creating a moderated group (misc.writing.screenplays)
Alan Brooks
Greetings,
I'm a regular of misc.writing.screenplays, and we're currently in
discussions on how to recover our discussion group from a variety of
serial trolls, led primarily by the well known kook Jai Maharaj.
The consensus on the group is that we'd like to convert the to moderated
status. I've read all the doc I can find on news.groups and
news.announce.*, as well as the articles by David Lawrence and info at
the STUMP site, and I have an RFD written and ready for review. I've
also gotten some brief replies from a member of the NAN Moderation Team
noting that there is a moratorium on conversion of unmoderated groups to
moderated status.
I'm posting here to see what our options are. As it is,
misc.writing.screenplays (MWS) is going down the toilet. Anybody who
has experienced Jai Maharaj's posting style knows why. He typically
cross-posts to 5 or 10 groups including his eponymous group,
alt.fan.jai.maharaj. His posting material is almost always cribbed from
news sources, and his preference is for articles selected to rile people
and create an illusion of spirited conversation centered on his
newsgroup. He uses this manufactured net-cred to boost interest in his
astrology services.
Anyway, that's our situation. On a typical day, 80% of the posts to MWS
are Jai Maharaj spam or responses to his spam. What was formerly a
lively professional forum has become a wasteland of off-topic posts from
the duplicitous and the clueless. MWS is no longer able to attract new,
serious screenwriters. A typical first post to the group is a cry for
help along the lines of, "Is this really a screenwriter's group??
Where's the content?".
We MWS regulars have been discussing this for a short while and our
preferred solution is to convert MWS to moderated status. I don't
understand the moratorium or if there is a way around it. If there is
not, I suppose we're willing to start a sister, moderated group,
although this seems like a kind of surrender to one of the worst serial
trolls currently in operation.
We're looking for guidance in our moderation efforts, or suggestions for
recovering our newsgroup in other, less drastic ways if they exist.
Thanks,
Alan Brooks
chi...@panixy.com
To respond privately, please remove the two
'y''s from my return e-mail address.
ru.ig...@usask.ca
>I have an RFD written and ready for review. I've
>also gotten some brief replies from a member of the NAN Moderation Team
>noting that there is a moratorium on conversion of unmoderated groups to
>moderated status.
...
>We MWS regulars have been discussing this for a short while and our
>preferred solution is to convert MWS to moderated status. I don't
>understand the moratorium or if there is a way around it. If there is
>not, I suppose we're willing to start a sister, moderated group,
>although this seems like a kind of surrender to one of the worst serial
>trolls currently in operation.
One reason for the moratorium is that all to often, such proposals
devolve into a match of whose rights are being taken away. Another
is that, they tend to be controversial enough that it's tough to
tell if a vote result made any sense.
Anyways, the recommendation is to create a parallel group, in
this case, MWS.moderated. That way folks that feel hindered
by moderation can stay with an unmoderated format, and those
that prefer a somewhat more controlled environment can get
their way. It's still bound to be messy, but some of the
objections may be mitigated by keeping the unmoderated group.
ru
--
My standard proposals rant:
Quality, usefulness, merit, or non-newsgroups popularity of a topic
is more or less irrelevant in creating a new Big-8 newsgroup.
Usenet popularity is the primary consideration.
Alan Brooks
<ru.ig...@usask.ca> wrote in message
news:cgo96j$2fv$2...@tribune.usask.ca...
I'm sure this has been carefully considered, but at some level isn't
that decision sort of... cowardly? I honestly don't mean to make people
tread what I'm sure is well-trod ground, and I *certainly* don't mean to
stir flames, but how long has this policy been in place?
I appreciate that the voting must be tough, but all voting is. Could
somebody explain to this relative un-clue-ati exactly who gets to vote,
and what is generally done (legally anyway) to sway them to one's cause?
I feel strongly, as I'm sure many do, that a cleaner, simpler Big 8 is
preferrable to a confused proliferation of moderated and unmoderated
mirror groups, with the unmoderated ones left outside the castle walls
as sacrificial goats. I mean, this isn't alt, y'know...
Alan Brooks
chi...@panixy.com
remove the two 'y''s to reply.
Devin L. Ganger
> <ru.ig...@usask.ca> wrote in message
> news:cgo96j$2fv$2...@tribune.usask.ca...
> I feel strongly, as I'm sure many do, that a cleaner, simpler Big 8 is
> preferrable to a confused proliferation of moderated and unmoderated
> mirror groups, with the unmoderated ones left outside the castle walls
> as sacrificial goats. I mean, this isn't alt, y'know...
You and many others feel that way; however, the reality is that even the
Big-8 group list is merely advisory (albeit one that has been configured
to be in effect by default on many news servers). It's hard enough to get
all the major sites to actually pick up a brand new moderated group *as*
a moderated group; getting them to convert a formerly unmoderated group
is even more difficult.
There are also the issues of principle involved, So while the moratorium
and reasons behind it may seem cowardly when viewed in the context of a
single proposal, it's actually reasonable on multiple levels when viewed
with an eye towards the whole of Usenet.
--
Devin L. Ganger <de...@thecabal.org>
"Aikido is based around the central precept of letting an attack take
its natural course. You, of course, don't want to impede that natural
flow by being in its way." -- overheard on the PyraMOO
ru.ig...@usask.ca
><ru.ig...@usask.ca> wrote in message
>news:cgo96j$2fv$2...@tribune.usask.ca...
>> One reason for the moratorium is that all to often, such proposals
>> devolve into a match of whose rights are being taken away. Another
>> is that, they tend to be controversial enough that it's tough to
>> tell if a vote result made any sense.
>>
>> Anyways, the recommendation is to create a parallel group, in
>> this case, MWS.moderated. That way folks that feel hindered
>> by moderation can stay with an unmoderated format, and those
>> that prefer a somewhat more controlled environment can get
>> their way. It's still bound to be messy, but some of the
>> objections may be mitigated by keeping the unmoderated group.
>I'm sure this has been carefully considered, but at some level isn't
>that decision sort of... cowardly?
No, it's practical. If the opposition is large enough, you get
no moderation change (and it doesn't take much opposition to do
that), a bunch MORE accusations and recriminations, and a worse
situation than before. If the opposition is not strong enough,
you get the moderation status changed and you get a bunch more
accusations and recriminations (of censorship) and probably
another proposal to change the group back to unmoderated in
6 months. Nothing gets solved, so it was taken away as an option.
You could also possibly view this as "don't use the group creation
process to dictate policy to your group, solve your own problems
internally, and leave the group creation process to creating new
groups".
Another reason (possibly more compelling, now that I think on it)
is that these days there is less of a guarantee that the change
in moderation status will be propagated. That would result in
a bigger mess, as we end up in a situation with mixed configurations
for the given group. You may find that you loose a lot of readers
and posters for a purely technical reason, and one that is way
out of readers' control.
>I honestly don't mean to make people
>tread what I'm sure is well-trod ground, and I *certainly* don't mean to
>stir flames, but how long has this policy been in place?
A couple to a few years.
>I appreciate that the voting must be tough, but all voting is.
Voting isn't very tough at all. It's the discussion/argument/flamage,
vote taking, and conclusion that can be tough. The voting part is
inconsequential.
>Could
>somebody explain to this relative un-clue-ati exactly who gets to vote,
>and what is generally done (legally anyway) to sway them to one's cause?
Anyone can vote, but who SHOULD vote are either folks that want the
new group, or folks that oppose the idea of creating the new group.
As you can imagine, controversial proposals get a lot of opposition.
>I feel strongly, as I'm sure many do, that a cleaner, simpler Big 8 is
>preferrable to a confused proliferation of moderated and unmoderated
>mirror groups, with the unmoderated ones left outside the castle walls
>as sacrificial goats. I mean, this isn't alt, y'know...
There aren't enough such proposals for this to be a problem, nor
to see if the moratorium helps or hinders matters. What is clear
is that without the moratorium, we get a mess. It's a question
of if the mess is mitigated by the moratorium. In that sense,
you can consider yourself a guinea pig. It is quite possible
that both the unmoderated and moderated groups will flourish
independently. We don't know, but it's the best compromise we
have for those that want a moderated version of their group and
those that oppose moderation.
Alan Brooks
<ru.ig...@usask.ca> wrote...
> Alan Brooks <chi...@panixy.com> wrote:
>
> ><ru.ig...@usask.ca> wrote in message
> >news:cgo96j$2fv$2...@tribune.usask.ca...
>
> You could also possibly view this as "don't use the group creation
> process to dictate policy to your group, solve your own problems
> internally, and leave the group creation process to creating new
> groups".
Excellent. It's a pleasure talking with a rational human.
But If I may dissect your above statement... with 90,000 some
discussions groups in existence and only a tiny tiny fraction of that
many being newly created each year, shouldn't the process really be
considered a group maintenance process rather than a group creation
process? At this level of maturity, isn't USENET a sort of legacy
system? (You're talking to an IBM mainframe product developer here,
BTW.)
And further, some problems cannot be solved internally because the
oft-refreshing chaos of USENET allows external forces to overwhelm a
group and render it meaningless. The current policy is a retreat from
this barrage, and either ignores the highly evolved nature of trolldom,
or is simply resigned to it. cf. resignation being confirmed
desperation...
> Another reason (possibly more compelling, now that I think on it)
> is that these days there is less of a guarantee that the change
> in moderation status will be propagated. That would result in
> a bigger mess, as we end up in a situation with mixed configurations
> for the given group. You may find that you loose a lot of readers
> and posters for a purely technical reason, and one that is way
> out of readers' control.
This is compelling. Decentralization makes it difficult to change
things, doesn't it?
But here again, I'm willing to go that extra 3.9 x 10^26 yards to make
things work on my beloved little newsgroup. Can I take on the task of
requesting propogation of the change myself? Is there any way to
communicate with a very large volume of newgroup providers, perhaps the
Big 50 or Big 100? As a product developer, I must note that with
something like netcrawler technology, I could probably identify the 99th
percentile of providers and notify them of the change. I personally
would beg for this change, and if others are interested in building a
mechanism, I'd throw my meagre technical weight behind some sort of
standard for requesting or automating status changes. I.E., I'm not
asking what Big 8 can do for me, I'm asking what I can do for Big 8.
I guess it's obvious, but I'm willing to put a fair amount of effort
into seeing this change through, due to some sense of the injustice from
which we're being forced to flee.
> >I honestly don't mean to make people
> >tread what I'm sure is well-trod ground, and I *certainly* don't mean
to
> >stir flames, but how long has this policy been in place?
>
> A couple to a few years.
>
> >I appreciate that the voting must be tough, but all voting is.
>
> Voting isn't very tough at all. It's the discussion/argument/flamage,
> vote taking, and conclusion that can be tough. The voting part is
> inconsequential.
Of course. I sit corrected.
> >Could
> >somebody explain to this relative un-clue-ati exactly who gets to
vote,
> >and what is generally done (legally anyway) to sway them to one's
cause?
>
> Anyone can vote, but who SHOULD vote are either folks that want the
> new group, or folks that oppose the idea of creating the new group.
> As you can imagine, controversial proposals get a lot of opposition.
So... one simply subscribes to news.groups and casts a vote? Who counts
the votes? Who requests the propogation of changes or the creation of
new groups? Sorry, it's not your job to clue me in, but... well, I hope
somebody takes the time...
> >I feel strongly, as I'm sure many do, that a cleaner, simpler Big 8
is
> >preferrable to a confused proliferation of moderated and unmoderated
> >mirror groups, with the unmoderated ones left outside the castle
walls
> >as sacrificial goats. I mean, this isn't alt, y'know...
>
> There aren't enough such proposals for this to be a problem, nor
> to see if the moratorium helps or hinders matters. What is clear
> is that without the moratorium, we get a mess. It's a question
> of if the mess is mitigated by the moratorium. In that sense,
> you can consider yourself a guinea pig. It is quite possible
> that both the unmoderated and moderated groups will flourish
> independently. We don't know, but it's the best compromise we
> have for those that want a moderated version of their group and
> those that oppose moderation.
Obviously, I may eventually have bow to the greater experience on this
group if I cannot bend you all to my will [insert here the image of an
aphid shaking its fist at a contented and dozing rhino]. But I'm still
not convinced.
A moratorium, after all, is by definition a temporary state. After a
few years of moratorium what you have, actually, is a ban. If the
moratorium is to be lifted, or even tested, some discussion on the
subject must be ongoing. Where is that discussion? How can I join in?
If there is no discussion, then let's just call it what it is.
And more than that, if we at misc.writing.screenplays, are guinea pigs,
do we not squeal? Do we not bleed? We have needs, and those needs are
only partly addressed by giving us our rights "somewhere else", as it
were. There is no recourse anymore to relief from the highly evolved
nature of cross-posting trolls. Telling us to go hide in another
newsgroup with a ghettoized name is a form of internet redlining.
I have a dream that... oh waitaminute... this isn't the steps of the
Lincoln Memorial, is it? Basically, I think we regular members of
misc.writing.screenplays can outvote the spammers and trolls. Why
shouldn't we be given a chance?
Alan Brooks
chi...@panixy.com
remove the 'y''s before replying...
ru.ig...@usask.ca
><ru.ig...@usask.ca> wrote...
>> Alan Brooks <chi...@panixy.com> wrote:
>>
>> ><ru.ig...@usask.ca> wrote in message
>> >news:cgo96j$2fv$2...@tribune.usask.ca...
>>
>> You could also possibly view this as "don't use the group creation
>> process to dictate policy to your group, solve your own problems
>> internally, and leave the group creation process to creating new
>> groups".
>Excellent. It's a pleasure talking with a rational human.
>But If I may dissect your above statement... with 90,000 some
>discussions groups in existence and only a tiny tiny fraction of that
>many being newly created each year, shouldn't the process really be
>considered a group maintenance process rather than a group creation
>process? At this level of maturity, isn't USENET a sort of legacy
>system? (You're talking to an IBM mainframe product developer here,
>BTW.)
Not really. By definition it and news.groups is not in the business
of meddling in internal affairs of existing newsgroups. It's primary
function continues to be to create new groups. Whether the topic
space is a split-off from an existing group is not as relevant as
the number of readers that want the new group. If no new groups
are ever proposed after this, then the process can happily shut
down and we can close up news.groups. The folks running the current
process aren't in it for some sort of control, they're doing it
because folks keep wanting to create new groups and someone needs
to guide that along. Once a group is created, it ceases to be
relevant here.
>And further, some problems cannot be solved internally because the
>oft-refreshing chaos of USENET allows external forces to overwhelm a
>group and render it meaningless. The current policy is a retreat from
>this barrage, and either ignores the highly evolved nature of trolldom,
>or is simply resigned to it. cf. resignation being confirmed
>desperation...
While many sympathize, there's little anyone can really do, not
even the folks in news.groups. The bottom line is always with
the readership. They have to take action, and if it involves
creating a new group, they can come to us. If it is a matter
of allowing trolls to suck them into a flame war, then I'm afraid
that's a social/psychological problem that the readership are
going to have to deal with themselves.
Look, I can and can't sympathize with you. I know trolls are a
miserable lot, but groups like news.groups get hit by them all
the time and they just don't make a big impression, even the ones
that folks claimed to be especially persistent. More often than
not, the problem is with the regular readers of a newsgroup.
All it takes is readership discipline (don't respond, not even
if your honor is at stake... though there is a criminal line,
in which case you call the cops, not the troll).
Failing that, though, create a moderated mirror group. End of
the line. That's it. Nothing else.
...
>> Another reason (possibly more compelling, now that I think on it)
>> is that these days there is less of a guarantee that the change
>> in moderation status will be propagated. That would result in
>> a bigger mess, as we end up in a situation with mixed configurations
>> for the given group. You may find that you loose a lot of readers
>> and posters for a purely technical reason, and one that is way
>> out of readers' control.
>This is compelling. Decentralization makes it difficult to change
>things, doesn't it?
>But here again, I'm willing to go that extra 3.9 x 10^26 yards to make
>things work on my beloved little newsgroup. Can I take on the task of
>requesting propogation of the change myself?
Yes, talk to each and every server that seems to be misconfigured
and beg them to fix their settings for the group. Even then you
will be refused by some server admins. When we have enough trouble
getting some admins to accept NEW UNmoderated groups, you know you
are in for a lot more work trying to change an existing group's
status.
>Is there any way to
>communicate with a very large volume of newgroup providers, perhaps the
>Big 50 or Big 100?
Not that I'm aware of, but then I've never thought much about it.
Just be aware that your 3.9 x 10^26 yards is not an exageration.
...
>> >Could
>> >somebody explain to this relative un-clue-ati exactly who gets to
>vote,
>> >and what is generally done (legally anyway) to sway them to one's
>cause?
