enhancements running on a Unix shell ISP account) with minimal
additional effort. They set up facilities to have articles for it
directly approved, accepted via the moderator submission address but
automatically approved, or as one-off submissions that would be accepted
and manually reviewed and approved. They started re-posting the
previous Welcome and Posting Guidelines articles at regular intervals to
signal the reactivation of the newsgroup and to encourage further
submissions. The team also actively sought out submitters and worked
with them to determine which of the submission alternatives would work
best for their specific submissions. As a result, rec.radio.info was
very quickly reactivated into a thriving newsgroup with many useful
articles and a wide readership.
By the way, the system used by this team is also available as a
pre-configured turnkey proposition to any other team that was willing to
subscribe to services at the same Unix Shell ISP (Public Access Internet
and Unix, NYC, aka Panix.com). The cost of services would be $100/year
(teams that use this option usually share the cost amongst themselves,
or seek donations). This money goes to Panix. Support for the STUMP
moderation system would be provided as a free courtesy by the other
moderation teams that use the same service. It would be much more
durable than a home network connection/PC solution as it would be run
from a Unix host sitting in a protected data center run by a reputable
ISP that has been in business for over 20 years. It would be much more
sharable and scalable than home network connection/PC solutions as
moderators would access the moderation facilities remotely via a web
browser, and moderators could be added to the access control for it very
quickly and easily. This ISP uses several effective SPAM-filtering
utilities including block lists and Spamassassin that can be used by
hosted moderation teams to reduce their workload in wading through
incoming E-mail.
>and that, the issue which i would
>consider ancillary to -that- concern
Qualifications of proposed moderator(s), and evaluation of their plans
to reactivate a newsgroup, are very well within the scope of this RFD,
and the purview of the Big-8 board.
>is the one where the 'big8' administration may be considering
>mandating multiple moderators, which it does not presently do,
I don't believe that there is a hard-and-fast general requirement to
have multiple moderators, nor is the Big-8 Board proposing to make such
a requirement. What my concern would be, also shared and similarly
stated by others including Steve Bonine and Jeffrey Goldberg, is that
you have a larger team that can cooperate and work together, bounce
ideas off of each other, contribute their strengths, as well as seek out
and accept assistance for their weaknesses. Even if that team is just a
consulting/sounding board, or even just a coordinated group of
discussion leaders who can reactivate the newsgroup through their
focused postings to encourage and guide that discussion. If no such
cooperation can be achieved at any level, it does not bode well for the
possible success of the reactivated newsgroup and its moderator(s).
I notice that Bart Goddard indicated that he had a list of names and
E-mail addresses of interested participants should the newsgroup be
reactivated. Perhaps corresponding with that group to see if any kind
of informal team can be set up would be a good next step.
What I previously stated is that I personally would have trouble voting
for a single moderator of a potentially contentious discussion newsgroup
unless that person was highly qualified as a moderator. I believe that
you are trainable as a moderator, but would find it useful to accept
guidance and advice about how best to train as a moderator, as well as
seek partnerships with other people who may be willing to assist you
with your goals (the Big-8 Board included). Your general willingness to
train and accept guidance, as well as your demonstrated public
temperament, I believe is applicable to this RFD, and the consideration
of my vote as a Board member.
>but, which is -not- the issue in this RFD.
>the issue -here- is one of moderator replacement or removal of group
>and so, the 'big8' issue of a new moderator mandate,
>i feel, is not sufficiently settled -within-
>the 'big8' administration itself, so as to
>interfere with this present issue of soc.religion.christian
>and its remoderation or removal.
>that should be settled separately from this matter.
>having said that;
>i'm still -willing- to help
There's a legitimate distinction between "help" and "leadership." What
is really needed at this point is someone who can take charge, seek
initiative such as pursuing opportunities to self-train, accept and
coordinate offers to assist, deal graciously with criticism, respond
promptly to feedback, commit to a long-term and consistent effort, and
overall demonstrate themselves to be able to work well with others, even
if just as a single moderator working with his community of contributors
or potential contributors. Lots of people want to "help" with
theoretical wishful thinking, but without leadership to incorporate
ideas and suggestions into a constructive action plan, a plan that can
and likely will be executed and followed by others, that "help" is of
limited present utility.
For example, have you read the "Netnews Moderator's Handbook" for which
I previously provided a link? Do you see your role as that of a Chief
Moderator, Technical Moderator, Facilitator (also known as Consultant),
some, all, none? Do you see the possibility of recruiting and
coordinating with others to assume the roles that you would not be
assuming?
>and if at some later date, when the 'big8' administration has
>its moderator policy settled and would like to mandate
>multiple moderators across the board,
>i would certainly have no difficulty relinquishing
>my iron fisted grip on soc.religion.christian.
I'm sure that you are just embellishing for emphasis when using the term
"iron fisted grip." Certainly that's not a desirable attribute of a
good moderator for this newsgroup at this time.
>as of now, it's not necessary for this issue
>to hold up the reviving of soc.religion.christian.
>that's pretty much all...
>take your time, no hurry
Do you feel any sense of urgency or hurry yourself in trying to get up
to speed with the challenges you might face as a potential volunteer
moderator? Right now, this RFD is proceeding on a timetable where a
vote will shortly be taken. At this point, the ball is in your court,
not ours, so whatever you or others propose within that timetable (or
extended timetable if an extension is requested), will be what we will
vote on in the very near future.
- --
Paul W. Schleck
psch...@novia.net
http://www.novia.net/~pschleck/
Finger psch...@novia.net for PGP Public Key
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (SunOS)
iD8DBQFLq50V6Pj0az779o4RArGKAJ4h2xN3DtUvLrQYyQmsP6GwVEd1xQCgjVTM
g4AL9MDfUwHroxbTXb36L/E=
=T5ST
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Jeffrey Goldberg
> i'm still -willing- to help
Great. I am less pessimistic about the future of the group than others
here. I've seen the equivalent uk.* group thrive (with moderation).
And on the face of it, this would seem like a group that we should be
seeing support for. I am puzzled that we are not seeing that support.
So in addition to the lack of a qualified moderator, we are lacking
messages from people saying that they would participate in the group.
In addition to trying to find a qualified moderator, I would suggest
that you work to tell people that if they would use the group, they need
to post here to say that.
