RFD: soc.men.moderated moderated
Proponents for soc.men.moderated
moderated group soc.men.moderated
This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the creation of the
moderated Usenet newsgroup, soc.men.moderated.
Newsgroup line:
soc.men.moderated General issues of interest to men (Moderated)
RATIONALE: soc.men.moderated
The Big-8 group soc.men displayed continuous growth from 1995 to 2002.
At this time it was a healthy group with a growing diversity among its
readership. As the diversity of posters increased, so did the conflict
among those participants. The current state of soc.men is a high-
noise, high-traffic group that is very difficult for newcomers
(especially if they are new to Usenet as well) to navigate. In the
interest of fostering discussion and attracting and accommodating a
growing number of participants, we are proposing to create a moderated
group parallel to soc.men.
Limiting crossposts to soc.men.moderated will help to ensure that the
newsgroup's signal-to-noise ratio stays at an acceptable level. A less
noisy environment will encourage more new people to participate in the
new moderated group, while the freedoms of soc.men will remain intact
for those who prefer the openness of an unmoderated group.
CHARTER: soc.men.moderated
The newsgroup soc.men.moderated is for discussion of various men's
issues. This charter is meant to encompass a wide variety of topics,
including but not limited to: men's health, fitness, relationships,
rights, education, and more.
This newsgroup is moderated.
Posts must be in plain text only.
The following are prohibited:
* Personal advertisements.
* Commercial advertisements and money-making schemes.
* Chain letters.
* Posts in HTML.
* EMP spam.
* Copyright violations.
* Forgery of valid e-mail addresses.
* Unauthorized approval headers.
* Excessive morphing/nym-shifting.
* Posts advocating violence or containing physical threats.
* Binaries, apart from PGP signatures, X-Face headers, and other
ancillary article meta-data.
END CHARTER.
** NOTE ** In the next version of this RFD, the charter is expected to
contain more specific information about other important issues, such as
moderation policies and crossposting limits.
MODERATOR INFO: soc.men.moderated
One or more moderators will be will be responsible for moderating
soc.men.moderated. See separate announcement for procedural details.
** NOTE ** None of the proponents are proposing themselves as potential
moderators at this time.
Mechanics of moderation will be chosen to support the moderation
policies once they are determined.
END MODERATOR INFO.
PROCEDURE:
Those who wish to influence the development of this RFD and its final
resolution should subscribe to news.groups and participate in the
relevant threads in that newsgroup. This is both a courtesy to groups
in which discussion of creating a new group is off-topic as well as the
best method of making sure that one's comments or criticisms are heard.
All discussion of active proposals should be posted to news.groups.
To this end, the followup header of this RFD has been set to
news.groups.
If desired by the readership of closely affected groups, the discussion
may be crossposted to those groups, but care must be taken to ensure
that all discussion appears in news.groups as well.
For more information on the newsgroup creation process, please see:
http://www.big-8.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=policies:creation
DISTRIBUTION:
This RFD has been posted to the following newsgroups:
news.announce.newgroups
news.groups
soc.men
PROPONENTS: Proponents for soc.men.moderated <soc...@msn.com>
Co-Proponent: Bret Schaffer <del...@sysmatrix.net>
Co-Proponent: Dante Soch <dant...@msn.com>
Co-Proponent: Jayne Kulikauskas <jayne.ku...@gmail.com>
Co-Proponent: V. Cordero <cor...@debian.polarhome.com>
HISTORY:
2006-06-05 Submitted by Proponents for soc.men.moderated.
Daedalus
I am in favor of soc.men.moderated and look forward to participating.
Jade
Jayne Kulikauskas
wrote:
>"Proponents for soc.men.moderated" <soc...@msn.com> wrote:
>
>>PROPONENTS: Proponents for soc.men.moderated <soc...@msn.com>
>>
>>Co-Proponent: Bret Schaffer <del...@sysmatrix.net>
>>Co-Proponent: Dante Soch <dant...@msn.com>
>>Co-Proponent: Jayne Kulikauskas <jayne.ku...@gmail.com>
>>Co-Proponent: V. Cordero <cor...@debian.polarhome.com>
>
>Looks like soc.men is on the way to being moderated by a female.
A proponent is a person who works on getting the group created. While
in some cases proponents also become moderators, I have already stated
that I will not be a moderator.
Please participate in the group creation discussion and make your
wishes known. The idea is to make a group that people will want to
read and post to.
Jayne
Bret Schaffer
> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
> moderated group soc.men.moderated
>
> This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the creation of the
> moderated Usenet newsgroup, soc.men.moderated.
>
> Newsgroup line:
>
> soc.men.moderated General issues of interest to men (Moderated)
<...>
Just a quick reply, for now. I'll post more tonight, after I get home
from work. :-)
> MODERATOR INFO: soc.men.moderated
>
> One or more moderators will be will be responsible for moderating
> soc.men.moderated. See separate announcement for procedural details.
This separate announcement will be posted sometime within the next 24
to 72 hours.
Bret Schaffer
lost...@mailinator.com says...
> "Proponents for soc.men.moderated" <soc...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> >PROPONENTS: Proponents for soc.men.moderated <soc...@msn.com>
> >
> >Co-Proponent: Bret Schaffer <del...@sysmatrix.net>
> >Co-Proponent: Dante Soch <dant...@msn.com>
> >Co-Proponent: Jayne Kulikauskas <jayne.ku...@gmail.com>
> >Co-Proponent: V. Cordero <cor...@debian.polarhome.com>
>
> Looks like soc.men is on the way to being moderated by a female.
Please refer the following:
> ** NOTE ** None of the proponents are proposing themselves
> as potential moderators at this time.
and:
> A less noisy environment will encourage more new people
> to participate in the new moderated group, while the
> freedoms of soc.men will remain intact for those who
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Doug Freyburger
>
> Posts must be in plain text only.
>
> The following are prohibited:
>
> ancillary article meta-data.
What about MIME headers that wrap plain text? I've never
liked posts that include MIME headers but as long as what
is wrapped is plain text that isn't encoded, do most folks
view that as like "other ancillary article meta-data"? I try
to train posters to not use MIME but I don't think their
being early on the UseNet learning curve should be enough
to reject their posts. What do other folks with more
experience say?
Thanks in advance
MCP
>
> The following are prohibited:
>
> * Personal advertisements.
> * Commercial advertisements and money-making schemes.
> * Chain letters.
> * Posts in HTML.
> * EMP spam.
> * Copyright violations.
> * Forgery of valid e-mail addresses.
> * Unauthorized approval headers.
> * Excessive morphing/nym-shifting.
> * Posts advocating violence or containing physical threats.
> * Binaries, apart from PGP signatures, X-Face headers, and other
> ancillary article meta-data.
>
> END CHARTER.
>
It would be better to list what we can post!
Won't matter to me anyway,i would get banned with the first post.:-)
MCP
Dave Balderstone
<soc...@msn.com> wrote:
> The following are prohibited:
>
> * Personal advertisements.
> * Commercial advertisements and money-making schemes.
> * Chain letters.
> * Posts in HTML.
> * EMP spam.
> * Copyright violations.
> * Forgery of valid e-mail addresses.
> * Unauthorized approval headers.
> * Excessive morphing/nym-shifting.
> * Posts advocating violence or containing physical threats.
> * Binaries, apart from PGP signatures, X-Face headers, and other
> ancillary article meta-data.
Oh, this is too funny...
Cross-posting is allowed!
Lionel
opined:
>On Mon, 05 Jun 2006 12:04:40 -0700, "Proponents for soc.men.moderated"
><soc...@msn.com> wrote:
>
>> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>> moderated group soc.men.moderated
[...]
>>HISTORY:
>>
>>2006-06-05 Submitted by Proponents for soc.men.moderated.
>
>I am in favor of soc.men.moderated and look forward to participating.
<AOL>
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
Jayne Kulikauskas
I thought that the rules about cross-posting would go in the
moderation policy (which we are currently working on). Does it go in
the charter too?
Jayne
Aratzio
secret probation because:
>Jayne Kulikauskas <jayne.ku...@gmail.com> wrote in
>news:rq2982hqah4tdflcb...@4ax.com:
>
>> A proponent is a person who works on getting the group created. While
>> in some cases proponents also become moderators, I have already stated
>> that I will not be a moderator.
>
>Of course not, because that would give you something resembling power in
>the newsgroup. As a proponent, you're just the designated newsgroup bitch
>to do all the wimmin's work of getting the newsgroup going.
>
>Inviato da X-Privat.Org - Registrazione gratuita http://www.x-privat.org/join.php
Fuck off, bowtie.