>>
>> Anyone can vote, but who SHOULD vote are either folks that want the
>> new group, or folks that oppose the idea of creating the new group.
>> As you can imagine, controversial proposals get a lot of opposition.
>So... one simply subscribes to news.groups and casts a vote?
Actually, one subscribes to news.announce.newgroups, waits for a ballot
to be posted, and votes (by hitting "reply", filling in the appropriate
blanks, and hitting "send").
>Who counts
>the votes?
One of an elite cadre of vote takers, the Usenet Vote Volunteers,
the unsung heros of the process (unsung only because we're too busy
to be writing music).
>Who requests the propogation of changes or the creation of
>new groups?
One of a not-so-elite cadre of big cheeses (such as Russ or Todd)
who sends the control message after the requirements outlined in
the guidelines are satisfied. Russ et al also maintain the
checkgroups list that gets posted regularly, and occasionally
send boosters in case servers missed the first control message.
>Sorry, it's not your job to clue me in, but... well, I hope
>somebody takes the time...
Um, actually, it IS my job to clue you in. I'm just not paid
for it.
..
>A moratorium, after all, is by definition a temporary state. After a
>few years of moratorium what you have, actually, is a ban. If the
>moratorium is to be lifted, or even tested, some discussion on the
>subject must be ongoing. Where is that discussion? How can I join in?
>If there is no discussion, then let's just call it what it is.
When a test point occurs once a year, and it takes a year for a
group to shake itself down (or out), it's hard to make a call
after only a couple years. As things stand, you ARE seeing the
discussion, and I'm sure others will join in as soon as their
day jobs are dealt with. The issue is ad hoc reviewed every
time such a proposal comes along.
>And more than that, if we at misc.writing.screenplays, are guinea pigs,
>do we not squeal? Do we not bleed?
Yeah, but we don't care, or we like the sight and smell of blood. :)
>We have needs, and those needs are
>only partly addressed by giving us our rights "somewhere else", as it
>were. There is no recourse anymore to relief from the highly evolved
>nature of cross-posting trolls. Telling us to go hide in another
>newsgroup with a ghettoized name is a form of internet redlining.
Now you are getting melodramatic. Tacking .moderated is not a
ghettoized name, especially since there are a bunch of moderated
newsgroups with that attachment, that aren't mirror groups (most
aren't). You've just managed to insult them.
Also, how is hiding in MWS.moderated any different than hiding
behind the moderator of a status changed MWS? If you think
what you want to do won't smack of cowardice as much as creating
a mirror group, forget it. Either way, you running and hiding
behind the skirts of the moderator.
>Basically, I think we regular members of
>misc.writing.screenplays can outvote the spammers and trolls. Why
>shouldn't we be given a chance?
Who isn't giving you a chance? Propose MWS.moderated and go for it.
What on Earth have you got to lose? It will be a darn sight easier
to do than a mod status change on an existing group even without
the moratorium. That may have been rationale 3 for the moratorium
(i.e. we were doing it by default anyways).
Martin X. Moleski, SJ
wrote:
>But If I may dissect your above statement... with 90,000 some
>discussions groups in existence and only a tiny tiny fraction of that
>many being newly created each year, shouldn't the process really be
>considered a group maintenance process rather than a group creation
>process?
USENET is only a small fraction. A few thousand groups, I believe,
at the most. news.groups only deals with USENET (The Big
Eight) and not with any other newsgroup hierarchies.
>At this level of maturity, isn't USENET a sort of legacy
>system?
My answer as an end-user is yes, but so what? It works
well enough for my purposes. I don't like page-based
discussion groups at all. (Maybe I'm a legacy user?)
>And further, some problems cannot be solved internally because the
>oft-refreshing chaos of USENET allows external forces to overwhelm a
>group and render it meaningless.
Stuff happens. To see what it would take to gain sufficient control
to diminish the rate at which stuff accumulates, see the failed
effort to create Usenet II: <http://www.usenet2.org/>.
>The current policy is a retreat from
>this barrage, and either ignores the highly evolved nature of trolldom,
>or is simply resigned to it. cf. resignation being confirmed
>desperation...
Without speaking for anyone else but myself, I believe that
it is the latter. In my own view, the cost:benefit ratio as I
calculate it convinces me that resignation is the best
policy.
> ... Can I take on the task of
>requesting propogation of the change myself?
After a valid control message is issued, yes, you can nag
ISPs to take correct action in response to it.
> ... I'd throw my meagre technical weight behind some sort of
>standard for requesting or automating status changes. I.E., I'm not
>asking what Big 8 can do for me, I'm asking what I can do for Big 8.
The troika (or quarto or quaternity, if Brian is part of it) is
cleaning up some scripts. I think they just need time
and motivation rather than any technical advice.
>I guess it's obvious, but I'm willing to put a fair amount of effort
>into seeing this change through, due to some sense of the injustice from
>which we're being forced to flee.
I strongly recommend that you wade through all of the threads
of the recent rec.gambling.poker.moderated Request for
Discussion (RFD), Call for Votes (CFV), and post-vote
threads.
As you read those threads, let your imagination roam over the
kind of animosity that a proposal to moderate an unmoderated
group might cause.
>> >stir flames, but how long has this policy been in place?
Formally since 2002-11-12 (search news.groups in google
for the terms moratorium, moderation, place). Informally,
I think the policy goes further back than that.
> ... So... one simply subscribes to news.groups and casts a vote?
No need to subscribe to n.g to vote. A Call for Votes (CFV) goes
out to the groups considered relevant by the USENET Volunteer
Votetaker. Google CFV to see a multitude of examples.
People e-mail a ballot to the UVV and get an ACK telling
them how their vote was registered (yes, no, abstain).
>Who counts
>the votes?
A UVV.
> Who requests the propogation of changes or the creation of
>new groups?
Russ Allbery, acting on behalf of the three or four fellows who
inherited the keys to the kingdom from tale.
> Sorry, it's not your job to clue me in, but... well, I hope
>somebody takes the time...
It's a fascinating process. Something of a tar baby for
some of us. I stopped by to help (in vain) to get a new
group going and haven't left for the last 4 years.
>> >I feel strongly, as I'm sure many do, that a cleaner, simpler Big 8
>is
>> >preferrable to a confused proliferation of moderated and unmoderated
>> >mirror groups, with the unmoderated ones left outside the castle
>walls
>> >as sacrificial goats. I mean, this isn't alt, y'know...
Many people--I don't have any idea of how many--oppose
moderated groups on principle.
Unassailable fact: people disagree. If you disagree with
me, you prove my point. :o) No matter what suggestions
you make to "improve" USENET, someone will oppose
them.
>Obviously, I may eventually have bow to the greater experience on this
>group if I cannot bend you all to my will [insert here the image of an
>aphid shaking its fist at a contented and dozing rhino]. But I'm still
>not convinced.
Maybe you should add all of the threads about rec.crafts.scrapbooks
to your google list.
>A moratorium, after all, is by definition a temporary state. After a
>few years of moratorium what you have, actually, is a ban. If the
>moratorium is to be lifted, or even tested, some discussion on the
>subject must be ongoing. Where is that discussion?
It's right here and now.
> How can I join in?
You have.
>If there is no discussion, then let's just call it what it is.
I don't claim to have been paying close attention for all of these
four years, but, for what it's worth, I don't remember anyone bearing
down on this point the way that you have.
>And more than that, if we at misc.writing.screenplays, are guinea pigs,
>do we not squeal? Do we not bleed? We have needs, and those needs are
>only partly addressed by giving us our rights "somewhere else", as it
>were. There is no recourse anymore to relief from the highly evolved
>nature of cross-posting trolls. Telling us to go hide in another
>newsgroup with a ghettoized name is a form of internet redlining.
I helped form rec.autos.sport.nascar.moderated in 1998 and have
served as a moderator since then. I'm happy that the group
exists and I'm happy to keep on working on its behalf. But the
traffic count has been low and the discussions are not as
wide-reaching as in the unmoderated group (which I haven't
read since 1998). Therefore, I endorse the value of making
every effort to save an unmoderated group before opening
a moderated companion group.
The funny thing about "making every effort" is that it is Taoist.
What works, in my opinion, is not feeding the trolls. Direct
attacks strengthen them and weaken the group. Get a newsreader
that lets you mark authors and threads that you want to ignore,
and steadfastly ignore them. Perhaps you can write a better
newsreader that will let you filter out crossposted material;
mine doesn't (uh, that I know of).
>I have a dream that... oh waitaminute... this isn't the steps of the
>Lincoln Memorial, is it? Basically, I think we regular members of
>misc.writing.screenplays can outvote the spammers and trolls. Why
>shouldn't we be given a chance?
If you really, seriously want to grasp that nettle AFTER you've done
your assigned reading, then I would vote to let you have your
experiment. It might work or it might teach us all a lesson.
But my "vote" doesn't count. It's just an opinion, and even I
don't take my opinions too seriously. :o(
Marty
RonB
> Alan Brooks <chi...@panixy.com> wrote:
>
>>I have an RFD written and ready for review. I've
>>also gotten some brief replies from a member of the NAN Moderation
>>Team noting that there is a moratorium on conversion of unmoderated
>>groups to moderated status.
> ...
>
>>We MWS regulars have been discussing this for a short while and our
>>preferred solution is to convert MWS to moderated status. I don't
>>understand the moratorium or if there is a way around it. If there
>>is not, I suppose we're willing to start a sister, moderated group,
>>although this seems like a kind of surrender to one of the worst
>>serial trolls currently in operation.
>
> One reason for the moratorium is that all to often, such proposals
> devolve into a match of whose rights are being taken away. Another
> is that, they tend to be controversial enough that it's tough to
> tell if a vote result made any sense.
I should let Alan speak for us at MWS but, with all due respect, this
is *not* the situation in our case. Though there are a few at MWS who,
for philosophical reasons, do not particularly like the idea of a
moderator (I count myself in this group), their is a near unanimous
realization is that *something* has to be done about Jai Maharaj. He's
choking the life out of MWS. Obviously you've been fortunate enough not
to have one of your newsgroups infested by this habitual cross poster
-- or you would know what we (as a group) are dealing with and have
been dealing with for well over a year. A quick Google search will show
the near universal detestation for Jai Maharaj -- in every one of the
many, many newsgroups he infests. ("Infest" is not too strong a word
here.)
His "modus operandi" is to cross post many news stories to each of his
many newsgroups. Usually these stories are chosen specifically to
inflame passions so that newsgroup users will knee-jerk respond to the
several cross posted newsgroups -- often without knowing it. Of course
this results in a huge increase in posts and arguments between members
of many different newsgroups often result. But even if everyone ignores
the Jai Maharaj's posts, the number of his new threads often more than
what are posted by the regular members. So, even without response, Jai
Maharaj can clog up a newsgroup and chase away potential group members.
Jai Maharaj also has the "endearing" habit of publishing the home
addresses and phone numbers of those who have the "audacity" to request
that he no longer cross post. And, quite often, these requests are made
using "please" and "thank you." This man is not stable.
Please spend a few moments investigating Jai Maharaj's behavior -- what
I say here will quickly be confirmed.
> Anyways, the recommendation is to create a parallel group, in
> this case, MWS.moderated. That way folks that feel hindered
> by moderation can stay with an unmoderated format, and those
> that prefer a somewhat more controlled environment can get
> their way. It's still bound to be messy, but some of the
> objections may be mitigated by keeping the unmoderated group.
The problem is, we at MWS don't want to give up *our* group -- we want
a foreign infestation removed. If you knew the situation, you would
know why I would see what you are saying as an analogy to "since the
ants have infested your home, wouldn't it be simpler to move to another
one were there aren't any ants?" Well MWS is *our* "home" -- and I,
personally, don't want to move out of it because someone sees it as an
opportunity to push his crazed agenda on those who don't want it.
--
RonB
"There's a story there...somewhere"
RonB
> No, it's practical. If the opposition is large enough, you get
> no moderation change (and it doesn't take much opposition to do
> that), a bunch MORE accusations and recriminations, and a worse
> situation than before. If the opposition is not strong enough,
> you get the moderation status changed and you get a bunch more
> accusations and recriminations (of censorship) and probably
> another proposal to change the group back to unmoderated in
> 6 months. Nothing gets solved, so it was taken away as an option.
You're talking in generalities. This particular situation is very
specific and the abuse is perpetrated against the other members of the
newsgroup. There is no serious division on this subject -- except for
Jai Maharaj vs. the members of MWS. On his own by the sheer volume of
his posts, Jai Maharaj, has changed the "face" of the newsgroup
entirely. Where once the thread titles were predominated by subjects
about writing -- or normal off-topic banter -- we now have thread after
thread similar to "CHRISTIAN SHOOTS HINDU!!" or "MUSLIMS ARE SCUM OF
THE EARTH!!", etc. These threads have absolutely *nothing* to do with
newsgroup or the interests of those in it. And, as I've mentioned
before, Jai Maharaj's posts are *always* cross posted to unrelated
newsgroups.
> You could also possibly view this as "don't use the group creation
> process to dictate policy to your group, solve your own problems
> internally, and leave the group creation process to creating new
> groups".
Again, with all due respect, this advice does not apply in our case.
It's not a matter of "policy," it's a matter of having the groups true
subject matter buried in a blizzard of unrelated and cross posted spam
by one poster, Jai Maharaj. There is no way to solve this problem
internally because Jai Maharaj is not "internal." He has merely chosen
MWS as one of his many *victim* newsgroups.
Again, I request that you and anyone who has any authority in this
matter whatsoever, to investigate the antics of Jai Maharaj. You will
soon confirm all that I have said here. If a newsgroup has been
subjected to his off-topic, cross posted spam, its members detest him.
You will find very, very few exceptions to this rule -- and those
exceptions will be among a very small cadre of Jai Maharaj groupies who
wouldn't even know MWS existed, if not for the relentless cross posting
by their "guru."
> Another reason (possibly more compelling, now that I think on it)
> is that these days there is less of a guarantee that the change
> in moderation status will be propagated. That would result in
> a bigger mess, as we end up in a situation with mixed configurations
> for the given group. You may find that you loose a lot of readers
> and posters for a purely technical reason, and one that is way
> out of readers' control.
In this particular case, a fair vote among the regulars would
*immediately* result in a vote for moderation. Even though, as I've
mentioned in another post, writers in general avoid any whiff of
censorship or "moderation," we are *that* desperate to do *something*
about this particular problem. And the problem is limited to *one* man
who is a habitual cross poster, infamous in many, many newsgroups. All
that we really need to regain our newsgroup is to disallow cross
posting, which is a very minimum amount of moderation.
> Anyone can vote, but who SHOULD vote are either folks that want the
> new group, or folks that oppose the idea of creating the new group.
> As you can imagine, controversial proposals get a lot of opposition.
It wouldn't among the regulars at MWS. I can guarantee that. I don't
know if Jai Maharaj would be able to muster groupies and sock puppets,
but that would be the only way there would be any "real opposition."
> There aren't enough such proposals for this to be a problem, nor
> to see if the moratorium helps or hinders matters. What is clear
> is that without the moratorium, we get a mess. It's a question
> of if the mess is mitigated by the moratorium. In that sense,
> you can consider yourself a guinea pig. It is quite possible
> that both the unmoderated and moderated groups will flourish
> independently. We don't know, but it's the best compromise we
> have for those that want a moderated version of their group and
> those that oppose moderation.
Please subscribe to misc.writing.screenplays for a couple days. You
will immediately see the scope of our problem -- and that it is, in
reality, an external problem -- not an internal squabble.
ru.ig...@usask.ca
>On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 20:17:58 -0400, "Alan Brooks" <chi...@panixy.com>
>wrote:
>>But If I may dissect your above statement... with 90,000 some
>>discussions groups in existence and only a tiny tiny fraction of that
>>many being newly created each year, shouldn't the process really be
>>considered a group maintenance process rather than a group creation
>>process?
>USENET is only a small fraction. A few thousand groups, I believe,
>at the most. news.groups only deals with USENET (The Big
>Eight) and not with any other newsgroup hierarchies.
Err, you have that backwards. The Big-8 is not USENET. USENET is
huge. The Big-8 is a tiny fraction of USENET.
BarB
wrote:
>
><ru.ig...@usask.ca> wrote...
>> There aren't enough such proposals for this to be a problem, nor
>> to see if the moratorium helps or hinders matters. What is clear
>> is that without the moratorium, we get a mess.
>Obviously, I may eventually have bow to the greater experience on this
>group if I cannot bend you all to my will [insert here the image of an
>aphid shaking its fist at a contented and dozing rhino]. But I'm still
>not convinced.
>
In '97 we changed news.newusers.questions to a moderated group. This
was an uncontroversial proposition, with little or no opposition. It
still took over a year of hard work to find the providers who hadn't
changed the status and badger them into doing so, and this was at a
time when most providers did accept the Big-8 checkgroups list.
