RFD: create moderated newsgroup uk.politics.moderated

[Stephen Cole]

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

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.politics.moderated uk.politics.moderated

Newsgroup line:
uk.politics.moderated uk.politics.moderated Politics discussion (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.politics.moderated

Previous discussions on this putative group have popped up from time
to time and there has been a level of apparent support for the group's
creation, primarily in terms of "uk.politics.misc is too busy/too
wild/too abuse-ridden to take part in" or
"uk.legal.moderated/uk.d-i-y/uk.rec.sheds/etc are often flooded with
politics threads that are wildly off-topic and/or irritating" and that
it would be a Good Idea to have a controlled forum for politics
discussion to take place in. Each of the times this idea has cropped
up in one form or another, there have been enough "I'd use that group
if it existed" comments to convince me that it's an idea with legs.

It is expected that offering a moderated group will persuade those who
formerly participated to resume their participation in rational,
focused, and informed discussion. Proper moderation will enable
serious postings to the group to remain on topic while not limiting
who can voice opinions or what opinions can be voiced.

In previous discussion, it was suggested that the moderation policy
could be based on existing uk.* modpols, such as for ukram or ulm, and
I'm pretty comfortable with that. Suggestions welcomed.

I think that the key thing to help keep the group tolerable would be
to forbid cross-posting, everything else can be relatively light-touch
moderation, with particularly strong personal abuse rejected (I say
"particularly strong" personal abuse as I do expect that an amount of
"robust discussion" should be expected in a political discussion
forum, in the vein of "your views towards the homeless are quite
reprehensible and typical of the Tory mindset", or "as always with you
Loony Leftys you want to spend someone else's money", for
example). Mindless personal attacks should be forbidden in the group,
as should foully-expressed bigotry against any individual or group.

I would like to launch the group with a good-sized moderation team,
ideally 6 or 8 people or so, and preferably from a broad range of
political positions. Volunteers welcomed, to be added into RFD2 at
proponent's discretion.


CHARTER: uk.politics.moderated

uk.politics.moderated is for the discussion of politics and policy,
with an emphasis on politics in the UK (although politics from around
the globe is on-topic, moderators may choose to more quickly curtail
non-UK politics threads), moderated to remove abuse and/or
unreasonable thread drift.

This newsgroup is only intended to supplement, not supercede, any
other newsgroups.

END CHARTER

MODERATION POLICY: uk.politics.moderated

The following are prohibited:

* Commercial advertisements and money-making schemes.
* Chain letters.
* Posts in HTML.
* EMP spam.
* Binaries, apart from PGP signatures, X-Face headers, and other
ancillary article meta-data.
* Forgery of valid e-mail addresses.
* Excessive morphing/nym-shifting.
* Copyright violations. Pointers to news articles, blogs, etc. on this
topic are welcome but are required to use only short extracts.
* Personal attacks and flames, as defined by the moderation team.
* Advertising products or services
* Links to "objectionable" web content, including pornographic sites,
sites encouraging illegal activities, or sites deemed unacceptable by
the moderation team. The moderation team will cursorily check the
contents of specific links to confirm on-topic content, but acceptance
for posting does not imply endorsement or approval of the entire
present or future contents of that web site.
* Discussion of moderation decisions. See below for information on
appealing moderator action.

Moderators are not obliged to accept any post.

Moderators may use whatever tools they feel appropriate to ensure the
smooth running of the group.

The moderators shall keep and publish regularly a detailed policy
document detailing how moderation is currently performed.

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.

There shall be a team of moderators between 2 and 10 in number. The
current moderators will elect a chief moderator to carry out the
moderation administrative housekeeping actions. Moderators may appoint
their own successors and may remove any active or inactive moderator
at their discretion.

The moderation policy and tools used will enforce the following
guidelines:

* Crossposting is generally not allowed.

* Postings must be in plain text. In particular no HTML or mixed text
and HTML posts will be allowed.

* No binary postings of any sort will be accepted. Exceptions will be
made for cryptographic signatures and such.

* Messages must not have a 'Followup-To' header that points out of
uk.politics.moderated other than to "poster").

* Messages must not continue a thread that has been "closed" by the
moderators.

* The moderators do not intend to rigidly enforce a "dirty words"
list. Context and tone, as well as UK cultural assumptions, will be
taken into account. The civil tone and language content of the
newsgroup should aim for a dignified adult forum, one that can
frankly address controversial topics, but one that is not childish
or abusive, nor uses profanity for ad-hominem attacks or shock
value.

* Priority will be given to new, original, non-repetitive, and
newsworthy material written primarily for a Usenet audience. Quotes
and references to outside material may be provided to help support
discussion, assertions, and understanding, but should be used
sparingly.

Posters who feel that their posts have been unfairly rejected, either
for specific content or by a specific moderator, may appeal the
decision. They may do so by contacting the moderators at the
Administrative Contact address below. The moderators will discuss and
vote on the appeal and respond within 14 days if the appeal is
successful. The moderators will also reply within 14 days to
unsuccessful submitters of any appeal that is on-topic, reasoned,
civilly stated, and is not substantially an attempt to revisit the
subject matter and arguments of a previous unsuccessful appeal.

Submitters whose appeals have been rejected may seek redress of their
ongoing grievance by appealing to the readers of the
uk.net.news.moderation newsgroup. The uk.politics.moderated moderators
would prefer that those wishing to appeal moderation decisions for
uk.politics.moderated utilise that newsgroup's appeals process first,
and only post to uk.net.news.moderation if that appeal is
unsuccessful. Such publicly posted appeals should also contain the
contents of the rejected (or approved) article in dispute and the full
text of any replies from the moderators. Such appeals should also
attempt to argue for or against a moderation decision based on the
contents of the uk.politics.moderated charter and moderation
policies. The moderators may choose not to publicly reply to
complaints about moderation decisions posted to uk.net.news.moderation
that are not based on the charter or moderation policies, are uncivil,
that misrepresent facts, or are substantially an attempt to revisit
the subject matter and arguments of a previous unsuccessful appeal.

MODERATOR INFO: uk.politics.moderated

Moderator: Stephen Cole <use...@stephenthomascole.com>

Additional candidates for the moderation team are being sought in
order to ensure minimal posting delays and to avoid any appearance of
bias.

Moderation System Administrator: Propose that moderation software is
hosted and maintained by the Chiark service, similar to other uk.*
moderated newsgroups, if such an arrangement is able to be negotiated.

Article Submissions: TBD
Administrative Contact: TBD

END CHARTER

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 January 28th) 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.politics.misc

Proponent:
Stephen Cole <use...@stephenthomascole.com>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 1.4.21
Charset: noconv

iQCVAwUBYAQUc2OfGXkh8vHZAQhrTgP/UURQH7uzQ3ujzZpxq5aOuHS9w1B4n6sj
d+Q0PQZld3yEXdy7eCi54FDOuPDu5JO1gKoxh3vxyQnYzXt2BGPQx8DMjVQtlIKF
EHm20FJuKvZmyYml2DLKdqUld4meGYlUvuqmWTDWiTvniWv5ia8KCdcJntMHuse1
LuJWn8/cG6c=
=yiKU
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[gareth evans]

On 17/01/2021 10:39, Stephen Cole wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> 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.politics.moderated uk.politics.moderated

I suggest that the best thing to do is to ignore it
(as, indeed, I have not :-) ) because it is just another
attempt by Cole to make himself the centre of attention.

This is probably his 3rd or 4th RFD when most subscribers
will generate none at all, and follows on from his attempt
to be part of the UK ruling elite of Usenet.

In his previous attempts, he had given my email address as one
of his supporters, which was a complete fabrication on his part, and
an attempt by Cole to seek attention from me.

To get a good picture of Cole's value to Usenet, then just pop
along to uk.radio.amateur and view Cole's scurrilous and
grossly abusive campaign against Jim Stewart wherein Cole
repeatedly ad nauseam alludes to sexual perversions.

Do not feed the trolls being good counsel, as always.

[Pamela]

On 10:39 17 Jan 2021, Stephen Cole said:
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> 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.politics.moderated
> uk.politics.moderated
>
> Newsgroup line:
> uk.politics.moderated uk.politics.moderated Politics
> discussion (Moderated)

Is this the same moderated group Keema Nan was trying to set up?

[Jimmy Stewart]

so you are just going to keep your abuse and socks for other groups then ??

[Jimmy Stewart]

stephen cole is a complete arsehole and shouldn't be allowed to propose
anything .....

--
On FT8 nobody knows you're a dog ...

[Pancho]

On 17/01/2021 10:39, Stephen Cole wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> 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.politics.moderated

This reads very much like the creation of a group similar to
uk.legal.moderated, however uk.legal.moderated already exists and
posters, who want to, can use it to discuss political issues.

I think the remaining posters to uk.politics.misc and uk.legal are
resistant to this type of moderation, fearing bias from the moderators.
Most recent moderated groups have essentially failed due to lack of
users. We see even in this short thread moderator personality is a
concern to some.

