RFD: Remove rec.games.bolo (Last Call for Comments)

14 views
Skip to first unread message

Big-8 Management Board

unread,
Jun 25, 2009, 1:09:04 AM6/25/09
to
This is a formal Request for Discussion (RFD) to remove the
unmoderated newsgroup rec.games.bolo.

Newsgroups Line:
rec.games.bolo The networked strategy war game Bolo.

Distribution:
news.announce.newgroups
news.groups.proposals
rec.games.bolo

Proponent: Big-8 Management Board <bo...@big-8.org>

Charter:

To allow the discussion of topics and posting of software
related to the game "Bolo," by Stuart Cheshire, originally
for the Macintosh.

Rationale for removal:

Both the game and the newsgroup are defunct. The last
ontopic posts appear to have been made circa 2000. The
board is interested in closing unmoderated groups that
have, in the past, been used for distribution of
binaries.


History of the Group:

rec.games.bolo is an unmoderated newsgroup which passed
its vote for creation by 447:26 as reported in
news.announce.newgroups on 30 Nov 1993.

<http://www.faqs.org/faqs/games/bolo-faq/part1/>

Procedure:

Those who wish to comment on this request to remove this
newsgroup should subscribe to news:news.groups.proposals and
participate in the relevant threads in that newsgroup.

To this end, the followup header of this RFD has been set to
news.groups.proposals.

All discussion of active proposals should be posted to
news.groups.proposals.

If desired by the readership of closely affected groups, the
discussion may be crossposted to those groups, but care must
be taken to ensure that all discussion appears in
news.groups.proposals as well.

For more information on the newsgroup removal process, please see

http://www.big-8.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=policies:rmgroup

Formal voting on this RFD will take place five days after
the publication of this RFD in n.a.n. The formal vote
by the board may take as much as a week.

History of this RFD:

2009-06-25 Removal RFD / Last Call for Comments

C.R. Osterwald

unread,
Jun 26, 2009, 12:01:07 AM6/26/09
to
In article <2ju545tfh6adu68gq...@4ax.com>, Big-8
Management Board <bo...@big-8.org> wrote:

>This is a formal Request for Discussion (RFD) to remove the
>unmoderated newsgroup rec.games.bolo.
>
>Newsgroups Line:
>rec.games.bolo The networked strategy war game Bolo.
>
>Distribution:
> news.announce.newgroups
> news.groups.proposals
> rec.games.bolo
>
>Proponent: Big-8 Management Board <bo...@big-8.org>
>
>Charter:
>
>To allow the discussion of topics and posting of software
>related to the game "Bolo," by Stuart Cheshire, originally
>for the Macintosh.
>
>Rationale for removal:
>
>Both the game and the newsgroup are defunct.

The game is not "defunct", there are at least two up-to-date versions
of Bolo for both Macintosh OSX and Windows/Linux:

http://www.nubolo.net/
http://www.winbolo.com/

>The last
>ontopic posts appear to have been made circa 2000.

There have been posts more recent than this.

>The
>board is interested in closing unmoderated groups that
>have, in the past, been used for distribution of
>binaries.

This depends on your definition of the word "binary" -- the allowance
in the original charter for rec.games.bolo was for Bolo map files,
which are straight ASCII text up to a couple kilobytes. In other
words, they are roughly equivalent to a thread in ROT-13. r.g.b has
never been used to post "software", images, or video.

>
>History of the Group:
>
>rec.games.bolo is an unmoderated newsgroup which passed
>its vote for creation by 447:26 as reported in
>news.announce.newgroups on 30 Nov 1993.
>
><http://www.faqs.org/faqs/games/bolo-faq/part1/>
>
>Procedure:
>
>Those who wish to comment on this request to remove this
>newsgroup should subscribe to news:news.groups.proposals and
>participate in the relevant threads in that newsgroup.

I certainly don't understand the need to kill rec.games.bolo, and ask
that this proposal be defeated.


>
>To this end, the followup header of this RFD has been set to
>news.groups.proposals.
>
>All discussion of active proposals should be posted to
>news.groups.proposals.
>
>If desired by the readership of closely affected groups, the
>discussion may be crossposted to those groups, but care must
>be taken to ensure that all discussion appears in
>news.groups.proposals as well.
>
>For more information on the newsgroup removal process, please see
>
>http://www.big-8.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=policies:rmgroup
>
>Formal voting on this RFD will take place five days after
>the publication of this RFD in n.a.n. The formal vote
>by the board may take as much as a week.
>
>History of this RFD:
>
>2009-06-25 Removal RFD / Last Call for Comments

Last Call? When was the first call, and why is there such a rush to
kill it?

