2nd RFD: uk.radio.amateur.moderated

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

2ND REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)

This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the following changes
in the uk.* Usenet hierarchy:

create moderated newsgroup uk.radio.amateur.moderated

Changes from previous RFD:

Amended rationale - Added a sentence providing emphasis of the opinion
that the current state of ukra inhibits discourse.

Amended charter - Revised the language used to describe the
moderation. Made it less confrontational and more balanced. Looked to
set out the moderation terms in plain language. Made a decision to
disallow discussion of the moderation policy in the group as I came to
the conclusion that allowing general discussion of moderation could
potentially lead to abuse/attempts to game the system. Added that
moderators are expected to act on moderating submissions quickly.

Amended initial moderators - Added Paul W. Schleck and Kathy Morgan.

Amended moderation policy - Fully revised moderation policy to, again,
make it less confrontational and more open and honest. Outlined that
the moderators will only moderate on content, not contributor.
Outlined the two main areas that the policy will always look to remove
(abuse and crapfloods). Outlined that criticism of any matter in
amateur radio is permitted, as long as it is not abusive. Gave
examples of what may be abusive criticism. Declared that swearing is
permitted, but the moderators may act in cases of excessive/gratuitous
swearing. Tidied up whitelist policy. Removed blacklisting altogether.
Permitted all advertising (only relating to amateur radio).

Added initial hosting - Outlined where I intend to host the group
initially. I included this as there was a strong negative reaction to
the idea of it being hosted on Chiark. Whilst I make no comment on
Chiark, I have gone with the path of least resistance to ensure as
smooth a passage as possible for the proposal. Panix.com was suggested
by Paul W. Schleck and currently hosts the moderation of several
groups, including the amateur radio newsgroups that Paul already
moderates in the Big* rec.* hierarchy, thus proving that the Panix
system is fit for purpose.

Newsgroup line:
uk.radio.amateur.moderated Amateur radio and related matters (Moderated)


*** ALL DISCUSSION MUST TAKE PLACE IN UK.NET.NEWS.CONFIG ***

This is not a Call for Votes (CFV); you cannot vote at this time.
Further procedural details are given below.

RATIONALE: uk.radio.amateur.moderated

The long-standing newsgroup uk.radio.amateur has, for a considerable time,
been suffering from a large volume of abusive, trolling, flaming and
off-topic posts. The net effect of this has been to stifle on-topic
discussion of amateur radio matters and on-topic threads often degenerate
into open warfare. Such is the hostility between certain posters that these
abusive, harassing and unpleasant conflagrations have resulted in
real-world issues, including police investigations, and at least one known
court case. Perusal of the group via Google will provide much evidence that
these issues have been ongoing for many years. Recently, there has been an
influx of spam/flood postings which have led to further inhibition of the
group's primary use; the discussion of amateur radio. Many, myself
included, have expressed the opinion that the net effect of these issues
is for new and established users of the group to be dissuaded from
contributing, leading to an ever-increasing stifling of legitimate
content.

I therefore propose that we should create:

uk.radio.amateur.moderated


CHARTER:
uk.radio.amateur.moderated

This group is for the discussion of all matters relating to the hobby of
amateur radio, both UK based and globally.

Moderation will be used to ensure that the group remains within the remit
of its charter and that the prevailing atmosphere is civil, pleasant, and
sympathetic to all users of the group and to the wider uk.* hierarchy.

An FAQ and the moderation policy will be posted to the group on a regular
basis (suggestion monthly).

Binary postings are forbidden, as are HTML postings. Relevant binary
content hosted elsewhere (web, FTP etc.) may be linked to in group
postings.

The moderators will be empowered to enforce the current (at the time of
receiving each submission) moderation policy in order to achieve the stated
goals of the charter. The moderators will approve or reject content at
their discretion and in-line with the moderation policy. The moderators
may operate a whitelist, at their discretion, to auto-approve posters. The
moderators may also choose, if the situation requires it, to retain
individual posters on manual moderation. In short, the moderators may use
whatever tools they feel appropriate to ensure the smooth running of the
group.

In case of disagreement amongst the moderators, the majority of the
moderation panel shall prevail; in case of deadlock, the status quo shall
remain. The moderation panel may vote to dismiss or appoint moderators.
Discussion of the moderation policy is not permitted within the group and
individuals wishing to discuss such should be directed to the proper forum;
uk.net.news.moderation.

Moderators should attempt to ensure that discussions can continue without
undue delay, and should therefore attempt to make a decision on all posts
within a few hours of submission.

END CHARTER

INITIAL MODERATORS

Stephen Thomas Cole
Paul W. Schleck
Kathy Morgan

INITIAL HOSTING

The moderation of the group will be hosted on Panix.com servers (US
based commercial provider) at the proposer's expense.


INITIAL MODERATION POLICY

Postings should be conducive to a civil and pleasant atmosphere,
and remain sympathetic to all contributors. Each moderator will
accept or reject postings based on their own judgement and in-line
with the moderation policy.

The moderators will only ever moderate according to the content of
each submitted message and will never moderate according only to the
contributor. Retromoderation will only be performed in instances of
catastrophic moderation software failure or abuse of the moderation
system. Content of posts will never be edited before authorization.

All matters relating to the hobby of amateur radio are to be
considered on-topic and will be authorised. The discussion in the
group will be UK-centric, but posts relating to the hobby of amateur
radio in a global sense will also be considered on-topic and will be
allowed. General, off-topic, discussion will also be considered
acceptable and will be regarded as "rag-chewing" (to use the amateur
radio slang) and will be authorized in-line with the normal policy.

Matters that will be regarded as STRICTLY forbidden and always liable
to be rejected are:

1 - Personal attacks and derogatory statements against individuals,
communities, organizations or races. This will include derogatory
references to individuals holding perceived 'inferior' amateur radio
qualifications.

2 - Floods of irrelevant and/or nonsensical postings, whether seeming
to emanate from a single source or not.

Whilst constructive criticism of any aspect of amateur radio is
welcomed, the moderators will reject such posts, at their discretion,
which contain derogatory language. One example of this would be the
use of 'RSCB' to attack the Radio Society of Great Britain, its
employees or members. Referring to the foundation license as 'Fool's
License' is another. Use of such language is not conducive to civil
debate and is, therefore, in contravention of the charter.

Swearing is permitted, if used in a non-abusive manner. The moderators
reserve the right to reject posts that contain excessive or gratuitous
foul-language.

The moderators will operate a whitelist system: new posters' messages
will be manually moderated by whichever moderator happens to get to
them first. The moderators may, after a small number of posts in line
with the charter having been submitted successfully, add the poster to
the whitelist. Whitelisted posters' messages will thereafter be posted
automatically. Individual
moderators may remove a poster from the whitelist, when they post
inappropriate or borderline messages. A warning may be issued to the
poster at the moderators' discretion but is not required for removal.

Decisions by individual moderators to approve or reject a posting, or
to close a thread, may be appealed to the whole moderation panel. The
panel would prefer this to be done privately to make it easier for the
panel to overrule a mistaken moderator without anyone losing face. If
a contributor is not satisfied with the outcome of their appeal they
are advised to post such in uk.net.news.moderation.

Advertising of commercial services, events and private classified
posts (all relating strictly to amateur radio) is permitted.

This policy will be updated by the moderation panel as they see fit in
order to better serve the charter and to allow the smooth running of
the group.


END MODERATION POLICY

PROCEDURE:

This is a request for discussion, not a call for votes. In this phase of
the process, any potential problems with the proposal should be raised
and resolved. The discussion period will continue for a minimum of 10
days, starting from when this RFD is posted to uk.net.news.announce
(i.e. until May 29th) after which a Call For Votes (CFV) may be
posted by a neutral vote taker if the discussion warrants it.
Alternatively, the proposal may proceed by the fast-track method. Please
do not attempt to vote until this happens.

This RFD attempts to comply fully with the "Guidelines for Group Creation
within the UK Hierarchy" as published regularly in uk.net.news.announce
and is available from http://www.usenet.org.uk/guidelines.html (the UK
Usenet website). Please refer to this document if you have any questions
about the process.

DISTRIBUTION:

This RFD has been posted to the following newsgroups:
uk.net.news.announce
uk.net.news.config
uk.radio.amateur

Proponent:
Stephen Thomas Cole <steve....@gmail.com>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 1.4.10
Charset: noconv

iQCVAwUBUZcpKGOfGXkh8vHZAQHS/AP/RWl5Odxm7AY2ZDlkqBompvhNgSZVIu4f
QqqDpnlv4DQcUABa+91yWIBfkFxuuGSg4e6t6bPWJBecbHBtUmtyOE3QlegZKk6J
+xZYMxtlrbQnezS02W9KXriaO4lCCiucy3e/yPJOBvJ88yTZNd+JIDh/QcDw2Ped
Oy+Fn5XrF0A=
=Ayms
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Paul Cummins]

In article
<rfd2-uk.radio.amateur.moderated-20130518070702$4f...@matrix.darkstorm.co.u

k>, steve....@gmail.com (Stephen Thomas Cole) wrote:

> Panix.com was suggested
> by Paul W. Schleck and currently hosts the moderation of several
> groups, including the amateur radio newsgroups that Paul already
> moderates in the Big* rec.* hierarchy, thus proving that the Panix
> system is fit for purpose.

Panix.com currently supports the abuse of ukra by southgate.

This means they are, to my mind, even less acceptable that Chiark.

> The long-standing newsgroup uk.radio.amateur has, for a
> considerable time,
> been suffering from a large volume of abusive, trolling, flaming and
> off-topic posts

As has pretty much every non-moderated group. What makes ukra special?

> Many, myself
> included, have expressed the opinion that the net effect of these
> issues
> is for new and established users of the group to be dissuaded from
> contributing, leading to an ever-increasing stifling of legitimate
> content.

Who is this mythical "many"? Within ukra, your views have been roundly
slated.

> uk.radio.amateur.moderated

Wrong place. Should be in uk.rec.radio

> One example of this would be the
> use of 'RSCB' to attack the Radio Society of Great Britain, its
> employees or members.

Aha - this is why - it's going to be an RSGB Stooge Group.

No, No, No! (as Maggie would have said)

--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981

---- If it's below this line, I didn't write it ----

[Percy Picacity]

As I promised before, I will vote against purely on the grounds that
you have given in to the anti-chiark propaganda. Helpfully, you have
admitted to this, and you can't unsay it. I am doing this on the
principle that cowardly personal attacks should be neutralised as much
as possible.

I might have a few constructive comments but, given that I am voting on
the above grounds, I shall refrain from stating them. ( Although
choosing a paid host while having only one (human and thus subject to
all human frailty) person likely to consider paying is a major hostage
to fortune.)

--

Percy Picacity

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

In article
<rfd2-uk.radio.amateur.moderated-20130518070702$4f...@matrix.darkstorm.co.uk>,

Stephen Thomas Cole <steve....@gmail.com> wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> 2ND REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>
> This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the following changes
> in the uk.* Usenet hierarchy:
>
> create moderated newsgroup uk.radio.amateur.moderated

Thanks for posting this, Tony. Much appreciated.

--
-------------------
Stephen Thomas Cole
Remove the obvious to send e-mail: REMOVEste...@REMOVEgmail.com
-------------------

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

In article <memo.2013051...@postmaster.cix.co.uk>,

Usenet....@gstgroup.co.uk wrote:
>
> Panix.com currently supports the abuse of ukra by southgate.
>
> This means they are, to my mind, even less acceptable that Chiark.

gather that you refer to the news bulletins? I, personally, don't see
this as abuse in any way. the bulletins are on-topic and often generate a
little bit of relevant content from folk replying.

>
> As has pretty much every non-moderated group. What makes ukra special?

As discussed in RFD1, ukra is, to many, in a bad way. More so than a *lot*
of other newsgroups.

>
> Who is this mythical "many"?

See the Summary of Discussion for a sampling of those who expressed a
positive opinion of the proposal.

>Within ukra, your views have been roundly
> slated.
>

To say that my views have been "roundly slated" is painting with a broad
brush. A small group of people have been vocally against this proposal.
Likewise, a small group have been vocally in favour of it.

> > uk.radio.amateur.moderated
>
> Wrong place. Should be in uk.rec.radio

See the Summary of Discussion to catch up with the logic on the naming.

>
> > One example of this would be the
> > use of 'RSCB' to attack the Radio Society of Great Britain, its
> > employees or members.
>
> Aha - this is why - it's going to be an RSGB Stooge Group.
>

I think that that's quite a stretch.

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

In article <6j466h....@news.alt.net>, Percy Picacity

<k...@under.the.invalid> wrote:

> As I promised before, I will vote against purely on the grounds that
> you have given in to the anti-chiark propaganda. Helpfully, you have
> admitted to this, and you can't unsay it. I am doing this on the
> principle that cowardly personal attacks should be neutralised as much
> as possible.

I won't try to unsay it as it is, essentially, true. Faced with a lack of
knowledge of the issues I had to make a choice between Chiark and
elsewhere. Panix currently hosts the moderation of several newsgroups and
Paul Schleck is familiar with using their system. Offered that or Chiark,
I chose to go with the package that was, to my eyes, the least
controversial. Like I said, I don't have enough knowledge of either the
history of Chiark or the alleged flaws within but I was acutely aware that
to take Ian up on his kind offer would lead to immediate headaches. I do
not feel ashamed in taking the easy way out! Ian did say in a posting in
the 1st RFD thread that he would understand entirely if I was scAred off.
I'm not happy about it, but I need to choose which fights to pick and I do
not fancy taking on the ongoing war between Chiark and its enemies.

>
> I might have a few constructive comments but, given that I am voting on
> the above grounds, I shall refrain from stating them. ( Although
> choosing a paid host while having only one (human and thus subject to
> all human frailty) person likely to consider paying is a major hostage
> to fortune.)

Paul Schleck did suggest that the costs be split between the moderation
team but I did not feel comfortable in burdening him and Kathy with any
outlay, considering that they are both offering to take this on out of the
goodness of their hearts. In the future, once a team of moderators has
been assembled made up of the users of the group, that may change. In the
meantime, I am happy to commit myself to $100 or so a year for the next 2
or 3 years. Longer term I would like to invest the energy in really
learning how to administer this myself, I'm reading up on having my own
news server as we speak, so hopefully the time will come when I can
"re-patriate" the hosting and do it for much less money/for free.

Percy, your comments on this would still be very valuable and I would be
keen to hear them.

