OT - UK Usenet - the downward path

[Noj]

http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/spoolstats/

[Sir Tim]

On 05/04/2013 11:51, Noj wrote:
>
> http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/spoolstats/
>
>
Confirms what we all know I guess: usenet has passed its sell-by date.

Upside is that rasf1 is now reduced to a manageable number of (mainly)
intelligent posters.

--
Henry Birkin, Bt.

[Paul Giverin]

In message <MPG.2bc8bd023...@news.shared-secrets.com>, Noj
<b...@arse.com> writes
>
>http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/spoolstats/
>
>
I think most long term Usenet posters have known that for a long while.

I am pleasantly surprised though at the relative strength of the uk*
groups in comparison to some of the bigger worldwide hierarchies like
rec* soc* and comp*.

I still prefer Usenet to a lot of web forums because of the lack of
power crazed (did someone say Nazi?) moderators who like to show you
who's boss. Of course the downside is the trolls but you can always
ignore them.

--
Paul Giverin

My Photos:- www.giverin.co.uk

[Noj]

Paul Giverin wrote ...

>
> In message <MPG.2bc8bd023...@news.shared-secrets.com>, Noj
> <b...@arse.com> writes
> >
> >http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/spoolstats/
> >
> >
> I think most long term Usenet posters have known that for a long while.
>
> I am pleasantly surprised though at the relative strength of the uk*
> groups in comparison to some of the bigger worldwide hierarchies like
> rec* soc* and comp*.

Most of them have been fucked by the merkin, nym switching, sock puppet
full-time loonies.

>
> I still prefer Usenet to a lot of web forums because of the lack of
> power crazed (did someone say Nazi?) moderators who like to show you
> who's boss. Of course the downside is the trolls but you can always
> ignore them.

I've lost count of the forums I've left because they've been censored to
death by their mods.

[Sir Tim]

Noj <b...@arse.com> wrote:

> I've lost count of the forums I've left because they've been censored to
> death by their mods.

There used to be rasf1-moderated. Never attracted much traffic though.

[AC]

Its no good having a go a the mods. The problem is that the law pokes
its nose in, especially if some delicate petal cant cope with something.
You then end up policing the thing and when you do that, you always piss
some one off. And down it goes to moderated hell.

I thought about setting up web forums several times after hearing this
criticism in several quarters. Technically, very simple to do, including
keeping the clean simplicity of usenet. The hard bit is working out how
to actually allow it to be free and open like usenet, with out
descending in to moderated hell. I ended up with just too many "what if"
thoughts that I concluded that with in months one would be moderating
the thing to death. I'd love to be able to work out how to provide the
usenet experience on a UK based web site, but I don't believe it to be
do-able. Im sure all those mods, or at least the people who originally
set those forums up intended for it to be free and easy, but I
understand how it spirals down. And, just imagine setting up such a
forum in happy clappy good faith, only to find that after a month or so
all you do is moderate and deal with members bitching about each other.
That would really piss me off!!!

This is why usenet is so valuable. Usenet "fans" should do more to get
people to use it. I know that can mean more twats, but, well, er, ....
hello!!!

--
AC

[Noj]

AC wrote ...

There are forums that allow anything - but they're all but closed. Only
members get to see the posts and they have to sign a disclaimer.

One of the funniest fuckwit v Usenet was this -
http://www.5rb.com/docs/Bunt-v-Tilley%20QBD%2010%20Mar%202006.pdf

Apparenly the Judge ruled that as Bunt posted as Guy Fawkes, which
wasn't his real identity, he couldn't be libelled! Cost the twat ￜ40k.

I've been using and have run private Usenet servers for years. Keeps
the fuckwits out, but even they are losing users.

[AC]

Yeah, but right there is the restriction and censorship. I suppose it
goes some way to solve the problem, but I would want it to be open and
free.

>
> One of the funniest fuckwit v Usenet was this -
> http://www.5rb.com/docs/Bunt-v-Tilley%20QBD%2010%20Mar%202006.pdf
>
> Apparenly the Judge ruled that as Bunt posted as Guy Fawkes, which
> wasn't his real identity, he couldn't be libelled! Cost the twat ￜ40k.

