iRFD: A moderated SRQ?
Yowie
Given the level of dissatisfaction here, I can see several options:
1) Do nothing, letting SRQ continue on the path is is going.
2) Attempt to get SRQ back on-topic
3) Delete SRQ from the Big 8
4) Change SRQ to a moderated group
5) Leave SRQ to its own devices, and create its moderated counterpart
soc.religion.quaker.moderated
Option 1 does not address anything and is the easiest to implement. Without
serious intervention, it will turn into many other groups that have lost
their way - a venue for flame wars and spam and very little if any actual
on-topic content (one could well argue it is already there.) Option 2 is
also fairly easy to implement, but I think this approach has been taken a
number of times and has failed thus far. This does not mean that with a
concerted and coordinated effort that it would fail if attempted again,
however. Option 3 removes the problem entirely.This would be the logical
thing to do if Quakers and those interested in Quakerism no longer wanted or
required a dedicated Usenet forum to discuss Quaker related issues. It could
well be argued that other discussion media (blogs, Quaker-L/P/B) are serving
the small Quaker community in a better way than Usenet can, and that SRQ
should be deleted. Option 4 assumes the problem is mostly about off-topic
postings and that moderation would solve the problem (it may not). There may
well also be some sort of objection to forced moderation from Quakers who do
not believe in censorship on Usenet. Option 5, to my mind, still allows
those who object to moderation a place to post, but removes the noise to
allow the signal to get through. Many Usenet forums for relgious discussion
are moderated, and SRQM would be no different in that regard.
I personally think that Option 5 - the creation of SRQM alongside SRQ would
probably be hte best option overall. I have no objection to Peter Seebach
moderating it. Moderation doesn't need years of experience in a subject to
determine what is wildly off-topic and what might be of interest - and
reasonable moderation generally has the 'if in doubt, let it through, and
apologise if necessary' approach. I would, hoewver, stronlgy encourage the
publication of the 'reject file' where those messages that are rejected are
able to be viewed by anyone interested such that the 'gatekeeper' (or
gatekeepers if there are a number of moderators) can be seen to be acting
reasonably, and of course, havea procedure for replacing said moderator or
moderators if they are not acting in a satisfactory manner.
Yowie
--
If you're paddling upstream in a canoe and a wheel falls off, how many
pancakes can you fit in a doghouse? None, icecream doesn't have bones.
Seebs
> 1) Do nothing, letting SRQ continue on the path is is going.
I don't much like this.
> 2) Attempt to get SRQ back on-topic
It's probably impossible; it's not just the trolls, but the neverending
supply of people willing to respond to everything the trolls post.
> 3) Delete SRQ from the Big 8
Seems pointless; I'd say this is more work than #1, but doesn't
accomplish anything more.
> 4) Change SRQ to a moderated group
> 5) Leave SRQ to its own devices, and create its moderated counterpart
> soc.religion.quaker.moderated
Of these, I prefer #4, because I think SRQ is a complete loss right now.
I'm not opposed to #5, though.
> Option 4 assumes the problem is mostly about off-topic
> postings and that moderation would solve the problem (it may not). There may
> well also be some sort of objection to forced moderation from Quakers who do
> not believe in censorship on Usenet. Option 5, to my mind, still allows
> those who object to moderation a place to post, but removes the noise to
> allow the signal to get through. Many Usenet forums for relgious discussion
> are moderated, and SRQM would be no different in that regard.
That's plausible.
> I personally think that Option 5 - the creation of SRQM alongside SRQ would
> probably be hte best option overall. I have no objection to Peter Seebach
> moderating it. Moderation doesn't need years of experience in a subject to
> determine what is wildly off-topic and what might be of interest - and
> reasonable moderation generally has the 'if in doubt, let it through, and
> apologise if necessary' approach. I would, hoewver, stronlgy encourage the
> publication of the 'reject file' where those messages that are rejected are
> able to be viewed by anyone interested such that the 'gatekeeper' (or
> gatekeepers if there are a number of moderators) can be seen to be acting
> reasonably, and of course, havea procedure for replacing said moderator or
> moderators if they are not acting in a satisfactory manner.
In general, Usenet does not admit a procedure for replacing moderators who
are still present and processing their moderation queue in any way -- I don't
know of a single case of an active moderator being replaced.
That said, I'm not especially worried. So far, the primary complaints about
my newsgroup moderation have been that one of the local kooks is upset that I
did not reject a post in which he made a fairly grave error (which I wouldn't
have caught even if I were trying to fact-check, as it happens he made a number
of true claims by sheer coincidence).
-s
--
Copyright 2009, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / usenet...@seebs.net
http://www.seebs.net/log/ <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!
Yowie
news:slrnhjdvvc.i17...@guild.seebs.net
I'll have to ask what the procedure is on soc.religion.pagan. IIRC, they
have a number of mdoerators and a procedure to elect / replace the
moderators when they need to.
My own moderating experience is in Yahoo Groups and on
alt.religion.wicca.moderated. I dont' know if the moderating for the alt
heirachy is anything like the moderating procedure for the big 8, however if
it is, ARWM elects its moderators (it has 5), they use readystump to
moderateand have a whitelisting process.
> That said, I'm not especially worried. So far, the primary
> complaints about my newsgroup moderation have been that one of the
> local kooks is upset that I did not reject a post in which he made a
> fairly grave error (which I wouldn't have caught even if I were
> trying to fact-check, as it happens he made a number of true claims
> by sheer coincidence).
The moderators are not there, IMHO, to do the fact checking, only to check
the topicality of the message.
Tom McDonald
> "Seebs" <usenet...@seebs.net> wrote in message
> news:slrnhjdvvc.i17...@guild.seebs.net
>> On 2009-12-27, Yowie <yowie9644....@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>>> 1) Do nothing, letting SRQ continue on the path is is going.
<snip>
>>> I personally think that Option 5 - the creation of SRQM alongside
>>> SRQ would probably be hte best option overall. I have no objection
>>> to Peter Seebach moderating it. Moderation doesn't need years of
>>> experience in a subject to determine what is wildly off-topic and
>>> what might be of interest - and reasonable moderation generally has
>>> the 'if in doubt, let it through, and apologise if necessary'
>>> approach. I would, hoewver, stronlgy encourage the publication of
>>> the 'reject file' where those messages that are rejected are able to
>>> be viewed by anyone interested such that the 'gatekeeper' (or
>>> gatekeepers if there are a number of moderators) can be seen to be
>>> acting reasonably, and of course, havea procedure for replacing said
>>> moderator or moderators if they are not acting in a satisfactory
>>> manner.
>> In general, Usenet does not admit a procedure for replacing
>> moderators who
>> are still present and processing their moderation queue in any way --
>> I don't know of a single case of an active moderator being replaced.
>
> I'll have to ask what the procedure is on soc.religion.pagan. IIRC, they
> have a number of mdoerators and a procedure to elect / replace the
> moderators when they need to.
I am a moderator on sci.archaeology.moderated. We also have a
procedure to add moderators as needed.
The s.a.m. moderators' group is hosted on Yahoo Groups, as a
closed group. That's where we converse, asking about specific
articles, questions on emergent issues, etc.
> My own moderating experience is in Yahoo Groups and on
> alt.religion.wicca.moderated. I dont' know if the moderating for the alt
> heirachy is anything like the moderating procedure for the big 8, however if
> it is, ARWM elects its moderators (it has 5), they use readystump to
> moderateand have a whitelisting process.
I am not sure of the mechanics of the moderation on s.a.m., but I
do know that all posts go to a location from which they are sent
to a moderator (don't know how the specific moderator is chosen
-- doesn't seem random, but doesn't seem scheduled, either).
AFAIK, we don't deal with cross-posts. However, the moderated ng
talk.origins, which is mostly robo-moderated, has rules about
number of allowed cross-posted groups (4); and rules about not
cross-posting to certain ngs (e.g. some mental health & suicide
ngs -- there is a history). Because t.o. is a very high-volume
ng, it is easy for cross-posts to flood low-volume ngs. That will
not be an issue here, except that it may turn out to be necessary
to limit cross-posts from certain ngs.
Or, of course, it might well be to consider not allow much in the
way of cross-posting at all. And/or to manually excise
troublesome ngs from the distribution list.
We don't whitelist anyone; but then we are looking at content as
well as topicality and other appropriateness. We do reply to each
submission, whether or not it is approved. When approved, we note
the fact, along with the subject line; and attach a copy of the
actual post to the reply.
The best we do in terms of sort-of whitelisting is that for one
or two regular, trusted posters, we don't bother them with an
acknowledgment email.
>> That said, I'm not especially worried. So far, the primary
>> complaints about my newsgroup moderation have been that one of the
>> local kooks is upset that I did not reject a post in which he made a
>> fairly grave error (which I wouldn't have caught even if I were
>> trying to fact-check, as it happens he made a number of true claims
>> by sheer coincidence).
>
> The moderators are not there, IMHO, to do the fact checking, only to check
> the topicality of the message.
As you can see, moderation on s.a.m. is a bunch more stringent
than is likely to be useful on the notional SRQM.
But some strictures would be necessary to be able to control that
which has mucked up s.r.q. so royally.
--
Tom "Go Pack" McDonald
crunch
wrote:
> (iRFD: informal Request For Discussion)
>
> Given the level of dissatisfaction here, I can see several options:
>
> 1) Do nothing, letting SRQ continue on the path is is going.
> 2) Attempt to get SRQ back on-topic
> 3) Delete SRQ from the Big 8
> 4) Change SRQ to a moderated group
> 5) Leave SRQ to its own devices, and create its moderated counterpart
> soc.religion.quaker.moderated
>
> Option 1 does not address anything and is the easiest to implement. Without
> serious intervention, it will turn into many other groups that have lost
> their way - a venue for flame wars and spam and very little if any actual
> on-topic content (one could well argue it is already there.) Option 2 is
> also fairly easy to implement, but I think this approach has been taken a
> number of times and has failed thus far. This does not mean that with a
> concerted and coordinated effort that it would fail if attempted again,
> however.
Did you know I was once a Moderator for four years
on a certain Yahoo Group?
IMHO Option 1 is best for SRQ; Option 2 could be done
to some extent by those who play at quakerism, as Ian
Davis recently put it.
Did you know that I play at quakerism?
BTW, today at 1st Day Forum at Cambridge Meeting
our theme was Christmas in Worship-Sharing mode.
Yet further, while your message here does not say
that I am an abuser, you clearly feel that way.
So, I will defend myself. First, my crossposting has
always been legitimate, contrary to my critics. Recently,
Steve Hayes posted as to how crossposting can be
A GOOD THING.
Second, my signature is "Peace (after the Quaker fashion)".
Bottom line - the purpose of usenet is discussion. When
someone like you admits that you are promoting a usenet
discussion for unworthy motives, you should stop and take
moral stock of yourself. The example of this behaviour on
your part was the asking of 10 questions on Thiering Thesis
on a part of the Crucifixion because you wanted to expose
me as DISHONEST. BTW you were never successful in this
unworthy motive and I consider it an example of your bad
side of character. So, I point it out to you and ask you politely
correct it. But also, in other interactions with other SRQers
your character has been good and even praiseworthy.
Peace,
David Christainsen
Sir David
> Did you know I was once a Moderator for four years
> on a certain Yahoo Group?
How could anyone miss it? You've been bragging about it for years,
even though it was a total failure.
> IMHO Option 1 is best for SRQ; Option 2 could be done
> to some extent by those who play at quakerism, as Ian
> Davis recently put it.
>
> Did you know that I play at quakerism?
Did you know that the whole reason for a proposed moderated group is
to EXCLUDE YOU from trolling and riding your hobbyhorse? Of course you
did. So your own thoughts on the matter are irrelevant. You won't be
involved. Sucks to be you.
> The example of this behaviour on
> your part was the asking of 10 questions on Thiering Thesis
> on a part of the Crucifixion because you wanted to expose
> me as DISHONEST.
And you were thus exposed; as DISHONEST. And a hobbyhorse-riding
craclkpot kook. Sucks to be you.
qsp...@comcast.net
since last leaving to see what's happening.
This time I am back to see what is up in response to the fact of this
thread (news of which has been circulating in some Quaker circles).
Looking around, though, at the condition of things here now it seems
to me that none of the "solutions" proposed below would bring me
back. Nothing is said on this group that is interesting to me.
Even the best moderated discussion of the Pesher, of Christian trivia,
of what Quakerism requires (engaged in by people who don't go to
meetings) or self justifying rationalization for long past "woundings"
beyond which the poster cannot move is going to be interesting to
anyone except those who are obsessed with such or those who, to show
how smart or cute or cruel they can be, like to prey on people so
obsessed (and on one another).
Frankly, I wonder if this talk of "moderation" is not just one more
ploy in this dynamic.
That which is not eccentric esoterica, here, or a part of this
floating game of "King of the Newsgroup," is just plain wierd.
So, as an alum, I don't care what you choose. Have a nice time.
I would like to suggest another course of action, though, to implement
on its own or in conjunction with any one or combination of the
others: take the name "Quaker" off of the group.
Timothy Travis
Bridge City Friends Meeting
Portland, Oregon
On 27 Dec 2009 06:33:22 GMT, Seebs <usenet...@seebs.net> wrote:
>On 2009-12-27, Yowie <yowie9644....@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>> 1) Do nothing, letting SRQ continue on the path is going.
Seebs
> Even the best moderated discussion of the Pesher, of Christian trivia,
> of what Quakerism requires (engaged in by people who don't go to
> meetings) or self justifying rationalization for long past "woundings"
> beyond which the poster cannot move is going to be interesting to
> anyone except those who are obsessed with such or those who, to show
> how smart or cute or cruel they can be, like to prey on people so
> obsessed (and on one another).
> Frankly, I wonder if this talk of "moderation" is not just one more
> ploy in this dynamic.
Huh?
If I were moderating this newsgroup, I assure you, none of the Pesher
stuff would be here, because it's nothing to do with Quaker faith or
practice. Same for crunch's endless rants about the various evils of
the world. Not topical, not relevant, not getting approved.
There's been occasional discussions here which would not be filtered, but
the bulk of the recent content wouldn't pass the test of "something to
do with Quakerism".
In short, the point of moderation is not to improve the quality of the
discussion of crunch's hobbyhorse, but to remove that off-topic discussion
from the newsgroup. (And if the guy who posts long incoherent rants
in broken English about how he never wanted to have gay sex is still
here, he'd be out too. I wouldn't know, he's been killfiled forever.)
> I would like to suggest another course of action, though, to implement
> on its own or in conjunction with any one or combination of the
> others: take the name "Quaker" off of the group.
You can't rename a group. You can delete a group, change whether it is
moderated, or create another group, but the group IS the name. You can't
rename it.
Yowie
news:qjlfj5d4ruee3sm1a...@4ax.com
*snip*
> I would like to suggest another course of action, though, to implement
> on its own or in conjunction with any one or combination of the
> others: take the name "Quaker" off of the group.
Removing soc.relgion.quaker (option 3) acheives this aim.
Yowie
Ian Davis
I miss your contribution Timothy. I miss Christine Greenwoods too, and Licia
both whom also wrote to say that they too left SRQ because they found no
reason to stay. If this is a graveyard, I've lived long enough to know and
remember the names on the tombstones. It was because I wanted to take the
name Quaker off the group that I'd support the dissolution of it.
Ian.
Ian Davis
What Quaker list might I reasonably subscribe to which would offer me some
access to things Quakerly. I'd be happy to subscribe as a reader only, if
the list was restricted to those that were Quaker. On the one hand I read
Quakers bemoan how the Quaker faith is dying, and with the old dying and
the new not being interested it is only a matter of time before Quakers
go the way of Shakers. On the other hand, those that seem to care about
this issue, don't exactly seem to go out of there way to do more than
lament the current situation. I posted to Quaker-L and was taken to task
for posting on a near defunct newgroup, and told that if I wanted to know
where I might actually find active lists I should (as a matter of Gospel
Order) be asking the question here rather than on Quaker_L. Another
suggested that perhaps there was a Quaker_C (Canadian Quaker list)
but wasn't sure.
Ian.
(<<Kelly>>)
Again, I feel Seebs should not be allowed to moderate *this* Quaker
group because (a) he's not been a Quaker (officially or as a
interested party) long enough to qualify, (b) he's new to this group
and whomever is chosen to moderate *this* group should be an
established "old-timer" - preferably someone who has been here since
its beginnings.
Also - if this does go through, you should seriously consider having a
group of moderators, not just one (as I seem to sense Seebs is
suggesting). That would likely have to take place over a period of
time and as the size of the group grows.
(<<Kelly>>)
I agree.
> I have no objection to Peter Seebach
> moderating it.
I do.
> Moderation doesn't need years of experience in a subject to
> determine what is wildly off-topic and what might be of interest
That may be true, but someone who is moderating a religious/
denominational group should at least be (a) a part of that religion/
denomination currently or in the past, (b) have been part of that
religion/denomination currently or in the past for a significant
period of time, and (c) have significant knowledge about the religion/
denomination, its beliefs and practices. Seebs, from what I know
about him, isn't actually a Quaker but has some interest in it.
Surely a good group participant, but as a moderator? Not in a group
like this - not yet, anyway. Don't think that because no one else has
really voiced their interest in moderating that filling the spot with
a warm, willing body is a good idea - it never is.