Robert Uhl

unread,
Jun 26, 2009, 1:26:45 AM6/26/09
to
"Martin X. Moleski, SJ" <mol...@canisius.edu> writes:
>
>>> The board is interested in closing unmoderated groups that have, in
>>> the past, been used for distribution of binaries.
>
>>I don't believe that rgb has ever been a binary-distribution point,
>>except for binaries of maps in the game (a few K at most...it was a very
>>simple game).
>
> The charter envisages "posting of software." Folks here seemed to
> remember it as a binary group, which is what started this RFD. In
> fact, traffic has been very light--it is not being used as a cover for
> any kind of binary traffic.

As Carl Osterwald posted elsewhere, the 'binaries' were ASCII
representation of in-game maps...not binaries in the usual Usenet sense.

I can understand wanting to get rid of covert binaries groups; they're a
bit of a plague. But I don't think rgb qualifies.

> Do you think we should just leave it alone?

I do, although I'll be honest it's more for sentimental issues than
anything else. It was the first newsgroup I regularly read and posted
to. Honestly, it's been incredibly quiet for a long time. I'm still
subscribed though.

And since (outside of Google's feed) it hasn't been too spam-ridden my
inclination is to leave it alone. You never know--it might pick up
again!

--
Robert Uhl <http://public.xdi.org/=ruhl>
Physics is the mess that results when you pollute mathematics with reality.
--Joe Zeff

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

unread,
Jun 26, 2009, 3:19:21 AM6/26/09
to
On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 22:01:07 CST, "C.R. Osterwald" <erfc...@usa.net> wrote in
<250620091909071393%erfc...@usa.net>:

>>The
>>board is interested in closing unmoderated groups that
>>have, in the past, been used for distribution of
>>binaries.

>This depends on your definition of the word "binary" -- the allowance
>in the original charter for rec.games.bolo was for Bolo map files,
>which are straight ASCII text up to a couple kilobytes. In other
>words, they are roughly equivalent to a thread in ROT-13. r.g.b has
>never been used to post "software", images, or video.

OK.

The charter read:

"To allow the discussion of topics and posting of software
related to the game 'Bolo,' by Stuart Cheshire, originally
for the Macintosh."

I hope you can see how that would give the impression that
the group might have been used to circulate "software."

>I certainly don't understand the need to kill rec.games.bolo...

The allegation was made that the newsgroup was used to
circulate binary material.

By inspection, it certainly seemed to be a dead group.

It's good to know that some people still care about it and
that it is not being used to circulate binaries.

> ... and ask


>that this proposal be defeated.

It is feedback like this that would lead to that decision.

>Last Call? When was the first call, and why is there such a rush to
>kill it?

This is a fast-track removal proposal. We've done them before.
I suppose we should label them "First and Last Call for Comments."

Marty
--
Member, Big-8 Management Board--but speaking only for myself
For more information, see http://www.big-8.org

Adam H. Kerman

unread,
Jun 26, 2009, 4:05:29 AM6/26/09
to

>>History of this RFD:

Please. Gross violation of procedure is OFF TOPIC and MUST NEVER be
pointed out to the Board. For instance, this message was not posted to
news.announce.newgroups as required.

Remember, the Board is never wrong.

Steve Bonine

unread,
Jun 26, 2009, 8:35:45 AM6/26/09
to
Adam H. Kerman wrote:

> For instance, this message was not posted to
> news.announce.newgroups as required.

Really, Adam, do you think that you can just make ridiculous statements
and that because you say it, everyone will jump on your bandwagon? The
RFD appeared in my feed of news.announce.newgroups from both
individual.net and from Giganews, and it's on Google.

> Remember, the Board is never wrong.

Actually, this RFD turns out to be a fine illustration of the board
being wrong. That's the whole purpose of doing an RFD; otherwise the
board could just remove the group with no discussion. There seems to be
significant support showing up for the newsgroup and even though the
group is at the point of death, it is perhaps not completely moribund.
Since the board has not moved forward on removing truly dead groups (or
even identifying them), I seriously doubt if rec.games.bolo will
actually be removed.

David Bostwick

unread,
Jun 26, 2009, 1:38:11 PM6/26/09
to
In article <ukg845l2c51f4aj9r...@4ax.com>, "Martin X. Moleski, SJ" <mol...@canisius.edu> wrote:

[...]