Today we have providers whom we can't even get to add new groups,
much less change one. That means you would end up with two groups
instead of one, and those users couldn't talk to one another. A new
moderated group seems to be the only solution that is workable.
BarB
ru.ig...@usask.ca
>> Anyways, the recommendation is to create a parallel group, in
>> this case, MWS.moderated. That way folks that feel hindered
>> by moderation can stay with an unmoderated format, and those
>> that prefer a somewhat more controlled environment can get
>> their way. It's still bound to be messy, but some of the
>> objections may be mitigated by keeping the unmoderated group.
>The problem is, we at MWS don't want to give up *our* group -- we want
>a foreign infestation removed. If you knew the situation, you would
>know why I would see what you are saying as an analogy to "since the
>ants have infested your home, wouldn't it be simpler to move to another
>one were there aren't any ants?" Well MWS is *our* "home" -- and I,
>personally, don't want to move out of it because someone sees it as an
>opportunity to push his crazed agenda on those who don't want it.
Russ MIGHT allow an exception. But frankly your plight is not so
unusual that I'd expect an exception. In fact we had one almost
exactly like it last year. You know what the readers did? They
proposed and created a mirror group... upon which the errant poster
settled down. Those folks were worse off than you because their
readership kept biting on his trolls. Worse yet, it couldn't be
said that he should be kicked out because he could post on-topic.
So that was a heck of a lot messier than your problem. Precedent
dictates you not get an exception.
Look, if Russ did allow an exception you may find a good number of
your regular readers will no longer be allowed to post due to
technical problems induced by the mod status change. If you want
to risk getting kicked out of your own "home" by default, you can
try to pursue a mod status change (heck, Russ might even do it
without a vote). Maybe Russ is in an experimental mood and would
like to make you guys guinea pigs to see how many actually get
shut out and whatever problems might result. If it isn't too bad,
he may actually lift the moratorium (though that doesn't address
other concerns). What I'm trying to tell you is that there are a
bunch of reasons for the moratorium and some of them are out of
everyone's control.
Or look at it this way: you don't have much of a home any more.
With that degree of infestation, there's no atmosphere left, it's
hard to talk, friends have already left. Move. If Russ doesn't
grant an exception, you are probably going to have to settle for
the next best thing if it isn't too late. Other folks have made
the move for lesser reasons than you, there's not much of a reason
to prevent you from doing the same. Time is not on your side.
The time you folks spend pushing for a mod status change could
be just as well spent working towards a parallel moderated group,
and either way you will continue to lose readers for a while.
RonB
> Not really. By definition it and news.groups is not in the business
> of meddling in internal affairs of existing newsgroups. It's primary
> function continues to be to create new groups. Whether the topic
> space is a split-off from an existing group is not as relevant as
> the number of readers that want the new group. If no new groups
> are ever proposed after this, then the process can happily shut
> down and we can close up news.groups. The folks running the current
> process aren't in it for some sort of control, they're doing it
> because folks keep wanting to create new groups and someone needs
> to guide that along. Once a group is created, it ceases to be
> relevant here.
Again, this is *not* an "internal affair." Again, as I've mentioned in
another post, this simple fact can be confirmed by doing a quick Google
search for Jai Maharaj. He is infamous for cross posting and for
attacks against those who complain about it -- he's not a mere
"troll," but one of the most detested newsgroup denizens who has ever
posted. These facts are easily verified.
> While many sympathize, there's little anyone can really do, not
> even the folks in news.groups. The bottom line is always with
> the readership. They have to take action, and if it involves
> creating a new group, they can come to us. If it is a matter
> of allowing trolls to suck them into a flame war, then I'm afraid
> that's a social/psychological problem that the readership are
> going to have to deal with themselves.
We, as the readership, have done what we can. Personally I long-ago
killfiled Jai Maharaj. I don't see his posts. The problem is in
attracting new members to the newsgroup. If all they see are headlines
about unrelated topics they soon tire of trying to find the "kernel" of
the newsgroup and move on -- provided they even get that far. The
ability to moderate would allow our Moderator to disallow cross
posting. Jai Maharaj would have no interest in our newsgroup if he
could not cross post. His tactic is to create intra-newsgroup
controversy to increase the traffic at his vanity newsgroup, named
after himself. He then brags about how busy his his personal newsgroup
has become. If those regulating newsgroups can do nothing about such
blatant abuse -- it pretty much leaves *everyone* at the mercy of the
Jai Maharajs of the world. I can't believe that *nothing* can be done
about this man and that we are all at his mercy.
> Look, I can and can't sympathize with you. I know trolls are a
> miserable lot, but groups like news.groups get hit by them all
> the time and they just don't make a big impression, even the ones
> that folks claimed to be especially persistent. More often than
> not, the problem is with the regular readers of a newsgroup.
> All it takes is readership discipline (don't respond, not even
> if your honor is at stake... though there is a criminal line,
> in which case you call the cops, not the troll).
Again, generalities. If you would please take a quick look at MWS
(misc.writing.screenplays) you would very, very quickly realize that
these general "platitudes" have absolutely *nothing* to do with the
current situation at MWS. We have flame wars there. We have trolls, we
have all the "features" and maladies of a normal newsgroup. We *ALSO*
are infested by Jai Maharaj -- something completely different than the
normal abuses that afflict a newsgroup -- and any member of any
newsgroup that has infested by Jai Maharaj would readily attest to this
fact.
> Failing that, though, create a moderated mirror group. End of
> the line. That's it. Nothing else.
But you *have* changed unmoderated newsgroups to moderated ones in the
past. Shouldn't an exceptional situation warrant at least a casual
investigation? I ask for this because I *know* you would find that this
problem is not the run of the mill internal squabble with which many
newsgroups are afflicted. We don't care about normal trolls or flame
wars. It's Jai Maharaj that is the problem and there is nothing
*normal* about his problem.
> Yes, talk to each and every server that seems to be misconfigured
> and beg them to fix their settings for the group. Even then you
> will be refused by some server admins. When we have enough trouble
> getting some admins to accept NEW UNmoderated groups, you know you
> are in for a lot more work trying to change an existing group's
> status.
Alan can find help in his membership for this task. We *want* OUR
newsgroup back. We are willing to put forth the effort needed to clean
it up.
<snip>
> Also, how is hiding in MWS.moderated any different than hiding
> behind the moderator of a status changed MWS? If you think
> what you want to do won't smack of cowardice as much as creating
> a mirror group, forget it. Either way, you running and hiding
> behind the skirts of the moderator.
If the curse of Jai Maharaj was loosed on news.groups would you be
willing to give up and change over to news.groups.moderated? Wouldn't
you consider unfair that one man, apparently a rabid cross poster,
could force you from your "home" and make you move to another? Please
look at the situation first hand. I realize that you're inundated by
those with petty minds, bickering against another member of their own
group. This situation is completely different. Don't take me on my
word, investigate for yourself -- you will soon confirm what I say. You
will find that Alan is *not* a petty man involved in internal
bickering. He came here to appeal for the life of MWS. Please hear him
out and honestly investigate this *particular* situation.
> Who isn't giving you a chance? Propose MWS.moderated and go for it.
> What on Earth have you got to lose? It will be a darn sight easier
> to do than a mod status change on an existing group even without
> the moratorium. That may have been rationale 3 for the moratorium
> (i.e. we were doing it by default anyways).
Why should we be driven from our home because one man, who abuses
newsgroups on a regular basis, has glommed on to MWS and, apparently,
can't be pried loose.
PLEASE investigate the situation. You will find everything I say about
Jai Maharaj to be true. Make an exception in this exceptional case.
RonB
Again, this is not a matter of an "errant poster." We have those in MWS
-- heck, I might even be considered an "errant poster" at times. We can
easily deal with "errant posters" by killfiling them or ignoring them.
If you would go to Google Groups and simply type in
misc.writing.screenplays and look at the all the threads titled in all
CAPS -- then check to see who started these off-topic threads. Check to
see how many newsgroups have been cross posted to in these posts. What
you won't be able to know immediately is how many of the responses to
Jai Maharaj are originated by regulars from MWS -- which are very few.
This is not, by definition, an internal problem.
If nothing can be done for MWS specifically -- can something be done
about Jai Maharaj, specifically? His newsgroup abuse is legendary. He
is the *only* reason we, at MWS, want a Moderator. Alan would find
little support for moderation if not for Jai Maharaj. Period. If Jai
Maharaj could be controlled in some way -- many members of many
newsgroups would be extremely thankful. Is there anything that can be
done from this angle?
> Look, if Russ did allow an exception you may find a good number of
> your regular readers will no longer be allowed to post due to
> technical problems induced by the mod status change. If you want
> to risk getting kicked out of your own "home" by default, you can
> try to pursue a mod status change (heck, Russ might even do it
> without a vote). Maybe Russ is in an experimental mood and would
> like to make you guys guinea pigs to see how many actually get
> shut out and whatever problems might result. If it isn't too bad,
> he may actually lift the moratorium (though that doesn't address
> other concerns). What I'm trying to tell you is that there are a
> bunch of reasons for the moratorium and some of them are out of
> everyone's control.
I can tell you that, if Russ would be kind enough to look into the
situation, we would be very grateful and I think he would immediately
see that the problem is the result of one man, Jai Maharaj.
> Or look at it this way: you don't have much of a home any more.
> With that degree of infestation, there's no atmosphere left, it's
> hard to talk, friends have already left. Move. If Russ doesn't
> grant an exception, you are probably going to have to settle for
> the next best thing if it isn't too late. Other folks have made
> the move for lesser reasons than you, there's not much of a reason
> to prevent you from doing the same. Time is not on your side.
> The time you folks spend pushing for a mod status change could
> be just as well spent working toward a parallel moderated group,
> and either way you will continue to lose readers for a while.
I'm sorry, but I'm not much for slinking away with my tail between my
legs. It is unfair that one man can, single handedly, ruin a
well-respected newsgroup that has existed for several years. I've only
been posting at MWS for a couple years, imagine the indignation and
frustration of those who have posting there from the beginning -- like
Alan Brooks.
Please be kind enough to investigate Jai Maharaj's newsgroup behavior
in general and, specifically, his abuses at MWS.
Thank you for any help in this matter.
ru.ig...@usask.ca
>On Fri 27 Aug 2004 04:17:27p, , wrote:
>> Another reason (possibly more compelling, now that I think on it)
>> is that these days there is less of a guarantee that the change
>> in moderation status will be propagated. That would result in
>> a bigger mess, as we end up in a situation with mixed configurations
>> for the given group. You may find that you loose a lot of readers
>> and posters for a purely technical reason, and one that is way
>> out of readers' control.
>In this particular case, a fair vote among the regulars would
>*immediately* result in a vote for moderation.
You totally missed my point. There is an administrative problem.
Usenet is not centralized. There is no one person in charge of
making sure YOU will get the change you want. Usenet is a distributed
network of servers passing copies of the same message to each other
so that everyone has a copy. However, each server admin has control
over what messages get through and what groups will be allowed.
The Big-8 group creation process is merely advisory for those admins.
Now, if you wanted to simply change the moderation status, Russ
sends the information around, and NO ONE has to follow it. Worse
yet, SOME WON'T. There will be news servers that will continue
to treat it as unmoderated. The readers there will continue to
get the unwanted messages. Worse yet some readers' messages won't
be seen because of the mismatch in configuration of servers who
did follow Russ' advice and those that didn't. This is almost
totally out of your readers hands. It's practically out of
Russ' hands, too.
>> Anyone can vote, but who SHOULD vote are either folks that want the
>> new group, or folks that oppose the idea of creating the new group.
>> As you can imagine, controversial proposals get a lot of opposition.
>It wouldn't among the regulars at MWS. I can guarantee that. I don't
>know if Jai Maharaj would be able to muster groupies and sock puppets,
>but that would be the only way there would be any "real opposition."
And that has historically been a concern for controversial proposals.
For someone as persistent and prolific as your errant poster, would
you put it past him to round up a hundred voters? He doesn't need
many actually to sink a proposal. YES:NO > 2:1, so NO counts double,
IF you can get past the YES-NO > 100 rule... do you have 200 readers
willing to vote? Keep in mind that roughly only 1 in 10 reader votes.
...
>Please subscribe to misc.writing.screenplays for a couple days. You
>will immediately see the scope of our problem -- and that it is, in
>reality, an external problem -- not an internal squabble.
Irrelevant. Barring Russ granting you an exception, you have your
options laid out to you (including waiting for the moratorium to
be lifted... possible years). It is now up to you to choose one of
them. But bear in mind that you don't seem to have the luxury of
waiting. You can wait, or you can proceed right away with a new
moderated group proposal. How urgent is your problem? Keep in
mind that should Russ allow an exception, you can probably change
your proposal to accomodate that in mid-stream. What do you have
to lose to start right away with a new moderated group?
RonB
> You totally missed my point. There is an administrative problem.
> Usenet is not centralized. There is no one person in charge of
> making sure YOU will get the change you want. Usenet is a
> distributed network of servers passing copies of the same message to
> each other so that everyone has a copy. However, each server admin
> has control over what messages get through and what groups will be
> allowed. The Big-8 group creation process is merely advisory for
> those admins. Now, if you wanted to simply change the moderation
> status, Russ sends the information around, and NO ONE has to follow
> it. Worse yet, SOME WON'T. There will be news servers that will
> continue to treat it as unmoderated. The readers there will continue
> to get the unwanted messages. Worse yet some readers' messages won't
> be seen because of the mismatch in configuration of servers who
> did follow Russ' advice and those that didn't. This is almost
> totally out of your readers hands. It's practically out of
> Russ' hands, too.
I see. I'm sorry for missing the obvious. I probably should bow out and
let Alan Brooks spearhead whatever action needs to be taken. I was just
trying to make it absolutely clear that our current problem is caused
by the postings of one man -- internal bickering is not what has caused
use to come here.
> And that has historically been a concern for controversial proposals.
> For someone as persistent and prolific as your errant poster, would
> you put it past him to round up a hundred voters? He doesn't need
> many actually to sink a proposal. YES:NO > 2:1, so NO counts double,
> IF you can get past the YES-NO > 100 rule... do you have 200 readers
> willing to vote? Keep in mind that roughly only 1 in 10 reader
> votes.
I don't think Jai Maharaj *could* round up a hundred posters. I think
he's too disliked on the newsgroups. What he might try to do is vote
hundreds of times, but his IP address should keep him from being able
to do that, I would hope.
> Irrelevant. Barring Russ granting you an exception, you have your
> options laid out to you (including waiting for the moratorium to
> be lifted... possible years). It is now up to you to choose one of
> them. But bear in mind that you don't seem to have the luxury of
> waiting. You can wait, or you can proceed right away with a new
> moderated group proposal. How urgent is your problem? Keep in
> mind that should Russ allow an exception, you can probably change
> your proposal to accomodate that in mid-stream. What do you have
> to lose to start right away with a new moderated group?
If it were up to me, I would very much like Russ to look into the
exception and see what we can do about the changes needed in the
various news servers. To me the misc.writing.screenplays.moderated
option would be the last resort -- but I don't speak for MWS or Alan
Brooks and I'll help in whatever way wiser heads deem appropriate.
I thank you for your time and explanations -- and for your patience.
In another post I asked about the possibility of reigning in Jai
Maharaj. Is there any mechanism for doing something like that if his
newsgroup abuse can be clearly demonstrated?
Thanks again.
ru.ig...@usask.ca
>On Fri 27 Aug 2004 06:14:13p, , wrote:
>> Failing that, though, create a moderated mirror group. End of
>> the line. That's it. Nothing else.
>But you *have* changed unmoderated newsgroups to moderated ones in the
>past.
That's hardly relevant. A long time ago, yes. But the rules have
changed since then, as many of the rules have. Having done things
in the past doesn't validate them. History and technology seems
to have dictated the current moratorium.
>Shouldn't an exceptional situation warrant at least a casual
>investigation?
Wait a week. Maybe Russ will reconsider. Provided Russ responds
at all on the issue.
...
>If the curse of Jai Maharaj was loosed on news.groups would you be
>willing to give up and change over to news.groups.moderated?
Yes. Mind you, many have tried. They are currently shadows of
their former selves.
>Wouldn't
>you consider unfair that one man, apparently a rabid cross poster,
>could force you from your "home" and make you move to another?
Yes. But that's how usenet is. If your group is unmoderated, you
either accept the lumps, or you go elsewhere (moderated).
...
>Why should we be driven from our home because one man, who abuses
>newsgroups on a regular basis, has glommed on to MWS and, apparently,
>can't be pried loose.
It's kind of too late for a lot of former readers, isn't it?
ru.ig...@usask.ca
>In another post I asked about the possibility of reigning in Jai
>Maharaj. Is there any mechanism for doing something like that if his
>newsgroup abuse can be clearly demonstrated?