I'll save that one for a special occasion.

>
> I've been using and have run private Usenet servers for years. Keeps
> the fuckwits out, but even they are losing users.
>

Yeah, but I want open, not private.

See, as much of a dick he is, while texarsegate can freely post his
shit, and we can lay in to him for it, and no one gets sued or policed,
or what ever, a certain freedom is alive an kicking. We certainly don't
want much of that at all, but to me its a sort of indicator.

That is usenet's value (to me), and what cant, as far as I know, be
adequately replicated on a web site. Perhaps thats more about the
motivation of the law at the moment, and usenet just gets away with it
because it is not popular.


--
AC

[Alessandro D. Petaccia]

On Fri, 5 Apr 2013 11:51:18 +0100, Noj <b...@arse.com> wrote:

>
>http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/spoolstats/


Huh. And that's just from 2010 - when decline had already been evident
for a while. Still, those seven-days figures are... Somewhat hard to
believe for a dinosaur such as myself: 3k posts (and 3k posters, which
in itself is telling) for the entire rec. hierarchy? I'm rather sure
that, a few years ago, RASF1 alone would have come very close to that.

Oh well. I too dislike web forums, but what's the alternative?
Facebook groups? They're not bad actually, but - you can't bloody
quote there!

ADP.

[texasgate]

On Apr 5, 6:55 am, Noj <b...@arse.com> wrote:

> I've lost count of the forums I've left

There in an invention called a pencil and paper.

[2112]

Is there one to re-spark the interest in auto racing?

[Bobster]

On Apr 5, 5:12 pm, AC <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote:
> Paul Giverin wrote:

> > In message <MPG.2bc8bd023a0b245b989...@news.shared-secrets.com>, Noj

> > <b...@arse.com> writes
>
> >>http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/spoolstats/
>
> > I think most long term Usenet posters have known that for a long while.
>
> > I am pleasantly surprised though at the relative strength of the uk*
> > groups in comparison to some of the bigger worldwide hierarchies like
> > rec* soc* and comp*.
>
> > I still prefer Usenet to a lot of web forums because of the lack of
> > power crazed (did someone say Nazi?) moderators who like to show you
> > who's boss. Of course the downside is the trolls but you can always
> > ignore them.
>
> Its no good having a go a the mods. The problem is that the law pokes
> its nose in, especially if some delicate petal cant cope with something.
> You then end up policing the thing and when you do that, you always piss
> some one off. And down it goes to moderated hell.
>
> I thought about setting up web forums several times after hearing this
> criticism in several quarters. Technically, very simple to do, including
> keeping the clean simplicity of usenet. The hard bit is working out how
> to actually allow it to be free and open like usenet, with out
> descending in to moderated hell. I ended up with just too many "what if"
> thoughts that I concluded that with in months one would be moderating
> the thing to death.

Well, you have to have clearly stated policy - and stick to that. I
was a moderator on a forum hosted in SA (but open to anybody with a
'net connection) for about 2 years. First thing - moderators are often
unpaid and, when a flame war starts up, may have to intervene when
it's not that convenient for them - so go a little eaier on them.

Secondly, the rules were written and maintained by the forum owners,
and their attitude was quite clear. They liked freedom of speech,
didn't hold with censorship but they did ban certain kinds of
conversation ON THEIR TURF. And it was their turf and they would set
the rules thank you very much. The rules were mostly no religion, no
politics (it was a musical forum), no spam. "Spam" included people
posting nothing but links to their youtube channels to get hits.
Verboden and accounts would be terminated if the spamming continued.

Thirdly you had to enroll to post. and when you enrolled you were
explicitly directed to the rules - so "I didn't know" is no excuse.

As a moderator you had to learn to differentiate between what was
offensive to certain folks and what was actually aggressive. Early on
I had to intervene in a case where somebody had blasphemed and a
Christian had taken offence at this. I didn't see any intent to
offend, it was casual. It took me a while to get my thinking on this
straight but it boils down to if somebody says something that you, as
a Christian, don't like then freedom of speech applies. If somebody
starts attacking Christians because they're Christians then that's
xenophpbia or whatever you want to call it, clear aggression against
people on the base of race, colour or creed and that's not
acceptable.