[Paul Cummins]

In article <REMOVEsteve.t.col...@192.168.0.139>,

REMOVEste...@REMOVEgmail.com (Stephen Thomas Cole) wrote:

> gather that you refer to the news bulletins?

Unsolicited Commercial Postings. Would they be blocked from your
playground?

> See the Summary of Discussion to catch up with the logic on the
> naming.

I don't need to. Follow the guidelines...

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

In article <memo.2013051...@postmaster.cix.co.uk>,
Usenet....@gstgroup.co.uk wrote:

> In article <REMOVEsteve.t.col...@192.168.0.139>,
> REMOVEste...@REMOVEgmail.com (Stephen Thomas Cole) wrote:
>
> > gather that you refer to the news bulletins?
>
> Unsolicited Commercial Postings. Would they be blocked from your
> playground?

I don't read them particularly in-depth that often, so must have missed
their "commercial" nature. Would you confirm exactly what you refer to
please, Paul? As far as I can see, they are amateur radio news bulletins.

>
> > See the Summary of Discussion to catch up with the logic on the
> > naming.
>
> I don't need to. Follow the guidelines...

I suggest that you read the guidelines again. There's an argument to be
made for grouping similar groups together, even if doing so would break
the current naming conventions. This was covered in the RFD thread as well
as the Summary.

[Wm]

uk.net.news.config <REMOVEsteve.t.col...@192.168.0.139>

On 18/05/2013 12:17, Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:
> In article <6j466h....@news.alt.net>, Percy Picacity
> <k...@under.the.invalid> wrote:

> I won't try to unsay it as it is, essentially, true. Faced with a lack of
> knowledge of the issues I had to make a choice between Chiark and
> elsewhere. Panix currently hosts the moderation of several newsgroups and
> Paul Schleck is familiar with using their system. Offered that or Chiark,
> I chose to go with the package that was, to my eyes, the least
> controversial. Like I said, I don't have enough knowledge of either the
> history of Chiark or the alleged flaws within but I was acutely aware that
> to take Ian up on his kind offer would lead to immediate headaches. I do
> not feel ashamed in taking the easy way out! Ian did say in a posting in
> the 1st RFD thread that he would understand entirely if I was scAred off.
> I'm not happy about it, but I need to choose which fights to pick and I do
> not fancy taking on the ongoing war between Chiark and its enemies.

> Paul Schleck did suggest that the costs be split between the moderation
> team but I did not feel comfortable in burdening him and Kathy with any
> outlay, considering that they are both offering to take this on out of the
> goodness of their hearts. In the future, once a team of moderators has
> been assembled made up of the users of the group, that may change. In the
> meantime, I am happy to commit myself to $100 or so a year for the next 2
> or 3 years. Longer term I would like to invest the energy in really
> learning how to administer this myself, I'm reading up on having my own
> news server as we speak, so hopefully the time will come when I can
> "re-patriate" the hosting and do it for much less money/for free.

Just to be clear, are you buying modbot facilities from panix.com or
from Paul Schleck ?

--
Wm

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

In article <kn7pib$kv6$1...@dont-email.me>, Wm <tcn...@tarrcity.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>
> Just to be clear, are you buying modbot facilities from panix.com or
> from Paul Schleck ?

I will hire a server from Panix and Paul will install STUMP on it. Paul is
not charging money to do this.

[Brian]

This name does not seem to fit with the established taxonomy of uk.*

Uk.r.a has grandfather naming rights. If it were created today, it
would probably be placed in uk.rec.radio.* The proponent has made no
case why an exception to the current taxonomical rules should be made
for the proposed group. I suggest the group name should therefore be
uk.rec.radio.amateur.moderated

>
> *** ALL DISCUSSION MUST TAKE PLACE IN UK.NET.NEWS.CONFIG ***
>
>This is not a Call for Votes (CFV); you cannot vote at this time.
>Further procedural details are given below.
>
>RATIONALE: uk.radio.amateur.moderated
>
>The long-standing newsgroup uk.radio.amateur has, for a considerable time,
>been suffering from a large volume of abusive, trolling, flaming and
>off-topic posts. The net effect of this has been to stifle on-topic
>discussion of amateur radio matters and on-topic threads often degenerate
>into open warfare. Such is the hostility between certain posters that these
>abusive, harassing and unpleasant conflagrations have resulted in
>real-world issues, including police investigations, and at least one known
>court case. Perusal of the group via Google will provide much evidence that
>these issues have been ongoing for many years. Recently, there has been an
>influx of spam/flood postings which have led to further inhibition of the
>group's primary use; the discussion of amateur radio. Many, myself
>included, have expressed the opinion that the net effect of these issues
>is for new and established users of the group to be dissuaded from
>contributing, leading to an ever-increasing stifling of legitimate
>content.
>
>I therefore propose that we should create:
>
>uk.radio.amateur.moderated

See above.

>CHARTER:
>uk.radio.amateur.moderated
>
>This group is for the discussion of all matters relating to the hobby of
>amateur radio, both UK based and globally.
>
>Moderation will be used to ensure that the group remains within the remit
>of its charter and that the prevailing atmosphere is civil, pleasant, and
>sympathetic to all users of the group and to the wider uk.* hierarchy.
>
>An FAQ and the moderation policy will be posted to the group on a regular
>basis (suggestion monthly).
>
>Binary postings are forbidden, as are HTML postings. Relevant binary
>content hosted elsewhere (web, FTP etc.) may be linked to in group
>postings.
>
>The moderators will be empowered to enforce the current (at the time of
>receiving each submission) moderation policy in order to achieve the stated
>goals of the charter. The moderators will approve or reject content at
>their discretion and in-line with the moderation policy. The moderators
>may operate a whitelist, at their discretion, to auto-approve posters. The
>moderators may also choose, if the situation requires it, to retain
>individual posters on manual moderation. In short, the moderators may use
>whatever tools they feel appropriate to ensure the smooth running of the
>group.

If the last sentence is what is really intended, it renders all the
preceding material in the paragraph tautologous. It might also be used
as a justification for any abuse of the moderation process by the
moderators after group creation. I suggest that this sentence should
be omitted, so that the paragraph ends with the words "... posters on
manual moderation."

Suggest that "in accordance with" is a better wording for "in-line
with" throughout.

>In case of disagreement amongst the moderators, the majority of the
>moderation panel shall prevail; in case of deadlock, the status quo shall
>remain. The moderation panel may vote to dismiss or appoint moderators.
>Discussion of the moderation policy is not permitted within the group and
>individuals wishing to discuss such should be directed to the proper forum;
>uk.net.news.moderation.
>
>Moderators should attempt to ensure that discussions can continue without
>undue delay, and should therefore attempt to make a decision on all posts
>within a few hours of submission.
>
>END CHARTER
>
>INITIAL MODERATORS
>
>Stephen Thomas Cole

Given the proponent's conduct during some of the exchanges in the
debate around RFD1, he is not, IMHO, a suitable person to be a
moderator.

>Paul W. Schleck
>Kathy Morgan
>
>INITIAL HOSTING
>
>The moderation of the group will be hosted on Panix.com servers (US
>based commercial provider) at the proposer's expense.

This is a desperately bad idea. It effectively makes the group's
continued existence contingent on the willingness of a single
individual to pay the hosting fees. It therefore gives that individual
a right of veto on the group's continued existence. This is outwith
the established procedures for the removal of groups from the uk.*
hierarchy.

>
>INITIAL MODERATION POLICY
>
>Postings should be conducive to a civil and pleasant atmosphere,
>and remain sympathetic to all contributors. Each moderator will
>accept or reject postings based on their own judgement and in-line
>with the moderation policy.
>
>The moderators will only ever moderate according to the content of
>each submitted message and will never moderate according only to the
>contributor.

Tautologous.

"The moderators will moderate on message content only and will not
consider the identity of the contributor." is better, however the
meaning of "the contributor" needs to be defined: posting nym, RL
identity or something else?

>Retromoderation will only be performed in instances of
>catastrophic moderation software failure or abuse of the moderation
>system.

Is this acceptable within uk.*, where IIUI, retro-moderation is
usually considered an abusive act?

> Content of posts will never be edited before authorization.
>
>All matters relating to the hobby of amateur radio are to be
>considered on-topic and will be authorised. The discussion in the
>group will be UK-centric, but posts relating to the hobby of amateur
>radio in a global sense will also be considered on-topic and will be
>allowed. General, off-topic, discussion will also be considered
>acceptable and will be regarded as "rag-chewing" (to use the amateur
>radio slang) and will be authorized in-line with the normal policy.

The wording of the last sentence is very clumsy and appears to contain
a statement that off-topic and on-topic can be held to mean the same
thing.

I suggest a better approach, and one consistent with what follows,
would be to say:

"The following are regarded as on-topic within the group:" followed by
a list

>
>Matters that will be regarded as STRICTLY forbidden and always liable
>to be rejected are:

Is "always liable to be" really meant? If the intention is "always
will be", then I suggest this is the wording that should be used.

>1 - Personal attacks and derogatory statements against individuals,
>communities, organizations or races. This will include derogatory
>references to individuals holding perceived 'inferior' amateur radio
>qualifications.
>
>2 - Floods of irrelevant and/or nonsensical postings, whether seeming
>to emanate from a single source or not.
>
>Whilst constructive criticism of any aspect of amateur radio is
>welcomed, the moderators will reject such posts, at their discretion,
>which contain derogatory language. One example of this would be the
>use of 'RSCB' to attack the Radio Society of Great Britain, its
>employees or members. Referring to the foundation license as 'Fool's
>License' is another. Use of such language is not conducive to civil
>debate and is, therefore, in contravention of the charter.
>
>Swearing is permitted, if used in a non-abusive manner. The moderators
>reserve the right to reject posts that contain excessive or gratuitous
>foul-language.

What is meant by "excessive" or "gratuitous"? These are essentially
subjective terms.

Standards in amateur radio have obviously fallen somewhat over the
years I have been off-air. I was always taught that a radio amateur
never swore on-air, out of consideration for other operators and
listeners. If behaviour is to be deprecated on air, it should not be
allowed in the group.

>The moderators will operate a whitelist system: new posters' messages
>will be manually moderated by whichever moderator happens to get to
>them first. The moderators may, after a small number of posts in line
>with the charter having been submitted successfully, add the poster to
>the whitelist. Whitelisted posters' messages will thereafter be posted
>automatically. Individual
>moderators may remove a poster from the whitelist, when they post
>inappropriate or borderline messages. A warning may be issued to the
>poster at the moderators' discretion but is not required for removal.
>
>Decisions by individual moderators to approve or reject a posting, or
>to close a thread, may be appealed to the whole moderation panel. The
>panel would prefer this to be done privately to make it easier for the
>panel to overrule a mistaken moderator without anyone losing face.

If moderators are to be empowered to moderate, they ought also to be
prepared to be accountable to the users of uk.*. Users of the group
and of the wider hierarchy are entitled to know when a moderator has
made an error.

> If
>a contributor is not satisfied with the outcome of their appeal they
>are advised to post such in uk.net.news.moderation.

Thereby filling the latter group up with more of the kind of dross we
see from frustrated would-be posters to uk.r.c.m.

Since retro-moderation is not generally permitted in uk.*, there is
very little the moderators can do to remove a post which has been
approped in error. The problem is therefore whether or not to grant a
right of appeal to a would-be poster who feels her/his post has been
incorrectly rejected.

This can be achieved by:
"If a would-be contributor believes that a posting submission made by
her/him has been rejected in error, or for reasons outwith the
moderation policy, s/he has a right of appeal which may be exercised
in writing to the moderators' published email address, stating the
grounds of the appeal. Such an appeal will be considered by the whole
moderation panel. If the appeal is upheld, the post will be allowed,
and this will be sufficient notification to the appellant. If the
appeal is rejected, the appellant will be informed in writing of this
decision, with reason(s), to her/his email address as used on the
appeal e-mail. No further right of appeal exists."

>Advertising of commercial services, events and private classified
>posts (all relating strictly to amateur radio) is permitted.

Unless you want to create a charter for the group to be flooded with
spam having but the most tenuous link to amateur radio, can I suggest:

"Announcements of events relevant to amateur radio are permitted if
the subject line of the post begings with ANN:

Advertising of items relevant to amateur radio for sale by private
individuals not for commercial gain is permitted if the subject line
of the post begins with FS:. All other advertising is not permitted."

>This policy will be updated by the moderation panel as they see fit in
>order to better serve the charter and to allow the smooth running of
>the group.

Absolutely not. If the moderators wish to change the policy, they
should seek approval from the electorate (see below).

>END MODERATION POLICY

And everything from "MODERATION POLICY" downwards needs to be in the
charter, so that the mods cannot play ducks and drakes with it after
group creation without getting a mandate from the hierarchy for the
changes.

This is a considerable improvement on RFD1, and IMO the proponent is
to be congratulated on what has clearly been a considerable volume of
work. Suggestions for debate around further improvements are set out
above.

As it stands I would still vote against creation. The deal-breakers
for me are:
(1) beyond assertion, there is still no convincing argument that the
creation of the group is necessary to achieve the proponent's stated
aims. I read uk.r.a. every week, and I would estimate the time needed
to keep kill-files up to date as less than two minutes each week;
(2) the power of veto built-in to the hosting arrangements;
(3) the composition of the moderation panel.

Brian

Remove 2001. to reply by email.

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

In article <n7oep81ba9tfoidmb...@4ax.com>, Brian

<Br...@2001.bjforster.force9.co.uk> wrote:
> This name does not seem to fit with the established taxonomy of uk.*
>
> Uk.r.a has grandfather naming rights. If it were created today, it
> would probably be placed in uk.rec.radio.* The proponent has made no
> case why an exception to the current taxonomical rules should be made
> for the proposed group. I suggest the group name should therefore be
> uk.rec.radio.amateur.moderated
>

This was discussed in the RFD1 thread. There looks to be scope within the
naming guideline to break convention to group newsgroups of similar
interest together.

>
> If the last sentence is what is really intended, it renders all the
> preceding material in the paragraph tautologous. It might also be used
> as a justification for any abuse of the moderation process by the
> moderators after group creation. I suggest that this sentence should
> be omitted, so that the paragraph ends with the words "... posters on
> manual moderation."

How about: "In short, the moderators may use any combination of the tools
at their disposal as they feel appropriate to ensure the smooth running of
the group."? On reflection, I do agree that that last sentence is likely
superfluous.

> Suggest that "in accordance with" is a better wording for "in-line
> with" throughout.

Agreed.