Keep in mind that five people merely saying that they'd use it is worth
much more than one person enthusiastically saying that they want the
group created.
And it is the responsibility of supporters of the group (not the B8MB)
to find those people. If you can think of other places that the RFD
should have been posted, please say so.
Please understand that these "hurdles" are based on long experience of
what groups thrive and what become moribund or cess pools.
Cheers,
Timothy Sutter
> On 03/25/10 11:05, Timothy Sutter wrote:
> >
> > were sort of about the fact that soc.religion.christian
> > is already an established group, and not one being
> > considered to become a group for the first time
> > where i realize -that- takes more time
> > to get the naming 'right' etc.
> > and that, the issue which i would
> > consider ancillary to -that- concern
> > is the one where the 'big8' administration may be considering
> > mandating multiple moderators, which it does not presently do,
> > but, which is -not- the issue in this RFD.
> The B8MB is not considering mandating multiple moderators. And, while
> the bar for getting control of an existing-but-abandoned moderated group
> is lower than for a proposed new moderated group, we won't just hand
> over a group to anyone who wants it.
i didn't exactly say i wanted it, i said that i would do it.
there are people that want the group to continue.
-if- i do it, i'm not looking to quit unexepectedly
in a matter of weeks or months.
i may be willing to do it for the next 60 or 70 years
but that is not the issue.
> We've got to be convinced (1) that
> the group is worth preserving, and (2) that the "moderation package" is
> likely to be effective.
the group was not abandoned by posters,
it was abandoned by the moderator.
so, you do not have enough information to decide
if the group is worth preserving based on
it's present state.
what i can say, is, that "src"
will have traffic if revived,
and, that, even if i never post a single post,
which i may not.
i will only write a charter -if- i am inolved
in the group's moderation.
i will not write a charter for any other reason.
i certainly do not intend to allow every post
that appear in my inbox.
i may send it back to teh sender for revision,
at my discretion.
i certainly would not reformat all posts
to look the way my posts look.
i would not allow harasssment.
i can say that any post that reached
my inbox would be considered,
even if they be is a language
other than english,
albeit, as of this moment, i may not be able to post in
chinese or persian or arabic characters.
that could be worked around.
i don't feel the need to offer up a resume
or 16 letters of reccomendation.
if this is what you'd be asking,
i represent my self.
i can manage to accomplish the task,
i have already indicated that would
not demand a peculiar emphasis
other than a christian focus.
harassing i would not allow.
> I'm also not yet convinced that you're a suitable moderator candidate.
well, then, my earned doctorate in chemistry
would not be a point of interest here.
you could call me Dr. Timothy Sutter
but no one calls me that
no even my muthuh
i can direct you to publications.
===
"Kinetic and equilibrium studies on porphyrins, chlorins,
and isobacteriochlorins; basicities, zinc incorporation,
and acid catalyzed solution reactions in aqueous and nonaqueous
solutions," T.P.G. Sutter and P. Hambright,
Inorg. Chem., 1992, 31, 5089-5093.
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ic00050a031
===
===
"The effect of peripheral substituents on the kinetics of
zinc ion incorporation and acid catalyzed removal from
water soluble sulfonated porphyrins,"
T.P.G. Sutter and P.Hambright,
J. Coord. Chem., 1993, 30, 317-326.
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=3859250
===
there's a few more, but there are more people on those
i've even taught.
not that this is a necessary qualification
for moderating usenet newsgroup.
all i'm saying is that i would do it.
i don't ask anyone to vouch for me.
and, i don't need to do this.
Thomas Hochstein
> Is there a problem with your formatting, or is it just my reader that has the
> problem?
I presume it's more a question of a personal posting style ...
Timothy Sutter
<>>>>
anyway, as far as a "shell account" i concerned, my POP server,
which shall remain nameless at this time, has "web access" which
amounts to a "shell account" in that i may peruse contributions
from a web based area without those cntributions landing in my
home computer's inbox, and so, -if- in the event of a massive
deluge of postings i do not have to worry that such a deluge
would clog my home machine's inbox, and download services.
I would be able to go to the web site, and look at -that- inbox
and pick and choose from that location before i have those mails
sent to my home computer, and so, i can 'pre-moderate' and then
affix the "approved" line on messages that -i- have already
"pre-approved" so, those would be part of my "contingency plans,"
and you can view my offer to moderate in the same manner, as a
contingency.
at least two "free usenet" sites offer moderator abilities for
"approved"
headers,and so, that is not a problem either.
i do format my own personal postings in a manner that may seem
peculiar to some, but, i am not writing a text book, but simply using
more of a "conversational" protocol, which is not at all peculiar
in nor to usenet.
[the "negative space" still looks wierd to me]
Kathy Morgan
> Is there a problem with your formatting, or is it just my reader that has the
> problem? Your paragraphs are all broken up, and it's difficult at times to
> follow your thought. Several lines may be together, and then there will be
> 6-8 lines, each separated by a blank line. Some of the "orphan" lines go
> together, and some don't. If it's just me, I'll hush, but if it's not, you
> should probably fix it if possible.
FWIW, I'm seeing the same thing you do.
--
Kathy
Mark Kramer
Kathy Morgan <kmo...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>Well, your test message proves that usenet4all does not properly prevent
>non-moderators from forging approvals,
No, it shows that usenet4all doesn't keep a canonical list of who the
moderators for all newsgroups are, or maybe doesn't authenticate posters
when it cannot. Since at least one newsgroup is self-moderated, it has to
allow everyone to insert Approved headers, because I know of no canonical
list of every moderator and every From header they might use.
Mark Kramer
Jeffrey Goldberg <jeffre...@goldmark.org> wrote:
>It shouldn't cost you money, just time. But you will need to acquire
>some technical skills.
I believe he has demonstrated sufficient skills by posting an article with
an Approved header. That's all it takes to moderate.
>I'm largely speculating,
Yes.
Mark Kramer
Alexander Bartolich <alexander...@gmx.at> wrote:
>Moderated newsgroup soc.religion.christian is scheduled for a vote.
A Moderator Vacancy Announcement is supposed to stop when someone is
found to take over as moderator. That's the point of the search.
Why is it for this group that there is talk of requiring multiple
moderators to replace the one it had, and that there must be processes
in place to replace moderators (which are toothless at best and can be
ignored at whim)?