>
>This is a fast-track removal proposal. We've done them before.
>I suppose we should label them "First and Last Call for Comments."
>
> Marty

"First and Only," maybe?

Or like the airlines, "Last and final call for boarding."

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

unread,
Jun 26, 2009, 1:37:47 PM6/26/09
to
On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 07:35:45 -0500, Steve Bonine <s...@pobox.com> wrote in
<7ajtl2F...@mid.individual.net>:

>Actually, this RFD turns out to be a fine illustration of the board
>being wrong.

The board agreed to propose the removal of the group because
some folks in n.g.p recommended purifying the big-8 of
all binary groups.

If r.g.b is not being abused for the circulation of binaries
and if there are some folks still subscribed to the group,
I don't see any reason not to let it continue in existence.

>That's the whole purpose of doing an RFD; otherwise the
>board could just remove the group with no discussion. There seems to be
>significant support showing up for the newsgroup and even though the
>group is at the point of death, it is perhaps not completely moribund.
>Since the board has not moved forward on removing truly dead groups (or
>even identifying them), I seriously doubt if rec.games.bolo will
>actually be removed.

I have no idea how the vote will go. At this point, although
I wrote the RFD, I'm inclined to think that leaving the group
in peace is OK.

Minhiriath

unread,
Jun 26, 2009, 3:05:45 PM6/26/09
to
I agree that this group should be left alone, all the reasons have
already been posted.

Min

Jeremy Nixon

unread,
Jun 26, 2009, 3:06:00 PM6/26/09
to
C.R. Osterwald <erfc...@usa.net> wrote:

> Last Call? When was the first call, and why is there such a rush to
> kill it?

There seemed little reason not to fast-track the proposal, since the
group has been unused for years. Since that was clearly premature,
this will now not result in a fast-track removal.

--
Jeremy Nixon | http://www.defocus.net
Email address in header is valid
Member of the Big-8 Management Board

Mark Kramer

unread,
Jun 26, 2009, 5:37:53 PM6/26/09
to
In article <7ajtl2F...@mid.individual.net>,

Steve Bonine <s...@pobox.com> wrote:
>Actually, this RFD turns out to be a fine illustration of the board
>being wrong. That's the whole purpose of doing an RFD;

The whole purpose of an RFD is to illustrate that the board is wrong?

Do you think you can make any kind of ridiculous statement and the rest
of the world will jump onto your bandwagon?

>Since the board has not moved forward on removing truly dead groups (or
>even identifying them), I seriously doubt if rec.games.bolo will
>actually be removed.

You just had Marty twist a comment about the group not being for
"software" into a claim that it wasn't for "binaries", so I doubt that
message is getting through. It was intended for maps of bolo, which are
"computer data" that some might call "software" but are certainly "binary".

Steve Bonine

unread,
Jun 26, 2009, 8:37:55 PM6/26/09
to
Mark Kramer wrote:
> In article <7ajtl2F...@mid.individual.net>,
> Steve Bonine <s...@pobox.com> wrote:
>> Actually, this RFD turns out to be a fine illustration of the board
>> being wrong. That's the whole purpose of doing an RFD;
>
> The whole purpose of an RFD is to illustrate that the board is wrong?
>
> Do you think you can make any kind of ridiculous statement and the rest
> of the world will jump onto your bandwagon?

I know that by selective quoting you can twist any statement to make it
seem ridiculous.

>> Since the board has not moved forward on removing truly dead groups (or
>> even identifying them), I seriously doubt if rec.games.bolo will
>> actually be removed.
>
> You just had Marty twist a comment about the group not being for
> "software" into a claim that it wasn't for "binaries", so I doubt that
> message is getting through. It was intended for maps of bolo, which are
> "computer data" that some might call "software" but are certainly "binary".

Personally, I think that the group should be removed, but mine is the
minority opinion. I understand and respect other folks' opinions, even
when I don't agree. I have said what I believe, and I am not generally
in the habit of beating the ground where there was once a horse.

C.R. Osterwald

unread,
Jun 26, 2009, 10:34:31 PM6/26/09
to
In article <7al7v4F...@mid.individual.net>, Steve Bonine
<s...@pobox.com> wrote:

>Mark Kramer wrote:

>> It was intended for maps of bolo, which are
>> "computer data" that some might call "software" but are certainly "binary".
>
>Personally, I think that the group should be removed, but mine is the
>minority opinion.

ASCII text is also binary, as are PGP public keys. This issue was
thoroughly hashed out back in 1993 when r.g.b was just an RFD, to the
satisfaction of everyone involved at the time.