No. Especially "no" for news.groups regulars. There is no central
authority in any useful context. The only way of reigning an individual
in is to complain to his ISP... or if he owns his usenet connection,
to his upstream, and get him kicked off... repeatedly, if he manages
to continue from another network. That is something only MWS readers
can do.
RonB
> RonB <ronbN...@bliz.org> wrote:
>>On Fri 27 Aug 2004 06:14:13p, , wrote:
<snip>
>>Why should we be driven from our home because one man, who abuses
>>newsgroups on a regular basis, has glommed on to MWS and, apparently,
>>can't be pried loose.
>
> It's kind of too late for a lot of former readers, isn't it?
Actually, no. MWS posters are pretty loyal. Many will go on a "hiatus"
from MWS, sometimes for years -- then show up for a few days -- and
leave again. Lately some have come long enough to say that the place is
still "a swamp" or still "infested," then leave again telling us it's
not worth sifting through the muck. But if MWS got back to it's pre-Jai
Maharaj days, many of these folks *would* start showing up on a regular
basis again.
There's also the question of newbies. Many web links point to
misc.writing.screenplays. It would take years to get all the web sites
to point to misc.writing.screenplays.moderated.
Thanks again for your explanations.
Russ Allbery
>> In another post I asked about the possibility of reigning in Jai
>> Maharaj. Is there any mechanism for doing something like that if his
>> newsgroup abuse can be clearly demonstrated?
> No. Especially "no" for news.groups regulars. There is no central
> authority in any useful context. The only way of reigning an individual
> in is to complain to his ISP... or if he owns his usenet connection, to
> his upstream, and get him kicked off... repeatedly, if he manages to
> continue from another network. That is something only MWS readers can
> do.
Jai Maharaj has been around for many years and has been the cause of a lot
of other dust-ups over the years. He's from the same vintage as Steve
Boursy; alt.culture.hawaii used to be the primary target. I don't
remember exactly, but I seem to recall that he's one of the ones who
doesn't morph very much and is fairly easy to killfile. But he's very
persistant.
There are a bunch of reasons why we have a moratorium on moderating a
group in place, but one of the big ones as far as I'm concerned is that
doing so inherently involves taking a group away from other people (since
otherwise, there wouldn't be a movement to moderate the group). Those
people may well be near-universally despised, but I still really mistrust
those sorts of moral judgements when it's very easy to let everyone have
their own space.
Past experience has been that the prediction that the unmoderated version
of a group would become a wasteland rarely plays out that way in practice.
Instead, the moderated and unmoderated groups evolve in different
directions and develop different cultures, and both groups usually
continue to be actively used.
As for the feeling that one doesn't want to leave a newsgroup behind
because of a troll, I understand the feeling very well, but while this
might sound harsh, I think the best advice is to just get past it. In the
end, it's just a name; it doesn't have any significance apart from the
people who choose to vote there. Changing from unmoderated to moderated
will be *far* more disruptive than a small change in the name of the
group, no matter how you go about it. Compared to what you're already
planning on doing, getting used to a new newsgroup name will be minor.
One major advantage of creating a new separate moderated group is that the
existing group will continue to be usable as-is while you fight to get the
new group available everywhere, while if you convert the existing group,
you'll end up fragmenting the configuration of that group and
significantly disrupting the traffic for a fairly significant period of
time and won't have another Usenet newsgroup to fall back to while that
one is "under construction."
--
Russ Allbery (r...@stanford.edu) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
RonB
> RonB <ronbN...@bliz.org> wrote:
>
>>In another post I asked about the possibility of reigning in Jai
>>Maharaj. Is there any mechanism for doing something like that if his
>>newsgroup abuse can be clearly demonstrated?
>
> No. Especially "no" for news.groups regulars. There is no central
> authority in any useful context. The only way of reigning an
> individual in is to complain to his ISP... or if he owns his usenet
> connection, to his upstream, and get him kicked off... repeatedly, if
> he manages to continue from another network. That is something only
> MWS readers can do.
Again, thanks. BTW, were you aware of Jai Maharaj's reputation before
these posts? I folks have tried going to his ISP, but that hasn't been
successful. May I ask what the "upstream" is? I want to investigate any
possible hope for relief in an effort to solve the Jai Maharaj problem.
RonB
> Jai Maharaj has been around for many years and has been the cause of
> a lot of other dust-ups over the years. He's from the same vintage
> as Steve Boursy; alt.culture.hawaii used to be the primary target. I
> don't remember exactly, but I seem to recall that he's one of the
> ones who doesn't morph very much and is fairly easy to killfile. But
> he's very persistant.
He is easy to killfile. The problem is, our newsgroup gets a lot of
traffic from writers -- often not very technology-minded folks,
especially the newbies. Once I downloaded and set up Xnews it was a
trivial matter to killfile Jai Maharaj and the cross posters he brought
in. But I had to learn all about Xnews and killfiles to do it. And I
came in as ex-computer tech, so I had advantages over many of the
others.
> There are a bunch of reasons why we have a moratorium on moderating a
> group in place, but one of the big ones as far as I'm concerned is
> that doing so inherently involves taking a group away from other
> people (since otherwise, there wouldn't be a movement to moderate the
> group). Those people may well be near-universally despised, but I
> still really mistrust those sorts of moral judgements when it's very
> easy to let everyone have their own space.
I can understand the technical problems, but in this case it's not
"taking a newsgroup away from other people" -- it's protecting it from
one individual who seems to think MWS is one of his personal litter
boxes.
All we really want to do is stop the cross posting. Once that's done
Jai Maharaj would disappear -- as cross posting is his whole point in
posting. Is there a mechanism to flag a newsgroup for *no* crossposts?
This procedure would *not* take the newsgroup away from anyone -- just
keep it from being a dumping ground. Jai Maharaj could still post, but
he would have to *specifically* post to MWS.
> Past experience has been that the prediction that the unmoderated
> version of a group would become a wasteland rarely plays out that way
> in practice. Instead, the moderated and unmoderated groups evolve in
> different directions and develop different cultures, and both groups
> usually continue to be actively used.
There's nothing wrong with the activity at MWS, even sans Jai Maharaj
posts. Getting use would not be a problem, especially since the
moderation would amount to "no cross posts." But it's still the
principle of the thing -- to me, at least.
> As for the feeling that one doesn't want to leave a newsgroup behind
> because of a troll, I understand the feeling very well, but while
> this might sound harsh, I think the best advice is to just get past
> it. In the end, it's just a name; it doesn't have any significance
> apart from the people who choose to vote there. Changing from
> unmoderated to moderated will be *far* more disruptive than a small
> change in the name of the group, no matter how you go about it.
> Compared to what you're already planning on doing, getting used to a
> new newsgroup name will be minor.
I think calling Jai Maharaj a "troll" is extremely generous. What he
really is, is a vicious, hate-filled, serial spammer. His whole point
is to bring traffic into his newsgroup and his *commercial* website. We
at MWS just happen to be one of the unfortunate victims of his spamming
campaign.
> One major advantage of creating a new separate moderated group is
> that the existing group will continue to be usable as-is while you
> fight to get the new group available everywhere, while if you convert
> the existing group, you'll end up fragmenting the configuration of
> that group and significantly disrupting the traffic for a fairly
> significant period of time and won't have another Usenet newsgroup to
> fall back to while that one is "under construction."
Thanks for taking the time to respond to me and for the explanations.
As I mentioned in another post, I don't represent MWS and I don't
presume to speak for Alan Brooks -- and, as you've seen, I've clearly
demonstrated my ignorance of the procedures necessary for the needed
action. What I *can* say, without fear of contradiction, is that Alan
Brooks speaks for nearly every poster at MWS. We don't deserve Jai
Maharaj.
RonB
> In '97 we changed news.newusers.questions to a moderated group. This
> was an uncontroversial proposition, with little or no opposition. It
> still took over a year of hard work to find the providers who hadn't
> changed the status and badger them into doing so, and this was at a
> time when most providers did accept the Big-8 checkgroups list.
>
> Today we have providers whom we can't even get to add new groups,
> much less change one. That means you would end up with two groups
> instead of one, and those users couldn't talk to one another. A new
> moderated group seems to be the only solution that is workable.
Thanks for the "voice of experience." Perhaps my efforts (personally)
would be better spent in documenting Jai Maharaj's newsgroup abuses and
going to his "upstream" -- whatever that is -- with that documentation.
Paulo Joe Jingy
> I can tell you that, if Russ would be kind enough to look into the
> situation, we would be very grateful and I think he would immediately
> see that the problem is the result of one man, Jai Maharaj.
Sometimes a few pictures are worth a couple thousand words.
I got these snapshots simply by unsubscribing, disabling my kill-files
and then resubscribing to misc.writing.screenplays.
These pictures haven't been played with -- this is the way it looks to
newbies, who don't yet know about kill-files.
http://usa1776.com/images/1.jpg
http://usa1776.com/images/2.jpg
http://usa1776.com/images/3.jpg
(Some of the names between all of the Dr. Jai Maharajai posts are
"nmstevens" who wrote the screenplay for "13 Ghosts". "Ken Wheat", who
co-wrote the screenplay for "Pitch Black", with his brother. "Eric
Garcia" who wrote the "Matchstick Men" and the "Casual Rex" books, which
are being produced for television. "Stephen Greenfield" a screenwriter
and President of Write Brothers, Inc., the makers of the "Movie Magic"
screenwriting software, and the leader in that market. "Bill Martell" a
writer of many produced screenplays, an author of a popular screenplay
book and a person who teaches screenplay writing on a regular basis.
"William Rabkin" and "Lee Goldberg" co-writers and producers of
"Diagnosis Murder" and many other television shows. And co-writers of
another excellent book on screenwriting. And not that's not nearly all
the talent on misc.writing.screenplays).
It amazes me that these people willingly help newbie writers. It amazes
me even more that they still have the patience to do so after all the
Jai Maharaj crap they have to wade through. Unfortunately that patience
is starting to come to an end.
This is not hissy-fit between two petty, waring factions. It's not a
power grab. The damage done to our newsgroup is clearly the work of one
person. And it's the newsgroup (as a whole) who wants to do something
about it.
Alan Brooks presented us (and you) with one idea. If it's not workable
for the reasons posted previously -- then so be it. But we're still
open to any suggestions anyone you could give us. And one way or the
other we will do all we can to save a truly unique newsgroup.
Thanks,
Dale
Jon Bell
RonB <ronbN...@bliz.org> wrote:
>
>But you *have* changed unmoderated newsgroups to moderated ones in the
>past. Shouldn't an exceptional situation warrant at least a casual
>investigation? I ask for this because I *know* you would find that this
>problem is not the run of the mill internal squabble with which many
>newsgroups are afflicted. We don't care about normal trolls or flame
>wars. It's Jai Maharaj that is the problem and there is nothing
>*normal* about his problem.
I'm acquainted with Jai Maharaj's antics because he sometimes spreads them
to sci.physics which I read. Fortunately, sci.physics is a very active
group to begin with, so he doesn't make much of a dent there. I can see
that in a less-busy group, his presence could be very disruptive.
Nevertheless, the technical problems with converting unmoderated groups to
moderated ones "in place" are now very real. Once upon a time, when ISPs
etc. usually had news server administrators who knew what they were doing,
it wasn't so much of a problem. Now, most ISPs have marginalized Usenet
to such an extent that they don't have clueful news administrators any
more; it's just one job among many that their harried technical staff have
to cover somehow, most of whom don't use newsgroups themselves. BarB has
mentioned the problems that news.newusers.questions had, when it went from
unmoderated to moderated. We even had problems with AOL, and had to work
through back channels to get them straightened out. That was seven years
ago! I shudder to think of what it would be like now.
I can understand at a gut level that it would stick in one's craw to have
to "abandon" an existing group to a persistent troll or "mission poster."
Nevertheless, you have to consider what is best for the people who really
want to talk about screenwriting. Would it be better for them to make a
clean jump to a new moderated group, which can be propagated to news
servers in a relatively straightforward fashion (although still requiring
some nagging), or to have to put up with the confusion of a group that is
marked as unmoderated on some servers and moderated on others, providing
only one-way communication between two groups of people? Think about the
difficulties in explaining to them what's going on, well enough so *they*
can explain the problem to their own clueless news server administrators!
--
Jon Bell <jtbe...@presby.edu> Presbyterian College
Dept. of Physics and Computer Science Clinton, South Carolina USA
Yowie
news:2pat6pF...@uni-berlin.de...
> RonB wrote:
>
> > I can tell you that, if Russ would be kind enough to look into the
> > situation, we would be very grateful and I think he would immediately
> > see that the problem is the result of one man, Jai Maharaj.
>
> Sometimes a few pictures are worth a couple thousand words.
>
> I got these snapshots simply by unsubscribing, disabling my kill-files
> and then resubscribing to misc.writing.screenplays.
>
> These pictures haven't been played with -- this is the way it looks to
> newbies, who don't yet know about kill-files.
>
> http://usa1776.com/images/1.jpg
Ouch!
You have a *bad* infestation, thats for sure.
But although I'm sure you have the sympathy of most news.groupies, we are
powerless to do anything about it. We aren't Usenet cops, and except for 3
or 4 special people who put out control messages that create or remove
newsgroups, we have exactly the same rights and powers as any other poster
to Usenet. Clearly, reporting your troll to his or her ISP has had no
effect. There aren't many options left.
While changing your group from unmoderated to moderated is a noble idea,
doing just that creates a whole heap of technical problems. Having done so
in the past, it was found that changing a group's status from unmoderated to
moderated results in many previous subscribers being suddenly unable to
post, and it was very hard to correct. Because of this difficulty, it was
decided not to do that any more until some easy and effective way of
correcting that problem could be found.
The only other practical option is to create some place that does not allow
postings from certain individuals. Creating a mailing list would address
this issue perfectly. However, that doesn't help if you want to post about
screenwriting on usenet and have a sensible discussion free from trolls. The
best option, unfortunately, seems to be to create mws.moderated. Yes, it
seems to be admitting defeat, but there are really no other practical
options left.
I'd be getting the first RFD (request for discussion) in as soon as
possible. Assuming it passes and the moderated group gets created, I'd
encourage all regular posters to move over there straight away. I'd also try
to find a way of posting a regular message to the unmoderated group that
directs genuine new posters to the moderated group.
Odds are that your troll doesn't even read MWS, and only reads the results
of his destruction in his eponic newsgroup, so the proposal has good odds of
going straight over his head. I just hope you can gather 120 or more "Yes"
voters, or alternatively, Russ or one of the others takes pity on you and
creates the group by fiat if you get alot (but not enough) yes votes and a
minimum number of no votes.
Good luck.
Yowie
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.744 / Virus Database: 496 - Release Date: 24/08/04
Dena Jo
that news group.
--
Dena Jo
Email goes to denajo2 at the dot com variation of the Yahoo domain.
Have I confused you? Go here:
http://myweb.cableone.net/denajo/emailme.htm
Otto Mation (Caroline Freisen)
>Hey, guys. It's probably not a good idea to start cross-posting to
>that news group.
I *COULD* bne wrong, but I would guess that "Yowie" is one of the guys
in the charter group Alan is talking to, and if that's true, then I
doubt he would cross-post if he didn't intend for follow-up responses
to him to be sent on to that group too.
Caroline
Dena Jo
> While changing your group from unmoderated to moderated is a noble
> idea, doing just that creates a whole heap of technical problems.
> Having done so in the past, it was found that changing a group's
> status from unmoderated to moderated results in many previous
> subscribers being suddenly unable to post,
But won't they have the same problem of being unable to post to
MWS.moderated?
All we want is our newsgroup back the way it was, warts and all. We
don't care about stopping flame wars or personal attacks or off-topic
posts. All we want is for someone sampling the MWS waters for the
first time to be able to google a day or two's worth of MWS and be
able to see an active newsgroup that's still operating and not
drowning in a sea of Jai Maharaj bullshit.
He cross-posts his shit all over the place. Replies come from all
over the place, from different people every day. Simple kill-files
can't handle the problem. It requires *sophisticated* filtering
capabilities to eliminate it. Google can't do it. No web-based
newsreader can do it. Free Agent can't do it. Lesser newsreaders
can't properly handle it. The AOL and CompuServe newsreaders can't
handle it. Even Outlook Express can't handle it. I find myself
advising people to download Xnews and I send newbies starter
score.ini files to help them out. The situation is outrageous, and
now the situation is especially frustrating since eliminating cross-
posting -- just that one act -- would fix the problem. We'd be
willing to add it to our charter that moderation would take the form
of one power, prohibiting cross-posting and only that.
I believe any number of us would be willing to take on the task of
contacting the major ISPs to make sure the changeover is smooth. The
regulars are willing to work -- very hard -- to get our newsgroup
back.