>
> Given the proponent's conduct during some of the exchanges in the
> debate around RFD1, he is not, IMHO, a suitable person to be a
> moderator.

I disagree. Whilst I have "got stuck in" to the odd row in ukra, or
returned the compliment on a couple of posters having a pop at me, I think
it is a stretch to try and suggest that I am inherently a "bad'un",
especially against the wider backdrop of mischief and madness at ukra. If
there are specific instances of bad conduct that you have in mind, please
feel free to post them.

>
> This is a desperately bad idea. It effectively makes the group's
> continued existence contingent on the willingness of a single
> individual to pay the hosting fees. It therefore gives that individual
> a right of veto on the group's continued existence. This is outwith
> the established procedures for the removal of groups from the uk.*
> hierarchy.
>

I'm making a commitment to pay the hosting fee out of my own pocket for
*at least* the next couple of years. I would love to share that cost with
anybody else interested in working on the running of the group, and I hope
that that situation will arise quite soon. If not, i will continue to pay.
Longer term, I would like to see the hosting done in the UK and would
happily see it managed by a committee of moderators.

>
> Tautologous.
>
> "The moderators will moderate on message content only and will not
> consider the identity of the contributor." is better, however the
> meaning of "the contributor" needs to be defined: posting nym, RL
> identity or something else?

Noted.

> Is this acceptable within uk.*, where IIUI, retro-moderation is
> usually considered an abusive act?
>

It is my understanding that it is permitted in cases of software failure
or subversion of the moderation process. If I'm wrong, I'm happy to be
corrected.

>
> The wording of the last sentence is very clumsy and appears to contain
> a statement that off-topic and on-topic can be held to mean the same
> thing.
>
> I suggest a better approach, and one consistent with what follows,
> would be to say:
>
> "The following are regarded as on-topic within the group:" followed by
> a list
>

Noted.

>
> Is "always liable to be" really meant? If the intention is "always
> will be", then I suggest this is the wording that should be used.

"Liable to" allows for the odd mistake to slip through, "always will be"
does not, at least not without potentially opening a can of worms and
starting a round of mud-slinging.

> What is meant by "excessive" or "gratuitous"? These are essentially
> subjective terms.

I'm not 100% happy about this either, but it seems the best that can be
achieved, given that most who voiced an opinion were in favour of
swearing. I'm including the terms "excessive" and "gratuitous" here to
allow the moderators to reject posts that contain far more than simple
conversational swearing.

>
> Standards in amateur radio have obviously fallen somewhat over the
> years I have been off-air. I was always taught that a radio amateur
> never swore on-air, out of consideration for other operators and
> listeners. If behaviour is to be deprecated on air, it should not be
> allowed in the group.

I pretty much agree, but, as was pointed out by several, this is Usenet,
not the radio spectrum.

>
> If moderators are to be empowered to moderate, they ought also to be
> prepared to be accountable to the users of uk.*. Users of the group
> and of the wider hierarchy are entitled to know when a moderator has
> made an error.

The language used was "prefer to", and did not prohibit people going to
unnm in the first instance instead.

>
> Thereby filling the latter group up with more of the kind of dross we
> see from frustrated would-be posters to uk.r.c.m.

That group exists for such discussion.

>
> Since retro-moderation is not generally permitted in uk.*, there is
> very little the moderators can do to remove a post which has been
> approped in error. The problem is therefore whether or not to grant a
> right of appeal to a would-be poster who feels her/his post has been
> incorrectly rejected.
>
> This can be achieved by:
> "If a would-be contributor believes that a posting submission made by
> her/him has been rejected in error, or for reasons outwith the
> moderation policy, s/he has a right of appeal which may be exercised
> in writing to the moderators' published email address, stating the
> grounds of the appeal. Such an appeal will be considered by the whole
> moderation panel. If the appeal is upheld, the post will be allowed,
> and this will be sufficient notification to the appellant. If the
> appeal is rejected, the appellant will be informed in writing of this
> decision, with reason(s), to her/his email address as used on the
> appeal e-mail. No further right of appeal exists."

Noted.

>
> >Advertising of commercial services, events and private classified
> >posts (all relating strictly to amateur radio) is permitted.
>
> Unless you want to create a charter for the group to be flooded with
> spam having but the most tenuous link to amateur radio, can I suggest:
>
> "Announcements of events relevant to amateur radio are permitted if
> the subject line of the post begings with ANN:
>
> Advertising of items relevant to amateur radio for sale by private
> individuals not for commercial gain is permitted if the subject line
> of the post begins with FS:. All other advertising is not permitted."

I don't think that Usenet is likely to see many tidal waves of amateur
radio related spam any time soon. And if any did occur, it may still be of
interest to amateurs on Usenet, no? In regards to spammers, the contents
of the charter will not make any difference to them. I wish to permit all
(radio related) advertising as it is only ever likely to be low volume and
is likely to be of interest to some.

>
> >This policy will be updated by the moderation panel as they see fit in
> >order to better serve the charter and to allow the smooth running of
> >the group.
>
> Absolutely not. If the moderators wish to change the policy, they
> should seek approval from the electorate (see below).
>
> >END MODERATION POLICY
>
> And everything from "MODERATION POLICY" downwards needs to be in the
> charter, so that the mods cannot play ducks and drakes with it after
> group creation without getting a mandate from the hierarchy for the
> changes.

I have seen the opposite advice posted by members of the commitee.

>
> This is a considerable improvement on RFD1, and IMO the proponent is
> to be congratulated on what has clearly been a considerable volume of
> work.

Thanks Brian, it's been a bit of a brain twister, but fun.

>Suggestions for debate around further improvements are set out
> above.
>
> As it stands I would still vote against creation. The deal-breakers
> for me are:
> (1) beyond assertion, there is still no convincing argument that the
> creation of the group is necessary to achieve the proponent's stated
> aims. I read uk.r.a. every week, and I would estimate the time needed
> to keep kill-files up to date as less than two minutes each week;
> (2) the power of veto built-in to the hosting arrangements;
> (3) the composition of the moderation panel.
>

2 & 3 are addressed above. The issue of kill-filing, in 1, I have
addressed at length in the 1st RFD thread. Beyond that point, ukra remains
a group with an, let's say, unhealthy atmosphere. There are quite a few
posters with axes to grind and their behaviour inhibits discourse, IMO.

[Spike]

On Sat, 18 May 2013 08:07:02 +0100, Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> 2ND REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>
> This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the following changes
> in the uk.* Usenet hierarchy:

> Made a decision to disallow
> discussion of the moderation policy in the group as I came to the
> conclusion that allowing general discussion of moderation could
> potentially lead to abuse/attempts to game the system.

Thus following in the footsteps of uk.rec.cycling.moderated. One can expect ukra (among other groups) to be
crapflooded with messages such as 'Unfair UKRAM Rejection 69969'. This will be unwelcome in some of the
affected groups.

Are there any moderated groups that allow discussion of moderation policy in that group? What are their
experiences? If this has not been tried before, why not now? These points are not addressed.

> Outlined that criticism of any matter in amateur
> radio is permitted, as long as it is not abusive.

But the RSGB mustn't be lampooned (see below). Since the RSGB believes itself to be influential in Amateur
Radio in the UK, this is oversensitive and plays into the hands of those that see such a restriction as being
RSGB-influenced.

> The long-standing newsgroup uk.radio.amateur has, for a considerable
> time, been suffering from a large volume of abusive, trolling, flaming
> and off-topic posts. The net effect of this has been to stifle on-topic
> discussion of amateur radio matters and on-topic threads often
> degenerate into open warfare.

This is clearly a perversion of the truth. While ukra currently enjoys a crapflood, it is not its first and it has
survived despite them. There is plenty of technical and other discussion of subjects of interest to Amateur Radio
and Radio Amateurs. The current crapflood has not been shown to diminish these discussions in any way.
Merely making such an assertion as that above does not make it true, and is to be rejected without proof.

Here is a list of those topics posted in the last seven days, that have a direct AR interest, not including the daily
news roundup from the Southgate club and some topics of more general interest:

-----

Kenwood TS-990S RadCom Review

DUBLIN (HAREC) AMATEUR RADIO EXAM on 4th July 2013

RAF TYPE D MORSE KEY [second posting]

rf millivotmeter

Announcements: what happened?

GB70DAM last night...

RAF TYPE D MORSE KEY

The world before the UV-3R

G100RSGB

Will they or won't they?

OFCOM Fixed Penalty Scheme

Not quite the Ofcom website but,

turkey toshiba tv ....

A net for we?

Phew...That was a close one!

RFD2 submitted!

Serious radio question for a change!

bit wet .....

Expedition to South Ayrshire ....

VNWA SOT calibration

-----

Additionally, other AR-related topics were raised as threads 'drifted'.

This could easily be said to be a good and varied list of topics for a group with such a minor interest, and clearly
refutes the claim of '... stifl(ing) on-topic discussion of amateur radio matters'.

> Perusal of the group via Google will provide
> much evidence that these issues have been ongoing for many years.
> Recently, there has been an influx of spam/flood postings which have led
> to further inhibition of the group's primary use; the discussion of
> amateur radio. Many, myself included, have expressed the opinion that
> the net effect of these issues is for new and established users of the
> group to be dissuaded from contributing, leading to an ever-increasing
> stifling of legitimate content.

Postings to text-based usergroups have fallen by 50 percent in the last three years. There are less than 1500
posters in the whole uk. heirarchy, and these are decreasing in number.

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

This decline, which extends well beyond the last three years, has not been as a result of any crapfloods. People
are being dissuaded from posting - should they even discover Usenet in the first place - for other reasons.
Therefore, this alleged reason for the founding of a moderated group is unfounded.

> All matters relating to the hobby of amateur radio are to be considered
> on-topic and will be authorised.

This is not true. A list of banned topics follows:

> Matters that will be regarded as STRICTLY forbidden and always liable to
> be rejected are:
>
> 1 - Personal attacks and derogatory statements against individuals,
> communities, organizations or races. This will include derogatory
> references to individuals holding perceived 'inferior' amateur radio
> qualifications.

Since in the progressive licensing system that the UK currently enjoys, some licences hold privileges that others
don't; this is the nature of a progressive system. It necessarily follows that some licences are 'inferior' because
they are not 'superior' and not equal to some others. Other licences have qualification criteria that have been
eased, over the passage of time, and in that sense some are 'superior' and some are not. This restriction is a
mere sop to those who are over-sensitive.

> Whilst constructive criticism of any aspect of amateur radio is
> welcomed, the moderators will reject such posts, at their discretion,
> which contain derogatory language. One example of this would be the use
> of 'RSCB' to attack the Radio Society of Great Britain, its employees or
> members. Referring to the foundation license as 'Fool's License' is
> another. Use of such language is not conducive to civil debate and is,
> therefore, in contravention of the charter.

One is given the strong impression of pro-RSGB bias, despite all mention previously of even-handedness and
balance. This does the argument for the formation of the group no favours at all.

> The moderators will operate a whitelist system: new posters' messages
> will be manually moderated by whichever moderator happens to get to them
> first. The moderators may, after a small number of posts in line with
> the charter having been submitted successfully, add the poster to the
> whitelist. Whitelisted posters' messages will thereafter be posted
> automatically. Individual moderators may remove a poster from the
> whitelist, when they post inappropriate or borderline messages. A
> warning may be issued to the poster at the moderators' discretion but is
> not required for removal.

What is 'borderline'? Where are the guidelines for this?

> Decisions by individual moderators to approve or reject a posting, or to
> close a thread, may be appealed to the whole moderation panel. The panel
> would prefer this to be done privately to make it easier for the panel
> to overrule a mistaken moderator without anyone losing face. If a
> contributor is not satisfied with the outcome of their appeal they are
> advised to post such in uk.net.news.moderation.

Saving moderators faces is as appropriate as saving the RSGB's face, that is, it is unreasonable. One would
hope for more robust moderators, if they feel sensitive over this issue, and the same goes for the self-
proclaimed 'national society'.

> Advertising of commercial services, events and private classified posts
> (all relating strictly to amateur radio) is permitted.

In the manner of RadCom(ic), it is to be noted.

> This policy will be updated by the moderation panel as they see fit in
> order to better serve the charter and to allow the smooth running of the
> group.

A recipe for self-serving and self-interest. Openness is clearly not a requirement.

> END MODERATION POLICY

And, hopefully, end end to this barmy idea.

--
Spike

[RipeCrisbies]

On Sat, 18 May 2013 12:08:15 +0100, Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:

> More so than a *lot*
> of other newsgroups.

And, to be even handed (good practice for a would-be moderator): less so
than a *lot* of other groups.



--
M0WYM
Sales @ radiowymsey
http://sales-at-radio-wymsey.ebid.net/
http://stores.ebay.co.uk/Sales-At-Radio-Wymsey/

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

In article <kn7t22$558$1...@dont-email.me>, RipeCrisbies

<Gnom...@lympledger.co.uk> wrote:

> On Sat, 18 May 2013 12:08:15 +0100, Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:
>
> > More so than a *lot*
> > of other newsgroups.
>
> And, to be even handed (good practice for a would-be moderator): less so
> than a *lot* of other groups.

Perhaps. How many other newsgroups, though, have had participants
embroiled in police actions and court cases against one another, leading
to a criminal conviction? How many other newsgroups have still got said
participants taking pot shots at each other (albeit mostly indirectly
these days)? Ukra is, in many ways, a unique case.

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

In article <avpbea...@mid.individual.net>, Aero....@live.com wrote:

> Thus following in the footsteps of uk.rec.cycling.moderated. One can
expect ukra (among other groups) to be
> crapflooded with messages such as 'Unfair UKRAM Rejection 69969'. This
will be unwelcome in some of the
> affected groups.
>
> Are there any moderated groups that allow discussion of moderation
policy in that group? What are their
> experiences? If this has not been tried before, why not now? These
points are not addressed.

Noted. I agonised on this point, initially opting to allow discussion of
the moderation policy *in general terms* in the group. I could not escape
the conclusion, however, that this would be continually tested by elements
acting in bad faith. There exists a channel in the Uk.* hierarchy for
moderation issues to be discussed. The mod policy does invite those who
have had posts rejected to contact the moderation team in the first
instance to discuss it.

> But the RSGB mustn't be lampooned (see below). Since the RSGB believes
itself to be influential in Amateur
> Radio in the UK, this is oversensitive and plays into the hands of those
that see such a restriction as being
> RSGB-influenced.

The issue is that the term "RSCB" is only ever used in a way that is
intended to imply certain insulting and unfair notions about the Society,
its employees and/or its members. The charter states that discussion must
be civil, making these implications is not civil.