--
alt.hackers.malicious - Wanker Stomping Award - 2005
alt.usenet.kooks - Pierre Salinger Hook, Line & Sinker - May, 2005
alt.usenet.kooks - Pierre Salinger Hook, Line & Sinker - Jan, 2006
alt.usenet.kooks - Hammer of Thor - July, 2005
alt.flame - Worst Flame War - 2005
Please ask your admin to be adding alt.aratzio to your news server
alt.aratzio Usenet asshole Aratzio
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus) on 10-22-2005
Message-Id: <slrndlk3ae....@dformosa.zeta.org.au>
"But it is not isolated AUK has a massive impact the rest of usenet."
VjikQueen of soc.froot explaining sock paranoia:
Message-ID: <760l32t9k1upl5ilq...@4ax.com>
"Yep. Whether or not they're you, they're you, doesn't make no diff in
how I treat them."
John David Galt
> At this time it was a healthy group with a growing diversity among its
> readership. As the diversity of posters increased, so did the conflict
> among those participants. The current state of soc.men is a high-
> noise, high-traffic group that is very difficult for newcomers
> (especially if they are new to Usenet as well) to navigate. In the
> interest of fostering discussion and attracting and accommodating a
> growing number of participants, we are proposing to create a moderated
> group parallel to soc.men.
I'm for it if the charter is written to forbid trolls (including all
crossposts to alt.usenet.kooks and other nonsense groups). Without those
limits, creating a new group would be pointless.
Aratzio
<bobof...@127.0.0.7> got double secret probation because:
>On Mon, 05 Jun 2006 12:04:40 -0700, in news.groups, "Proponents for
>soc.men.moderated" <soc...@msn.com> wrote:
>
>> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>> moderated group soc.men.moderated
>>
>>This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the creation of the
>>moderated Usenet newsgroup, soc.men.moderated.
>>
>>Newsgroup line:
>>
>>soc.men.moderated General issues of interest to men (Moderated)
>>
>>RATIONALE: soc.men.moderated
>>
>>The Big-8 group soc.men displayed continuous growth from 1995 to 2002.
>
>Why stop with two years ago...? did the post count drop?
Err, when?
<counts on fingers>
Umm, Bob, ah, what year is this?
>
>>At this time it was a healthy group with a growing diversity among its
>>readership. As the diversity of posters increased, so did the conflict
>>among those participants. The current state of soc.men is a high-
>>noise, high-traffic group that is very difficult for newcomers
>
>"noise" is not an object term. How did you measure "noise"?
Anyone they do not class as a *regular* is by their definition noise.
>
>>(especially if they are new to Usenet as well) to navigate. In the
>
>The use of newcomer is identical to an imaginary unicorn, there is no
>method for measuring newcomers. Proponent is making an assumption
>that newcomers exist.
Proponent is also assuming soc.men care about soc.men.moderated.
>
>>interest of fostering discussion and attracting and accommodating a
>>growing number of participants, we are proposing to create a moderated
>>group parallel to soc.men.
>
>The new group isn't needed, nor does it need to be moderated.
Lack-wanta-blues.
>
>>Limiting crossposts to soc.men.moderated will help to ensure that the
>>newsgroup's signal-to-noise ratio stays at an acceptable level.
>
>False assumption that crossposts are the cause of "noise" and
>removing "evil" crossposted articles, will result in a reduction of
>noise.
See recent examples of *warm* reception given newcomers.
>
>> A less
>>noisy environment will encourage more new people to participate in the
>>new moderated group, while the freedoms of soc.men will remain intact
>>for those who prefer the openness of an unmoderated group.
>
>This is a false assumption build upon the false facts created out of
>whole cloth by the proponent.
Studious belief in whole cloth falacies seems to be a required art for
soc.men *regulars*.
>
>>
>>CHARTER: soc.men.moderated
>>
>>The newsgroup soc.men.moderated is for discussion of various men's
>>issues. This charter is meant to encompass a wide variety of topics,
>>including but not limited to: men's health, fitness, relationships,
>>rights, education, and more.
>>
>>This newsgroup is moderated.
>>
>>Posts must be in plain text only.
>>
>>The following are prohibited:
>>
>>* Personal advertisements.
>>* Commercial advertisements and money-making schemes.
>>* Chain letters.
>>* Posts in HTML.
>>* EMP spam.
>>* Copyright violations.
>>* Forgery of valid e-mail addresses.
>>* Unauthorized approval headers.
>>* Excessive morphing/nym-shifting.
>>* Posts advocating violence or containing physical threats.
>>* Binaries, apart from PGP signatures, X-Face headers, and other
>>ancillary article meta-data.
>
>PGP signatures are not considered binaries. X headers are supposed to
>ignored and headers generated by either the client or host are not
>generally part of the article posted.
I move to strike the offending line.
>
>>END CHARTER.
>>
>>** NOTE ** In the next version of this RFD, the charter is expected to
>>contain more specific information about other important issues, such as
>>moderation policies and crossposting limits.
>
><snort>
<buffalo>
>
>>
>>MODERATOR INFO: soc.men.moderated
>>
>>One or more moderators will be will be responsible for moderating
>>soc.men.moderated. See separate announcement for procedural details.
>>
>>** NOTE ** None of the proponents are proposing themselves as potential
>>moderators at this time.
>
>Without a list of proposed moderators and a list of proposed
>moderation policies, the RFD should be rejected.
Just an RFD, Bob.
>
>>Mechanics of moderation will be chosen to support the moderation
>>policies once they are determined.
>
>Same here. "Pig in the Poke"
Aratzio
<j...@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us> got double secret probation because:
How will you be proposing to perform this feat? Will you be using
blacklists? That will require full time human moderators. Finding an
acceptable moderation panel from within the soc.men *regulars* will
not happen.
However much you desire to squelch all opposing viewpoints, you are
very unlikely to make the idea workable or acceptable.
Jonathan Kamens
>I thought that the rules about cross-posting would go in the
>moderation policy (which we are currently working on). Does it go in
>the charter too?
The charter defines what isn't and isn't permitted in the newsgroup.
That would include whether crossposting is permitted and in what
contexts.
The moderation policy defines the policies and procedures the
moderators will use to determine whether a particular submission
adheres to the charter. E.g., will whitelisting or blacklisting be
used? How do people get added to the whitelist or blacklist? Will
multiple moderators need to agree before a submission is accepted or
rejected or someone is added to the whitelist or blacklist? Can
submitters of rejected postings appeal, and if so how? Etc.
--
Help stop the genocide in Darfur!
http://www.genocideintervention.net/
Aratzio
<bobof...@127.0.0.7> got double secret probation because:
>>See recent examples of *warm* reception given newcomers.
>
>do you have one or two URLs?
Message-ID: <3a59821n3r57hrehn...@4ax.com>
Jayne Kulikauskas
By stopping cross-posts, we would stop all the cross-posting to troll
groups and thus cut down on trolls. This could be handled by
robomderation.
Forbidding trolls, on the other hand, would involve moderation by
content and subjective judgements by the moderators.
These are very different kinds of moderation.
Jayne
Jayne Kulikauskas
Thank you for clarifying this.
Jayne
Woodchuck Bill
news:11495342...@isc.org:
> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
> moderated group soc.men.moderated
>
> This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the creation of the
> moderated Usenet newsgroup, soc.men.moderated.
>
> Newsgroup line:
>
> soc.men.moderated General issues of interest to men (Moderated)
Good so far. <g>
> RATIONALE: soc.men.moderated
>
> The Big-8 group soc.men displayed continuous growth from 1995 to 2002.
> At this time it was a healthy group with a growing diversity among its
> readership. As the diversity of posters increased, so did the conflict
> among those participants.
Your story leaves out what's happened from 2002 to the present day.
> The current state of soc.men is a high-
> noise, high-traffic group that is very difficult for newcomers
> (especially if they are new to Usenet as well) to navigate.
Very true, especially due to articles like these...
Subject: Females to be wiped out!
From: "conn...@hotmail.com" <conn...@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups: soc.men
Message-ID: <1149555987.3...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
Subject: Women get told to quit whining!
From: "MCP" <gf010...@blueyonder.co.uk>
Newsgroups: soc.men
Message-ID: <rtQfg.257826$tc.7...@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>
Subject: Just replace the word "Taliban" with feminist!
From: "MCP" <gf010...@blueyonder.co.uk>
Newsgroups: soc.men
Message-ID: <VPcfg.49989$8W1....@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>
> In the
> interest of fostering discussion and attracting and accommodating a
> growing number of participants, we are proposing to create a moderated
> group parallel to soc.men.
Weren't you going to propose _two_ groups? Where's the second?
> Limiting crossposts to soc.men.moderated will help to ensure that the
> newsgroup's signal-to-noise ratio stays at an acceptable level. A
> less noisy environment will encourage more new people to participate
> in the new moderated group, while the freedoms of soc.men will remain
> intact for those who prefer the openness of an unmoderated group.
To how many groups will crossposts be allowed?
To _which_ groups will crossposts be allowed?
To _which_ groups will crossposts *not* be allowed?