All we ask is that you let us try.
Kathy Cole
> Again, thanks. BTW, were you aware of Jai Maharaj's reputation before
> these posts?
Jay's been around for a long time, and his droppings land in several
groups to which I subscribe (that would be 'yes').
> I folks have tried going to his ISP, but that hasn't been
> successful. May I ask what the "upstream" is? I want to investigate any
> possible hope for relief in an effort to solve the Jai Maharaj problem.
If you're not getting satisfaction from the server to which Jay is
posting (their administrators won't cut off his access), or he is his
own server, you need to contact those who provide peering.
Look at several of his posts and view the full headers. The Path: line
tells you where the post has traveled to get to you; path entries read
right (origination point) to left (your server). You'd want to look for
the second fully qualified server name from the right, and check for a
website or email news@<servername> with a request for assistance.
Oh, wait ... looks like Jay's on alt.net; I don't think you're going to
have any luck getting him bounced or having them de-peered over this
behavior.
Um, is Uncle Al a productive poster in the group? The spew yesterday
morning is certainly not helpful.
RonB
> Hey, guys. It's probably not a good idea to start cross-posting to
> that news group.
I agree.
Dale!
RonB
> On Sat 28 Aug 2004 06:15:51a, Dena Jo, wrote:
>
>> Hey, guys. It's probably not a good idea to start cross-posting to
>> that news group.
>
> I agree.
>
> Dale!
And then *I* cross post. Great. Sorry to everyone. I won't let it
happen again (after this apology).
Dena Jo
> In '97 we changed news.newusers.questions to a moderated group.
> This
> was an uncontroversial proposition, with little or no opposition.
> It still took over a year of hard work to find the providers who
> hadn't changed the status and badger them into doing so, and this
> was at a time when most providers did accept the Big-8 checkgroups
> list.
>
> Today we have providers whom we can't even get to add new groups,
> much less change one. That means you would end up with two groups
> instead of one, and those users couldn't talk to one another. A
> new moderated group seems to be the only solution that is
> workable.
Thank you for this information. This makes the situation more
understandable.
Rob Kelk
<snip>
>Again, thanks. BTW, were you aware of Jai Maharaj's reputation before
>these posts? I folks have tried going to his ISP, but that hasn't been
>successful. May I ask what the "upstream" is? I want to investigate any
>possible hope for relief in an effort to solve the Jai Maharaj problem.
The "upstream" is the Usenet server that accepts messages from another
server, helping to spread them out to all of the Usenet servers.
Every server that copies a message will be listed in the message's
"Path" header, which you can see by viewing all of the headers for a
message. New servers are added to the front of the chain, so you read
the chain right-to-left. Let's look at the Path of your post, as it
appears on the server I use:
Path: uni-berlin.de!not-for-mail
Okay, that doesn't work as an example; we use the same server. But I
can use it as an example of what the first server in the chain often
looks like: you posted to the free server in Berlin, and it put your
message on the spool because it was "not for mail".
Let's look at the Path of one of Russ Allbery's posts, as it appears on
the server we use:
Path:
uni-berlin.de!fu-berlin.de!headwall.stanford.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!shelby.stanford.edu!not-for-mail
That's a bit better as an example. Russ posted his message to a server
called "shelby" at stanford.edu, it passed the message to
newsfeed.stanford.edu to be fed to the rest of Usenet, that server
passed the message to headwall.stanford.edu, that one passed the message
to fu-berlin.de (one of the de facto major message hubs), and that
server passed the message to uni-berlin.de, where you and I can read it.
However, that's a short path, essentially going straight fron Stanford
to Uni-Berlin.
Now let's look at a more complex Path, showing how one of ru igarashi's
posts gets to the server we use:
Path:
uni-berlin.de!fu-berlin.de!nf3.bellglobal.com!snoopy.risq.qc.ca!torn!canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca!tribune.usask.ca!not-for-mail
ru's post came from tribune.usask.ca, and went through
canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca, snoopy.risq.qc.ca, nf3.bellglobal.com, and
fu-berlin.de before getting to us. Thus, we see that
canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca is "upstream" of tribune.usask.ca, and
snoopy.risq.qc.ca is upstream of canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca.
(nf3.bellglobal.com is one of the de facto major message hubs for
Canadian Usenet servers.)
I hope this helps.
--
Rob Kelk
Personal address (ROT-13): eboxryx -ng- wxfei -qbg- pbz
Any opinions here are mine, not ONAG's.
ott.* newsgroup charters: <http://onag.pinetree.org>
RonB
Uncle Al is a regular at some other newsgroup (I'm not even sure which
one). He's just another of the many cross posters Jai Maharaj has drug
in -- as is "harmony." If you take a look at the three JPEG screen
images, and take into account that Uncle Al and harmony are not MWS
regulars either -- the noise to content ratio gets even more skewed.
Many of the cross posters don't even know they are cross posting. (At
least I assume they don't.)
Martin X. Moleski, SJ
> ... Again, this is *not* an "internal affair." Again, as I've mentioned in
>another post, this simple fact can be confirmed by doing a quick Google
>search for Jai Maharaj. He is infamous for cross posting and for
>attacks against those who complain about it -- he's not a mere
>"troll," but one of the most detested newsgroup denizens who has ever
>posted. These facts are easily verified.
1. A troll is a troll, whether he is "most detested" or merely
endured with unwritten grimaces of contempt.
2. If Jai is easily tracked via Google, then he would be easy
to filter out. Filter him (or "it," as some say) and everyone who
replies to him, and suddenly the world will be a better place.
>We, as the readership, have done what we can. Personally I long-ago
>killfiled Jai Maharaj. I don't see his posts.
Good for you! If you also killfile every post that refers to him,
you'll be much happier.
>The problem is in
>attracting new members to the newsgroup. If all they see are headlines
>about unrelated topics they soon tire of trying to find the "kernel" of
>the newsgroup and move on -- provided they even get that far.
As the Buddha said in response to the last temptation, "Some
will understand."
> ... If those regulating newsgroups can do nothing about such
>blatant abuse ...
Nobody here is in the business of "regulating newsgroups."
Not even the troika/quarto. This group just deals with the
namespace of the Big Eight, because to name a group
is to create it or to unname it is to destroy it.
> ... -- it pretty much leaves *everyone* at the mercy of the
>Jai Maharajs of the world.
Yep. It's the new wild west, and there are lots of uncivilized
outlaws in the territory.
> I can't believe that *nothing* can be done
>about this man and that we are all at his mercy.
Talk with the people you enjoy talking with. Welcome
newcomers. Teach them not to feed the troll. Take
what you like and heave the rest.
>Again, generalities.
True. We're writing here on behalf of all newsgroups.
> ... We have flame wars there. We have trolls, we
>have all the "features" and maladies of a normal newsgroup.
Yes, you do. I can tell that even without looking at the group.
Just the tone of your voice and the look in your eye is enough
evidence for me.
>We *ALSO*
>are infested by Jai Maharaj -- something completely different than the
>normal abuses that afflict a newsgroup -- and any member of any
>newsgroup that has infested by Jai Maharaj would readily attest to this
>fact.
Cf. the now defunct Usenet II. If you want to eliminate all human
fungi, that's the kind of work you have to do. If you want to have
fun with the existing system, you'll have to put up with some
noise in the background.
>... We *want* OUR
>newsgroup back. We are willing to put forth the effort needed to clean
>it up.
Learn the Law of Trolls: they feed on opposition. Quietly write
to people you like, one by one, in the background, via e-mail,
and persuade them, if you can, to give up all contests of manhood
and honor. (I use the word manhood deliberately and without
any disdain for female trolls.)
>... If the curse of Jai Maharaj was loosed on news.groups would you be
>willing to give up and change over to news.groups.moderated?
Folks have discussed this over the years. My news server (newsguy)
seems to filter out a huge amount of troll droppings for me. I clean
up anything left over with filters and/or a quick decision to pick
my way past the cowpies.
>Wouldn't
>you consider unfair that one man, apparently a rabid cross poster,
>could force you from your "home" and make you move to another?
I made a choice like that in 1998. BTDT and still am paying
the mortgage on the new house. It was my choice, and I'm
doing my level best not to whine about my choice.
> ... Make an exception in this exceptional case.
I firmly believe that there are exceptions to every rule
(except to the rule of exceptions). I've advocated and defended
making exceptions (cf. rec.crafts.scrapbooks). I don't think
the sky is falling and I'm not going to run around trying to prop
it up this morning. ;o)
Marty
Martin X. Moleski, SJ
> ... It would take years to get all the web sites
>to point to misc.writing.screenplays.moderated.
Alan says he's willing to go the extra mile (or light year,
as the case may be).
Googling all the links and writing all the web owners is
difficult, but not impossible.
Taking control of the inner life of discussion groups has
been proposed, implemented, and found unsatisfactory
(cf. Usenet II).
You can, of course, create your own news hierarchy with
new anti-troll rules and invite the world to come play in
your new namespace. Speak but the word and your
world will be created!
In this namespace, the consensus (so far) is that the
system works well enough for a lot of people to have
fun with it.
Trolls happen.
Marty
Martin X. Moleski, SJ
>>USENET is only a small fraction. A few thousand groups, I believe,
>>at the most. news.groups only deals with USENET (The Big
>>Eight) and not with any other newsgroup hierarchies.
>Err, you have that backwards. The Big-8 is not USENET. USENET is
>huge. The Big-8 is a tiny fraction of USENET.
<dope slap> DOH!
Sorry about that.
So let me say it the right way: news.groups deals only with
the Big Eight and has nothing whatsoever to do with the
tens of thousands of other newsgroups that are found in
USENET.
Thanks for the correction.
Marty
Martin X. Moleski, SJ
> ... And, as I've mentioned
>before, Jai Maharaj's posts are *always* cross posted to unrelated
>newsgroups.
That makes him easy to filter out. Here is one sample page from
a poetry group that describes some useful techniques:
<http://www.aapcsite.plus.com/cleanup.html>
>Again, I request that you and anyone who has any authority in this
>matter whatsoever, to investigate the antics of Jai Maharaj.
I take your word that JM is as bad as you say he [it] is.
> ... If a newsgroup has been
>subjected to his off-topic, cross posted spam, its members detest him.
Trolls feed on negativity. Thirty or forty years ago, I read a sci-fi
story about a war between two groups. The key to the resolution
of the war was realizing that every weapon fired at the enemy
rained equal destruction on the users of the weapon. I guess
it was a version of the law of karma.
> ... All
>that we really need to regain our newsgroup is to disallow cross
>posting, which is a very minimum amount of moderation.
You can teach people to achieve that effect by using the anti-cp
tools. Or work to create rws.moderated.
>... Please subscribe to misc.writing.screenplays for a couple days.
No, thanks.
>You
>will immediately see the scope of our problem -- and that it is, in
>reality, an external problem -- not an internal squabble.
I take your word for this. I believe you. You're right. That
it is an "external problem" does not mean that anyone other
than you can solve it. No one else can take a bath for you;
no one else can gain enlightenment for you.
Marty
Martin X. Moleski, SJ
> ... Once I downloaded and set up Xnews it was a
>trivial matter to killfile Jai Maharaj and the cross posters he brought
>in. But I had to learn all about Xnews and killfiles to do it.
OK. Teach others to do the same. Set up a web page that
tells people how to do what you have done and put a link to it
in your sig.
Yes, I know that's hard work, and work is a four-letter word.
The strong will follow your lead and the weak will sort themselves
out.
> ... Is there a mechanism to flag a newsgroup for *no* crossposts?
Not for unmoderated groups.
> ... But it's still the
>principle of the thing -- to me, at least.
I love principles. If I wasn't so poor at living up to them, I would
be tempted to say that I've devoted my life to the defense of
principles. As I understand it, the principle of unmoderated
newsgroups is that anyone gets to write anything they want
and other people get to read anything they want.
>I think calling Jai Maharaj a "troll" is extremely generous. What he
>really is, is a vicious, hate-filled, serial spammer.
A troll by any other name smells just as bad. A troll is a troll.
>Thanks for taking the time to respond to me and for the explanations.
>As I mentioned in another post, I don't represent MWS and I don't
>presume to speak for Alan Brooks ...
Same here. I speak only for myself and for no one else in this
group.
> ... We don't deserve Jai
>Maharaj.
Agreed.
Marty
Martin X. Moleski, SJ
> ... May I ask what the "upstream" is?
The metaphor compares the flow of usenet traffic to a river.
A post enters the river through a small stream that is higher
up the river than where readers pick it up to read.
If you learn to read headers (I have not), you can trace the flow
of the message from its source down the stream to yourself.
If you follow the traces upstream, you will discover who it is
who allows the poster to insert posts into the stream.
The person who allows the poster to post may or may not
take that privilege away from the poster because of abusive
posts.
Getting that kind of action from a news provider is hard.
I've never done it myself. I think I've heard of people
getting some abusers cut off for a time. But it isn't
hard to think of a new name or to find a new news
provider or to find another way into the stream.
Some bad people aren't stupid. Many of them are quite clever
and can think of more ways than I can to circumvent
obstacles placed in their way. My news provider (newsguy)
seems to do a good job filtering most of the stream that
comes my way. I think Supernews probably does a great
job, too, judging from Andrew's posts here. For the
stuff that still gets through, I do my own processing.
Marty
Martin X. Moleski, SJ
<pjjN...@usa1776.com> wrote:
> ... But we're still
>open to any suggestions anyone of you could give us. And one way or the
>other we will do all we can to save a truly unique newsgroup.
1. Don't feed the troll.
2. Learn to filter. Take what you like and heave the rest.
3. Teach others to do the same.
All the best.
Marty
Arthur L. Rubin
> He cross-posts his shit all over the place. Replies come from all
> over the place, from different people every day. Simple kill-files
> can't handle the problem. ... The situation is outrageous, and
> now the situation is especially frustrating since eliminating cross-
> posting -- just that one act -- would fix the problem. We'd be
> willing to add it to our charter that moderation would take the form
> of one power, prohibiting cross-posting and only that.
So -- why not use a kill-file which bans cross-posts?
(And -- I couldn't do it, either.)
Ask one of the regulars to comment on the last bloxy
infestation we had in news.groups. I don't remember
the details, but the only filter that worked (other
than blocking certain identical posts) was filtering
on the actual insertion point, which (I believe)
was ukraine.net.
--
This account is subject to a persistent MS Blaster and SWEN attack.
I think I've got the problem resolved, but, if you E-mail me
and it bounces, a second try might work.
However, please reply in newsgroup.
Dena Jo
> Ask one of the regulars to comment on the last bloxy
> infestation we had in news.groups.
One of the regulars, please comment on the last bloxy infestation you
had here.
Jon Bell
Dena Jo <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>On 28 Aug 2004, Yowie posted thus:
>
>> While changing your group from unmoderated to moderated is a noble
>> idea, doing just that creates a whole heap of technical problems.
>> Having done so in the past, it was found that changing a group's
>> status from unmoderated to moderated results in many previous
>> subscribers being suddenly unable to post,
>
>But won't they have the same problem of being unable to post to
>MWS.moderated?
They'll have a problem, but it won't be the *same* problem.
If a new moderated group, mws.moderated, is voted and approved, Russ and
company will send out a control message asking news server admins to
create a new moderated group by that name. Some servers will act on the
control message automatically, creating the group immediately. They will
get the moderation status correct because it's part of the control
message.
Other servers will not act on the control message automatically. If their
admins don't add the group by hand soon, their customers who want to use
mws.moderated will know that there's a problem. They'll know that the
group has been created, because there will be a lot of discussion about it
on mws, but they won't see the group on their servers. So they'll go
pester their server admins about it. Eventually the group will be added
to most of those servers, and most of them will probably have it marked
correctly as a moderated group.
On the other hand, if mws itself is converted to a moderated group, Russ
and company will send out a control message asking news server admins to
change the status of the group. As before, the servers that act on
control messages automatically will change the status immediately. From
that point on, those servers will automatically e-mail all locally-made
postings in mws, to the group's new moderators, who will then either post
or reject them. Even on your own server, you won't see your own postings
unless the moderators approve them.
The big problem now is that on those servers that *don't* have mws marked
correctly as moderated, there's no immediately obvious sign that something
is wrong. If someone on one of those servers posts to mws, the server
accepts it just like it did before, and the posting appears on that server
just like it did before, and the poster sees his posting just like before.
However, when the server passes the posting on to its "neighbors", the
ones that do have mws marked as moderated will simply discard it.
Therefore, people who use correctly-configured servers will never see the
postings made by people who use incorrectly-configured ones, whereas the
people who use incorrectly-configured servers will see postings made by
people who use correctly-configured ones. People who use
incorrectly-configured servers will also see postings by people who use
other incorrectly-configured servers that can reach their own server
without passing through a correctly-configured one. But they won't know
that their own postings aren't reaching a lot of other servers, until they
start to wonder why nobody is responding to them.