Of course, you may feel free to voice your concerns and doubts about the
RSGB in the moderated group, but just choose your language and remain
civil. I know that you, and many others, have deeply-held issues with the
Society. I also know that you are all articulate enough to voice them
without being insulting, if only you'd try.

>
> This is clearly a perversion of the truth. While ukra currently enjoys a
crapflood, it is not its first and it has
> survived despite them. There is plenty of technical and other discussion
of subjects of interest to Amateur Radio
> and Radio Amateurs. The current crapflood has not been shown to diminish
these discussions in any way.
> Merely making such an assertion as that above does not make it true, and
is to be rejected without proof.

The crapflood is a part of the problem. The engrained enmity between the
various factions of the group is quite another and dates back multiple
years, suggesting that it is unresolvable.

A lot of these threads contained abusive posts, Spike. The discourse was
often incredibly robust and only rarely civil. I'm not necessarily saying
that this represents the worst of ukra (indeed, I enjoyed this week's
postings, having participated in quite a few both with good conduct and
bad conduct on my part!) but it certainly does not suggest any great
recovery of the group.

>
> Postings to text-based usergroups have fallen by 50 percent in the last
three years. There are less than 1500
> posters in the whole uk. heirarchy, and these are decreasing in number.
>
> http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/spoolstats/
>
> This decline, which extends well beyond the last three years, has not
been as a result of any crapfloods. People
> are being dissuaded from posting - should they even discover Usenet in
the first place - for other reasons.
> Therefore, this alleged reason for the founding of a moderated group is
unfounded.

Individuals have stated that they have been driven away from the group. I,
personally, often feel discinclined from starting new threads as I know
that they will likely attract bother. Look at the group via Google and you
will only see a wall of accusations of paedophilia, posted by the Scots
contingent. Not attractive.

>
> > All matters relating to the hobby of amateur radio are to be considered
> > on-topic and will be authorised.
>
> This is not true. A list of banned topics follows:

A little petty, but I suppose linguistically correct. Perhaps I should
insert a caveat that pots must adhere to the charter, although I rather
think that it is obvious.

>
> > Matters that will be regarded as STRICTLY forbidden and always liable to
> > be rejected are:
> >
> > 1 - Personal attacks and derogatory statements against individuals,
> > communities, organizations or races. This will include derogatory
> > references to individuals holding perceived 'inferior' amateur radio
> > qualifications.
>
> Since in the progressive licensing system that the UK currently enjoys,
some licences hold privileges that others
> don't; this is the nature of a progressive system. It necessarily
follows that some licences are 'inferior' because
> they are not 'superior' and not equal to some others. Other licences
have qualification criteria that have been
> eased, over the passage of time, and in that sense some are 'superior'
and some are not. This restriction is a
> mere sop to those who are over-sensitive.

Note that I use the term "derogatory". Merely referring to a foundation
licence as a "lower qualification" or even an "inferior qualification" is
not derogatory. Referring to a foundation licencee as an inferior person,
would be.

>
> One is given the strong impression of pro-RSGB bias, despite all mention
previously of even-handedness and
> balance. This does the argument for the formation of the group no
favours at all.

That may be your perception, but it is not the truth. I am not an RSGB
member, although I may become one at some point. I'm relatively
indifferent to the RSGB, truth be told.

>
> What is 'borderline'? Where are the guidelines for this?
>

Individual moderator discretion. If a post is edging towards being
insulting or goading, it could be looked at as being a borderline case,
could it not? In such instances, the moderator may decideto approve the
message, or reject it, or perhaps drop a quick email to the contributor
asking if they would like to reconsider their submission. I'm trying to
craft a moderation policy that is fluid enough to allow for the moderators
to work with the group's contributors in more than just a black and white
fashion. If this is no good, then perhaps it simply must be yes/no,
black/white?

> Saving moderators faces is as appropriate as saving the RSGB's face,
that is, it is unreasonable. One would
> hope for more robust moderators, if they feel sensitive over this issue,
and the same goes for the self-
> proclaimed 'national society'.
>

The idea here is less about saving face and more about working amicably
with the contributors.

> > Advertising of commercial services, events and private classified posts
> > (all relating strictly to amateur radio) is permitted.
>
> In the manner of RadCom(ic), it is to be noted.

I see no problem in allowing advertising, as long as its radio related.
It's not as if the moderators are profiting from it.

>
> > This policy will be updated by the moderation panel as they see fit in
> > order to better serve the charter and to allow the smooth running of the
> > group.
>
> A recipe for self-serving and self-interest. Openness is clearly not a
requirement.

I'd like to think that, eventually, there will be a community of radio
amateurs who use the group and will enjoy giving their input into the
running of it, and that the moderators will listen to this and respond.

>
> > END MODERATION POLICY
>
> And, hopefully, end end to this barmy idea.

Not quite yet...

[Brian]

On Sat, 18 May 2013 13:44:10 +0100, REMOVEste...@REMOVEgmail.com
(Stephen Thomas Cole) wrote:

>In article <n7oep81ba9tfoidmb...@4ax.com>, Brian
><Br...@2001.bjforster.force9.co.uk> wrote:

<snip>

>> If the last sentence is what is really intended, it renders all the
>> preceding material in the paragraph tautologous. It might also be used
>> as a justification for any abuse of the moderation process by the
>> moderators after group creation. I suggest that this sentence should
>> be omitted, so that the paragraph ends with the words "... posters on
>> manual moderation."
>
>How about: "In short, the moderators may use any combination of the tools
>at their disposal as they feel appropriate to ensure the smooth running of
>the group."? On reflection, I do agree that that last sentence is likely
>superfluous.

How about keeping the paragraph up to the catch-all sentence and
ditching the latter, rather than the other way round?

The more explicit you can be about what the moderators can do, the
less is the scope for uk.r.c.m-style faux outrage - or even, perish
the thought, genuine outrage - about moderators (allegedly or
actually) doing that for which they have no mandate.

<snip>

>>
>> Given the proponent's conduct during some of the exchanges in the
>> debate around RFD1, he is not, IMHO, a suitable person to be a
>> moderator.
>
>I disagree.

I expected nothing else.

<snip>

>>
>> This is a desperately bad idea. It effectively makes the group's
>> continued existence contingent on the willingness of a single
>> individual to pay the hosting fees. It therefore gives that individual
>> a right of veto on the group's continued existence. This is outwith
>> the established procedures for the removal of groups from the uk.*
>> hierarchy.
>>
>
>I'm making a commitment to pay the hosting fee out of my own pocket for
>*at least* the next couple of years. I would love to share that cost with
>anybody else interested in working on the running of the group, and I hope
>that that situation will arise quite soon. If not, i will continue to pay.
>Longer term, I would like to see the hosting done in the UK and would
>happily see it managed by a committee of moderators.

The electorate ought not to be asked to vote on a promise of what
might happen in the future. The group will be created on the basis of
what is in the RFD as published in the CFV.

"I'm making a commitment..." "...I will continue to pay..." -
undertakings given in the best of faith I have no doubt, but not the
answer. No-one has a crystal ball. What if you cannot afford to pay?
What if the moderators vote you off the mods panel (as they might,
they have that power within the terms of the RFD)? What if you fall
under a bus, fall too ill to continue, change your mind or, perish the
thought, just lose interest? The future of the group ought not to
depend on the goodwill and continued participation of a single
individual. This is building in a single point of failure to the
system design. No sensible engineer would avoidably do that.

This part of the proposal is seriously broken, IMO.

<snip>

>> What is meant by "excessive" or "gratuitous"? These are essentially
>> subjective terms.
>
>I'm not 100% happy about this either, but it seems the best that can be
>achieved, given that most who voiced an opinion were in favour of
>swearing. I'm including the terms "excessive" and "gratuitous" here to
>allow the moderators to reject posts that contain far more than simple
>conversational swearing.
>
>>
>> Standards in amateur radio have obviously fallen somewhat over the
>> years I have been off-air. I was always taught that a radio amateur
>> never swore on-air, out of consideration for other operators and
>> listeners. If behaviour is to be deprecated on air, it should not be
>> allowed in the group.
>
>I pretty much agree, but, as was pointed out by several, this is Usenet,
>not the radio spectrum.

It's not the club shack on members' night, either.

Part of the rationale, as I understand it, for a moderated group is
that newcomers to the hobby or casual visitors would be put off by
some of the unkillfiled content of uk.r.a. I therefore infer that
presentational issues such as this are of importance to those who
support the creation of the group.

I used to work in the broadcasting industry, so I believe I am fully
conversant with a wide choice of prime-quality expletives, and they
are water off a duck's back, frankly. However, it does seem curiously
inconsistent to believe that crapfloods and personal attacks will
deter the newcomer but swearing is an acceptable face of the hobby.

>
>
>>
>> If moderators are to be empowered to moderate, they ought also to be
>> prepared to be accountable to the users of uk.*. Users of the group
>> and of the wider hierarchy are entitled to know when a moderator has
>> made an error.
>
>The language used was "prefer to", and did not prohibit people going to
>unnm in the first instance instead.
>
>>
>> Thereby filling the latter group up with more of the kind of dross we
>> see from frustrated would-be posters to uk.r.c.m.
>
>That group exists for such discussion.

Indeed it does. It also exists for (and I quote from the charter) "may
include but not limited to: moderation software, moderation rules,
selection and election of moderators, moderators [sic] regular
postings... PGP Moose, multiple moderated groups, etc."

Take a look at uk.n.n.mod over the last couple of years and judge how
much traffic is concerned with the topics I have listed and how much
with fallout which should have been contained within uk.rec.cycling
and which is in uk.n.n.mod. partly as a result of a policy decision by
uk.r.c.m. moderators. Does this give an insight into why a proposal
which might lead to more of the same might attract adverse comment?

<remainder snipped>

I look forward to RFD3.

[Kathy Morgan]

Brian <Br...@2001.bjforster.force9.co.uk> wrote:

> "I'm making a commitment..." "...I will continue to pay..." -
> undertakings given in the best of faith I have no doubt, but not the
> answer. No-one has a crystal ball. What if you cannot afford to pay?
> What if the moderators vote you off the mods panel (as they might,
> they have that power within the terms of the RFD)? What if you fall
> under a bus, fall too ill to continue, change your mind or, perish the
> thought, just lose interest?

PANIX is a commercial hosting service with numerous customers and a
great deal of experience and redundancy. As such, it probably is less
likely to just disappear than donated hosting. With donated hosting,
there is the possibility that the owner will fall under a bus, fall too
ill to continue, change his/her mind, or just lose interest. OTOH, as
you point out, failure to make the payments to PANIX could cause loss of
the hosting and the group going silent. One way to mitigate that risk
is to give the account password to more than one member of the
moderation team; if Steve were to not make the payments, another member
with the password could take over the account and make them.

> The future of the group ought not to
> depend on the goodwill and continued participation of a single
> individual. This is building in a single point of failure to the
> system design. No sensible engineer would avoidably do that.

*All* moderated groups have built-in single points of failure. Most
people are not aware of how fragile the system is.

a) All have a single submission address: if something happens to email
at that system, the moderators will not receive the submissions.

b) The vast majority of submissions to moderated groups come from news
servers. The poster "posts" the article to their local server, which
intercepts it and transfers it to email to a generic address. The
article then travels via email to the first available moderation relay,
which looks up the submission address and sends the message on to that
address. If there is something wrong with that moderation relay, or if
all moderation relays are down, the article is just lost. There have
been times when there has been only one moderation relay--which I find
very alarming--and times when one of them was malfunctioning and causing
loss of messages. I'm not sure how many we have right now; I think only
two, Individual.net and Albasani.

c) The moderation relays get daily updates of moderation addresses from
isc.org; if something happens to the system at isc.org, the relays will
not get those updates.

d) Quite possibly other single points of failure that have slipped my
mind for the moment.

--
Kathy, one of the proposed initial moderators

[Kathy Morgan]

Spike <Sp...@AeroSpike.invalid> wrote:

> Postings to text-based usergroups have fallen by 50 percent in the last
> three years. There are less than 1500 posters in the whole uk. heirarchy,
> and these are decreasing in number.
>
> http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/spoolstats/
>
> This decline, which extends well beyond the last three years, has not been
> as a result of any crapfloods. People are being dissuaded from posting -
> should they even discover Usenet in the first place - for other reasons.

Have you any evidence to support that assertion? I just don't believe
it. Certainly the crapfloods in many, many groups are not the only
reason for the decline of text Usenet, but they are part of the problem.

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

In article <mc2fp8d5o36vf4934...@4ax.com>, Brian

<Br...@2001.bjforster.force9.co.uk> wrote:
>
> How about keeping the paragraph up to the catch-all sentence and
> ditching the latter, rather than the other way round?
>
> The more explicit you can be about what the moderators can do, the
> less is the scope for uk.r.c.m-style faux outrage - or even, perish
> the thought, genuine outrage - about moderators (allegedly or
> actually) doing that for which they have no mandate.
>

Yes, I agree, hence why I said that, on reflection, the last sentence is
superfluous.

>
> The electorate ought not to be asked to vote on a promise of what
> might happen in the future. The group will be created on the basis of
> what is in the RFD as published in the CFV.
>
> "I'm making a commitment..." "...I will continue to pay..." -
> undertakings given in the best of faith I have no doubt, but not the
> answer. No-one has a crystal ball. What if you cannot afford to pay?
> What if the moderators vote you off the mods panel (as they might,
> they have that power within the terms of the RFD)? What if you fall
> under a bus, fall too ill to continue, change your mind or, perish the
> thought, just lose interest? The future of the group ought not to
> depend on the goodwill and continued participation of a single
> individual. This is building in a single point of failure to the
> system design. No sensible engineer would avoidably do that.
>
> This part of the proposal is seriously broken, IMO.
>

What would be an alternate approach? That's a non-aggressive question, I'm
open-minded to all suggestions.

Thinking about it, this situation is almost unavoidable, isn't it? Any
moderated group is always going to ultimately hinge on one individual (or
a small group of people) or one piece of infastructure that could,
theoretically, go belly up at a moment's notice. If you say "Well, you
could get hit by a bus tomorrow, then what?", the answer would be "There's
two other moderators, to start with, and they would have to pick it up and
cope and, eventually, hand it off to other parties via the UK.* board".