Other MVAs have ended when someone popped up to moderate. This one hasn't.
What is different about this group?
>Moderators of a news group have near-absolute power on the group: [1]
>- they decide what messages get approved or rejected
>- they can add or remove co-moderators
>- they can appoint successors
>- they can effective close the group by ignoring any submission
So you are pretty clear on the fact that lacking a full-blown process to
replace a moderator from a "team" is meaningless.
>Because of this we would like to be reasonable sure that a candidate
>is sane, has the people skills necessary for his audience, and can
>provide service 24/7/365.
Nobody can provide service 24/7/365.24. Such a level of service is not
required in a moderated newsgroup. Nobody dies if their submission isn't
available within five minutes. It sometimes takes a day or two before THIS
group's moderation team can process an article, so requiring perfection
from others is ridiculous.
As for determining sanity, I doubt the B8MB has the requisite skills
to do so, even were the canditates for moderator to appear in person
before them. (Please, if any of the current board are board-certified
psychiatrists, please correct me.)
Jeffrey Goldberg
> Why is it for this group that there is talk of requiring multiple
> moderators to replace the one it had, and that there must be processes
> in place to replace moderators [...]
> Other MVAs have ended when someone popped up to moderate. This one
> hasn't. What is different about this group?
My suspicion is that when a moderator popped up it became quickly clear
that he seemed substantially less than ideal; so the response was to
hope that he could find someone else to work with. The hope was that he
could find a co-moderator who would be able to support him and
compensate for some shortcomings.
I have already posted why I don't think that he would be a suitable
moderator, and my view has not changed since then. However, I've also
encouraged him to find others who express interest in the group.
Again, speculating, I suspect that if there were substantial expressions
of support for using the group, people would be more willing to find
ways to make the group's revival happen.
As I've said, I've seen uk.religion.christian thrive as an excellent
example of what Usenet can be. I would like to see supporters of
s.r.christian try to create something like that. I sincerely wish
supporters of the group well in getting there; so far the supporter has
not taken my advice (as is his choice).
David E. Ross
Posting to a news server that does not respect moderation does not prove
a person is competent to be a moderator.
For me to accept a moderator, I need to see some demonstration that the
person understands moderation and has the skills, software, and Internet
account to moderate a newsgroup in a manner that well-run servers will
honor messages approved by that person.
--
David E. Ross
<http://www.rossde.com/>.
Anyone who thinks government owns a monopoly on inefficient, obstructive
bureaucracy has obviously never worked for a large corporation. © 1997
Mark Goodge
keyboard and typed:
>
>As I've said, I've seen uk.religion.christian thrive as an excellent
>example of what Usenet can be. I would like to see supporters of
>s.r.christian try to create something like that. I sincerely wish
>supporters of the group well in getting there; so far the supporter has
>not taken my advice (as is his choice).
This seems to be an appropriate hook on which I can hang my entrance
to the discussion. Let me introduce myself: I am currently the lead
moderator of uk.religion.christian, having taken over from the
previous moderator in 2006.
>From its inception as a moderated group until last year, ukrc had a
single moderator (aided as necessary by deputies to cover for planned
absence, etc), but following a major system failure in 2008 which
forced me to rewrite the moderation software from scratch I
deliberately built in the facility to have multiple moderators acting
as a team if necesary. Following a period of consultation on the
group, I instituted this in practice in October 2009. As the charter
doesn't explicitly provide for team moderation, the other members of
the team are officially "moderation team members" and I retain the
formal title of "moderator", but in the day-to-day functioning of the
group there's no distinction between us.
I have, in the past, been an irregular contributor to src, but gave up
because I found the moderation to be excessively stifling. As I
understand it (and correct me if I'm wrong), all posts to src were
manually moderated, leading to excessive delays between posts being
sent and appearing on the group and making normal Usenet style
discussion next to impossible. If you are looking for a single reason
why ukrc continues to thrive, while src foundered, I would say that it
is almost certainly the fact that ukrc has, from the beginning, used
robomoderation with the majority of regular contributors being on a
passlist. Manual moderation is only used in ukrc for new contributors
not yet approved for the passlist, contributors who, according to the
charter, are not eligible for the passlist, and contributors who have
been removed from the passlist (either temporarily or permanently) due
to posting material that the charter forbids.
The simple fact is that full manual moderation of discussion groups
doesn't work. It may well have done, once, when Usenet was younger,
there were fewer alternatives, robomoderation was less widespread and
users were willing to put up with the drawbacks of manual moderation
because they didn't have any other option. But that's no longer the
case. The instant (or near-instant) gratification of web-based fora,
mailing lists, unmoderated newsgroups and automated moderated
newsgroups is what users have come to expect, and a moderated
newsgroup which doesn't offer that will have few readers and even
fewer contributors.
If the proposal is to revive src with passlist-based robomoderation
(with either a single moderator or a team, it doesn't really matter
which) then I'd be entirely in support of it. I would read and post to
such a group, and, if the putative moderator(s) wanted to draw on our
experience in ukrc then I'd be happy to offer more direct support and
advice (including, if desired, assistance in setting up the
robomoderation to begin with). But if the proposal is for a return to
the manual moderation which preceded its demise, then I see no future
in that.
Mark
--
Blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk
Jeffrey Goldberg
> This seems to be an appropriate hook on which I can hang my entrance
> to the discussion. Let me introduce myself: I am currently the lead
> moderator of uk.religion.christian, having taken over from the
> previous moderator in 2006.
It's nice to hear from you. And I'm delighted that you've joined this
discussion. To me, you need no introduction.
> I have, in the past, been an irregular contributor to src, but gave up
> because I found the moderation to be excessively stifling. As I
> understand it (and correct me if I'm wrong), all posts to src were
> manually moderated, leading to excessive delays between posts being
> sent and appearing on the group and making normal Usenet style
> discussion next to impossible.
I'm not personally familiar with how the group operated, but that sounds
very plausible.
> If you are looking for a single reason
> why ukrc continues to thrive, while src foundered, I would say that it
> is almost certainly the fact that ukrc has, from the beginning, used
> robomoderation with the majority of regular contributors being on a
> passlist. Manual moderation is only used in ukrc for new contributors
> not yet approved for the passlist, contributors who, according to the
> charter, are not eligible for the passlist, and contributors who have
> been removed from the passlist (either temporarily or permanently) due
> to posting material that the charter forbids.