When we discussed this a week ago in uk.net.new.moderation I proposed
the idea of a moderated group that was little more than a managed
whitelist. The idea being that any regular poster in the uk hierarchy
who was sane and not a spammer should be on the whitelist. This would
provide the benefit of filtering the high proportion "insane/spam" posts
that most core users to the group totally ignore, presumably due to kill
files. The sheer weight of the "insane/spam" posts seems to be a problem
to posters who do not have an up to date killfile.

This would not be an attempt to impose social decorum on a group that
happily survived without it for decades. It would not have the problem
of needing a large active moderation team. Most posters would not
experience posting delays due to their already being on the whitelist.

The benefit of this type of whitelist is that it could be applied to all
groups in the uk hierarchy and any other groups that suffer an attack
from "Peeler et al" could use the same moderation technique, the very
same whitelist. Moderation would not need to be particularly reactive,
most posters will tolerate a short period of a previously whitelist
poster becoming insane before they are removed from the white list. The
target would not be to ensure every post was ok, but more to make a dent
in the 50%+ of current posts that are not ok.

If people are interested in this type of solution, could they register
their interest here.

[Roger Hayter]

On 17 Jan 2021 at 19:45:05 GMT, "Pancho" <Pancho.Do...@outlook.com>
wrote:

> On 17/01/2021 10:39, Stephen Cole wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>
>> 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.politics.moderated
>
> This reads very much like the creation of a group similar to
> uk.legal.moderated, however uk.legal.moderated already exists and
> posters, who want to, can use it to discuss political issues.

But I think many of us would be pleased if political points lacking any clear
legal component could be blocked or rapidly curtailed. And this group might
make it reasonable for the moderators to do that.

I don't wish to comment on your substantive proposal at the moment, so I have
deleted it to save space.





--
Roger Hayter

[Radio Man]

+1

[Stephen Cole]

Pancho <Pancho.Do...@outlook.com> wrote:
> On 17/01/2021 10:39, Stephen Cole wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>
>> 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.politics.moderated
>
> This reads very much like the creation of a group similar to
> uk.legal.moderated, however uk.legal.moderated already exists and
> posters, who want to, can use it to discuss political issues.
>
> I think the remaining posters to uk.politics.misc and uk.legal are
> resistant to this type of moderation, fearing bias from the moderators.
> Most recent moderated groups have essentially failed due to lack of
> users. We see even in this short thread moderator personality is a
> concern to some.
>
> When we discussed this a week ago in uk.net.new.moderation I proposed
> the idea of a moderated group that was little more than a managed
> whitelist. The idea being that any regular poster in the uk hierarchy
> who was sane and not a spammer should be on the whitelist. This would
> provide the benefit of filtering the high proportion "insane/spam" posts
> that most core users to the group totally ignore, presumably due to kill
> files. The sheer weight of the "insane/spam" posts seems to be a problem
> to posters who do not have an up to date killfile.

I think that, in principle, a bias towards default white listing would be
good, with such a status being granted following an initial handful of
sensible posts, but I do also think that having some clear moderation rules
to fall back on when a whitelisted poster gets out of hand is essential.

In the RFD, I mention “light touch” moderation, and my interpretation of
that isn’t a million miles away from what you describe, so I think we’re
singing from the same hymn sheet.

--
STC / M0TEY

[Roger Hayter]

On 17 Jan 2021 at 20:50:34 GMT, "Stephen Cole" <use...@stephenthomascole.com>
wrote:

And if you are going to be fair to the non-whitelisted posters you are going
to need a lot of moderation resources at least at first to deal with a flood
of rejectable messages. Unless you are very high-handed about blacklisting
people a lot of resources will continue to be needed as even the worst of
posters may sometimes produce an acceptable post.

--
Roger Hayter

[g8dgc]

Roger Hayter <ro...@hayter.org> wrote:

> On 17 Jan 2021 at 20:50:34 GMT, "Stephen Cole"
> <use...@stephenthomascole.com> wrote:

[...]

> > In the RFD, I mention "light touch" moderation, and my interpretation of
> > that isn't a million miles away from what you describe, so I think we're
> > singing from the same hymn sheet.
>
> And if you are going to be fair to the non-whitelisted posters you are going
> to need a lot of moderation resources at least at first to deal with a flood
> of rejectable messages. Unless you are very high-handed about blacklisting
> people a lot of resources will continue to be needed as even the worst of
> posters may sometimes produce an acceptable post.

Who are the prospective moderators, please?

--
g8dgc <g8d...@gmail.com>

[Pancho]

On 17/01/2021 20:50, Stephen Cole wrote:

> I think that, in principle, a bias towards default white listing would be
> good, with such a status being granted following an initial handful of
> sensible posts, but I do also think that having some clear moderation rules
> to fall back on when a whitelisted poster gets out of hand is essential.
>
> In the RFD, I mention “light touch” moderation, and my interpretation of
> that isn’t a million miles away from what you describe, so I think we’re
> singing from the same hymn sheet.
>

I don't see it that way. I see it as a fundamental difference.

You are assuming a policy of active moderation that will discourage new
posters. If someone has posted to the UK hierarchy for years why not
trust them by default. If they are a pain they can be removed later.
This is how killfiles work.

I don't think prioritising blocking all bad posts is worth discouraging
people from using the group. In fact, I suspect such a policy is what
has caused the dearth of users in other moderated groups.

I would say only new nyms, or known problem posters should not be on the
whitelist by default.

[Pancho]

On 17/01/2021 22:12, Roger Hayter wrote:

>
> And if you are going to be fair to the non-whitelisted posters you are going
> to need a lot of moderation resources at least at first to deal with a flood
> of rejectable messages.

Flood? Like wot happened to other moderated groups?

> Unless you are very high-handed about blacklisting
> people a lot of resources will continue to be needed as even the worst of
> posters may sometimes produce an acceptable post.
>

OK, The Peeler may occasionality make reasonable posts, I can't be
bothered to check. I wouldn't expect moderators to bother. The idea that
usenet is being flooded with newbies isn't very convincing.

The only real reason for this type of group is to serve posters to the
UK hierarchy who have known each other for decades. To preserve an
existing community.

New posters should use Twitter, Reddit, Parler or whatever.

[Roger Hayter]

If you read the RFD you will see that it says the proponent snd also calls for
volunteers. Fleshing out the details of that will presumably depend upon the
response, I would guess.

--
Roger Hayter

[g8dgc]

Roger Hayter <ro...@hayter.org> wrote:

> I, g8dgc, wrote:
> >
> > Who are the prospective moderators, please?
>
> If you read the RFD you will see that it says the proponent snd also calls
> for volunteers. Fleshing out the details of that will presumably depend
> upon the response, I would guess.

I imagine that the success or failure of this project is somewhat
likely to depend on the roster of moderators.

--
g8dgc <g8d...@gmail.com>

[gareth evans]

So I'll comment.

The RFD is inconsistent because at the top it says that personal abuse
of a robust nature along the lines of being typical of the loony
right and yet at the bottom that attacks on groups are to be
forbidden.

[Roger Hayter]

On 18 Jan 2021 at 10:54:13 GMT, "gareth evans" <headst...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

That is a) incomprehensible and b) not a comment on Pancho's proposal but a
comment on the original RFD.

--
Roger Hayter

[Pancho]

It is actually quite hard to codify reasonable behaviour.

However, the problem with uk.politics.misc and uk.legal is actually a
lot simpler than for uk.radio.amateur or uk.rec.cycling.
uk.politics.misc and uk.legal suffer from mass spamers, posters that
none of the core posters respond to, or very rarely.

All moderation really has to do is distinguish the set of posters who
interact reasonably with each other from the mad/spam, the two sets are
relatively unconnected.

The problem with Stephen's proposal is that he will be seen as setting
himself as judge of content, a censor. I don't think this will be
popular with the existing users of uk.politics.misc or uk.legal.

[gareth evans]

Yer right, boyo, diolch!

Editing errors got the crucial bit elided, should read ...

The RFD is inconsistent because at the top it says that personal abuse
of a robust nature along the lines of being typical of the loony

right IS TO BE EXPECTED and yet at the bottom that attacks on

[gareth evans]

On 18/01/2021 11:23, Pancho wrote:
> The problem with Stephen's proposal is that he will be seen as setting
> himself as judge of content, a censor. I don't think this will be
> popular with the existing users of uk.politics.misc or uk.legal.

The very behaviour of an attention seeker who wants to be
king of the castle, perhaps?

I suspect that were you to investigate any of Cole's
contemporaneous posts to uk.radio.amateur that you
would find behaviour of a personality that is at
odds with the nature of the RFD.

[Roger Hayter]

On 18 Jan 2021 at 11:23:46 GMT, "Pancho" <Pancho.Do...@outlook.com>

He will be even more unpopular if he starts by rejecting posters by ID. He
needs at least at first to look at every post from the spammers, trolls and
irrational people in case they produce an acceptable one. So he really has
to moderate on content unless he either confines the group to existing
posters, which I think would be grossly wrong on principle, or screens every
new ID invented. And if he starts by black listing the Peelers of this world
they will only turn up with new IDs.