Speaking realistically, I'm making a firm commitment to bear the costs of
hosting this for *at least* the next couple of years, with the expectation
being that I may have to pony up for more years on top of that. I have
declared that I intend to find a more finessed solution at the earliest
that such may be possible, a moderation comittee perhaps that will run the
group as an entity and bear the costs, but at this stage it is what it is
and I can't say anything that will definitively assuage these concerns.

>
> It's not the club shack on members' night, either.
>
> Part of the rationale, as I understand it, for a moderated group is
> that newcomers to the hobby or casual visitors would be put off by
> some of the unkillfiled content of uk.r.a. I therefore infer that
> presentational issues such as this are of importance to those who
> support the creation of the group.
>
> I used to work in the broadcasting industry, so I believe I am fully
> conversant with a wide choice of prime-quality expletives, and they
> are water off a duck's back, frankly. However, it does seem curiously
> inconsistent to believe that crapfloods and personal attacks will
> deter the newcomer but swearing is an acceptable face of the hobby.
>

Like I said, I'm not happy about the idea of foul-language being used and
did initially seek to prohibit it. This met with near universal uproar
and, as a reasonable proponent, I have made a decision to go with what the
overwhelming majority demanded from the last RFD. I am retaining the power
for moderators to use their discretion in rejecting excessive or
gratuitous swearing, but swearing in conversation and non-abusively will
be permitted.

>
> Indeed it does. It also exists for (and I quote from the charter) "may
> include but not limited to: moderation software, moderation rules,
> selection and election of moderators, moderators [sic] regular
> postings... PGP Moose, multiple moderated groups, etc."
>
> Take a look at uk.n.n.mod over the last couple of years and judge how
> much traffic is concerned with the topics I have listed and how much
> with fallout which should have been contained within uk.rec.cycling
> and which is in uk.n.n.mod. partly as a result of a policy decision by
> uk.r.c.m. moderators. Does this give an insight into why a proposal
> which might lead to more of the same might attract adverse comment?
>

Content posted in unnm is entirely out of my hands. The charter/mod pol
requests that disagreements with moderation decisions are appealed, in the
first instance, to the moderation team by email. If the complainant is not
satisfied with the response, then there exists the official channel to
take it further in unnm.

>
> I look forward to RFD3.

So do I. Some people seem to think that this process should be rushed
through and put to a vote but I'm doing this in the way that I see as
being proper, namely putting an idea forward, taking on board criticism
and then refining it before putting it out there again. I'm perfectly
comfortable with doing this as many times as is needed to acheive what I
consider to be the strongest possible charter and moderation policy.

[Burton Bradstock]

On Sat, 18 May 2013 14:26:06 +0100, Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:

> In article <avpbea...@mid.individual.net>, Aero....@live.com
> wrote:

>> Are there any moderated groups that allow discussion of moderation
>> policy in that group? What are their
>> experiences? If this has not been tried before, why not now? These
>> points are not addressed.
>
> Noted. I agonised on this point, initially opting to allow discussion of
> the moderation policy *in general terms* in the group. I could not
> escape the conclusion, however, that this would be continually tested by
> elements acting in bad faith. There exists a channel in the Uk.*
> hierarchy for moderation issues to be discussed. The mod policy does
> invite those who have had posts rejected to contact the moderation team
> in the first instance to discuss it.

All well and good, but it doesn't address the questions I posed. Further, you seem to be trying to head off a
problem that a properly-founded and properly-applied moderation policy would deal with.

>> But the RSGB mustn't be lampooned (see below). Since the RSGB believes
>> itself to be influential in Amateur
>> Radio in the UK, this is oversensitive and plays into the hands of
>> those that see such a restriction as being RSGB-influenced.
>
> The issue is that the term "RSCB" is only ever used in a way that is
> intended to imply certain insulting and unfair notions about the
> Society, its employees and/or its members. The charter states that
> discussion must be civil, making these implications is not civil.

For the sake of the discussion some would say that multi-band CB is what has been created; the RSGB
embraced the scheme that brought it about and they must therefore be associated with the outcome that gave
rise to the term. They might not like it, but it succinctly sums up their position. One wonders why you feel
sensitivity on their behalf over the issue, and why you choose to build it into the moderation policy. The RSGB
will sink or swim without your help.

> Of course, you may feel free to voice your concerns and doubts about the
> RSGB in the moderated group, but just choose your language and remain
> civil. I know that you, and many others, have deeply-held issues with
> the Society. I also know that you are all articulate enough to voice
> them without being insulting, if only you'd try.

I don't need to be patronised.

>> This is clearly a perversion of the truth. While ukra currently enjoys
>> a crapflood, it is not its first and it has
>> survived despite them. There is plenty of technical and other
>> discussion of subjects of interest to Amateur Radio
>> and Radio Amateurs. The current crapflood has not been shown to
>> diminish these discussions in any way.
>> Merely making such an assertion as that above does not make it true,
>> and is to be rejected without proof.
>
> The crapflood is a part of the problem. The engrained enmity between the
> various factions of the group is quite another and dates back multiple
> years, suggesting that it is unresolvable.

Again, you fail to address the points I raised.

You cannot keep saying that 'the current crapflood has done (this or that)' without some evidence. You have to
show that the current crapflood has made the decline of Usenet worse than it would otherwise have been.
Frankly, it could be said that the group has held up over the years rather well. I have sixty or seventy names in
my WF list, that's more than there were ukra posters at the height of Usenet's popularity. I believe one person,
with the groups knowledge, surveyed the groups use some years ago and found there were about 50 regular
posters and some 150 lurkers. Now, if you want to counter this evidence of stability in ukra against the general
trend, provide some hard facts rather than talking generally about hopes, aspirations, particular cases, what
someone told you, or personal opinions.

>> Here is a list of those topics posted in the last seven days, that have
>> a direct AR interest, not including the daily
>> news roundup from the Southgate club and some topics of more general
>> interest:

<snipped for brevity>

>> Additionally, other AR-related topics were raised as threads 'drifted'.
>>
>> This could easily be said to be a good and varied list of topics for a
>> group with such a minor interest, and clearly
>> refutes the claim of '... stifl(ing) on-topic discussion of amateur
>> radio matters'.
>
> A lot of these threads contained abusive posts, Spike.

Only for the thin-skinned. Stop shifting the goalposts.

> The discourse was
> often incredibly robust and only rarely civil. I'm not necessarily
> saying that this represents the worst of ukra (indeed, I enjoyed this
> week's postings, having participated in quite a few both with good
> conduct and bad conduct on my part!) but it certainly does not suggest
> any great recovery of the group.

You are shifting the goalposts again. 'Recovery' wasn't part of the proposed charter or moderation policy.

>> Postings to text-based usergroups have fallen by 50 percent in the last
>> three years. There are less than 1500
>> posters in the whole uk. heirarchy, and these are decreasing in number.
>>
>> http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/spoolstats/
>>
>> This decline, which extends well beyond the last three years, has not
>> been as a result of any crapfloods. People
>> are being dissuaded from posting - should they even discover Usenet in
>> the first place - for other reasons.
>> Therefore, this alleged reason for the founding of a moderated group is
>> unfounded.
>
> Individuals have stated that they have been driven away from the group.
> I, personally, often feel discinclined from starting new threads as I know
> that they will likely attract bother.

So what? Try a different approach; but you have found few friends there, perhaps due to your insufferable know-
it-all attitude. 'Killfile the wazzock, Spike' is the advice I got. I like to help people, but you're an objectionable
person to deal with.

> Look at the group via Google and
> you will only see a wall of accusations of paedophilia, posted by the
> Scots contingent. Not attractive.

Simply dealt with.

>> > All matters relating to the hobby of amateur radio are to be
>> > considered on-topic and will be authorised.
>>
>> This is not true. A list of banned topics follows:
>
> A little petty, but I suppose linguistically correct. Perhaps I should
> insert a caveat that pots must adhere to the charter, although I rather
> think that it is obvious.
>
>
>> > Matters that will be regarded as STRICTLY forbidden and always liable
>> > to be rejected are:
>> >
>> > 1 - Personal attacks and derogatory statements against individuals,
>> > communities, organizations or races. This will include derogatory
>> > references to individuals holding perceived 'inferior' amateur radio
>> > qualifications.
>>
>> Since in the progressive licensing system that the UK currently enjoys,
>> some licences hold privileges that others
>> don't; this is the nature of a progressive system. It necessarily
>> follows that some licences are 'inferior' because
>> they are not 'superior' and not equal to some others. Other licences
>> have qualification criteria that have been
>> eased, over the passage of time, and in that sense some are 'superior'
>> and some are not. This restriction is a mere sop to those who are over-sensitive.
>
> Note that I use the term "derogatory". Merely referring to a foundation
> licence as a "lower qualification" or even an "inferior qualification"
> is not derogatory. Referring to a foundation licencee as an inferior
> person, would be.

Then you need to reword the paragraph.

>> One is given the strong impression of pro-RSGB bias, despite all
>> mention previously of even-handedness and
>> balance. This does the argument for the formation of the group no
>> favours at all.
>
> That may be your perception, but it is not the truth.

And I can say with equal foundation, that there is a pro-RSGB bias in your proposal, and your claim is not true.

>> What is 'borderline'? Where are the guidelines for this?
>
> Individual moderator discretion. If a post is edging towards being
> insulting or goading, it could be looked at as being a borderline case,
> could it not? In such instances, the moderator may decideto approve the
> message, or reject it, or perhaps drop a quick email to the contributor
> asking if they would like to reconsider their submission. I'm trying to
> craft a moderation policy that is fluid enough to allow for the
> moderators to work with the group's contributors in more than just a
> black and white fashion. If this is no good, then perhaps it simply must
> be yes/no, black/white?

Why ask me? You are the one with the proposal, so propose something more suitable.

>> Saving moderators faces is as appropriate as saving the RSGB's face,
>> that is, it is unreasonable. One would
>> hope for more robust moderators, if they feel sensitive over this

>> issue, and the same goes for the self-proclaimed 'national society'.

>>
> The idea here is less about saving face and more about working amicably
> with the contributors.

It didn't come across as that.

>> > Advertising of commercial services, events and private classified
>> > posts (all relating strictly to amateur radio) is permitted.
>>
>> In the manner of RadCom(ic), it is to be noted.
>
> I see no problem in allowing advertising, as long as its radio related.
> It's not as if the moderators are profiting from it.
>
>> > This policy will be updated by the moderation panel as they see fit
>> > in order to better serve the charter and to allow the smooth running
>> > of the group.
>>
>> A recipe for self-serving and self-interest. Openness is clearly not a
> requirement.
>
> I'd like to think that, eventually, there will be a community of radio
> amateurs who use the group and will enjoy giving their input into the
> running of it, and that the moderators will listen to this and respond.

Pious hopes.

You have more work to do.

--
Burton Bradstock

[RipeCrisbies]

On Sat, 18 May 2013 14:04:54 +0100, Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:

> Ukra is, in many ways, a unique case.

Hardly, you need to look around a bit.

There's plenty of abusive behaviour in some of the alt.os groups and
sci.electronics groups. Certainly quite a few groups where personal
attacks and abuse make UKRA look pretty tame.

For an example of how good an unmoderated group can be take a look at
uk.media.radio.archers , it's probably the most civilised group on
usenet. Still, most participants grew up in the calmer days of Radio
Rental, accumulators and liberalism.

[Percy Picacity]

Once you allow discuss of moderation within a moderated group it
becomes possible to introduce, directly or by reference, precisely the
material which has been moderated out, plus surrounding noise. This
can rapidly make moderation pointless. Unless the discussion is so
firmly moderated as to stifle discussion, which can then be said to be
a breach of moderation policy, as such discussion should be allowed!

--

Percy Picacity

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

In article <y8Cdnfsehv-2WArM...@brightview.co.uk>,
Aero....@live.com wrote:
<snip>

All noted. Thanks!

[Spike]

On Sat, 18 May 2013 13:15:07 -0500, Burton Bradstock wrote:


> --
> Burton Bradstock

WTF did that come from?

It's Spike, I tell you!

--
Spike

[Brian]

On Sat, 18 May 2013 08:34:55 -0800, kmo...@spamcop.net (Kathy Morgan)
wrote:

> One way to mitigate that risk
>is to give the account password to more than one member of the
>moderation team; if Steve were to not make the payments, another member
>with the password could take over the account and make them.

If that is a serious proposal from the mod team, then that that is
what the RFD ought to say.

>> The future of the group ought not to
>> depend on the goodwill and continued participation of a single
>> individual. This is building in a single point of failure to the
>> system design. No sensible engineer would avoidably do that.
>
>*All* moderated groups have built-in single points of failure. Most
>people are not aware of how fragile the system is.

<snip>

No doubt all of what you say is quite correct. It does not, however,
provide a justification for introducing a further avoidable SPOF.

[Spike]

On Sat, 18 May 2013 08:34:57 -0800, Kathy Morgan wrote:

> Spike <Sp...@AeroSpike.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Postings to text-based usergroups have fallen by 50 percent in the last
>> three years. There are less than 1500 posters in the whole uk.
>> heirarchy, and these are decreasing in number.
>>
>> http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/spoolstats/
>>
>> This decline, which extends well beyond the last three years, has not
>> been as a result of any crapfloods. People are being dissuaded from
>> posting - should they even discover Usenet in the first place - for
>> other reasons.
>
> Have you any evidence to support that assertion?

As you yourself say further down this posting, and taking 'decline' as incorporating 'decreasing numbers of
posts', "...crapfloods in many, many groups are not the only reason for the decline of text Usenet, but they are

part of the problem".

It was in an article I read in preparation for replying to RFD1. I didn't keep a note of it.

However, the monotonic nature of the graph in the url supplied suggests the decline didn't start in 2010.

> I just don't believe it.

I do believe it.

> Certainly the crapfloods in many, many groups are not the only
> reason for the decline of text Usenet, but they are part of the problem.

But possibly not the greatest, or even significant.

--
Spike

[Paul Cummins]

In article <REMOVEsteve.t.col...@192.168.0.139>,
REMOVEste...@REMOVEgmail.com (Stephen Thomas Cole) wrote:

> I don't read them particularly in-depth that often, so must have
> missed
> their "commercial" nature. Would you confirm exactly what you refer
> to
> please, Paul? As far as I can see, they are amateur radio news
> bulletins.

Posted by a commercial body.

They are unsolicited, Commercial Postings, AKA Spam.

Spam is conSent, not conTent.