> - and
> reasonable moderation generally has the 'if in doubt, let it through, and
> apologise if necessary' approach. I would, hoewver, stronlgy encourage the
> publication of the 'reject file' where those messages that are rejected are
> able to be viewed by anyone interested such that the 'gatekeeper' (or
> gatekeepers if there are a number of moderators) can be seen to be acting
> reasonably, and of course, havea procedure for replacing said moderator or
> moderators if they are not acting in a satisfactory manner.
Agreed.
Yowie
news:77fae7bf-4348-4f60...@m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com
> On Dec 26, 10:33 pm, Seebs <usenet-nos...@seebs.net> wrote:
*snip*
>> That said, I'm not especially worried. So far, the primary
>> complaints about
>> my newsgroup moderation have been that one of the local kooks is
>> upset that I did not reject a post in which he made a fairly grave
>> error (which I wouldn't have caught even if I were trying to
>> fact-check, as it happens he made a number of true claims by sheer
>> coincidence).
>
> Again, I feel Seebs should not be allowed to moderate *this* Quaker
> group because (a) he's not been a Quaker (officially or as a
> interested party) long enough to qualify, (b) he's new to this group
> and whomever is chosen to moderate *this* group should be an
> established "old-timer" - preferably someone who has been here since
> its beginnings.
I don't think anyone left here has been here from the beginning (it started
back in 1992). Seebs is perhaps one of two (maybe three) that has any
connection with Quaker meetings.
Why is years of experience on this particular forum necessary to be an
adequate moderator?
If no-one else volunteers to moderate (I don't see anyone else put up their
hand), and Seebs is still willing to do the job, would that be OK?
> Also - if this does go through, you should seriously consider having a
> group of moderators, not just one (as I seem to sense Seebs is
> suggesting). That would likely have to take place over a period of
> time and as the size of the group grows.
Whilst I agree that a 'panel' of moderators is a Good Thing on very active
groups, the only reason I can see for having more than one moderator for a
group that would not be very active and is unlikely to be very active seems
to keep the mdoerating process 'honest'. Whilst Seebs has not had a large
presence here, as he is a moderator of another Usenet forum, and I think his
trustworthyness / lack of bias can be demostrated by how well or not he
moderates that forum.
Seems odd that there are at least three of us here that are moderators of
other Usenet forums.
Kelly, would you prefer SRQ to become moderated, or to create a moderated
group SRQM along side the unmoderated SRQ?
Yowie
If such a person was here that meets all three of your requirements, and
willing to moderate, I would agree wholeheartedly with you. I just don't
think there is such a person here.
> Seebs, from what
> I know about him, isn't actually a Quaker but has some interest in it.
> Surely a good group participant, but as a moderator? Not in a group
> like this - not yet, anyway. Don't think that because no one else has
> really voiced their interest in moderating that filling the spot with
> a warm, willing body is a good idea - it never is.
In general, no its not a good idea. However, I would suggest that Seebs is
as good a moderator as we are likely to get /at this point/. My reasoning is
this: he seems level headed, he has moderator experience in another Usenet
forum with no complaints from that forum, and that he attends a Quaker
meeting.
I could also moderate or co-moderate with Seebs if thats what folks want. I
cannot speak on my own behalf about being level headed and reasonable, but I
do have moderating experience on another religious Usenet group
(alt.religion.moderated, despite not being Wiccan). I have not, however,
even attended on Quaker meeting and would only consider myself Quakerish
rather than Quaker.
>> - and
>> reasonable moderation generally has the 'if in doubt, let it
>> through, and apologise if necessary' approach. I would, hoewver,
>> stronlgy encourage the publication of the 'reject file' where those
>> messages that are rejected are able to be viewed by anyone
>> interested such that the 'gatekeeper' (or gatekeepers if there are a
>> number of moderators) can be seen to be acting reasonably, and of
>> course, havea procedure for replacing said moderator or moderators
>> if they are not acting in a satisfactory manner.
>
> Agreed.
Thanks for your thoughts.
(<<Kelly>>)
> "(<<Kelly>>)" <rosie_be...@rocketmail.com> wrote in message
His lack of bias was obvious when he decided to killfile me simply for
disagreeing with him. And please, don't think that has anything to do
with how I feel about him moderating - because it has nothing to do
with it.
But you will be treading on dangerous ground if you allow him (or
anyone) to be moderator without having backup moderator(s), co-
moderator(s), and/or gatekeeper(s). Turning the whole shebang over to
someone you hardly know and/or know anything about - especially
someone who does not have deep Quaker roots and interests - is a risky
proposition. Let me remind you that while you no longer practice
Quakerism, Quakerism *is* a religion and religion brings out the best
as well as the worst in people. You need a moderator who is committed
to keeping the group Quaker in practice and discussion (since that's
what several of you have opined of late) - how is that possible with
someone who isn't even actually a Quaker and never has been
previously?
> Seems odd that there are at least three of us here that are moderators of
> other Usenet forums.
>
> Kelly, would you prefer SRQ to become moderated, or to create a moderated
> group SRQM along side the unmoderated SRQ?
SRQM alongside unmoderated SRQ is my vote (I thought I already said
that). But, I don't think it's possible to turn the already existant
SRQ into SRQM anyway.
(<<Kelly>>)
> "(<<Kelly>>)" <rosie_be...@rocketmail.com> wrote in message
And that tells me you are (a) settling, and (b) taking any warm body
that raises his/her hand.
Not a good idea (take if from someone who has experience in these
types of matters relating to the appointing of those in a religious
setting).
Seebs
> "(<<Kelly>>)" <rosie...@rocketmail.com> wrote in message
>> denominational group should at least be (a) a part of that religion/
>> denomination currently or in the past, (b) have been part of that
>> religion/denomination currently or in the past for a significant
>> period of time, and (c) have significant knowledge about the
>> religion/ denomination, its beliefs and practices.
> If such a person was here that meets all three of your requirements, and
> willing to moderate, I would agree wholeheartedly with you. I just don't
> think there is such a person here.
I actually don't know that I agree with the premise. The job of the
moderator is not to determine whether stuff is *correct* Quakerism,
but whether it's even making a reasonable effort.
In short, in the absence of any intent to moderate against anything but
spam, I don't think it matters; a reasonably well-managed AI could
probably get it.
>> Seebs, from what
>> I know about him, isn't actually a Quaker but has some interest in it.
It's what I identify as, and has been for some years.
> In general, no its not a good idea. However, I would suggest that Seebs is
> as good a moderator as we are likely to get /at this point/. My reasoning is
> this: he seems level headed, he has moderator experience in another Usenet
> forum with no complaints from that forum, and that he attends a Quaker
> meeting.
Well, attended -- when I lived in a large city where it was practical to do
so.
But I guess I see it as largely irrelevant. I've seen religious forums
where moderators were selected based on doctrinal correctness and group
membership, and it's been a disaster. That's the wrong question to ask;
the right questions are things like "level-headed", "thick-skinned", and
"knows how to run the software".
The goal here is not to create a shining beacon of doctrinaire Quaker
thought, but to provide an environment in which people who wish to
discuss Quaker beliefs or practices can do so without being harassed,
stalked, spammed, and trolled to such an extent as to render
conversation effectively impossible.
(<<Kelly>>)
> On 2009-12-28, Yowie <yowie9644.DIESPAM...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
> > "(<<Kelly>>)" <rosie_be...@rocketmail.com> wrote in message
If this is to be run like a Quaker Meeting - and that's what I get
from some who have been complaining about SRQ for a while now - then
you need someone who has a good understanding of Quaker-like behaviors
within the meeting setting. As it is now apparent, Seebs once
attended Quaker Meeting but has not for a while.
I still believe having him as sole moderator is a bad idea. IMO, you
need to either wait until someone comes forward who is more suitable
to a Quaker forum or settle for a non-Quaker forum with the Quaker
name. But I will say again at the risk of repeating myself...taking a
warm body because no one else has stepped up is a bad idea you will
very possibly end up regretting.
Yowie
I for one don't want it run as a Quaker meeting. Just a newsgroup where
topics that are likely to interest those intersted in Quakerism can be
discussed.
The various Christian newsgroups are not run so as to be like a church
services, nor is soc.religion.pagan (or alt.religion.wicca.moderated)
supposed to be some sort of electronic substitute for a coven or circle -
merely places for those with a common interest to discuss that interest.
ISee SRQ as essentially no different than those other NGs
> I still believe having him as sole moderator is a bad idea. IMO, you
> need to either wait until someone comes forward who is more suitable
> to a Quaker forum or settle for a non-Quaker forum with the Quaker
> name.
I don't think its an either/or position. Most reasonably intelligent people
with a quick Quaker 101 to guide them could, IMHO, discern the sort of post
that may be of interest to Quakers and the sort of post that woudl
definitely *not* be appropriate for a Quaker discussion group (a Meeting for
Worship would be different, but this isn't a Meeting for Worship).
I've seen the sort of moderator that perhaps you fear: they only let through
the sort of posts that supports their own theological (or political)
viewpoint, and any other is rejected. I don't think Seebs is the type to do
that.
> But I will say again at the risk of repeating myself...taking a
> warm body because no one else has stepped up is a bad idea you will
> very possibly end up regretting.
Its a matter of trust. I think Seebs can do an adequate job the spam,
crossposts and off-topic junk at bay without any personal doctrinal bias.
YMMV.
(<<Kelly>>)
Whatever. I hope it works out the way you anticipate.
Seebs
>> from some who have been complaining about SRQ for a while now - then
>> you need someone who has a good understanding of Quaker-like behaviors
>> within the meeting setting. As it is now apparent, Seebs once
>> attended Quaker Meeting but has not for a while.
> I for one don't want it run as a Quaker meeting. Just a newsgroup where
> topics that are likely to interest those intersted in Quakerism can be
> discussed.
Exactly. This is not a church, it's a discussion group.
> I've seen the sort of moderator that perhaps you fear: they only let through
> the sort of posts that supports their own theological (or political)
> viewpoint, and any other is rejected. I don't think Seebs is the type to do
> that.
You may browse comp.lang.c.moderated to see how heavy-handed I am.
> Its a matter of trust. I think Seebs can do an adequate job the spam,
> crossposts and off-topic junk at bay without any personal doctrinal bias.
I'm sure there'd be some kind of doctrinal bias -- but I have a plan for
mitigating it. First, as always, discussion of what is topical is topical,
so by definition, posts arguing that the moderation is incorrect are
topical and must be approved... (with certain caveats, specifically, I don't
anticipate crunch being able to write one which would not get bounced as
non-discussion spam. But if he could, great! He'd be speaking in his own
words at a manageable pace.)
Secondly, I simply don't see any reason to impose doctrine at all. When I
was going to Meeting every Wednesday night, there was a nice sign on the wall
which stated that the meeting had no dogma, no doctrine, and no creed. I
see no reason to run a discussion group which isn't even a church in a more
dogmatic way than an actual Meeting for Worship.
And again, this is not about being a Quaker church, but about providing a
workable environment for communication and discussion.
Kelly, maybe you could provide some concrete examples of the kinds of posts
where you feel my moderation decision would not be the one you'd expect from
a Real Quaker (TM)?
-s
p.s.: I actually know some, I could see if any are interested.
Yowie
> On Dec 27, 8:38 pm, "Yowie" <yowie9644.DIESPAM...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>> "(<<Kelly>>)" <rosie_be...@rocketmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:77fae7bf-4348-4f60...@m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com
*snip*
>>> Also - if this does go through, you should seriously consider
>>> having a group of moderators, not just one (as I seem to sense
>>> Seebs is suggesting). That would likely have to take place over a
>>> period of time and as the size of the group grows.
>>
>> Whilst I agree that a 'panel' of moderators is a Good Thing on very
>> active groups, the only reason I can see for having more than one
>> moderator for a group that would not be very active and is unlikely
>> to be very active seems to keep the mdoerating process 'honest'.
>> Whilst Seebs has not had a large presence here, as he is a moderator
>> of another Usenet forum, and I think his trustworthyness / lack of
>> bias can be demostrated by how well or not he moderates that forum.
>
> His lack of bias was obvious when he decided to killfile me simply for
> disagreeing with him.
Killfiling is entirely different to moderating. He personally did not want
to read any more of your posts, and you were thus killfiled.
If he were moderating, then he (like anyone else who was moderating) would
have to determine whether or not that post met with the requirements of the
group or not (We haven't got that far yet).
> And please, don't think that has anything to do
> with how I feel about him moderating - because it has nothing to do
> with it.
Ok
> But you will be treading on dangerous ground if you allow him (or
> anyone) to be moderator without having backup moderator(s), co-
> moderator(s), and/or gatekeeper(s). Turning the whole shebang over to
> someone you hardly know and/or know anything about - especially
> someone who does not have deep Quaker roots and interests - is a risky
> proposition.
Trusting moderators to moderate fairly and without bias is always a risky
business. I agree that there ought to be checks and balances otherwise the
moderator turns from public servant to dictator.
I would go as co-moderator if thats what people wish, although I would be
the first to admit I have *no idea* how moderating software works.
> Let me remind you that while you no longer practice
> Quakerism, Quakerism *is* a religion and religion brings out the best
> as well as the worst in people.
I no longer practice *Wicca*, Quakerism I still practice as best I can
without attending a meeting (the meeting is too far away for me to
practically attend)
> You need a moderator who is committed
> to keeping the group Quaker in practice and discussion (since that's
> what several of you have opined of late)
That is another debate i guess we'll have to have: what is the purpose of
this group and/or the proposed new moderated group. Is it supposed to be
like a meeting for worship, or a discussion group, or something else again?
> - how is that possible with
> someone who isn't even actually a Quaker and never has been
> previously?
Depends on what the purpose of the group is. If the purpose of the group is
as a disussion group for topics that are about or would interest Quakers,
then even a person with no knowledge of what Quakerism is about could do a
perfectly good job in keeping the spam & crossposts out (heck, even
robomoderation does that), and a person with a passing interest in Quakerism
could probably do an adequate job in ensuring most posts are at least
tangentally on-topic.
If the moderated group is supposed to be more akin to a Meeting, then, yes,
a person who has had long experience being a 'weighty' friend would be
better.
>> Seems odd that there are at least three of us here that are
>> moderators of other Usenet forums.
>>
>> Kelly, would you prefer SRQ to become moderated, or to create a
>> moderated group SRQM along side the unmoderated SRQ?
>
> SRQM alongside unmoderated SRQ is my vote (I thought I already said
> that). But, I don't think it's possible to turn the already existant
> SRQ into SRQM anyway.
AFAIK, its possible, but it would be easier to create SRQM than change SRQ
to moderated.
(Oh, and the very next post I opened had you saying that... so apologies for
seeming as if I aske dyou a question you'd already answered)
Much appreciate your input.
(<<Kelly>>)
> I'm sure there'd be some kind of doctrinal bias -- but I have a plan for
> mitigating it. First, as always, discussion of what is topical is topical,
> so by definition, posts arguing that the moderation is incorrect are
> topical and must be approved... (with certain caveats, specifically, I don't
> anticipate crunch being able to write one which would not get bounced as
> non-discussion spam. But if he could, great! He'd be speaking in his own
> words at a manageable pace.)
>
> Secondly, I simply don't see any reason to impose doctrine at all. When I
> was going to Meeting every Wednesday night, there was a nice sign on the wall
> which stated that the meeting had no dogma, no doctrine, and no creed. I
> see no reason to run a discussion group which isn't even a church in a more
> dogmatic way than an actual Meeting for Worship.
Excuse me...but shouldn't the initiating *group* decide what the
"plan" is. Moderators moderate - they don't get to decide the "plan"
all on their own. The moderators are to do what the group decides on
and implement what has been agreed upon by the group of overseers.
Unfortunately, this is already taking shape exactly the way I
anticipated. I just didn't expect to see it happen so soon.
> And again, this is not about being a Quaker church,
I wasn't saying it should be.
Seebs
> to read any more of your posts, and you were thus killfiled.
Specifically, because of the flood of angry responses to crunch, which appear
to be useless.
> If he were moderating, then he (like anyone else who was moderating) would
> have to determine whether or not that post met with the requirements of the
> group or not (We haven't got that far yet).
Exactly. I have spinoza1111 killfiled, but I still approve his posts for
comp.lang.c.moderated.
>> But you will be treading on dangerous ground if you allow him (or
>> anyone) to be moderator without having backup moderator(s), co-
>> moderator(s), and/or gatekeeper(s). Turning the whole shebang over to
>> someone you hardly know and/or know anything about - especially
>> someone who does not have deep Quaker roots and interests - is a risky
>> proposition.
> Trusting moderators to moderate fairly and without bias is always a risky
> business. I agree that there ought to be checks and balances otherwise the
> moderator turns from public servant to dictator.
The blunt reality: A usenet moderator IS a dictator. There is no procedure
for replacing a moderator if you don't like how they moderate. The person
who controls the email address you pick for the group has absolute and total
power.
That said... We really have nothing to lose.
>> You need a moderator who is committed
>> to keeping the group Quaker in practice and discussion (since that's
>> what several of you have opined of late)
> That is another debate i guess we'll have to have: what is the purpose of
> this group and/or the proposed new moderated group. Is it supposed to be
> like a meeting for worship, or a discussion group, or something else again?
I would say a discussion group.
And I really don't understand why Kelly even has an opinion on how the group
is run. I may not be the most long-term Quaker around, but so far as I know,
Kelly is not and has never been a Quaker, nor has she any interest in
becoming one.