> CHARTER: soc.men.moderated
>
> The newsgroup soc.men.moderated is for discussion of various men's
> issues. This charter is meant to encompass a wide variety of topics,
> including but not limited to: men's health, fitness, relationships,
> rights, education, and more.
>
> This newsgroup is moderated.
>
> Posts must be in plain text only.
>
> The following are prohibited:
>
> * Personal advertisements.
> * Commercial advertisements and money-making schemes.
> * Chain letters.
> * Posts in HTML.
> * EMP spam.
> * Copyright violations.
> * Forgery of valid e-mail addresses.
> * Unauthorized approval headers.
> * Excessive morphing/nym-shifting.
> * Posts advocating violence or containing physical threats.
> * Binaries, apart from PGP signatures, X-Face headers, and other
> ancillary article meta-data.
>
> END CHARTER.
Not a bad charter, but it is a little on the short side...
What is on-topic? What is off-topic? Give specific examples.
> ** NOTE ** In the next version of this RFD, the charter is expected to
> contain more specific information about other important issues, such
> as moderation policies and crossposting limits.
Understood.
> MODERATOR INFO: soc.men.moderated
>
> One or more moderators will be will be responsible for moderating
> soc.men.moderated. See separate announcement for procedural details.
>
> ** NOTE ** None of the proponents are proposing themselves as
> potential moderators at this time.
>
> Mechanics of moderation will be chosen to support the moderation
> policies once they are determined.
>
> END MODERATOR INFO.
This is the single most important aspect of a moderated group proposal.
Without it, you aren't really proposing much more than a name
placeholder.
Aratzio
<bobof...@127.0.0.7> got double secret probation because:
>On Mon, 05 Jun 2006 17:06:00 -0700, in news.groups, Aratzio
><a6ah...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 05 Jun 2006 16:55:13 -0700, Bob Officer
>><bobof...@127.0.0.7> got double secret probation because:
>>
>>>>See recent examples of *warm* reception given newcomers.
>>>
>>>do you have one or two URLs?
>>
>>Message-ID: <3a59821n3r57hrehn...@4ax.com>
>
>I see Viking (a so call regular soc.men's poster) attacking a user
>posting a collection of quotes to support a subject they were wishing
>to discuss.
>
>I don't see how Viking could possible label this article as "spam".
Viking is the poster that Jayne thinks is *vulnerable*. He has been
waging a massively impotent anti-troll program by screaming, ranting
and raving at the trolls. His classification of troll is anyone that
posts anything he dislikes. He is also the single biggest problem in
soc.men. At a guess, 60% of all off-topic posts originate in and
around Viking. So if SMM goes through and they ban one person then
they can eliminate a significant amount of noise and off-topic posts.
But then this has been explained to them, ad infinitum, over the last
6 months. With the same result, "it is all AUK's fault".
>
>"If you weren't a FUCKING MORON, you'd see that it was to POINT OUT
>THAT IT WAS FUCKING SPAM".
Ask SharonB about him being LARTed last year for spam.
>
>For reference the Original Article is:
>Message-ID: <1147924543.7...@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
Hyerdahl. The *token* feminist. Jayne was basing a lot of her future
traffic around Hyerdahl. Hyerdahl has stated without equivocation she
will not post in SMM. It is interesting that since Hyerdahl posts from
a womans group, her posts are not considered off-topic and yet a
substansively similar article from AUK would be.
>
>Which was posted to exactly one group:
>Newsgroups: soc.men
To VjikQueens credit he does not x-post. However if you try to engage
him in any sort of on-topic conversation it is just ah hominem/non
sequitur responses, like Andre, MCP and krp. Which on that list are
quite high on the list of *regulars*.
Aratzio
<bobof...@127.0.0.7> got double secret probation because:
>On Mon, 05 Jun 2006 20:09:31 -0400, in news.groups, Jayne Kulikauskas
><jayne.ku...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 05 Jun 2006 16:30:03 -0700, John David Galt
>><j...@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us> wrote:
>>
>>>> The Big-8 group soc.men displayed continuous growth from 1995 to 2002.
>>>> At this time it was a healthy group with a growing diversity among its
>>>> readership. As the diversity of posters increased, so did the conflict
>>>> among those participants. The current state of soc.men is a high-
>>>> noise, high-traffic group that is very difficult for newcomers
>>>> (especially if they are new to Usenet as well) to navigate. In the
>>>> interest of fostering discussion and attracting and accommodating a
>>>> growing number of participants, we are proposing to create a moderated
>>>> group parallel to soc.men.
>>>
>>>I'm for it if the charter is written to forbid trolls (including all
>>>crossposts to alt.usenet.kooks and other nonsense groups). Without those
>>>limits, creating a new group would be pointless.
>>
>>By stopping cross-posts, we would stop all the cross-posting to troll
>>groups and thus cut down on trolls. This could be handled by
>>robomderation.
>
>Troll groups... how is that defined...?
AUK.
AUK.
AUK.
and never to forget
alt.aratzio
>
>>Forbidding trolls, on the other hand, would involve moderation by
>>content and subjective judgements by the moderators.
>
>and none of the people that are proponents have shown any judgement,
>good or bad.
>
>>These are very different kinds of moderation.
>
>Those type of moderation are often called, by most of the usenet
>users, Censorship.
I have seen places, especially tech/sci type groups where the group as
a whole liked moderation. If the group agrees and the moderation is
even handed there is no reason for people not to have a moderated
group.
However, that is not the case here, unfortunately. As I pointed out to
John in another post, there is no evidenced support for SMM nor are
there moderators that would be accptable to all parties.
Woodchuck Bill
news:nuqdnVplN8tMERnZ...@sysmatrix.net:
>> MODERATOR INFO: soc.men.moderated
>>
>> One or more moderators will be will be responsible for moderating
>> soc.men.moderated. See separate announcement for procedural details.
>
> This separate announcement will be posted sometime within the next 24
> to 72 hours.
If I remember correctly, Michael Snyder and Mark Sobolewski had signed up
to be moderators for the last soc.men.moderated proposal. Are these two
men being considered for possible moderators _this_ time around?
Jayne Kulikauskas
wrote:
>.
>>
>> The following are prohibited:
>>
>> * Personal advertisements.
>> * Commercial advertisements and money-making schemes.
>> * Chain letters.
>> * Posts in HTML.
>> * EMP spam.
>> * Copyright violations.
>> * Forgery of valid e-mail addresses.
>> * Unauthorized approval headers.
>> * Excessive morphing/nym-shifting.
>> * Posts advocating violence or containing physical threats.
>> * Binaries, apart from PGP signatures, X-Face headers, and other
>> ancillary article meta-data.
>>
>> END CHARTER.
>>
>
>It would be better to list what we can post!
That was there too. "This charter is meant to encompass a wide variety
of topics, including but not limited to: men's health, fitness,
relationships, rights, education, and more. " That doesn't sound like
it should limit you too much.
>Won't matter to me anyway,i would get banned with the first post.:-)
I hope not. <g>
Seriously, the only one likely to affect you is the one about
copyright violations and all you need to change is to post a link and
a quote, rather than the whole article. I would like to have an FAQ
with posting guidelines that explains in detail, but that's basically
all it is .
Jayne
Aratzio
<bobof...@127.0.0.7> got double secret probation because:
>On Mon, 05 Jun 2006 18:48:04 -0700, in news.groups, Aratzio
>I showed, IIRC that only ~1/4 to 1/5 of MCP's are not spewage.
>Most of krp's articles are ad hominem attacks. As are viking's
>articles and replies. Andre sometimes starts off in a discussion but
>by the second or third replied reverts to personal attacks when he
>pulls facts out of thin air.
But those are all caused by AUK, really. If there was no crossposting
they would not have those problems. The cossposting filter is the
answer to all evils in soc.men.
V ernyyl jnag gurz gb unaq zbqrengr. Cyrnfr vs gurer vf n tnjq, nyybj
gur fbp.sebbgf gb unaq zbqrengr.
Jayne Kulikauskas
wrote:
>"Proponents for soc.men.moderated" <soc...@msn.com> wrote in
>news:11495342...@isc.org:
>
>> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>> moderated group soc.men.moderated
>>
>> This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the creation of the
>> moderated Usenet newsgroup, soc.men.moderated.
>>
>> Newsgroup line:
>>
>> soc.men.moderated General issues of interest to men (Moderated)
>
>Good so far. <g>
[...]
Thank you for all the constructive criticism. It was very helpful.
Jayne
Jayne Kulikauskas
wrote:
[...]
>Hyerdahl. The *token* feminist. Jayne was basing a lot of her future
>traffic around Hyerdahl. Hyerdahl has stated without equivocation she
>will not post in SMM. It is interesting that since Hyerdahl posts from
>a womans group, her posts are not considered off-topic and yet a
>substansively similar article from AUK would be.