Steve Bonine

unread,
Jun 26, 2009, 11:35:18 PM6/26/09
to

A few things have changed since 1993.

Aratzio

unread,
Jun 26, 2009, 11:52:21 PM6/26/09
to
On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 22:35:18 -0500, in the land of news.groups, Steve
Bonine <s...@pobox.com> got double secret probation for writing:

As a matter fo fact a few things have changed since a few nanoseconds
ago. Some things are still exactly the same. Tomorrow will have a
whole new set of things that have changed and a whole set of things
that have not changed.

I will bet you can even come up with an even more idiotic comment than
your last, but that would not be something that has changed since
1993.

Adam H. Kerman

unread,
Jun 27, 2009, 1:22:59 AM6/27/09
to
Big-8 Management Board <bo...@big-8.org> wrote:

>This is a formal Request for Discussion (RFD) to remove the
>unmoderated newsgroup rec.games.bolo.

>Proponent: Big-8 Management Board <bo...@big-8.org>

>Charter:

>To allow the discussion of topics and posting of software
>related to the game "Bolo," by Stuart Cheshire, originally
>for the Macintosh.

>Rationale for removal:

>Both the game and the newsgroup are defunct. The last
>ontopic posts appear to have been made circa 2000. The
>board is interested in closing unmoderated groups that
>have, in the past, been used for distribution of
>binaries.

Are binaries a problem? Do the administrators of any servers that
created the group even recall that software distribution is on topic?
More than likely, any server running Cleanfeed makes no exception for
this group.

That's illegitimate rationale.

Steve Bonine

unread,
Jun 27, 2009, 10:11:58 AM6/27/09
to

"Illegitimate" is a rather odd word to use.

As I'm sure that you already know, there has been a renewed interest in
binary groups recently based on certain politicians and the ever-popular
topic of kiddie porn. Perhaps this was the reason that several ISPs
dropped the alt hierarchy and/or stopped providing all of Usenet to
their customers. Perhaps this was just a convenient excuse. But the
bottom line is that the existence of newsgroups that are used to
distribute binary information is a topic that has received attention in
the past several months. More detail on this issue can be found at
http://www.big-8.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=faqs:binary_problem

So, yes, binaries are "a problem". They're not a problem for individual
server administrators, based on the availability of facilities like
Cleanfeed. But politically, it might be advantageous for the
administrators of the big-8 to be able, when the topic comes up, to
state that the hierarchy isn't used for distribution of binary data.

So it makes sense, if you've got a newsgroup with a charter that states
that it's used for distributing binary data, and no one is using the
group, to remove it from the canonical list. Such action, if nothing
else, serves as a tangible act that can be used to illustrate that the
board is sensitive to the issue of distributing binaries in the big-8.

But it turns out that a number of people have spoken up and asked that
the newsgroup not be removed. Not that they're actually USING it, mind
you. But I can understand how the board would be loath to remove a
newsgroup when a number of people have objected to its removal.

On the general topic of removal of "dead" groups . . . this is an
illustration of how it just ain't gonna happen. Someone pointed out
that the information in the RFD is inaccurate, and that there was an
on-topic thread in February 2007 and one actual on-topic article in
March 2008. To me, this is a textbook definition of the term "dead".
But yet, several folks have objected to the group being removed. That's
exactly what will happen when removal is proposed for almost any group.
People will object to the removal of the group because it's "comfort
food". They have no intention of actually posting in the group, but
somehow seeing it officially removed from the list of canonical groups
would be the death of something embedded in their past.

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

unread,
Jun 27, 2009, 1:50:27 PM6/27/09
to
On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 09:15:03 CST, rob...@deadspam.com (Rob Kelk) wrote in <4a460fc...@news.individual.net>:

> ... It's a group in the Big-8 that's intended for binary traffic. That's
>reason enough to give it a close look.

That's what started this ball rolling, I think.

And it's unmoderated. That was strike two.

BUT--on closer inspection--the group is not being used
to circulate offtopic binaries at present, it is marked
in some filtering systems in such a way that the
small binary maps didn't cause problems, and it's got
a handful of folks still subscribed to it who remember
it with affection.

I'm inclined to leave it be.

Marty
--
Co-chair of the Big-8 Management Board (B8MB) <http://www.big-8.org>
Unless otherwise indicated, I speak for myself, not for the Board.