> AFAIK, its possible, but it would be easier to create SRQM than change SRQ
> to moderated.
I believe so.
BTW, I have another alternative. I know Russ Nelson, and I asked him if he'd
be willing to moderate the group, and he would. I doubt anyone's going to
dispute his credentials to moderate or administer Quaker discussions, right?
(Russ runs quaker.org.)
Seebs
> Excuse me...but shouldn't the initiating *group* decide what the
> "plan" is. Moderators moderate - they don't get to decide the "plan"
> all on their own. The moderators are to do what the group decides on
> and implement what has been agreed upon by the group of overseers.
Lolwut?
This is Usenet. Charters are voted on, moderators are picked, then they
do whatever they want.
What "group of overseers"? This is not about creating a bureaucracy.
We don't need a series of organizations and groups; we need someone
competent and willing to serve who can do the job. That's it. I know
it may sound crazy to imagine trusting someone with that kind of power,
but seriously, we've been doing this for thirty years now, and it works
brilliantly.
I've been moderating a Usenet group for well over a decade. I've been
involved in other moderation stuff in the past, and what I've found is
that all the elaborate schemes and checks and balances turn out to be
a pure waste of time. Ultimately, some person owns the domain with the
email address for the group, and that person has ultimate power, and
if you stay out of their way, it works fine.
> Unfortunately, this is already taking shape exactly the way I
> anticipated. I just didn't expect to see it happen so soon.
I have no idea what you're talking about.
>> And again, this is not about being a Quaker church,
> I wasn't saying it should be.
And yet, you were making claims about what should be done about running
it which seem to me to make sense for a church, but not for a discussion
forum.
And why do you care? You're not a Quaker, that I know of. You've never
expressed any interest that I've seen in discussing Quakerism, as opposed
to arguing with crunch and general Christianity topics.
-s
Yowie
*snip*
> BTW, I have another alternative. I know Russ Nelson, and I asked him
> if he'd be willing to moderate the group, and he would. I doubt
> anyone's going to dispute his credentials to moderate or administer
> Quaker discussions, right? (Russ runs quaker.org.)
He'd be an ideal candidate, IMHO, yes.
Yowie
> On 2009-12-28, (<<Kelly>>) <rosie...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
>> Excuse me...but shouldn't the initiating *group* decide what the
>> "plan" is. Moderators moderate - they don't get to decide the "plan"
>> all on their own. The moderators are to do what the group decides on
>> and implement what has been agreed upon by the group of overseers.
>
> Lolwut?
>
> This is Usenet. Charters are voted on, moderators are picked, then
> they do whatever they want.
Which *usually* is what the group as a whole (or at least the vocal parts of
the group) wants.
> What "group of overseers"? This is not about creating a bureaucracy.
> We don't need a series of organizations and groups; we need someone
> competent and willing to serve who can do the job. That's it. I know
> it may sound crazy to imagine trusting someone with that kind of
> power, but seriously, we've been doing this for thirty years now, and
> it works brilliantly.
And if it all goes pear shaped and the moderator of SRQM turns out to be a
psychopathic meglomaniacal dictator, then there's always SRQ which will
remain unmoderated :-)
> I've been moderating a Usenet group for well over a decade. I've been
> involved in other moderation stuff in the past, and what I've found is
> that all the elaborate schemes and checks and balances turn out to be
> a pure waste of time. Ultimately, some person owns the domain with
> the email address for the group, and that person has ultimate power,
> and if you stay out of their way, it works fine.
Whilst the 'checks and balances' really don't have any actual power, they
can and do give a sense of openness, honesty and accountability.
>> Unfortunately, this is already taking shape exactly the way I
>> anticipated. I just didn't expect to see it happen so soon.
>
> I have no idea what you're talking about.
There is no such thing as the cabal :-)
(<<Kelly>>)
> Specifically, because of the flood of angry responses to crunch, which appear
> to be useless.
That's your take on it. The reality of my responses are actually
quite different.
> The blunt reality: A usenet moderator IS a dictator. There is no procedure
> for replacing a moderator if you don't like how they moderate. The person
> who controls the email address you pick for the group has absolute and total
> power.
Exactly why there should be co-moderators (that aren't friends outside
the group and represent as many different schools of thought in the
group as possible) and a group of overseers. That way a moderator
*can't* become a "dictator" (at least not for long) - especially since
that the "dictator-moderator" certainly goes against the grain of
Quakerism.
> That said... We really have nothing to lose.
We don't? Somehow, I have a feeling that your idea of "we" and the
actual idea of "we" aren't synonymous.
> >> You need a moderator who is committed
> >> to keeping the group Quaker in practice and discussion (since that's
> >> what several of you have opined of late)
> > That is another debate i guess we'll have to have: what is the purpose of
> > this group and/or the proposed new moderated group. Is it supposed to be
> > like a meeting for worship, or a discussion group, or something else again?
> I would say a discussion group.
>
> And I really don't understand why Kelly even has an opinion on how the group
> is run. I may not be the most long-term Quaker around, but so far as I know,
> Kelly is not and has never been a Quaker, nor has she any interest in
> becoming one.
So? If it is not going to be required for a moderator to be Quaker,
then it seems only fair to me that someone who has been posting here
longer than you've even been in this group should have a say in how
the new group will be run. If being a Quaker is any kind of
requirement for participation (and apparently you are saying it is) -
then you should not even be considered for moderator. Your prejudice
and bias here has been noted. And, BTW - just because Yowie is
favoring you being moderator, I don't think you should necessarily
consider your moderatorship in the bag, Seebs. There are other, more
long-term posters here who should also have a say-so (they may not
necessarily be Quaker or have an interest in being one - are you going
to nix their input as well?).
> > AFAIK, its possible, but it would be easier to create SRQM than change SRQ
> > to moderated.
> I believe so.
>
> BTW, I have another alternative. I know Russ Nelson, and I asked him if he'd
> be willing to moderate the group, and he would. I doubt anyone's going to
> dispute his credentials to moderate or administer Quaker discussions, right?
> (Russ runs quaker.org.)
Wow - seems like you already have everything planned.
As I said earlier, this is all going pretty much the way I expected it
would. And it's raising a lot of red flags with me (if anyone cares).
Seebs
> On Dec 28, 12:45�am, Seebs <usenet-nos...@seebs.net> wrote:
>> Specifically, because of the flood of angry responses to crunch, which appear
>> to be useless.
> That's your take on it. The reality of my responses are actually
> quite different.
I have been pretty much killfiling anyone who responds to crunch a lot.
> Exactly why there should be co-moderators (that aren't friends outside
> the group and represent as many different schools of thought in the
> group as possible) and a group of overseers.
Again, way too much structure.
> That way a moderator
> *can't* become a "dictator" (at least not for long) - especially since
> that the "dictator-moderator" certainly goes against the grain of
> Quakerism.
Doesn't matter what structure you invent.
Someone controls the email address. That person has absolute power.
> We don't? Somehow, I have a feeling that your idea of "we" and the
> actual idea of "we" aren't synonymous.
This newsgroup is currently of no particular value.
> So? If it is not going to be required for a moderator to be Quaker,
> then it seems only fair to me that someone who has been posting here
> longer than you've even been in this group should have a say in how
> the new group will be run.
Be listened to, yes. Be allowed to impose a bureaucratic structure
where none is needed or justified, no.
> If being a Quaker is any kind of
> requirement for participation (and apparently you are saying it is) -
> then you should not even be considered for moderator.
And what is the precise definition you have in mind of "being a
Quaker"?
> Your prejudice
> and bias here has been noted.
lolwut?
I was trying to apply your argument. I didn't think it was a
particularly good one, but the application seemed inconsistent.
> And, BTW - just because Yowie is
> favoring you being moderator, I don't think you should necessarily
> consider your moderatorship in the bag, Seebs.
I don't think it is.
I also don't much care. I'd rather Russ did it, all else being equal,
which is why I asked him.
> There are other, more
> long-term posters here who should also have a say-so (they may not
> necessarily be Quaker or have an interest in being one - are you going
> to nix their input as well?).
My objection is to the fact that you're a non-Quaker who has argued at
length that someone you HAPPEN to think is biased because he killfiled
you shouldn't be a moderator because you don't think he's a Quaker.
Either you shouldn't be pushing an opinion here, or whether or not
I'm a Quaker shouldn't be an issue.
> Wow - seems like you already have everything planned.
lolwut? I saw complaints about the idea of having a non-Quaker moderate
the group, so I nominated an alternative, having first confirmed his
willingness.
> As I said earlier, this is all going pretty much the way I expected it
> would. And it's raising a lot of red flags with me (if anyone cares).
I might care if you came out and said what you think is happening, what
your evidence is, and what your argumentation is. Since you're being
cagey and vague, I can neither confirm nor deny anything, and there's
nothing I can say to address worries you haven't actually come out and
stated.
You're being crunchy. How about this:
1. Describe, IN DETAIL, "pretty much the way I expected it would." Give
concrete examples and explain things specifically. If you think "things"
are happening, say what they are, what you think of them, and why you
think they are happening.
2. Explain your claim that I have "everything planned" as a response
to my posting an announcement of something I'd just thought of and done
within the previous fifteen minutes. How is that a plan?
3. Explain what specifically you think will go wrong in a newsgroup
moderated by a single absolute dictator -- like pretty much every other
moderated Usenet newsgroup.
Basically, right now, all I see is a complete lack of any actual specifics
about what you think is at issue and why you think this elaborate structure
is needed. What do you think will go wrong if we don't have this structure?
What do you care about it? What problem are you trying to solve? Why
do you think it is a problem? Why do you think it is likely to happen?
Why do you think your proposed alternative is less likely to lead to
problems?
Seebs
> the group) wants.
Generally.
> And if it all goes pear shaped and the moderator of SRQM turns out to be a
> psychopathic meglomaniacal dictator, then there's always SRQ which will
> remain unmoderated :-)
I would prefer to moderate SRQ, simply because otherwise people will find
SRQ, discover that Quakers are crazy and obssessive, and wander off. But
I can live with either.
> Whilst the 'checks and balances' really don't have any actual power, they
> can and do give a sense of openness, honesty and accountability.
I think they have the opposite effect, actually. Openness gives a sense
of honesty and accountability. A large organized structure to try to
keep people from acting up clearly communicates an expectation of
dishonesty and coverups.
Basically, the more structured you make things, the more rule-bound they
are and the less they have freedom to react intelligently to circumstances.
I would think that an elaborate structure would be rather contrary to
the spirit of Quaker practice. Nominate committees, discuss things out,
talk about them as you will... But once you reach clarity, *ACT*, don't
sit around forming rules for how you plan to act and devoting resources
to verifying that you're acting according to a carefully-structured plan.
We used to do homeless shelter overflow. We did not find it necessary to
have two people doing the actual work, and four watching them to make sure
they did it.
(<<Kelly>>)
> On 2009-12-28, (<<Kelly>>) <rosie_be...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Excuse me...but shouldn't the initiating *group* decide what the
> > "plan" is. Moderators moderate - they don't get to decide the "plan"
> > all on their own. The moderators are to do what the group decides on
> > and implement what has been agreed upon by the group of overseers.
>
> Lolwut?
LOL all you want...
> This is Usenet. Charters are voted on, moderators are picked, then they
> do whatever they want.
Right. I already picked up on that. And I'm pretty certain that what
you are talking about is exactly not what Yowie and the others who
want a group like this have in mind.
> What "group of overseers"? This is not about creating a bureaucracy.
> We don't need a series of organizations and groups; we need someone
> competent and willing to serve who can do the job. That's it. I know
> it may sound crazy to imagine trusting someone with that kind of power,
> but seriously, we've been doing this for thirty years now, and it works
> brilliantly.
Really? And exactly who is this "we" you are referring to, Peter?
> I've been moderating a Usenet group for well over a decade. I've been
> involved in other moderation stuff in the past, and what I've found is
> that all the elaborate schemes and checks and balances turn out to be
> a pure waste of time. Ultimately, some person owns the domain with the
> email address for the group, and that person has ultimate power, and
> if you stay out of their way, it works fine.
Yep - that's what worries me. You are seeing this thing a whole lot
differently than Yowie is, IMO.
> > Unfortunately, this is already taking shape exactly the way I
> > anticipated. I just didn't expect to see it happen so soon.
>
> I have no idea what you're talking about.
Sure you don't.
> >> And again, this is not about being a Quaker church,
> > I wasn't saying it should be.
>
> And yet, you were making claims about what should be done about running
> it which seem to me to make sense for a church, but not for a discussion
> forum.
A discussion forum that's based in a religion. A religion, BTW, that
you are no longer a part of and don't seem to be wanting to model
after the religion's basic beliefs. In fact, it seems you want to
make it more your forum than the forum of those who have proposed it
be created.
> And why do you care? You're not a Quaker, that I know of. You've never
> expressed any interest that I've seen in discussing Quakerism, as opposed
> to arguing with crunch and general Christianity topics.
I care because I've been around this group for a while. Significantly
longer than you, in fact. I care because I like Yowie a lot. I like
Whiskers. I like a few others who pop in here to comment
occasionally. I think the majority of them are honest people who have
something in mind that differs from what you have in mind. While I
disagree heartily on a lot of things that are said here, I don't want
to see these honest folks who honestly want to have a nice place to
discuss Quaker topics get their honesty and willingness to trust
someone they don't know from Hogan's Goat taking advantage of their
trusting natures by becoming a "dictator" (your words, not mine).
But do keep talking about "dictatorship" and *your* "plans" for the
group...it's raising alot of red flags and concerns for me - and my
hope is that it is doing the same for others who should have (and
probably want) a say in the entire process.
(<<Kelly>>)
Cagey? Not.
Vague? Yes - intentionally so. I would like others to see if they
see what I believe I'm seeing unfold here without them feeling like
I'm telling them what they should see.
Seebs
>> What "group of overseers"? �This is not about creating a bureaucracy.
>> We don't need a series of organizations and groups; we need someone
>> competent and willing to serve who can do the job. �That's it. �I know
>> it may sound crazy to imagine trusting someone with that kind of power,
>> but seriously, we've been doing this for thirty years now, and it works
>> brilliantly.
> Really? And exactly who is this "we" you are referring to, Peter?
Both Usenet and the Friends Meeting I attended before I moved out of the
city it was in.
> Yep - that's what worries me. You are seeing this thing a whole lot
> differently than Yowie is, IMO.
I'm pointing out a key fact.
>> > Unfortunately, this is already taking shape exactly the way I
>> > anticipated. �I just didn't expect to see it happen so soon.
>> I have no idea what you're talking about.
> Sure you don't.
I don't. And yet, you sarcastically say "sure you don't", so you
can imply I'm lying without actually coming out and saying it, or
providing any kind of support? Hmm.
Seriously, that was pretty fucking rude.
How about instead of calling me a liar, you EXPLAIN WHAT YOU
MEANT.
Hint: I'm autistic. I am incapable of experiencing about half of
the normal range of human emotions, ESPECIALLY those related to
status and power relationships. So I'm totally blind about them,
but I've learned that when someone insists that I actually know
what they're talking about, it usually means they're thinking
about some kind of power relationship.
> A discussion forum that's based in a religion.
No, it's ABOUT the religion.
> A religion, BTW, that
> you are no longer a part of
Where do you get this idea?
I do not live somewhere where I can attend regular meetings. How does
that change my religion? If I were Orthodox, and I moved to a small
town with no Orthodox church, would that make me "no longer a part of"
the Orthodox church?
Are you my bishop?
If not, why the fuck are you telling me what religion I am or am not
a part of?
> and don't seem to be wanting to model
> after the religion's basic beliefs.
It's not so much a question of preference.
The *REALITY* is that a usenet moderated group is, always, no matter
what anyone says, an absolute dictatorship by the owner of the domain
for the moderation address. Period.
It is important to keep that in mind. Given that, you can then ask
questions like "can we find someone that we trust to keep that address
forwarded to whoever the group says they want pushing the buttons".
But you have to understand that underlying reality before you can
approach the question of "what is a good way to use this underlying
reality to create the results we want".
I'd guess that some people here would be fine with a Weighty Friend
running the group in traditional dictator style (I would be fine with
that, because I have seen enough Quakers in positions of authority to
be basically unbothered by the notion). Some might rather have the
email address forwarding done by someone who is not one of the
people doing the actual moderating, so those people could be replaced.
("People" plural seems excessive, though -- this is a low-traffic
group.)
> In fact, it seems you want to
> make it more your forum
To whom does it seem that way? On what basis do those people draw
that conclusion?
> than the forum of those who have proposed it
> be created.
Those who have proposed it, plural?
Yowie was the first proponent, so far as I know. I think I was the
second or third.
> I care because I've been around this group for a while. Significantly
> longer than you, in fact.
Huh. I thought you were new here when I came back this time -- you weren't
here in the past when I was participating, that I remember.
Note that this year is not the first time I've participated in SRQ.
> I care because I like Yowie a lot. I like
> Whiskers. I like a few others who pop in here to comment
> occasionally. I think the majority of them are honest people who have
> something in mind that differs from what you have in mind.
This discussion has been going on for about two days, and only a
handful people have mentioned ANYTHING about what they have in mind.
I haven't seen anyone but you agitating for an elaborate setup with
an oversight group monitoring performance.