Again, that all makes perfect sense.
> The simple fact is that full manual moderation of discussion groups
> doesn't work.
I think everyone agrees here.
> If the proposal is to revive src with passlist-based robomoderation
> (with either a single moderator or a team, it doesn't really matter
> which) then I'd be entirely in support of it.
My understanding is the charter is agnostic about the details and
mechanism of moderation. It is really whatever the moderator(s) decide.
Personally, I would doubt the wisdom on anyone who thought that they
could manually moderate such a group.
> I would read and post to
> such a group, and, if the putative moderator(s) wanted to draw on our
> experience in ukrc then I'd be happy to offer more direct support and
> advice (including, if desired, assistance in setting up the
> robomoderation to begin with).
If you were to provide support and advice for the moderator(s), I would
be less concerned than I am now about the specific skills and
temperament of moderator candidates.
> But if the proposal is for a return to the manual moderation which
> preceded its demise, then I see no future in that.
As I said, I can't imagine that anyone would insist on something like that.
Cheers,
Alexander Bartolich
> [...]
> This seems to be an appropriate hook on which I can hang my entrance
> to the discussion. Let me introduce myself: I am currently the lead
> moderator of uk.religion.christian, having taken over from the
> previous moderator in 2006.
Nice to meet you.
> [...] If you are looking for a single reason
> why ukrc continues to thrive, while src foundered, I would say that it
> is almost certainly the fact that ukrc has, from the beginning, used
> robomoderation with the majority of regular contributors being on a
> passlist.
OK. How does your robot identify users? Can it be fooled?
(You don't have to answer this.)
> [...] The simple fact is that full manual moderation of discussion
> groups doesn't work. The instant (or near-instant) gratification of
> web-based fora, mailing lists, unmoderated newsgroups and automated
> moderated newsgroups is what users have come to expect, and a moderated
> newsgroup which doesn't offer that will have few readers and even
> fewer contributors.
There is a lot of thruth in your words. But I would like to add that
one size does not necessarily fit all.
Unmoderated newsgroups tend to be full of crap. Especially groups dedi-
cated to contentious matters. And some topics just cannot be discussed
in Twitter style.
Full manual moderation can work. I have seen it. You either need a
decently sized moderation team, or a discussion culture that prefers
elaborate letters to texting. Some people enjoy living in the past.
> If the proposal is to revive src with passlist-based robomoderation
> (with either a single moderator or a team, it doesn't really matter
> which) then I'd be entirely in support of it. I would read and post to
> such a group, and, if the putative moderator(s) wanted to draw on our
> experience in ukrc then I'd be happy to offer more direct support and
> advice (including, if desired, assistance in setting up the
> robomoderation to begin with).
Oh, cool. Is that an application? You got my vote. :-)
Seriously, it is presumptuous to demand perfect results from people
organizing leisure activities. We are in dire need of volunteers.
With the two applicants of this RfD in mind, I am glad for anyone who
takes two issues to heart:
- Moderation is a service to the readers and writers of the group.
We are in search for editors, not artists.
- A moderator is on a mission. I can't say what mission that is.
Everybody has to find out for himself. But for sure moderators are
not employees waiting for orders from the B8MB.
Ciao
Alexander.
Steve Bonine
> The simple fact is that full manual moderation of discussion groups
> doesn't work. It may well have done, once, when Usenet was younger,
> there were fewer alternatives, robomoderation was less widespread and
> users were willing to put up with the drawbacks of manual moderation
> because they didn't have any other option. But that's no longer the
> case. The instant (or near-instant) gratification of web-based fora,
> mailing lists, unmoderated newsgroups and automated moderated
> newsgroups is what users have come to expect, and a moderated
> newsgroup which doesn't offer that will have few readers and even
> fewer contributors.
You have an excellent point. The thing that surprises me is the lack of
any significant support for a newsgroup on this topic, irregardless of
the type of moderation. Perhaps the word just hasn't gotten out to
potential participants, but for whatever reason the response has been
underwhelming.
Unfortunately it's not possible to go from a dead newsgroup to a
smoothly operating robomoderation scheme without some effort. Someone,
or preferably a small group of people, needs to shepherd the newsgroup
during a rebirth phase, and during this interval manual moderation will
be required. It will take energy to promote the newsgroup and
facilitate the discussion until a critical mass of people exists to
maintain it. Judgment is needed to build a list of pre-approved posters
and during this process each submission must be read and evaluated.
How about another newsgroup to moderate, Mark? You need that, don't you?
Mark Goodge
keyboard and typed:
>Mark Goodge wrote:
>
>> [...] If you are looking for a single reason
>> why ukrc continues to thrive, while src foundered, I would say that it
>> is almost certainly the fact that ukrc has, from the beginning, used
>> robomoderation with the majority of regular contributors being on a
>> passlist.
>
>OK. How does your robot identify users? Can it be fooled?
>(You don't have to answer this.)
Like most robomoderated groups, it uses the From: line. Yes, that's
trivially forgeable. But in practice, that hasn't been an issue.
Forging someone else's identity is a TOSable offence against nearly
every news server AUP on the planet, even those that generally don't
care much what other abuses their users perpetrate, so a complaint
about such is usually taken seriously. I, personally, have never had
to deal with impersonation on the group, and nor (to the best of my
knowledge) have my predecessors.
A more serious problem, but one that's not confined to robomoderated
groups, is sockpuppetry perpetrated by those who wish to circumvent
posting restrictions placed on them by the moderator(s). This hasn't
been a major issue in ukrc, but there have been instances of it.
>> If the proposal is to revive src with passlist-based robomoderation
>> (with either a single moderator or a team, it doesn't really matter
>> which) then I'd be entirely in support of it. I would read and post to
>> such a group, and, if the putative moderator(s) wanted to draw on our
>> experience in ukrc then I'd be happy to offer more direct support and
>> advice (including, if desired, assistance in setting up the
>> robomoderation to begin with).
>
>Oh, cool. Is that an application? You got my vote. :-)
It's not an application to be the new moderator, no. It's an offer of
assistance to anyone else who wants to volunteer to be the new lead
moderator.
>Seriously, it is presumptuous to demand perfect results from people
>organizing leisure activities. We are in dire need of volunteers.