[...]
Hyerdahl does not post from a women's group, nor do I recall seeing
her initiate a cross-posted thread. She is an indigenous soc.men
poster.
Jayne
Jayne Kulikauskas
wrote:
>Bret Schaffer <del...@sysmatrix.net> wrote in
I don't recall either name coming up so far.
Jayne
Larry Caldwell
gf010...@blueyonder.co.uk (MCP) says...
> .
> >
> > The following are prohibited:
> >
> > * Personal advertisements.
> > * Commercial advertisements and money-making schemes.
> > * Chain letters.
> > * Posts in HTML.
> > * EMP spam.
> > * Copyright violations.
> > * Forgery of valid e-mail addresses.
> > * Unauthorized approval headers.
> > * Excessive morphing/nym-shifting.
> > * Posts advocating violence or containing physical threats.
> > * Binaries, apart from PGP signatures, X-Face headers, and other
> > ancillary article meta-data.
> >
> > END CHARTER.
> >
>
> It would be better to list what we can post!
Only the copyright violations. You would need to just post a link and
perhaps extract a few sentences to stay within fair use guidelines. No
pasting whole copyrighted articles.
Larry Caldwell
@sneakemail.com (Aratzio) says...
> On Mon, 05 Jun 2006 16:30:03 -0700, John David Galt
> >I'm for it if the charter is written to forbid trolls (including all
> >crossposts to alt.usenet.kooks and other nonsense groups). Without those
> >limits, creating a new group would be pointless.
>
> How will you be proposing to perform this feat? Will you be using
> blacklists? That will require full time human moderators. Finding an
> acceptable moderation panel from within the soc.men *regulars* will
> not happen.
Software is sophisticated enough to handle much of this without human
intervention. For instance, the articles initiated by the inhabitants
of the racist groups or the kook groups could be eliminated by keywords
in the text. It wouldn't be necessary to put the really stupid trolls
on a black list, because they would eliminate themselves.
That is approximately what my filters for the newsgroup accomplish.
Several years ago I spent a few hours writing regular expressions, and
beyond the occasional tweak, they have done an excellent job of keeping
soc.men readable.
> However much you desire to squelch all opposing viewpoints, you are
> very unlikely to make the idea workable or acceptable.
Who is advocating squelching opposing viewpoints? I haven't seen that.
I even admire an intelligent troll, and think they should just be
coerced into providing actual content.
Aratzio
<jayne.ku...@gmail.com> got double secret probation because:
So who adds the x-posts to soc.women etc?
Aratzio
<bobof...@127.0.0.7> got double secret probation because:
>On Mon, 05 Jun 2006 19:46:14 -0700, in news.groups, Aratzio
>Sure...
>
>>V ernyyl jnag gurz gb unaq zbqrengr. Cyrnfr vs gurer vf n tnjq, nyybj
>>gur fbp.sebbgf gb unaq zbqrengr.
>
>Whfg fb jr pna qnapr nebhaq naq punag "jr gbyq lbh fb gb gur ovt
>rvgure obneq?"
Jub pnerf nobhg gurz, V jnaan frr gur zhpyrne zrygqbja bire gur
zbqrengvba.
Larry Caldwell
127.0.0.7 (Bob Officer) says...
> So what sort of job does your filter really do? how many message trip
> your filters? what sort of percentages are you talking about 2 or 3
> out of thousand messages?
It varies. I see an average of about 100 articles a day in soc.men.
How many articles get posted?
krp
"Proponents for soc.men.moderated" <soc...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:11495342...@isc.org...
> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
> moderated group soc.men.moderated
>
> This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the creation of the
> moderated Usenet newsgroup, soc.men.moderated.
> that all discussion appears in news.groups as well.
Been proposed repeatedly by people hostile to men's issues in an effort to
get a group that will be totally censored by feminists. TAKE BACK THE NET!
krp
"Aratzio" <a6ah...@sneakemail.com> wrote in message
news:nd5982pkhpqqejb87...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 05 Jun 2006 20:36:45 +0100, Lost <lost...@mailinator.com>
> transparently proposed:
>
>>"Proponents for soc.men.moderated" <soc...@msn.com> wrote:
>>
>>>PROPONENTS: Proponents for soc.men.moderated <soc...@msn.com>
>>>
>>>Co-Proponent: Bret Schaffer <del...@sysmatrix.net>
>>>Co-Proponent: Dante Soch <dant...@msn.com>
>>>Co-Proponent: Jayne Kulikauskas <jayne.ku...@gmail.com>
>>>Co-Proponent: V. Cordero <cor...@debian.polarhome.com>
>>
>
> Ain't it a grand thing.
Yeah Ratz take heart your agenda of shutting down soc.men seems to be making
some headway. Maybe you can get your way and it will be soc.men-eunuchs
krp
"Woodchuck Bill" <bwr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns97DA125B...@66.250.146.159...
> "Proponents for soc.men.moderated" <soc...@msn.com> wrote in
> news:11495342...@isc.org:
>
>> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>> moderated group soc.men.moderated
>>
>> This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the creation of the
>> moderated Usenet newsgroup, soc.men.moderated.
>>
>> Newsgroup line:
>>
>> soc.men.moderated General issues of interest to men (Moderated)
>
> Good so far. <g>
>
>> RATIONALE: soc.men.moderated
>>
>> The Big-8 group soc.men displayed continuous growth from 1995 to 2002.
>> At this time it was a healthy group with a growing diversity among its
>> readership. As the diversity of posters increased, so did the conflict
>> among those participants.
>
> Your story leaves out what's happened from 2002 to the present day.
>
>> The current state of soc.men is a high-
>> noise, high-traffic group that is very difficult for newcomers
>> (especially if they are new to Usenet as well) to navigate.
>
> Very true, especially due to articles like these...
No the cause has been ther "WAR" declared on soc.men by the participants in
AUK. By any sane interpretation of their participation in soc.men it has
been to SPAM it and close it down by total disruption. The only problem with
returning the favor and the participants here doing the same in their
newsgroup is that it is like mud wrestling with a pig. The pig LOVES it!
These assholes SOLE purpose in life is to harass others. They are the
biggest collection of arrested development types on the planet.
krp
<R0chg.3685$PY6.559@trnddc05>...
> I'v been bit of an wordsmith sinse I was 18 and now decide to be
> porfessional. I am birlliant at stringing together words together.
krp
"krp" <nntp.n...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:30vb$zrx....@newsread1.news.pasearth1ink.nut...
They boast of their little BOTS and "programming" abilities. Yes computer
savvy but absolutely NO social skills whatsoever.
krp
> My girlfriend really enjoys oral... so long as I'm doing it to her..
> but she WON'T do it to me...! How can I get her to give me a BJ ??
> It's doing my head in..??
krp
> The government has a file of information on me.
Jayne Kulikauskas
wrote:
>On Mon, 05 Jun 2006 22:56:31 -0400, Jayne Kulikauskas
><jayne.ku...@gmail.com> got double secret probation because:
>
>>On Mon, 05 Jun 2006 18:48:04 -0700, Aratzio <a6ah...@sneakemail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>[...]
>>>Hyerdahl. The *token* feminist. Jayne was basing a lot of her future
>>>traffic around Hyerdahl. Hyerdahl has stated without equivocation she
>>>will not post in SMM. It is interesting that since Hyerdahl posts from
>>>a womans group, her posts are not considered off-topic and yet a
>>>substansively similar article from AUK would be.
>>[...]
>>
>>Hyerdahl does not post from a women's group, nor do I recall seeing
>>her initiate a cross-posted thread. She is an indigenous soc.men
>>poster.
>>
>>Jayne
>
>So who adds the x-posts to soc.women etc?
Just looking through Google, it looks to me like it is rarely soc.men
regulars. It would be interesting to explore that question with a
proper analysis program. Anyhow, it is definitely not Hyerdahl.
Jayne
Bret Schaffer
dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca says...
> In article <11495342...@isc.org>, Proponents for soc.men.moderated
> <soc...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > The following are prohibited:
> >
> > * Personal advertisements.
> > * Commercial advertisements and money-making schemes.
> > * Chain letters.
> > * Posts in HTML.
> > * EMP spam.
> > * Copyright violations.
> > * Forgery of valid e-mail addresses.
> > * Unauthorized approval headers.
> > * Excessive morphing/nym-shifting.
> > * Posts advocating violence or containing physical threats.
> > * Binaries, apart from PGP signatures, X-Face headers, and other
> > ancillary article meta-data.
>
> Oh, this is too funny...
>
> Cross-posting is allowed!
Please see in RFD:
> ** NOTE ** In the next version of this RFD, the charter is expected to
> contain more specific information about other important issues, such as
> moderation policies and crossposting limits.
Do you want *all* crossposts to be prohibited in the new group? Even
the occasional administrative crossposts... such as newsgroup FAQs,
crossposted to soc.answers?
Daedalus
wrote:
Did anyone here act interested in what Kenny Kakes thought?
It's not good to lead him on like that.
Jade
Aratzio
<jayne.ku...@gmail.com> transparently proposed:
Then I was incorrect. I actually read very little of hyerdahl. She is
like MCP to me, lots of c-n-p articles and an extreme view.
But the main thrust of my point was you basing your hoped for traffic
on Hyerdahl. That rug was pulled. Then what is left for traffic? Your
defined *regulars* do not actually *discuss* much of anything. They
*MEE TOO* and pat each other on the back for their latest spew about
the evil women. Planning on attracting new posters is not going to cut
it when there is no perceptual difference. You have to prove to the
board that there will be sufficient traffic, of the type you are
projecting, to warrant the newsgroup. Without that AND the support of
a large enough base you cannot make it past the RFD stage.
You still have not shown any sort of broad support from soc.men. The
contrary is what has been shown. Andre, MCP, Viking have all been
shown to be just as much of the problem (more in Viking's case) than
and *outside* source. Since these are the same people you are trying
to bring to SMM then the problems that you perceive will follow
regardless of your scheme. You cannot find a large enough list of
candidates to moderate so you are left with robo-moderation. The
robomod will not solve the problems as you perceive them.
You also consistently ignore any facts that present you with a dilemma
of the *regulars* being as much of the problem as the *outsiders*. If
you imagine that these self-same people will suddenly turn over a new
leaf and begin posting in some other manner you are sadly deluding
yourself.
--
VjikQueen defining irony:
Message-ID: <g9dp62d4kc5rff362...@4ax.com>
"But, of course, you are a dense thinkheaded fucking moron."
AHM Wanker Stomping Award - 2005
Pierre Salinger Hook, Line & Sinker - May, 2005
Pierre Salinger Hook, Line & Sinker - Jan, 2006
Hammer of Thor - July, 2005
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus) on 10-22-2005
Message-Id: <slrndlk3ae....@dformosa.zeta.org.au>
"But it is not isolated AUK has a massive impact the rest of usenet."
Please ask your admin to be adding alt.aratzio to your news server
alt.aratzio Usenet asshole Aratzio
viking of soc.men in a killer demonstration of irony:
Message-ID: <v56d329aier0cgr2l...@4ax.com>
"We all know you are fucking stuipd, though."
VjikQueen teh Impotent Trollbuster on battling Trolls:
Message-ID: <s51k62hkenq5oerco...@4ax.com>
Fighting trolls here, or letting them fill this space with crap,
always brings us back to square one in our discussions. New posters
are continually turned off by the environment here--if we get soc.men
cleaned up, we could have a serious, international, rounded forum for
the discussion of men's issues. I know that some regular posters don't
agree with me on this, but I believe the only way to un-cripple
soc.men is to take a stand and to let the trolls know that what they
do won't stand. I'm open to comments, of course.
Jayne Kulikauskas
wrote:
>
>"Woodchuck Bill" <bwr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:Xns97DA125B...@66.250.146.159...
>> "Proponents for soc.men.moderated" <soc...@msn.com> wrote in
>> news:11495342...@isc.org:
[...]
>>> The current state of soc.men is a high-
>>> noise, high-traffic group that is very difficult for newcomers
>>> (especially if they are new to Usenet as well) to navigate.
>>
>> Very true, especially due to articles like these...
>
>
>No the cause has been ther "WAR" declared on soc.men by the participants in
>AUK. By any sane interpretation of their participation in soc.men it has
>been to SPAM it and close it down by total disruption. The only problem with
>returning the favor and the participants here doing the same in their
>newsgroup is that it is like mud wrestling with a pig. The pig LOVES it!
>These assholes SOLE purpose in life is to harass others. They are the
>biggest collection of arrested development types on the planet.
Thanks for posting this, Ken. I think this post represents the views
of a significant number of soc.men posters - probably most of the
men's rights supporters - and is useful for outsiders to understand
the dynamics of the soc.men.
Jayne
Aratzio
transparently proposed:
Kenny Kakes, like Viking, Andre, Slobbo, MCP et al, never quite grasp
their own responsibility. I am wholly responsible for everything I
post and never take the responses I receive as anything but another's
opinion. They, on the other hand, expect that everyone should always
agree with everything they say. Regardless of how ignorant or
ludicrous a statement they make. They cannot accept they are a very
tiny minority of people who believe that a group of predominately
northern european descended males are somehow a persecuted caste. They
spend hours uselessly wanking over minor statistical anomalies and
declare those anomaly to be definitive evidence of their persecution.
Then act incredulous when those with a view more closely related to
reality deride and laugh at their persecution complex.
Aratzio
transparently proposed:
>
>"Lost" <lost...@mailinator.com> wrote in message
>news:448487cf$0$79632$892e...@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net...
>> "Proponents for soc.men.moderated" <soc...@msn.com> wrote:
>>
>>>PROPONENTS: Proponents for soc.men.moderated <soc...@msn.com>
>>>
>>>Co-Proponent: Bret Schaffer <del...@sysmatrix.net>
>>>Co-Proponent: Dante Soch <dant...@msn.com>
>>>Co-Proponent: Jayne Kulikauskas <jayne.ku...@gmail.com>
>>>Co-Proponent: V. Cordero <cor...@debian.polarhome.com>
>>
>> Looks like soc.men is on the way to being moderated by a female.
>
>By FEMINAZIS! SAY SIEG HEIL!!
>
Well, I am sure the B8MB will take your cogent and well defined
argument against SMM into consideration.
So, Kenny Kakes, does the concept of SMM disturb you because it is
Jayne driving the process or because you would be one of those left on
the outside looking in?
Daedalus
So it's probably pretty doltish not to mention it in the charter so
that newcomers understand the real reasons behind soc.men.moderated
instead of the whitewashed, sanitary version you losers put together
which ignores everything that has taken place here so that soc.men
don't *cough* look foolish *cough* to anyone.
Jade
Imperial_Leader
Jayne Kulikauskas <jayne.ku...@gmail.com> took the time to
etch the following into Usenet History:
Damn!! The soc.froot pussies need a woman to make their case for them.
Manly men, these soc.froots.
--
Please visit alt.asshole.imperial_leader, and be sure to crosspost there!
imperia...@hushmail.com
Larry Caldwell
127.0.0.7 (Bob Officer) says...
>
> Does your filter trip on MPC's and a few others spewage of cut and
> paste articles?
No, I didn't bother with copyright violations. I'd have to think about
how to write that...
Those would probably have to be hand moderated.
Doug Freyburger
>
> >Cross-posting is allowed!
>
> I thought that the rules about cross-posting would go in the
> moderation policy (which we are currently working on). Does it go in
> the charter too?
I'll try to offer a phrasing very different from the way Jonathan
put it to see if I understand the distinction correctly:
The moderation policy says what the moderation team is
currently trying to implement. The team can evolve their
policy over time.
The charter is the final published rules for the group. It
is binding on any version of the moderation policy.
Changing the charter should include a discussion or at
least announcement on NG and a new charter posted to
NAN.
While in practice the mods could ignore the charter very
few ever do so since it would destroy their believability.
So stuff in the charter is more important than stuff in the
moderation policy.
For a group widely discussed as banning cross-posts that
ban very much belongs in the charter not the initial
moderation policy IMO.
Imperial_Leader
Imperial_Leader <Imperia...@atillaKhan.com> took the time to
Aratzio
*boggle*
And you fail to recognize the fact that Kenny is rarely, if ever,
on-topic, constantly x-posts to womens and support groups and has
never seen a bot that could not make him look the fool.
Very good Jayne, make sure you get the right *types* to post to SMM.
Those that are on-topic and do not x-post as you desire. You know,
anyone but Kenny.
Now how about addressing the issues that have been raised in the last
few days the demonstratably show you have been depicting your
*regulars* in a less than accurate manner.
Now how about getting out and devloping support for SMM IN soc.men.
Martin X. Moleski, SJ
<1149605672.0...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
> ... The charter is the final published rules for the group. It
>is binding on any version of the moderation policy.
>Changing the charter should include a discussion or at
>least announcement on NG and a new charter posted to
>NAN.
This goes beyond our current polices and practices.
I don't think the board or n.a.n. should get involved in charter
changes at this time. We haven't finished developing the
basics for creation, status change, or group removal.
Overseeing charter changes is a world of hurt. I prefer
the tradition that once a group is created, it's on its
own.
From this standpoint, the original charter is a point of
departure, not an unchangeable authority.
Marty
--
Member of the Big-8 Management Board (B8MB), such as it is.
The B8MB is a work in progress.
See http://www.big-8.org for more information.
Andre Lieven
> On Mon, 05 Jun 2006 20:55:14 GMT, "MCP" <gf010...@blueyonder.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>>> The following are prohibited:
>>>
>>> * Personal advertisements.
>>> * Commercial advertisements and money-making schemes.
>>> * Chain letters.
>>> * Posts in HTML.
>>> * EMP spam.
>>> * Copyright violations.
>>> * Forgery of valid e-mail addresses.
>>> * Unauthorized approval headers.
>>> * Excessive morphing/nym-shifting.
>>> * Posts advocating violence or containing physical threats.
>>> * Binaries, apart from PGP signatures, X-Face headers, and other
>>> ancillary article meta-data.
>>>
>>
>>It would be better to list what we can post!
>
> That was there too. "This charter is meant to encompass a wide variety
> of topics, including but not limited to: men's health, fitness,
> relationships, rights, education, and more. " That doesn't sound like
> it should limit you too much.
>
>>Won't matter to me anyway,i would get banned with the first post.:-)
>
> I hope not. <g>
>
> Seriously, the only one likely to affect you is the one about
> copyright violations and all you need to change is to post a link and
> a quote, rather than the whole article. I would like to have an FAQ
> with posting guidelines that explains in detail, but that's basically
> all it is .
In my case, that would lose me the ability to read and save such
articles, as my newsreader isn't compatible with any of my browsers.
So, I cannot click on a link while reading newsgroups, thus I would
not be able to see the linked article, without leaving newsgroups,
and manually loading in the URL.
Would it be possible to allow for whole relevent articles to be
posted to a smm, as long as the URL is included ?
Andre
Tim Skirvin
>> * Binaries, apart from PGP signatures, X-Face headers, and other
>> ancillary article meta-data.
> What about MIME headers that wrap plain text?
If you're talked about quoted-printable, I recommend decoding
the MIME and just printing as standard text. I'd be happy to share some
perl-based linewrap and quoted-printable decoding code.
- Tim Skirvin (sk...@big-8.org)
Chair, Big-8 Management Board
--
http://www.big-8.org/ Big-8 Management Board
http://www.killfile.org/~tskirvin/ Skirv's Homepage <FISH>< <*>
Aratzio
<bobof...@127.0.0.7> transparently proposed:
<sneck>
>
>Sadly the only poster of any great volume that fits her criteria is
>SharonB... and I haven't seen any statement on her part either
>supporting or saying she would move to or use a moderated group.
Given the criteria as Jayne has stated and the abusive nature as
evidenced so far of her *core* regulars that will leave available to
post in smm:
Jayne
Daedalus
<Tyronn...@kookbusters.org> wrote:
>On Mon, 05 Jun 2006 12:04:40 -0700, Proponents for soc.men.moderated
>wrote:
>
>> Newsgroup line:
>>
>> soc.men.moderated General issues of interest to men (Moderated)
>
>I don't understand this part. EVERYTHING is potentially of interest to
>men (and women) because everyone's interests vary according to the
>individual. How will this newsgroup differ from a censored version of
>misc.misc?
There will be a lot more focuse on legalizing rape.
Jade
Jayne Kulikauskas
<Tyronn...@kookbusters.org> wrote:
>On Mon, 05 Jun 2006 12:04:40 -0700, Proponents for soc.men.moderated
>wrote:
>
>> Newsgroup line:
>>
>> soc.men.moderated General issues of interest to men (Moderated)
>
>I don't understand this part. EVERYTHING is potentially of interest to
>men (and women) because everyone's interests vary according to the
>individual. How will this newsgroup differ from a censored version of
>misc.misc?
An earlier version was "men's issues, rights, relationships". Do you
think that would be better? Do you think that "men's issues" is
clearer?
Jayne
Jayne Kulikauskas
wrote:
As I understand copyright law, I don't think so. However, MCP (and
others) could continue to post the entire article in the unmoderated
group so you could read them there.
Jayne
Peter J Ross
> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
> moderated group soc.men.moderated
>
> This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the creation of the
> moderated Usenet newsgroup, soc.men.moderated.
>
> Newsgroup line:
>
> soc.men.moderated General issues of interest to men (Moderated)
The dot at the end of the description has been declared optional, but
I see no reason not to include it for backwards compatibility if
you're not short of space.
> RATIONALE: soc.men.moderated
>
> The Big-8 group soc.men displayed continuous growth from 1995 to 2002.
> At this time it was a healthy group with a growing diversity among its
> readership.
Having been reading soc.men for a long time, I have to mention that I
didn't get the impression that it was a healthy group in 2002. Not
only were there outrageous trolls/kooks such as "Bob" and "Sky King"
(now departed), but there were also frequent spew attacks. On the
whole, I think soc.men is a more moderate and less victimised group
in 2006 than it was in 2002. (It's still kooky, but it's *less*
kooky.)
You probably ought to read up on your history.
> As the diversity of posters increased, so did the conflict
> among those participants.
No, the "conflict" was a part of soc.men from its obscure beginnings
as an appendage to either soc.women or net.women onwards.
> The current state of soc.men is a high-
> noise, high-traffic group that is very difficult for newcomers
> (especially if they are new to Usenet as well) to navigate.
Fair enough. I currently read soc.men before I read news.groups, and
finding the RFD-related threads among all the pro- and anti-misogynist
noise is difficult even for somebody who knows how to filter.
> In the
> interest of fostering discussion and attracting and accommodating a
> growing number of participants, we are proposing to create a moderated
> group parallel to soc.men.
It isn't parallel; it's a child group, not a sister group.
s/parallel/as an alternative/
> Limiting crossposts to soc.men.moderated will help to ensure that the
> newsgroup's signal-to-noise ratio stays at an acceptable level.
It depends on how you limit them. This is the $64000 question.
> A less
> noisy environment will encourage more new people to participate in the
> new moderated group, while the freedoms of soc.men will remain intact
> for those who prefer the openness of an unmoderated group.
>
>
> CHARTER: soc.men.moderated
>
> The newsgroup soc.men.moderated is for discussion of various men's
> issues. This charter is meant to encompass a wide variety of topics,
> including but not limited to: men's health, fitness, relationships,
> rights, education, and more.
>
> This newsgroup is moderated.
>
> Posts must be in plain text only.
>
> The following are prohibited:
>
> * Personal advertisements.
How about "I have a website about Men's Health. Here's the URL." Is
that prohibited?
> * Commercial advertisements and money-making schemes.
> * Chain letters.
> * Posts in HTML.
> * EMP spam.
> * Copyright violations.
> * Forgery of valid e-mail addresses.
> * Unauthorized approval headers.
> * Excessive morphing/nym-shifting.
> * Posts advocating violence or containing physical threats.
How about non-physical threats? "If you don't stop disagreeing with me
I'll hack your computer."
> * Binaries, apart from PGP signatures, X-Face headers, and other
> ancillary article meta-data.
>
> END CHARTER.
>
> ** NOTE ** In the next version of this RFD, the charter is expected to
> contain more specific information about other important issues, such as
> moderation policies and crossposting limits.
Both of those issues are likely to be more important to all existing
soc.men posters than anything you've proposed so far.
> MODERATOR INFO: soc.men.moderated
>
> One or more moderators will be will be responsible for moderating
> soc.men.moderated. See separate announcement for procedural details.
I look forward to it.
> ** NOTE ** None of the proponents are proposing themselves as potential
> moderators at this time.
Good, since I haven't heard of three of you until recently and regard
the fourth proponent as a net.kook. Fortunately, I don't consider the
character of proponents who aren't going to be moderators to be
important.
<boilerplate snipped>
Any ideas yet about moderators? In addition to Mark Borgerson, I think
I'd find Ben the policeman acceptable. I regularly disagree with both
of them, but to me it's obvious that they're not loons.
PJR :-)
--
_ _(o)_(o)_ _ FSM: http://www.venganza.org/
._\`:_ F S M _:' \_, PJR: http://www.insurgent.org/~pjr/
/ (`---'\ `-. AUK: http://www.netcabal.com/auk/
,-` _) (_, F_P God's Own Newsreader: http://www.slrn.org/
Daedalus
<bobof...@127.0.0.7> wrote:
>that isn't rape... according to the soc.fr00ts, it is men exercising
>their god given rights.
I never thought of it that way. They must think God likes rape.
I wonder if most Christians agree with them.
Jade
Dante Soch
> Bret Schaffer <del...@sysmatrix.net> wrote in
> news:nuqdnVplN8tMERnZ...@sysmatrix.net:
>
>>> MODERATOR INFO: soc.men.moderated
>>>
>>> One or more moderators will be will be responsible for moderating
>>> soc.men.moderated. See separate announcement for procedural details.
>>
>> This separate announcement will be posted sometime within the next 24
>> to 72 hours.
>
> If I remember correctly, Michael Snyder and Mark Sobolewski had signed up
> to be moderators for the last soc.men.moderated proposal. Are these two
> men being considered for possible moderators _this_ time around?
The present moderation scheme under consideration is robomoderation using a
bot to constrain crossposts. Bret has done the great majority of the work
and should soon have a submission to cover the specifications.
cor...@debian.polarhome.com
>
> > REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
> > moderated group soc.men.moderated
> >
> > This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the creation of the
> > moderated Usenet newsgroup, soc.men.moderated.
> >
> >
> > soc.men.moderated General issues of interest to men (Moderated)
>
At least the first line passed muster!
> > RATIONALE: soc.men.moderated
> >
> > The Big-8 group soc.men displayed continuous growth from 1995 to 2002.
> > At this time it was a healthy group with a growing diversity among its
> > readership. As the diversity of posters increased, so did the conflict
> > among those participants.
>
> Your story leaves out what's happened from 2002 to the present day.
The second version of the RFD had the stats in them, but they were
deleted in subsequent versions. The other proposers and, apparently,
the Big-8 board didn't think they were necessary. Since you asked,
here is the history of posts/year, posters/year, repeat posters/year,
percent crossposts/year, groups crossposted/year, and top five
cross-posted groups from Netscan for 2000 to 2005, inclusive.
Posts/Year
2000 110867
2001 144555
2002 198693
2003 184034
2004 131925
2005 121372
Posters/Year
2000 4895
2001 5458
2002 7662
2003 9921
2004 10624
2005 10080
Repeat Posters/Year
2000 467
2001 602
2002 720
2003 966
2004 1349
2005 1313
% Crossposts/year
2000 83.5 %
2001 78.6 %
2002 54.7 %
2003 64.6 %
2004 68.0 %
2005 72.9 %
# Groups crossposted/year
2000 194
2001 935
2002 1847
2003 1326
2004 2024
2005 1432
Top Five Crossposted Groups/Year
2000
#1 Neighbor alt.feminism 51818 46.74 %
#2 Neighbor talk.abortion 19703 17.77 %
#3 Neighbor alt.child-support 17719 15.98 %
#4 Neighbor alt.dads-rights.unmoderated 12203 11.01 %
#5 Neighbor alt.mens-rights 10426 9.40 %
2001
#1 Neighbor alt.feminism 46450 32.13 %
#2 Neighbor talk.abortion 14986 10.37 %
#3 Neighbor alt.child-support 10118 7.00 %
#4 Neighbor soc.singles 8996 6.22 %
#5 Neighbor alt.fan.rush-limbaugh 6431 4.45 %
2002
#1 Neighbor alt.feminism 62725 31.57 %
#2 Neighbor soc.women 29961 15.08 %
#3 Neighbor alt.feminism.individualism 21424 10.78 %
#4 Neighbor alt.religion.wicca 14716 7.41 %
#5 Neighbor alt.mens-rights 14664 7.38 %
2003
#1 Neighbor alt.feminism 26540 14.42 %
#2 Neighbor alt.usenet.kooks 23194 12.60 %
#3 Neighbor alt.true-crime 18083 9.83 %
#4 Neighbor alt.religion.wicca 17682 9.61 %
#5 Neighbor soc.singles 17330 9.42 %
2004
#1 Neighbor alt.feminism 24655 18.69 %
#2 Neighbor alt.true-crime 18379 13.93 %
#3 Neighbor soc.women 18120 13.74 %
#4 Neighbor misc.legal 14224 10.78 %
#5 Neighbor alt.sports.basketball.nba.la-lakers 13326 10.10 %
2005
#1 Neighbor alt.usenet.kooks 15688 12.93 %
#2 Neighbor soc.women 15425 12.71 %
#3 Neighbor alt.feminism 15326 12.63 %
#4 Neighbor alt.support.shyness 6558 5.40 %
#5 Neighbor nyc.general 6377 5.25 %
(Forgive these tables, but editing them in this interface is just an
intractable task.)
These numbers tell several stories about soc.men. First, the group, as
described in the RFD, experienced a growth in the numbers of posts
through 2002 (the pre-2000 numbers are not available from Netscan,
although they are available from Google Groups; my experience shows
that the two data sets are not compatible, so I didn't combine them).
The number of posts has declined since then. However, the decline in
posts did not reflect either a decline in new posters or a turning away
of returning posters. Quite the contrary, both stats increased through
2004 and dipped only marginally in 2005. Both stats suggest that the
number of people interested in soc.men, either for discussing men's
issues or for other purposes (more on that later), increased despite
the declining traffic. That indicates to me that there is a large
readership for soc.men, although there are factors that are
discouraging as high a volume as the group had supported in 2002.
Now, one of the factors that some of the current soc.men posters point
to as a negative influence on the group is the amount of cross-posting.
On this thead, one even pointed out (apparently scornfully, but his
tone didn't transmit clearly through text alone) that cross-posting was
allowed by the charter in the current RFD. The stats above show that
high levels of crossposting have been a constant throughout the history
of soc.men (the percent of crossposts in 2000 was the highest in the
data set), and that the high level of crossposting alone was not enough
to discourage the growth of the group. However, the percentage of
cross-posts did decline as the group's traffic increased. The number
of cross-posted groups isn't the problem either, as the number of
groups increased while both the number of posts and posters (total and
repeat) increased. Furthermore, the number of cross-posted groups
actually declined in 2005, along with a decline in posts, total
posters, and repeat posters. Based on these numbers, cross-posting by
itself has not been a factor impeding the growth of either traffic or
the readership of soc.men.
The only factor that seems to be correlated, first with the decline in
posts, then with the decline in posters, is which group is involved in
cross-posting to soc.men. The number of total posts began to decline
in 2003. That was the first year that alt.usenet.kooks appeared in the
top five list. That particular group didn't appear in the top five
list in 2004, a year in which the number of participants continued to
increase even as the traffic decreased. In 2005, alt.usenet.kooks was
the number one group in the top five cross-post list, and soc.men
experienced a decline in total and repeat posters for the first time in
the period covered by the data set. Now, correlation is not causation,
but the above is evidence that those soc.men regulars who wish to blame
alt.usenet.kooks for their group's problems can use.
> > The current state of soc.men is a high-
> > noise, high-traffic group that is very difficult for newcomers
> > (especially if they are new to Usenet as well) to navigate.
>
> Very true, especially due to articles like these...
:->
> Subject: Females to be wiped out!
> From: "conn...@hotmail.com" <conn...@hotmail.com>
> Newsgroups: soc.men
> Message-ID: <1149555987.3...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
>
> Subject: Women get told to quit whining!
> From: "MCP" <gf010...@blueyonder.co.uk>
> Newsgroups: soc.men
> Message-ID: <rtQfg.257826$tc.7...@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>
>
> Subject: Just replace the word "Taliban" with feminist!
> From: "MCP" <gf010...@blueyonder.co.uk>
> Newsgroups: soc.men
> Message-ID: <VPcfg.49989$8W1....@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>
>
> > In the
> > interest of fostering discussion and attracting and accommodating a
> > growing number of participants, we are proposing to create a moderated
> > group parallel to soc.men.
>
> Weren't you going to propose _two_ groups? Where's the second?
It vanished into the ether. Maybe it will make a magical reappearance
in a future RFD. :-7
> > Limiting crossposts to soc.men.moderated will help to ensure that the
> > newsgroup's signal-to-noise ratio stays at an acceptable level. A
> > less noisy environment will encourage more new people to participate
> > in the new moderated group, while the freedoms of soc.men will remain
> > intact for those who prefer the openness of an unmoderated group.
>
> To how many groups will crossposts be allowed?
Good question. I don't know yet. Do you have a suggestion?
> To _which_ groups will crossposts be allowed?
See the cross-post lists for 2000-2002 and 2004. Those groups didn't
seem to slow growth in traffic or readership. Which other ones do you
think would be related?
> To _which_ groups will crossposts *not* be allowed?
I don't know yet, but for a popular choice among a vocal faction of the
soc.men regulars, read the last paragraph of my analysis of the numbers
and take a wild guess. :->
> > CHARTER: soc.men.moderated
> >
> > The newsgroup soc.men.moderated is for discussion of various men's
> > issues. This charter is meant to encompass a wide variety of topics,
> > including but not limited to: men's health, fitness, relationships,
> > rights, education, and more.
> >
> > This newsgroup is moderated.
> >
> > Posts must be in plain text only.
> >
> > The following are prohibited:
> >
> > * Personal advertisements.
> > * Commercial advertisements and money-making schemes.
> > * Chain letters.
> > * Posts in HTML.
> > * EMP spam.
> > * Copyright violations.
> > * Forgery of valid e-mail addresses.
> > * Unauthorized approval headers.
> > * Excessive morphing/nym-shifting.
> > * Posts advocating violence or containing physical threats.
> > * Binaries, apart from PGP signatures, X-Face headers, and other
> > ancillary article meta-data.
> >
> > END CHARTER.
>
> Not a bad charter,
Thank you.
> but it is a little on the short side...
Brevity is the soul of wit. :-)
> What is on-topic? What is off-topic? Give specific examples.
Good questions, but my answer to them today is...
Manana.
<snip>
V. Cordero
Dante Soch
> In article <11495342...@isc.org>, Proponents for soc.men.moderated
> <soc...@msn.com> wrote:
>
>> The following are prohibited:
>>
>> * Personal advertisements.
>> * Commercial advertisements and money-making schemes.
>> * Chain letters.
>> * Posts in HTML.
>> * EMP spam.
>> * Copyright violations.
>> * Forgery of valid e-mail addresses.
>> * Unauthorized approval headers.
>> * Excessive morphing/nym-shifting.
>> * Posts advocating violence or containing physical threats.
>> * Binaries, apart from PGP signatures, X-Face headers, and other
>> ancillary article meta-data.
>
> Oh, this is too funny...
>
> Cross-posting is allowed!
There will clearly be a need to define some restrictions, but to summarily
deny all crossposting would be painting with too broad a brush. Being able
to crosspost to news.groups immediately comes to mind since
soc.men.moderated will be a work in progress even after creation.
Dante Soch
>> The Big-8 group soc.men displayed continuous growth from 1995 to 2002.
>> At this time it was a healthy group with a growing diversity among its
>> readership. As the diversity of posters increased, so did the conflict
>> among those participants. The current state of soc.men is a high-
>> noise, high-traffic group that is very difficult for newcomers
>> (especially if they are new to Usenet as well) to navigate. In the
>> interest of fostering discussion and attracting and accommodating a
>> growing number of participants, we are proposing to create a moderated
>> group parallel to soc.men.
>
> I'm for it if the charter is written to forbid trolls (including all
> crossposts to alt.usenet.kooks and other nonsense groups). Without those
> limits, creating a new group would be pointless.
Although the precise policy is still under development, the plan is to
limit crossposts so that a great portion of the noise currently plaguing
soc.men doesn't carry over into soc.men.moderated.
Dante Soch
> On Mon, 05 Jun 2006 12:04:40 -0700, Proponents for soc.men.moderated
> wrote:
>
>> Newsgroup line:
>>
>> soc.men.moderated General issues of interest to men (Moderated)
>
> I don't understand this part. EVERYTHING is potentially of interest to
> men (and women) because everyone's interests vary according to the
> individual. How will this newsgroup differ from a censored version of
> misc.misc?
General issues of interest to men is more specifically designed as men's
issues such as men's health, discussion of relationship dynamics, and of
course men's rights although it is my hope to keep the men's rights core
focused on the issue of rights rather than it being a forum for bashing
women. What we are trying to create is a friendlier, more constructive and
positive version of soc.men. The noise level in soc.men has made
moderation necessary. It isn't censorship because soc.men will still be
available for anyone who choses to use it. Flooding, hostile trolls, flame
wars; in the opinion of the propenents, these problems have rendered
soc.men unreadable and unfriendly.
Tim Skirvin
>> soc.men.moderated General issues of interest to men (Moderated)
> I don't understand this part. EVERYTHING is potentially of interest to
> men (and women) because everyone's interests vary according to the
> individual. How will this newsgroup differ from a censored version of
> misc.misc?
How I see it: there are sections of the news stand for "women's
interest" and "men's interest". The description above mirrors that, for
better or worse.
pandora
"Jayne Kulikauskas" <jayne.ku...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:mb2b825ov6q1l1a4d...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 06 Jun 2006 09:40:37 GMT, " krp" <web2...@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Woodchuck Bill" <bwr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:Xns97DA125B...@66.250.146.159...
> >> news:11495342...@isc.org:
>
> [...]
> >>> The current state of soc.men is a high-
> >>> noise, high-traffic group that is very difficult for newcomers
> >>> (especially if they are new to Usenet as well) to navigate.
> >>
> >
> >
in
> >AUK. By any sane interpretation of their participation in soc.men it has
> >been to SPAM it and close it down by total disruption. The only problem
with
> >returning the favor and the participants here doing the same in their
> >newsgroup is that it is like mud wrestling with a pig. The pig LOVES it!
> >These assholes SOLE purpose in life is to harass others. They are the
> >biggest collection of arrested development types on the planet.
>
> Thanks for posting this, Ken. I think this post represents the views
> of a significant number of soc.men posters - probably most of the
> men's rights supporters - and is useful for outsiders to understand
> the dynamics of the soc.men.
You got that right!
Marg
> Jayne
>
pandora
"Imperial_Leader" <Imperia...@atillaKhan.com> wrote in message
news:Imperial_Leade...@lart.com...
organized, as usual.
Marg
--The more things change, the more things stay the same.
pandora
Misogynist men's wishes and fantasies would be more appropriate, IMO.
Marg
> Jayne
jayne.ku...@gmail.com
Tyrone M. Pierce wrote:
> illegal copyright infringement in ANY newsgroup, even if it isn't the
> group being proposed. You should be ashamed of yourself.
>
> !!! Don't break the law in the new group. Just keep on doing it in the
> OLD one. Staus quo, baby!!!
You're right. That was a stupid thing for me to say. I was in the
same situation as Andre a few years ago, so I really sympathize with
him, but encouraging people to copyright infringement is not the right
solution. Thanks for calling me on it.
Jayne
pandora
"Bob Officer" <bobof...@127.0.0.7> wrote in message
news:qamb82hbjlkkrasg0...@4ax.com...
> their god given rights.
Indeed. Since they need it *really* bad, all women are expected to provide
them release anywhere, any time, any way. It's the law of the land, isn't
it?
Marg
>
> --
> Ak'toh'di
Jayne Kulikauskas
wrote:
>Jayne Kulikauskas <jayne.ku...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On 6 Jun 2006 19:07:50 GMT, dg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven)
>>wrote:
[...]
>>>Would it be possible to allow for whole relevent articles to be
>>>posted to a smm, as long as the URL is included ?
>>>
>>>Andre
>>
>>As I understand copyright law, I don't think so. However, MCP (and
>>others) could continue to post the entire article in the unmoderated
>>group so you could read them there.
>>
>>Jayne
>
>There we go, one of the feminazis who poses as man-friendly censors
>her first victim.
If you want to claim that copyright law is a form of censorship, then
blame the people who make the laws, not the ones who try to obey them.
Jayne
Andre Lieven
Is there not a provision for " fair use ", where the use includes that
the user is not trying to make any money off of the dissemenation ?
Andre
Aratzio
>There we go, one of the feminazis who poses as man-friendly censors
>her first victim.
About that support from soc.men...
--
alt.hackers.malicious - Wanker Stomping Award - 2005
alt.usenet.kooks - Pierre Salinger Hook, Line & Sinker - May, 2005
alt.usenet.kooks - Pierre Salinger Hook, Line & Sinker - Jan, 2006
alt.usenet.kooks - Hammer of Thor - July, 2005
alt.flame - Worst Flame War - 2005
Please ask your admin to be adding alt.aratzio to your news server
alt.aratzio Usenet asshole Aratzio
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus) on 10-22-2005
Message-Id: <slrndlk3ae....@dformosa.zeta.org.au>
"But it is not isolated AUK has a massive impact the rest of usenet."
VjikQueen of soc.froot explaining sock paranoia:
Message-ID: <760l32t9k1upl5ilq...@4ax.com>
"Yep. Whether or not they're you, they're you, doesn't make no diff in
how I treat them."
Peter J Ross
<jayne.ku...@gmail.com> wrote in soc.men:
> On Tue, 06 Jun 2006 09:40:37 GMT, " krp" <web2...@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Woodchuck Bill" <bwr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:Xns97DA125B...@66.250.146.159...
>>> "Proponents for soc.men.moderated" <soc...@msn.com> wrote in
>>> news:11495342...@isc.org:
>
> [...]
>>>> The current state of soc.men is a high-
>>>> noise, high-traffic group that is very difficult for newcomers
>>>> (especially if they are new to Usenet as well) to navigate.
>>>
>>> Very true, especially due to articles like these...
>>
>>
>>No the cause has been ther "WAR" declared on soc.men by the participants in
>>AUK. By any sane interpretation of their participation in soc.men it has
>>been to SPAM it and close it down by total disruption. The only problem with
>>returning the favor and the participants here doing the same in their
>>newsgroup is that it is like mud wrestling with a pig. The pig LOVES it!
>>These assholes SOLE purpose in life is to harass others. They are the
>>biggest collection of arrested development types on the planet.
>
> Thanks for posting this, Ken. I think this post represents the views
> of a significant number of soc.men posters - probably most of the
> men's rights supporters -
Yes, it does.
> and is useful for outsiders to understand
> the dynamics of the soc.men.
Yes, it is.
I could have posted the exact words you did, Jayne. But I'd have been
ironical *on purpose*.