> While I
> disagree heartily on a lot of things that are said here, I don't want
> to see these honest folks who honestly want to have a nice place to
> discuss Quaker topics get their honesty and willingness to trust
> someone they don't know from Hogan's Goat taking advantage of their
> trusting natures by becoming a "dictator" (your words, not mine).
Many of these people do know me, though. Furthermore, I'm an open
book -- I've been posting as "seebs" for something on the close
order of two decades, with tens of thousands of posts available on
Usenet or bulletin boards for people who want to see what I'm like
when I have power.
> But do keep talking about "dictatorship" and *your* "plans" for the
> group...it's raising alot of red flags and concerns for me - and my
> hope is that it is doing the same for others who should have (and
> probably want) a say in the entire process.
Why don't you be a bit more specific about those flags and concerns?
Keep in mind that I'm a pedant. The formal reality of Usenet is that
the owner of the domain with the moderation address has total and
absolute control over the newsgroup. If you want committees and such,
fine, but be aware that ultimately they can't do anything if the person
who owns that domain goes mad with power.
In short, the big selling point of the oversight group is a non-starter;
in fact, they *can't* do anything if the one person who controls the
server that receives the email goes crazy. So they don't change the
fact that you're ultimately dependant on that person not going crazy.
At which point, why impose all this bureaucracy? The only case in which
you need some kind of comittee which has powers is the case in which
they have no powers after all.
Note that I have not, in any of this, articulated what I'd like to see
for policies or oversight -- I'm merely making the *technical* point
that there's nothing you can do if the person with the email server
turns on you.
If it were up to me, I'd advocate a group policy that people would always
be welcome to discuss moderation policy and choices openly, which is
conveniently covered automatically by the standard topicality rules for
Usenet.
Seebs
> Vague? Yes - intentionally so. I would like others to see if they
> see what I believe I'm seeing unfold here without them feeling like
> I'm telling them what they should see.
Which means you can accuse me of various malfeasance without ever having
to make a single testable claim which someone could show to be wrong; I
am accused, but denied even the knowledge of what I am accused of, making
it pretty hard for me to respond.
Not cool.
Also, you've accused me of lying once already, which strikes me as clear
evidence that you are either an exceptionally poor judge of character
or not acting in good faith.
(<<Kelly>>)
> > Yep - that's what worries me. You are seeing this thing a whole lot
> > differently than Yowie is, IMO.
> I'm pointing out a key fact.
You're seeing things a whole lot differently than I believe Yowie is.
And a few others.
> >> > Unfortunately, this is already taking shape exactly the way I
> >> > anticipated. I just didn't expect to see it happen so soon.
> >> I have no idea what you're talking about.
> > Sure you don't.
> I don't. And yet, you sarcastically say "sure you don't", so you
> can imply I'm lying without actually coming out and saying it, or
> providing any kind of support? Hmm.
Hmmm right back at you. What I meant to write above was "I'm sure you
don't".
> Seriously, that was pretty fucking rude.
Seriously, your language is getting rude as well as crude. And all
because I don't think you should be Herr Dictator.
> How about instead of calling me a liar, you EXPLAIN WHAT YOU
> MEANT.
Why are you shouting?
> Hint: I'm autistic. I am incapable of experiencing about half of
> the normal range of human emotions, ESPECIALLY those related to
> status and power relationships. So I'm totally blind about them
Another good reason why you should not be moderating a Quaker forum.
You are incapable of being what is needed of a moderator in a Quaker
forum because you are on the spectrum.
> but I've learned that when someone insists that I actually know
> what they're talking about, it usually means they're thinking
> about some kind of power relationship.
>
> > A discussion forum that's based in a religion.
> No, it's ABOUT the religion.
No, it's about both.
> > A religion, BTW, that
> > you are no longer a part of
> Where do you get this idea?
From what you've said in the past. From your behavior in this
thread. From your behavior right now.
> I do not live somewhere where I can attend regular meetings. How does
> that change my religion? If I were Orthodox, and I moved to a small
> town with no Orthodox church, would that make me "no longer a part of"
> the Orthodox church?
So now you're saying you are a Friend? A while back you said you
weren't, but have attended some Quaker meetings in the past (IIRC).
> Are you my bishop?
Nope. Just an observer of behavior.
> If not, why the fuck are you telling me what religion I am or am not
> a part of?
Nice. Very "Quaker" of you. Is that your version of "plain talk"?
> > and don't seem to be wanting to model
> > after the religion's basic beliefs.
>
> It's not so much a question of preference.
To you, maybe...
> The *REALITY* is that a usenet moderated group is, always, no matter
> what anyone says, an absolute dictatorship by the owner of the domain
> for the moderation address. Period.
And that goes against Quaker thought and practice. And that's exactly
why a moderated group has been voted down when discussed previously
(IIRC).
> It is important to keep that in mind. Given that, you can then ask
> questions like "can we find someone that we trust to keep that address
> forwarded to whoever the group says they want pushing the buttons".
>
> But you have to understand that underlying reality before you can
> approach the question of "what is a good way to use this underlying
> reality to create the results we want".
>
> I'd guess that some people here would be fine with a Weighty Friend
> running the group in traditional dictator style (I would be fine with
> that, because I have seen enough Quakers in positions of authority to
> be basically unbothered by the notion).
Except you're not a Friend.
> Some might rather have the
> email address forwarding done by someone who is not one of the
> people doing the actual moderating, so those people could be replaced.
> ("People" plural seems excessive, though -- this is a low-traffic
> group.)
More than one makes it "people".
> > In fact, it seems you want to
> > make it more your forum
> To whom does it seem that way?
To me. Maybe to others who have or will read your posts in this
thread.
> On what basis do those people draw
> that conclusion?
>
> > than the forum of those who have proposed it
> > be created.
> Those who have proposed it, plural?
Mmm-hmm. Now and in the past with those who have brought it up
previously.
> Yowie was the first proponent, so far as I know. I think I was the
> second or third.
Third maybe. And let's not forget the lurkers who read but don't
post.
> > I care because I've been around this group for a while. Significantly
> > longer than you, in fact.
> Huh. I thought you were new here when I came back this time -- you weren't
> here in the past when I was participating, that I remember.
I've been here in SRQ for over two years, IIRC.
> Note that this year is not the first time I've participated in SRQ.
Note that this year is not the first time *I've* participated in SRQ.
> > I care because I like Yowie a lot. I like
> > Whiskers. I like a few others who pop in here to comment
> > occasionally. I think the majority of them are honest people who have
> > something in mind that differs from what you have in mind.
> This discussion has been going on for about two days, and only a
> handful people have mentioned ANYTHING about what they have in mind.
I've been around this group long enough to have an understanding of
what I believe those who would prefer a moderated group are looking
for.
> I haven't seen anyone but you agitating for an elaborate setup with
> an oversight group monitoring performance.
"Agitating"? Ala Norma Rae? I guess you're anti-union, too...? ;-)
> > While I
> > disagree heartily on a lot of things that are said here, I don't want
> > to see these honest folks who honestly want to have a nice place to
> > discuss Quaker topics get their honesty and willingness to trust
> > someone they don't know from Hogan's Goat taking advantage of their
> > trusting natures by becoming a "dictator" (your words, not mine).
> Many of these people do know me, though. Furthermore, I'm an open
> book -- I've been posting as "seebs" for something on the close
> order of two decades, with tens of thousands of posts available on
> Usenet or bulletin boards for people who want to see what I'm like
> when I have power.
When you have "power"? Interesting choice of words. Especially for a
Quaker forum.
> > But do keep talking about "dictatorship" and *your* "plans" for the
> > group...it's raising alot of red flags and concerns for me - and my
> > hope is that it is doing the same for others who should have (and
> > probably want) a say in the entire process.
> Why don't you be a bit more specific about those flags and concerns?
I'm holding back intentionally.
> Keep in mind that I'm a pedant. The formal reality of Usenet is that
> the owner of the domain with the moderation address has total and
> absolute control over the newsgroup.
Ultimately, yes. But in the beginning, people come together to put
standards and a "mission statement" together. You aren't interested
in having that happen.
That's a problem, in my book.
> If you want committees and such,
> fine, but be aware that ultimately they can't do anything if the person
> who owns that domain goes mad with power.
>
> In short, the big selling point of the oversight group is a non-starter;
But certainly more Quakerly in approach.
> in fact, they *can't* do anything if the one person who controls the
> server that receives the email goes crazy.
Yep - I get it.
> So they don't change the
> fact that you're ultimately dependant on that person not going crazy.
Yep. Got that, too.
> At which point, why impose all this bureaucracy?
In the beginning. When deciding on moderation policy, for starters.
> The only case in which
> you need some kind of comittee which has powers is the case in which
> they have no powers after all.
>
> Note that I have not, in any of this, articulated what I'd like to see
> for policies or oversight --
You've said enough to tell me that you don't have the same vision of
many here (who've been here longer than you).
> I'm merely making the *technical* point
> that there's nothing you can do if the person with the email server
> turns on you.
Mmm-hmm. I already got that.
Not very Quakerly, is it?
> If it were up to me, I'd advocate a group policy that people would always
> be welcome to discuss moderation policy and choices openly, which is
> conveniently covered automatically by the standard topicality rules for
> Usenet.
"Discuss", but not have a say-so in anything (and who's to say that
this "discussion" would have any bearing on anything?)
Regardless, I say that the group who wants a moderated group should be
the ones making the ground rules and the group "charter". Not the
"dictator" (again, your words) moderator.
Yowie
news:699e331a-c513-4880...@n16g2000yqm.googlegroups.com
> On Dec 28, 1:44 am, Seebs <usenet-nos...@seebs.net> wrote:
>
>>> Yep - that's what worries me. You are seeing this thing a whole lot
>>> differently than Yowie is, IMO.
>
>
>> I'm pointing out a key fact.
>
> You're seeing things a whole lot differently than I believe Yowie is.
> And a few others.
Seebs is expressing it very differently, but I know what he says is 100%
true. Whoever owns the e-mail address to which *all* the posts to the
hypothetical SRQM will have to go through is a dictator, and has the
potential to be behave like an evil dictator that no-one can stop. Most
people who hold own the e-mail addresses for their moderated forums (be that
Yahoo groups, or Usenet groups) tend to be (but not always) the *benign*
dictator type.
The reason why David can no longer run his Yahoo group qumran_origin - he no
longer has access to the e-mail address that controls the group.
The moderator or moderators may or may not be the person who owns the e-mail
address for the moderated group.
>> Hint: I'm autistic. I am incapable of experiencing about half of
>> the normal range of human emotions, ESPECIALLY those related to
>> status and power relationships. So I'm totally blind about them
>
> Another good reason why you should not be moderating a Quaker forum.
> You are incapable of being what is needed of a moderator in a Quaker
> forum because you are on the spectrum.
IMHO, Aspie people are ideal moderators, because they take things as they
are, and not as they seem, because Aspies have great difficulty figuring out
what is 'between the lines' (if at all). I could be biased towards Aspies,
however.
>> but I've learned that when someone insists that I actually know
>> what they're talking about, it usually means they're thinking
>> about some kind of power relationship.
>>
>>> A discussion forum that's based in a religion.
>
>
>> No, it's ABOUT the religion.
>
> No, it's about both.
My view (for what little its worth)
Its for:
Quakers
Those interested in Quakerism
to discuss:
The faith and practice of Quakerism
Any other topic, from a Quaker perspective
*snip*
>> The *REALITY* is that a usenet moderated group is, always, no matter
>> what anyone says, an absolute dictatorship by the owner of the domain
>> for the moderation address. Period.
>
> And that goes against Quaker thought and practice. And that's exactly
> why a moderated group has been voted down when discussed previously
> (IIRC).
Both what you say and what Seebs says above is true.
However, there are (to my mind) 5 options for SRQ's future. They are:
1) Leave it as is, which currently has an extremely low signal:noise and
seems to attract kooks with off-topic rants and mad crossposting
2) Attempt to revive the unmoderated SRQ (not impossible, but has been tried
and has failed many times)
3) Delete it, and move to other forums for Quakers that exist on the 'web
(leaving no Quaker presence on Usenet)
4) Moderate SRQ
5) Leave SRQ to those who oppose censorship, and create a moderated SRQM
(with the understanding that, yes, a moderated group is in essence a
dictatorship or, at best, an ogliarchy)
What is in the best interest of SRQ, and the Quaker faith?
>> It is important to keep that in mind. Given that, you can then ask
>> questions like "can we find someone that we trust to keep that
>> address forwarded to whoever the group says they want pushing the
>> buttons".
>>
>> But you have to understand that underlying reality before you can
>> approach the question of "what is a good way to use this underlying
>> reality to create the results we want".
>>
>> I'd guess that some people here would be fine with a Weighty Friend
>> running the group in traditional dictator style (I would be fine with
>> that, because I have seen enough Quakers in positions of authority to
>> be basically unbothered by the notion).
>
> Except you're not a Friend.
In fairness, Seebs did suggest a Weighty Friend as an alternative (the owner
of www.quaker.org)
>> Some might rather have the
>> email address forwarding done by someone who is not one of the
>> people doing the actual moderating, so those people could be
>> replaced. ("People" plural seems excessive, though -- this is a
>> low-traffic
>> group.)
>
> More than one makes it "people".
Is there a need for more than one trustworthy and capable moderator on a low
traffic group?
>>> In fact, it seems you want to
>>> make it more your forum
>
>> To whom does it seem that way?
>
> To me. Maybe to others who have or will read your posts in this
> thread.
I can see why you might think that, Kelly, but what Seebs says is true and
taking his Aspieness into account, has no further value to be read 'in
between the lines'. He's just stating the facts. (This is what I like about
Aspies, btw, WYSIWYG, no need to second guess)
*snip*
>> Keep in mind that I'm a pedant. The formal reality of Usenet is that
>> the owner of the domain with the moderation address has total and
>> absolute control over the newsgroup.
>
> Ultimately, yes. But in the beginning, people come together to put
> standards and a "mission statement" together. You aren't interested
> in having that happen.
People approach problems in different ways. Whilst I'm in the process of
writing out a proposed charter for the hypothetical SRQM (the 'why'), Seebs
is talking about the process of moderating (the 'how')
>> If you want committees and such,
>> fine, but be aware that ultimately they can't do anything if the
>> person who owns that domain goes mad with power.
>>
>> In short, the big selling point of the oversight group is a
>> non-starter;
>
> But certainly more Quakerly in approach.
>
>> in fact, they *can't* do anything if the one person who controls the
>> server that receives the email goes crazy.
>
> Yep - I get it.
>
>> So they don't change the
>> fact that you're ultimately dependant on that person not going crazy.
>
> Yep. Got that, too.
>
>> At which point, why impose all this bureaucracy?
>
> In the beginning.
Well, it doesn't have to be at the absolute start. There are other bits we
have to figure out - like the charter, for example. And we've really only
heard from 4 people on this. You, me, Seebs and Ian D. Its reassuring to
think that we all agree (do we?) that the creation of SRQM is the best way
to go, but there's still alot of deatil to cover
> When deciding on moderation policy, for starters.
Very true.
Perhaps Seebs would like to manage the 'how to moderate this SRQM' part of
the discussion.
I would like to lead the discussion of the charter, if thats OK with folks.
>> The only case in which
>> you need some kind of comittee which has powers is the case in which
>> they have no powers after all.
>>
>> Note that I have not, in any of this, articulated what I'd like to
>> see for policies or oversight --
>
> You've said enough to tell me that you don't have the same vision of
> many here (who've been here longer than you).
I think Seebs is just emphasising the bits he knows best, which is the
moderation process. Ihavent' seen Seebs say anything about what he thinks
the group would do or what the charter woudl say, but then again, we haven't
really started discussing that bit yet.
We've barely even started the 'Hey, lets start a moderated forum' discussion
:-)
>> I'm merely making the *technical* point
>> that there's nothing you can do if the person with the email server
>> turns on you.
>
> Mmm-hmm. I already got that.
>
> Not very Quakerly, is it?
No, its not. And thats the precise reason why SRQ was specifically *not*
moderated at the time of its creation (1992)
>> If it were up to me, I'd advocate a group policy that people would
>> always be welcome to discuss moderation policy and choices openly,
>> which is conveniently covered automatically by the standard
>> topicality rules for Usenet.
>
> "Discuss", but not have a say-so in anything (and who's to say that
> this "discussion" would have any bearing on anything?)
>
> Regardless, I say that the group who wants a moderated group should be
> the ones making the ground rules and the group "charter". Not the
> "dictator" (again, your words) moderator.
But thats exactly what Seebs is saying. The 'group' can make up the ground
rules and the "charter" (as they should), but the group who makes the ground
rules and 'charter' has no actual power to ensure that the person who holds
that e-mail address (the 'dictator') upholds those rules and the charter.
All the group can do is trust that the person they choose to control that
e-mail address is honest and does the job that the group gave them, that is,
the person they choose to hold the reins of the group is a *benign*
dictator. There is a process for kicking a moderator out, but if you think
the *creation* of a Big8 group is painful, the removal of a rogue (or even
just plain absent) moderator is even harder. There it is *vitally* important
that the group is moderated by a person the group as whole trusts with the
life of the group.
I still think Seebs is more than capable, but would actually prefer Russ
Nelson now that he's offered.
azure
respond to this.
"Yowie" <yowie9644....@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:7po9tu...@mid.individual.net...
> (iRFD: informal Request For Discussion)
>
> Given the level of dissatisfaction here, I can see several options:
>
> 1) Do nothing, letting SRQ continue on the path is is going.