We also encouraged users to try to sort things out between themselves
first, and finally the rules were as explicit as they could be so that
the individual whims of any moderator were out of the equation as much
as possible.

It mostly worked well, though nobody ever likes getting their post
edited or deleted or being told that no, you can't advertise here.

Generally the people who complained the most about "free speech" were
themselves the most intolerant of other people's ideas and opinions. I
always resisted the notion that we were censors. We weren't. We let
some filthy jokes stand on the forum because I, personally, might not
like it but no ruled were broken. Same with some fairly dubious
videos. It was never "censorship", though that was always the word
that was thrown at us. Firstly three out of four moderators had lived
in SA during the 70s and 80s and knew what censorship really was.
Secondly we were holding you to the rules that you agreed to of your
own free will when you signed up - so how is that censorship?

Crucially the forum included an off-topic board so that if you wanted
to talk about how your soccer team was doing or what brand of beer you
like or don't Amazon suck chunks then you could do that without
causing ructions on boards where there was a clear topic.

This mostly worked well, and the forum was lively without getting into
flame territory (most of the time). Key points:
1) The rules were published and all members (you could read without
being a member) had to agree to the rules as part of the joining
process. You didn't have to wonder if there were rules or where they
were - you got them presented to you.

2) Rules were clear and detailed so, as far as possible, the
individual beliefs of the moderators did not come into play.

3) the off-topic board for those who had to post pictures of their new
puppy or whatever (but religion, politics and spam were still ruled
out).

4) It was clear whose turf you were on, and it was understood that
those people ultimately called the shots.

Not all of which is possible on usenet - or unmoderated usenet forums.

I think moderation, done properly and with the moderators bound by
clear rules, can be a good think. I think back to a thread here that
ended up getting angry and spiteful - Build's posting about the Anzacs
at Gallipoli.

On a properly moderated group that would not have been allowed because
it had nothing to do with F1. Which is not censorship. Nobody's saying
you can't say that, just that you should say that in the appropriate
forum (or on Facebook or something similar).

However, there are lots of off-topic posts in RASF1 because there are
no rules, or no enforcement, and the great We have tolerated most of
them, so, effectively, it's open season here now. A little moderation
(because not everybody will self-moderate) can be a good thing.

Coming back to that thread, there were other reasons it got spiteful,
but in a properly moderated group it would never have had a chance to
get going in the first place.

On a particular mailing list that I still participate in there was one
particular member whose posts were about 25% on-topic comment and
about 75% personal attacks on other posters. He didn't use profanity,
but that doesn't mean that he wasn't attacking other people and doing
so in front of the entire readership of that list. One or two of us
protested but we were told that he's an old friend of many people on
the list and censorship is not welcome here (this despited their being
a charter that defined what the list was about). I recall at the time
posting that we needed to be clear-sighted about this, that abuse is
abuse, even if it comes from your friend, and that if we allow what's
going on now we have to accept abuse from others in the future because
we've permitted it. Then a bit later somebody else joined and
immediately started getting up noses and the membership started
howling about it. The exact situation I'd warned them about.

People need to be clear sighted about moderation and whether they want
it or not, and having made their choice they need to understand that
you can't have it both ways.

[Noj]

texasgate wrote ...

>
> On Apr 5, 6:55ï¿œam, Noj <b...@arse.com> wrote:
>
> > I've lost count of the forums I've left
>
> There in an invention called a pencil and paper.

You still measuring men's dicks ?

[Sir Tim]

As I've said before, there was a time when a troll was a thing of
beauty; carefully constructed to extract a silly or pompous response
from the unwary newbie. Nowadays the term seems only to be used to
describe grossly provocative posts or straightforward abuse.

I've often wondered what the motivation of those who post such rubbish
is. Their lives must be *very* unfulfilled if they feel the need to
spray vitriol around but then I suppose that even highly intelligent
individuals often have very frail egos.