Adam H. Kerman

unread,
Jun 27, 2009, 1:39:20 PM6/27/09
to
Steve Bonine <s...@pobox.com> wrote:
>Adam H. Kerman wrote:

>>For instance, this message was not posted to news.announce.newgroups
>>as required.

>Really, Adam, do you think that you can just make ridiculous statements
>and that because you say it, everyone will jump on your bandwagon?

Who is this "everyone" you think you speak for? I expect little from you,
Steve, but invective and over the top exaggeration. I expect others to
check things out for themselves.

>The RFD appeared in my feed of news.announce.newgroups from both
>individual.net and from Giganews, and it's on Google.

At the time I posted that, it wasn't on one server that I checked.
Checking again, it's there now. I didn't check other servers.

Adam H. Kerman

unread,
Jun 27, 2009, 1:41:14 PM6/27/09
to
Steve Bonine <s...@pobox.com> wrote:
>Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>Big-8 Management Board <bo...@big-8.org> wrote:

>>>This is a formal Request for Discussion (RFD) to remove the
>>>unmoderated newsgroup rec.games.bolo.

>>>Proponent: Big-8 Management Board <bo...@big-8.org>

>>>Charter:

>>>To allow the discussion of topics and posting of software
>>>related to the game "Bolo," by Stuart Cheshire, originally
>>>for the Macintosh.

>>>Rationale for removal:

>>>Both the game and the newsgroup are defunct. The last
>>>ontopic posts appear to have been made circa 2000. The
>>>board is interested in closing unmoderated groups that
>>>have, in the past, been used for distribution of
>>>binaries.

>>Are binaries a problem? Do the administrators of any servers that
>>created the group even recall that software distribution is on topic?
>>More than likely, any server running Cleanfeed makes no exception for
>>this group.

>>That's illegitimate rationale.

>"Illegitimate" is a rather odd word to use.

How nice.

>As I'm sure that you already know, there has been a renewed interest in
>binary groups recently based on certain politicians and the ever-popular

>topic of kiddie porn. . . .

Steve, I don't know any of this. Your arguments are offensive. The rest
of your message was deleted unread.

Bob Noel

unread,
Jun 27, 2009, 7:31:58 PM6/27/09
to
In article <3LOdnaCYdtTSpNvX...@supernews.com>,

"Martin X. Moleski, SJ" <mol...@canisius.edu> wrote:

> > ... It's a group in the Big-8 that's intended for binary traffic. That's
> >reason enough to give it a close look.
>
> That's what started this ball rolling, I think.
>
> And it's unmoderated. That was strike two.
>
> BUT--on closer inspection--the group is not being used
> to circulate offtopic binaries at present, it is marked
> in some filtering systems in such a way that the
> small binary maps didn't cause problems, and it's got
> a handful of folks still subscribed to it who remember
> it with affection.

There was much discussion circa 1996 regarding filtering
of binaries in r.g.b. IIRC Richard Depew eventually
understood the nature of the binaries in r.g.b and
modified his filter to allow small binaries. Again, iirc
he set his limit at 100k.


>
> I'm inclined to leave it be.

thank you

Peter J Ross

unread,
Jun 28, 2009, 2:34:26 PM6/28/09
to
In news.groups on Fri, 26 Jun 2009 13:06:00 CST, Jeremy Nixon
<~$!~@u.defocus.net> wrote:

> C.R. Osterwald <erfc...@usa.net> wrote:
>
>> Last Call? When was the first call, and why is there such a rush to
>> kill it?
>
> There seemed little reason not to fast-track the proposal, since the
> group has been unused for years. Since that was clearly premature,
> this will now not result in a fast-track removal.

There have been no binaries posted in rec.games.bolo for many years.

Ergo, there is no reason to panic about the imminent destruction of
the Big 8 as a result of the kiddy porn movies that aren't posted to
rec.games.bolo.

If binaries are such a huge issue, why not retrocharter the group to
clarify that the permitted "software" comprises US-ASCII map files for
the Bolo game that happen not to be human-readable? Alternatively,
rmgroup every Big-8 group that permits PGP/MIME.

The fact that a new version of the Bolo game has been released in 2009
is the clincher for me. There are dozens of newsgroups more deserving
of rmgrouping than this one.

DON'T
PANIC!