> 2) Attempt to get SRQ back on-topic
> 3) Delete SRQ from the Big 8
> 4) Change SRQ to a moderated group
> 5) Leave SRQ to its own devices, and create its moderated counterpart
> soc.religion.quaker.moderated
>
> Option 1 does not address anything and is the easiest to implement.
> Without serious intervention, it will turn into many other groups that
> have lost their way - a venue for flame wars and spam and very little if
> any actual on-topic content (one could well argue it is already there.)
I agree. I see this group as an eyesore, a black eye on Quakerism, even
though it's rather obvious to even the careless observer that there are very
few actual Quakers here having pertinent Quaker discussions. If I were a
Quaker, I'd find it a bit of an embarrassment, actually. (I'm not, but at
the height of my posting here, was seriously interested, and went to a few
local meetings.)
I speak from the perspective of witnessing the slow death of what I once
considered my "home" newsgroup. It basically died because of a handful of
extremely toxic personalities that gained inordinate social power. There
were other newsgroups that faced similar challenges during the same era but
retained a core membership of people who would provide reasonably on-topic
discussions.
The ideal of being "on-topic" should not be taken too rigidly, imo.
Newsgroup participants can start to see each other as friends and may shoot
the breeze about politics, cooking, whatever trivia enters their lives.
That, imo, is healthy. It's the persistent obsessive pushing of one pet
idea, an idea that is tangential or even contrary to the core values of the
group, that is what I would call truly "off-topic" and harmful. An example
of this may be a NAMBLA member entering a newsgroup of childhood sexual
abuse survivors and persistently arguing that adult-child sexual
relationships can be healthy.
I see the fundamentalist Christian evangelism posts in that light. As is
the discussion of Thiering. It seems that many people have grown to see
this newsgroup as one more of many that can be filled with proselytizing for
a different religion than Quakerism. Who cares if it fits, just keep
pounding people with the word.
Regarding David ... I am not willing to give him an automatic pass because
of any mental illness. I believe he has more power over his behavior than
he has chosen to use. I myself have, regrettably, had fun at his expense,
and have enjoyed watching Kelly opening her endless cans of whup-ass on him.
In his rudeness and self-centeredness he's had it coming. Yet, I have to
agree with someone in this thread who asked, "Is this helping?" Or rather,
as I suspect, are the harangues merely feeding his sickness in some way?
Also, I think we should look at what it does to us, to either dole out
endless punishment or contribute to a place where this type of thing
constantly happens.
> I personally think that Option 5 - the creation of SRQM alongside SRQ
> would probably be hte best option overall. I have no objection to Peter
> Seebach moderating it.
I agree.
If others think the power should be held by more people than him, I would
agree with the person he suggested.
Furthermore, I would consider you, yourself, to be a good choice as
moderator.
azure
azure
> "(<<Kelly>>)" <rosie...@rocketmail.com> wrote in message
> news:699e331a-c513-4880...@n16g2000yqm.googlegroups.com
>>
>> You are incapable of being what is needed of a moderator in a Quaker
>> forum because you are on the spectrum.
>
I agree.
azure
Ian Davis
>> AFAIK, its possible, but it would be easier to create SRQM than change SRQ
>> to moderated.
>
>I believe so.
>
I am concerned that that approach doesn't address the fact that there is
a conspicuous newsgroup with quaker in its title which would then send an
even worse message about what the RSofF was all about. If it were possible
to change SRQ to a moderated forum that would address the concern of
Quakers themselves I believe better, than setting up a parallel newsgroup.
Perhaps that concern might be partially addressed by extending the FAQ
for SRQ to explain that those concerned with the quality of discussion
as it related to Quakerism had formed an alternative moderated forum
that attempted to address the deficiencies in SRQ.
>BTW, I have another alternative. I know Russ Nelson, and I asked him if he'd
>be willing to moderate the group, and he would. I doubt anyone's going to
>dispute his credentials to moderate or administer Quaker discussions, right?
>(Russ runs quaker.org.)
>
Is there really a requirement that a single person to take on all the work of
moderating this forum. Could not the work be shared by a dynamic committee.
I too know Russ through his interactions here. I also know that he was one
of the original voters voting in support of this group. Happy to have any
help he might be able to give. Say hi to him for me.
Ian.
Ian Davis
Seebs <usenet...@seebs.net> wrote:
>On 2009-12-28, (<<Kelly>>) <rosie...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 28, 12:45�am, Seebs <usenet-nos...@seebs.net> wrote:
>>> Specifically, because of the flood of angry responses to crunch, which appear
>>> to be useless.
>
>> That's your take on it. The reality of my responses are actually
>> quite different.
>
>I have been pretty much killfiling anyone who responds to crunch a lot.
>
I myself am struck by the irony that some of those seems to spend their
life simply replying "hobby horse" with a few words attached, never
seemingly realising that the doing so has become their very own
"hobby horse".
>And what is the precise definition you have in mind of "being a
>Quaker"?
We've been there done that. There seem two conflicting extremes to that
question with very little middle ground and less given by those with
opinions on the subject. Engineer and Kirby hold to the view that
any may call themselves Quaker, and may do so without reference to
any earthly qualification such as membership in the RSofF. They see
the notion of being Quaker as pertaining to action and relationship
with God; not with formalities. Others, most notably Marshall feel
that dictionary definition requires membership in the RSofF to be
Quaker, and once a member one is Quaker irrespective of how one
behaves. Marshall says that the term Quaker, Quakerly, Quakerism,
and any other attempt to describe the property of Quakerlyness can
only refer to dictionary definition of Quaker... there is no property
outside being a member of RSofF which by being attached to the notion
of Quaker doesn't distort the meaning of Quaker. Engineer seeks to
make the term Quaker an inclusive one that any may decide they are.
Marshall thinks that if any may decide that they are Quaker without
caveat about being member of the RSofF, then the reality of what it
means to be Quaker is watered down, distorted, and undermined by the
very ones who are not Quaker... Thats as close as I can get to the
gist of the difference between Engineer and Marshall here. While
myself extremely unhappy about my own resulting inability to discuss
any attribute of being Quaker except the one that to me needs least
discussion -- which is the issue of being a member of the RSoF --
I found that my own belief in correct use of language, and my
recognition of the harm done when some clearly not Quaker, make
claims that they are the better to lead others astray, forcing me
to accept Marshalls point of view as being legitimate. However,
perhaps Engineer did have a point in asserting that the notion of
being Quaker predates the dictionary use of that word and so can't
be constrained by it. A very deep, profound philosophical discussion
lies at the core of this issue.. all that happened on SRQ was that
Engineer slammed the door on the way out, and later after returning
Marshall slammed the door on the way out. Those who claim to be
Quaker here have not always displayed the level of tolerants and
respect for other Quakers that might have served some good, rather
than caused further harm to this forum.
>> And, BTW - just because Yowie is
>> favoring you being moderator, I don't think you should necessarily
>> consider your moderatorship in the bag, Seebs.
>
>I don't think it is.
>
>I also don't much care. I'd rather Russ did it, all else being equal,
>which is why I asked him.
>
I know Russ well from his time here. I personally think you are the
candidate I might prefer. You might if moderator implies being moderate
be the better candidate, though I personally think a collection of people
willing to help out with moderating is better than dumping the job on any
one individuals shoulders.
Russ has strong opinions which might (not saying they would) show as sole
moderator. I never exactly worked out what his politics were but somewhere
between libertarian and anarchist would I hope not offend him as a starting
description. He has voiced some opposition to "arab culture" and islam here,
which I at the time found painful, and didn't suffer in silence. In fairness
I have equally strong opinions in entirely the opposite direction so might
apply all that I say about Russell to myself also. It is after all easier
to find specks in others eyes than planks in ones own.
Here is a sampling:
"That's why the problem is not an 'Arab' problem, nor a 'Muslim'
problem, but an Arab culture problem. There are obviously people in
America (many of them) who do not participate in "American culture".
"
http://groups.google.ca/group/soc.religion.quaker/msg/cb3e6f3dedef39ec
"There's another, less cynical, possiblity: that our true enemy here is
not Afghanis, not Iraqis, and not Muslims, but instead Islamists --
those people who think that religion and government should be one in
the same thing -- and that THEIR religion should be OUR government.
Bush is taking the war to the Islamists, who are mainly Arabs. They
were not impressed when Afghanistan fell. "They're just Afghanis".
When we defeat, occupy, and improve an Arab country, they will see
that Allah is not on their side. When Iraq's neighbors see that Iraq
has profited from an American Occupation (just as Germany and Japan
profited from our control), they will have less respect for Islamism.
Iraq is currently being led by a person who is not very nice. Many
people are suffering in Iraq -- a suffering not caused by UN
sanctions. If they were, then you would see the suffering being
shared equally. Instead, Hussein is carefully parcelling out the
suffering, so that his political enemies suffer much more than their
share.
While I can't say that I want a war to do it, I can say that the Iraqi
people would benefit greatly from a more democratic, more free-market
society. So would their neighbors.
"
http://groups.google.ca/group/soc.religion.quaker/msg/4c829fe4f1cf9c5b
All of the above said, Russ is enormously capable, and has far more
grounds to feel that he has made real contributions to many fields,
including all his work with Quakers and Quaker causes than I. I consider
him both Quaker and friend. But his views on arab culture are ones I
personally have qualms about. This may be because he is coming at things
from an American perspective, which influences his opinions, just as I
am coming at things from a Canadian perspective which influences mine.
Ian.
crunch
>...
> I see the fundamentalist Christian evangelism posts in that light. As is
> the discussion of Thiering. It seems that many people have grown to see
> this newsgroup as one more of many that can be filled with proselytizing for
> a different religion than Quakerism. Who cares if it fits, just keep
> pounding people with the word.
>
> Regarding David ... I am not willing to give him an automatic pass because
> of any mental illness. I believe he has more power over his behavior than
> he has chosen to use. I myself have, regrettably, had fun at his expense,
> and have enjoyed watching Kelly opening her endless cans of whup-ass on him.
> In his rudeness and self-centeredness he's had it coming. Yet, I have to
> agree with someone in this thread who asked, "Is this helping?" Or rather,
> as I suspect, are the harangues merely feeding his sickness in some way?
> Also, I think we should look at what it does to us, to either dole out
> endless punishment or contribute to a place where this type of thing
> constantly happens.
So, "we" do not discuss Thiering and never have; instead,
"we" bash her and call her a crackpot; "our" failure is
that "our" conversation was never like an academic seminar.
To be harshly but accurately critical - I never have
done "harangues" on SRQ; instead, they were extracts
from Dr. Thiering's articles. Thus, Azure has wandered
into illusion and fantasy here in her reckless and
UNQUAKERLY accusation.
Bottom line - I give the accurate information and sound
basis for SRQers to make up their own minds on the
validity of the Thiering Thesis. As to its connection
to quakerism, it shows that Jesus Christ was and IS
not divine because Jesus did not die on the cross.
Nonetheless, Jesus can be a model for living for some
Friends and also for those who play at quakerism like me.
But further, the Course of Miracles group at Cambridge
Meeting, which I participate in, is an outlet for some
Friends and myself for spiritual instruction and guidance
AND is sponsored by a Quaker committee.
-----
It is morally disgraceful and disgusting that Azure
endorses the idea that I am mentally ill without
the sound basis of even showing a shred of evidence
for it. Azure's bad.
Also, please note the unworthy motive that Azure
admits to; Azure "enjoyed" the punishment that
Kelly dished out to me; that shows Azure's bad
side of character.
Peace (after the Quaker fashion),
David Christainsen
Newton, Mass. USA
crunch
> I left this group and came back a couple of times and have come back
> since last leaving to see what's happening.
>
> This time I am back to see what is up in response to the fact of this
> thread (news of which has been circulating in some Quaker circles).
>...
> Timothy Travis
> Bridge City Friends Meeting
> Portland, Oregon
>...
It is good to hear that some Quaker circles have this
"news" that has been "circulating".
(<<Kelly>>)
> "(<<Kelly>>)" <rosie_be...@rocketmail.com> wrote in message
And as someone who as extensive professional experience with those who
have Asperger Syndrome, I can tell you that allowing someone with the
condition to have complete control in a group like you likely want is
a risky proposition.
There is if you want transparency.
> >>> In fact, it seems you want to
> >>> make it more your forum
>
> >> To whom does it seem that way?
>
> > To me. Maybe to others who have or will read your posts in this
> > thread.
>
> I can see why you might think that, Kelly, but what Seebs says is true and
> taking his Aspieness into account, has no further value to be read 'in
> between the lines'. He's just stating the facts. (This is what I like about
> Aspies, btw, WYSIWYG, no need to second guess)
Ibid (re: those with Asperger Syndrome - and I don't know how Seebs
feels about it, but "Aspies" isn't really kosher - at least not with
those I know and everything I've been taught while studying for my
profession. Would you refer to someone with Down Syndrome as a
"Downie"?)
> *snip*
>
> >> Keep in mind that I'm a pedant. The formal reality of Usenet is that
> >> the owner of the domain with the moderation address has total and
> >> absolute control over the newsgroup.
>
> > Ultimately, yes. But in the beginning, people come together to put
> > standards and a "mission statement" together. You aren't interested
> > in having that happen.
>
> People approach problems in different ways. Whilst I'm in the process of
> writing out a proposed charter for the hypothetical SRQM (the 'why'), Seebs
> is talking about the process of moderating (the 'how')
I don't see that he's doing that. I see that he has "plans" and he's
already stated that he doesn't understand why anyone in this group
should have a say-so on how it's run and how it's put together.
> >> If you want committees and such,
> >> fine, but be aware that ultimately they can't do anything if the
> >> person who owns that domain goes mad with power.
>
> >> In short, the big selling point of the oversight group is a
> >> non-starter;
>
> > But certainly more Quakerly in approach.
>
> >> in fact, they *can't* do anything if the one person who controls the
> >> server that receives the email goes crazy.
>
> > Yep - I get it.
>
> >> So they don't change the
> >> fact that you're ultimately dependant on that person not going crazy.
>
> > Yep. Got that, too.
>
> >> At which point, why impose all this bureaucracy?
>
> > In the beginning.
>
> Well, it doesn't have to be at the absolute start. There are other bits we
> have to figure out - like the charter, for example. And we've really only
> heard from 4 people on this. You, me, Seebs and Ian D. Its reassuring to
> think that we all agree (do we?) that the creation of SRQM is the best way
> to go, but there's still alot of deatil to cover
It's the best way to go for a group with a different focus, yes.
> > When deciding on moderation policy, for starters.
>
> Very true.
>
> Perhaps Seebs would like to manage the 'how to moderate this SRQM' part of
> the discussion.
With everyone who has a stake in this group at this time in agreement
with what he decides...no?
> I would like to lead the discussion of the charter, if thats OK with folks.
Fine with me.
> >> The only case in which
> >> you need some kind of comittee which has powers is the case in which
> >> they have no powers after all.
>
> >> Note that I have not, in any of this, articulated what I'd like to
> >> see for policies or oversight --
>
> > You've said enough to tell me that you don't have the same vision of
> > many here (who've been here longer than you).
>
> I think Seebs is just emphasising the bits he knows best, which is the
> moderation process. Ihavent' seen Seebs say anything about what he thinks
> the group would do or what the charter woudl say, but then again, we haven't
> really started discussing that bit yet.
Well...you haven't seen him say that yet. But I don't agree that he
hasn't already made some "plans" and decided some stuff on his own.
> We've barely even started the 'Hey, lets start a moderated forum' discussion
> :-)
Yes - and that's one of the reasons why picking the first person to
jump up and say "I'll moderate" is a bad idea. What's the rush? Why
not give it some time and let it come together over time rather than
being so hasty?
> >> I'm merely making the *technical* point
> >> that there's nothing you can do if the person with the email server
> >> turns on you.
>
> > Mmm-hmm. I already got that.
>
> > Not very Quakerly, is it?
> No, its not. And thats the precise reason why SRQ was specifically *not*
> moderated at the time of its creation (1992)
I know that. A year or two ago, someone else had brought up the
possibility of moderating the group. And I believe it was you who
said exactly what you said above. And that's exactly why I believe
that the type of moderation Seebs is talking about (ala a "dictator"
without anyone to keep him accountable) is *not* what you really want.
> >> If it were up to me, I'd advocate a group policy that people would
> >> always be welcome to discuss moderation policy and choices openly,
> >> which is conveniently covered automatically by the standard
> >> topicality rules for Usenet.
>
> > "Discuss", but not have a say-so in anything (and who's to say that
> > this "discussion" would have any bearing on anything?)
>
> > Regardless, I say that the group who wants a moderated group should be
> > the ones making the ground rules and the group "charter". Not the
> > "dictator" (again, your words) moderator.
>
> But thats exactly what Seebs is saying. The 'group' can make up the ground
> rules and the "charter" (as they should), but the group who makes the ground
> rules and 'charter' has no actual power to ensure that the person who holds
> that e-mail address (the 'dictator') upholds those rules and the charter.
> All the group can do is trust that the person they choose to control that
> e-mail address is honest and does the job that the group gave them, that is,
> the person they choose to hold the reins of the group is a *benign*
> dictator. There is a process for kicking a moderator out, but if you think
> the *creation* of a Big8 group is painful, the removal of a rogue (or even
> just plain absent) moderator is even harder. There it is *vitally* important
> that the group is moderated by a person the group as whole trusts with the
> life of the group.