Continuing with only the existing pre-loved posters allowed would be so
introspective and cliquey that it would deserve to fail - and would probably
be totally unacceptable to the wider electorate.

So a moderated group needs hopefully benign censorship - there is no way round
it.




--
Roger Hayter

[gareth evans]

On 18/01/2021 11:36, Roger Hayter wrote:
>
> Continuing with only the existing pre-loved posters allowed would be so
> introspective and cliquey that it would deserve to fail - and would probably
> be totally unacceptable to the wider electorate.

An astute analysis of what is wrong with the existing moderation
team of uk.radio.amateur.moderated.

[Pancho]

On 18/01/2021 11:35, gareth evans wrote:

> On 18/01/2021 11:23, Pancho wrote:
>> The problem with Stephen's proposal is that he will be seen as setting
>> himself as judge of content, a censor. I don't think this will be
>> popular with the existing users of uk.politics.misc or uk.legal.
>
> The very behaviour of an attention seeker who wants to be
> king of the castle, perhaps?
>

Stephen calls for a large number of moderators, for diversity.

The problems is that other moderated groups haven't really achieved
moderator diversity and even if achieved, at best it seems to result in
arbitrary moderation.

You seem to want to make it about personality. I was trying to take it
away from that.

> I suspect that were you to investigate any of Cole's
> contemporaneous posts to uk.radio.amateur that you
> would find behaviour of a personality that is at
> odds with the nature of the RFD.
>

I don't care.

[gareth evans]

On 18/01/2021 11:42, Pancho wrote:
>
> You seem to want to make it about personality. I was trying to take it
> away from that.

Apologies, therefore, for I've been on the receiving end
of a one-sided onslaught of gratuitous, grossly offensive
remarks from Cole for some years; remarks that never were germane to
any discussion, and so it is inevitable, I suppose, that
I feel a certain doubt about the genuineness of the RFD.

But it is not only I. Since his lamentable appearance
some years back in uk.radio.amateur, Cole has picked on
one or another of the regular contributors and driven
them away, to the extent that I question Cole's desire
to have wanted to be part of the pre-existing cadre
of radio hams in the first place. A genuine desire
in the technical pusuit that is ham radio? Hardly!

In many of those cases, Cole has crowed that his
victim has been "runned off".

Those victims were normal, polite, adults, quite
at odds with the infantile (attention-seeking!)
persona that Cole presented in those remarks.

[Pancho]

On 18/01/2021 11:36, Roger Hayter wrote:

Yes, that is largely the problem with killfiles. Peeler, NEMO, etc
change names and killfiles need to be adjusted. A whitelist is actually
more maintainable. These bad posters aren't trouble makers or feuders,
mad in the uk.amateur.radio sense, they are bat shit crazy. It's a whole
new level. Or alternatively they are sane, but deliberately trying to
undermine unmoderated groups.

I'm a pragmatist rather than principled. So I think blacklisting
obviously insane posters is fine. This can be done at a moderator's
leisure. The whitelist allows the group to function without constant
moderator intervention. All it requires is that posters maintain the
same nym or be willing to wait a while if they change nym.

> Continuing with only the existing pre-loved posters allowed would be so
> introspective and cliquey that it would deserve to fail - and would probably
> be totally unacceptable to the wider electorate.
>

I'm talking about loving every one sane in the uk hierarchy. I'm using a
very lose definition of sane and would not exclude bigotry or sane trolling.

> So a moderated group needs hopefully benign censorship - there is no way round
> it.
>

Yes, but there is where do you draw the line. I draw it at Peeler,
others draw it at Norm (sorry Norm if you are reading, you are amongst
my "loved" posters).

[Pamela]

No, I'm not Keema Nan.

Keema Nan tried to set up a moderated uk.politics group a few months
ago but posted in uk.politics.misc that he had no response to his
request and wasn't going to pursue it further.

Is Stephen Cole's proposal a follow up to that, as it comes soon
after, or something seperate?

[Roger Hayter]

On 18 Jan 2021 at 11:57:54 GMT, "Pancho" <Pancho.Do...@outlook.com>

I am suggesting (as I think is the RFD) that you draw the line at each
individual post rather than select acceptable authors. That doesn't stop you
having a white list of course.


--
Roger Hayter

[Pancho]

On 18/01/2021 13:16, Roger Hayter wrote:

>
> I am suggesting (as I think is the RFD) that you draw the line at each
> individual post rather than select acceptable authors. That doesn't stop you
> having a white list of course.
>

Yes, I understand that. It is the model used by other moderated groups
and doesn't seem to have been particularly successful, due to lack of
posters. I think Stephen has mentioned the same idea before with little
interest. I was trying to suggest an alternative.

I will support Stephen if he gets it to fly, but I don't believe he will.

If you disapprove of political posts in uk.legal.moderated but are
otherwise happy with the moderation model, why not ask them to follow
the convention of uk.d-i-y where non d-i-y posts are prefixed with OT,
perhaps ulm could use the prefix POLITICS:.

[Pamela]

On 11:57 18 Jan 2021, Pancho said:
>
> [SNIP]

>
> Yes, that is largely the problem with killfiles. Peeler, NEMO, etc
> change names and killfiles need to be adjusted. A whitelist is
> actually more maintainable. These bad posters aren't trouble
> makers or feuders, mad in the uk.amateur.radio sense, they are bat
> shit crazy. It's a whole new level. Or alternatively they are
> sane, but deliberately trying to undermine unmoderated groups.

Whisper it quietly but I don't see those crazy posts and my kill
file rarely needs adjusting.

I suspect their main intention is not to damage the group but to
flame one another endlessly.

I'm referring only to uk.politics.misc.

[Brian]

On Sun, 17 Jan 2021 10:39:53 +0000, Stephen Cole
<use...@stephenthomascole.com> wrote:

<all snipped for brevity>

I oppose the creation of this group as currently proposed, and would
vote against if this RFD were to proceed to a vote.
--
Remove 2001. to reply by email.

[Stephen Cole]

Brian <Br...@2001.bjforster.force9.co.uk> wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Jan 2021 10:39:53 +0000, Stephen Cole
> <use...@stephenthomascole.com> wrote:
>
> <all snipped for brevity>
>
> I oppose the creation of this group as currently proposed, and would
> vote against if this RFD were to proceed to a vote.

May I ask what changes, if any, to the proposal would change your mind?

--
STC / M0TEY

[Stephen Cole]

How would the moderation team know they’re insane or not before they’ve
submitted posts to the group? A poster’s behaviour in one newsgroup is no
indicator as to their behaviour in any other, imo. So, you either whitelist
everybody to start with and then reactively blacklist jackasses or you
blacklist everybody to start with and whitelist those that show willing to
at least not post deranged gibberish to the group. I favour the second
approach, it feels more manageable.

This can be done at a moderator's
> leisure. The whitelist allows the group to function without constant
> moderator intervention. All it requires is that posters maintain the
> same nym or be willing to wait a while if they change nym.
>

Tbh, nymshifting isn’t a big issue if moderation is done on content rather
than poster. Sane content gets posted, whitelisted more often than not
ideally, whilst gibberish gets rejected (either because the poster hasn’t
been whitelisted yet or because a whitelisted poster gets blacklisted due
to posting gibberish).

>> Continuing with only the existing pre-loved posters allowed would be so
>> introspective and cliquey that it would deserve to fail - and would probably
>> be totally unacceptable to the wider electorate.
>>
>
> I'm talking about loving every one sane in the uk hierarchy. I'm using a
> very lose definition of sane and would not exclude bigotry or sane trolling.
>
>> So a moderated group needs hopefully benign censorship - there is no way round
>> it.
>>
>
> Yes, but there is where do you draw the line. I draw it at Peeler,
> others draw it at Norm (sorry Norm if you are reading, you are amongst
> my "loved" posters).

If you’d like to join the proposed moderation team, you’re very welcome.
Let me know.

--
STC / M0TEY

[Roger Hayter]

On 18 Jan 2021 at 20:39:54 GMT, "Stephen Cole" <use...@stephenthomascole.com>
wrote:

You don't mean 'blacklist'. This is usually taken to mean blocking all a
poster's output unseen. And that was what Pancho apparently meant to avoid
moderation 'censorship', while whitelisting the good people. What you mean
is submitting everyone's posts for moderation before deciding who to
whitelist. Or possibly blacklist if they produce a burdensome number of
rejected posts.