--
PJR :-)
slrn newsreader v0.9.9p1: http://slrn.sourceforge.net/
extra slrn documentation: http://slrn-doc.sourceforge.net/
newsgroup name validator: http://pjr.lasnobberia.net/usenet/validator

Aratzio

unread,
Jun 28, 2009, 3:08:53 PM6/28/09
to
On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 19:34:26 +0100, in the land of news.groups, Peter
J Ross <p...@example.invalid> got double secret probation for writing:

>In news.groups on Fri, 26 Jun 2009 13:06:00 CST, Jeremy Nixon
><~$!~@u.defocus.net> wrote:
>
>> C.R. Osterwald <erfc...@usa.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Last Call? When was the first call, and why is there such a rush to
>>> kill it?
>>
>> There seemed little reason not to fast-track the proposal, since the
>> group has been unused for years. Since that was clearly premature,
>> this will now not result in a fast-track removal.
>
>There have been no binaries posted in rec.games.bolo for many years.
>
>Ergo, there is no reason to panic about the imminent destruction of
>the Big 8 as a result of the kiddy porn movies that aren't posted to
>rec.games.bolo.
>
>If binaries are such a huge issue, why not retrocharter the group to
>clarify that the permitted "software" comprises US-ASCII map files for
>the Bolo game that happen not to be human-readable? Alternatively,
>rmgroup every Big-8 group that permits PGP/MIME.
>
>The fact that a new version of the Bolo game has been released in 2009
>is the clincher for me. There are dozens of newsgroups more deserving
>of rmgrouping than this one.

Keith Laumer is dead, rmgroup is valid. David Weber is a poser.


>
>DON'T
>PANIC!

Doug Adams is dead too.

Dave Sill

unread,
Jun 29, 2009, 10:55:15 AM6/29/09
to
Martin X. Moleski, SJ wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 09:15:03 CST, rob...@deadspam.com (Rob Kelk) wrote in <4a460fc...@news.individual.net>:
>
>> ... It's a group in the Big-8 that's intended for binary traffic. That's
>> reason enough to give it a close look.
>
> That's what started this ball rolling, I think.
>
> And it's unmoderated. That was strike two.

It's dead: strike three. I think we should nuke it.

-Dave

Mark Kramer

unread,
Jun 29, 2009, 12:50:33 PM6/29/09
to
In article <7al7v4F...@mid.individual.net>,

Steve Bonine <s...@pobox.com> wrote:
>Mark Kramer wrote:
>> In article <7ajtl2F...@mid.individual.net>,
>> Steve Bonine <s...@pobox.com> wrote:
>>> Actually, this RFD turns out to be a fine illustration of the board
>>> being wrong. That's the whole purpose of doing an RFD;
>>
>> The whole purpose of an RFD is to illustrate that the board is wrong?
>>
>> Do you think you can make any kind of ridiculous statement and the rest
>> of the world will jump onto your bandwagon?
>
>I know that by selective quoting you can twist any statement to make it
>seem ridiculous.

I didn't "selective quote" you. I took your TOPIC SENTENCE for a paragraph
and the the very next clause referring to that topic. It is not I making you
seem ridiculous. It is your own words, in the same order you used them.

'That' has to refer to something, and the only possible antecedant is
"fine illustration of the board being wrong". There is no other possible
antecedant in your topic sentence.

>>> Since the board has not moved forward on removing truly dead groups (or
>>> even identifying them), I seriously doubt if rec.games.bolo will
>>> actually be removed.
>>
>> You just had Marty twist a comment about the group not being for
>> "software" into a claim that it wasn't for "binaries", so I doubt that
>> message is getting through. It was intended for maps of bolo, which are
>> "computer data" that some might call "software" but are certainly "binary".
>
>Personally, I think that the group should be removed, but mine is the
>minority opinion.

Also an irrelevant opinion. The statement I made wasn't about your opinion
but about an odd twist of the language that converted "software" into
"binaries".

>I understand and respect other folks' opinions, even
>when I don't agree. I have said what I believe, and I am not generally
>in the habit of beating the ground where there was once a horse.

But in my case, you'll make an exception. Yes, I know.

Mark Kramer

unread,
Jun 29, 2009, 12:52:07 PM6/29/09
to
In article <260620092034312816%erfc...@usa.net>,

Yes, I know ASCII is also binary, and I was there when this was all hashed
out when rgb was created, saying the same thing. Nobody seems to care
that they are using too broad a term when trying to kill the mosquitos.

Mark Kramer

unread,
Jun 29, 2009, 12:53:49 PM6/29/09
to
In article <7alibmF...@mid.individual.net>,

Yes, you are 16 years older, but apparently no wiser. I don't know, maybe
you are, but that says a lot about what you were like back then.

RGB has not changed significantly since then, nor has the fact that ASCII
is binary and yet you seem quite happy posting binaries to every group you
infest.