Are you sure that's "exactly what Seebs is saying"? Has he expressed
that to you in a private email or something? Because I sure haven't
seen him express that here. I've seen him express other things, but
not that.
> I still think Seebs is more than capable, but would actually prefer Russ
> Nelson now that he's offered.
Then he should definitely be considered.
Seebs
> writing out a proposed charter for the hypothetical SRQM (the 'why'), Seebs
> is talking about the process of moderating (the 'how')
Exactly.
> I would like to lead the discussion of the charter, if thats OK with folks.
Sounds great to me. I have a lot of ideas for what I'd like to see, based
on prior experience, but I doubt that any of them will differ from what most
of the rest of the participants want anyway.
Seebs
> And as someone who as extensive professional experience with those who
> have Asperger Syndrome, I can tell you that allowing someone with the
> condition to have complete control in a group like you likely want is
> a risky proposition.
Without further data, sure. Wouldn't it be awesome if we had, say, ten
or more years of data about how I moderate Usenet groups, as well as hundreds
or thousands of posts by me on various forums showing my opinions about
forum governance?
>> Is there a need for more than one trustworthy and capable moderator on a low
>> traffic group?
> There is if you want transparency.
How so, exactly?
> Ibid (re: those with Asperger Syndrome - and I don't know how Seebs
> feels about it, but "Aspies" isn't really kosher - at least not with
> those I know and everything I've been taught while studying for my
> profession. Would you refer to someone with Down Syndrome as a
> "Downie"?)
If a ton of them had web pages up using the term, and referred to themselves
that way, I probably would. Except I might be worried about confusing them
with fabric softener.
> I don't see that he's doing that.
Your vision of me is markedly inaccurate.
> I see that he has "plans"
You see incorrectly.
> and he's
> already stated that he doesn't understand why anyone in this group
> should have a say-so on how it's run and how it's put together.
No, I haven't.
I've said that, *IF* we grant your assertion that the moderator ought to be
a Real Quaker (TM), then it probably follows that a non-Quaker who appears
to have little interest in Quaker thought or practice probably shouldn't be
able to simply add bureaucracy to the forum governance model by repeated
assertion.
> With everyone who has a stake in this group at this time in agreement
> with what he decides...no?
There's nothing to decide in the absence of a charter. I'm merely pointing
out what is already decided and fixed in stone -- the underlying mechanic
of Usenet moderation, which we can't change.
> Well...you haven't seen him say that yet. But I don't agree that he
> hasn't already made some "plans" and decided some stuff on his own.
Then you are wrong, again, about my internal state.
The difference between us isn't how good we are at mind-reading; it's that
I *know* I can't read other people's minds.
> Yes - and that's one of the reasons why picking the first person to
> jump up and say "I'll moderate" is a bad idea. What's the rush? Why
> not give it some time and let it come together over time rather than
> being so hasty?
There's no rush. However, a key sticking point in early discusion of a
moderated group is whether there exist candidate moderators who would be
acceptable to the community. Since I'm experienced with the technical
side and consider all forms of exercise of power over other people to be
intrinsic evils, I consider myself a reasonable candidate; if you absolutely
must have someone use force, have it be someone who thinks the use of force
is intrinsically ethically problematic.
If there are better candidates, great! Russ seems like he'd be acceptable
to the community too, and certainly we've seen that he can be trusted with
a great deal of power over the representation and reporting of Quaker
viewpoints.
> I know that. A year or two ago, someone else had brought up the
> possibility of moderating the group. And I believe it was you who
> said exactly what you said above. And that's exactly why I believe
> that the type of moderation Seebs is talking about (ala a "dictator"
> without anyone to keep him accountable) is *not* what you really want.
From a technical standpoint, though, that's all Usenet ever has. Now, you
can appoint someone who promises to be nice, but ultimately, there's no way
to get away from that technical reality.
>> But thats exactly what Seebs is saying. The 'group' can make up the ground
>> rules and the "charter" (as they should), but the group who makes the ground
>> rules and 'charter' has no actual power to ensure that the person who holds
>> that e-mail address (the 'dictator') upholds those rules and the charter.
>> All the group can do is trust that the person they choose to control that
>> e-mail address is honest and does the job that the group gave them, that is,
>> the person they choose to hold the reins of the group is a *benign*
>> dictator. There is a process for kicking a moderator out, but if you think
>> the *creation* of a Big8 group is painful, the removal of a rogue (or even
>> just plain absent) moderator is even harder. There it is *vitally* important
>> that the group is moderated by a person the group as whole trusts with the
>> life of the group.
> Are you sure that's "exactly what Seebs is saying"? Has he expressed
> that to you in a private email or something? Because I sure haven't
> seen him express that here. I've seen him express other things, but
> not that.
Actually, that is exactly what I've said, except that I was under the
impression that rogue moderators simply couldn't be removed. (Absentee
moderators have been, I believe.)
If you thought I was saying something else, I can't explain why.
Seebs
> Furthermore, I would consider you, [Yowie], to be a good choice as
> moderator.
Seconded.
Seebs
> And a few others.
I'm pointing out a thing which is not a matter of how we "see things",
but is simply true no matter what we think.
> Hmmm right back at you. What I meant to write above was "I'm sure you
> don't".
And yet, you still refuse to explain.
> Why are you shouting?
Because you keep accusing me of things in ways that allow you to disclaim
them or pretend you didn't say them, and you refuse to come out and state
what you mean unambugiously and clearly.
> Another good reason why you should not be moderating a Quaker forum.
> You are incapable of being what is needed of a moderator in a Quaker
> forum because you are on the spectrum.
Okay, so apart from generic bigotry against people who think differently,
did you have any kind of actual ARGUMENT to make?
No? Didn't think so.
There is no reason for which mild autism should be a barrier to successfully
moderating a forum. Again, the ONLY purpose under discussion for moderation
is "eliminate the spam".
>> > A discussion forum that's based in a religion.
>> No, it's ABOUT the religion.
> No, it's about both.
There's no two things under discussion to be "both". There's two different
relationships to a single thing.
> From what you've said in the past. From your behavior in this
> thread. From your behavior right now.
Behavior does not tell you what religion someone is a part of.
>> I do not live somewhere where I can attend regular meetings. �How does
>> that change my religion? �If I were Orthodox, and I moved to a small
>> town with no Orthodox church, would that make me "no longer a part of"
>> the Orthodox church?
> So now you're saying you are a Friend? A while back you said you
> weren't, but have attended some Quaker meetings in the past (IIRC).
YDNRC.
>> If not, why the fuck are you telling me what religion I am or am not
>> a part of?
> Nice. Very "Quaker" of you. Is that your version of "plain talk"?
Pretty much, yeah.
>> It's not so much a question of preference.
> To you, maybe...
No, to reality.
>> The *REALITY* is that a usenet moderated group is, always, no matter
>> what anyone says, an absolute dictatorship by the owner of the domain
>> for the moderation address. �Period.
> And that goes against Quaker thought and practice.
Perhaps it does. But then, so does uncontrolled anarchy where someone
can shout everyone else down.
> And that's exactly
> why a moderated group has been voted down when discussed previously
> (IIRC).
I haven't seen any previous discussions of the topic.
> Except you're not a Friend.
You keep saying this, but you continue to base it off pretty much pure
guesswork, in contradiction to my specific claim of religious affiliation.
> More than one makes it "people".
Yes. And there is no obvious reason to want more than one person to
moderate a low-traffic group.
>> On what basis do those people draw
>> that conclusion?
> [silence]
This question stands. You apparently have no basis for the allegation.
> Third maybe. And let's not forget the lurkers who read but don't
> post.
Okay, let's not forget that apparently the lurkers are magically known
to support you.
> I've been here in SRQ for over two years, IIRC.
My first posts here are probably 4-5 years back. I've been reading
for a while.
>> Note that this year is not the first time I've participated in SRQ.
> Note that this year is not the first time *I've* participated in SRQ.
The point being, if you think I was not a participant here prior to the
recent point at which I signed up again and started following conversations,
you're missing a big chunk of history.
> I've been around this group long enough to have an understanding of
> what I believe those who would prefer a moderated group are looking
> for.
You using the same magic telepathy helmet for this that you used to
determine that I quit being a Quaker when I moved to a small town?
> When you have "power"? Interesting choice of words. Especially for a
> Quaker forum.
Plain speech. No point in pretending that moderators don't have power;
the question is what they do with it.
> I'm holding back intentionally.
Indeed. Convenient, that. So no matter what happens, you can claim to
have been right. No testable claims. No way for the accused to defend
themselves.
> Ultimately, yes. But in the beginning, people come together to put
> standards and a "mission statement" together.
It's called a charter.
> You aren't interested in having that happen.
This claim is completely, totally, untrue. I am not only "interested" in
it, but realize that it is a *requirement* of the process.
> That's a problem, in my book.
The problem is that you are making false claims about my internal state
for which you have no basis.
>> In short, the big selling point of the oversight group is a non-starter;
> But certainly more Quakerly in approach.
I'm not at all convinced of this. And, so far as I can tell, you have no
actual experience of doing things with Quakers, and I do.
> In the beginning. When deciding on moderation policy, for starters.
Deciding on policy is done by open discussion until clarity is reached.
You don't appoint people to make choices for everyone else if you don't
have to. We can discuss this until we feel we've got a clear vision of
what we want. No bureaucracy required.
> You've said enough to tell me that you don't have the same vision of
> many here (who've been here longer than you).
Except that I've also "said enough to tell you" a number of things which
are totally untrue. Suggesting that maybe you should rely on what I actually
say or think, and ask me questions if I haven't said, rather than guessing.
> Not very Quakerly, is it?
Much of the world isn't.
If a Quaker were involved in litigation, my first advice would not be to
suggest that we think about how to form the oversight group to determine
whether the judge was doing his job correctly. Why? Because that's not
how litigation works.
You start with understanding the external world correctly, then, once you've
understood it, you think about ways to work with it that reflect your needs.
> "Discuss", but not have a say-so in anything (and who's to say that
> this "discussion" would have any bearing on anything?)
Ultimately? Trust in the good faith behavior of the moderator. That's the
tool we've got. Conveniently, that tool works extremely well.
> Regardless, I say that the group who wants a moderated group should be
> the ones making the ground rules and the group "charter". Not the
> "dictator" (again, your words) moderator.
Er, so do I.
Please stop making assumptions about what I think. If you want to know
what I think on a topic, ask me. Don't guess. Your guesses as to what
I think are very bad.
azure
news:30cfff8d-f1f6-4c11...@m3g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...> Azure's bad.
As in Michael Jackson's song? Why, thank you.
azure,
moonwalking
(<<Kelly>>)
Based on Seebs' very un-Quakerlike behavior demonstrated above and
contained herein (the definite intolerance of questioning him, the
anger and aggressiveness over not getting what he has demanded from
me, the lack of respect for the opinion of someone who is part of this
group), I feel very strongly that Seebs is not moderator material for
the proposed group, SRQM. I think he has shown who he is here and
what he has shown is not Quaker newsgroup moderator material.
My vote is 'YES' for a moderated group but 'NO' for Peter Seebach as
moderator.
Seebs
> Based on Seebs' very un-Quakerlike behavior demonstrated above and
> contained herein (the definite intolerance of questioning him,
I have no complaints about *questioning*.
Ask. Your. Questions.
Say what you mean. Don't play games.
If you have questions, ask. If you have concerns, state them.
If all you're going to do is hint that there are objections, without
stating them, yes, I'm gonna complain about it.
> the
> anger and aggressiveness over not getting what he has demanded from
> me, the lack of respect for the opinion of someone who is part of this
> group),
Again, no such lack of respect exists.
I made an argument, and apparently I did not make it clearly enough.
The argument was:
Kelly says that a non-Quaker should not be involved in moderation.
If non-Quakers are not eligible for such a role, why is Kelly,
who is not a Quaker, arguing strongly about how moderation should
be done?
I am actually quite curious about your opinions, and if you ever actually
get around to stating what your concerns are, rather than alleging that
you have some and refusing to commit to them, I'd love to hear them.
> I feel very strongly that Seebs is not moderator material for
> the proposed group, SRQM. I think he has shown who he is here and
> what he has shown is not Quaker newsgroup moderator material.
And that's interesting, because you said a number of things about me, and
when I pointed out that they were simply untrue, you quoted that, ignored
it, did not respond to it in any way, did not retract them, apologize them,
or provide evidence to support them, and then went on to declare that I
had "shown who he is" -- while never addressing the fact that you'd previously
claimed that I had shown who I was, and your previous claims about me were
specifically false.
So.
You have made multiple claims about me which I have told you are untrue.
Please either retract them or support them.
And yes, I'm being sorta harsh with you. You're engaging in the polar
opposite of plain speech; aggressive vagueness. You have not addressed me
with respect, you have made claims about my internal state (which you
do not have access to) rather than talking about your own views, and you've
insinuated and hinted rather than stating what you think.
This kind of behavior generates negative responses, in general.
> My vote is 'YES' for a moderated group but 'NO' for Peter Seebach as
> moderator.
Why are you voting? We are weeks to months out from voting. How about you
wait until you see the charter before voting on it? Keep in mind that these
are not separate votes. Ultimately, there will be a single proposed newsgroup
charter, and that will be what we vote yes or no on.
Yowie
news:hhaj9o$vd$1...@rumours.uwaterloo.ca
> In article <slrnhjgs35.795...@guild.seebs.net>,
> Seebs <usenet...@seebs.net> wrote:
>> On 2009-12-28, Yowie <yowie9644....@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
>>> AFAIK, its possible, but it would be easier to create SRQM than
>>> change SRQ to moderated.
>>
>> I believe so.
>>
>
> I am concerned that that approach doesn't address the fact that there
> is
> a conspicuous newsgroup with quaker in its title which would then
> send an even worse message about what the RSofF was all about. If it
> were possible to change SRQ to a moderated forum that would address
> the concern of
> Quakers themselves I believe better, than setting up a parallel
> newsgroup. Perhaps that concern might be partially addressed by
> extending the FAQ
> for SRQ to explain that those concerned with the quality of discussion
> as it related to Quakerism had formed an alternative moderated forum
> that attempted to address the deficiencies in SRQ.
The conflict is between two different ideas.
They are:
1) A Quaker forum should be uncensored, because there is Light within
everyone
2) An unmoderated forum of a religious nature eventually seems to descend
into a receptacle for offtopic, crossposting and flame wars with little or
no signal to counter the noise - moderation would help.
>
>> BTW, I have another alternative. I know Russ Nelson, and I asked
>> him if he'd be willing to moderate the group, and he would. I doubt
>> anyone's going to dispute his credentials to moderate or administer
>> Quaker discussions, right? (Russ runs quaker.org.)
>>
>
> Is there really a requirement that a single person to take on all the
> work of moderating this forum.
There is unlikley to be alot of work, considering that with all the drek
currently in the forum, it is not a busy group.
> Could not the work be shared by a
> dynamic committee. I too know Russ through his interactions here. I
> also know that he was one of the original voters voting in support of
> this group. Happy to have any help he might be able to give. Say hi
> to him for me.
I do not know Russ except by reputation as the owner/creator of
www.quaker.org
Yowie
> On Dec 28, 3:12 am, "Yowie" <yowie9644.DIESPAM...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
*snip*
>> I can see why you might think that, Kelly, but what Seebs says is
>> true and taking his Aspieness into account, has no further value to
>> be read 'in between the lines'. He's just stating the facts. (This
>> is what I like about Aspies, btw, WYSIWYG, no need to second guess)
>
> Ibid (re: those with Asperger Syndrome - and I don't know how Seebs
> feels about it, but "Aspies" isn't really kosher - at least not with
> those I know and everything I've been taught while studying for my
> profession. Would you refer to someone with Down Syndrome as a
> "Downie"?)
No offence intended (some affection intended). The people with Asperger's
Syndrome I know universally use the term "Aspie" to refer to themselves.
Note that almost everyone I associate with has been formally diagnosed with
Asperger's sysndrome or displays very typical traits of Asperger's syndrome.
I wouldn't be surprised if I was also an Aspie.
If it has cause offence, I am deeply sorry.
*snip*
>> I think Seebs is just emphasising the bits he knows best, which is
>> the moderation process. Ihavent' seen Seebs say anything about what
>> he thinks the group would do or what the charter woudl say, but then
>> again, we haven't really started discussing that bit yet.
>
> Well...you haven't seen him say that yet. But I don't agree that he
> hasn't already made some "plans" and decided some stuff on his own.
So, clearly, have I.... doesn't mean I'll insist that everything is done my
way.
>> We've barely even started the 'Hey, lets start a moderated forum'
>> discussion :-)
>
> Yes - and that's one of the reasons why picking the first person to
> jump up and say "I'll moderate" is a bad idea. What's the rush? Why
> not give it some time and let it come together over time rather than
> being so hasty?
Nothing is set in stone yet. That we now have two people willing to be
moderators is useful however.
>> No, its not. And thats the precise reason why SRQ was specifically
>> *not* moderated at the time of its creation (1992)
>
> I know that. A year or two ago, someone else had brought up the
> possibility of moderating the group. And I believe it was you who
> said exactly what you said above. And that's exactly why I believe
> that the type of moderation Seebs is talking about (ala a "dictator"
> without anyone to keep him accountable) is *not* what you really want.