>
>
> This can be done at a moderator's
>> leisure. The whitelist allows the group to function without constant
>> moderator intervention. All it requires is that posters maintain the
>> same nym or be willing to wait a while if they change nym.
>>
>
> Tbh, nymshifting isn’t a big issue if moderation is done on content rather
> than poster. Sane content gets posted, whitelisted more often than not
> ideally, whilst gibberish gets rejected (either because the poster hasn’t
> been whitelisted yet or because a whitelisted poster gets blacklisted due
> to posting gibberish).
>
>>> Continuing with only the existing pre-loved posters allowed would be so
>>> introspective and cliquey that it would deserve to fail - and would probably
>>> be totally unacceptable to the wider electorate.
>>>
>>
>> I'm talking about loving every one sane in the uk hierarchy. I'm using a
>> very lose definition of sane and would not exclude bigotry or sane trolling.
>>
>>> So a moderated group needs hopefully benign censorship - there is no way
>>> round
>>> it.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, but there is where do you draw the line. I draw it at Peeler,
>> others draw it at Norm (sorry Norm if you are reading, you are amongst
>> my "loved" posters).
>
> If you’d like to join the proposed moderation team, you’re very welcome.
> Let me know.


--

Roger Hayter

[Stephen Cole]

You are correct. Apologies for my inclarity.

--
STC / M0TEY

[Pancho]

On 18/01/2021 20:39, Stephen Cole wrote:

> How would the moderation team know they’re insane or not before they’ve
> submitted posts to the group? A poster’s behaviour in one newsgroup is no
> indicator as to their behaviour in any other, imo.

This is a bizarre assertion. I don't know of any poster that is insane
in one group and yet sane in another. The worst I can say is some
posters have aversions to some behaviours and "troll" groups. I can see
why the cyclist group wished to protect itself from such behaviour. I
cannot see why a political group would.

> So, you either whitelist
> everybody to start with and then reactively blacklist jackasses or you
> blacklist everybody to start with and whitelist those that show willing to
> at least not post deranged gibberish to the group. I favour the second
> approach, it feels more manageable.
>

As I said this model has been tried and the last two attempts have
failed. Why would this group be different?

> This can be done at a moderator's
>> leisure. The whitelist allows the group to function without constant
>> moderator intervention. All it requires is that posters maintain the
>> same nym or be willing to wait a while if they change nym.
>>
>
> Tbh, nymshifting isn’t a big issue if moderation is done on content rather
> than poster. Sane content gets posted, whitelisted more often than not
> ideally, whilst gibberish gets rejected (either because the poster hasn’t
> been whitelisted yet or because a whitelisted poster gets blacklisted due
> to posting gibberish).
>

You need to actually have posters before you can moderate on content. I
guess most posters to uk.politics.misc are not interested in investing
time and effort composing a post in the hope a moderator will deem their
post worthy. If they are, they already post to uk.legal.moderated. I
don't see what you are offering over and above uk.legal.moderated. Just
a different moderation team.

On the other hand if a poster knows he is whitelisted the worry of being
censored goes away. The entry barrier to contributing to the group is
much lower.

>>> Continuing with only the existing pre-loved posters allowed would be so
>>> introspective and cliquey that it would deserve to fail - and would probably
>>> be totally unacceptable to the wider electorate.
>>>
>>
>> I'm talking about loving every one sane in the uk hierarchy. I'm using a
>> very lose definition of sane and would not exclude bigotry or sane trolling.
>>
>>> So a moderated group needs hopefully benign censorship - there is no way round
>>> it.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, but there is where do you draw the line. I draw it at Peeler,
>> others draw it at Norm (sorry Norm if you are reading, you are amongst
>> my "loved" posters).
>
> If you’d like to join the proposed moderation team, you’re very welcome.
> Let me know.
>

Not as the group is proposed. Even if I thought such a group viable, I
don't want editorial control. I would pass every post by a sane poster
and I don't want to read Peeler's posts.

[gareth evans]

On 18/01/2021 23:34, Pancho wrote:
> On 18/01/2021 20:39, Stephen Cole wrote:
>
>> How would the moderation team know they’re insane or not before they’ve
>> submitted posts to the group? A poster’s behaviour in one newsgroup is no
>> indicator as to their behaviour in any other, imo.
>
> This is a bizarre assertion. I don't know of any poster that is insane
> in one group and yet sane in another.

Cole himself is.

[Molly Mockford]

On 18/01/21 23:34, Pancho wrote:
> On 18/01/2021 20:39, Stephen Cole wrote:
>
>> How would the moderation team know they’re insane or not before they’ve
>> submitted posts to the group? A poster’s behaviour in one newsgroup is no
>> indicator as to their behaviour in any other, imo.
>
> This is a bizarre assertion. I don't know of any poster that is insane
> in one group and yet sane in another. The worst I can say is some
> posters have aversions to some behaviours and "troll" groups.

I remember one case. Allen Hughes was a much-loved, grandfatherly type
personality in uk.people.silversurfers, and the most unpleasant kind of
troll (even down to serious threats of physical violence) in the uk.*
management groups, while using exactly the same ID. But I've never come
across anybody else like that.
--
Molly Mockford
I do not speak on behalf of the Committee.
If and when I do, I will say so explicitly.

[Bernie]

On Mon, 18 Jan 2021 11:52:46 +0000
gareth evans <headst...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On 18/01/2021 11:42, Pancho wrote:
> >
> > You seem to want to make it about personality. I was trying to take
> > it away from that.
>
> Apologies, therefore, for I've been on the receiving end
> of a one-sided onslaught of gratuitous, grossly offensive
> remarks from Cole for some years; remarks that never were germane to
> any discussion, and so it is inevitable, I suppose, that
> I feel a certain doubt about the genuineness of the RFD.

In a straight contest between you and Norman Wells, which one of you
do you think could balance a beach ball on your nose the longest,
Gareth?

[Roger Hayter]

On 19 Jan 2021 at 10:09:14 GMT, "Molly Mockford"

<nospam...@mollymockford.me.uk> wrote:

> On 18/01/21 23:34, Pancho wrote:
>> On 18/01/2021 20:39, Stephen Cole wrote:
>>
>>> How would the moderation team know they’re insane or not before they’ve
>>> submitted posts to the group? A poster’s behaviour in one newsgroup is no
>>> indicator as to their behaviour in any other, imo.
>>
>> This is a bizarre assertion. I don't know of any poster that is insane
>> in one group and yet sane in another. The worst I can say is some
>> posters have aversions to some behaviours and "troll" groups.
>
> I remember one case. Allen Hughes was a much-loved, grandfatherly type
> personality in uk.people.silversurfers, and the most unpleasant kind of
> troll (even down to serious threats of physical violence) in the uk.*
> management groups, while using exactly the same ID. But I've never come
> across anybody else like that.

Quite a few of us, though, can manage to be fairly outspoken in non-moderated
groups while generally sticking to the rules in moderated groups.

--
Roger Hayter

[gareth evans]

On 19/01/2021 10:50, Roger Hayter wrote:
>
> Quite a few of us, though, can manage to be fairly outspoken in non-moderated
> groups while generally sticking to the rules in moderated groups.

Indeed, Roger, you do have a tendency to mouth off rude remarks
and then claim that they were just reasonable observations.

There's never any call for such behaviour; and certainly
not from someone such as yourself in the medical profession.

[Bernie]

On Tue, 19 Jan 2021 10:55:06 +0000
gareth evans <headst...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On 19/01/2021 10:50, Roger Hayter wrote:
> >
> > Quite a few of us, though, can manage to be fairly outspoken in
> > non-moderated groups while generally sticking to the rules in
> > moderated groups.
>
> Indeed, Roger, you do have a tendency to mouth off rude remarks
> and then claim that they were just reasonable observations.
>

There's a lot of it about.

[kat]

On 19/01/2021 10:09, Molly Mockford wrote:
> On 18/01/21 23:34, Pancho wrote:
>> On 18/01/2021 20:39, Stephen Cole wrote:
>>
>>> How would the moderation team know they’re insane or not before they’ve
>>> submitted posts to the group? A poster’s behaviour in one newsgroup is no
>>> indicator as to their behaviour in any other, imo.
>>
>> This is a bizarre assertion. I don't know of any poster that is insane
>> in one group and yet sane in another. The worst I can say is some
>> posters have aversions to some behaviours and "troll" groups.
>
> I remember one case. Allen Hughes was a much-loved, grandfatherly type
> personality in uk.people.silversurfers, and the most unpleasant kind of
> troll (even down to serious threats of physical violence) in the uk.*
> management groups, while using exactly the same ID. But I've never come
> across anybody else like that.
>

It was very strange. I alternated between wanting to hug him, knowing a bit
about what was going on in his life, and slap him.

--
kat
>^..^<

[Radio Man]

g8dgc <g8d...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Roger Hayter <ro...@hayter.org> wrote:
>

>> On 17 Jan 2021 at 20:50:34 GMT, "Stephen Cole"
>> <use...@stephenthomascole.com> wrote:
> [...]
>>> In the RFD, I mention "light touch" moderation, and my interpretation of
>>> that isn't a million miles away from what you describe, so I think we're
>>> singing from the same hymn sheet.
>>
>> And if you are going to be fair to the non-whitelisted posters you are going
>> to need a lot of moderation resources at least at first to deal with a flood
>> of rejectable messages. Unless you are very high-handed about blacklisting
>> people a lot of resources will continue to be needed as even the worst of
>> posters may sometimes produce an acceptable post.
>
> Who are the prospective moderators, please?
>

You need people from successful moderated groups that rules out Cole and
the ukram moderators.