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

In article <memo.2013051...@postmaster.cix.co.uk>,
Usenet....@gstgroup.co.uk wrote:

> In article <REMOVEsteve.t.col...@192.168.0.139>,
> REMOVEste...@REMOVEgmail.com (Stephen Thomas Cole) wrote:
>
> > I don't read them particularly in-depth that often, so must have
> > missed
> > their "commercial" nature. Would you confirm exactly what you refer
> > to
> > please, Paul? As far as I can see, they are amateur radio news
> > bulletins.
>
> Posted by a commercial body.
>
> They are unsolicited, Commercial Postings, AKA Spam.
>
> Spam is conSent, not conTent.

I'll look at them more closely over the next week or so, but from what
I've seen of them before, I don't see a problem.

Does Southgate receive any commercial benefit in posting them?

[Percy Picacity]

On 2013-05-18 21:08:00 +0000, Paul Cummins said:

> In article <REMOVEsteve.t.col...@192.168.0.139>,
> REMOVEste...@REMOVEgmail.com (Stephen Thomas Cole) wrote:
>
>> I don't read them particularly in-depth that often, so must have
>> missed
>> their "commercial" nature. Would you confirm exactly what you refer
>> to
>> please, Paul? As far as I can see, they are amateur radio news
>> bulletins.
>
> Posted by a commercial body.
>
> They are unsolicited, Commercial Postings, AKA Spam.
>
> Spam is conSent, not conTent.

I think I could refute several parts of that argument if I had the energy.

However, I do think that allowing commercial advertising in the
moderated group is unwise. All the usual box-shifters will want to
post their whole catalogue every week. Admittedly, there will be a
grace period while they slowly work out why html isn't accceptable,
then while they exceed many news servers' limits for the size of plain
text messages, but then three quarters fo the group by weight will be
lists of articles for sale. I recommend the idea of many groups,
allowing personal adverts but limiting commercial advertising to a
reference in a sig following a post with intrinsic merit. That might
even encourage regular contributions to the discussion!

--

Percy Picacity

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

In article <6j5hhf....@news.alt.net>, Percy Picacity

<k...@under.the.invalid> wrote:

> However, I do think that allowing commercial advertising in the
> moderated group is unwise. All the usual box-shifters will want to
> post their whole catalogue every week.

This is a valid point, certainly. Would it be resolved by stating in the
charter that posts advertising goods/services must be limited to x number
of lines? I do think that there is a case for commercial advertising being
permitted, I'm being influenced by posts I've seen made in ukra by a
trader where he announces whatever latest gizmo or kit he has, mentions a
special offer and provides a link to his website. Stuff like that will be
of use to amateurs and should be welcomed.

[Rob Morley]

On Sat, 18 May 2013 22:37:40 +0100

REMOVEste...@REMOVEgmail.com (Stephen Thomas Cole) wrote:

> In article <6j5hhf....@news.alt.net>, Percy Picacity
> <k...@under.the.invalid> wrote:
>
> > However, I do think that allowing commercial advertising in the
> > moderated group is unwise. All the usual box-shifters will want to
> > post their whole catalogue every week.
>
> This is a valid point, certainly. Would it be resolved by stating in
> the charter that posts advertising goods/services must be limited to
> x number of lines?

Frequency too, otherwise they can post vast amounts by making multiple
posts.

[Percy Picacity]

And remember that whatever the limit at least a dozen firms, possibly
up to 10 times that, will take pains to fill whatever quota is set, as
often as permitted. Tragedy of the commons, etc.

--

Percy Picacity

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

In article <6j5idb....@news.alt.net>, Percy Picacity

<k...@under.the.invalid> wrote:

>
> And remember that whatever the limit at least a dozen firms, possibly
> up to 10 times that, will take pains to fill whatever quota is set, as
> often as permitted. Tragedy of the commons, etc.

What are you basing this on, Percy?

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

In article <20130518224101.032f5836@hyperion>, Rob Morley

Good point. Ta!

[Percy Picacity]

On 2013-05-18 21:54:51 +0000, Stephen Thomas Cole said:

> In article <6j5idb....@news.alt.net>, Percy Picacity
> <k...@under.the.invalid> wrote:
>
>>
>> And remember that whatever the limit at least a dozen firms, possibly
>> up to 10 times that, will take pains to fill whatever quota is set, as
>> often as permitted. Tragedy of the commons, etc.
>
> What are you basing this on, Percy?

Entrepreneurial single-mindedness.

--

Percy Picacity

[Molly Romanov]

On Sat, 18 May 2013, Stephen Thomas Cole
<REMOVEste...@REMOVEgmail.com> wrote:

>Look at the group via Google and you will only see a wall of
>accusations of paedophilia, posted by the Scots contingent. Not
>attractive.

As I have posted in response to this sort of claim in ukra: Usenet isn't
in existence to pander to GoogleGroups, and all NNTP clients allow their
users to killfile appropriately. If people insist on using an interface
like GoogleGroups which has no killfile capability, that's their choice;
they can have a newsfeed and a newsreader totally free of charge, and do
it properly. Usenet newsgroups are not created for the convenience of
GoogleGroups users. I am concerned with uk.* Usenet as a whole, and
feel that this would certainly be adversely impacted if too many
"sanitised" groups were created for the benefit of GoogleGroups users
who do not have access to killfiles. That would be like closing down
good restaurants because everybody could eat at Macdonalds.

I have been monitoring ukra ever since the first RFD. It took me about
ten minutes to set up my killfile initially, plus about two minutes a
fortnight to add to it, as new identities were created. I see none of
the "crapflood"; I see a number of flourishing threads which are
totally appropriate to the group (even though I find them deathly
boring). Setting up a killfile will solve all the problems that exist
with reading ukra.
--
Molly

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

In article <iCkD9Uaw8$lRF...@molly.mockford>, Molly Romanov

<mo...@mollyromanov.me.uk> wrote:
>
> As I have posted in response to this sort of claim in ukra: Usenet isn't
> in existence to pander to GoogleGroups, and all NNTP clients allow their
> users to killfile appropriately. If people insist on using an interface
> like GoogleGroups which has no killfile capability, that's their choice;
> they can have a newsfeed and a newsreader totally free of charge, and do
> it properly. Usenet newsgroups are not created for the convenience of
> GoogleGroups users. I am concerned with uk.* Usenet as a whole, and
> feel that this would certainly be adversely impacted if too many
> "sanitised" groups were created for the benefit of GoogleGroups users
> who do not have access to killfiles. That would be like closing down
> good restaurants because everybody could eat at Macdonalds.

This isn't an attempt to pander to Google Groups users at all, Molly. The
crapflood is one problem of several at ukra. It is certainly the case that
any person viewing the group via Gogle cannot escape the crapflood, it
also completely fouls up the historical record of the group, too.

>
> I have been monitoring ukra ever since the first RFD. It took me about
> ten minutes to set up my killfile initially, plus about two minutes a
> fortnight to add to it, as new identities were created. I see none of
> the "crapflood"; I see a number of flourishing threads which are
> totally appropriate to the group (even though I find them deathly
> boring). Setting up a killfile will solve all the problems that exist
> with reading ukra.

I've been using a killfile on this machine for about a month now and have
74 authors killed. Most days I have to add at least one or two more. It's
not so much the time that it takes to perform this action that's the
issue, but rather the relentless nature of the flood and the continual
batting away of the maniacs that's the bigger problem. In the last hour,
there have been around 40-50 messages polled from the server but killed
when loading the group. That's dispiriting. It's also worth considering
that whilst you, Molly, are able to use your bang up Usenet skills to get
shut of all this rubbish without breaking a sweat, there will be many
people for whom it is an unbearable chore. These people will eventually
lose interest in fighting that battle, assuming that they ever bothered
startdoing so in it in the first place and not just giving up on the place
as soon as look at it.

[Spike]

On Sat, 18 May 2013 23:40:19 +0100, Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:

> It's also worth considering
> that whilst you, Molly, are able to use your bang up Usenet skills to
> get shut of all this rubbish without breaking a sweat, there will be
> many people for whom it is an unbearable chore.

Do you have any basis for saying this, apart from wishful thinking?

After all, there are less than 1500 users of the uk. heirarchy, and judging by the groups I take, these are in the
main survivors from the great days of text Usenet. In fact, you are the only person I see who regularly complains
of such things, but I suspect that it fits your agenda rather better than some real data might do.

Usenet is fading away, not because of crapfloods - I take 13 uk groups, and most of those are crapflood-free and
pleasant to use, so your problem is more imaginary than real - but because of ways of interacting that are seen
as being 'better' in some way. I'll wager there's millions of uk Facebook and Twitter users, for example. How
many other fora carry Amateur Radio groups?

Central censoring of social media might be the norm nowadays, but that doesn't mean that it will retroactively fit
the Usenet model, and the by-and-large unhappy situation with moderated groups shows this.

--
Spike

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

In article <avregv...@mid.individual.net>, Aero....@live.com wrote:

> On Sat, 18 May 2013 23:40:19 +0100, Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:
>
> > It's also worth considering
> > that whilst you, Molly, are able to use your bang up Usenet skills to
> > get shut of all this rubbish without breaking a sweat, there will be
> > many people for whom it is an unbearable chore.
>
> Do you have any basis for saying this, apart from wishful thinking?
>

Yes, similar was said by several people, myself included, previously on
the matter.

> After all, there are less than 1500 users of the uk. heirarchy,

I know that you do have a source for these figures, Spike, but I do feel
that you are misrepresenting the statistics somewhat to make a definitive
case, when that's not necessarily the full picture.

> and judging by the groups I take, these are in the
> main survivors from the great days of text Usenet. In fact, you are the
only person I see who regularly complains
> of such things, but I suspect that it fits your agenda rather better
than some real data might do.
>
> Usenet is fading away, not because of crapfloods - I take 13 uk groups,
and most of those are crapflood-free and
> pleasant to use, so your problem is more imaginary than real - but
because of ways of interacting that are seen
> as being 'better' in some way. I'll wager there's millions of uk
Facebook and Twitter users, for example. How
> many other fora carry Amateur Radio groups?
>

Crapfloods are only a part of the problem that this proposal seeks to
address. In the 1st RFD I did also discuss, at length, the comparisons
between a Usenet group and a web based group.

> Central censoring of social media might be the norm nowadays, but that
doesn't mean that it will retroactively fit
> the Usenet model, and the by-and-large unhappy situation with moderated
groups shows this.

First of all, this isn't about censorship. It was discussed at length in
the 1st RFD and eventually, Tony Evans (Control) summed it up the best by
saying, paraphrased, "Moderation is enforcing a charter, and that is not
censorship". Secondly, moderation is a part of Usenet, so this isn't a
retroactive application of anything on the medium. Thirdly, please provide
evidence to bolster your "by and large unhappy situation" claim. I guess
you refer to urcm? May I then refer you to ulm, and many of the other
moderated groups that serve their purpose perfectly well.

[John]

"Stephen Thomas Cole" wrote

>
> INITIAL MODERATORS
>
> Stephen Thomas Cole
> Paul W. Schleck
> Kathy Morgan
>


I thought that Brian Morrison was going to be a moderator?

I would prefer to see at least one of the moderators being known and active
on uk.r.a., and having been so for, say, 5 or more years. Uk.r.a has
traditionally contained a high level of general discussion - such as that
found on 80 or 2 metres - which I would like to see continue.

Also much of this general discussion contains what could be called "a
British Sense of Humour", which for those who don't understand it, could
result in the new group being inappropriately moderated.

[Spike]

On Sun, 19 May 2013 09:29:56 +0100, Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:

> In article <avregv...@mid.individual.net>, Aero....@live.com
> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 18 May 2013 23:40:19 +0100, Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:
>>
>> > It's also worth considering
>> > that whilst you, Molly, are able to use your bang up Usenet skills to
>> > get shut of all this rubbish without breaking a sweat, there will be
>> > many people for whom it is an unbearable chore.
>>
>> Do you have any basis for saying this, apart from wishful thinking?
>>
> Yes, similar was said by several people, myself included, previously on
> the matter.

So, mere anecdote, then. That's hardly authoritative.

Several people have said that they find Kill-files easy to use, but you challenge every mention by saying what
you think hypothetical users might find difficult about the process. The outcome of this unevenhandedness is a
display of bias in favour of your own opinions, which I suggest isn't a good basis for straining the uk. heirarchy
by imposing a poorly-founded group.

>> After all, there are less than 1500 users of the uk. heirarchy,
>
> I know that you do have a source for these figures, Spike, but I do feel
> that you are misrepresenting the statistics somewhat to make a
> definitive case, when that's not necessarily the full picture.

Well, them come up with alternative data! I'm merely quoting the best data I can find, and you are free to find
data that supports your position. I doubt there is any, and your feelings on the matter are irrelevant here.

And I'm being kind: there *were* 1500 users back in March, and it's now less than that.

> Crapfloods are only a part of the problem that this proposal seeks to
> address. In the 1st RFD I did also discuss, at length, the comparisons
> between a Usenet group and a web based group.
>
>> Central censoring of social media might be the norm nowadays, but that
>> doesn't mean that it will retroactively fit
>> the Usenet model, and the by-and-large unhappy situation with moderated
>> groups shows this.
>
> First of all, this isn't about censorship. It was discussed at length in
> the 1st RFD and eventually, Tony Evans (Control) summed it up the best
> by saying, paraphrased, "Moderation is enforcing a charter, and that is
> not censorship".

Even censors work to briefs and guidelines, the process is exactly the same.

>Secondly, moderation is a part of Usenet

ITYM "Moderation is a very small part of Usenet"; the number of moderated groups is *very low*.

> so this isn't a retroactive application of anything on the medium.

It is very far from the norm.

> Thirdly, please provide evidence to bolster your "by and large unhappy situation" claim.

Several people have said so.

You see what a silly argument that is? Yet you used it above.

But after rubbishing evidence because you say 'it doesn't give the full picture', you now ask me for some. So, if I
did give you evidence, who is to say it would give 'the full picture' or not?

> I guess you refer to urcm? May I then refer you to ulm, and many of the
> other moderated groups that serve their purpose perfectly well.

Evidence, please. And what of any moderated groups that might have fallen by the wayside?

--
Spike

[Paul Cummins]

In article <REMOVEsteve.t.col...@192.168.0.139>,

REMOVEste...@REMOVEgmail.com (Stephen Thomas Cole) wrote:

> I've been using a killfile on this machine for about a month now
> and have 74 authors killed.

That's strange - I have less that 50 killfiled, and have to add maybe one
a week. Yet I see no crapflood. It's there on my news server, but not on
my client.

And I don't use a modern bells and whistles news client...