Whether we like it or not, the description that Seebs has given about a
dictator in charge is simply the reality of any moderated group.
The owner of the moderation address can appoint/remove moderators depending
on their own whim, or they can moderate themselves. If their moderation is
wonky, there's nothing the group can effectively do - they cannot remove the
moderation address from the owner and give it to someone else.
Thats how I read what he's saying.
crunch
> "Ian Davis" <ijda...@softbase.cs.uwaterloo.ca> wrote in message
>
> news:hhaj9o$vd$1...@rumours.uwaterloo.ca
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article <slrnhjgs35.795.usenet-nos...@guild.seebs.net>,
> > Seebs <usenet-nos...@seebs.net> wrote:
> >> On 2009-12-28, Yowie <yowie9644.DIESPAM...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
> >>> AFAIK, its possible, but it would be easier to create SRQM than
> >>> change SRQ to moderated.
>
> >> I believe so.
>
> > I am concerned that that approach doesn't address the fact that there
> > is
> > a conspicuous newsgroup with quaker in its title which would then
> > send an even worse message about what the RSofF was all about. If it
> > were possible to change SRQ to a moderated forum that would address
> > the concern of
> > Quakers themselves I believe better, than setting up a parallel
> > newsgroup. Perhaps that concern might be partially addressed by
> > extending the FAQ
> > for SRQ to explain that those concerned with the quality of discussion
> > as it related to Quakerism had formed an alternative moderated forum
> > that attempted to address the deficiencies in SRQ.
>
> The conflict is between two different ideas.
>
> They are:
>
> 1) A Quaker forum should be uncensored, because there is Light within
> everyone
> 2) An unmoderated forum of a religious nature eventually seems to descend
> into a receptacle for offtopic, crossposting and flame wars with little or
> no signal to counter the noise - moderation would help.
I have a few serious questions -
1) Is there sufficient Light currently among enough SRQers
to prevent serious disruption of ON-TOPIC conversation?
2) Is responsible and legitimate crossposting harmful to SRQ?
3) How flame-war-like has SRQ been the past 2 weeks?
(<<Kelly>>)
Better question: is there sufficient BS detection currently among
enough SRQers to prevent you from continuing to seriously disrupting
on-topic conversation?
> 2) Is responsible and legitimate crossposting harmful to SRQ?
Probably not - but that's not what you do. Your crossposting is
irresponsible, illegitimate, and selfish.
> 3) How flame-war-like has SRQ been the past 2 weeks?
You tell us...how many times have you called others names in the last
two weeks?
> Baloney Crunch (after the Soggy fashion),
There, that's better (and more honest ;-)
crunch
Well, I respectfullly disagree but defend your right
to express an opinion contrary to mine.
God bless,
David Christainsen
Ian Davis
Yowie <yowie9644....@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
>The reason why David can no longer run his Yahoo group qumran_origin - he no
>longer has access to the e-mail address that controls the group.
>
I didn't know that part of the story. I rather assumed that he got tired
of moderating a forum where there was no one so came back to a forum where
there were people he could try to influence about his opinions on certain
matters, even though his forum had I been been created with the desire to
give him a more appropriate venue for his interests. So how did he loose
access to be moderator of this forum?
>The moderator or moderators may or may not be the person who owns the e-mail
>address for the moderated group.
>
>>> Hint: I'm autistic. I am incapable of experiencing about half of
>>> the normal range of human emotions, ESPECIALLY those related to
>>> status and power relationships. So I'm totally blind about them
>>
>> Another good reason why you should not be moderating a Quaker forum.
>> You are incapable of being what is needed of a moderator in a Quaker
>> forum because you are on the spectrum.
>
>IMHO, Aspie people are ideal moderators, because they take things as they
>are, and not as they seem, because Aspies have great difficulty figuring out
>what is 'between the lines' (if at all). I could be biased towards Aspies,
>however.
I've always considered your judgement pretty sound.
>
>>> but I've learned that when someone insists that I actually know
>>> what they're talking about, it usually means they're thinking
>>> about some kind of power relationship.
>>>
>>>> A discussion forum that's based in a religion.
>>
>>
>>> No, it's ABOUT the religion.
>>
>> No, it's about both.
>
>My view (for what little its worth)
>
>Its for:
>
>Quakers
>Those interested in Quakerism
>
>to discuss:
>
>The faith and practice of Quakerism
>Any other topic, from a Quaker perspective
>
>*snip*
>
I tend to think of it as a meeting place where quakers might meet on a
neutral forum with any who wanted to discuss issues with them. My regret
is not that there are non-quakers here, but that quakers by and large
can't handle the forum this one offers them. The quaker faith seems
sufficiently distinct from the christian one that it warrants such a
neutral meeting ground, where it can be presented, explained, discussed
and explored.
I've taken a strong stand against cross-posting because all here took a
strong stand against it all my early years here, and that strong stand
against cross-posting improved the quality of this forum. Quakers do
not proseletize.. ego it is quite inappropriate to presume that what
is said on this forum should be blasted out to other forums in the
hope of making others familiar with SRQ. Other forums do not to my
mind have much overlap with Quaker issues, so it is equally inappropriate
to cross-post the other way. All that ends up happening is that a large
amount of noise is generated and little light. Those subscribers here who
have an interest in archeology should be subscribing to archeology;
christian faith, christian forums etc. To force all to see postings
on archeology because of some presumption that archeology "aught" to
interest those on this forum is presuming that those on this forum
need reminding of what aught to interest them, which I see as a
very arrogant presumption.
I've also taken a strong stand about a certain type of post which seems
to me designed to wound, hurt, lash out at, or put down others. I've
probably been guilty of such posts myself, but such post do not create
or add value to the collective community here. They are divisive and risk
doing more harm than good. Trolls actually derive some gratification from
their ability to be hurtful to others, and seek to demonstrate their own
ability to destroy; not to build up. Here, my opinion is near illogical..
I find myself opposed to the notion of banning such posts, while also
opposed to the not banning of it.. the trouble is censureship only
encourages abuse... the more one tries to wage war on drugs or whatever,
the more one challenges those who want to defeat the war to go to greater
and great lengths to do so. Figuratively my sense is that one is required
to speak to that of God in others, no matter how firmly they might to appear
to be in the corrupters camp.
>>> The *REALITY* is that a usenet moderated group is, always, no matter
>>> what anyone says, an absolute dictatorship by the owner of the domain
>>> for the moderation address. Period.
>>
>> And that goes against Quaker thought and practice. And that's exactly
>> why a moderated group has been voted down when discussed previously
>> (IIRC).
>
>Both what you say and what Seebs says above is true.
>
>However, there are (to my mind) 5 options for SRQ's future. They are:
>
>1) Leave it as is, which currently has an extremely low signal:noise and
>seems to attract kooks with off-topic rants and mad crossposting
That would be fine except for the fact that it has quaker in its name. If
it is going to be a forum for kooks, it might more reasonably be called
and advertised as soc.religion.kooks. I'd have no problem with the
existance of such a forum.. probably wouldn't subscribe but I'd be
happy for those with dictionary definition "kooky" beliefs to go at
their beliefs and each other hammer and tongs.
>2) Attempt to revive the unmoderated SRQ (not impossible, but has been tried
>and has failed many times)
As Engineer pointed out many times (with me arguably being on the wrong side
of the argument) the problem is lack of discipline in those who would see
SRQ revived.
>3) Delete it, and move to other forums for Quakers that exist on the 'web
>(leaving no Quaker presence on Usenet)
In order to delete it a precursor would be establishing that there was zero
on-topic dialogue still on it. I've been asked to suggest that if we are
really willing to commit to the exercise of removing SRQ from the big-8
all who might add on-topic dialogue to it, need to collectively withdraw
from SRQ to add weight to the suggestion that it is effectively a dead
forum.
>4) Moderate SRQ
I've never been anything but opposed to moderation, but I think the good
name of the RSofF of more concern to me, than my own personal opinions
on moderation.
>5) Leave SRQ to those who oppose censorship, and create a moderated SRQM
>(with the understanding that, yes, a moderated group is in essence a
>dictatorship or, at best, an ogliarchy)
>
I don't personally believe in schizms either. I rather admire Engineer for
deliberately being attender at two very different yearly meetings as a
mechanism for protesting the divisions that exist between Quaker and Quaker.
But a forum which served the RSofF better than SRQ would be a forum which I'd
hope to be able to encourage to do so.
>What is in the best interest of SRQ, and the Quaker faith?
>
SRQ would be best served by becoming what it was meant to be. How that is
to be achieved, is not clear. It is possible that those imagined least
likely to making contributions in that direction are the ones best able
to. Though it is no more than a general impression, my sense is that the
majority of those active in the Quaker faith have long viewed SRQ as an
embarrassment, and were it to be removed from the lists would feel some
sense of relief that a failed experiment was officially over.
>>> It is important to keep that in mind. Given that, you can then ask
>>> questions like "can we find someone that we trust to keep that
>>> address forwarded to whoever the group says they want pushing the
>>> buttons".
>>>
>>> But you have to understand that underlying reality before you can
>>> approach the question of "what is a good way to use this underlying
>>> reality to create the results we want".
>>>
>>> I'd guess that some people here would be fine with a Weighty Friend
>>> running the group in traditional dictator style (I would be fine with
>>> that, because I have seen enough Quakers in positions of authority to
>>> be basically unbothered by the notion).
>>
>> Except you're not a Friend.
>
>In fairness, Seebs did suggest a Weighty Friend as an alternative (the owner
>of www.quaker.org)
>
>>> Some might rather have the
>>> email address forwarding done by someone who is not one of the
>>> people doing the actual moderating, so those people could be
>>> replaced. ("People" plural seems excessive, though -- this is a
>>> low-traffic
>>> group.)
>>
>> More than one makes it "people".
>
>Is there a need for more than one trustworthy and capable moderator on a low
>traffic group?
>
Work should be shared.. not all dumped on one person. I'd happily help
carry load if needed here.
>>>> In fact, it seems you want to
>>>> make it more your forum
>>
>>> To whom does it seem that way?
>>
>> To me. Maybe to others who have or will read your posts in this
>> thread.
>
>I can see why you might think that, Kelly, but what Seebs says is true and
>taking his Aspieness into account, has no further value to be read 'in
>between the lines'. He's just stating the facts. (This is what I like about
>Aspies, btw, WYSIWYG, no need to second guess)
>
It is also why I value Quaker honesty. The WYSIWYG principle would apply to
both.
>*snip*
>
>>> Keep in mind that I'm a pedant. The formal reality of Usenet is that
>>> the owner of the domain with the moderation address has total and
>>> absolute control over the newsgroup.
>>
>> Ultimately, yes. But in the beginning, people come together to put
>> standards and a "mission statement" together. You aren't interested
>> in having that happen.
>
>People approach problems in different ways. Whilst I'm in the process of
>writing out a proposed charter for the hypothetical SRQM (the 'why'), Seebs
>is talking about the process of moderating (the 'how')
>
>>> If you want committees and such,
>>> fine, but be aware that ultimately they can't do anything if the
>>> person who owns that domain goes mad with power.
>>>
>>> In short, the big selling point of the oversight group is a
>>> non-starter;
>>
>> But certainly more Quakerly in approach.
>>
>>> in fact, they *can't* do anything if the one person who controls the
>>> server that receives the email goes crazy.
>>
>> Yep - I get it.
>>
>>> So they don't change the
>>> fact that you're ultimately dependant on that person not going crazy.
>>
>> Yep. Got that, too.
>>
>>> At which point, why impose all this bureaucracy?
>>
>Well, it doesn't have to be at the absolute start. There are other bits we
>have to figure out - like the charter, for example. And we've really only
>heard from 4 people on this. You, me, Seebs and Ian D. Its reassuring to
>think that we all agree (do we?) that the creation of SRQM is the best way
>to go, but there's still alot of deatil to cover
I don't have a sense of the best way to go. I'm not opposed to SRQM but I
am not sure that "moderation" addresses the issues needful to explore as
much as seeks to merely address the "problems" currently faced. A part of
me thinks of all those libertarian concerns about how any interference in
the system can through the law of unintended consequences undermine the
actual viable working of the system. In one way, my own thoughts about
leaving SRQ to those who found value in it was no more than the system
in place to control an unmoderated forum working. Perhaps a large part
of my problem is simply that I have no experience of moderated forums,
as consequence of believing them likely to become stages where the
converted preached to the already converted.
>
>> When deciding on moderation policy, for starters.
>
>Very true.
>
>Perhaps Seebs would like to manage the 'how to moderate this SRQM' part of
>the discussion.
>
Sure..
>I would like to lead the discussion of the charter, if thats OK with folks.
>
Sure..
>I still think Seebs is more than capable, but would actually prefer Russ
>Nelson now that he's offered.
I think the question of who be moderator of less import than the question
of what would or would not be the style of moderation. What within SRQM
would be censured, how would it be censured, why would it be censured,
and how would all this be done while being sensitive to that of God in
others, makes me think the whole issue of who would enforce rules, a
very secondary one to what rules actually need enforcing.
If it came to a vote, I'd rather be able to vote for both Russell and Seebs
for the position of moderator than be obliged to choose between them.
Ultimately the best moderator might be who ever had ability to spare the
time needed and perhaps be able to also offer the resources needed to
make a moderated SRQ viable. I don't really agree with Kelly's position
that it aught to be a Quaker who moderates things. That is because I
imagine this should be a forum where quaker and non-quaker should be
meeting on neutral territory as equals -- not in an environment that
presupposes that Quakers are more qualified to lead than any other.
Ian
crunch
wrote:
> In article <7pri4gFsv...@mid.individual.net>,
>
> Yowie <yowie9644.DIESPAM...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
> >The reason why David can no longer run his Yahoo group qumran_origin - he no
> >longer has access to the e-mail address that controls the group.
>
> I didn't know that part of the story. I rather assumed that he got tired
> of moderating a forum where there was no one so came back to a forum where
> there were people he could try to influence about his opinions on certain
> matters, even though his forum had I been been created with the desire to
> give him a more appropriate venue for his interests. So how did he loose
> access to be moderator of this forum?
Both you and Yowie are incorrect insofar as giving SRQ
the real reason that I left my role as Moderator.
I will not now give SRQ the correct reason; it is private
and known only by me.
Suffice it to say, at last 1st Day Forum at Cambridge
Meeting in Worship-Sharing mode, I told the group that
I have dropped the Historical Christ topic within any
Quaker circles off usenet. Yet, I also explained why
Jesus Christ was and is not divine, never was the Son
of God, which is only a title. So, Christ was just a man
with a brilliant mind and a compassionate heart, right on
every major social issue of his time. More ink has been
written on Jesus Christ than any other person in human
history: hyper-influential. So, for me Christ is a model
for living. In this Quaker context I've really gone spiritual,
following the Spirit of Christ mentioned in our Peace
Testimony of centuries ago.
Ian Davis
azure <no...@thistime.com> wrote:
>
>Furthermore, I would consider you, yourself, to be a good choice as
>moderator.
>
Seconded. You've been an inspiration to me personally. You are in the
elite group who I've grown to trust here for the sanity you bring this
group.
Ian
(<<Kelly>>)
My-oh-my...! You have certainly changed your tune, Soggy...could it
be because you want to moderate the new SRQM? (or maybe because you
don't want anyone to leave?)
After all...someone with untreated narcissistic personality disorder
does nothing unless they see it as ultimately benefitting themselves
and fulfilling their need for narcisisstic supply... ;-)
(<<Kelly>>)
> > > Yowie <yowie9644.DIESPAM...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
> > >The reason why David can no longer run his Yahoo group qumran_origin - he no
> > >longer has access to the e-mail address that controls the group.
> > I didn't know that part of the story. I rather assumed that he got tired
> > of moderating a forum where there was no one so came back to a forum where
> > there were people he could try to influence about his opinions on certain
> > matters, even though his forum had I been been created with the desire to
> > give him a more appropriate venue for his interests. So how did he loose
> > access to be moderator of this forum?
> >...
> Both you and Yowie are incorrect insofar as giving SRQ
> the real reason that I left my role as Moderator.
Of course they are. Everything you view as negative concerning you is
wrong. Everyone but you is wrong about you. You even claim that BT
is wrong (or was it "misguided"?) about you when she said you are
obsessive and unreliable about her work.
Frankly, Soggy - if anyone knows someone is reliable or unreliable
about something, it's the one who created the something to begin with.
> I will not now give SRQ the correct reason; it is private
> and known only by me.
Of course - how wonderfully convenient for you! Guess what? No one
is going to try and pry out of you "the correct reason" because no one
would believe what you have to say about it, anyway. You're a proven
liar - and I think we can trust Yowie's version over yours any day.
> Suffice it to say, at last 1st Day Forum at Cambridge
> Meeting in Worship-Sharing mode, I told the group that
> I have dropped the Historical Christ topic within any
> Quaker circles off usenet.
At which point a number of them under their breath likely said, "who
cares?"
> Yet, I also explained why
> Jesus Christ was and is not divine, never was the Son
> of God, which is only a title. So, Christ was just a man
> with a brilliant mind and a compassionate heart, right on
> every major social issue of his time. More ink has been
> written on Jesus Christ than any other person in human
> history: hyper-influential. So, for me Christ is a model
> for living. In this Quaker context I've really gone spiritual,
> following the Spirit of Christ mentioned in our Peace
> Testimony of centuries ago.