[Radio Man]

Anyone who looks at comments directed at Jim could possibly think he is
suitable. It needs someone with a track history of running moderated group
which has been successful.

[Radio Man]

Pancho <Pancho.Do...@outlook.com> wrote:

> On 17/01/2021 22:12, Roger Hayter wrote:
>
>>
>> And if you are going to be fair to the non-whitelisted posters you are going
>> to need a lot of moderation resources at least at first to deal with a flood
>> of rejectable messages.
>

> Flood? Like wot happened to other moderated groups?

>
>> Unless you are very high-handed about blacklisting
>> people a lot of resources will continue to be needed as even the worst of
>> posters may sometimes produce an acceptable post.
>>
>

> OK, The Peeler may occasionality make reasonable posts, I can't be
> bothered to check. I wouldn't expect moderators to bother. The idea that
> usenet is being flooded with newbies isn't very convincing.
>
> The only real reason for this type of group is to serve posters to the
> UK hierarchy who have known each other for decades. To preserve an
> existing community.
>
> New posters should use Twitter, Reddit, Parler or whatever.
>
>

Parler was killed off but has been rehosted by the Russians of all people.
Twitter is in decline. MeWe is growing slowly. Facebook has lost a
significant number of advertisers which will cut revenue.

[Radio Man]

gareth evans <headst...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 18/01/2021 11:23, Pancho wrote:

>> The problem with Stephen's proposal is that he will be seen as setting
>> himself as judge of content, a censor. I don't think this will be
>> popular with the existing users of uk.politics.misc or uk.legal.
>

> The very behaviour of an attention seeker who wants to be
> king of the castle, perhaps?
>

> I suspect that were you to investigate any of Cole's
> contemporaneous posts to uk.radio.amateur that you
> would find behaviour of a personality that is at
> odds with the nature of the RFD.
>

Yes his behaviour is exactly like yours.

[Pancho]

On 19/01/2021 22:03, Radio Man wrote:

>
> Parler was killed off but has been rehosted by the Russians of all people.
> Twitter is in decline. MeWe is growing slowly. Facebook has lost a
> significant number of advertisers which will cut revenue.
>

I just meant the only thing the UK usenet hierarchy has going for it the
community.

I think it would be good to take minimal steps to preserve/protect the
environment for that community. Hence my suggestion of a managed
whitelist to make uk.politics.misc useable. Just a minimal adjustment to
restore it to the way it was a year ago (as far as possible) before
Peeler started his spam campaign. People here don't seem to be accepting
that there is a fundamental difference between naughty scamps insulting
each other, trolling, etc and just plain offensive/mad/shit with no
redeeming characteristics whatsoever.

If someone wants to start a pioneering new forum, they are probably best
off doing it on one of the http based sites. They have all the
advantages, apart from the existing community.

[brian]

In message <ru7kvt$q59$2...@dont-email.me>, Radio Man <inv...@invalid.com>
writes

Can you cite any issues you've had with uram moderation ?

Brian
--
Brian Howie

[gareth evans]

On 20/01/2021 11:50, brian wrote:
> In message <ru7kvt$q59$2...@dont-email.me>, Radio Man <inv...@invalid.com>
> writes

>> You need people from successful moderated groups that rules out Cole and
>> the ukram moderators.
>>
>
> Can you cite any issues you've had with uram moderation ?

LOL! ROTFLMAO !!!!!!!

Brilliant challenge!

[Bernie]

How many posts have you made to unnm complaining about uram moderation,
Gareth?

YTC!

[Jim GM4DHJ ...]

On 17/01/2021 20:50, Stephen Cole wrote:
> Pancho <Pancho.Do...@outlook.com> wrote:

>> On 17/01/2021 10:39, Stephen Cole wrote:
>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>
>>> 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.politics.moderated
>>
>> This reads very much like the creation of a group similar to
>> uk.legal.moderated, however uk.legal.moderated already exists and
>> posters, who want to, can use it to discuss political issues.
>>

>> I think the remaining posters to uk.politics.misc and uk.legal are
>> resistant to this type of moderation, fearing bias from the moderators.
>> Most recent moderated groups have essentially failed due to lack of
>> users. We see even in this short thread moderator personality is a
>> concern to some.
>>
>> When we discussed this a week ago in uk.net.new.moderation I proposed
>> the idea of a moderated group that was little more than a managed
>> whitelist. The idea being that any regular poster in the uk hierarchy
>> who was sane and not a spammer should be on the whitelist. This would
>> provide the benefit of filtering the high proportion "insane/spam" posts
>> that most core users to the group totally ignore, presumably due to kill
>> files. The sheer weight of the "insane/spam" posts seems to be a problem
>> to posters who do not have an up to date killfile.
>
> I think that, in principle, a bias towards default white listing would be
> good, with such a status being granted following an initial handful of
> sensible posts, but I do also think that having some clear moderation rules
> to fall back on when a whitelisted poster gets out of hand is essential.

>
> In the RFD, I mention “light touch” moderation, and my interpretation of
> that isn’t a million miles away from what you describe, so I think we’re
> singing from the same hymn sheet.
>

be a bit like UKRA then were I get black listed without any warning or
notification ......

[Jimmy Stewart ...]

On 20/01/2021 11:50, brian wrote:

Yes I was obviously blackballed recently without any
notification.....why?........

[Jimmy Stewart ...]

On 19/01/2021 22:03, Radio Man wrote:

Hi Brian reay...see you and walter reliegh were taken in by fake posts
in my name on ukra....ha ha so fitting...I haven't posted there in 2021

[Jimmy Stewart ...]

posted two or three things recently none of which appeared .......

[Jimmy Stewart ...]

On 23/01/2021 06:57, Jimmy Stewart ... wrote:

#brownballed, more like, Jim. Thanks, Jim.

--
STC / M0TEY

[brian]

In message <KUPOH.448725$bG69....@fx23.ams4>, Jimmy Stewart ...
<jim.g...@ntlworld.com> writes

There's nothing obvious. The logs say your last rejections were

Fri Oct 16 10:59:37 BST 2020

Tue Jun 9 16:12:14 BST 2020

Since you use a real e-mail, you'll get the rejection notice.

The uram modbot doesn't have a blacklist option.

There have only been 4 rejected posts from anyone since the 16th Oct.

The modbot web server was down on 19 January 2021 for a short time , so
if you were unfortunate to post then it might have got lost.

Fups set to uk.net.news.moderation


Regards

Brian obo uram moderators

--
Brian Howie

[Radio Man]

Do you not understand the word successful?

[Ian Jackson]

In message <ru56e1$1o3$1...@dont-email.me>, gareth evans
<headst...@yahoo.com> writes

Steve doesn't need two newsgroups. He can be sane and insane in the same
newsgroup - sometimes even in the same post.
--
Ian

[Stephen Cole]

Thank you for your kind words, Ian.

Also, reported to ISP for off-topic trolling in the hierarchy management
groups. When will you learn?

--
STC / M0TEY

[Paul W. Schleck]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

In <1p369k2.1is0kci1ygqxcrN%g8d...@gmail.com> g8d...@gmail.com (g8dgc) writes:

>Roger Hayter <ro...@hayter.org> wrote:

>> On 17 Jan 2021 at 20:50:34 GMT, "Stephen Cole"
>> <use...@stephenthomascole.com> wrote:
>[...]
>> > In the RFD, I mention "light touch" moderation, and my interpretation of
>> > that isn't a million miles away from what you describe, so I think we're
>> > singing from the same hymn sheet.
>>
>> And if you are going to be fair to the non-whitelisted posters you are going
>> to need a lot of moderation resources at least at first to deal with a flood
>> of rejectable messages. Unless you are very high-handed about blacklisting
>> people a lot of resources will continue to be needed as even the worst of
>> posters may sometimes produce an acceptable post.

>Who are the prospective moderators, please?

>--
>g8dgc <g8d...@gmail.com>


I see that others notice that, too. I would argue that without a slate
of moderators, this proposal is moot. It is also practically moot
without some acknowledgment of the moderation software and hosting that
will be used, though I assume that the UK-based WebSTUMP system
maintained by Matthew Vernon and others is a likely first choice.

In my own experience, there is no magical moderation system or set of
policies that will be 100% fair, accurate, low-hassle, let alone
completely automatable via objective rules. Unavoidably, any moderation
team will have to evaluate each article on its merits and make a quick
decision to approve or reject. Once an article is rejected, it is very
rare for the original poster to make any suggested changes to make the
article approvable, and they will often take it personally. Mistakes
will be made and policies will be adjusted in the face of edge cases and
persuasive appeals. Moderators may have to control the on-line drama by
absorbing it in private, learning from mistakes, and being resilient
enough to move on for the sake of the editorial goals of the newsgroup.