I don't wish to ride too high a horse as I have certainly been guilty of
expressing my opinions on Usenet more robustly than I might do if
eyeball to eyeball with my target but I do try to adhere to the policy
of not posting something that I would not say face to face (ITRW I'm
something of a contrarian but, I hope, a polite one).

Despite these rather worthy opinions I still loath moderated groups. To
quote Churchill: "I might not like what they say but I would defend with
my life their right to say it" (even texasgate).

--
Henry Birkin, Bt.

[News]

That's a stretch.

[AC]

Ah, a long old "me" post!!

Ok, I literally agree with 100% of that. It exactly mirrors my limited
experience running a forum and my much wider experience of being a
member of several web forums. (Although now I am no longer a participant
in any web forum. Signed up to a few for reading purposes, but now never
ever participate.)

First thing that I would point out is that what you are describing is
how to run a walled garden forum for a specific subject. And in that
context, the forum you describe sounds very well considered and run.

However....

I don't want to be bothered with any of that. With usenet none of that,
moderated groups aside, matters. You talked about flame wars, and on
usenet they usually blow out, or happily fester on the side lines. There
are extremes but ultimately they get sorted out in the real world
courts. Im happy for that to be how it works. One way or another they
resolve and the newsgroup just carries on regardless.

One problem I have seen on web forums is that moderator interventions,
no matter how well considered and intended, often empower one side, and
see off the other. Where as on usenet, mostly, what I see is two people
have a flame and eventually it blows out, and in another thread the same
two people can be happily discussing something else entirely. Then more
on. I sort of see this with kids at school. If left to sort problems
out, they do. If teacher(s) gets in involved, it gets worse and way out
of proportion. This is nearly always because some one gets to decide
right and wrong, so one side is validated and the other invalidated,
when most of the time, really, its 50/50. Same with moderation. Even if
its a clear case, the wrong person still feels wounded, the right person
empowered. Both have been judged and told. It has an effect. Usenet,
none of that happens. We have to resolve it or just get over it.

Waffle aside, I come back to my thing about usenet being as free as it
gets. As I have said or alluded to elsewhere, I like, or perhaps
appreciate the fact that its is rough round the edges and
uncontrollable. I think that enables a natural level to be achieved. No
one can refer to a "power" to validate themselves, which is that happens
in web forums. No one has any more right than anyone else. No matter how
you moderate, the very act of moderation becomes a power game for both
mods and members.

Of course Im placing faith in the idea that there would me more people
just chatting than flaming, like here on this NG. Fair to say that
signal to noise on some other groups is not so good. Also, Im ignoring
the spam problem. So, I acknowledge usenet is by no means perfect.

Don't get me wrong, these moderated web forums are as they should be. I
don't object to their existence and for the mass majority, it is 100%
right they are run as they are, as you describe. I wouldn't want them
any other way. But equally I want a place like usenet. Well, preferable
usenet for ever. But if it were to die, how can it be exactly
replicated? Or would we lose the freedom it provides for ever?


--
AC

[Paul Giverin]

In message
<089fc795-436a-4c04...@w21g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
Bobster <mega...@gmail.com> writes

>Secondly, the rules were written and maintained by the forum owners,
>and their attitude was quite clear. They liked freedom of speech,
>didn't hold with censorship but they did ban certain kinds of
>conversation ON THEIR TURF.

Some years ago I was a member of a large AV forum in the UK. It had a
subsection on DSLR camera's, which is a hobby of mine. One day I posted
an article entitled "Serious problem with Canon 5D Mk2". Later I noticed
that the word "Serious" was missing and when I queried this, the mod
told me that in *his* opinion, the problem wasn't serious so he had
altered the content of my post. I was furious at this opinion based
censorship and in the ensuing heated debate, I compared his actions to
certain book burning incidents in the 1930's.

I was banned for life :)

Long live uncensored Usenet.