And you think we care about your delusions and obsessions because...?
Yowie
*blush*
Thankyou.
But I am no more 'sane' than the next person. Perhaps I am better at hiding
the insanity :-)
Yowie
> (iRFD: informal Request For Discussion)
>
> Given the level of dissatisfaction here, I can see several options:
>
> 1) Do nothing, letting SRQ continue on the path is is going.
> 2) Attempt to get SRQ back on-topic
> 3) Delete SRQ from the Big 8
> 4) Change SRQ to a moderated group
> 5) Leave SRQ to its own devices, and create its moderated counterpart
> soc.religion.quaker.moderated
>
> Option 1 does not address anything and is the easiest to implement.
> Without serious intervention, it will turn into many other groups
> little if any actual on-topic content (one could well argue it is
> think this approach has been taken a number of times and has failed
> thus far. This does not mean that with a concerted and coordinated
> effort that it would fail if attempted again, however. Option 3
> removes the problem entirely.This would be the logical thing to do if
> Quakers and those interested in Quakerism no longer wanted or
> required a dedicated Usenet forum to discuss Quaker related issues.
> It could well be argued that other discussion media (blogs,
> Quaker-L/P/B) are serving the small Quaker community in a better way
> than Usenet can, and that SRQ should be deleted. Option 4 assumes the
> problem is mostly about off-topic postings and that moderation would
> solve the problem (it may not). There may well also be some sort of
> objection to forced moderation from Quakers who do not believe in
> censorship on Usenet. Option 5, to my mind, still allows those who
> object to moderation a place to post, but removes the noise to allow
> the signal to get through. Many Usenet forums for relgious discussion
> are moderated, and SRQM would be no different in that regard.
> I personally think that Option 5 - the creation of SRQM alongside SRQ
> would probably be hte best option overall. I have no objection to
> experience in a subject to determine what is wildly off-topic and
> what might be of interest - and reasonable moderation generally has
> the 'if in doubt, let it through, and apologise if necessary'
> approach. I would, hoewver, stronlgy encourage the publication of the
> 'reject file' where those messages that are rejected are able to be
> viewed by anyone interested such that the 'gatekeeper' (or
> gatekeepers if there are a number of moderators) can be seen to be
> acting reasonably, and of course, havea procedure for replacing said
> moderator or moderators if they are not acting in a satisfactory
> manner.
Ruminating on this more, I am having doubts about option 5.
The risk of creating a moderated forum, when the signal to noise ration is
so low here already, is the creation of an almost empty group. Is this what
we want? What other Quakers want, what the Big 8 wants? What purpose does an
almost empty (albiet one of high signal to noise) serve?
How will decreasing the noise via moderation (either by the creation of a
new moderated group, or simply moderating SRQ) increase the signal level? I
can't see how many new 'seekers' open up SRQ, read a bit, think 'no thanks'
and wander back off into the Usenet ether, having been turned off by the
'noise' here. What I can see, however, is how many new posters we've had
recently making at least a passing attempt to post a topic about Quakerism:
none. How will moderation seek to address this problem? Will the few
regulars here be able to keep up an appropriate degree of signal giving how
we can't manage that now?
Would the deletion of SRQ and creation of
soc.religion.<*>.thiering/DSS/chistian_origins etc be a better alternative?
Or soc.religion.misc or something where folks can talk, but not have it look
like Quaker group when it quite clearly isn't?
Seebs
> The risk of creating a moderated forum, when the signal to noise ration is
> so low here already, is the creation of an almost empty group. Is this what
> we want? What other Quakers want, what the Big 8 wants? What purpose does an
> almost empty (albiet one of high signal to noise) serve?
What I've found, from my own low-traffic newsgroup, is that when it's in
use for a while it tends to start attracting traffic.
Creating a topical newsgroup for crunch would not prevent him from attempting
to disrupt other newsgroups; he is motivated by a desire to destroy other
peoples' things, and is not content to wait for people who actually care to
come listen to him.
That said... From my experience with Quakers, a group which has very low
traffic unless someone has something to say would not be a bad representation
of Quaker faith and practice.
crunch
> On Dec 28, 4:56 pm, crunch <pchristain...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Yowie <yowie9644.DIESPAM...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
> > > >The reason why David can no longer run his Yahoo group qumran_origin - he no
> > > >longer has access to the e-mail address that controls the group.
> > > I didn't know that part of the story. I rather assumed that he got tired
> > > of moderating a forum where there was no one so came back to a forum where
> > > there were people he could try to influence about his opinions on certain
> > > matters, even though his forum had I been been created with the desire to
> > > give him a more appropriate venue for his interests. So how did he loose
> > > access to be moderator of this forum?
> > >...
> > Both you and Yowie are incorrect insofar as giving SRQ
> > the real reason that I left my role as Moderator.
>
> Of course they are.
You overlook that here I gave the unvarnished truth.
> Everything you view as negative concerning you is
> wrong.
You totally misread my psychology; try again.
> Everyone but you is wrong about you.
Prove me wrong about that; you yourself are
in deep illusion about it.
> You even claim that BT
> is wrong (or was it "misguided"?) about you when she said you are
> obsessive and unreliable about her work.
It's just an objective fact, not a claim of mine per se.
Any competent usenetter can and may verify by
consulting the relevant usenet Archives. Why don't you?
> Frankly, Soggy - if anyone knows someone is reliable or unreliable
> about something, it's the one who created the something to begin with.
Not the best evidence of the truth on your part.
> > I will not now give SRQ the correct reason; it is private
> > and known only by me.
>
> Of course - how wonderfully convenient for you!
I don't owe it to someone prejudiced like you.
> Guess what? No one
> is going to try and pry out of you "the correct reason" because no one
> would believe what you have to say about it, anyway.
I don't care about that.
> You're a proven
> liar - and I think we can trust Yowie's version over yours any day.
Incorrect on your part.
> > Suffice it to say, at last 1st Day Forum at Cambridge
> > Meeting in Worship-Sharing mode, I told the group that
> > I have dropped the Historical Christ topic within any
> > Quaker circles off usenet.
>
> At which point a number of them under their breath likely said, "who
> cares?"
As concerns their reaction at the time, 4 of them
approached me at Forum's close and engaged me in
conversation at length. They approved of what I had said.
> > Yet, I also explained why
> > Jesus Christ was and is not divine, never was the Son
> > of God, which is only a title. So, Christ was just a man
> > with a brilliant mind and a compassionate heart, right on
> > every major social issue of his time. More ink has been
> > written on Jesus Christ than any other person in human
> > history: hyper-influential. So, for me Christ is a model
> > for living. In this Quaker context I've really gone spiritual,
> > following the Spirit of Christ mentioned in our Peace
> > Testimony of centuries ago.
>
> And you think we care about your delusions and obsessions because...?
I am doing good work by exposing you as too polemical
for the good of SRQ; you should leave SRQ now and
don't hit the door on your way out.
David Christainsen
crunch
> On 2009-12-29, Yowie <yowie9644.DIESPAM...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
> > The risk of creating a moderated forum, when the signal to noise ration is
> > so low here already, is the creation of an almost empty group. Is this what
> > we want? What other Quakers want, what the Big 8 wants? What purpose does an
> > almost empty (albiet one of high signal to noise) serve?
>
> What I've found, from my own low-traffic newsgroup, is that when it's in
> use for a while it tends to start attracting traffic.
>
> Creating a topical newsgroup for crunch would not prevent him from attempting
> to disrupt other newsgroups; he is motivated by a desire to destroy other
> peoples' things, and is not content to wait for people who actually care to
> come listen to him.
God hates the behaviour of a false accuser like you.
> That said... From my experience with Quakers, a group which has very low
> traffic unless someone has something to say would not be a bad representation
> of Quaker faith and practice.
David Christainsen
Newton, Mass. USA
Tom McDonald
> On 2009-12-29, Yowie <yowie9644....@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>> The risk of creating a moderated forum, when the signal to noise ration is
>> so low here already, is the creation of an almost empty group. Is this what
>> we want? What other Quakers want, what the Big 8 wants? What purpose does an
>> almost empty (albiet one of high signal to noise) serve?
>
> What I've found, from my own low-traffic newsgroup, is that when it's in
> use for a while it tends to start attracting traffic.
>
> Creating a topical newsgroup for crunch would not prevent him from attempting
> to disrupt other newsgroups; he is motivated by a desire to destroy other
> peoples' things, and is not content to wait for people who actually care to
> come listen to him.
>
> That said... From my experience with Quakers, a group which has very low
> traffic unless someone has something to say would not be a bad representation
> of Quaker faith and practice.
My experience with sci.archaeology.moderated is that it is a very
low-traffic site, and seldom results in discussion.
Part of that is due to the strict moderation rules, the
application of which results in almost entirely signal, almost no
noise, and very little traffic.
Another part is that the moderation is done by actual people
actually reading each article and making a decision whether to
post, not post, or suggest changes to the author of the post.
This results, usually, in an achingly slow pace of communication.
It can take hours to post anything; and when those hours are
between one post and its reply, the time lag can kill conversation.
This may be appropriate for a moderated Quaker ng, as you
suggest. It may be that somewhat looser moderation might retain
most of the signal/noise ratio while encouraging more participation.
OTOH, Talk.origins is a very high-traffic moderated ng which is
mostly robo-moderated according to a set of rules; but with a
human moderator who can step in to adjust the rules (e.g.: if
gmail spam spikes, he can shut down posts from gmail accounts);
or can ban a poster who regularly breaks the (few) rules, as by
posting under a number of nyms without making the fact clear, or
by nym-shifting to avoid kill-files or bans.
I don't come down solidly on either side. I would like to hear
from actual Quakers, and those who want to learn from them, about
their preferences -- for one of the two above options, or other
options.
--
Tom "Go Pack" McDonald
Ian Davis
The varnished truth might not have worn out so fast. You make claims without
providing any supporting evidence to back up those claims. When you try to
appear educated you don't cite references. Your claims are as consequence
presumed by most here to be worthless. This goes pretty much across the board
regardless of what you claim these days. So when you say that you give the
unvarnished truth, this is taken as evidence that you lacked the brush with
which to varnish what you imagine the truth.. not that you have the mental
capability to distinguish truth from fiction, or the linguist ability to
speak truthfully.
In a nutshell David here is your problem: "ZERO Credibility".
Ian.
crunch
wrote:
> In article <222e63dd-45ef-456e-b7bc-0e50e5e24...@p32g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>,
>
> crunch <pchristain...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >You overlook that here I gave the unvarnished truth.
>
> The varnished truth might not have worn out so fast.
Please note your tentative language.
> You make claims without
> providing any supporting evidence to back up those claims.
Prove it.
> When you try to
> appear educated you don't cite references.
Prove it.
> Your claims are as consequence
> presumed by most here to be worthless.
They do not comprehend the body of my posts on
the Thiering Thesis.
> This goes pretty much across the board
> regardless of what you claim these days.
You are wildly inaccurate here.
> So when you say that you give the
> unvarnished truth, this is taken as evidence that you lacked the brush with
> which to varnish what you imagine the truth.. not that you have the mental
> capability to distinguish truth from fiction, or the linguist ability to
> speak truthfully.
>
You are quite mistaken.
As ever,
David
(<<Kelly>>)
No, he's not mistaken. The fact is that he doesn't have to prove a
thing regarding what he said about you above. The reason why is
because everyone here knows it all to be true except you. The further
truth is that even is he did "prove it", it still wouldn't be good
enough for you because you live in denial and delusion about yourself.
> > In a nutshell David here is your problem: "ZERO Credibility".
Bingo.
crunch
Yes, he is mistaken
> The fact is that he doesn't have to prove a
> thing regarding what he said about you above.
Do you mean morally?
> The reason why is
> because everyone here knows it all to be true except you.
You are utterly incapable of proving what you say here.
> The further
> truth is that even is he did "prove it", it still wouldn't be good
> enough for you because you live in denial and delusion about yourself.
Liar!
> > > In a nutshell David here is your problem: "ZERO Credibility".
>
> Bingo.
Twisted logic on your part; you were not paying full
attention again; you lapsed; want to try again?
So, did I make claims without providing any supporting
evidence to back up those claims re: Thiering Thesis?
Answer - the supporting evidence is plastered all over
usenet now.
Bingo.
(<<Kelly>>)
<nothing worth reading - just more of the same-old-same-old Sogginess>
crunch
> On Dec 30, 9:32 am, crunch <pchristain...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> <nothing worth reading - just more of the same-old-same-old Sogginess>
What a waste of time you are, Lazy!
Leave soc.religion.quaker now and don't hit the door
on your way out.
As ever,
David Christainsen
(<<Kelly>>)
> > On Dec 30, 12:35 pm, "(<<Kelly>>)" <rosie_be...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > <nothing worth reading - just more of the same-old-same-old Sogginess>
> What a waste of time you are, Lazy!
And yet you keep reading and responding to my posts...go figure.
> Leave soc.religion.quaker now and don't hit the door
> on your way out.
LOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!! As if you have the right to tell me what to do and
I will listen...LOLOLOLOL!!!
You crack me up, Soggy - really, you do.
> As ever,
> David Christainsen
Yes, "as ever" - teeming with denial, delusion and untreated NPD.
crunch
> On Dec 30, 9:41 am, crunch <pchristain...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 30, 12:35 pm, "(<<Kelly>>)" <rosie_be...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > <nothing worth reading - just more of the same-old-same-old Sogginess>
> > What a waste of time you are, Lazy!
>
> And yet you keep reading and responding to my posts...go figure.
>
> > Leave soc.religion.quaker now and don't hit the door
> > on your way out.
>
> LOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!! As if you have the right to tell me what to do and
> I will listen...LOLOLOLOL!!!
>
> You crack me up, Soggy - really, you do.
I am doing it for your own good.
> > As ever,
> > David Christainsen
>
> Yes, "as ever" - teeming with denial, delusion and untreated NPD.
This is your libel; this is the bed you make on SRQ.
It is noteworthy that SRQers rarely tell you to restrain
your own unacceptable behaviour. They should do it
far more often.
Peace,
David Christainsen
Henry S. Thompson
> In article <slrnhjgs35.795...@guild.seebs.net>,
> Seebs <usenet...@seebs.net> wrote:
>>On 2009-12-28, Yowie <yowie9644....@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
>>> AFAIK, its possible, but it would be easier to create SRQM than change SRQ
>>> to moderated.
>>
>>I believe so.
>>
>
> I am concerned that that approach doesn't address the fact that there is
> a conspicuous newsgroup with quaker in its title which would then send an
> even worse message about what the RSofF was all about.
This is my concern as well. I am happy to help with the
administrative graft required to nuke this list, or to change it to a
moderated one _if_ anyone can be found to take on the job with a
commitment to
a) some form of Quaker business method oversight of his/her/their
activities;
b) aim to moderate the group so that it is recognisably focussed on
Quaker issues and/or issues from a Quaker perspective.
Wrt crossposting, I would welcome an approach to moderation which
editted inappropriate crossposts to consist only of a link to their
location in a more appropriate group.
ht
--
Henry S. Thompson, Central Edinburgh LM, SE Scotland AM, Britain YM
[quaker mail from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is forged spam]
Whiskers
> news:7po9tu...@mid.individual.net
>> (iRFD: informal Request For Discussion)
>>
>> Given the level of dissatisfaction here, I can see several options:
>>
>> 1) Do nothing, letting SRQ continue on the path is is going.
>> 2) Attempt to get SRQ back on-topic
>> 3) Delete SRQ from the Big 8
>> 4) Change SRQ to a moderated group
>> 5) Leave SRQ to its own devices, and create its moderated counterpart
>> soc.religion.quaker.moderated
[...]
> Ruminating on this more, I am having doubts about option 5.
>
> The risk of creating a moderated forum, when the signal to noise ration is
> so low here already, is the creation of an almost empty group. Is this what
> we want? What other Quakers want, what the Big 8 wants? What purpose does an
> almost empty (albiet one of high signal to noise) serve?
My feeling is that there is enough 'on topic' stuff posted to SRQ to
justify the existence of a newsgroup. But the level of 'off topic' stuff
combined with all the unpleasantness discourages serious participation.
I also gather that there are occasional or regular lurkers who might be
more comfortable posting in a less abrasive newsgroup.
My own experience has been one of dissappointment that I didn't find the
sort of 'Quaker' information I was looking for when I first came to SRQ;
there was some, but very little. There were discussions I found
interesting or fun, or both, but they weren't really 'Quaker-related'.
Of all the (14, I think) soc.religion.* groups, only SRQ and
soc.religion.satanism are unmoderated as far as I can see.
As for the future of SRQ - if Quakers find it an embarrassment, then once
a moderated alternative is up and running, removal of SRQ would be
justified in my opinion.
[...]
> Would the deletion of SRQ and creation of
> soc.religion.<*>.thiering/DSS/chistian_origins etc be a better alternative?
Only if a reasonable number of people support the idea and intend to post
there.
> Or soc.religion.misc or something where folks can talk, but not have it look
> like Quaker group when it quite clearly isn't?
>
> Yowie
The creation of a new non-specific group in the soc.religion hierarchy to
take on the role currently being played by SRQ would be a legitimate
proposal, I think, if SRQ is removed.
I was away from home and 'off line' when this discussion began, and it's
taking me a while to catch up, but it looks to me as though we're not far
short of the point at which the official guidelines at
<http://www.big-8.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=policies:creation> come into
play.
--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~