Mark Kramer

unread,
Jun 29, 2009, 12:57:35 PM6/29/09
to
In article <slrnh4fdt...@pjr.gotdns.org>,

Peter J Ross <peadar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>If binaries are such a huge issue, why not retrocharter the group to
>clarify that the permitted "software" comprises US-ASCII map files for
>the Bolo game that happen not to be human-readable? Alternatively,
>rmgroup every Big-8 group that permits PGP/MIME.

Not needed. NO panic is necessary. The Charter already has a limit on
what dastardly binaries may be posted. "Related to the game 'bolo'."
Marty's failure to quote the charter limitations properly is a local
manifestation of quantum mismanagement, not global.

Mark Kramer

unread,
Jun 29, 2009, 1:06:29 PM6/29/09
to
In article <7amnleF...@mid.individual.net>,
Steve Bonine <s...@pobox.com> wrote in a binary code called ASCII:

>As I'm sure that you already know, there has been a renewed interest in
>binary groups recently based on certain politicians and the ever-popular
>topic of kiddie porn. Perhaps this was the reason that several ISPs
>dropped the alt hierarchy and/or stopped providing all of Usenet to
>their customers.

Perhaps it was because they are trying to cut any costs they can get
away with. I suspect my version is closer to reality than yours.

>So, yes, binaries are "a problem".

And yet you continue to post them.

Just what other inconvenient truths will you ignore in your search
to remove inconvenient newsgroups? Is the vast amount of binaries in
news.groups going to become an issue tomorrow?

>But politically, it might be advantageous for the
>administrators of the big-8 to be able, when the topic comes up, to
>state that the hierarchy isn't used for distribution of binary data.

You do recall the word "unmoderated" and how it appears in the charters of
many, many Big 8 newsgroups, don't you? (You seem to have forgotten that
the "Big 8" refers to eight distinct hierarchies and refer to all eight
as "the hierarchy", but that might just be "selective quoting" again.)
You do know that "unmoderated" means you have little ability to control the
distribution of anything in those newsgroups, don't you?

Here begins 755 foo
M(R$O<V)I;B]S:`HC5&%G(#,X-#`*(R`@("`@("!#;W!Y<FEG:'0@*&,I(#$Y
M.#0L(#$Y.#8L(#$Y.#<L(#$Y.#@L(#$Y.#D@050F5`HC("`@("`@("`@06QL
M(%)I9VAT<R!297-E<G9E9`H*(R`@("`@("!42$E3($E3(%5.4%5"3$E32$5$
M(%!23U!2245405)9(%-/55)#12!#3T1%($]&($%4)E0*(R`@("`@("!4:&4@
M8V]P>7)I9VAT(&YO=&EC92!A8F]V92!D;V5S(&YO="!E=FED96YC92!A;GD*
M(R`@("`@("!A8W1U86P@;W(@:6YT96YD960@<'5B;&EC871I;VX@;V8@<W5C
M:"!S;W5R8V4@8V]D92X*"B-I9&5N="`@(D`H(RET<G5E.G1R=64N<V@@("`@
C("`@,2XT(@HC:61E;G0@("(D4F5V:7-I;VXZ(#$N-B`D(@IR
`
here ends foo

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

unread,
Jun 29, 2009, 7:25:42 PM6/29/09
to

Support for the strike three argument:

* vanishingly small on-topic content for many years
* apparently no longer necessary for circulating battle maps
* at least two websites devoted to the game

The last 8+ years of data suggest to me that the
group isn't much used--even though we've had a
few folks express (understandable) attachment to it:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.bolo/about?hl=en

So I'm leaning back to the nuke it side of the argument.

Robert Uhl

unread,
Jun 29, 2009, 8:23:52 PM6/29/09
to
"Martin X. Moleski, SJ" <mol...@canisius.edu> writes:
>
>>It's dead: strike three. I think we should nuke it.
>
> Support for the strike three argument:
>
> * vanishingly small on-topic content for many years

True enough--but by removing rgb there will never be any more content
ever...

> * apparently no longer necessary for circulating battle maps

rgb wasn't meant only for posting maps--the map side of things was
always a minor side note.

> * at least two websites devoted to the game

The idea that websites are a suitable replacement for Usenet seems very
dangerous to me--Usenet groups are IMHO much more suitable for
discussions than are web forums.

I do think that the folks who write the new Bolo versions should post to
rgb and direct their users here, rather than running their own web
forums or mailing lists.