You can pretty reliably block the kooks, the off-topic material, and the
spammers and flooders (unless they directly forge moderation, though
this has become harder nowadays with news sites restricting posting to
moderated newsgroups to approved users). You can slow down the
repetitive agenda posters, the ranting demagogues, the bullies, and the
sparring partners. The hardest sub-group to moderate is going to be the
self-styled regulars who have a sincere, vested interest in the forum
topics, can usually submit on-topic material, but will occasionally
lapse (revealing human weakness to take a veiled shot at someone else,
can't resist drawing out arguments to get in the last word, or that even
they are just a simple bigot and failed to hide it in an intemperate
moment). They may feel that the rules don't apply to them, and take
article rejections personally, even if they are done for the most
objective and high-minded of motivations. They may cause you grief
through vexatious complaints, or they may state that they are taking
their marbles and going home (either permanently or temporarily). Who
will be left after all of that?

Even the best moderation team will not have a successful newsgroup if
there are no submissions. Plans to "jump-start" discussion with curated
material, either original articles from volunteer discussion leaders, or
links and abstracts to external sources fed to the newsgroup by the
moderators, done reliably on an ongoing basis, may be required.

Cole is an "idea man." I mean that as neither praise nor insult. It
just means that, like uk.radio.amateur.moderated, an independent
moderation team with newsgroups experience will have to be recruited and
start discussing how they would moderate this proposed newsgroup, before
this proposal has any traction.

- --
Paul W. Schleck
psch...@panix.com

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iEYEARECAAYFAmAMczYACgkQ6Pj0az779o5H5gCgk6tYZGE+iHGYm3r8BJPh9PAs
8QMAoKuSjs5cVOTwNsaZmkD5y8bFR6Xh
=m+On
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[brian]

In message <rugu1t$t0l$1...@dont-email.me>, Radio Man <inv...@invalid.com>

Any advice on how to make it more successful then ?

Brian
--
Brian Howie

[Paul W. Schleck]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

In <ru2fa0$rha$1...@dont-email.me> Pancho <Pancho.Do...@outlook.com> writes:

>On 17/01/2021 22:12, Roger Hayter wrote:

>>

>> And if you are going to be fair to the non-whitelisted posters you are going
>> to need a lot of moderation resources at least at first to deal with a flood
>> of rejectable messages.

>Flood? Like wot happened to other moderated groups?

>> Unless you are very high-handed about blacklisting
>> people a lot of resources will continue to be needed as even the worst of
>> posters may sometimes produce an acceptable post.
>>

>OK, The Peeler may occasionality make reasonable posts, I can't be
>bothered to check. I wouldn't expect moderators to bother. The idea that
>usenet is being flooded with newbies isn't very convincing.

>The only real reason for this type of group is to serve posters to the
>UK hierarchy who have known each other for decades. To preserve an
>existing community.

>New posters should use Twitter, Reddit, Parler or whatever.

Public forums on the Internet have come and gone over the years,
disappearing for various business or legal reasons, and often with
little or no warning, or even any significant attempt to archive the
prior contents for posterity. Usenet appears to be the one that has
been, and likely will be, left standing as the resilient,
indestructible, and permanent "Seed Vault" of on-line discussion.

Specifically, I recall objections to the recent creation of new
newsgroups based on the serious and passionate argument that they would
be much better off as Yahoo Groups, instead. Well, so much for that
suggestion.

- --
Paul W. Schleck
psch...@panix.com

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iEYEARECAAYFAmAMd80ACgkQ6Pj0az779o7JvACgnzSMju404o4zO9nr7WIqR95G
xiQAn1FCGmNlPyyBHmtBOXjrKrDnQnSW
=d+NN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Jimmy Stewart ...]

ha ha

[Radio Man]

Replace the moderators with someone who has experience of running a
successful group.

[Radio Man]

Aren’t the groups you run largely full of spam type posts? That hardly
qualifies you to offer advice on running groups. Shouldn’t we be asking
someone who runs a successful group which carry real traffic.

[Paul W. Schleck]

No, SPAM is indiscriminantly targeted, off-topic, commercial content.
On-topic, targeted content that others don't like simply because of the
source or the opinions expressed is not SPAM. Newsgroups that I help
moderate do not contain SPAM. They do contain useful on-topic
information and followup discussion consistent with the communications
and bulletin-relay tradition of their subject matter, sent in manageably
readable amounts and in easily findable/filterable formats. The same
types of information and followup discussion that the original companion
unmoderated topic newsgroups' participants have been posting in the same
types and quantity for over 30 years, consistent with those newsgroups'
charters and posting guidelines.

Also, a successful moderated newsgroup is based as much (or even more)
on what it doesn't carry as what it does. You're not seeing the
inappropriate material submitted that gets blocked on a daily basis.
You're not seeing the huffy personal complaints from people who clearly
cross a bright-line of moderation policies and get rejected as a result.
Most of their complaints essentially center around the arguments that
the rules don't apply to them, the rules are unjust and wrong, the
proper nature of Usenet newsgroups is attacking and arguing with other
people mostly for personal reasons, and they don't care to submit their
articles to editorial oversight, anyway. You're also not seeing the
endless flooding and flame wars that went down on the companion
unmoderated topic newsgroups for many years before carefully curated
on-topic content and volunteer discussion leaders were added.

- --
Paul W. Schleck
psch...@panix.com

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iEYEARECAAYFAmAMnswACgkQ6Pj0az779o65fgCeKzutIrsJSgmxSIYfgkoOM9n8
8WgAniHkSN0AVgSL0SbkzFgjVZsxaSaV
=0JcX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Radio Man]

As I said your groups are full of spam type posts.

[Pancho]

On 23/01/2021 19:05, Paul W. Schleck wrote:

> You can pretty reliably block the kooks, the off-topic material, and the
> spammers and flooders (unless they directly forge moderation, though
> this has become harder nowadays with news sites restricting posting to
> moderated newsgroups to approved users)

So why not just do that. See if posters like it.

It seems better to have posters squabbling, which most of us seem to
enjoy, than the sterile wastelands that most of the moderated groups are.

The most successful moderated uk hierarchy group, uk.legal.moderated, is
one of the least tightly moderated, perhaps even less would be better.

[Pancho]

On 23/01/2021 23:10, Radio Man wrote:

>
> As I said your groups are full of spam type posts.
>

Looking at rec.radio.amateur.moderated I'm seeing only 7 replies out of
300+ posts over the last month.

[Roger Hayter]

On 23 Jan 2021 at 23:47:27 GMT, "Pancho" <Pancho.Do...@outlook.com>
wrote:

I'd be quite pleased if the currently proposed group took the pressure of the
ulm moderators to accept so much off-topic politics. In every other respect I
think they get the balance about right.


--
Roger Hayter

[Paul W. Schleck]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

In <ruiadv$oeh$1...@dont-email.me> Radio Man <inv...@invalid.com> writes:

>As I said your groups are full of spam type posts.

I don't know what you mean by 'glory,'" Alice said.

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. "Of course you don't---till I tell
you. I meant 'there's a nice knock-down argument for you!'"

"But glory' doesn't mean 'a nice knock-down argument,'" Alice objected.

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it
means just what I choose it to mean---neither more nor less."

"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many
different things."

"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "Which is to be master---that's all."

- Lewis Carroll, "Through the Looking-Glass"

- --
Paul W. Schleck
psch...@panix.com

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iEYEARECAAYFAmAM8ioACgkQ6Pj0az779o4mrQCeNp7gnRn1JcPH2L2/etwp/5RV
H9oAmwYjwQoGD3uy5btVj29tHtBMNDNz
=aGRY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Stephen Cole]

Paul W. Schleck <psch...@panix.com> wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> In <1p369k2.1is0kci1ygqxcrN%g8d...@gmail.com> g8d...@gmail.com (g8dgc) writes:
>
>> Roger Hayter <ro...@hayter.org> wrote:
>
>>> On 17 Jan 2021 at 20:50:34 GMT, "Stephen Cole"
>>> <use...@stephenthomascole.com> wrote:
>> [...]
>>>> In the RFD, I mention "light touch" moderation, and my interpretation of
>>>> that isn't a million miles away from what you describe, so I think we're
>>>> singing from the same hymn sheet.
>>>
>>> And if you are going to be fair to the non-whitelisted posters you are going
>>> to need a lot of moderation resources at least at first to deal with a flood
>>> of rejectable messages. Unless you are very high-handed about blacklisting
>>> people a lot of resources will continue to be needed as even the worst of
>>> posters may sometimes produce an acceptable post.
>
>> Who are the prospective moderators, please?
>
>> --
>> g8dgc <g8d...@gmail.com>
>
>
> I see that others notice that, too. I would argue that without a slate
> of moderators, this proposal is moot. It is also practically moot
> without some acknowledgment of the moderation software and hosting that
> will be used, though I assume that the UK-based WebSTUMP system
> maintained by Matthew Vernon and others is a likely first choice.
>

From the RFD:

“Additional candidates for the moderation team are being sought in order to
ensure minimal posting delays and to avoid any appearance of bias.”