[Bobster]

On Apr 6, 7:18 pm, Paul Giverin <p...@giverin.co.uk> wrote:
> In message
> <089fc795-436a-4c04-8b29-024e78f63...@w21g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
> Bobster <megap...@gmail.com> writes

>
> >Secondly, the rules were written and maintained by the forum owners,
> >and their attitude was quite clear. They liked freedom of speech,
> >didn't hold with censorship but they did ban certain kinds of
> >conversation ON THEIR TURF.
>
> Some years ago I was a member of a large AV forum in the UK. It had a
> subsection on DSLR camera's, which is a hobby of mine. One day I posted
> an article entitled "Serious problem with Canon 5D Mk2". Later I noticed
> that the word "Serious" was missing and when I queried this, the mod
> told me that in *his* opinion, the problem wasn't serious so he had
> altered the content of my post. I was furious at this opinion based
> censorship and in the ensuing heated debate, I compared his actions to
> certain book burning incidents in the 1930's.
>
> I was banned for life :)

Well, I think I can safely say that on the forum I'm referring to that
wouldn't have happened. We had the actual power to change the titles,
but we didn't do it (users could change the topic themselves for,
IIRC, 2 hours after posting). We ended up with rules that meant that
the moderators pretty much could not apply their own personal likes,
dislikes, beliefs etc. Which made moderation easier. The question
wasn't "do I approve of/agree with that?" The question was "does this
contravene the rules".

The problems I see usually occur because the moderator has too vague a
brief. My brief was to apply the rules as published.

[Noj]

Paul Giverin wrote ...

There's a fishing forum that bans the posting of complete URL's. They
will edit www.bbc.co.uk to ww.bbc.co.uk.

Threads disappear and reappear with no explanation from the mods as to
WTF they've up to. I asked for explanations - repeatedly - got banned
for life a couple of weeks ago.

Like so many forums, the mods never contributed to threads or when they
did, they wouldn't argue the point with anyone - just delete posts or
ban the posters. A right load of sad bastards.

[Bigbird]

Noj wrote:

>
> http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/spoolstats/

Interesting that bytes per article has declined...despite Bobs best
efforts.

[Bigbird]

He has 3 measurements pharynx, larynx and trachea. Only sign of a gag
reflex is on this forum.

[Bobster]

On Apr 5, 12:51 pm, Noj <b...@arse.com> wrote:
> http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/spoolstats/

When you say "UK usenet" do you mean that these stats are only for
posts made from UK IP addresses?

That said, I think that in the long run usenet will wither - though
maybe not die. Increasingly people don't know that there's a thing
called usenet and head directly for Facebook or Twitter. Smartphones
come with interfaces for Twitter and FB pre loaded.

Don't know about where you live, but here in SA a lot of ISPs don't
run a usenet server anymore. These are usually the newer services, or
those that run over cell or wireless networks.

[Mike Fleming]

In article
<9e44344a-15e3-4f6e...@e13g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>,

Bobster <mega...@gmail.com> writes:

> On Apr 5, 12:51�pm, Noj <b...@arse.com> wrote:
> > http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/spoolstats/
>
> When you say "UK usenet" do you mean that these stats are only for
> posts made from UK IP addresses?

I think it would be posts to newsgroups in the uk.* hierarchy.

--
Mike Fleming

[John Briggs]

Which he has probably never heard of...
--
John Briggs

[Bobster]

On Apr 11, 9:10 pm, Mike Fleming <{mi...@tauzero.co.uk> wrote:
> In article
> <9e44344a-15e3-4f6e-82f5-db1da30ab...@e13g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>,

>
> Bobster <megap...@gmail.com> writes:
> > On Apr 5, 12:51 pm, Noj <b...@arse.com> wrote:
> > >http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/spoolstats/
>
> > When you say "UK usenet" do you mean that these stats are only for
> > posts made from UK IP addresses?
>
> I think it would be posts to newsgroups in the uk.* hierarchy.

I don't think so. There's a table that lists posts by top level
hierarchies. One of which is uk.* but the table also includes comp.*,
rec.* etc though not alt.*

[Bigbird]

Perhaps they are looking at text only hierarchies.

[Bigbird]

ps you think wrong.

[Mike Fleming]

In article <kk89sh$h3s$2...@dont-email.me>, "Bigbird"
<Bigbird.us...@Gmail.com> writes:

> ps you think wrong.

Indeed I did, should have had another look at the page before saying
that.

--
Mike Fleming