--
Robert Uhl <http://public.xdi.org/=ruhl>
The English love making fun of foreigners, whose mere existence they
regard as an enormous jest. --Iain Pears

Message has been deleted

Helge Nareid

unread,
Jun 29, 2009, 8:40:17 PM6/29/09
to
On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 19:34:26 +0100, Peter J Ross <p...@example.invalid>
wrote:

>In news.groups on Fri, 26 Jun 2009 13:06:00 CST, Jeremy Nixon
><~$!~@u.defocus.net> wrote:
>
>> C.R. Osterwald <erfc...@usa.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Last Call? When was the first call, and why is there such a rush to
>>> kill it?
>>
>> There seemed little reason not to fast-track the proposal, since the
>> group has been unused for years. Since that was clearly premature,
>> this will now not result in a fast-track removal.
>
>There have been no binaries posted in rec.games.bolo for many years.
>
>Ergo, there is no reason to panic about the imminent destruction of
>the Big 8 as a result of the kiddy porn movies that aren't posted to
>rec.games.bolo.

Agreed.

The motivation for the proposal is the IMHO understandable desire to
remove any unmoderated binary group in the Big-8. As you are probably
aware, this was prompted by a recent (informal) proposal to create a
new unmoderated binary group in the rec.* hierarchy.

In the course of the discussion, it has been made very clear that a
majority of the board will not consider the creation of any new
unmoderated binary group in the Big 8.

Deriving directly from that discussion, the next step is to look at
any existing unmoderated group allowing binaries, which is why
rec.games.bolo came under discussion.

I, for one, did not even know of the existence of the game of bolo
prior to this discussion, so I would not presume to have any opinion
of the merits or otherwise of the game, nor can I claim any
familiarity with the newsgroup. So any knowledge I have is based on
what has been said in this discussion.

The discussion have indicated that the "binaries" in question are a
very limited case, and have very limited bandwidth implication.

>If binaries are such a huge issue, why not retrocharter the group to
>clarify that the permitted "software" comprises US-ASCII map files for
>the Bolo game that happen not to be human-readable?

I'm glad that _you_ suggested this ;-)

This is yet another hornets' nest.

To the best of my knowledge, there has up to now never been any case
of the charter of a Big-8 newsgroup being changed after the group has
been created-

Changing the charter of a newsgroup is one of the things for which
there is no current procedure, and the convention has up to now been
that there is _no_ way to change the charter of an existing newsgroup.
This convention predates the B8MB by some considerable margin - I
remember being involved in charter clarification discussions since the
mid-90s and being told that "it just can't be done".

Personally I am open to discussion of charter changes, but the matter
has up to now not been discussed within the B8MB at all (at least
within my time with the B8MB), so I have no idea what the collective
opinion of the B8MB may be.

>Alternatively,
>rmgroup every Big-8 group that permits PGP/MIME.

That wouldn't get my support. My native tongue (Norwegian) requires
8-bit support, I also have some limited knowledge of Japanese which
requires at least 16 bits.

>The fact that a new version of the Bolo game has been released in 2009
>is the clincher for me. There are dozens of newsgroups more deserving
>of rmgrouping than this one.

Agreed.

>DON'T
>PANIC!

I'm adding news.groups.proposals to the newsgroup list for this
message, so I do advise you to take you own advice.
--
Helge Nareid
Member of the Big-8 Management Board (B8MB)
Unless otherwise stated, speaking only for myself
For further info see: http://www.big-8.org/

"The Honest One"

unread,
Jun 29, 2009, 9:04:28 PM6/29/09
to

"C.R. Osterwald" <erfc...@usa.net> wrote in message
>
> ASCII text is also binary, as are PGP public keys. This issue was
> thoroughly hashed out back in 1993 when r.g.b was just an RFD, to the
> satisfaction of everyone involved at the time.
> --
> CR-O

Who cares ??
--
Your Pal,
HJ

p.s. Why aren't your posts showing-up in your Google account ??

"The Honest One"

unread,
Jun 29, 2009, 9:20:55 PM6/29/09
to

"C.R. Osterwald" <erfc...@usa.net> wrote in message
>
> <snip whining, pissing, & moaning>
>
> Absolutely correct, although I would suggest that fruitflies might be
a
> better analogy. r.g.b is hardly going to lead to the Death of Usenet
> As We Know It.
> --
> CR-O

Oh yes it will be the death of Usenet as we know it !!
--
Your Pal,
HJ

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

unread,
Jun 29, 2009, 11:39:42 PM6/29/09