No volunteers yet.

Also from the RFD:

“Moderation System Administrator: Propose that moderation software is
hosted and maintained by the Chiark service, similar to other uk.*
moderated newsgroups, if such an arrangement is able to be negotiated.”

--
STC / M0TEY

[Spike]

On 23/01/2021 23:47, Pancho wrote:
> On 23/01/2021 19:05, Paul W. Schleck wrote:

>> You can pretty reliably block the kooks, the off-topic material, and the
>> spammers and flooders

> So why not just do that. See if posters like it.

I just downloaded 11179 posts from rec.radio.amateur.moderated.

Applying a filter
Delete ( [ and ] and not Re: )
took the message score down to1885.

Another filter
Delete ( (QRZ Forums) and not (Re:) )
brought the message total down to 685.

Even with this vastly-reduced number it is difficult to find a post that
was originated in the group by an outside individual. In other words,
the group is essentially unused for this type of posting.
uk.radio.amateur has, under the same dead guiding hand, gone much the
same way.

The rec.radio groups' gruppenfuhrer has been told before to put all this
junk stuff into one group, such as rec.radio.info, where most of it
appears anyway, and leave the remaining groups free for discussions. But
no, they remain a wasteland of scraped blog posts, newsletters, "30
Years Ago" posts, and the like.

You can lead an ass to the water hole but you can't make him drink.


--
Spike

[Algernon Goss-Custard]

Paul W. Schleck <psch...@panix.com> posted

>
>You can pretty reliably block the kooks, the off-topic material, and the
>spammers and flooders

That would be perfectly adequate for most purposes. They are the main
problem, that has wrecked uk.legal and is about to do the same for
uk.politics.misc.

Petty little arguments between otherwise rational posters can be left to
themselves, and anybody who wants to killfile them can easily do so, as
has always happened on Usenet.

>(unless they directly forge moderation, though
>this has become harder nowadays with news sites restricting posting to
>moderated newsgroups to approved users). You can slow down the
>repetitive agenda posters, the ranting demagogues, the bullies, and the
>sparring partners.

We don't need to. Such postings will be limited in volume and can be
kill-filed ad hoc by individual readers according to their choice.

>The hardest sub-group to moderate is going to be the
>self-styled regulars who have a sincere, vested interest in the forum
>topics, can usually submit on-topic material, but will occasionally
>lapse (revealing human weakness to take a veiled shot at someone else,
>can't resist drawing out arguments to get in the last word, or that even
>they are just a simple bigot and failed to hide it in an intemperate
>moment).

They don't need to be moderated out.

>They may feel that the rules don't apply to them, and take
>article rejections personally, even if they are done for the most
>objective and high-minded of motivations. They may cause you grief
>through vexatious complaints, or they may state that they are taking
>their marbles and going home (either permanently or temporarily). Who
>will be left after all of that?

So don't moderate them out.


--
Algernon

[Roger Hayter]

On 24 Jan 2021 at 10:29:41 GMT, "Algernon Goss-Custard" <B...@nowhere.com>
wrote:

> Paul W. Schleck <psch...@panix.com> posted

snip

>
>> They may feel that the rules don't apply to them, and take
>> article rejections personally, even if they are done for the most
>> objective and high-minded of motivations. They may cause you grief
>> through vexatious complaints, or they may state that they are taking
>> their marbles and going home (either permanently or temporarily). Who
>> will be left after all of that?
>
> So don't moderate them out.

But bigotry and white nationalism will be a problem for the moderators. They
probably can't be excluded because they are a major strand of political
opinion, especially since Trump and Brexit. But at what point are they simply
too revolting for normal people to contemplate, or illegal hate speech,
inciting violence for instance?

The moderators would probably do well to exclude defamatory posts too.



--
Roger Hayter

[Pancho]

Yes, I get that is what you like, as do many others. Many people want to
see political debate filtered to only include politically acceptable
ideologies. I can see exactly why someone using their real name would
want such a group, to protect themselves against reputational risk. I
expect you broadly agree with the bias of uk.legal.moderated, what is
politically acceptable, rather than dispute that the bias exists.

However, others like a more open forum, or just a different bias, not
totally open, but more open. Historically uk.legal and uk.politics.misc
provided this. These groups have recently been severely damaged by
floods of bad posts. This has driven political posts into
uk.legal.moderated. So what I would like to see tried is an alternative
moderation strategy, less strict, lightweight, poster rather than content.

Surely even you admit that the two recent moderated groups,
uk.rec.cycling and uk.amateur.radio.moderated, which broadly followed
the uk.legal.moderated moderation policy, have not attracted posters.
Have not been successful. I can't see the point of more of the same.

It is also worth noting that this RFD has almost exclusively attracted
comments from the uk.radio crowd, not the legal or politics groups. It
doesn't seem to have captured enough people's interest.

[Roger Hayter]

On 24 Jan 2021 at 08:24:10 GMT, "Stephen Cole" <use...@stephenthomascole.com>

I really hope that people who think they could do this will volunteer. Anyone
who can be fair and objective will probably be acceptable to the proponent,
and it is possible to cooperate in a moderation team without being best
friends with the other moderators. And, of course, if the group is never
created there will be no continuing obligation. So if you think you might be
able to join in why not email the proponent?

I hope this proposal will get to a vote, but I doubt if it will do so without
at least a small proposed moderation team.

>
>
> Also from the RFD:
>
> “Moderation System Administrator: Propose that moderation software is
> hosted and maintained by the Chiark service, similar to other uk.*
> moderated newsgroups, if such an arrangement is able to be negotiated.”


--

Roger Hayter

[gareth evans]

On 24/01/2021 08:24, Stephen Cole wrote:
>
> “Additional candidates for the moderation team are being sought in order to
> ensure minimal posting delays and to avoid any appearance of bias.”
>
> No volunteers yet.

Perhaps your atrocious behaviour over the past few years has been
noticed?

[Roger Hayter]

On 24 Jan 2021 at 10:56:20 GMT, "Pancho" <Pancho.Do...@outlook.com>

snip

The bias, perceived or real, is totally irrelevant. I would just like a legal
group where mainly law is discussed, rather than a group which is mainly
politics.


--
Roger Hayter

[Pancho]

Uk.politics.misc and uk.legal have always included bigots, they used to
include a paedophile too (an eloquent and interesting one). Hearing
wrongthink expressed does not make me think wrongly. Sunlight is the
best disinfectant. Nearly 50% of the US population voted for Trump, you
can't just brush popular sentiments under the carpet.

> The moderators would probably do well to exclude defamatory posts too.
>

The recognised defence against defamation is to be a platform rather
than a publisher, i.e. not to exercise editorial control.
Uk.legal.moderated seems to have become a bizarre echo chamber on the topic.

[Pancho]

On 24/01/2021 11:03, Roger Hayter wrote:

> snip
>
> The bias, perceived or real, is totally irrelevant. I would just like a legal
> group where mainly law is discussed, rather than a group which is mainly
> politics.
>

It is very relevant to a political group.

Also, I liked uk.business.accountancy, it didn't have politics, or
floods of spam, now it has nothing. Perhaps uk.legal.moderated only
survives because it allows participants to chat about what they want to.
All the successful group seem to include OT chat.

[Roger Hayter]

On 24 Jan 2021 at 10:56:20 GMT, "Pancho" <Pancho.Do...@outlook.com>
wrote:

snip

>
> It is also worth noting that this RFD has almost exclusively attracted
> comments from the uk.radio crowd, not the legal or politics groups. It
> doesn't seem to have captured enough people's interest.

One problem is that the proponent has antagonised pretty well everyone on
uk.*. The bizarre, bigoted friends he did have seem to have turned against
him, mainly because they are bizarre bigots.

The thing is, I am reasonably confident that he can organise and operate a
moderated group objectively and fairly, and without abusing posters or fellow
moderators much, so he is as good as anyone to take forward the RFD if people
are interested in a moderated UK politics group. So if such people exist I
think it would be sensible for them to hold their noses and join in despite
any dislike of the proponent.


--
Roger Hayter

[Roger Hayter]

On 24 Jan 2021 at 11:12:28 GMT, "Pancho" <Pancho.Do...@outlook.com>
wrote:

I agree. But the balance between OT chat and law has swung too far OT, in my
opinion.


--
Roger Hayter

[Roger Hayter]

On 24 Jan 2021 at 11:08:14 GMT, "Pancho" <Pancho.Do...@outlook.com>
wrote:

Moderation *is* editorial control. Even the person-centric type you propose.

--
Roger Hayter

[Roger Hayter]

To expand on that, I think you are right in that it would be difficult for the
moderators to change that without becoming somewhat too heavy-handed for at
least some of the contributors to tolerate. I do wonder if a successful
separate politics group might make it easier for them to divert political
discussions there.

--
Roger Hayter

[Pancho]

I don't really know the proponent, I don't object to him as a person. I
doubt most of the uk.politics.misc or uk.legal posters know him, as he
has never really posted there. What I object to is the proposed
moderation model. I expect this is true of most uk.legal,
uk.politics.misc posters.

[Pancho]

I think legal defamation law distinguishes, see face book, twitter,
trust pilot.

[Roger Hayter]

On 24 Jan 2021 at 11:32:28 GMT, "Pancho" <Pancho.Do...@outlook.com>

In the case of the first two at least I think they are protected by vast legal
resources rather than any clear legal principle in English law. We are not
America. Also a willingness to take things down in response to complaints
quite often, which is technically difficult on Usenet.[1]


[1] I think moderators could be equipped with the ability to cancel posts,
but as this is largely ineffective it may not be worth the effort.

--
Roger Hayter

[Pancho]

On 24/01/2021 11:38, Roger Hayter wrote:

>> I think legal defamation law distinguishes, see face book, twitter,
>> trust pilot.
>
> In the case of the first two at least I think they are protected by vast legal
> resources rather than any clear legal principle in English law. We are not
> America. Also a willingness to take things down in response to complaints
> quite often, which is technically difficult on Usenet.[1]
>

eternal-september and other text based usenet providers. AIUI they don't
have money.

>
> [1] I think moderators could be equipped with the ability to cancel posts,
> but as this is largely ineffective it may not be worth the effort.
>

Yeah, I think doing ones best would be a strong defence in law, i.e send
out a cancel (if possible) and block the problem poster.

[Pancho]

On 24/01/2021 11:54, Pancho wrote:

> Yeah, I think doing ones best would be a strong defence in law, i.e send
> out a cancel (if possible) and block the problem poster.
>

I meant on receipt of a complaint.

[Stephen Cole]

Indeed. If at least one or two others aren’t interested enough in seeing
the group created to put themselves forward as moderators, then I won’t be
investing any more energy into this proposal as it would clearly be without
community support. Which would be a shame but que sera, sera.

--
STC / M0TEY

[Jeff Gaines]

On 24/01/2021 in message <i756nl...@mid.individual.net> Stephen Cole
wrote:

>Indeed. If at least one or two others aren’t interested enough in seeing
>the group created to put themselves forward as moderators, then I won’t
>be
>investing any more energy into this proposal as it would clearly be without
>community support. Which would be a shame but que sera, sera.

I support the formation of the group and am happy to volunteer as a
moderator. I've not been a moderator before and you may feel it better to
seek experienced people. Don't know how long I'd last, I'm 73 and four
stone overweight so obviously a high risk category!

Reply email is valid.

--
Jeff Gaines Wiltshire UK
Have you ever noticed that all the instruments searching for intelligent
life are pointing away from Earth?

[Spike]

On 24/01/2021 11:16, Roger Hayter wrote:

> One problem is that the proponent has antagonised pretty well everyone on
> uk.*. The bizarre, bigoted friends he did have seem to have turned against
> him, mainly because they are bizarre bigots.

> The thing is, I am reasonably confident that he can organise and operate a
> moderated group objectively and fairly, and without abusing posters or fellow
> moderators much, so he is as good as anyone to take forward the RFD if people
> are interested in a moderated UK politics group.

I must admire your optimism.

We are talking about the chap that had four failed bites of the cherry
at getting an acceptable RFD together to form
uk.radio.amateur.moderated. Finally, some American Schmitt had to be
called in to deal with the issue, and even that failed on the first
attempt. A second attempt supported by a sock army finally got the job
done. UKRAM's best month for postings was three months after it became
live, and it's been in an increasing decline in the five years since then.

If it wasn't for the fact that they number in the thousands, his posts
made at the time might be worth reading.

But even while the RFDs were failing, the same chap was attempting to
secure his moderated-group legacy by means of an RFD which sought to
remove the +12 majority rule for group creation and deletion *apart*
*from* moderated groups! You couldn't make it up.

An attempt to get uk.net.news.discussion through also was voted down.

Then there's the attempt by the same chap to get voted on the UK Usenet
committee. In every case he came last, apart from the time he couldn't
get enough sponsors.

Given the string of failures one could be forgiven for thinking that
those who are aware of the chap don't want him at any price, as someone
succinctly noted following one of the Committee elections. As he says
so often: "It's all in the archives".

--
Spike

[Roger Hayter]

On 24 Jan 2021 at 12:36:06 GMT, "Spike" <Aero....@mail.invalid> wrote:
snip

> Given the string of failures one could be forgiven for thinking that
> those who are aware of the chap don't want him at any price, as someone
> succinctly noted following one of the Committee elections. As he says
> so often: "It's all in the archives".

I would have thought that ability to get a previous RFD passed was totally
irrelevant to ability to moderate a group. Let's treat this proposal on its
merits.


--
Roger Hayter

[Algernon Goss-Custard]

Roger Hayter <ro...@hayter.org> posted

>On 24 Jan 2021 at 10:29:41 GMT, "Algernon Goss-Custard" <B...@nowhere.com>
>wrote:
>> Paul W. Schleck <psch...@panix.com> posted
>snip
>>
>>> They may feel that the rules don't apply to them, and take
>>> article rejections personally, even if they are done for the most
>>> objective and high-minded of motivations. They may cause you grief
>>> through vexatious complaints, or they may state that they are taking
>>> their marbles and going home (either permanently or temporarily). Who
>>> will be left after all of that?
>>
>> So don't moderate them out.
>
>But bigotry and white nationalism will be a problem for the moderators.

No, they need not be. Just let them through.

>They
>probably can't be excluded because they are a major strand of political
>opinion, especially since Trump and Brexit.

Quite.

>But at what point are they simply
>too revolting for normal people to contemplate, or illegal hate speech,
>inciting violence for instance?

At no point, as far as a moderator is concerned. If an individual
newsgroup reader wants to killfile such a thread or poster, he can.

>The moderators would probably do well to exclude defamatory posts too.

No they wouldn't. It would just give some of them an excuse to block
posts for political reasons.

--
Algernon

[Spike]

Always presuming some merits will turn up. Others have noted his RFDs
were solutions looking for problems, and that's why they were lost.

Perhaps I should have expanded on the reference to "It's all in the
archives", but as you were there at the time I thought that would have
been unnecessary.

--
Spike

[brian]

In message <rui4hf$ie2$1...@dont-email.me>, Radio Man <inv...@invalid.com>
writes
>
>>>
>> Any advice on how to make it more successful then ?
>>
>> Brian
>
>Replace the moderators with someone who has experience of running a
>successful group.
>
I wouldn't have thought you've been around long enough to have an
informed opinion . You've only made one posting to the group.

Can you suggest anyone with experience of moderating a successful group?
I'm sure young Steve would be grateful of any help for upm.

I've just noticed the posting tally on uram is just short of 6000 in
just over 5 years. I wouldn't call that a failure, given the very small
pool of active amateurs on UK Usenet.

Brian
--
Brian Howie

[Algernon Goss-Custard]

Roger Hayter <ro...@hayter.org> posted

>On 24 Jan 2021 at 08:24:10 GMT, "Stephen Cole" <use...@stephenthomascole.com>
>wrote:

>> “Additional candidates for the moderation team are being sought in order to
>> ensure minimal posting delays and to avoid any appearance of bias.”
>>
>> No volunteers yet.
>
>I really hope that people who think they could do this will volunteer. Anyone
>who can be fair and objective will probably be acceptable to the proponent,
>and it is possible to cooperate in a moderation team without being best
>friends with the other moderators. And, of course, if the group is never
>created there will be no continuing obligation. So if you think you might be
>able to join in why not email the proponent?
>
>I hope this proposal will get to a vote, but I doubt if it will do so without
>at least a small proposed moderation team.
>

I suppose I should volunteer. But I won't unless I am happy that the
moderation policy is completely blind to posters' political opinions,
and is conducted accordingly.

--
Algernon

[Stephen Cole]

Jeff Gaines <jgaines...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On 24/01/2021 in message <i756nl...@mid.individual.net> Stephen Cole
> wrote:
>
>> Indeed. If at least one or two others aren’t interested enough in seeing
>> the group created to put themselves forward as moderators, then I won’t
>> be
>> investing any more energy into this proposal as it would clearly be without
>> community support. Which would be a shame but que sera, sera.
>
> I support the formation of the group and am happy to volunteer as a
> moderator. I've not been a moderator before and you may feel it better to
> seek experienced people. Don't know how long I'd last, I'm 73 and four
> stone overweight so obviously a high risk category!
>
> Reply email is valid.

Thank you, Jeff. Much appreciated! I shall email you soon.

Any more volunteers? My email is valid if you’d prefer to correspond
off-list.

--
STC / M0TEY

[Roger Hayter]

You are just repeating references to previous RFDs. I just said I don't think
they are relevant. What do you think about the *present* proposal?

>
>


--
Roger Hayter