[Paul Cummins]

In article <REMOVEsteve.t.col...@192.168.0.139>,
REMOVEste...@REMOVEgmail.com (Stephen Thomas Cole) wrote:

> May I then refer you to ulm, and many of the other
> moderated groups that serve their purpose perfectly well.

How many moderated groups are there in UK?

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

Brian is still undecided. I spoke to him via email a couple of weeks ago
and he confirmed that he was going to observe how the 2nd RFD progressed
before he would be able to know how he felt, which is totally fair comment.


Like yourself, I am very keen to see at least one British amateur (other
than myself) on the initial moderation team. Not achieving that wont be a
fatal flaw, but the proposal (and group) would be much stronger for it. I
did try and recruit from ukra but had no takers. I'm still very open to
receiving volunteers...

--
Stephen Thomas Cole - Sent from my iPhone so please forgive any spelling
mistakes or botched snipping.

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

Paul Cummins <uset...@stedtelephone.invalid> wrote:
> In article <REMOVEsteve.t.col...@192.168.0.139>,
> REMOVEste...@REMOVEgmail.com (Stephen Thomas Cole) wrote:
>
>> I've been using a killfile on this machine for about a month now
>> and have 74 authors killed.
>
> That's strange - I have less that 50 killfiled, and have to add maybe one
> a week. Yet I see no crapflood. It's there on my news server, but not on
> my client.
>
> And I don't use a modern bells and whistles news client...

75 as of this morning. Almost all Scots contingent.

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

Paul Cummins <uset...@stedtelephone.invalid> wrote:
> In article <REMOVEsteve.t.col...@192.168.0.139>,
> REMOVEste...@REMOVEgmail.com (Stephen Thomas Cole) wrote:
>
>> May I then refer you to ulm, and many of the other
>> moderated groups that serve their purpose perfectly well.
>
> How many moderated groups are there in UK?

13, I believe.

[Percy Picacity]

Not many people will openly play the xenophobia card, but I suspect
many more will be a little anxious about voting for a group with a
majority American moderation team. (See what I did there? - I should
be working for UKIP!)

--

Percy Picacity

[John]

"Stephen Thomas Cole" wrote

>
> Brian is still undecided. I spoke to him via email a couple of weeks ago
> and he confirmed that he was going to observe how the 2nd RFD progressed
> before he would be able to know how he felt, which is totally fair
> comment.
>
>
> Like yourself, I am very keen to see at least one British amateur (other
> than myself) on the initial moderation team. Not achieving that wont be a
> fatal flaw, but the proposal (and group) would be much stronger for it. I
> did try and recruit from ukra but had no takers. I'm still very open to
> receiving volunteers...

Understood. I don't think that I would be a suitable candidate - I
frequently have to travel on business to some unusual countries - and there
are quite a few where access to usenet is blocked by the government.

I would like to see a uk.r.a.m be very much like uk.r.a. was about 3 years
ago. I would like to see the return of some of the members who left the NG
when the crapflood started, but they may have found greener pastures and it
may already be too late.

Of of my concerns re: moderation is that if it is too heavy or inappropriate
uk.r.a.m. could become a sterile wasteland where the only posts are the
Southgate newsletter.

An example of what could happen is rec.radio.amateur. This was invaded by
a few individuals who engaged in their own petty name calling vendetta -
the same as has recently started in uk.r.a. Rec.radio.amateur.moderated was
created but you rarely see any postings other than newsletters. I don't know
if this is due to over zealous moderation, or if the "normal" members of
r.r.a had already moved onto newer pastures before r.r.a.m had been created.

R.r.a.m is now effectively sterile.

[Spike]

On Sun, 19 May 2013 09:27:31 +0000, Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:

> Paul Cummins <uset...@stedtelephone.invalid> wrote:
>> In article <REMOVEsteve.t.col...@192.168.0.139>,
>> REMOVEste...@REMOVEgmail.com (Stephen Thomas Cole) wrote:
>>
>>> May I then refer you to ulm, and many of the other moderated groups
>>> that serve their purpose perfectly well.
>>
>> How many moderated groups are there in UK?
>
> 13, I believe.

Out of how many?

--
Spike

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

I understand what you are saying, but Paul and Kathy are both Usenet
veterans with very extensive CVs. They will bring experience and
impartiality in their moderation. Additionally, Paul is a radio amateur and
has long been involved in the amateur radio newsgroups in the Big8 (indeed,
he actually commented on the proto-RFD for ukra way back in 1993!).

As I've already said, I would be immensely happy to see British amateurs on
the moderation panel and will consider all submissions to such.

[John]

"Percy Picacity" wrote

>>
>> I thought that Brian Morrison was going to be a moderator?
>>
>> I would prefer to see at least one of the moderators being known and
>> active
>> on uk.r.a., and having been so for, say, 5 or more years. Uk.r.a has
>> traditionally contained a high level of general discussion - such as that
>> found on 80 or 2 metres - which I would like to see continue.
>>
>> Also much of this general discussion contains what could be called "a
>> British Sense of Humour", which for those who don't understand it, could
>> result in the new group being inappropriately moderated.
>
> Not many people will openly play the xenophobia card, but I suspect many
> more will be a little anxious about voting for a group with a majority
> American moderation team. (See what I did there? - I should be working
> for UKIP!)

UKIP is probably very pro-American. Nail our banner to the Stars and
Stripes.

Although British and Americans may speak the same language (!) - the
cultures are VERY different, and very few Americans will understand our
culture. You really need to live and work in a foreign country to get a
flavour of a different culture.

[Percy Picacity]

On 2013-05-19 10:11:05 +0000, John said:

> "Percy Picacity" wrote
>>>
>>> I thought that Brian Morrison was going to be a moderator?
>>>
>>> I would prefer to see at least one of the moderators being known and active
>>> on uk.r.a., and having been so for, say, 5 or more years. Uk.r.a has
>>> traditionally contained a high level of general discussion - such as that
>>> found on 80 or 2 metres - which I would like to see continue.
>>>
>>> Also much of this general discussion contains what could be called "a
>>> British Sense of Humour", which for those who don't understand it,
>>> could result in the new group being inappropriately moderated.
>>
>> Not many people will openly play the xenophobia card, but I suspect
>> many more will be a little anxious about voting for a group with a
>> majority American moderation team. (See what I did there? - I should
>> be working for UKIP!)
>
> UKIP is probably very pro-American. Nail our banner to the Stars and Stripes.
>

> snip

Yes, but they are masters of the Powellite tactic of hand-wringing
concern about immigration, while denying trying to sir up hatred. I
wondered if that was what I was doing.

--

Percy Picacity

[Tony]

There are 10 moderated groups,

http://www.usenet.org.uk/moderated.html

uk.announce
uk.answers
uk.gay-lesbian-bi
uk.legal.moderated
uk.net.news.announce
uk.org.bcs.announce
uk.people.bdsm.personals
uk.rec.cycling.moderated
uk.religion.christian
uk.religion.jewish

There are 404 groups currently in the uk.* hierarchy.

http://www.usenet.org.uk/checkgroups

--
Tony Evans
Saving trees and wasting electrons since 1993
blog -> http://perceptionistruth.com/
books -> http://www.bookthing.co.uk/
[ anything below this line wasn't written by me ]

[Paul Cummins]

In article
<1795670492390648632.410777REMO...@news.eternal
-september.org>, REMOVEste...@REMOVEgmail.com (Stephen Thomas Cole)
wrote:

>

> 75 as of this morning. Almost all Scots contingent.

I believe you are exxagerating the situation to suit your own purposes.

How many of those 75 have posted in the last week?

[Paul Cummins]

In article
<256998119390648228.576863REMO...@news.eternal-

september.org>, REMOVEste...@REMOVEgmail.com (Stephen Thomas Cole)
wrote:

> I did try and recruit from ukra but had no takers. I'm still very
> open to receiving volunteers...

Have you considered that this is because no-one on ukra wants your
moderated group?

[John]

"Paul Cummins" wrote

>
>>
>> 75 as of this morning. Almost all Scots contingent.
>
> I believe you are exxagerating the situation to suit your own purposes.
>
> How many of those 75 have posted in the last week?

I think he means there have been 75 posts from the 4 members of the Scottish
contigent.

In case you haven't done so, just look at uk.r.a on Google Groups - you'll
see how dire it is.

[David Woolley]

Paul Cummins wrote:
> In article <REMOVEsteve.t.col...@192.168.0.139>,

> REMOVEste...@REMOVEgmail.com (Stephen Thomas Cole) wrote:
>

>> I don't read them particularly in-depth that often, so must have
>> missed
>> their "commercial" nature. Would you confirm exactly what you refer
>> to
>> please, Paul? As far as I can see, they are amateur radio news
>> bulletins.
>
> Posted by a commercial body.

It is posted by the Southgate Amateur Radio Club (in North London),
which will be a not for profit, unincorporated, local radio club. In
practice it is probably actually compiled by one person who happens to
be a member.

I would not consider that to be what the man in the street would
consider to be a commercial organisation.

I actually find it to be one of the few vaguely on topic and non-abusive
items. I am more concerned that it is something of a vanity publication
and fails to target the editorial to UK issues, so I don't regularly
look through it, but I have absolutely no problems with its inclusion.

[Spike]

On Sun, 19 May 2013 11:50:21 +0100, Tony wrote:

> In uk.net.news.config, Spike <Sp...@AeroSpike.invalid> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 19 May 2013 09:27:31 +0000, Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:
>>
>>> Paul Cummins <uset...@stedtelephone.invalid> wrote:
>>>> In article <REMOVEsteve.t.col...@192.168.0.139>,
>>>> REMOVEste...@REMOVEgmail.com (Stephen Thomas Cole) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> May I then refer you to ulm, and many of the other moderated groups
>>>>> that serve their purpose perfectly well.
>>>>
>>>> How many moderated groups are there in UK?
>>>
>>> 13, I believe.
>>
>>Out of how many?
>
> There are 10 moderated groups,
>
> http://www.usenet.org.uk/moderated.html
>
> uk.announce uk.answers uk.gay-lesbian-bi uk.legal.moderated
> uk.net.news.announce uk.org.bcs.announce uk.people.bdsm.personals
> uk.rec.cycling.moderated uk.religion.christian uk.religion.jewish
>
> There are 404 groups currently in the uk.* hierarchy.
>
> http://www.usenet.org.uk/checkgroups

So, just under 2.5 percent, so my claim of a very low percentage was right.

--
Spike

[Judith]

On Sun, 19 May 2013 10:23:57 +0000, Huge wrote:

> On 2013-05-18, Paul Cummins <uset...@stedtelephone.invalid> drools:
>
> QED.

Yes, I thought that too. I could easily be persuaded that Percy, Paul,
and Spike are, in fact, Pro-Cole-Moles.

[David Woolley]

Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:

> Advertising of commercial services, events and private classified
> posts (all relating strictly to amateur radio) is permitted.
>

Why not products as well?

Generally, when I see an obvious commercial advertisement on a
newsgroup, I assume that it is a charter violation. I find a charter
that permits them to be surprising.

There is one amateur radio mailing list that I subscribe to that permits
third party advertising of relevant products and services, but that has
a restriction on the frequency of posting, so they only appear every few
weeks.

Where there are borderline cases are:

- events - I would feel that one early announcement and one imminent
announcement, limited to a short article with limited hype (details and
hype should be in places where people can go voluntarily after reading
the article), would tend to be considered acceptable;

- low key promotion in articles whose primary content is relevant news,
or relevant information in reply to a question (e.g. one or two line
signatures on relevant replies and short promotions, maybe about less
than 2% of the content, in news compilations);

- responses to questions about services performed by an organisation
(unless the question appears to be a plant) and responses to questions
about who provides services. In the latter case, I think the
expectation would be to mention realistic competitors as well as one's
own organisation.

My feeling is that those are generally considered sufficiently
beneficial that people would want them to be allowed.

Unfortunately although a subjective judgement of what is primarily
advertising is often rather easy, objective rules are very difficult.

Two particular abuse cases that need covering are:

- planted questions - a sock puppet asks a question, designed to justify
the advertisement as a reply (this is a bit similar to the misuse of
FAQs to list the questions that the advertiser would like to be asked,
rather than those that are actually frequently asked);

- precis and generic replies with the advertising as the real payload
(sometimes someone will post to a thread a summary of what has already
been said, with signatures and links for their (often unrelated)
business. Some people also use the sort of generic wording used in
UCEs, that could be true for almost any thread.)

[Spike]

On Sun, 19 May 2013 12:52:11 +0100, Brian Morrison wrote:

> If you strip out the announce groups then it's 7, of which nearly all
> are relating to contentious religion and sexuality.
>
> Is amateur radio really of this ilk?

Not in my view.

Essentially, no real basis for a moderated group has emerged, other than opinions, anecdotes, and wishful
thinking. Data on low and falling Usenet useage has not been countered, and the moderated group appears to
have a 'build it and they will come' justification. Even the enthusiasm to respond to this RFD2 is considerably
diminished over that of RFD1.

--
Spike

[David Woolley]

Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:
> In article <6j5idb....@news.alt.net>, Percy Picacity
> <k...@under.the.invalid> wrote:
>
>> And remember that whatever the limit at least a dozen firms, possibly
>> up to 10 times that, will take pains to fill whatever quota is set, as
>> often as permitted. Tragedy of the commons, etc.
>
> What are you basing this on, Percy?
>
Generally legitimate businesses try to operate just inside the limits of
the law. That is why City lawyers get paid so much; they have to find
ways of staying legal that restrict their clients as little as possible.

[David Woolley]

Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:

> permitted, I'm being influenced by posts I've seen made in ukra by a
> trader where he announces whatever latest gizmo or kit he has, mentions a
> special offer and provides a link to his website. Stuff like that will be
> of use to amateurs and should be welcomed.
>

I am uncomfortable about those advertisements. I feel they are relying
on the lack of a charter for the existing group to do something that
would not be permitted on most groups. To the extent that I remembered
who they were, I would probably treat them as a spammer if there were a
choice of supplier.

[Paul Cummins]

In article <knab6t$btt$1...@dont-email.me>, Jo...@invalid.invalid (John)
wrote:

> In case you haven't done so, just look at uk.r.a on Google Groups -
> you'll see how dire it is.

Why would I want to look at UKRA via a server in the US, when I can see
it perfectly well via a server here in my home?

I know there is a crapflood, but a simple killfile fixes the issue.

Hence no need for moderation.