@lterEgo
news:2pat6pF...@uni-berlin.de...
> RonB wrote:
>
> > I can tell you that, if Russ would be kind enough to look into the
> > situation, we would be very grateful and I think he would immediately
>
I don't understand why he simply doesn't stop posting in this NG when asked
to? He isn't just annoying, he creates also alot of traffic to this group
with his crossposts and the crossposted replies that follow.
Jay, if you read this, why don't you stop posting your OT-posts here?
@lt.
Jacques E. Bouchard
news:6061j0pn08hqnah8c...@4ax.com:
That was our first intent, but that failed. The group makes a very
bad first impression, and few of those who meander this way bother to
stick around.
We want the group to be accessible to new people interested in the
craft, we don't want to create unnecessary hurdles.
jaybee
Jon Bell
Dena Jo <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>On 28 Aug 2004, Arthur L. Rubin posted thus:
>
>> Ask one of the regulars to comment on the last bloxy
>> infestation we had in news.groups.
>
>One of the regulars, please comment on the last bloxy infestation you
>had here.
<http://www.google.com/groups?threadm=9jae2e%241g44%2424%40news.ukr.net>
It's probably not the most recent one, but it's typical. "Bloxy's",
"librarian" and "nucleus" are all the same person. In that thread he
starts out by posting a couple of times as "jc".
Martin X. Moleski, SJ
<inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>"Martin X. Moleski, SJ" <mol...@canisius.edu> wrote in
>news:6061j0pn08hqnah8c...@4ax.com:
>> On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 01:14:51 -0700, Paulo Joe Jingy
>><pjjN...@usa1776.com> wrote:
>>> ... But we're still
>>>open to any suggestions anyone of you could
>>>give us. And one way or the
>>>other we will do all we can to save a truly unique newsgroup.
>> 1. Don't feed the troll.
>> 2. Learn to filter. Take what you like and heave the rest.
>> 3. Teach others to do the same.
> That was our first intent, but that failed. The group makes a very
>bad first impression, and few of those who meander this way bother to
>stick around.
Enjoy the few.
Nurture them.
> We want the group to be accessible to new people interested in the
>craft, we don't want to create unnecessary hurdles.
Where is the web page that you have created to help newbies
filter the group the way you do? If you've got a page like that,
put it in your sig for the group. If you haven't got a page, get
one and start making e-mail alliances with like-minded people
in the group to do the same. A newbie then has to notice only
one sig and act on it in order to get initiated into the inner circle.
You can also post a FAQ or welcome message for newbies on
a regular basis. Rich Wilson did a couple of revisions of a FAQ
for mws in 1997-1999. It is still available (though not helpful
on filtering) at:
<http://www.online-communicator.com/faq20_12.html>
The FAQ is so outdated that it doesn't contain a correct
link to itself. Lamentably, it seems to praise people who
speak to trolls.
Marty
Jacques E. Bouchard
> On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 15:37:00 GMT, "Jacques E. Bouchard"
><inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> That was our first intent, but that failed. The group makes a
>> very
>>bad first impression, and few of those who meander this way bother to
>>stick around.
>
> Enjoy the few.
>
> Nurture them.
We want this place to attract more people. We want to make them
feel welcome. New blood is good. We don't want this to become an
exclusive clubhouse for the initiated. We don't want to be exclusive.
>> We want the group to be accessible to new people interested
>> in the
>>craft, we don't want to create unnecessary hurdles.
>
> Where is the web page that you have created to help newbies
> filter the group the way you do?
See my post in another thread about usenet solutions vs "real"
life. "Accessibility" is the key word. We'd also like to attract people
from the business - assistants, development folks, etc. They don't have
the time to screw with killfiles; they don't WANT to have to change
newsreader. Wagging our fingers at them and lecturing them about how
it's their responsibility to set up a proper killfile is only going to
result in a newsgroup full of finger waggers, and no new ressources.
> If you've got a page like that,
> put it in your sig for the group. If you haven't got a page, get
> one and start making e-mail alliances with like-minded people
> in the group to do the same. A newbie then has to notice only
> one sig and act on it in order to get initiated into the inner circle.
We've been posting the FAQ every week for years, including ways of
setintg up a killfile. It doesn't work, agani because this ng makes a
lousy first impression. I've also addressed this issue in another
thread, about how people in REAL LIFE don't want to bother with usenet
solutions.
jaybee
Guy Macon
RonB <ronbN...@bliz.org> says...
>To me the misc.writing.screenplays.moderated
>option would be the last resort -- but I don't speak for MWS or Alan
>Brooks and I'll help in whatever way wiser heads deem appropriate.
Could you lay out your reasons for disliking the idea of a new
moderated newsgroup? I have seen bits and pieces among the other
posts but I would like to see the argument all together in one post.
Guy Macon
RonB <ronbN...@bliz.org> says...
>In another post I asked about the possibility of reigning in Jai
>Maharaj. Is there any mechanism for doing something like that if his
>newsgroup abuse can be clearly demonstrated?
There may be, but this is not the newsgroup for discussing it.
News.groups is for discussion of creating Big-8 newsgroups.
I would suggest a post in news.admin.net-abuse.usenet.
"News.admin.net-abuse.usenet is a forum for DISCUSSION OF POSSIBLE
ABUSES OF USENET (as defined in news.announce.newusers). Possible
topics include spamming or Excessive Multi-Posting (EMP), Excessive
Cross-Posting (ECP), Usenet chain letters such as MAKE.MONEY.FAST,
forged or third-party cancellations, broken Usenet gateways, forgery
of another user, forged approvals in moderated groups, massively
crossposted "flametrolls", abuse of the newsgroup creation system,
general purpose netiquette, and so forth."
<http://www.killfile.org/~tskirvin/nana/charter/nanau.html>
Brian Mailman
> Again, thanks. BTW, were you aware of Jai Maharaj's reputation before
> these posts?
Many are, yes.
> I folks have tried going to his ISP, but that hasn't been
> successful. May I ask what the "upstream" is? I want to investigate any
> possible hope for relief in an effort to solve the Jai Maharaj problem.
So it would seem the point of the exercise of wishing to change status
is NOT to give the posters of MWS freedom to focus on the topic, but to
punish Jai Maharaj. This would seem to be why the proponents are so
recalcitrant to simply put forward an RFD to create a parallel moderated
group. Even if he wasn't able to post offtopic in a moderated group his
very existence offends them.
B/
Brian Mailman
> He is easy to killfile. The problem is, our newsgroup gets a lot of
> traffic from writers -- often not very technology-minded folks,
> especially the newbies.
Then publish a FAQ on How To Deal With Trolls in This Newsgroup biweekly
or something like that.
1. Ignore, killfile, don't respond to the responders.
2. Here's to set up a killfile in various news readers.
or
set up a parallel moderated group.
or
continue as you've been, I dunno, I've seen it happen where people are
perfectly happy to spend their time complaining.
B/
Guy Macon
RonB <ronbN...@bliz.org> wrote:
>But you *have* changed unmoderated newsgroups to moderated ones in the
>past.
>
>Shouldn't an exceptional situation warrant at least a casual
>investigation?
You have not established that this is an exceptional situation.
It's a bad situation, but alas, many others are in the exact same
situation. Nothing about your particular net-abuser changes the
technical barriers that make moderation in place unworkable.
>If the curse of Jai Maharaj was loosed on news.groups would you be
>willing to give up and change over to news.groups.moderated?
Yes. Or stay unmoderated. Those are the only available choices.
You act as if moderation in place is an option. It isn't. It simply
does not work. The servers don't all update the group to moderated
status. Your net-abuser will be able to go to one of the servers
that don't do updates to moderated and keep right on abusing.
>Wouldn't you consider unfair that one man, apparently a rabid
>cross poster, could force you from your "home" and make you
>move to another?
Fairness. Usenet. Pick one. You can't have both.
>Why should we be driven from our home because one man, who abuses
>newsgroups on a regular basis, has glommed on to MWS and, apparently,
>can't be pried loose.
It's not your home. You don't own it. You think you do, but you don't.
It is owned by the administrators of the servers that carry it, not the
users who read it and post to it. And a bunch of the owners are not
accepting control messages that change unmoderated newsgroups to moderated
newsgroups. If you don't like it, buy them out and run the servers the
way you think they should be run.
"This is not a list. This is not a board. This is not
some web page forum with rules and moderators. This is
USENET. The wild west of online communication. Where
trolls and flames roam rampant. Where you keep your
asbestos underpants handy if you lack wit (or have an
ego that greatly exceeds your actual abilities).
If you don't like it, feel free to run back to the
comfortable safety of moderated web forums and mailing
lists where everyone lives in enforced peace and harmony
in the land of Nod."
-Cichlidiot
Guy Macon
RonB <ronbN...@bliz.org> says...
>Again, thanks. BTW, were you aware of Jai Maharaj's reputation before
>these posts? I folks have tried going to his ISP, but that hasn't been
>successful. May I ask what the "upstream" is? I want to investigate any
>possible hope for relief in an effort to solve the Jai Maharaj problem.
Ask this question in news.admin.net-abuse.usenet. They are the experts.
Guy Macon
Dena Jo <m...@privacy.net> says...
>
>On 28 Aug 2004, Yowie posted thus:
>
>> While changing your group from unmoderated to moderated is a noble
>> idea, doing just that creates a whole heap of technical problems.
>> Having done so in the past, it was found that changing a group's
>> status from unmoderated to moderated results in many previous
>> subscribers being suddenly unable to post,
>
>But won't they have the same problem of being unable to post to
>MWS.moderated?
No.
Creating a new moderated newsgroup works. Moderating an existing
unmoderated newsgroup does not work.
>All we want is our newsgroup back the way it was, warts and all.
Not an option.
Alas, the reason it's not an option is not a decision by a human
that can be argued out of it. It's an inherent attribute of the
present system of newsgroup servers.
Otto Mation (Caroline Freisen)
Okay, you guys. Now we've got the Jesuits out riding shotgun for us!
'-)
Marty, the problem isn't as simple as not feeding the troll and
learning to filter. The primary purpose of this newsgroup is to offer
informed and legitimate help on the gloabal level to people who are
new to screenwriting and seeking answers.
In almost all cases, the "pilgrim" seeking help is as new and green to
usenet as he/she is to screenwriting. In fact, he or she may know a
LOT more about screenwriting than usenet. When such a person logs on
to misc.writing.screenplays, he or she is inundated with so much of
Dr. Maharaj's floodwater that they may well give up in total disgust
and not know what is being lost. Since Jai Maharaj has been
practicing his "cross posting gospel" on us, the ratio of legitimate
newbies arriving to ask questions has been choked to a trickle.
The secondary purpose of this newsgroup is and always has been to give
practicing screenwriters a convivial place to meet and literally take
a coffee break while working on a script. Writing is a solitary
pursuit. It is very comforting to be able to wade out of our
individual Black Lagoons and bask in the company of our own species,
for as writers, we are a breed unto ourselves.
It is true that Jai Maharaj sometimes contributes on-topic posts to
the group. It is true that he can show a charming and humorous side
when he chooses to share it. But in order to experience that, one
must put up with literally hundreds of emails about totally irrelevant
subjects that are far too frequently loaded with poisonous animosity
toward all religious sectors but his own. This is not a good or
useful thing!
On more than one occasion, I (as well as others) have pleaded with Jai
to give up this unwelcome practice, participate as one individual
contributing to the group's knowledge and good will, and withhold the
onslaught of unwanted posts he dumps on us daily. For whatever
reasons of his own, he ignores all such pleas.
We do not *want* to be a moderated group, nor do we want anyone within
our group to be forced to give up their equality by becoming
moderators, but if we are to try to continue on in serving the
purposes for which we exhist, what choices do we have?
If you or the others who are part of news.groups know of any other way
to handle our problem, we'd sure like to hear your ideas...!
Thanks for your contribution and interest,
Caroline
Dena Jo
> Alas, the reason it's not an option is not a decision by a human
> that can be argued out of it. It's an inherent attribute of the
> present system of newsgroup servers.
I've come to understand that through the course of the thread.
Martin X. Moleski, SJ
<inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> We want this place to attract more people.
Advertise the group on your personal web pages. I do that
with the group I help to moderate:
<http://moleski.net>.
>We want to make them
>feel welcome.
Watch for them to appear and say, "Welcome!"
>New blood is good.
I don't want to sound bloodthirsty, but I know what you mean
and agree with the sentiment. :o)
>We don't want this to become an
>exclusive clubhouse for the initiated. We don't want to be exclusive.
If you want a moderated group (either mws or mwsm), then
you're choosing a form of exclusion.
If people want to play on the open range, then they've got
to learn how to deal with the outlaws themselves. If you
fence the range to make it safe for newbies, it's not an open
range any more (for good or for ill).
>> Where is the web page that you have created to help newbies
>> filter the group the way you do?
> See my post in another thread about usenet solutions vs "real"
>life.
In other words, you haven't done all you can do to make
newcomers welcome. There's room for improvement.
>"Accessibility" is the key word. We'd also like to attract people
>from the business - assistants, development folks, etc. They don't have
>the time to screw with killfiles; they don't WANT to have to change
>newsreader. Wagging our fingers at them and lecturing them about how
>it's their responsibility to set up a proper killfile is only going to
>result in a newsgroup full of finger waggers, and no new ressources.
There are a plethora of playpens on the internet for people who
don't want to learn how to deal with the wild west. Dollars to
donuts there is at least one "screenplay forum" already in
existence where civility is enforced. If not, it wouldn't take much
investment to get one going.
> We've been posting the FAQ every week for years, including ways of
>setting up a killfile.
I see one (1) posting in the last 16 months:
>From: Maj. Bushteaser (busht...@NOcanadaSPAM.com)
>Subject: FAQ for Newbies new and improved
>Newsgroups: misc.writing.screenplays
>Date: 2004-08-25 07:02:15 PST
Since it's only four (4) days old, it seems a little premature to
say it hasn't worked.
>It doesn't work, again because this ng makes a
>lousy first impression.
Oh, well--let them go. Folks who judge a book by its cover probably
wouldn't make a deep contribution to the group anyway.
>I've also addressed this issue in another
>thread, about how people in REAL LIFE don't want to bother with usenet
>solutions.
It's their choice and their loss (or gain, as the case may be).
Usenet isn't for everyone.
Marty
BarB
>All we really want to do is stop the cross posting. Once that's done
>Jai Maharaj would disappear -- as cross posting is his whole point in
>posting. Is there a mechanism to flag a newsgroup for *no* crossposts?
Yes, it's done by the individual provider who always controls what is
posted to his copy of the group. I know Supernews does control
crossposting to limit abuse in some groups. I wouldn't be surprised if
they were already doing it for this group...Jeremy? You could request
that your provider do so or change to one that does.
One choice is a new moderated group.
One choice is to teach users how to filter. Many newcomers are using
Outlook Express and a simple "block sender" command under " Messages"
will take care of your main troll because he seldom morphs his name.
A dozen or so more will take care of most of those responding to his
messages. That gets rid of about half the posts. Under Tools/Message
Rules/News, the user can refine filters by subject. I ran some taking
out subjects containing political and religious terms such as bush,
reagan, kerry, congress, hitler, nazi, christian, bible, islam,
moslem, israel, and got the group down to about a third of its
original size. This is NOT too difficult for the average user who has
found out how to get to Usenet in the first place.
BarB
Gene Harris
> I don't understand why he simply doesn't stop posting in this NG when
> asked to? He isn't just annoying, he creates also alot of traffic to
> this group with his crossposts and the crossposted replies that
> follow.
>
> Jay, if you read this, why don't you stop posting your OT-posts here?
See, here's the problem: you're making the (perfectly reasonable)
assumption that Jay/Jai is a normal, logical, rational person, one who can
be reasoned with. He is not. He is pathological. All manner of
reasoning, pleading, begging, screaming, and threatening has been tried,
numerous times, to no avail. All efforts based on rational thought
processes are useless against the nutbag. He cannot be swayed, and he
doesn't care one micro-whit about the misery he causes. As I said,
pathological.
Them's the facts.
Gene
Ron
"Martin X. Moleski, SJ" <mol...@canisius.edu> wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 01:14:51 -0700, Paulo Joe Jingy
> <pjjN...@usa1776.com> wrote:
>
> > ... But we're still
> >open to any suggestions anyone of you could give us. And one way or the
> >other we will do all we can to save a truly unique newsgroup.
>
> 1. Don't feed the troll.
You don't have to feed Jai. He shows up and the groups he crossposts
to generate enough traffic to swamp the group to the unfiltered.
We've tried everything else. Six months ago, people who proposed a
moderated newsgroup were shot down. But because of the accesibility to
newbies issues, filtering isn't sufficient anymore.