>
>With the two applicants of this RfD in mind, I am glad for anyone who
>takes two issues to heart:
>- Moderation is a service to the readers and writers of the group.
> We are in search for editors, not artists.
That's very true. While it is the case that, traditionally, moderated
newsgroups have effectively been the personal fiefdom of the
moderator, I don't think it's healthy for the group if that's how it's
viewed by the moderator(s). A good moderator is someone who provides a
service to the group, and to the wider Usenet community, by doing
their best to ensure a healthy flow of discussion in the group they
are responsible for.
Mark
--
Free postcodes: http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/geopostcode/
Read why: http://mark.goodge.co.uk/musings/422/locate-that-postcode/
Mark Kramer
Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>>OK. How does your robot identify users? Can it be fooled?
>>(You don't have to answer this.)
>
>Like most robomoderated groups, it uses the From: line. Yes, that's
>trivially forgeable. But in practice, that hasn't been an issue.
Ask the people in soc.support.fat-acceptance.moderated.
>Forging someone else's identity is a TOSable offence against nearly
>every news server AUP on the planet, even those that generally don't
>care much what other abuses their users perpetrate, so a complaint
>about such is usually taken seriously.
There are so many open servers, and all it takes is one to destroy the
impression that people have a cozy-happy place to discuss stuff.
>>Seriously, it is presumptuous to demand perfect results from people
>>organizing leisure activities. We are in dire need of volunteers.
Yes. It is. Saying you want 24/7/365 moderation is a bit over the top.
>That's very true. While it is the case that, traditionally, moderated
>newsgroups have effectively been the personal fiefdom of the
>moderator, I don't think it's healthy for the group if that's how it's
>viewed by the moderator(s).
You wish to have a moderator that is deluded? You wish your moderator
to not understand what moderation is and how it works?
>A good moderator is someone who provides a
>service to the group, and to the wider Usenet community, by doing
>their best to ensure a healthy flow of discussion in the group they
>are responsible for.
Yep.
Mark Kramer
David E. Ross <nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
>On 3/26/10 3:12 PM, Mark Kramer wrote:
>> In article <80pmm0...@mid.individual.net>,
>> Jeffrey Goldberg <jeffre...@goldmark.org> wrote:
>>> It shouldn't cost you money, just time. But you will need to acquire
>>> some technical skills.
>>
>> I believe he has demonstrated sufficient skills by posting an article with
>> an Approved header. That's all it takes to moderate.
>>
>>> I'm largely speculating,
>>
>> Yes.
>
>Posting to a news server that does not respect moderation does not prove
>a person is competent to be a moderator.
Jeffery said that he would need to acquire technical skills. I said
that his ability to post with an Approved header was demonstration of
technical skills.
Nobody said that "technical skills" means "competent". It does mean
he has the technical skills.
>For me to accept a moderator, I need to see some demonstration that the
>person understands moderation and has the skills, software, and Internet
>account to moderate a newsgroup in a manner that well-run servers will
>honor messages approved by that person.
As a user, you either accept the moderator and post to the group, or you
post elsewhere. You don't get to put your own criteria on who you will
and won't accept as a moderator for a group, that was done by someone else
before he became moderator.
Mark Goodge
and typed:
>In article <pns1r5ta4q3m90jd3...@news.markshouse.net>,
>Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>>>OK. How does your robot identify users? Can it be fooled?
>>>(You don't have to answer this.)
>>
>>Like most robomoderated groups, it uses the From: line. Yes, that's
>>trivially forgeable. But in practice, that hasn't been an issue.
>
>Ask the people in soc.support.fat-acceptance.moderated.
I was talking about my own experience. That's the question I was
asked, and I answered it.
>>Forging someone else's identity is a TOSable offence against nearly
>>every news server AUP on the planet, even those that generally don't
>>care much what other abuses their users perpetrate, so a complaint
>>about such is usually taken seriously.
>
>There are so many open servers, and all it takes is one to destroy the
>impression that people have a cozy-happy place to discuss stuff.
If a particular server is causing problems, then all posts from that
server can be rejected by the moderation system.
>>>Seriously, it is presumptuous to demand perfect results from people
>>>organizing leisure activities. We are in dire need of volunteers.
>
>Yes. It is. Saying you want 24/7/365 moderation is a bit over the top.
>
>>That's very true. While it is the case that, traditionally, moderated
>>newsgroups have effectively been the personal fiefdom of the
>>moderator, I don't think it's healthy for the group if that's how it's
>>viewed by the moderator(s).
>
>You wish to have a moderator that is deluded? You wish your moderator
>to not understand what moderation is and how it works?
The lead moderator has to know how things work, yes. But he/she
doesn't have to think that knowing how it works means that he/she owns
the group.
Mark Kramer
Steve Bonine <s...@pobox.com> wrote:
>You have an excellent point. The thing that surprises me is the lack of
>any significant support for a newsgroup on this topic, irregardless of
>the type of moderation.
Moderators don't need other people telling them how they ought to be
moderating, and that's what any newsgroup about moderating is going to
turn into. Moderators just don't accept input.
>Unfortunately it's not possible to go from a dead newsgroup to a
>smoothly operating robomoderation scheme without some effort.
Actually, it's pretty easy, since the two situations are not mutually
exclusive.
>Judgment is needed to build a list of pre-approved posters
>and during this process each submission must be read and evaluated.
Whitelisting posters does not work. The job of the moderator is not
supposed to be to pick what gets posted by who says it, it is supposed to
be to pick what gets posted by what's on topic for the group. At least,
that's how moderation is supposed to work.
Too many newsgroups are moderated based on the person and not what
is said.
>How about another newsgroup to moderate, Mark? You need that, don't you?
Wrong Mark, but no thanks anyway. We have a candidate with the technical
skills to do it, and there really is no other test you can apply a-priori
to determine social skills.
Robert Bonomi
>
>> The simple fact is that full manual moderation of discussion groups
>> doesn't work. It may well have done, once, when Usenet was younger,
>> there were fewer alternatives, robomoderation was less widespread and
>> users were willing to put up with the drawbacks of manual moderation
>> because they didn't have any other option. But that's no longer the
>> case. The instant (or near-instant) gratification of web-based fora,
>> mailing lists, unmoderated newsgroups and automated moderated
>> newsgroups is what users have come to expect, and a moderated
>> newsgroup which doesn't offer that will have few readers and even
>> fewer contributors.
>
>You have an excellent point. The thing that surprises me is the lack of
>any significant support for a newsgroup on this topic, irregardless of
>the type of moderation.
<news://news.admin.moderation>
*very* low volume, but its existed for a number of years.
And, contrary to Mark's assertation, manual moderation _can_and_does_ work.
Its not right for everything, but it _is_ beneficial/workable for technical
subjects. I participate in several moderated groups where the moderator
(or moderators) *do* personally approve every article posted. Admittedly,
they do use automation to sort spam, etc., into a low-priority 'junk'
directory, but everything _approved_ does go past a set of human eyeballs.
Steve Bonine
> In article<819oh2...@mid.individual.net>,
> Steve Bonine<s...@pobox.com> wrote:
>> You have an excellent point. The thing that surprises me is the lack of
>> any significant support for a newsgroup on this topic, irregardless of
>> the type of moderation.
>
> Moderators don't need other people telling them how they ought to be
> moderating, and that's what any newsgroup about moderating is going to
> turn into. Moderators just don't accept input.
By "this topic", I meant religion.christian.
>> Unfortunately it's not possible to go from a dead newsgroup to a
>> smoothly operating robomoderation scheme without some effort.
>
> Actually, it's pretty easy, since the two situations are not mutually
> exclusive.
I was responding to Mark Goodge's description of how
uk.religion.christian was moderated. Sure, depending on the technique
chosen, it's easy to go from dead group to robomoderation. The
technique Mark uses depends on a posting history.
>> Judgment is needed to build a list of pre-approved posters
>> and during this process each submission must be read and evaluated.
>
> Whitelisting posters does not work. The job of the moderator is not
> supposed to be to pick what gets posted by who says it, it is supposed to
> be to pick what gets posted by what's on topic for the group. At least,
> that's how moderation is supposed to work.
Yet this is exactly the technique used successfully for
uk.religion.christian, so it could work for another newsgroup that
treats the same topic.
> Too many newsgroups are moderated based on the person and not what
> is said.
You can't argue with success. uk.religion.christian is a successful
newsgroup, so the technique works in at least that case.
>> How about another newsgroup to moderate, Mark? You need that, don't you?
>
> Wrong Mark, but no thanks anyway. We have a candidate with the technical
> skills to do it, and there really is no other test you can apply a-priori
> to determine social skills.
I don't think that forging an approval and not acknowledging that that's
a problem demonstrates technical skills.
As for evaluating non-technical skills, anyone who has conducted a job
interview has evaluated the candidate's non-technical skills. We don't
have a job interview here, but we do have evidence of the candidate's
writing style and attitude towards working with others.
Jeffrey Goldberg
> We have a candidate with the technical skills to do it,
By your somewhat limited notion of the technical requirements.
> and there really is no other test you can apply a-priori
> to determine social skills.
So if I (an outspoken atheist) had sincerely offered to moderate the
group, you would have considered me suitable?
Even if I could be the fairest of moderators, my views about religion
would make me unsuitable because I would have a difficult time winning
the trust of would-be participants; I would become a contentious issue
for the group no matter what I did. Maybe this isn't a social skills
qualification, but I'm trying to raise the point that there is more to
determining who is a suitable moderator than willingness and the ability
post with Approved headers.
(Note that very early on in the discussion I had thought of offering
technical only help and hosting to the would-be moderator in a way that
would make it clear that I had zero editorial control. But I decided
that not to make that offer after concluding that I would probably have
difficulty working with this particular moderator.)
Mark Goodge has (sadly) declined to offer himself as a moderator. Would
you be willing to act as moderator or co-moderator?
Cheers,
Jeffrey Goldberg
> And, contrary to Mark's assertation, manual moderation _can_and_does_ work.
While we can discuss the merits of different moderation technologies, I
am hoping that we all agree that the choice should be left to the
moderator to find what works best for them and their group.
Mark Kramer
Steve Bonine <s...@pobox.com> wrote:
>> Too many newsgroups are moderated based on the person and not what
>> is said.
>
>You can't argue with success.
I can argue with moderation policies that are intended to moderate tone
and topic but are instead replaced by individual moderator's desire to
moderate the person instead.
I can also argue with the claim that whitelisting robomoderation is a
glowing success in Usenet, since it isn't. In UK, maybe one group. In
the Big 8, no. It may have been successful so far, but failure is not
a question of "if", but "when". Any group hanging by such a thin thread
isn't a success.
>I don't think that forging an approval and not acknowledging that that's
>a problem demonstrates technical skills.
Of course it demonstrates TECHNICAL skills. The insertion of the
Approved header is a technical act, the acceptance by the news server
a technical act.
Whether it is a forgery to put ones own name in an Approved header
when one is not the moderator of a group is a SOCIETAL decision, not
a technical one. Since the definition of forgery involves an explicit
claim to be someone one is not, an act that explicitely admits who one
is cannot reasonably be forgery, in the standard english definition. If
you want to claim there is a Usenet definition, then some RFC should
support this.
>As for evaluating non-technical skills, anyone who has conducted a job
>interview has evaluated the candidate's non-technical skills.
There has been no job interview. There has only been a discussion about
an irrelevant oddity in how someone formats his messages. Since the
job of moderation isn't about formatting other people's messages, the
discussion about how he formats his is, as has been admitted, off topic.
>We don't
>have a job interview here, but we do have evidence of the candidate's
>writing style and attitude towards working with others.
His "writing style" is irrelevant; it is well known that some moderators
who are considered quite excellent by some have no recognizable ability
to work with others outside the groups they moderate.
Robert Marshall
I think that inserting an approved header is a pretty low base line
for assessing technical skills. Also having seen the recent slew of
posting in soc.religion.christian with forged approved headers I'd
question both Sutter's social skills and his judgement.
Robert
--
La grenouille songe..dans son château d'eau
Links and things http://rmstar.blogspot.com/
Timothy Sutter
> I can argue with moderation policies that are intended to moderate tone
> and topic but are instead replaced by individual moderator's desire to
> moderate the person instead.