[David Woolley]

Paul Cummins wrote:
> In article
> <256998119390648228.576863REMO...@news.eternal-
> september.org>, REMOVEste...@REMOVEgmail.com (Stephen Thomas Cole)
> wrote:
>
>> I did try and recruit from ukra but had no takers. I'm still very
>> open to receiving volunteers...
>
> Have you considered that this is because no-one on ukra wants your
> moderated group?
>

The proposed group is more for those people who don't want to be in the
existing group but fall within its implied charter.

Being a moderator is likely to expose you to a lot of the things that
people who would like a moderated group would like to be missing from a
moderated group. They want the moderated group to get away from it, not
to get involved in making decisions on it.

[Paul Cummins]

In article <knag16$3lb$1...@dont-email.me>, da...@ex.djwhome.demon.invalid

(David Woolley) wrote:

> They want the moderated group to get away from it, not
> to get involved in making decisions on it.

I'd like to see the evidence that people using ukra want a moderated
group.

[John]

"Paul Cummins" wrote

>
>> In case you haven't done so, just look at uk.r.a on Google Groups -
>> you'll see how dire it is.
>
> Why would I want to look at UKRA via a server in the US, when I can see
> it perfectly well via a server here in my home?
>
> I know there is a crapflood, but a simple killfile fixes the issue.
>
> Hence no need for moderation.
>

And how many times have you had to add another to your killfile over the
past week?

[David Woolley]

Burton Bradstock wrote:

> You have to
> show that the current crapflood has made the decline of Usenet worse than it would otherwise have been.

The vote is about the creation of a new group. There is no proposal to
remove an existing group. Therefore he only has to demonstrate that the
existence of the new group will make usenet better than otherwise. If
there is an effect on the existing group's "crapflood", it is likely to
either be that it becomes the only content of the group, or that it goes
away because it is denied its audience. My own suspicion is that there
will be little impact, negative or positive, on the existing group, but
there will be a small improvement for usenet as a whole.

[David Woolley]

Paul Cummins wrote:
> In article <knag16$3lb$1...@dont-email.me>, da...@ex.djwhome.demon.invalid
> (David Woolley) wrote:
>
>> They want the moderated group to get away from it, not
>> to get involved in making decisions on it.
>
> I'd like to see the evidence that people using ukra want a moderated
> group.
>

I'd suggest the audience for the moderated group is people who are
interested in UK amateur radio but consider u.r.a to be unusable, so
they are not significant users of the existing group. As such, users of
the existing group may not be very significant. Whilst evidence of
u.r.a users wanting a moderated group would support it, lack of evidence
doesn't really have much weight the other way.

[Paul Cummins]

In article <knahce$a3a$1...@dont-email.me>, Jo...@invalid.invalid (John)
wrote:

> And how many times have you had to add another to your killfile
> over the past week?

That's not relevant to whether Moderation is *needed*

[Paul Cummins]

In article <knaj1c$hqt$1...@dont-email.me>, da...@ex.djwhome.demon.invalid

(David Woolley) wrote:

> >
> I'd suggest the audience for the moderated group is people who are
> interested in UK amateur radio but consider u.r.a to be unusable,
> so they are not significant users of the existing group.

"Build it and they will come" is not a justification to create a group.
And especially not to create a moderated group.

[John]

"Paul Cummins" wrote

>> And how many times have you had to add another to your killfile
>> over the past week?
>
> That's not relevant to whether Moderation is *needed*

I think it is a very good reason for a moderated group.

But as others have said - you don't have to use the moderated NG. If you're
happy with uk.r.a. as it is now, that's fine.

[Tony]

>If you strip out the announce groups then it's 7, of which nearly all
>are relating to contentious religion and sexuality.

Actually, there are four announcement related groups (uk.answers is
essentially that). There's a personals group (dead, I think) which you'd
probably always want to moderate.

The legal group has, in my view, a very good reason for being moderated.
You're left with religion, gender and cycling, known to be the three most
contentious areas of debate in the universe.
--
Tony Evans
Saving trees and wasting electrons since 1993
blog -> http://perceptionistruth.com/
books -> http://www.bookthing.co.uk/
[ anything below this line wasn't written by me ]

[John]

"John" wrote

>
> An example of what could happen is rec.radio.amateur. This was invaded by
> a few individuals who engaged in their own petty name calling vendetta -
> the same as has recently started in uk.r.a.

I've just checked to see if r.r.a is still having problems - I can't find
it on any of the news servers which I use - so it may be been killed off.

The same individuals also plagued rec.radio.amateur.policy - that still
exists but now only carries newletters.

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

In article <memo.2013051...@postmaster.cix.co.uk>,

Usenet....@gstgroup.co.uk wrote:

> In article <knag16$3lb$1...@dont-email.me>, da...@ex.djwhome.demon.invalid
> (David Woolley) wrote:
>
> > They want the moderated group to get away from it, not
> > to get involved in making decisions on it.
>
> I'd like to see the evidence that people using ukra want a moderated
> group.

I refer you to the RFD1 thead. Quite a few users/lurkers of ukra were in favour.

--
-------------------
Stephen Thomas Cole
Remove the obvious to send e-mail: REMOVEste...@REMOVEgmail.com
-------------------

[Percy Picacity]

On Altopia r.r.a has five posts (retention about 9 months), 3 on topic,
the latest January this year. Definitely not thriving. Consistent
with having been officially killed off, but commercial news servers
often don't honour rmgroup messages.

--

Percy Picacity

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

In article <memo.2013051...@postmaster.cix.co.uk>,
Usenet....@gstgroup.co.uk wrote:

>

> "Build it and they will come" is not a justification to create a group.
> And especially not to create a moderated group.

Quite a fatalistic outlook there, I suppose my response would be: "Don't
build it and we'll never know".

[Ian Jackson]

In message <knafg6$1bf$1...@dont-email.me>, David Woolley
<da...@ex.djwhome.demon.invalid> writes

Provided it isn't overdone, I can't see any harm in allowing the
non-aggressive mentioning that you have something to sell, or pointing
to where to something may be obtained (even from a commercial trader).
This is something which already goes on in uk.r.a, and it hasn't exactly
brought the NG to its knees.
--
Ian

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

In article <kna7li$r9u$1...@dont-email.me>, "John" <Jo...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> Understood. I don't think that I would be a suitable candidate - I
> frequently have to travel on business to some unusual countries - and there
> are quite a few where access to usenet is blocked by the government.

Paul Schleck will configure the moderation set-up (STUMP) and there will
be a web-interface, so the task could be done from anywhere that you could
get to a browser.

>
> I would like to see a uk.r.a.m be very much like uk.r.a. was about 3 years
> ago. I would like to see the return of some of the members who left the NG
> when the crapflood started, but they may have found greener pastures and it
> may already be too late.

I do believe that once the moderated group became established, it would
attract many of the former users of ukra to return to Usenet. Just the
promise of not every thead being hijacked by bile should be enough.

>
> Of of my concerns re: moderation is that if it is too heavy or inappropriate
> uk.r.a.m. could become a sterile wasteland where the only posts are the
> Southgate newsletter.

Then I would heartily recommend that you volunteer to serve on the initial
moderation team. :-) I'm 100% serious. Brian Morrison has his own grave
doubts about moderation and was(is?) 100% against creation of the
moderated group. But I put the same offer to him as I'm perfectly open to
allowing reasonable people join the effort and put their own ethos on the
moderation, in Brian's case his fears of censorship will guide him to
ensure that the moderation is strictly done in-line with the stated aims
of the charter, which is exactly what the group needs to succeed. Going on
what you have posted here and previusly, I suspect that you will be the
same.

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

In article <knae5f$qfc$1...@dont-email.me>, David Woolley

<da...@ex.djwhome.demon.invalid> wrote:

> Why not products as well?

Blast, I did mean to include 'products' there...

>
> Generally, when I see an obvious commercial advertisement on a
> newsgroup, I assume that it is a charter violation. I find a charter
> that permits them to be surprising.

Well, I'm open-minded. if an advert is amateur radio related, I can't see
much harm. But, as has been pointed out, such a policy could be easily
abused. I will mull this all over.

> <snip remainder>

All noted. Cheers!

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

In article <m4SdnUPkaodcJQXM...@giganews.com>, Judith
<jud...@warmpost.invalid> wrote:

> On Sun, 19 May 2013 10:23:57 +0000, Huge wrote:
>
> > On 2013-05-18, Paul Cummins <uset...@stedtelephone.invalid> drools:
> >
> > QED.
>
> Yes, I thought that too. I could easily be persuaded that Percy, Paul,
> and Spike are, in fact, Pro-Cole-Moles.

Well, I'm not in league with any of these gents, so if they are
undertaking a guerilla action, it's of their own volition!

Spike, in particular, has done a great deal of good in highlighting many,
many of the issues in the proposal, throughout the whole RFD process.
Cheers mate!

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

In article <knabqu$f29$1...@dont-email.me>, David Woolley
<da...@ex.djwhome.demon.invalid> wrote:

>
> I actually find it to be one of the few vaguely on topic and non-abusive
> items. I am more concerned that it is something of a vanity publication
> and fails to target the editorial to UK issues, so I don't regularly
> look through it, but I have absolutely no problems with its inclusion.

Agreed. I have no issue with it at all and would need a lot more
convincing than Paul has offered before I think to outlaw it.

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

In article <knafg6$1bf$1...@dont-email.me>, David Woolley

Could they be classed as spam, though? From what I recall of them, they
were one-off posts targeting the people who would be most likely to be
interested, and only posted to one group rather than blitzed across
dozens. I don't recall them happening that often, either.

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

In article <avriu5...@mid.individual.net>, Aero....@live.com wrote:

> On Sun, 19 May 2013 09:29:56 +0100, Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:
> >>
> >> Do you have any basis for saying this, apart from wishful thinking?
> >>
> > Yes, similar was said by several people, myself included, previously on
> > the matter.
>
> So, mere anecdote, then. That's hardly authoritative.

It's first-hand testimony, Spike.

>
> Several people have said that they find Kill-files easy to use, but you
challenge every mention by saying what
> you think hypothetical users might find difficult about the process.

Not strictly true. My argument against kill-filing as the ultimate
solution is, approximately, that if one has to employ mass filtering to
render a group useable, then that suggests that there is an issue with the
group.

And anyway, kill-filing everything does not actually solve anything. The
nonsense and dross is still there, you just can't see it. If your house
was on fire, would it make everything better if you just closed your eyes?
Or would it be a better idea to not smoke in bed in the first place?

<snip>

> > First of all, this isn't about censorship. It was discussed at length in
> > the 1st RFD and eventually, Tony Evans (Control) summed it up the best
> > by saying, paraphrased, "Moderation is enforcing a charter, and that is
> > not censorship".
>
> Even censors work to briefs and guidelines, the process is exactly the same.
>

Moderation is not censorship.

> >Secondly, moderation is a part of Usenet
>
> ITYM "Moderation is a very small part of Usenet"; the number of
moderated groups is *very low*.

Irrelevant. Moderation has been a part of Usenet for a long, long time. Decades.

<snip>
> > I guess you refer to urcm? May I then refer you to ulm, and many of the
> > other moderated groups that serve their purpose perfectly well.
>
> Evidence, please. And what of any moderated groups that might have
fallen by the wayside?

Evidence of what? Moderated groups that function normally? Well, ulm, for
a start! Indeed, it looks like the only moderated group that causes any
trouble is urcm.

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

In article <avrr61...@mid.individual.net>, Aero....@live.com wrote:

>
> So, just under 2.5 percent, so my claim of a very low percentage was right.

But what point does it prove, Spike?

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

In article <20130519125...@peterson.fenrir.org.uk>, Brian

Morrison <b...@fenrir.org.uk> wrote:
>
> If you strip out the announce groups then it's 7, of which nearly all
> are relating to contentious religion and sexuality.
>

Is being gay or Jewish contentious? ( ;-) joking)

> Is amateur radio really of this ilk?

Well, there are certainly some contentious individuals populating ukra...

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

In article <knap0t$i1r$1...@matrix.darkstorm.co.uk>, to...@darkstorm.co.uk wrote:

> You're left with religion, gender and cycling, known to be the three most
> contentious areas of debate in the universe.

This was a LOL!

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

In article <avrti0...@mid.individual.net>, Aero....@live.com wrote:

> Data on low and falling Usenet useage has not been countered

I don't really see that it needs to be, Spike. Usenet is in a diminished
form, compared to its heyday, but I don't believe that that is an excuse
to just abandon parts of it to decay and rot. There is still an audience,
no matter how small, and the creation of a moderated newsgroup for amateur
radio will definitely serve a number of that audience. It remains a happy
possibility that the establishment of a succesfull moderated group will
actually increase the overall audience by attracting lapsed users of ukra,
and maybe even new users altogether. If the group is formed I, for one,
will be advertising the fact far and wide to bring in new users.

[Spike]

On Sun, 19 May 2013 16:53:30 +0100, Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:

> In article <avrr61...@mid.individual.net>, Aero....@live.com
> wrote:
>
>> So, just under 2.5 percent, so my claim of a very low percentage was
>> right.
>
> But what point does it prove, Spike?

That this statement of yours:

"...May I then refer you to ulm, and many of the other

moderated groups that serve their purpose perfectly well"

..is an over-egging of your position.

There aren't 'many moderated groups', 13 out of 404 in the uk. heirarchy, of which 7 are regular groups.

You could have said "A high proportion of the uk. moderated groups operate well", which glosses over the fact
that there are only a few such groups and avoids mention of those moderated groups that failed.

Although I doubt I'd let that slide by...;-)

--
Spike

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

In article <memo.2013051...@postmaster.cix.co.uk>,
Usenet....@gstgroup.co.uk wrote:

> In article
> <1795670492390648632.410777REMO...@news.eternal
> -september.org>, REMOVEste...@REMOVEgmail.com (Stephen Thomas Cole)
> wrote:
>
> >
> > 75 as of this morning. Almost all Scots contingent.
>
> I believe you are exxagerating the situation to suit your own purposes.
>

Well, you believe what you like, mate. My filters list contains 75 entries
for uk.radio.amateur. I started killing authors (crapflood generators
almost exclusively) about getting on for two months ago as an experiment
to see the efficency/hassle of filtering. In the time since, 75 have been
killed.

> How many of those 75 have posted in the last week?

I have no idea. In the last 24 hours, I have seen at least 100 posts
killed as I load the group.

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

In article <knab6t$btt$1...@dont-email.me>, "John" <Jo...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> I think he means there have been 75 posts from the 4 members of the Scottish
> contigent.

No, there are 75 individual authors killed in my filters list. These are
(almost) all variations on the same small set of identities, though,
obviously not 75 different people!