-Ron
Otto Mation (Caroline Freisen)
<mol...@canisius.edu> wrote:
>I see one (1) posting in the last 16 months:
>
>>From: Maj. Bushteaser (busht...@NOcanadaSPAM.com)
>>Subject: FAQ for Newbies new and improved
>>Newsgroups: misc.writing.screenplays
>>Date: 2004-08-25 07:02:15 PST
>
>Since it's only four (4) days old, it seems a little premature to
>say it hasn't worked.
That's inaccurate. Under the subject line "FAQ for Newbies," "Maj.
Bushteaser" has posted on 1/28/04, 2/11/04, 2/18/04, 7/21/04,
7/28/'04, 8/4/04, and 8/11/04. That message reads:
.........................................................
Greetings all,
You can access MWS and screenwriting FAQs at
http://www.online-communicator.com/faqs.html brought to you by Rich
Wilson.
Before asking the group a question, why don't you check the archives
by going here http://groups.google.com/advanced_group_search and
typing
misc.writing.screenplays in the Newsgroup field, in addition to your
keyword.
.............................................................
On 8/18/'04, "Ovum" asked "Maj. Bushteaser" if he could include
information on how to use a kill file as well as they FAQ, and that's
what he did in the post that you cite. Some have also tried using the
FAQ as their sig block, but there is no evidence that has helped.
It's rather cavalier of you to just say that those new to newsgroups
and screenwriting are responsible for their loss if they can't find
the needle in the haystack. We're talking about people who well may
NOT know they're supposed to be looking for the needle! And that is
our point, if you'll pardon the pun.
Caroline
BarB
<otto....@keepyourviruses-sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 13:42:16 -0400, "Martin X. Moleski, SJ"
><mol...@canisius.edu> wrote:
>
>>I see one (1) posting in the last 16 months:
>>
>>>From: Maj. Bushteaser (busht...@NOcanadaSPAM.com)
>>>Subject: FAQ for Newbies new and improved
>>>Newsgroups: misc.writing.screenplays
>>>Date: 2004-08-25 07:02:15 PST
>>
>>Since it's only four (4) days old, it seems a little premature to
>>say it hasn't worked.
>
>
>That's inaccurate. Under the subject line "FAQ for Newbies," "Maj.
>Bushteaser" has posted on 1/28/04, 2/11/04, 2/18/04, 7/21/04,
>7/28/'04, 8/4/04, and 8/11/04. That message reads:
>.........................................................
>Greetings all,
>
>You can access MWS and screenwriting FAQs at
>http://www.online-communicator.com/faqs.html brought to you by Rich
>Wilson.
I went there and searched for the term "filter" or
"killfile"...nothing. So I went to the section "How to Use the
misc.writing.screenplays Newsgroup and FAQ"...still nothing.
Sorry, I can't find it and I doubt if many newcomers would, even if
you could get them there. You really need to post directions to the
group.
BarB
RonB
I can't speak for MWS, but *my* reason is that I feel it unfair that
one serial cross poster can evict all the others who've been using a
newsgroup for years. But I'm getting an education about the problems
involved in changing a unmoderated newsgroup to a moderated one and my
view is changing on this matter.
Thanks to all for the education.
--
RonB
"There's a story there...somewhere"
@hotmail.com Ken Brod
news:8jf1j0pcn95ddtu8p...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 16:33:15 GMT, "Jacques E. Bouchard"
> <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> We've been posting the FAQ every week for years, including ways of
>>setting up a killfile.
>
> I see one (1) posting in the last 16 months:
>
>>From: Maj. Bushteaser (busht...@NOcanadaSPAM.com)
>>Subject: FAQ for Newbies new and improved
>>Newsgroups: misc.writing.screenplays
>>Date: 2004-08-25 07:02:15 PST
>
> Since it's only four (4) days old, it seems a little premature to
> say it hasn't worked.
A link to the FAQ is up once a week, like clockwork:
k.
RonB
> RonB <ronbN...@bliz.org> wrote:
>
>>But you *have* changed unmoderated newsgroups to moderated ones in
>>the past.
>>
>>Shouldn't an exceptional situation warrant at least a casual
>>investigation?
>
> You have not established that this is an exceptional situation.
> It's a bad situation, but alas, many others are in the exact same
> situation. Nothing about your particular net-abuser changes the
> technical barriers that make moderation in place unworkable.
I have some understand the technical barriers now. But I still think
the Jai Maharaj infestation is an exceptional situation.
>>If the curse of Jai Maharaj was loosed on news.groups would you be
>>willing to give up and change over to news.groups.moderated?
>
> Yes. Or stay unmoderated. Those are the only available choices.
>
> You act as if moderation in place is an option. It isn't. It simply
> does not work. The servers don't all update the group to moderated
> status. Your net-abuser will be able to go to one of the servers
> that don't do updates to moderated and keep right on abusing.
I'm beginning to get the point. The advantage of a thick skull is that
it can be substituted for a sledge hammer when needed. The disadvantage
is that it can be substituted for a sledge hammer a few too many times.
Thanks for your patience and explanations.
>>Wouldn't you consider unfair that one man, apparently a rabid
>>cross poster, could force you from your "home" and make you
>>move to another?
>
> Fairness. Usenet. Pick one. You can't have both.
Yeah. It's a shame.
>>Why should we be driven from our home because one man, who abuses
>>newsgroups on a regular basis, has glommed on to MWS and, apparently,
>>can't be pried loose.
>
> It's not your home. You don't own it. You think you do, but you
> don't. It is owned by the administrators of the servers that carry
> it, not the users who read it and post to it. And a bunch of the
> owners are not accepting control messages that change unmoderated
> newsgroups to moderated newsgroups. If you don't like it, buy them
> out and run the servers the way you think they should be run.
That shouldn't be a problem. I've got a few quarters in my pocket. How
many do you think it would take? :~]
But seriously, thanks again for all the explainin'. I was hoping for an
simple solution -- the best kind for a simple minded idiot like me.
RonB
> In article <Xns9552E13F73CBF...@130.133.1.4>,
> RonB <ronbN...@bliz.org> wrote:
>>
>>But you *have* changed unmoderated newsgroups to moderated ones in
>>the past. Shouldn't an exceptional situation warrant at least a
>>casual investigation? I ask for this because I *know* you would find
>>that this problem is not the run of the mill internal squabble with
>>which many newsgroups are afflicted. We don't care about normal
>>trolls or flame wars. It's Jai Maharaj that is the problem and there
>>is nothing *normal* about his problem.
>
> I'm acquainted with Jai Maharaj's antics because he sometimes spreads
> them to sci.physics which I read. Fortunately, sci.physics is a very
> active group to begin with, so he doesn't make much of a dent there.
> I can see that in a less-busy group, his presence could be very
> disruptive.
>
> Nevertheless, the technical problems with converting unmoderated
> groups to moderated ones "in place" are now very real. Once upon a
> time, when ISPs etc. usually had news server administrators who knew
> what they were doing, it wasn't so much of a problem. Now, most ISPs
> have marginalized Usenet to such an extent that they don't have
> clueful news administrators any more; it's just one job among many
> that their harried technical staff have to cover somehow, most of
> whom don't use newsgroups themselves. BarB has mentioned the
> problems that news.newusers.questions had, when it went from
> unmoderated to moderated. We even had problems with AOL, and had to
> work through back channels to get them straightened out. That was
> seven years ago! I shudder to think of what it would be like now.
>
> I can understand at a gut level that it would stick in one's craw to
> have to "abandon" an existing group to a persistent troll or "mission
> poster." Nevertheless, you have to consider what is best for the
> people who really want to talk about screenwriting. Would it be
> better for them to make a clean jump to a new moderated group, which
> can be propagated to news servers in a relatively straightforward
> fashion (although still requiring some nagging), or to have to put up
> with the confusion of a group that is marked as unmoderated on some
> servers and moderated on others, providing only one-way communication
> between two groups of people? Think about the difficulties in
> explaining to them what's going on, well enough so *they* can explain
> the problem to their own clueless news server administrators!
Thanks for your patience. I'm beginning to get it through my thick
skull -- thanks to your (and others) calm explanations.
RonB
<snip>
> Path:
> uni-berlin.de!fu-berlin.de!nf3.bellglobal.com!snoopy.risq.qc.ca!torn!
c
> anopus.cc.umanitoba.ca!tribune.usask.ca!not-for-mail
>
> ru's post came from tribune.usask.ca, and went through
> canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca, snoopy.risq.qc.ca, nf3.bellglobal.com, and
> fu-berlin.de before getting to us. Thus, we see that
> canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca is "upstream" of tribune.usask.ca, and
> snoopy.risq.qc.ca is upstream of canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca.
> (nf3.bellglobal.com is one of the de facto major message hubs for
> Canadian Usenet servers.)
>
> I hope this helps.
It does. Thanks.
Otto Mation (Caroline Freisen)
>I went there and searched for the term "filter" or
>"killfile"...nothing. So I went to the section "How to Use the
>misc.writing.screenplays Newsgroup and FAQ"...still nothing.
>
>Sorry, I can't find it and I doubt if many newcomers would, even if
>you could get them there. You really need to post directions to the
>group.
>
>BarB
You're right, BarB. You won't find it there, but if you Google
"misc.writing.newsgroups" and do a search for "kill file" you'll turn
up lots of information. But you are absolutely correct in pointing
out that it's not an ideal method.
Caroline
Martin X. Moleski, SJ
<otto....@keepyourviruses-sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>Okay, you guys. Now we've got the Jesuits out riding shotgun for us!
>'-)
Heh heh. I did OK shooting skeet earlier this summer. Out in Iowa
last week, I got to fire my first rounds with a Colt .45 sidearm,
a Glock, a cowboy gun from the 19th century, and an AR-15.
I'm not a gun nut--but some of my friends are. :-O.
> ... he or she is inundated with so much of
>Dr. Maharaj's floodwater that they may well give up in total disgust
>and not know what is being lost.
I understand and sympathize with this difficulty. The problem
is crystal clear. This is why I recommend web-based help
pages, conspiracies in the background via-email with
like-minded regulars, a regular FAQ, and a signature
employed by the mws cabal that will help newbies find
the inner circle more rapidly than now is the case.
>The secondary purpose of this newsgroup is and always has been to give
>practicing screenwriters a convivial place to meet and literally take
>a coffee break while working on a script. Writing is a solitary
>pursuit. It is very comforting to be able to wade out of our
>individual Black Lagoons and bask in the company of our own species,
>for as writers, we are a breed unto ourselves.
I refuse to answer on the grounds that it may incriminate me. ;o)
> ... [the behavior of] Jai Maharaj ... is not a good or
>useful thing!
Agreed.
>On more than one occasion, I (as well as others) have pleaded with Jai
>to give up this unwelcome practice, participate as one individual
>contributing to the group's knowledge and good will, and withhold the
>onslaught of unwanted posts he dumps on us daily. For whatever
>reasons of his own, he ignores all such pleas.
That is "feeding the troll." Around 1968-1969, I read an essay
in which the author argued that "anything given significant
attention is significant." He used a poem about the eye of
a dead fish to make his point. I regret that I've forgotten the
author's name (Hawaiian? Japanese? or that British fellow
who wrote under an Asian pen name--no, not Saki--one
web page attributes "Anything significantly looked at is
significant" to John Ciardi, but I'll bet he was quoting my
man) ...
Sorry for the digression. Trolls feed on attention. Somehow
they filter out the poison intended and grow stronger when
people assault them. Don't feed the troll.
>We do not *want* to be a moderated group, nor do we want anyone within
>our group to be forced to give up their equality by becoming
>moderators, but if we are to try to continue on in serving the
>purposes for which we exhist, what choices do we have?
I'm going to reprint Brian Mailman's post here because Brian
is one of the Major Players in the newsgroup creation process.
I am a wanna-be groupie. I think he covered all of the
real options quite clearly. I'm going to title and comment
on his suggestions:
+++ B/'s Comments, edited +++
A. FAQ Attack
.
> Then publish a FAQ on How To Deal With Trolls in This Newsgroup biweekly
> or something like that.
To which I add: use web pages, sig files, and maybe e-mail
lists to cultivate an inner circle of sages, the mws cabal.
B. Starve the Troll
> 1. Ignore, killfile, don't respond to the responders.
> 2. Here's to set up a killfile in various news readers.
C. Create a New Group
> set up a parallel moderated group.
D. Play Victim.
> continue as you've been, I dunno, I've seen it happen where people are
> perfectly happy to spend their time complaining.
+++ end of B/'s comments, edited +++
>If you or the others who are part of news.groups know of any other way
>to handle our problem, we'd sure like to hear your ideas...!
One hour later (or thereabouts) ... Here are my collected ideas on
Zen and the Art of Starving Trolls:
<http://moleski.net/newsgroups/notes.htm#trolls>
Marty
RonB
> 1. A troll is a troll, whether he is "most detested" or merely
> endured with unwritten grimaces of contempt.
Not really. A "troll," by definition is "trolling." If he doesn't get
any "bites" in a particular newsgroup he moves on to a new pond. Jai
Maharaj doesn't care. He mechanically posts in his victim newsgroups,
using the bulk mail (spam) approach to draw the few who won't ignore
him. His percentage is low, but, since he has so many nets out there,
he still gets enough response to keep him satisfied.
> 2. If Jai is easily tracked via Google, then he would be easy
> to filter out. Filter him (or "it," as some say) and everyone who
> replies to him, and suddenly the world will be a better place.
He is easy to filter out -- but if you looked at the JPEG snapshots of
his MWS threads provided from last night -- you can see that someone
subscribing to MWS for the first time would most likely make a run for
the hills. No one wants to wade through that crap. If that's what I saw
when I opened Xnews I wouldn't stick around. And that's our problem --
most of the regulars use killfiles -- many learned how to use them
specifically because of Jai Maharaj -- but that doesn't amount to a
tinker's damn when talking about those new to newsgroups.
>>We, as the readership, have done what we can. Personally I long-ago
>>killfiled Jai Maharaj. I don't see his posts.
>
> Good for you! If you also killfile every post that refers to him,
> you'll be much happier.
Yeah -- it's "good for me' up to the point we're denied the input of
someone knowledgeable in the business who won't subscribe to MWS
because of the noise.
<snip>
> Learn the Law of Trolls: they feed on opposition. Quietly write
> to people you like, one by one, in the background, via e-mail,
> and persuade them, if you can, to give up all contests of manhood
> and honor. (I use the word manhood deliberately and without
> any disdain for female trolls.)
I'm sorry. I realize now that changing an unmoderated group to a
moderated presents nearly impassable hurdles. But I'll say it again,
Jai Maharaj is not an ordinary troll -- he does not respond to reason,
he does not quit posting simply because you ignore him. If there is
anything rational left in his mind -- it is simply the mechanical
desire to build traffic for his vanity newsgroup.
I understand that the mechanical apparatus is not easily available to
ban this menace, but I am a bit weary of the patronizing platitudes
about "how to deal with a troll." Most of the regulars on MWS are long
time newsgroup users. They *KNOW* how to deal with trolls. They also
know that Jai Maharaj is a unique creature who does not respond to the
normal "troll" remedies.
Have you taken a look at MWS to get an idea of the scope of the
problem?
<snip>
>> ... Make an exception in this exceptional case.
>
> I firmly believe that there are exceptions to every rule
> (except to the rule of exceptions). I've advocated and defended
> making exceptions (cf. rec.crafts.scrapbooks). I don't think
> the sky is falling and I'm not going to run around trying to prop
> it up this morning. ;o)
Fine. Thanks for your time and useful explanations.
RonB
> You can, of course, create your own news hierarchy with
> new anti-troll rules and invite the world to come play in
> your new namespace. Speak but the word and your
> world will be created!
>
> In this namespace, the consensus (so far) is that the
> system works well enough for a lot of people to have
> fun with it.
>
> Trolls happen.
Trolls happen. Jai Maharaj is unique -- as a bit of research would
quickly confirm.
Martin X. Moleski, SJ
<otto....@keepyourviruses-sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>That's inaccurate. Under the subject line "FAQ for Newbies," "Maj.
>Bushteaser" has posted on 1/28/04, 2/11/04, 2/18/04, 7/21/04,
>7/28/'04, 8/4/04, and 8/11/04.
My apologies. For some reason, google only showed me one.
The major has done a good deed for the group and is to
be commended.
>On 8/18/'04, "Ovum" asked "Maj. Bushteaser" if he could include
>information on how to use a kill file as well as they FAQ, and that's
>what he did in the post that you cite.
So the filtering information is, as I claimed, only four (4) days old.
You may be expecting too much from the old gent's writing.
>Some have also tried using the
>FAQ as their sig block, but there is no evidence that has helped.
I recommend a pointer in the sig block to the home page of
the mws civility cabal.