-if- Timothy Sutter were moderating soc.religion.christian
would he "blackist" atheists who attempt to post?
i suppose it would be possible for an "avowed atheist"
to post a message considered to be "on topic" and so,
it would be the topicality which is inspected
and not the personality which is rejected.
one supposes that if a "whitelist" was employed,
that peculiarities of emphasis could develop.
i said i would not gear a denominational nor
sectarian emphasis, and i meant that.
if i saw an emphasis being presented which seemed
a "private interpretation" i would be inclined to
use a bible as the stabnard reference.
==
2 Peter 1:19-21
And so we have the prophetic word confirmed, which you do well
to heed as a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns
and the morning star rises in your hearts; knowing this first, that
no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy
never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they
were moved by the Holy Spirit.
==
it's not that trivial a matter, i agree...
Helmut Richter
> But that's no longer the
> case. The instant (or near-instant) gratification of web-based fora,
> mailing lists, unmoderated newsgroups and automated moderated
> newsgroups is what users have come to expect, and a moderated
> newsgroup which doesn't offer that will have few readers and even
> fewer contributors.
As a Usenet participant for 18 years now (including s.r.c. all the way
long), I always found that the *lack* of "instant (or near-instant)
gratification" had as much a positive effect on the discussion culture as
the moderation proper. Knowing that there is no chance that the previous
poster will read my reply immediately is a good incentive to spend some
more thoughts on it.
(This does not mean that other people will not find the moderation delay
inattractive for the medium.)
> If the proposal is to revive src with passlist-based robomoderation
> (with either a single moderator or a team, it doesn't really matter
> which) then I'd be entirely in support of it. I would read and post to
> such a group, and, if the putative moderator(s) wanted to draw on our
> experience in ukrc then I'd be happy to offer more direct support and
> advice (including, if desired, assistance in setting up the
> robomoderation to begin with). But if the proposal is for a return to
> the manual moderation which preceded its demise, then I see no future
> in that.
I assume that robomoderation is always applied in conjunction with manual
moderation, in the sense that the moderator has an eye also on
contributions from perticipants on the whitelist, but just not always in
advance for each posting.
Thank you for sharing your experience.
I am afraid that the discussion here has reached a state where any
prospective moderator could feel deterred, fearing he will be alone if he
volunteers.
--
Helmut Richter
Alexander Bartolich
[ to Mark Kramer ]
> So if I (an outspoken atheist) had sincerely offered to moderate the
> group, you would have considered me suitable?
You don't have to be to my taste. I will not use the group.
> Even if I could be the fairest of moderators, my views about religion
> would make me unsuitable because I would have a difficult time winning
> the trust of would-be participants; I would become a contentious issue
> for the group no matter what I did.
Interesting parlor game. Find the religious persuasion that enjoys the
most respect with contemporary Western Christians. Note that Catholics
vastly outnumber Protestants, so an all out war^H^H^Hvote does not get
you anywhere.
> Maybe this isn't a social skills qualification, but I'm trying to
> raise the point that there is more to determining who is a suitable
> moderator than willingness and the ability post with Approved headers.
The sad truth is that we have little to no foundation to put our deci-
sion on. There was very little participation from former users of src*
I guess the groups are beyond repair.
--
Helmut Richter
> Wrong Mark, but no thanks anyway. We have a candidate with the technical
> skills to do it, and there really is no other test you can apply a-priori
> to determine social skills.
The one who is currently flooding s.r.c. with self-approved messages?
--
Helmut Richter
Timothy Sutter
> would he "blackist" atheists who attempt to post?
> i suppose it would be possible for an "avowed atheist"
> to post a message considered to be "on topic" and so,
> it would be the topicality which is inspected
> and not the personality which is rejected.
i would only say that any "atheist" stance should be
an inquisitive one and not an axiomatic demand that
no God can exist.
such a stance as i would consider to be 'irrational'
-or- at best, a false induction;
"i don't know of any God, therefore,
there is no God to be known by anyone"
if i were to suggest that an atheist was beyond finding
a knowledge of God, i would be wrong, and so, i would
be wrong to eternally blacklist any atheist from posting
to a moderated christian newsgroup.
the focus would be christian, but if music or other assorted arts
or food or politics were topics of interest, etc picnics in sunny parks
long walks in teh rauin as object lessons, etc, i would not demand
that direct bible quotations be inserted as substantiations.
i can see that much of this is 'moot' as it were
but, that never stopped me from yammering on about things before.
someone -may- re-propose such a group in the future.
then again, usenet could fall into the ocean and not be missed.
i don't have to count words and use extensive abbreviations here.
i don't pay by the letter.
etc. <--- sometimes i will use an abbreviation
but, i generally try toavoid abbreviations.
Bart Goddard
> if i saw an emphasis being presented which seemed
> a "private interpretation" i would be inclined to
> use a bible as the stabnard reference.
I don't understand this paragraph.
Otherwise, I agree with your philosophy as presented,
which is, if I may paraphrase, "Any on topic post
gets passed." I would expect certain topics (e.g.,
abortion) would cause a lot of heated traffic to the
point where the noise was drowning out other legitimate
discussion. The moderator should feel free to impose
temporary moratoriums on certain topics, and also to
reject an "on topic" post if it's really off topic and
tries to slip by with an "OB Bible quote" or some such.
An "avowed atheist" ought to be able to post, as long
as it's on topic. "Existence of God" is probably not
an "on topic" topic. But if there were a discussion
of some secular issue (abortion, how to deal with
naughty priests, etc.) the avowed atheist might have
something worthwhile to add. In such cases, he
wouldn't need an "inquisitive stance" (although in
most cases he would.)
Every once in a while, an atheist would pop up on
srcb-s and post a bit. They were always polite
(moderation forces this anyway) and came with
the stated intent to offer the atheist viewpoint
on this or that topic. Noble, perhaps, but there
were very few topics in which an atheist viewpoint
made sense. It would be like arguing that the US
should dump football for soccer at a sports bar
while the Super Bowl was on. It wasn't a problem and
they usually got bored and left within a month.
Bart
--
Cheerfully resisting change since 1959.
Helmut Richter
> Jeffrey Goldberg wrote:
> > Even if I could be the fairest of moderators, my views about religion
> > would make me unsuitable because I would have a difficult time winning
> > the trust of would-be participants; I would become a contentious issue
> > for the group no matter what I did.
It is not the moderator's job of a NG on Christianity to judge the
correctness of contributions, either by dogmatic or by common-sense
standards, and it would indeed be fatal if he tried -- on the contrary, he
should accept a broad spectrum of stances and leave the judgement to the
discussion. But he should have an understanding which topics are
controversial and why, or by which criteria an article could be judged
for on-topic-ness when this is questionable. All this requires a general
interest in the group's subject, which I would not expect with an atheist.
> Interesting parlor game. Find the religious persuasion that enjoys the
> most respect with contemporary Western Christians. Note that Catholics
> vastly outnumber Protestants, so an all out war^H^H^Hvote does not get
> you anywhere.
In the decades when I have followed src*, different dogmatic or
denominational views were rarely prevalent in a thread, and were usually
discussed in a civilised manner (only due to moderation?). That was not a
problem.
> The sad truth is that we have little to no foundation to put our deci-
> sion on. There was very little participation from former users of src*
> I guess the groups are beyond repair.
I have no statistics on who the former users of src* were, and what their
share in the src* traffic was. Google Groups seems to contain only a small
portion of what used to be the traffic. Of the frequent contributors to
src* which I remember, the following have participated in this discussion
here: Stephen Adams, Bart Goddard, Elizabeth <eabr...@hotmail.com>,
DKleinecke, Steve Hayes, and myself. That's not too bad a share of the old
*frequent long-term* contributors which, IIRC, number somewhere around ten
or fifteen.
--
Helmut Richter
Doug Freyburger
> Mark Kramer wrote:
>
>> We have a candidate with the
>> technical skills to do it, and there really is no other test you can
>> apply a-priori to determine social skills.
I do think that understanding UseNet function enough to know that doing
forged approvals is wrong is a technical skill needed to be a moderator.
In this I appear to define technical skills differently than Mark.
I think there are some social skills that have already been
demonstrated. There is a posting style strange enough that it has
already drawn comments from non-native English users who have trouble
understanding it. A willingness to commit forged approvals and an
unwillingness to learn that is not allowed.
Being an experienced moderator I have the technical skills. Being a
member of a different religion I would not be accepted by a significant
number of potential posters so I lack the social skills needed to the
task.
I see two people who have posted on the topic as already a-priori
disqualified on a basis of social skills, both for very different
reasons.
> I think that inserting an approved header is a pretty low base line
> for assessing technical skills. Also having seen the recent slew of
> posting in soc.religion.christian with forged approved headers I'd
> question both Sutter's social skills and his judgement.
If he's posted more than the original one each to NGP and SRC then his
UseNet access must be pulled for doing so. If his NSP does not do that
in reaction to the complaints then action needs to be taken against the
NSP. How long to wait for his accounts to be pulled before it is time
to start discussing a UDP? I need to check some of the other groups in
the news hierarchy.
I consider not having any UseNet access at all to be a technical
disqualification. Committing multiple forged approvals is supposed to
lead to having no UseNet access at all.
Jeffrey Goldberg
> Otherwise, I agree with [Timothy Sutter's] philosophy as presented,
> which is, if I may paraphrase, "Any on topic post
> gets passed." I would expect certain topics (e.g.,
> abortion) would cause a lot of heated traffic to the
> point where the noise was drowning out other legitimate
> discussion. The moderator should feel free to impose
> temporary moratoriums on certain topics, and also to
> reject an "on topic" post if it's really off topic and
> tries to slip by with an "OB Bible quote" or some such.
I think that there is a reasonable consensus on this. Different
moderators may accept different degrees of "heat", but on the whole I
think we are all saying the same thing here.
By the way, would you use the group if it were revived? One thing
that's been a barrier is that not enough people have explicitly said
that they would use the group if revived. So please say you would if
you would.
Cheers,
Jeffrey Goldberg
> Also having seen the recent slew of
> posting in soc.religion.christian with forged approved headers I'd
> question both Sutter's social skills and his judgement.
Yikes!
Well I hope it is clear that Timothy Sutter has disqualified himself as
a potential moderator.
For those who haven't checked for themselves here is a header from one
of the three dozen or so recent message with self approval on src.
Path:
uni-berlin.de!fu-berlin.de!feeder.news-service.com!tudelft.nl!txtfeed1.tudelft.nl!multikabel.net!newsfeed10.multikabel.net!feed.xsnews.nl!border-1.ams.xsnews.nl!usenet.hanse.com!feeder.usenet4all.se!reader.usenet4all.se!reader.usenet4all.se!not-for-mail
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 17:29:23 -0500
From: Timothy Sutter <a20...@lycos.com>
Organization: Timothy Sutter
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.03 (WinNT; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Approved: <a20...@lycos.com>
Subject: consult the literature
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 370
Message-ID: <4bb11bc0$0$13412$afc3...@read01.usenet4all.se>
NNTP-Posting-Date: 29 Mar 2010 23:29:36 CEST
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2facb076.read01.usenet4all.se
X-Trace:
DXC=ZSHI^C63P:9k4eeeoM6<X<ROGYZDPiC>:`dWf@ThXIG0aV<8WWYYc:=:JaC\Abdco?VaS?N;YTXk6
X-Complaints-To: ab...@usenet4all.se
Xref: uni-berlin.de soc.religion.christian:182837
Jeffrey Goldberg
> Mark Kramer wrote:
>
>> I can argue with moderation policies that are intended to moderate tone
>> and topic but are instead replaced by individual moderator's desire to
>> moderate the person instead.
>
>
> -if- Timothy Sutter were moderating soc.religion.christian
> would he "blackist" atheists who attempt to post?
No one has asked you that question. I asked a very different question
to Mark Kramer. Your apparent failure to perceive what is at issue in
this discussion is one of my reasons why I don't think that you are a
suitable moderator.
But here is my take on your self-inflicted question:
First I agree with what you say here:
> it would be the topicality which is inspected
> and not the personality which is rejected.
My wording of this principle is something like:
"it depends on whether the content of the submission is consistent
with the charter of the group and doesn't disrupt the smooth
operation of discussion."
However, if particular individuals have a history of submitting things
which are off topic or deliberately disruptive, then banning individuals
based on that is perfectly legitimate.
It is also legitimate in my view for the charter to say that the news
group is to support a community of Christians in an environment where
they do not have to defend their views to outsiders. If the charter
does support such a view, then it would be perfectly reasonable to ban
posts from non-Christians that are trying to enter into a debate to
challenge Christianity and Christians.
Cheers,
-j