>It's rather cavalier of you to just say that those new to newsgroups
>and screenwriting are responsible for their loss if they can't find
>the needle in the haystack.
Yep. I'm cavalier!
>We're talking about people who well may
>NOT know they're supposed to be looking for the needle!
Agreed. Some people call them "clueless newbies." I try to
think of them as my fellow human beings or as children of God.
>And that is
>our point, if you'll pardon the pun.
Point taken; pun pardoned.
Marty
Troubled by trolls in misc.writing.screenplays?
Get some help here: <http://moleski.net/newsgroups/notes.htm#trolls>
RonB
> Trolls feed on negativity. Thirty or forty years ago, I read a
> sci-fi story about a war between two groups. The key to the
> resolution of the war was realizing that every weapon fired at the
> enemy rained equal destruction on the users of the weapon. I guess
> it was a version of the law of karma.
I welcomed Jai Maharaj when he first appeared to MWS -- against he
better judgment of several of the regulars who "smelled a rat." When he
first started his serial spamming I politely asked him stop. Many folks
on MWS have done this -- using the words "please" and "thank you." His
response to these polite requests is to "out" the posters -- digging up
their home addresses and phone numbers and posting them under the
headline "SO AND SO IS A LYING SCUMBAG!" -- or something close to this
(always in CAPS). No offense, but waxing philosophical about "karma"
will not rid of us Jai Maharaj. He is impervious to the normal,
rational, logical remedies -- because he is not rational, normal or
logical.
Please take a look at MWS threads and make a casual investigation into
Jai Maharaj's well known methods. He is not merely a troll -- he is a
mechanical creature designed to spew spam, vitriol and hatred.
--
RonB
"Just the facts"
RonB
>
> RonB <ronbN...@bliz.org> says...
>
>>In another post I asked about the possibility of reigning in Jai
>>Maharaj. Is there any mechanism for doing something like that if his
>>newsgroup abuse can be clearly demonstrated?
>
> There may be, but this is not the newsgroup for discussing it.
> News.groups is for discussion of creating Big-8 newsgroups.
> I would suggest a post in news.admin.net-abuse.usenet.
Thanks. I'll head over there and look around.
Bluesea
<ru.ig...@usask.ca> wrote in message
news:cgp7ns$43d$7...@tribune.usask.ca...
> RonB <ronbN...@bliz.org> wrote:
> >On Fri 27 Aug 2004 06:14:13p, , wrote:
>
> >If the curse of Jai Maharaj was loosed on news.groups would you be
> >willing to give up and change over to news.groups.moderated?
>
> their former selves.
How were they changed to shadows of their former selves? Will it work for us
in m.w.s.?
--
~~Bluesea~~
Spam is great in musubi but not in email.
Please take out the trash before sending a direct reply.
Russ Allbery
> Trolls happen. Jai Maharaj is unique -- as a bit of research would
> quickly confirm.
He's not, actually. He's just of a type that one doesn't see as much any
more as one used to. Google for Serdar Argic if you want to see other
historical examples.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@stanford.edu) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Paulo Joe Jingy
RonB
> RonB wrote:
>
>> Again, thanks. BTW, were you aware of Jai Maharaj's reputation
>> before these posts?
>
> Many are, yes.
I figured they were.
> > I folks have tried going to his ISP, but that hasn't been
>> successful. May I ask what the "upstream" is? I want to investigate
>> any possible hope for relief in an effort to solve the Jai Maharaj
>> problem.
>
> So it would seem the point of the exercise of wishing to change
> status is NOT to give the posters of MWS freedom to focus on the
> topic, but to punish Jai Maharaj. This would seem to be why the
> proponents are so recalcitrant to simply put forward an RFD to create
> a parallel moderated group. Even if he wasn't able to post offtopic
> in a moderated group his very existence offends them.
No. If you know Jai Maharaj and have looked at what he's done to MWS
you wouldn't come close to believing this. The reason *I* (speaking for
myself) was recalcitrant to simply create a new moderated newsgroup is
that I think it inherently unfair that *one* man can evict long-time
residents of a newsgroup via his abusive behavior. There is no desire
to "punish" Jai Maharaj -- the desire is to get him to *stop*
inundating MWS with his off-topic, vicious and cross posted crap. Is
that, somehow, unreasonable?
You know, it's easy to be philosophical and wax eloquent about treating
your fellow troll with respect, sitting in the comfort of your own,
basically clean newsgroup. If you had to endure what we've been
enduring at MWS for almost two years now -- I would venture to guess
that your tolerance level would be much lower for this rabid, cross
posting pariah.
I don't want to punish him -- I merely want him to go away and quit
abusing MWS.
Investigate the situation -- platitudes don't work here.
Thanks.
Otto Mation (Caroline Freisen)
<mol...@canisius.edu> wrote:
>On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 17:19:08 GMT, "Otto Mation (Caroline Freisen)"
><otto....@keepyourviruses-sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>>Okay, you guys. Now we've got the Jesuits out riding shotgun for us!
>>'-)
>
>Heh heh. I did OK shooting skeet earlier this summer. Out in Iowa
>last week, I got to fire my first rounds with a Colt .45 sidearm,
>a Glock, a cowboy gun from the 19th century, and an AR-15.
>
>I'm not a gun nut--but some of my friends are. :-O.
>
May God be munificent in all Her grace and deliver us from Jesuit gun
nuts! No wonder you guys never get to be Pope. '-)
>>The secondary purpose of this newsgroup is and always has been to give
>>practicing screenwriters a convivial place to meet and literally take
>>a coffee break while working on a script. Writing is a solitary
>>pursuit. It is very comforting to be able to wade out of our
>>individual Black Lagoons and bask in the company of our own species,
>>for as writers, we are a breed unto ourselves.
>
>I refuse to answer on the grounds that it may incriminate me. ;o)
You've been nailed.
>
>That is "feeding the troll." Around 1968-1969, I read an essay
>in which the author argued that "anything given significant
>attention is significant." He used a poem about the eye of
>a dead fish to make his point. I regret that I've forgotten the
>author's name (Hawaiian? Japanese? or that British fellow
>who wrote under an Asian pen name--no, not Saki--one
>web page attributes "Anything significantly looked at is
>significant" to John Ciardi, but I'll bet he was quoting my
>man) ...
All of which boils down to Heisenberg's principle. You can't look at
it without moving it.
>
>Sorry for the digression. Trolls feed on attention. Somehow
>they filter out the poison intended and grow stronger when
>people assault them. Don't feed the troll.
In other words, if you have an overwhelming itch, don't scratch it!
Works great on paper, but in real life there are times when you just
gotta give in to temptation. Didn't they teach you that in seminary?
'-)
>
>I'm going to reprint Brian Mailman's post here because Brian
>is one of the Major Players in the newsgroup creation process.
>I am a wanna-be groupie. I think he covered all of the
>real options quite clearly. I'm going to title and comment
>on his suggestions:
>
> +++ B/'s Comments, edited +++
>
>A. FAQ Attack
>.
>> Then publish a FAQ on How To Deal With Trolls in This Newsgroup biweekly
>> or something like that.
>
>To which I add: use web pages, sig files, and maybe e-mail
>lists to cultivate an inner circle of sages, the mws cabal.
This sounds great as an abstraction, but in the real world that leads
to newcomers coming in and feeling like this group is run by a clique
that they can never penetrate, so they leave. We already have that
without going to all the extra trouble. <cute shoulder shrug>
>B. Starve the Troll
>
>> 1. Ignore, killfile, don't respond to the responders.
>> 2. Here's to set up a killfile in various news readers.
See above.
>
>C. Create a New Group
>
>> set up a parallel moderated group.
That's where we're trying to go.
>
>D. Play Victim.
>
No need of play acting here...!
>> continue as you've been, I dunno, I've seen it happen where people are
>> perfectly happy to spend their time complaining.
Hey, misery loves company. Another human trait.
>
> +++ end of B/'s comments, edited +++
>
>>If you or the others who are part of news.groups know of any other way
>>to handle our problem, we'd sure like to hear your ideas...!
>
>One hour later (or thereabouts) ... Here are my collected ideas on
>Zen and the Art of Starving Trolls:
><http://moleski.net/newsgroups/notes.htm#trolls>
>
I'm headed that way now. Thanks.
Caroline
> Marty
RonB
> RonB wrote:
>
>> He is easy to killfile. The problem is, our newsgroup gets a lot of
>> traffic from writers -- often not very technology-minded folks,
>> especially the newbies.
>
> Then publish a FAQ on How To Deal With Trolls in This Newsgroup
> biweekly or something like that.
>
> 1. Ignore, killfile, don't respond to the responders.
> 2. Here's to set up a killfile in various news readers.
We've started doing this and, hopefully it will help.
> or
>
> set up a parallel moderated group.
I'm now beginning to think that is our only real option.
> or
>
> continue as you've been, I dunno, I've seen it happen where people
> are perfectly happy to spend their time complaining.
More patronizing. You have no clue about this particular problem or you
wouldn't have written this. We came here seeking a solution to a long-
time problem -- a problem we *have* tried to deal with using the
traditional anti-troll remedies. Investigate Jai Maharaj's behavior at
MWS, then come back and tell me that we are merely complainers.
Martin X. Moleski, SJ
wrote:
>A link to the FAQ is up once a week, like clockwork:
Yup.
My mistake. I failed to click on the Google button that
says "similar results omitted."
Learn something every day. ;o)
Marty
--
Paulo Joe Jingy
http://usa1776.com/images/1.jpg
http://usa1776.com/images/2.jpg
http://usa1776.com/images/3.jpg
(Note: When you look at the pictures, you'll notice very few of Jai's
posts have responses. This is true even though all of these posts have
been cross-posted to at least five unrelated newsgroups. Obviously "not
feeding the troll" isn't working).
Since I've been getting an education the last couple of days, can I ask
another question? Can what Jai is doing be described as "cascading"?
(Maybe this is a question I should take to the abuse newsgroup).
Anyway if it is, the company he uses "alt.net" has a specific rule
against it.
-----
https://www.altopia.com/polfaq.html
-----
Q: What is your policy on cross-posting? (REVISED October 29th, 2003)
A: Cross-posting ability is not to be used by customers for the purpose
of "cascading". We may disable the cross-posting ability of a customer
if we believe they are violating this policy.
-----
And yes, I'm already perusing this angle.
Thanks for all the information.
-----
Dale
RonB
> RonB <ronbN...@bliz.org> writes:
>
>> Trolls happen. Jai Maharaj is unique -- as a bit of research would
>> quickly confirm.
>
> He's not, actually. He's just of a type that one doesn't see as much
> any more as one used to. Google for Serdar Argic if you want to see
> other historical examples.
Okay, but he's definitely *not* a run-of-the-mill troll.
BarB
Well, every group thinks their troll is unique.:) Yes, I've taken a
look, and your problem is annoying. It's probably worth a try at a
moderated group, but, life-threatening or unique?.. I don't think so.
Have you seen the scum who troll support groups telling cerebral-palsy
victims that they are retarded, or the depressed that they should just
go ahead and commit suicide? Have you seen groups where the trolls
morph and forge their names and addresses so they become almost
impossible to filter out for the average user? Those groups have not
much choice but to moderate.
I came into Usenet from the cat group where, in the early days of
trolls, the test of a new troll was how many angry posts he could get
from cat lovers. It took us a long time to get through to users that
freezing out the trolls was the only solution. At one point we set up
an email list so that users who simply had to defend their honor could
let off steam. It worked, we aren't nearly as naive as we once were.:)
BarB
Paulo Joe Jingy
And here's a good place to start.
http://usa1776.com/images/1.jpg
http://usa1776.com/images/2.jpg
http://usa1776.com/images/3.jpg
Note the lack of response to most of Jai's posts *even* though they've
been cross-posted to at least five, unrelated newsgroups.
The troll isn't being fed. It doesn't have to eat. It doesn't matter.
It is irrational.
I've been getting an education about the difficulties of changing the
status of an established newsgroup. Thanks for that.
But I really don't need to be told: "So it would seem the point of the
exercise of wishing to change status is NOT to give the posters of MWS
freedom to focus on the topic, but to punish Jai Maharaj", when that's
clearly not the case. Jai can wander aimlessly down any alley it wants
-- free to howl out any mindless thing that comes to its tiny mind.
Hell it can even have its choice of shopping carts. I really don't care
about punishing it -- I just don't want it around.
That shouldn't be hard to understand. I don't think you'd want it here
either.
-----
Dale
Bluesea
"Brian Mailman" <bmai...@sfo.invalid> wrote in message
news:10j1e3r...@news.supernews.com...
>
> So it would seem the point of the exercise of wishing to change status
> is NOT to give the posters of MWS freedom to focus on the topic, but to
> punish Jai Maharaj. This would seem to be why the proponents are so
> recalcitrant to simply put forward an RFD to create a parallel moderated
> group. Even if he wasn't able to post offtopic in a moderated group his
> very existence offends them.
No, while his posts litter the m.w.s. landscape, those who reply from the
other groups also contribute hugely to the problem. We don't want to lose
any more newbies than we have already and it was thought that changing the
status of the group to moderated and auto-blocking cross-posts would do the
trick.
Paulo Joe Jingy
Bluesea
> On 28 Aug 2004 13:15:51 GMT, Dena Jo <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
> >Hey, guys. It's probably not a good idea to start cross-posting to
> >that news group.
>
>
> I *COULD* bne wrong, but I would guess that "Yowie" is one of the guys
> in the charter group Alan is talking to, and if that's true, then I
> doubt he would cross-post if he didn't intend for follow-up responses
> to him to be sent on to that group too.
>
> Caroline
Paulo started it. Yowie was just replying - pretty much like non-m.w.s'ers
reply to Jai's x-posts that clog up our space.
BarB
<otto....@keepyourviruses-sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>I *COULD* bne wrong, but I would guess that "Yowie" is one of the guys
>in the charter group Alan is talking to, and if that's true, then I
>doubt he would cross-post if he didn't intend for follow-up responses
>to him to be sent on to that group too.
Yowie" is one of the gals in news.groups and rec.pets.cats.anecdotes.
BarB
Otto Mation (Caroline Freisen)
<thedeep_bluesea@myrealboxTHE-TRA$H.com> wrote:
>
>"Otto Mation (Caroline Freisen)" <otto....@keepyourviruses-sbcglobal.net>
>wrote in message news:me21j01j3oc66eoa2...@4ax.com...
>> On 28 Aug 2004 13:15:51 GMT, Dena Jo <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>>
>> >Hey, guys. It's probably not a good idea to start cross-posting to
>> >that news group.
>>
>>
>> I *COULD* bne wrong, but I would guess that "Yowie" is one of the guys
>> in the charter group Alan is talking to, and if that's true, then I
>> doubt he would cross-post if he didn't intend for follow-up responses
>> to him to be sent on to that group too.
>>
>> Caroline
>
>Paulo started it. Yowie was just replying - pretty much like non-m.w.s'ers
>reply to Jai's x-posts that clog up our space.
My bad. Sorry.
Brian Mailman
> I'm going to reprint Brian Mailman's post here because Brian
> is one of the Major Players in the newsgroup creation process.
Thenks for the boost, but I'm really a potato of a lesser size...
> I am a wanna-be groupie. I think he covered all of the
> real options quite clearly. I'm going to title and comment
> on his suggestions:
and I will comment on your comments.... most of which is a perfectly
articulated expansion on what I meant.
> +++ B/'s Comments, edited +++
>
> A. FAQ Attack
> .
>> Then publish a FAQ on How To Deal With Trolls in This Newsgroup biweekly
>> or something like that.
It works. One newsgroup I read had something similar happening. Ever
week or so, someone would publish The F____ S____ FAQ and state, quite
clearly, that person was simply trolling, not to feed him by responding
publically. If a newbie had a replayable address, we'd write privately
and ask they not respond.
Took a couple months, but eventually he got bored and moved on.
> To which I add: use web pages, sig files, and maybe e-mail
> lists to cultivate an inner circle of sages, the mws cabal.
Don't underestimate the collective wisdom of the "inner circle" and peer
pressure. One group I read is unmoderated and entirely self-policing.
Because it's a case of "everybody knows and has self-control"
trolls/flamers don't get far.
B/
Jim Logajan
> His posting material is almost always cribbed from
> news sources,
You should be able to get him bounced from Altopia based on copyright
violation. Here's what I think you'll need to do:
Contact the news organizations that he has copied material from and ask
them to file a complaint with Altopia. Contact info was filed with the U.S.
copyright office (pass this info along to the offended organization in
question):
http://www.copyright.gov/onlinesp/agents/alto.pdf
Altopia should then be gently asked by those organizations to exercise it's
contractual prerogative and deny further access to the person. This would
seem to involve sections 5 and 11 of Altopia's service agreement: