Newsgroup Charters and Retroactive Moderation
Richard E. Depew
Here is a first draft of a proposed policy on Newsgroup Charters
and Retroactive Moderation.
Let me state at the outset that I have *no* interest in running
for any of the positions described in this policy.
Please notice that the only mention of anonymity is to guarantee
the right to vote for certain anonymous posters. This policy is not
about anonymity.
My hope is that I have come up with a draft that is so reasonable
that even my most severe critics will admit there are at least parts
of it that are acceptable.
My plan is to get feedback from this group first, incorporate the
best ideas, post a revised proposed policy to news.groups so the
net-lawyers there can hammer on it, and eventually invite a newsgroup
or two to try out a version of this to see if it works.
Your constructive criticism is welcome.
Thanks,
Dick
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= begin draft =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
FIRST DRAFT -- SUGGESTED METHOD TO UPHOLD NEWSGROUP CHARTERS:
RETROACTIVE MODERATION
PREAMBLE
USENET is an experiment in cooperative anarchy. Newsgroups are
a cooperative attempt to impose some order on the vast amount of
information which is shared, daily, over USENET, by providing a "forum"
for the discussion of particular topics of interest to a self-selected
group of readers who have followed the "guidelines" for forming a
newsgroup. Each newsgroup has a "charter" which describes what are, and
what are not, appropriate topics for discussion in that particular
newsgroup. This charter may only have been discussed at the time the
newsgroup creation was being discussed, and may have been lost, or the
charter may have been revised by an intra-newsgroup procedure, but each
newsgroup has one.
USENET newsgroups currently come in two flavors: moderated and
unmoderated. Moderated newsgroups have one or more moderators who
pre-screen all submissions to the newsgroup, and who uphold the
charter of the newsgroup by selecting those articles which are most
appropriate for the group. The readers and posters of unmoderated
newsgroups have attempted, usually successfully, to uphold their
charters by social pressures directed at "problem" posters.
Unfortunately, social pressure does not work with all "problem"
posters. Recently, there have been suggestions that an unmoderated
newsgroup has *no* other mechanism to dissuade or censure "problem"
posters. For example:
g...@fig.citib.com (Greg Brail): "An unmoderated newsgroup means
anyone who can post can say what they want there."
sta...@ruby.OCE.ORST.EDU (John Stanley): "Unmoderated means
nobody is excluded.
ch...@fin.uucp (Chip Salzenberg): "Unmoderated groups are, and
always will be, utterly without control. Users can, and frequently
do, post anything."
nrea...@micrognosis.co.uk (Neil Readwin), supposedly quoting
John Stanley: "You don't need anyone's approval to post to an
unmoderated group. Hell, you don't even need to exist!"
Carried to their logical extremes, such attitudes would lead to
chaos. We might as well abandon the idea of classifying shared
interests and directing discussion topics to specific newsgroups.
Instead, we might simply post everything to "talk.all", using "kill
files" and the "n" key or equivalent to skip what we don't like. Of
course, no one is arguing for such an extreme approach, but it
dramatizes what is happening on a smaller scale in some newsgroups.
In any society, there needs to be a healthy balance between order
and chaos. Too much order stifles creativity, while too much chaos
leads to a breakdown in communication. In USENET, the alt hierarchy
represents one extreme, whereas Moderated newsgroups, especially those
that are moderated with a "heavy hand", represent the other extreme.
I would like to propose a method, "Retroactive Moderation", and
some guidelines for this method, to preserve the benefits of
unmoderated newsgroups while permitting them some way of upholding
their charters.
First, to be certain that we are talking about the same thing,
let us define "unmoderated". I'll accept the definition by
uph...@gemini.oscs.montana.edu (Jack Coyote): "Unmoderated means that
a post DOES NOT go through a person for approval before distribution."
I'll add that "unmoderated" also means that the newsgroup does not
require an "m" flag in the news/active file to prevent a post from
being posted immediately.
The concept of "Retroactive Moderation" is that an elected panel
of "Retroactive Moderators" in an unmoderated newsgroup would have
the function of upholding the charter of that newgroup by whatever
means that newsgroup chooses to grant them.
Some will raise the alarm of "censorship". Let me try to deflect
this misguided alarm by analogy with a library. If a library refuses
to purchase textbooks from Taiwan because the copyright status of
such books is suspect, is that censorship or maintaining standards?
If a library prohibits graffiti in its restrooms, is that censorship
or maintaining standards? What if a library discourages loud talking,
smoking, or other disruptive behavior? If the library forbids patrons
from refiling books in the stacks or on the shelves, so they don't
get misfiled, is that censorship? If they don't permit patrons from
borrowing materials without a library card, is it censorship? I don't
think so. Similarly if a newsgroup sets standards in its charter through
some democratic process, I believe that it also may use a democratic
process to deploy mechanisms to uphold those charter standards.
Attitudes towards "standards", "guidelines" and "rules" vary
vastly among USENET posters and readers. This diversity of views
reminds me of a quote attributed to Newton Minow: "In Italy, under
the law everything is permitted, especially that which is prohibited.
In France, everything is permitted except that which is prohibited.
In Germany, everything is prohibited except that which is permitted.
In the Soviet Union, everything is prohibited, including that which is
permitted." My heritage is French. :-)
THE RETROACTIVE MODERATION PRECEPTS
Precept 1. Voters may (re)define the charter of a newsgroup.
Precept 2. Voters may elect persons to uphold this charter.
Precept 3. Voters may define the powers of such persons.
Precept 4. Voters may replace or remove such persons.
THE PHILOSOPHY OF RETROACTIVE MODERATION
1. Retroactive Moderation is intended to be an educational tool and
a deterrent. If it is successful in these roles, it will be
employed with a light hand.
2. Retroactive Moderation is accountable moderation. It is too
important to be left to one person with unlimited tenure.
3. Retroactive Moderators require good judgment, imperturbable
dispositions, and industrial strength asbestos underwear.
PROPOSED RETROACTIVE MODERATION POLICIES
1. Retroactive Moderation is intended to be an educational tool and a
deterrent that may be invoked by a newsgroup that cannot solve a
problem involving posts that lie outside its charter by some other,
less drastic, means.
2. Retroactive Moderation is suitable for any unmoderated newsgroup.
3. A newsgroup which wishes to consider adopting Retroactive
Moderation should first consider whether its charter accurately
reflects the current interests of its readers, and, if necessary,
should update its charter.
A. The "Call for Discussion" of the charter should be posted to
the newsgroup, with follow-ups directed to a suitable forum.
B. As a "meta-discussion", the discussion of charters and related
matters should be carried out in some other suitable
newsgroup. For example, a "sci" group may choose to use
"sci.misc" as its forum.
C. The charter should mention Retroactive Moderation, if this method
is adopted, and should enumerate the powers and duties to be
delegated to the elected Retroactive Moderators.
4. Three "Retroactive Moderators" should be elected in the initial
election. The "Call for Elections" should be posted to the
newsgroup, with follow-ups directed to a suitable forum.
A. The election forum is not subject to Retroactive Moderation,
except for articles cross-posted to the original newsgroup.
B. A vote-taker, who must remain neutral, should be found before
nomination and campaigning begin.
C. Nominations and campaigning should be carried out in the
selected forum. Any number of candidates may be nominated
to run for the three positions.
D. The vote should be "yes" or "no" on each candidate.
E. A candidate must receive a majority of "yes" votes to be
appointed.
F. If more than three candidates receive majorities, the three
with the largest number of "yes" votes will be appointed.
G. If no candidates receive a majority of "yes" votes, another
election may be held after a one-month cooling off period.
H. If fewer than three candidates receive majority "yes" votes,
those that do will be appointed, and another election may be
held after a one-month cooling off period to fill the unfilled
slots.
5. Elected Retroactive Moderators may be replaced when they resign,
or when defeated in a subsequent election challenge.
A. Election challenges may be made at any time greater than one
month after the results of the previous election have been
announced.
B. An election challenge is made by a challenger issuing a "Call
for Elections" and challenging a current incumbent.
C. The procedures for an election challenge or for an election to
fill an empty slot will follow those of the initial election,
except only the challenged incumbent or empty slot will be
open for consideration.
D. Posters whose articles have been subjected to Retroactive
Moderation during the 30 days prior to the "Call for
Elections" must be permitted to vote, even if anonymous and
even if anonymous voters are otherwise ineligible.
6. The duty of a Retroactive Moderator will be to uphold the charter
of the newsgroup.
7. The powers delegated to a Retroactive Moderator may include any or
all of the following, as enumerated in the charter:
A. replacing an off-charter post with the same post with the
addition of a moderator's comment and sending a copy of the
charter to the poster as an educational aid.
B. replacing an off-charter post with the same post encoded by
the rot13 cipher and sending a copy of the charter to the
poster.
C. redirecting follow-ups in either of the above cases to a more
suitable newsgroup.
D. canceling an off-charter post and sending a copy of the
charter to the poster.
8. Retroactive Moderators should provide a monthly summary of their
moderation activities to the newsgroup.
THE RETROACTIVE MODERATION CONVENTIONS
Convention 1. APPROVED HEADER
Because the "Approved: " header is designed to show who approved
a moderated article, and because this may be useful in tracking the
activity of a Retroactive Moderator, each Retroactively Moderated
article or cancel shall include this header.
* 1.1. The email address and full name of the Retroactive Moderator
shall appear in this header.
Convention 2. ALSO-CONTROL HEADER
Because the "Also-Control: " header permits a posted message to also
serve as a control message, and because this may be useful in tracking
the activity of a Retroactive Moderator, all Retroactive Moderation control
messages shall use this header to replace or cancel a Retroactively
Moderated message.
Convention 3. PATH PSEUDOSITES
Because news control messages do not work after being gatewayed to
mailing lists, a predictable and filterable pseudosite will permit
news-to-mail gateways to remove the "moderated" messages.
* 3.1. Retroactive Moderators shall use the pseudo-sitename "RM".
Convention 4. MESSAGE-ID HEADERS
Because the news software rejects duplicate messages based on the
"Message-ID: " header, and because multiple Retroactive Moderators may
act on the same message, they shall use the same convention for
transforming the original Message-ID into the new Message-ID.
* 4.1. The Message-ID of a Retroactively Moderated message will be
the Message-ID of the original message, with a prepended "R".
Convention 5. SUBJECT HEADERS
Because newsreading software displays the "Subject: " headers of
articles, and because readers use these headers to select which
messages to read, Retroactive Moderators shall employ a standard
convention to mark Retroactively Moderated messages.
* 5.1. The Subject of an article containing a Retroactive Moderator's
comments shall consist of the original Subject with a prepended
"MOD: ".
* 5.2. The Subject of an article which has been encoded by the rot13
cipher by a Retroactive Moderator shall consist of the original
Subject with a prepended "ROT: ".
* 5.3. The Subject of an article which is issued by a Retroactive
Moderator to cancel an article shall consist of the original
Subject with a prepended "CAN: ".
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= end draft =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
--
Richard E. Depew r...@redpoll.mrfs.oh.us (home)
the bumbling genie,
sorcerer'$ apprentice, and *twice* sacrificed to the net-volcano,
thereby ensuring a bumper crop of newbies this autumn!
Daniel Starr
>Fellow news admins,
>
> Here is a first draft of a proposed policy on Newsgroup Charters
>and Retroactive Moderation.
(I think, Richard, that part of the reason many people react adversely
to your suggestions is that you make them so formally that (in the
comparative anarchy of Usenet) they seem like attempts to lay down a law.)
Anyway:
The idea here is reasonably sensible. That is: for some groups, the
readership is not interested in having every article approved, but there's
a moderate fraction of articles one would like to be able to have
_disapproved_, and subject to identification, encryption and/or cancellation.
Take Argic's or McElwaine's posts, for example; or the missionary posts
that show up on soc.culture.jewish or alt.satanism or wherever; or any
of the other irrelevant/annoying/bandwidth-wasting threads that haunt
various groups (particularly groups that, although unmoderated, are not
intended for discussion, e.g. any of the binaries groups).
At least hypothetically, I can envision any number of
groups' readers' voting to appoint someone to nip such noise-threads in
the bud.
The primary advantage of having such a 'retroactive censor' would be
his or her power to shut down or redirect flaming or irrelevant threads,
so as to keep up the signal-to-noise ratio.
Obviously, giving someone the power to censor such articles would be
comparable in form to making a group moderated (and appointing a moderator).
In practice, I doubt most groups would have enough interest (particularly
once formed) to appoint someone to such a position, temporarily or
permanently. But it's a reasonable concept.
--
This is NOT a .sig virus do NOT copy me into your .sig file This is NOT
* Daniel Starr * Ta twn thewn erga *
* dst...@minerva.cis.yale.edu * Hoi psukhwn twn anthrwpwn logoi. *
a .sig virus do NOT copy me into your .sig file This is NOT a .sig virus
Graham Toal
:that even my most severe critics will admit there are at least parts
:of it that are acceptable.
No, dick-head, no matter how much you water it down, *any* proposal that
involves forging cancels is just plain not acceptable. Your scrabbling
to save face has gone beyond embarrassing now. GIVE IT UP.
: My plan is to get feedback from this group first, incorporate the
:best ideas, post a revised proposed policy to news.groups so the
:net-lawyers there can hammer on it, and eventually invite a newsgroup
:or two to try out a version of this to see if it works.
:
: Your constructive criticism is welcome.
You didn't listen to a fucking word that was said the last time, why listen
this time? The overwhelming majority of feedback you got the last time
was that you and your hare-brained schemes are JUST NOT WANTED.
G
Peter Trei
line: "Newsgroup Charters and Retroactive Moderation." I feel that
this title did not call sufficient attention to the source and content
of the message, and am reposting it in it's entirety. Sorry for the
waste of bandwidth, but I think this is important.
Peter Trei
pt...@mitre.org
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In article <C5ouH...@redpoll.mrfs.oh.us> r...@redpoll.mrfs.oh.us (Richard E. Depew) writes:
Lazlo Nibble
> In practice, I doubt most groups would have enough interest
> (particularly once formed) to appoint someone to such a position,
> temporarily or permanently. But it's a reasonable concept.
Philosphically, it's debatable. But the topology of the net is such that
it'd be full of holes in practice.
If you want to impose strict content controls on a newsgroup, the only way
to effectively implement them at present is to formally moderate the group
-- in other words, require explicit approval for every post that goes out,
*before* it's transmitted.
--
Lazlo (la...@triton.unm.edu)
Francisco X DeJesus
free time on his hands? It's almost like all he can think of is trying
to come up with *some* way to make ARMM (or a variation of it) a
permanent fixture in the USENET landscape. Changing the language doesn't
help... referring to it as "ARMM" or "Retroactive Moderation" or anything
else doesn't change what is it... it's a method of automatically forging
cancels and/or editing articles without the author's consent (and Dick
wonders why the word "censorship" leaps to mind), and it's wrong. It
would probably set USENET back, not help it.
Mr Depew, if you can't deal with the concept of USENET, I suggest
you try some commercial services which are better moderated... don't
try to change USENET to make it fit your reading habits. Either deal
with it or, please, go away.
--
Francisco X DeJesus ----- S A I C ----- dej...@c3ot.saic.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* disclaimer: Opinions expressed here are mine. Typos and errors are yours *
"Duck Season!" "Rabbit Season!" "...rabbit season." "It's Duck Season! SHOOT!"
Daniel Starr
>If you want to impose strict content controls on a newsgroup, the only way
>to effectively implement them at present is to formally moderate the group
>-- in other words, require explicit approval for every post that goes out,
>*before* it's transmitted.
Well, I personally was not so much thinking of posts as of noise-threads...
if all you want to do is make a dent in the exponential growth of an
irrelevant thread, couldn't you do a good job by redirecting ("Followup-to")
or canceling every article as it passed? Plus posting a "moderator's
thread-shutdown notice" that this was being done? I'd think threads would
die much more quickly this way, with someone approved to stamp them out.
Or am I wrong? I don't pretend to be a netnews.propagation.expert, but if
all you want to do is reduce the incidence of followups to an article,
it seems to me that control messages could do a reasonably good job.
I know: the original idea, if there was one, behind 'retroactive moderation'
or ARMM or whatever was to eliminate particular nasty articles. But I think
a much greater net.service waits to be done by the elimination of non-useful
threads (by someone the membership has agreed is trustworthy to decide which
threads are useless, just as one looks for a trustworthy moderator generally).
The amount of time I spend wading through flames and 'me too!' and whatnot
on some groups at some times is amazing... and heck, some people PAY for this
... a real service could be done by someone licensed to stomp out such threads.
As far as I can tell, I'm not alone in this either: I've seen plenty of
posts complaining about the noise level in newsgroups (ironically noting
their own contribution as well), wishing there was something to be done
about it besides beg people not to respond to certain articles, etc. But
there is something one could do about it: appoint someone to get rid
of such threads. Who cares if any particular bandiwidth-waster shows up
temporarily on a site? The real source of noise are these 'threads that
will not die'.
Granted, on a highly charged place like talk.abortion or whatever I'm not
sure any person would be trusted with authority to cancel or redirect
articles. But there are plenty of milder newsgroups which are nevertheless
beset with assorted noise-threads, where I suspect the readership would be
quite willing to have someone snip off such nuisances as they appear.
Naturally, you'd want any such retroactive moderator to keep a public list
of people whose posts were zapped (and to inform the zapped at the time),
so that people could see what they were missing. But if the subject of
the newsgroup isn't too controversial, I think you could get a 2/3 majority
without too much problem if the person was respected enough.
--
This is NOT a .sig virus do NOT copy me into your .sig file This is NOT
* Daniel Starr * Ta twn thewn erga *
* starr-...@yale.edu * Hoi psukhwn twn anthrwpwn logoi. *
Richard H. Miller
> In article <C5ouH...@redpoll.mrfs.oh.us> r...@redpoll.mrfs.oh.us (Richard E. Depew) writes:
> : My hope is that I have come up with a draft that is so reasonable
> :that even my most severe critics will admit there are at least parts
> :of it that are acceptable.
>
> No, dick-head, no matter how much you water it down, *any* proposal that
> involves forging cancels is just plain not acceptable. Your scrabbling
> to save face has gone beyond embarrassing now. GIVE IT UP.
I want to second this. I have not participated in this discussion until now
but now want to make some points. I have been reading USENET for about 8-10
years. I am a user and not a news admin so my comments are based on this. I
am also a system administrator and have some views from this standpoint also.
1) This entire idea of Depew's is abhorant to me as a reader. I use KILL files
and other tools to exclude the articles I choose not to read. I resent any
other person making this decision for me on individual articles within news
groups my site has choosen to accept. You DO NOT have any authority to control
what I choose to read and you DO NOT have the right to cancel other peoples
postings. Part of the freedom of USENET is having to put up with the idiots
who choose to ignore the guidelines of the various groups but peer pressure and
complaints to the appropriate administrators tend to help this. There will be
some people who will continue to ignore the guidelines but I would rather put
up with KILLing their postings rather then allow some arbitrary entity
deciding their postings are appropriate to a group. (I would make the exception
for people posting copyrighted material, postings which cause technical
problems and postings to moderated groups by someone other than the moderator).
2) This entire controversy on anonymous posting is specious. All of the
anonymous servers whuich have appeared over the last few months are no
different than the public access sites or any other site which participates.)
In all cases I have seen, there is a direct correspodence to the user posting
and their ID, it is simply hidden to the rest of us. In all cases, people can
complain to the system administrator of the site who can take action. There is
accountability for the posters in exactly the same way there is for any other
site on USENET. How is a posting any different if it comes from an1...@anon.site
than if it comes from real...@real.site. If you have a complaint you can send
it to use...@anon.site just as you can send a complaint to use...@real.site. I
see no difference. I will tend to discount many of the opinions of people who
choose to post anonymously since I have no basis for how they formed their
opinions but that is my choice. There is more accountability from the
anonymous servers than people who inject forgeries into the news stream.
Finally, if Mr. Depew insists on trying to issue more cancels then I would hope
his feed sites examine whether he should be allowed to continue to post news
outside
--
Richard H. Miller Email: ri...@bcm.tmc.edu
Asst. Dir. for Technical Support Voice: (713)798-3532
Baylor College of Medicine US Mail: One Baylor Plaza, 302H
Houston, Texas 77030
Graham Toal
:Well, I personally was not so much thinking of posts as of noise-threads...
:if all you want to do is make a dent in the exponential growth of an
:irrelevant thread, couldn't you do a good job by redirecting ("Followup-to")
:or canceling every article as it passed? Plus posting a "moderator's
:thread-shutdown notice" that this was being done? I'd think threads would
:die much more quickly this way, with someone approved to stamp them out.
See? *This* is why even a watered-down armm is a bad idea - because along
comes the next guy who thinks 'well, that wasn't so bad - now why don't *I*
start killing the stuff *I* don't like'...
Its the thin end of a nasty wedge.
And it's all unnecessary. Learn to live with your fears and love the killfile.
G
Graham Toal
:Is it me, or does anyone else think that Dick Depew has waay too much
:free time on his hands? It's almost like all he can think of is trying
:to come up with *some* way to make ARMM (or a variation of it) a
:permanent fixture in the USENET landscape.
No, the reason for his persistence is that he's the archetypal control-freak
and he's had a custard pie shoved in his face. He'll do *anything* now to
save face and get even a minuscule 'hey, you had a point there after all
dick' out of any of this group.
WOW! What a brilliant idea!:
"Hey, you had a point there after all, Dick!"
(Now will you go away?)
G
(PS It's the one on the end of his head :-) [must be why we call him
dick-head])
Lazlo Nibble
> I think a much greater net.service waits to be done by the elimination of
> non-useful threads (by someone the membership has agreed is trustworthy
> to decide which threads are useless, just as one looks for a trustworthy
> moderator generally).
If you have a someone you trust to make these decisions, why not simply
moderate the group, and set it on autopilot with all incoming articles run
through a filter which is programmed by the moderator to flag or kick back
"unwanted" postings? This would allow most postings to be passed without
human intervention but still allows for content control: the filter could
sidetrack certain classes of postings (based on size, poster, or subject
line, for example) into the moderator's mailbox for specific action,
automatically add (for example) "ANON:" headers to postings coming from
anonymous sites, and so forth.
I have a real problem, philosophically, with the idea of unilaterally
modifying or deleting peoples' postings to non-moderated newsgroups. As
pedantic and annoying as John Palmer has been on this topic, he happens to
be correct -- if you want to enforce content control on a newgroup, you
should go all the way and just moderate the thing. The traditional methods
of moderation *do* work, and are much more reliable than relying on control
messages to maintain order.
--
Lazlo (la...@triton.unm.edu)
Daniel Starr
>In article <1qv0ic...@MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU> starr-...@yale.edu (Daniel Starr) writes:
>:Well, I personally was not so much thinking of posts as of noise-threads...
>:if all you want to do is make a dent in the exponential growth of an
>:irrelevant thread, couldn't you do a good job by redirecting ("Followup-to")
>:or canceling every article as it passed? Plus posting a "moderator's
>:thread-shutdown notice" that this was being done? I'd think threads would
>:die much more quickly this way, with someone approved to stamp them out.
>
>See? *This* is why even a watered-down armm is a bad idea - because along
>comes the next guy who thinks 'well, that wasn't so bad - now why don't *I*
>start killing the stuff *I* don't like'...
<valiantly fighting off the urge to flame>
If you go back, and look over my post, you will see that I was referring
to this being done by a _moderator_. That is, someone _chosen_ by the
voting _readers_ to do the job. Do you have a problem with the idea
of an elected moderator?
Or have you never read a group and said to yourself, "Gee, I wish there
was a legitimate way to get these off-charter threads into another group"?
Or did you not understand my article? Permit me to summarize:
1. In my experience, it is FREQUENT for a newsgroup to periodically be
assaulted by threads which a large majority of the readers do not feel
are appropriate. They take up time, bandwidth and occasionally money.
2. It would be nice if the readers of a newsgroup could vote someone the
power to redirect or eliminate those threads, with a record of what was
thus altered. (Or, for the matter of that, just the power to change
subject headings to conform to some keyword convention.)
3. It's impractical to do this via a moderator, since most of the time
most of the posts are just fine.
PLEASE don't malign me. Go back and read my post. Heck, go back and read
Depew's post. No one is suggesting that anyone should have this capacity
by any means less stringent than what currently is used to legitimize a
moderator.
Or, as I asked, do you have a problem with the idea of a duly elected
moderator?
Hmph.
[I'm sorry to be so impolite. I'll let the words stand, but I'm only this
hostile because I feel that you've painted me as "the next guy who thinks
... 'I'll start killing the stuff *I* don't like'..." which is NOT what
I said. Is it evil, nasty or undemocratic of me to think that if readers
vote someone the power to do this, that it is not unreasonable, considering
readers can already vote to give someone the power to completely, without
specific accountability, censor ALL articles -- what is currently the only
form of moderation? What I offer here is more accountable, more moderate
in scope and no less controlled by the net.consensus.]
Daniel Starr
>If you have a someone you trust to make these decisions, why not simply
>moderate the group, and set it on autopilot with all incoming articles run
>through a filter which is programmed by the moderator to flag or kick back
>"unwanted" postings? This would allow most postings to be passed without
>human intervention but still allows for content control: the filter could
>sidetrack certain classes of postings (based on size, poster, or subject
>line, for example) into the moderator's mailbox for specific action,
>automatically add (for example) "ANON:" headers to postings coming from
>anonymous sites, and so forth.
"You know what, Bill?"
"What?"
"I think the guy's got a point there."
Good enough. My concerns are answered.
Ron Asbestos Dippold
>and Retroactive Moderation.
What the hell is your control fixation? Do you need to try to save
face after your last fiasco by getting some version of your plan
imposed?
--
Cogito ergo palomino (Putting Descartes before deshorse)
John Stanley
>In article <C5r1K...@demon.co.uk> Graham Toal <gt...@gtoal.com> writes:
>>In article <1qv0ic...@MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU> starr-...@yale.edu (Daniel Starr) writes:
>>:Well, I personally was not so much thinking of posts as of noise-threads...
>>:if all you want to do is make a dent in the exponential growth of an
>>:irrelevant thread, couldn't you do a good job by redirecting ("Followup-to")
>>:or canceling every article as it passed? Plus posting a "moderator's
>>:thread-shutdown notice" that this was being done? I'd think threads would
>>:die much more quickly this way, with someone approved to stamp them out.
>>
>>See? *This* is why even a watered-down armm is a bad idea - because along
>>comes the next guy who thinks 'well, that wasn't so bad - now why don't *I*
>>start killing the stuff *I* don't like'...
>
><valiantly fighting off the urge to flame>
>
>If you go back, and look over my post, you will see that I was referring
>to this being done by a _moderator_. That is, someone _chosen_ by the
>voting _readers_ to do the job. Do you have a problem with the idea
>of an elected moderator?
Nope. I certainly don't.
>Or have you never read a group and said to yourself, "Gee, I wish there
>was a legitimate way to get these off-charter threads into another group"?
Yep. And there is one -- moderation.
>2. It would be nice if the readers of a newsgroup could vote someone the
>power to redirect or eliminate those threads, with a record of what was
>thus altered. (Or, for the matter of that, just the power to change
>subject headings to conform to some keyword convention.)
They can. He is called the moderator.
>3. It's impractical to do this via a moderator, since most of the time
>most of the posts are just fine.
Well, you want to prohibit off-topic postings, you have to give up
something in trade. If you want to take the permission to post away from
the posters and give it to someone else, expect a time delay as that
person makes the decisions.
>Or, as I asked, do you have a problem with the idea of a duly elected
>moderator?
What is YOUR problem with the idea of a duly elected moderator?
Now answer this question: how do you define "group readers"?
Graham Toal
: In article <C5r1K...@demon.co.uk> Graham Toal <gt...@gtoal.com> writes:
: >See? *This* is why even a watered-down armm is a bad idea - because along
: >comes the next guy who thinks 'well, that wasn't so bad - now why don't *I*
: >start killing the stuff *I* don't like'...
: <valiantly fighting off the urge to flame>
: If you go back, and look over my post, you will see that I was referring
: to this being done by a _moderator_. That is, someone _chosen_ by the
: voting _readers_ to do the job. Do you have a problem with the idea
: of an elected moderator?
not at all. *I* Understand what an elected moderator is perfectly. *You*
think a moderator is someone chosen by a straw poll of a kangaroo court to
forge cancels of postings to unmoderated groups. *I* think a moderator is
someone who has been duly elected via the correct CFM procedure for a
*moderated* group that set its moderated status through the correct CFV
procedure.
But don't mind me - keep arguing the toss - you're doing an *excellent*
job of showing people by example exactly why Depew's suggestions are so
dangerous - there are too many ignorant jerks like you out there who can
be suckered in by him.
: Or have you never read a group and said to yourself, "Gee, I wish there
: was a legitimate way to get these off-charter threads into another group"?
Yes I have. It's called 'Changing the group status to moderated.'
: Or did you not understand my article? Permit me to summarize:
I understood it perfectly - you're a jerk like Depew. That makes about
4 on his side now doesn't it?
: 1. In my experience, it is FREQUENT for a newsgroup to periodically be
: assaulted by threads which a large majority of the readers do not feel
: are appropriate. They take up time, bandwidth and occasionally money.
: 2. It would be nice if the readers of a newsgroup could vote someone the
: power to redirect or eliminate those threads, with a record of what was
: thus altered. (Or, for the matter of that, just the power to change
: subject headings to conform to some keyword convention.)
: 3. It's impractical to do this via a moderator, since most of the time
: most of the posts are just fine.
SO LEARN TO USE YOUR BLOODY KILL FILE AND STOP ACTING THE FUCKING CONTROL FREAK.
: Or, as I asked, do you have a problem with the idea of a duly elected
: moderator?
None whatsoever. Do you have problems understanding what *duly elected*
means?
: [I'm sorry to be so impolite. I'll let the words stand, but I'm only this
: hostile because I feel that you've painted me as "the next guy who thinks
: ... 'I'll start killing the stuff *I* don't like'..." which is NOT what
: I said. Is it evil, nasty or undemocratic of me to think that if readers
: vote someone the power to do this, that it is not unreasonable, considering
: readers can already vote to give someone the power to completely, without
: specific accountability, censor ALL articles -- what is currently the only
: form of moderation? What I offer here is more accountable, more moderate
: in scope and no less controlled by the net.consensus.]
Wrong wrong wrong. But there's clearly no use arguing with you.
/^From:.*starr\-daniel/h:j -- *Plonk* - another bozo hits the killfile.
G
Dave Weingart
> My hope is that I have come up with a draft that is so reasonable
> that even my most severe critics will admit there are at least parts
> of it that are acceptable.
In a way...but probably not in the way you think.
> USENET newsgroups currently come in two flavors: moderated and
> unmoderated. Moderated newsgroups have one or more moderators who
> pre-screen all submissions to the newsgroup, and who uphold the
> charter of the newsgroup by selecting those articles which are most
> appropriate for the group. The readers and posters of unmoderated
> newsgroups have attempted, usually successfully, to uphold their
> charters by social pressures directed at "problem" posters.
So far so good. You at least _do_ understand the difference between
the two types of groups. (I _was_ beginning to wonder.)
> Unfortunately, social pressure does not work with all "problem"
> posters. Recently, there have been suggestions that an unmoderated
> newsgroup has *no* other mechanism to dissuade or censure "problem"
> posters. For example:
<examples deleted>
In fact, that's true in society as well. Social pressure means that
people wear appropriate clothes, bathe regularly and do all the things
we associate with civilization. There are those, however, who don't
do that. You can't do much so long as what they do isn't illegal, in
which case the police (moderators) come along and say something, or
people (readers) say something (flame mercilessly) to the offender.
Surprisingly enough, this is true also on the Net...it's not a new
thing, and it can't be stopped without a change in status of the
group.
> Carried to their logical extremes, such attitudes would lead to
There is nothing logical in such extremes, nor are they new. The
Net has been around without chaos.
> First, to be certain that we are talking about the same thing,
> let us define "unmoderated". I'll accept the definition by
> uph...@gemini.oscs.montana.edu (Jack Coyote): "Unmoderated means that
> a post DOES NOT go through a person for approval before distribution."
Good...now we're getting somewhere. In other words, J. Random User can
post anything they bloody well feel like from jru...@anywhere.org to
any unmoderated group...if it's innappropriate, the flames will pour
in.
> The concept of "Retroactive Moderation" is that an elected panel
> of "Retroactive Moderators" in an unmoderated newsgroup would have
> the function of upholding the charter of that newgroup by whatever
> means that newsgroup chooses to grant them.
Now, here's where something should be stated. What your proposal
comes down to is changing the status of a group from unmoderated to
moderated. You propose that an unmoderated group hold an RFD on change
of status, and then put out a CFV, and when the votes are tallied,
the "Retroactive Moderators" come out and are the approvers of all
posts. Gee...sounds just like a moderated group, now, doesn't it.
> Some will raise the alarm of "censorship". Let me try to deflect
Not in this current "policy," although it's not misguided. The moderator
of a group _is_ a censor by any reasonable definition. The moderator has
been voted the authority to censor the group by approving posts and
cancelling forged posts.
> this misguided alarm by analogy with a library. If a library refuses
> to purchase textbooks from Taiwan because the copyright status of
> such books is suspect, is that censorship or maintaining standards?
> If a library prohibits graffiti in its restrooms, is that censorship
> or maintaining standards? What if a library discourages loud talking,
> smoking, or other disruptive behavior? If the library forbids patrons
> from refiling books in the stacks or on the shelves, so they don't
> get misfiled, is that censorship? If they don't permit patrons from
> borrowing materials without a library card, is it censorship? I don't
> think so. Similarly if a newsgroup sets standards in its charter through
> some democratic process, I believe that it also may use a democratic
> process to deploy mechanisms to uphold those charter standards.
These are all very nice examples. but they have nothing to do
with what you're talking about, except maybe the distruptive
behavior one. In that case, the librarian is acting as the moderator.
> Attitudes towards "standards", "guidelines" and "rules" vary
> vastly among USENET posters and readers. This diversity of views
> reminds me of a quote attributed to Newton Minow: "In Italy, under
> the law everything is permitted, especially that which is prohibited.
> In France, everything is permitted except that which is prohibited.
> In Germany, everything is prohibited except that which is permitted.
> In the Soviet Union, everything is prohibited, including that which is
> permitted." My heritage is French. :-)
Fine, then please understand: An umoderated group means that
_everybody_ is permitted to post. Nobody is forbidden from posting,
even if they waste their time and everyone else's with flamage.
A moderated group goes through the moderator, who is the arbiter of
what is forbidden.
> Precept 1. Voters may (re)define the charter of a newsgroup.
> Precept 2. Voters may elect persons to uphold this charter.
> Precept 3. Voters may define the powers of such persons.
> Precept 4. Voters may replace or remove such persons.
Duh. So what else is new. This is all standard Usenet stuff.
> 2. Retroactive Moderation is accountable moderation. It is too
> important to be left to one person with unlimited tenure.
_All_ moderation is accountable, simply by the fact that the
"Approved:" and "Sender:" lines carry the eddress of the moderator.
Please read the appropriate RFC for more information.
> 3. Retroactive Moderators require good judgment, imperturbable
> dispositions, and industrial strength asbestos underwear.
Jeepers...just like the moderator we already have.
> 2. Retroactive Moderation is suitable for any unmoderated newsgroup.
To which I add, "...provided they vote for a change in status to
moderated."
> 3. A newsgroup which wishes to consider adopting Retroactive
> Moderation should first consider whether its charter accurately
> reflects the current interests of its readers, and, if necessary,
> should update its charter.
Duh again...this is what happens _whenever_ you want to change to
moderated status.
> 4. Three "Retroactive Moderators" should be elected in the initial
> election. The "Call for Elections" should be posted to the
> newsgroup, with follow-ups directed to a suitable forum.
Why three? Is there some magic in a triumvirate? The moderator is
who they are, right? If there's more than one, great...if not, poof.
<long list of strange, random and arbitrary voting regulations deleted>
> 6. The duty of a Retroactive Moderator will be to uphold the charter
> of the newsgroup.
Again, "Jeepers...just like the moderators we have now."
> 7. The powers delegated to a Retroactive Moderator may include any or
> all of the following, as enumerated in the charter:
<list of things moderators can currently do deleted>
Still again, "Jeepers...just like the moderators we have now."
> 8. Retroactive Moderators should provide a monthly summary of their
> moderation activities to the newsgroup.
Should, but most don't, since it's usually off-topic.
> Convention 1. APPROVED HEADER
>
> Because the "Approved: " header is designed to show who approved
> a moderated article, and because this may be useful in tracking the
> activity of a Retroactive Moderator, each Retroactively Moderated
> article or cancel shall include this header.
Dick, read the RFC, _please_. _All_ moderated groups need this
header _already_.
> * 1.1. The email address and full name of the Retroactive Moderator
> shall appear in this header.
Yet again, "Jeepers...just like the moderators we have now."
Basically, there's nothing new _anywhere_ in this entire draft
that isn't ALREADY COVERED!
--
73 de David Weingart KB2CWF I do not like green eggs and ham
phyd...@cumc.cornell.edu They are not kosher, Sam-I-am!
phyd...@src4src.linet.org
Me? Speak for CUMC? I can't even spell it!
Ed McGuire
>(PS It's the one on the end of his head :-) [must be why we call him
>dick-head])
Who's "we?"
--
Ed McGuire 1603 LBJ Freeway, Suite 780
Systems Administrator/ Dallas, Texas 75234
Member of Technical Staff 214/620-2100, FAX 214/484-8110
Intellection, Inc. <e...@intellection.com>
<1993Apr3.07...@tygra.Michigan.COM>: "I run an anonymous server and
it is STAYING FOR THE REST OF MY LIFE, which should be about 55 years."
Edmund Schweppe
>Fellow news admins,
Hey, I just read the stuff. :-)
> Here is a first draft of a proposed policy on Newsgroup Charters
>and Retroactive Moderation.
[ N-ChARM policy deleted ]
Please, no. This sounds to me like another attempt to find a "valid" reason
for somebody at one site to cancel postings from another site because they
are "icky" or rude or excessive flamage or something.
What's the functional difference between this modest proposal and the
affected unmoderated newsgroup simply becoming moderated? There must be
some simple mechanism whereby a moderator automatically approves everything
*except* traffic from suspect addresses, which s/he manually approves or
disapproves.
--
__________________________________________________________________________
Edmund Schweppe - schw...@bumetb.bu.edu, schw...@acs.bu.edu,
(or for faster replies) eschweppe%drcoa1...@drcvax.af.mil
All standard disclaimers (also datclaimers and deotherclaimers) apply.
Jonathan L Lemon
>you try some commercial services which are better moderated... don't
>try to change USENET to make it fit your reading habits. Either deal
>with it or, please, go away.
Reading this, and the last "proposal" put forth by Mr. Depew, I was suddenly
struck that this appears to be almost exactly what has happened on Prodigy.
I believe that Prodigy has a small army of "moderators" whose job it is to read
all articles posted, and eliminate those which don't "fit the charter of the group".
(Note, that, never having used Prodigy, I can't vouch for the validity of this)
Nevertheless, it appears that it is Mr. Depew's intent to singlehandedly convert
USENET into some sort of meta-Prodigy where everything is nicely sanitized,
cross-indexed, and filed in the appropriate pigeon-hole.
--
Jonathan Lemon jle...@diag.amdahl.com
Diagnostics Development, Amdahl Corp.
#include <std_disclaimer.h>
The Wolfe of the Den
>a cooperative attempt to impose some order on the vast amount of
Here is the major point -- Usenet (the "seven sisters"
newsgroups only) *is* a cooperative. It is *also* an anarchy.
The question rises then, as to who has any *right* (per se) to
control the network?
> Carried to their logical extremes, such attitudes would lead to
>chaos. We might as well abandon the idea of classifying shared
>interests and directing discussion topics to specific newsgroups.
But those who carry such things to their "illogical" extremes
find themselves isolated and ignored.
The net is always in a state of flux, where various folks are
working at various methods to exert social pressure to conform on the
more outrageous abusers of the resources.
M*tlu/Arg*c/C*sar, JP*lmer, M*Elw*in, G*nnon and others *are*
subject to pressure from the net.admins, it just may take a while to
effect a real change in status. As more and more admins take the hard
steps to eliminiate the hard abusers from their sites, and from the
subtrees that depend on their sites, the audience for the abusers shrink
and the damage grows smaller.
On the other hand, some of these abusers actually get away with
it because they leave the level of abuse at a point where it is more
tolerable to let them be, than to take the hard to reverse steps of
eliminating their traffic.
> In any society, there needs to be a healthy balance between order
>and chaos. Too much order stifles creativity, while too much chaos
>leads to a breakdown in communication. In USENET, the alt hierarchy
>represents one extreme, whereas Moderated newsgroups, especially those
>that are moderated with a "heavy hand", represent the other extreme.
Error here: "alt" is *not* part of Usenet! Alt is a seperate
hierarchy of newsgroups that just happens to share the technology for
message distribution that Usenet uses. It forms an interesting case
study for observation and theorizing, but alt does not participate in
the general cooperative benefits of Usenet.
This is one of the most common errors among those who study the
network's dynamics. To assume that *anything* that you read or
transport with the same software is part and parcel of the same
organization is an error. To iterate some comments from a whole strain
of discussions about the nature of Usenet:
Usenet is not an organization, but it is organized.
Usenet is not a democracy, but it looks like one occasionally.
Usenet is not fair.
> First, to be certain that we are talking about the same thing,
>let us define "unmoderated". I'll accept the definition by
>uph...@gemini.oscs.montana.edu (Jack Coyote): "Unmoderated means that
>a post DOES NOT go through a person for approval before distribution."
>I'll add that "unmoderated" also means that the newsgroup does not
>require an "m" flag in the news/active file to prevent a post from
>being posted immediately.
So what good does this definition do?
> The concept of "Retroactive Moderation" is that an elected panel
>of "Retroactive Moderators" in an unmoderated newsgroup would have
>the function of upholding the charter of that newgroup by whatever
>means that newsgroup chooses to grant them.
This introduces another error.
Usenet is *not* a democracy. No one can be *elected* to do
anything since there is no organization to perform the function.
> Some will raise the alarm of "censorship". Let me try to deflect
>this misguided alarm by analogy with a library. If a library refuses
>to purchase textbooks from Taiwan <etc...>
You merely point out that any *single* organization has the
obligation to itself to use it's resources wisely.
Your analogy falls apart quickly as well. Do the policies
adopted by the (municipal) library in Munroe Falls Ohio have *any* bearing
on the policies adopted by the county library in Durham NC?
Hint: Absolutely Not!
Lots of folks quote the policies and standards of the American
Library Association as if they made a difference to how any particular
organization *has* to operate.
That concept, is, of course, utter bullshit.
Any library can, and *must* operate in a manner that preserves
its own existence. They can cite the policies used in other
organizations as justification for their own policies, and can point to
the guidelines published by the ALA as the "standards" by which *many*
libraries operate.
They can also point to the corpus of law to point out that
libraries can and *should* operate in certain manners when faced with
pressure from certain points. But, ultimately, the library will act in
such a manner as to ensure their own continued existence.
> THE RETROACTIVE MODERATION PRECEPTS
>
>
>
>Precept 1. Voters may (re)define the charter of a newsgroup.
>Precept 2. Voters may elect persons to uphold this charter.
>Precept 3. Voters may define the powers of such persons.
>Precept 4. Voters may replace or remove such persons.
Errors: Usenet is *not* a democracy.
There *are* no voters. There are no authorities, there are *no* courts
or laws.
At the best, *some* of the readers *may* express a *preference* for how
something should operate.
No one, not you, not Gene Spafford, not Henry Specer, not Chip
Salzenburg, not Jay Maynard, not Lazlo, not matthew, not *any* one,
can dictate to *me* what will or will not be done on my site.
However, if I expect to gain benefit from the exchange of messages on
this network, I will *voluntarily* consent to observe certain customs that
I feel add value to the messages that I receive and generate.
This is the ultimate reality of the net. You must find a way to
convince *me* (the admin of this site) that what you propose adds value
to my cooperation in this venture.
> THE PHILOSOPHY OF RETROACTIVE MODERATION
>
>1. Retroactive Moderation is intended to be an educational tool and
> a deterrent. If it is successful in these roles, it will be
> employed with a light hand.
>
>2. Retroactive Moderation is accountable moderation. It is too
> important to be left to one person with unlimited tenure.
>
>3. Retroactive Moderators require good judgment, imperturbable
> dispositions, and industrial strength asbestos underwear.
Not likely to find anyone with all these qualities
simultaneously. Furthermore, you are proposing (in your democratic
zeal) to install an "ex post facto" law? If you are going to invoke
the great godhead of "democracy" and your own faith in the "rule of law"
you might try being consistent with the law model that you are using.
> PROPOSED RETROACTIVE MODERATION POLICIES
>2. Retroactive Moderation is suitable for any unmoderated newsgroup.
This is an oxymoron. Either a group is moderated or
unmoderated. The software and social structure does not currently
recognize any other status for a newsgroup in the Usenet hierarchies.
You are proposing a totally new structure and bear the burden of
showing that it is better than what we have now, or is worth the costs
it entails.
>3. A newsgroup which wishes to consider adopting Retroactive
> Moderation should first consider whether its charter accurately
> reflects the current interests of its readers, and, if necessary,
> should update its charter.
The democratic fallacy strikes again. All you can determine
from the charter is the intended purpose of the group. It is *not* a
law for the group, it doesn't have any force except the pressure of the
readers of the group care to give it.
>4. Three "Retroactive Moderators" should be elected in the initial
> election. The "Call for Elections" should be posted to the
> newsgroup, with follow-ups directed to a suitable forum.
The democratic fallacy again. There can be no election without
a formal structure to authorize the results and to bind them in some
fashion on the subjects.
>
>5. Elected Retroactive Moderators may be replaced when they resign,
> or when defeated in a subsequent election challenge.
>6. The duty of a Retroactive Moderator will be to uphold the charter
> of the newsgroup.
Again, there is no *law* to make the charter binding. There is
no organization to enforce the *law* you are creating here.
>
>Convention 2. ALSO-CONTROL HEADER
>Because the "Also-Control: " header permits a posted message to also
>serve as a control message, and because this may be useful in tracking
>the activity of a Retroactive Moderator, all Retroactive Moderation control
>messages shall use this header to replace or cancel a Retroactively
>Moderated message.
Are you going to write the code for all of the news software in
the world to implement this new header? Your lack of understanding of
the news software shows very plainly here.
Richard just shows his absolute misunderstanding of the nature
of this thing called Usenet.
He seems to recognize that it is a cooperative. And he seems to
recognize that it is an anarchy. And then he starts proposing *laws*
and all sorts of things based on a presumption of "democracy!"
Richard, look carefully at all the comments I made above. And
then, try to understand that *you* (regardless of whether you want to be
a "reteroactive moderator" personally or not) cannot dictate to *anyone*
on the net what *shall* be done.
You are proposing nothing less than the *legislation* of *ex
post facto* censorship for NetNews -- not just Usenet groups, but the
whole netnews complex.
You probably think this is a "good thing" and feel that
something like this is "necessary for the good of the net" or something
like that.
You scare me.
More than any other person on the net.
Your attitude scares me.
Death of Usenet predicted - brought to you by those who seek to
protect you from yourself.
--
Usenet Net News Administrator @ The Wolves Den (G. Wolfe Woodbury)
ne...@wolves.durham.nc.us news%wol...@cs.duke.edu ...duke!wolves!news
"The flame war is a specific Usenet art form." --me
[This site is not affiliated with Duke University. (Idiots!) ]
Steve Summit
Jurgen Botz
> Here is a first draft of a proposed policy on Newsgroup Charters
>and Retroactive Moderation.
Dick...
There are many ways in which Netnews can and will be improved over the
next decade... but your suggestions and meddling are neither necessary
nor even vaguely positive contributions. We have a perfectly adequate
mechanism for controlling what goes into a newsgroup in those
newsgroups where we care about it: plain old moderation.
Let intelligently designed user front-ends do the rest. Your entire
retroactive moderation manifesto is nothing but a bunch of authoritarian
crap that you built up out of the need to retroactively justify your
actions when you went off the deep end and broke the one remaining
taboo that is holding the net together: the taboo against cancelling
other people's posts.
The Net *is* chaos... we don't need to "guard against" that, we need to
find ways of allowing each and every individual to make their own order
out of it. But if you want newsgroups that don't allow anonymous postings
and find enough others who agree to create a new group or change the
moderation status of an existing one, just make the group moderated by
a program that filters out anonymous postings. Or do whatever... so long
as it's a moderated group and you're the moderator.
But spare us your ravings... you're not helping anyone, and you've
cost the Net a lot of energy if nothing else. Your only
accomplishment in this whole fiasco is that you've probably caused the
largest flame-fest of the year. The amount of garbage that has
directly resulted from your actions has outweighed the quantity of
unwanted anonymous postings tenfold at least. Don't be too proud of
that, tho... anybody could have done the same, it's just that almost
nobody is stupid enough.
--
Jurgen Botz, jb...@mtholyoke.edu | Vending machines SHOULD respond to a [finger]
South Hadley, MA, USA | request with a list of all items currently
--Unix is dead, long live Unix-- | available for purchase... -RFC1288
Brad Templeton
because Dick Depew is making them, and he's got a very bad reputation.
However, what he proposes is nothing new, nor anything that even stirred
up much trouble when it's been discussed in time gone by.
All the online services, even Prodigy now, work on the basis of what
is more properly called moderation, though they call it sysoping.
(What we call moderation on USENET is actually editing.)
The words are confusing, but on all the commercial online services,
people pretty much post as they want. A sysop reads the BBs there and
spots trouble -- inappropriate postings, pointless flamewars and personal
abuse, etc.
The sysop then controls these things after the fact. They do have
the power to delete out of hand, usually they have more powerful tools,
like the ability to move whole messages and threads to other areas, so
that inappropriate postings can be put in their place rather than deleted.
They also have the power to delete threads and even lock out users who
are consistently disruptive. They rarely use it.
A moderator of a panel discussion works this way too, which is why
USENET uses the wrong word. You don't whisper everything to the moderator
first and get it approved. Instead the moderator shuts people up who
go on too long, or alters the flow of discussion. Usenet moderators are
not moderators, usually, not in this sense of the word.
This system works quite well, actually. For most groups (though not
deliberately edited groups like rec.humor.funny) it is the right solution,
and I have suggested several times that it be considered for new groups
that don't wish to be entirely unmoderated.
So chill on your reaction to anything from Dick Depew. This idea is nothing
new, and if somebody proposes a group based on it, I'm for it.
--
Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Sunnyvale, CA 408/296-0366
Daniel Starr
>
>The sysop then controls these things after the fact. They do have
>the power to delete out of hand, usually they have more powerful tools,
>like the ability to move whole messages and threads to other areas, so
>that inappropriate postings can be put in their place rather than deleted.
As someone kindly pointed out to me, the easiest way to do the equivalent
on Usenet would be to have a [standard definition] moderator who left the
moderating to an autopilot program, adding threads to its 'delete this',
'move this', 'keyword-preface this' list as needed. So one would simply
put in the charter (for some hypothetical group planning on doing this)
'the moderator will automatically pass messages through, unless he judges
that a certain message or thread should be moved, edited or canceled', or
something like that.
At any rate, the point is that we don't need a new mechanism to do this,
just a new implementation of the current moderation mechanism.
Daniel Starr
>
>At any rate, the point is that we don't need a new mechanism to do this,
>just a new implementation of the current moderation mechanism.
Mind you, just so I don't get accused of being a net.would-be.dictator, I
am not in the slightest suggesting that any or all groups do this! Merely
that _if_ people wanted a group thus 'semi-moderated' via a moderator
relying on an autopilot program, then they would merely need to set up
a standard moderated group, but with a charter (and a willing moderator)
to reflect this slightly nonstandard method of moderation. No nasty
net.propositions required.
Ed McGuire
>Fellow news admins,
> Here is a first draft of a proposed policy on Newsgroup Charters
>and Retroactive Moderation.
Dick,
You will recognize my approach to criticism from my approach to your
other draft policy.
I read this draft for the answer to the question, "what needs to
be changed?" The answer appears to be (my words):
There exist articles posted in unmoderated groups, whose content is
inappropriate to the groups as defined by their charters. Despite
social pressure to conform to the charters, some individuals
continue to post inappropriate articles.
I dispute that this needs to be changed. Individuals who mostly post
inappropriate articles go in my kill file; I currently have no such
individuals in my kill file. Individuals who occasionally post
inappropriate articles do not measurably degrade the signal-to-noise
ratio of the groups I read. I disagree that your policy is of value,
and oppose it on the grounds that simpler (no policy) is better.
Regards, Ed
Chip Salzenberg
latest and/or greatest ARMM spinoff idea. The best he saved for last:
According to ne...@wolves.Durham.NC.US (The Wolfe of the Den):
>
> You are proposing nothing less than the *legislation* of *ex
>post facto* censorship for NetNews -- not just Usenet groups, but the
>whole netnews complex.
>
> You probably think this is a "good thing" and feel that
>something like this is "necessary for the good of the net" or something
>like that.
>
> You scare me.
>
> More than any other person on the net.
>
> Your attitude scares me.
>
> Death of Usenet predicted - brought to you by those who seek to
>protect you from yourself.
Dick Depew scares me, too.
--
Chip Salzenberg, at home <ch...@fin.uucp> or <tscs!fin!chip>
* Tailfin smarts from orca bite
* Waters ahead hide dangers unknown
* Still I chase fish and laugh *
Richard E. Depew
Proc-Type: 2001,MIC-CLEAR
Originator-Name: r...@redpoll.mrfs.oh.us
Originator-Key-Asymmetric:
MFowCgYEVQgBAQICAgoDTAAwSQJCA2MzlWYv/chPEKer6UTiL55i5AEG24V+aYA0
mdabtBIlzCiwcPLd7EALiTOVWJlWIC6tviugHc46MeNiRo3YhMQpAgMBAAF=
MIC-Info: RSA-MD5,RSA,
ArSr/iR50kww7end6vjIfdM45yryymUxWQEUjdX/eLOLzKnUIxB9twMdpgTp8eXq
0/HhwEFrsLVYDb8hIpDA/Mec
ne...@wolves.Durham.NC.US (The Wolfe of the Den) writes:
>r...@redpoll.mrfs.oh.us (Richard E. Depew) writes:
>>
>> USENET is an experiment in cooperative anarchy. Newsgroups are
>>a cooperative attempt to impose some order on the vast amount of
>>information which is shared, daily, over USENET, <etc...>
>
> Here is the major point -- Usenet (the "seven sisters"
>newsgroups only) *is* a cooperative. It is *also* an anarchy.
>
> The question rises then, as to who has any *right* (per se) to
>control the network?
I'd phrase the question a bit differently, substituting "the
newsgroup" for "the network", and I'd offer as an answer, "those who
formed it and those who use it... namely the voters/readers/posters".
If we can't manage our own affairs, some outside agency is liable to
try imposing "management" on us. I'd rather that we take the
responsibility on ourselves.
>> Carried to their logical extremes, such attitudes would lead to
>>chaos. We might as well abandon the idea of classifying shared
>>interests and directing discussion topics to specific newsgroups.
>
> But those who carry such things to their "illogical" extremes
>find themselves isolated and ignored.
>
> The net is always in a state of flux, where various folks are
>working at various methods to exert social pressure to conform on the
>more outrageous abusers of the resources.
Add me to that list of "various folks".
> M*tlu/Arg*c/C*sar, JP*lmer, M*Elw*in, G*nnon and others *are*
>subject to pressure from the net.admins, it just may take a while to
>effect a real change in status. As more and more admins take the hard
>steps to eliminiate the hard abusers from their sites, and from the
>subtrees that depend on their sites, the audience for the abusers shrink
>and the damage grows smaller.
Your model reflects the current reality of Usenet... the only
people who have any effective control over abusers are admins. This
is fine so long as there are no rogue admins. However, I am proposing
that a newsgroup community may choose to exercise some limited control
over what postings remain in that newsgroup.
> On the other hand, some of these abusers actually get away with
>it because they leave the level of abuse at a point where it is more
>tolerable to let them be, than to take the hard to reverse steps of
>eliminating their traffic.
The current "tide" favors the desires of the individual poster
over the desires of the community of posters/readers in various
newsgroups. I'd like to help redress the balance by empowering the
newsgroup communities to define their own separate characters.
>> In any society, there needs to be a healthy balance between order
>>and chaos. Too much order stifles creativity, while too much chaos
>>leads to a breakdown in communication. In USENET, the alt hierarchy
>>represents one extreme, whereas Moderated newsgroups, especially those
>>that are moderated with a "heavy hand", represent the other extreme.
>
> Error here: "alt" is *not* part of Usenet!
I was being a "lumper" when I wrote that, and you are being a
"splitter". On another day or on a different issue I may be a
"splitter" and you a "lumper".
You and I, being old-timers, know that "alt" isn't classic Usenet,
but as someone else said, anything that participates in Usenet,
becomes Usenet. The distinctions between hierarchies are greater than
the distinctions between the *real* Usenet and alternate hierarchies...
the biggest differences that remain are the newsgroup creation
procedures, and the general sense that "anything goes" in the "alt"
hierarchy.
>Alt is a seperate
>hierarchy of newsgroups that just happens to share the technology for
>message distribution that Usenet uses. It forms an interesting case
>study for observation and theorizing, but alt does not participate in
>the general cooperative benefits of Usenet.
I see more cooperation in "alt" than you seem to.
> This is one of the most common errors among those who study the
>network's dynamics. To assume that *anything* that you read or
>transport with the same software is part and parcel of the same
>organization is an error. To iterate some comments from a whole strain
>of discussions about the nature of Usenet:
>
> Usenet is not an organization, but it is organized.
>
> Usenet is not a democracy, but it looks like one occasionally.
>
> Usenet is not fair.
This is summarized nicely in "What is Usenet?". Even the "What
is Usenet?" FAQ doesn't bother to distinguish Usenet-classic from
Usenet-tng. Chip seems to have been in a "lumping" mood when he wrote
it, including anything made up of newsgroups:
=-=-=-=-=-=-= begin quotes from "What is Usenet?" =-=-=-=-=-=-=
"Subject: What is Usenet?
Original from: ch...@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg)
[...]
If you must engage in flackery for your company, use the "biz"
hierarchy, which is explicitly "advertising-allowed", and which
(like all of Usenet) is carried only by those sites that want it.
[...]
WHAT USENET IS
- - - --------------
Usenet is the set of people who exchange articles tagged with one or
more universally-recognized labels, called "newsgroups" (or "groups"
for short).
(In response to the above paragraphs, it has been written that there
is nothing vague about a network that carries megabytes of traffic per
day. I agree. But at the fringes of Usenet, traffic is not so heavy.
In the shadowy world of news-mail gateways and mailing lists, the line
between Usenet and not-Usenet becomes very hard to draw.)
[...]
=-=-=-=-=-=-= end quotes from "What is Usenet?" =-=-=-=-=-=-=
>> First, to be certain that we are talking about the same thing,
>>let us define "unmoderated". I'll accept the definition by
>>uph...@gemini.oscs.montana.edu (Jack Coyote): "Unmoderated means that
>>a post DOES NOT go through a person for approval before distribution."
>>I'll add that "unmoderated" also means that the newsgroup does not
>>require an "m" flag in the news/active file to prevent a post from
>>being posted immediately.
>
> So what good does this definition do?
This definition of "unmoderated" newsgroups includes "retroactively
moderated" newsgroups. I am trying to offer "retroactive moderation"
as a less-drastic alternative to a move to traditional moderation. A
"retroactively moderated" newsgroup will remain marked "y" in the
active file, rather than being marked "m". It will require no entry
in the "moderators" file, because there will be no pre-screening.
>> The concept of "Retroactive Moderation" is that an elected panel
>>of "Retroactive Moderators" in an unmoderated newsgroup would have
>>the function of upholding the charter of that newgroup by whatever
>>means that newsgroup chooses to grant them.
>
> This introduces another error.
>
> Usenet is *not* a democracy. No one can be *elected* to do
>anything since there is no organization to perform the function.
A newsgroup community can *become* an organization. It can *choose*
to conduct its affairs in a democratic manner. I am suggesting that this
be tried as an experiment. I suspect democracy can be useful for an
unmoderated newsgroup, and once entrenched, it will be difficult to
eradicate. "Power to the people!" :-)
Consider what Chip wrote from this new viewpoint:
=-=-=-=-=-=-= begin more quotes from "What is Usenet?" =-=-=-=-=-=-=
"Subject: What is Usenet?
Original from: ch...@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg)
THE CAMEL'S NOSE?
- - - -----------------
As was observed above in "What Usenet Is Not," Usenet as a whole is
not a democracy. However, there is exactly one feature of Usenet that
has a form of democracy: newsgroup creation.
A new newsgroup is unlikely to be widely propagated unless its sponsor
follows the newsgroup creation guidelines; and the current guidelines
require a new newsgroup to pass an open vote.
There are those who consider the newsgroup creation process to be a
remarkably powerful form of democracy, since without any coercion, its
decisions are almost always carried out. In their view, the
democratic aspect of newsgroup creation is the precursor to an
organized and democratic Usenet Of The Future.
On the other hand, some consider the democratic aspect of the
newsgroup creation process a sham and a fraud, since there is no power
of enforcement behind its decisions, and since there appears little
likelihood that any such power of enforcement will ever be given it.
For them, the appearance of democracy is only a tool used to keep
proponents of flawed newsgroup proposals from complaining about their
losses.
So, is Usenet on its way to full democracy? Or will property rights
and mistrust of central authority win the day? Beats me.
=-=-=-=-=-=-= end more quotes from "What is Usenet?" =-=-=-=-=-=-=
I am proposing that we take the next step in forming the
organized and democratic newsgroup communities of the future... as
a "grass roots" democracy with a healthy skepticism of centralized
authority. Call it a democratic anarchist cooperative if you'd prefer.
>> Some will raise the alarm of "censorship". Let me try to deflect
>>this misguided alarm by analogy with a library. If a library refuses
>>to purchase textbooks from Taiwan <etc...>
>
> You merely point out that any *single* organization has the
>obligation to itself to use it's resources wisely.
>
> Your analogy falls apart quickly as well. Do the policies
>adopted by the (municipal) library in Munroe Falls Ohio have *any* bearing
>on the policies adopted by the county library in Durham NC?
>
> Hint: Absolutely Not!
When we enter the society which is Usenet, we don't automatically
abandon our sense of right and wrong, nor should we. We may have to
stretch our concepts a bit... this is a *new* form of social
interaction after all, and it requires increased tolerance for other
points of view. But stretching a concept is not the same as
abandoning it. Crying "censorship" whenever someone mentions setting
standards only muddies the waters. We've seen too much mud recently.
> Lots of folks quote the policies and standards of the American
>Library Association as if they made a difference to how any particular
>organization *has* to operate.
>
> That concept, is, of course, utter bullshit.
I agree that the standards that other institutions set have no
binding force on Usenet, yet they may provide useful guides to how we
may choose to conduct our own affairs. I chose to use an analogy with
a library because this has been bandied about recently. Perhaps you'd
rather use an analogy with a meeting conducted by Roberts Rules of
Order? I am not trying to set any rules... I am suggesting that
newsgroup participants may choose to do this for themselves.
> Any library can, and *must* operate in a manner that preserves
>its own existence. They can cite the policies used in other
>organizations as justification for their own policies, and can point to
>the guidelines published by the ALA as the "standards" by which *many*
>libraries operate.
>
> They can also point to the corpus of law to point out that
>libraries can and *should* operate in certain manners when faced with
>pressure from certain points. But, ultimately, the library will act in
>such a manner as to ensure their own continued existence.
Perhaps because I live in Munroe Falls, I am more sensitive than
many to some of the threats to the continued existence of sites such
as "Akron Anomaly" and redpoll that irresponsible users can cause. It
was an irresponsible user placing an "adult" file in a public area
that triggered the seizure and confiscation of my neighbor's system
as "a criminal tool". I'd rather this didn't become commonplace.
I am proposing that we, as posters and readers of particular
newsgroups, act to ensure the continued existence of these newsgroups
as separate and distinct entities with defined charters. We *do* face
a threat from uninformed "authorities".
>> THE RETROACTIVE MODERATION PRECEPTS
>>
>>
>>
>>Precept 1. Voters may (re)define the charter of a newsgroup.
>>Precept 2. Voters may elect persons to uphold this charter.
>>Precept 3. Voters may define the powers of such persons.
>>Precept 4. Voters may replace or remove such persons.
>
> Errors: Usenet is *not* a democracy.
Usenet may not be a democracy, but newsgroup communities may
*become* participatory democracies, if they *choose* to.
>There *are* no voters. There are no authorities, there are *no* courts
>or laws.
But there *are* voters in every newsgroup poll. These voters are
the authorities on questions such as "shall we invite anonymous
postings from penet.fi and charcoal.com?" There is no court other
than the court of public opinion, and there are no laws, but there
*are* charters. Some charters call for serious discussions, some call
for a more light-hearted approach. The charter is intended to define
the purpose of the newsgroup, and to give a guide to what are
appropriate subjects for that group. If the "alt.tasteless" voters
decide to reject "cute kitten" stories from rec.pets.cats, that is
newsgroup that
approach. The charter is intended to define
>At the best, *some* of the readers *may* express a *preference* for how
>something should operate.
That describes the current state of affairs, but I hope to
empower the readers so they can do more than express a preference...
they can elect retroactive moderators to uphold the charters that they
mold for their newsgroup. Yes, this is a new application, but democracy
ose of the newsgroup, and to give a guide to what are
>No one, not you, not Gene Spafford, not Henry Specer, not Chip
>Salzenburg, not Jay Maynard, not Lazlo, not matthew, not *any* one,
>can dictate to *me* what will or will not be done on my site.
Agreed. And if you don't like the charter of a newsgroup, or
don't like the way a newsgroup manages its affairs, you may always
decline to carry it on your system.
>However, if I expect to gain benefit from the exchange of messages on
>this network, I will *voluntarily* consent to observe certain customs that
>I feel add value to the messages that I receive and generate.
And I think that most news admins, most posters, and most readers feel
much the same as you do in this regard. If a suggestion is worthwhile,
follow it, if not, don't.
>This is the ultimate reality of the net. You must find a way to
>convince *me* (the admin of this site) that what you propose adds value
>to my cooperation in this venture.
Thank you. I hope to find such a way.
>> THE PHILOSOPHY OF RETROACTIVE MODERATION
>>
>>1. Retroactive Moderation is intended to be an educational tool and
>> a deterrent. If it is successful in these roles, it will be
>> employed with a light hand.
>>
>>2. Retroactive Moderation is accountable moderation. It is too
>> important to be left to one person with unlimited tenure.
>>
>>3. Retroactive Moderators require good judgment, imperturbable
>> dispositions, and industrial strength asbestos underwear.
>
> Not likely to find anyone with all these qualities
>simultaneously. Furthermore, you are proposing (in your democratic
>zeal) to install an "ex post facto" law? If you are going to invoke
>the great godhead of "democracy" and your own faith in the "rule of law"
>you might try being consistent with the law model that you are using.
Just because something isn't easy doesn't mean it isn't worthwhile.
I have tried to design a system that will provide checks and balances
on the retroactive moderators. The ultimate check is "throw the bums
out". The "law" that we are discussing is the charter of the newsgroup.
e a guide to what are
>> PROPOSED RETROACTIVE MODERATION POLICIES
>>2. Retroactive Moderation is suitable for any unmoderated newsgroup.
>
> This is an oxymoron. Either a group is moderated or
>unmoderated. The software and social structure does not currently
>recognize any other status for a newsgroup in the Usenet hierarchies.
Aha... you missed the import of my chosen definition of
"unmoderated". A "retroactively moderated" newsgroup is unmoderated
in the sense that anyone can post anything at any time... without the
prior approval of a moderator. It is, however, a new beast in that
off-charter posters will be educated about the newsgroup's charter,
and the off-charter threads will be nipped in the bud by the
retroactive moderators. This requires no changes to current software.
> You are proposing a totally new structure and bear the burden of
>showing that it is better than what we have now, or is worth the costs
>it entails.
A demonstration or two would be much more revealing about the
costs and benefits, if any, of retroactive moderation. I hope to find
a newsgroup that is considering moving from unmoderated to moderated
status and try to convince it to try retroactive moderation instead.
>>3. A newsgroup which wishes to consider adopting Retroactive
>> Moderation should first consider whether its charter accurately
>> reflects the current interests of its readers, and, if necessary,
>> should update its charter.
>
> The democratic fallacy strikes again. All you can determine
>from the charter is the intended purpose of the group. It is *not* a
>law for the group, it doesn't have any force except the pressure of the
>readers of the group care to give it.
This is a *proposal*, not a fallacy. I am proposing that the
people who constitute the newsgroup (posters and readers) may take it
on themselves to modify the charter as they see fit, and to uphold the
charter through the mechanism of retroactive moderation.
>>4. Three "Retroactive Moderators" should be elected in the initial
>> election. The "Call for Elections" should be posted to the
>> newsgroup, with follow-ups directed to a suitable forum.
>
> The democratic fallacy again. There can be no election without
>a formal structure to authorize the results and to bind them in some
>fashion on the subjects.
In a democracy, any group can elect people to whatever positions
in that group that they choose. They may also choose to make
decisions that are binding upon the members of that group. This can
be done with little or no formal structure, so long as the group
itself can remain cohesive. One of the big dangers, of course, of
introducing democracy is of "Balkanizing" the group and/or of
suppressing minorities. This is not unique to retroactive moderation.
>>
>>5. Elected Retroactive Moderators may be replaced when they resign,
>> or when defeated in a subsequent election challenge.
>>6. The duty of a Retroactive Moderator will be to uphold the charter
>> of the newsgroup.
>
> Again, there is no *law* to make the charter binding. There is
>no organization to enforce the *law* you are creating here.
The organization is the newsgroup... a committee of the whole.
appropriate subjects for that group. If the "alt.tasteless" voters
>>
>>Convention 2. ALSO-CONTROL HEADER
>>Because the "Also-Control: " header permits a posted message to also
>>serve as a control message, and because this may be useful in tracking
>>the activity of a Retroactive Moderator, all Retroactive Moderation control
>>messages shall use this header to replace or cancel a Retroactively
>>Moderated message.
>
> Are you going to write the code for all of the news software in
>the world to implement this new header? Your lack of understanding of
>the news software shows very plainly here.
Also-Control: works in modern news software. That will be
sufficient to achieve the goal of retroactive moderation.
>
> Richard just shows his absolute misunderstanding of the nature
>of this thing called Usenet.
Perhaps, or perhaps the misunderstanding is yours... in that you
may have missed the fact that I am proposing something that *extends* what
we have now into something that we *can* have in the future.
I have a dream. :-)
> He seems to recognize that it is a cooperative. And he seems to
>recognize that it is an anarchy. And then he starts proposing *laws*
>and all sorts of things based on a presumption of "democracy!"
Careful, someone may think that you are not in favor of extending
democracy. :-)
> Richard, look carefully at all the comments I made above. And
>then, try to understand that *you* (regardless of whether you want to be
>a "reteroactive moderator" personally or not) cannot dictate to *anyone*
>on the net what *shall* be done.
I don't disagree with that. I *do* understand that. I am not
dictating anything to anybody. I am simply exercising my free speech
rights to propose that the readers and posters of newsgroups may accept
some additional rights and responsibilities. It is their choice, not
mine.
> You are proposing nothing less than the *legislation* of *ex
>post facto* censorship for NetNews -- not just Usenet groups, but the
>whole netnews complex.
Well, perhaps I am suggesting something that is more revolutionary
than I first suspected. I *thought* I was only suggesting a new state
for a newsgroup, roughly half-way between unmoderated and moderated.
However, it seems from your comments that I am suggesting that newsgroups
move from Feudalism to Democracy. If that is your charge, so be it.
> You probably think this is a "good thing" and feel that
>something like this is "necessary for the good of the net" or something
>like that.
See above. You are right. I do think these suggestions, with a
bit more work, can be a "good thing" and I *do* think that responsible
netters have the right to protect their respective newsgroups from
irresponsible netters "for the good of the net."
> You scare me.
I can understand why my programming (in)abilities may scare
you... my only exposure to a formal programming course was 30 years
ago when I learned Fortran IV as an undergraduate. It shows, and it
scared me too. :-)
> More than any other person on the net.
Well, I *did* lose my temper. I promise to keep it under better
control from now on. I hope you will give me credit for keeping my
temper in the face of rather severe provocations since the "two shot
cancel war".
> Your attitude scares me.
Well, if you see yourself as a feudal baron, I can understand. :-)
At least you have responded in a calm and rational manner. I
wish more posters took your approach. Perhaps the following will
remind them. :-)
=-=-=-=-=-=-= begin another quote from "What is Usenet?" =-=-=-=-=-=-=
WORDS TO LIVE BY #1:
USENET AS SOCIETY
- - - --------------------
Those who have never tried electronic communication may not be aware
of what a "social skill" really is. One social skill that must be
learned, is that other people have points of view that are not only
different, but *threatening*, to your own. In turn, your opinions may
be threatening to others. There is nothing wrong with this. Your
beliefs need not be hidden behind a facade, as happens with
face-to-face conversation. Not everybody in the world is a bosom
buddy, but you can still have a meaningful conversation with them.
The person who cannot do this lacks in social skills.
-- Nick Szabo
=-=-=-=-=-=-= end another quote from "What is Usenet?" =-=-=-=-=-=-=
> Death of Usenet predicted - brought to you by those who seek to
>protect you from yourself.
Think of it as the Rebirth of Usenet... and not as HappyNet.
>--
>Usenet Net News Administrator @ The Wolves Den (G. Wolfe Woodbury)
>ne...@wolves.durham.nc.us news%wol...@cs.duke.edu ...duke!wolves!news
>"The flame war is a specific Usenet art form." --me
Retroactive moderation will probably raise the level of the art,
if *that's* what worries you. :-)
Thanks for your thoughtful comments.
Best wishes,
Dick
-----END PRIVACY-ENHANCED MESSAGE-----
--
Richard E. Depew r...@redpoll.mrfs.oh.us (home)
Munroe Falls, OH ^^^^^^^^^^ NEW
(Where a home computer has been declared "a criminal tool".)
The Wolfe of the Den
>
> I'd phrase the question a bit differently, substituting "the
>newsgroup" for "the network", and I'd offer as an answer, "those who
>formed it and those who use it... namely the voters/readers/posters".
>If we can't manage our own affairs, some outside agency is liable to
>try imposing "management" on us. I'd rather that we take the
>responsibility on ourselves.
Oh my ....!
This is a delightful paranoia. I've thought about this sort of
thing, and dismissed it as a flight of overly worried fancy. But this
sort of thinking is becoming more and more pronounced on the "net"
recently.
Sure. Some entity *might* (or maybe even *will*) attempt to
assert such control over this medium, and that *would* generate a "death
of Usenet" (as we know it) rather quickly.
However, the technology that exists has, IMO, gotten past the
point where such a move could ever be truly effective. The USA Federal
Government is floating a proposal now to restrict the availability of
encryption technology to an *approved* method, with a means for them to
make an "end-run" around it when they feel a need. They don't seem to
realize that the horse has already left the barn... PGP and other
cryptographic methods that are not under their control are already out
there on the street, and the effort that it would take on their part to
*really* enforce such tight control will (probably) backfire in a
spectacular way.
I commend to your reading Gene Spafford's "Farewell address to
the Usenet." as a warning of the toll that such tight control advocacy
might bring.
(Aside)
I want to thank Gene for the many years of service he did give
to this co-operative, and I wish him the best of luck and health in his
life and endeavors!
> Your model reflects the current reality of Usenet... the only
>people who have any effective control over abusers are admins. This
>is fine so long as there are no rogue admins. However, I am proposing
>that a newsgroup community may choose to exercise some limited control
>over what postings remain in that newsgroup.
>
>> On the other hand, some of these abusers actually get away with
>>it because they leave the level of abuse at a point where it is more
>>tolerable to let them be, than to take the hard to reverse steps of
>>eliminating their traffic.
>
> The current "tide" favors the desires of the individual poster
>over the desires of the community of posters/readers in various
>newsgroups. I'd like to help redress the balance by empowering the
>newsgroup communities to define their own separate characters.
Here, then, is the real rub. You see the basic unit as one of a
"community" and I see individuals. H.Sapiens *is* a social animal, but
the question of what produces the "maximum happiness" for any individual
is one of the thorniest questions in moral philosophy.
You are (apparently) of the school that believes that the
individual should *submit* (unconditionally?) to the will of the
community that they are embedded in.
I, on the other hand, think that the individual owes the
community only so much allegiance as the community gives to them. It
can be shown that there are *many* times when the individual who was out
of step with the community, and spoke forecfully about the issues, is
ultimately shown to be "right" in the long run. [Trite observation
about Gallileo and the Inquisition inserted here. :-) ]
[Alt vs. "Formal Usenet" distinction.]
> I was being a "lumper" when I wrote that, and you are being a
>"splitter". On another day or on a different issue I may be a
>"splitter" and you a "lumper".
>
> You and I, being old-timers, know that "alt" isn't classic Usenet,
>but as someone else said, anything that participates in Usenet,
>becomes Usenet. The distinctions between hierarchies are greater than
>the distinctions between the *real* Usenet and alternate hierarchies...
>the biggest differences that remain are the newsgroup creation
>procedures, and the general sense that "anything goes" in the "alt"
>hierarchy.
This again shows the difference in world view. The "splitter"
folks see aggregations of individuals cooperating for specific purposes,
and the "lumpers" see a "community" to which individuals *belong* in
some sense.
I am a *member* of various communities, through my (generally)
voluntary committment to those communities. I am a part of them, and
expect them to respect my unique contributions as I respect the benefits
that being part of the community gives me.
However, I do not *belong* to the communities, in that I don't
grant them *ownership* of any part of my being.
The difference is a phiilosophical outlook.
As for being old-timers. I know my own history, and I claim
being on usenet "before the beginning" as one of my strong points for
being a "personality" in this electronic community. :-)
I also got bathed in fire during the first few months of the
net's operation, and it is a lesson I've never forgotten. I try to
think at least twice before I post these days. There are lots of times
that I spend an hour or so preparing a detailed response to some
posting, only to abort the whole thing and forget it because I didn't
feel that I could really contribute anything to the discussion.
>>Alt is a seperate
>>hierarchy of newsgroups that just happens to share the technology for
>>message distribution that Usenet uses. It forms an interesting case
>>study for observation and theorizing, but alt does not participate in
>>the general cooperative benefits of Usenet.
>
> I see more cooperation in "alt" than you seem to.
Oh, I see plenty of cooperation taking place all over the place,
but alt, being a *different* community from that of the "seven sisiter",
does not gain any of the benefits of organization that the formal Usenet
groups have in their covenants.
Again, it seems to be a question of where the primary loyalties
are centered.
> This is summarized nicely in "What is Usenet?". Even the "What
>is Usenet?" FAQ doesn't bother to distinguish Usenet-classic from
>Usenet-tng. Chip seems to have been in a "lumping" mood when he wrote
>it, including anything made up of newsgroups:
You don't need to quote back at me the posting that I was
summarizing from. :-)
I note, however, that Chip is *probably* not too thrilled to see
you holding him or his posting up as a paradigm or "law". :-)
>>> First, to be certain that we are talking about the same thing,
>>>let us define "unmoderated". I'll accept the definition by
>>>uph...@gemini.oscs.montana.edu (Jack Coyote): "Unmoderated means that
>>>a post DOES NOT go through a person for approval before distribution."
>>>I'll add that "unmoderated" also means that the newsgroup does not
>>>require an "m" flag in the news/active file to prevent a post from
>>>being posted immediately.
>>
>> So what good does this definition do?
>
> This definition of "unmoderated" newsgroups includes "retroactively
>moderated" newsgroups. I am trying to offer "retroactive moderation"
>as a less-drastic alternative to a move to traditional moderation. A
>"retroactively moderated" newsgroup will remain marked "y" in the
>active file, rather than being marked "m". It will require no entry
>in the "moderators" file, because there will be no pre-screening.
Now I see the (overly) subtle desire in the use of that
definition. You are focusing on the fact that there is no restriction
on initial distribution as the *sine qua non* of an unmoderated
newsgroup.
For me, and I suspect for many others, the main attraction or
benefit of an unmoderated group is that there is *no* restriction,
either before or after the fact, on the contents of a posting.
That this leaves us subject to the un-informed (or deliberate)
abuse of the *conventions* of the group is a necessary part of the
freedom to explore the full limits of any given topic.
Most of the "abusers" of newsgroup "charters" do so out of
ignorance. And ignorance is easily cured.
Few do it out of stupidity or malice.
>>> The concept of "Retroactive Moderation" is that an elected panel
>>>of "Retroactive Moderators" in an unmoderated newsgroup would have
>>>the function of upholding the charter of that newgroup by whatever
>>>means that newsgroup chooses to grant them.
>>
>> This introduces another error.
>>
>> Usenet is *not* a democracy. No one can be *elected* to do
>>anything since there is no organization to perform the function.
>
> A newsgroup community can *become* an organization. It can *choose*
>to conduct its affairs in a democratic manner. I am suggesting that this
>be tried as an experiment. I suspect democracy can be useful for an
>unmoderated newsgroup, and once entrenched, it will be difficult to
>eradicate. "Power to the people!" :-)
"democracy is the worst form of goverment, except for any any
other form of government" (paraphrase, badly, from Thomas Jefferson?)
Again, the philosophical differences show up. I *don't*
particularly care for the "enforced mediocrity" that most
implementations of "democracy" inflict on the groups that use them.
There are, fortunately, better methods of voting and consensus-finding
than the "american style" elections. And the use of these methods can
significantly empower the individual as opposed to empowering the
"group."
>THE CAMEL'S NOSE?
>- - - -----------------
>As was observed above in "What Usenet Is Not," Usenet as a whole is
>not a democracy. However, there is exactly one feature of Usenet that
>has a form of democracy: newsgroup creation.
I hope the significance of the title (The Camel's Nose) is not
lost on you.
> When we enter the society which is Usenet, we don't automatically
>abandon our sense of right and wrong, nor should we. We may have to
>stretch our concepts a bit... this is a *new* form of social
>interaction after all, and it requires increased tolerance for other
>points of view. But stretching a concept is not the same as
>abandoning it. Crying "censorship" whenever someone mentions setting
>standards only muddies the waters. We've seen too much mud recently.
And I will disagree rather strongly here. This is *new* only in
the sense that we are applying modern technologies to expand and enhance
the basic capabilities of the human mind. This medium multiplies the
abilities by several orders of magnitude, but it doesn't (IMO) really
add any qualitative new abilities.
Certainly, society (as a whole, and especially USA) needs to
become more tolerant and respectful of "the dignity and worth of every
person."
But the contention that Usenet is a "society" is rather
interesting. Certainly, there is a developing electronic "culture", but
I'm not so sure that it can really be a "society."
The main barrier to being a "social" medium is that there is no
physical, face-to-face, contact between most of the members of the
group. In those groups that we generally label as "societies" in the
non-electronic world, part of the definition is that the members
interact physically with each other in the course of their daily lives.
I read NetNews about 4 or five hours a day, and this is wrested
from the normal social structures in which I live in "real life." Much
of what I read here becomes fodder for my real life, in that I share
much of what I read with others, and converse (in corpus) with others
who have read the same materials.
It is this community of "real" folks who form the societies of
which I am a member. This electronic community is not a society in the
sense of this definition.
> Perhaps because I live in Munroe Falls, I am more sensitive than
>many to some of the threats to the continued existence of sites such
>as "Akron Anomaly" and redpoll that irresponsible users can cause. It
>was an irresponsible user placing an "adult" file in a public area
>that triggered the seizure and confiscation of my neighbor's system
>as "a criminal tool". I'd rather this didn't become commonplace.
>
> I am proposing that we, as posters and readers of particular
>newsgroups, act to ensure the continued existence of these newsgroups
>as separate and distinct entities with defined charters. We *do* face
>a threat from uninformed "authorities".
Again, there is a philosophical difference.
Just to make things clear. I am *not* unaffected by actions
such as happened to the Anomaly. I have been the target of
(ill-informed) investigations, and I have been subject to harassement of
extreme natures secondary to words posted to NetNews. I am, therefor,
quite sensitive to the potential and actual threats of ill-informed
"authorities."
However, I have decided, personally, to not let "them" win.
I have modified certain aspects of what I do and say, and I have
taken steps to provide myself with more protection against the actions
of others. I find it to be the most damning commentary on the "tyranny
of democracy" that I have had to do this.
I refuse to give in to the paranoia and resist the urge to
"chuck" the whole mess out of my life. To do so would be to admit that
the community *owns* me, rather than the other way around.
> But there *are* voters in every newsgroup poll. These voters are
>the authorities on questions such as "shall we invite anonymous
>postings from penet.fi and charcoal.com?" There is no court other
>than the court of public opinion, and there are no laws, but there
>*are* charters.
Nope.
There are "potential readers" expressing an opinion as to the
interest that the group holds for them.
To call these polls "votes" is one of the worst mistakes that
was ever introduced into Usenet.
You are introducing the "charter" as a defacto "law" and you are
proposing to institute corporate responsibility for the contents of a
group with the "moderators" of the group.
Have you considered the full implications of this?
The "moderator" could be saddled with the *responsibility* for
every posting that appears on the group! Even with a massive
disclaimer (both implicit and explicit) some idiot is going to take
offense at the action of the moderator and cause trouble.
Is the "group" going to guarantee that the moderator's legal
defense fund is paid?
How are you going to determine the "official" membership of any
particular group? Is there going to be a membership fee paid to bind
folks into a legal contract? Is someone going to monitor and archive
all the postings in a group so that it can be officially determined that
"so and so" is a "member" of "such and such" a group? (More than
anything else, will this produce a "chilling" of discussion on the
group? Thus destroying the usefullness of the group?) The excercise
and mental masturbation can go on and on.
>>At the best, *some* of the readers *may* express a *preference* for how
>>something should operate.
>
> That describes the current state of affairs, but I hope to
>empower the readers so they can do more than express a preference...
>they can elect retroactive moderators to uphold the charters that they
>mold for their newsgroup. Yes, this is a new application, but democracy
>ose of the newsgroup, and to give a guide to what are
The "official" govenment of Usenet is now being formed. Line up
and take your places to commit treason!
Usenet is declaring it's sovereignty! Bow down to the Czar!
Hail Caesar! Hail Caesar! Heil Hitler! (oops. now I've done it!)
>>No one, not you, not Gene Spafford, not Henry Specer, not Chip
>>Salzenburg, not Jay Maynard, not Lazlo, not matthew, not *any* one,
>>can dictate to *me* what will or will not be done on my site.
>
> Agreed. And if you don't like the charter of a newsgroup, or
>don't like the way a newsgroup manages its affairs, you may always
>decline to carry it on your system.
Nope, that not the covenant (implicit) that is being used. I
extend courtesy to other readers/posters to use my machine for the
purpose of giving a copy of their posting to others, so that they will
allow me the privledge/courtesy of using their machine to give copies of
my postings to readers on their machines.
There is a simple exchange of favors. Payment in kind, if you
like, for actions that are to our mutual benefit.
>>However, if I expect to gain benefit from the exchange of messages on
>>this network, I will *voluntarily* consent to observe certain customs that
>>I feel add value to the messages that I receive and generate.
>
> And I think that most news admins, most posters, and most readers feel
>much the same as you do in this regard. If a suggestion is worthwhile,
>follow it, if not, don't.
>
>>This is the ultimate reality of the net. You must find a way to
>>convince *me* (the admin of this site) that what you propose adds value
>>to my cooperation in this venture.
>
> Thank you. I hope to find such a way.
Well, so far you are not succeding. I can see a major
philosophical gulf here. There may be a bridge across it, or perhaps a
ferry line or something, but the differences are there.
>> Not likely to find anyone with all these qualities
>>simultaneously. Furthermore, you are proposing (in your democratic
>>zeal) to install an "ex post facto" law? If you are going to invoke
>>the great godhead of "democracy" and your own faith in the "rule of law"
>>you might try being consistent with the law model that you are using.
>
> Just because something isn't easy doesn't mean it isn't worthwhile.
>I have tried to design a system that will provide checks and balances
>on the retroactive moderators. The ultimate check is "throw the bums
>out". The "law" that we are discussing is the charter of the newsgroup.
But this is *not* law. It is a casual agreement that indicates
the conventions of a self-selected group. Furthermore, the group is
totally without enforcement -- the messges posted there are not
restricted in any manner (currently.) This is equivalent to placing a
piece of paper on the wall in a public place. Anyone else is free to
read or not read that piece of paper. Courtesy and custom, however, do
indicate that someone walking by and reading that piece of paper, is
*not* free to rip it down and throw it away. (Actually, I believe that
there is law in some cases that, in fact, prohibits persons from
removing public posted notices in certain conditions - there are legal
protections to free speech.)
> Aha... you missed the import of my chosen definition of
>"unmoderated". A "retroactively moderated" newsgroup is unmoderated
>in the sense that anyone can post anything at any time... without the
>prior approval of a moderator. It is, however, a new beast in that
>off-charter posters will be educated about the newsgroup's charter,
>and the off-charter threads will be nipped in the bud by the
>retroactive moderators. This requires no changes to current software.
No, but it does require a major change in the conventions and
covenants of the system.
As pointed out above, ignorance is easily cured. Malice or
stupidity is a terminal disease.
>> You are proposing a totally new structure and bear the burden of
>>showing that it is better than what we have now, or is worth the costs
>>it entails.
>
> A demonstration or two would be much more revealing about the
>costs and benefits, if any, of retroactive moderation. I hope to find
>a newsgroup that is considering moving from unmoderated to moderated
>status and try to convince it to try retroactive moderation instead.
Recall that there may be an extreme price to pay for such a
change. I admire the fortitude and committment of Usenet newsgroup
moderators. I honor them for placing reputation and life (in a sense)
on the line to serve a voluntary community. Were I in a position to
honorably and reliably carry out the implied responsibilities, I'd serve
as a moderator for some groups, but I know that I could not honor such
responsibilites, so I defer to those who have the ability.
Actually, there is a form of "reteroactive" moderation in some
groups. There are some groups where cadres of "friendly" persons have
taken an interest in the groups welfare, and endeavor to keep the group
somewhat on track despite their non-moderated status. For example,
(don't) try posting a non-source code item to alt.sources, and see what
sort of mail you get over the next several days. Start posting
bigoted material to soc.motss or soc.culture.indian and see what sort of
mail fills your electronic mailbox, and what sort of letters your system
administrators' mailboxes get.
As has been noted, some folks manage to get away with abusing
some newsgroups by keeping their postings to the level of merely
irritating, rather than outright abusive, or they have the active
collusion of their administrators in the flagrant abuse of the net.
Nothing in ARRM solves these problems without creating more
problems for the community to deal with.
You have, at least, managed to reduce this discussion to a
situation where it becomes an experiment in a new or re-organized
newsgroup, but it still remains that -- an experiment.
> In a democracy, any group can elect people to whatever positions
>in that group that they choose. They may also choose to make
>decisions that are binding upon the members of that group. This can
>be done with little or no formal structure, so long as the group
>itself can remain cohesive. One of the big dangers, of course, of
>introducing democracy is of "Balkanizing" the group and/or of
>suppressing minorities. This is not unique to retroactive moderation.
o
You are proposing a network "government," and I, and apparently
many others, are adamantly opposed to the introduction of such a
structure.
And there is a problem in the news software. It presumes that a
group is either moderated or unmoderated. There is no other option in
the software. There is, therefore, no other option for the groups
implemented with that software.
ARMMing a newsgroup is going to be mis-understood, and there
seems to be no way to avoid the problem. Either the group has to have a
moderator point (even if it is an automatic program) so that the
software system will recognize the authority to "moderate" the group (by
cancels of inappropriate postings to the moderated group - there are
software programs that are experimenting with cancel authentification)
and for a "disclaimer" to be appended to each post so that its potential
subsequent cancellation is "legal".
OR
The group is unmoderated, and the news software will not admit
of any justification for canceling posts other than poster self-cancels
or legal potentialities.
To fully implement an ARMM newgroup, there will have to be a new
capability added to the news software specification.
>>>5. Elected Retroactive Moderators may be replaced when they resign,
>>> or when defeated in a subsequent election challenge.
>>>6. The duty of a Retroactive Moderator will be to uphold the charter
>>> of the newsgroup.
>>
>> Again, there is no *law* to make the charter binding. There is
>>no organization to enforce the *law* you are creating here.
>
> The organization is the newsgroup... a committee of the whole.
>appropriate subjects for that group. If the "alt.tasteless" voters
Tasteless voters just need a bit of spice. :-)
Think carefully about the ramifications of constituting a new
government.
> Perhaps, or perhaps the misunderstanding is yours... in that you
>may have missed the fact that I am proposing something that *extends* what
>we have now into something that we *can* have in the future.
>
> I have a dream. :-)
Certainly, I may be an outlier opinion, but my gut feeling is
that you represent a more radical opinion than I do.
I certainly also have dreams about the future of electronic
communications, and the ubiqitous Usenet/NetNews type networks.
Additionally, I was in DC just the other weekend *working* for a
dream, were you?
>> He seems to recognize that it is a cooperative. And he seems to
>>recognize that it is an anarchy. And then he starts proposing *laws*
>>and all sorts of things based on a presumption of "democracy!"
>
> Careful, someone may think that you are not in favor of extending
>democracy. :-)
I'm not.
Flatly, I don't think democracy, or any other form of
government, is worth a plugged nickel.
However, I've yet to see a system that works better than the
pseudo-cooperative-anarchy of NetNews. But it's experience is probably
not directly applicable to real life (TM). :-)
>> You are proposing nothing less than the *legislation* of *ex
>>post facto* censorship for NetNews -- not just Usenet groups, but the
>>whole netnews complex.
>
> Well, perhaps I am suggesting something that is more revolutionary
>than I first suspected. I *thought* I was only suggesting a new state
>for a newsgroup, roughly half-way between unmoderated and moderated.
>However, it seems from your comments that I am suggesting that newsgroups
>move from Feudalism to Democracy. If that is your charge, so be it.
No. I'll modify the charge. You do seem to learn, and I can
see the apparently genuine concern you have for the preservation of the
net in the fashion that you wish, but you are proposing the imposition
of a formal organizational structure on a situation that doesn't have
one, and furthermore, doesn't *want* one.
The argument of "feudal barons" vs. "democratic populism" is an
old one, and it isn't going to be resolved anytime soon. As it stands,
it is my opinion that the reality of the situation is closer to "feudal
baronies" (with the barons having enlightened self-interest) than to any
form of formal democracy.
>> You probably think this is a "good thing" and feel that
>>something like this is "necessary for the good of the net" or something
>>like that.
>
> See above. You are right. I do think these suggestions, with a
>bit more work, can be a "good thing" and I *do* think that responsible
>netters have the right to protect their respective newsgroups from
>irresponsible netters "for the good of the net."
presuming that the net is a "society"
not a good assumption.
> Well, I *did* lose my temper. I promise to keep it under better
>control from now on. I hope you will give me credit for keeping my
>temper in the face of rather severe provocations since the "two shot
>cancel war".
It is unfortunate that your temper and consequent (lack of a)
reputation have made it nearly impossible for this to get anything like
a fair hearing.
>> Your attitude scares me.
>
> Well, if you see yourself as a feudal baron, I can understand. :-)
>
> At least you have responded in a calm and rational manner. I
>wish more posters took your approach. Perhaps the following will
>remind them. :-)
I want to say (about these quotes from "What is Usenet") "Don't
try to teach your grandmother to suck eggs."
I have been known to react in a "non-linear" fashion from time
to time, and while I value my "baronial perogatives" from time to time
as well, I do voluntarily serve a growing community of "downstream"
sites and a small cadre of direct users.
I do see the net evolving in the direction of "ubiquitous"
access. However, I also see the fission of the net in a not too distant
future. Usenet (as we know it) will retreat into a more limited
(perhaps "private") network, and an expanded network will move on to
become the vehicle for the universal access situation. Already, I see
trends to take more focused discussion on topics back into mailing
lists, and more groups should start themselves as mailing lists (with
regular announcements to NetNews.)
Some of these mailing lists use secondary "exploder" servers to
distribute the load of mailing, and this is a duplication of effort.
NetNews/NNTP/etc are much more efficient uses of resources, but that
lack of effective distribution control (or private newsgroups) makes it
difficult to avoid this trend.
I've given up trying to predict the direction of development.
It is a fun excercise, and I'd estimate my personal predictions to be
about 75% accurate, but I'm not going to destroy my own credibility by
trying to do predictions in public. :-) [Better to remain silent and
be thought wise......]
>> Death of Usenet predicted - brought to you by those who seek to
>>protect you from yourself.
>
> Think of it as the Rebirth of Usenet... and not as HappyNet.
Well, in this light, it is certainly a radical proposal for a
new facility. Whether it will take root and grow is a totally different
question. It may be that the birth trauma has injured it too severely.
The attempt to implement it without fully informed consent and
discussion before doing so *is/was* a major fault.
It may be that this proposal needs to be examined in
news.futures or alt.culture.usenet (or alt.{folklore|religion}.computers)
for a while before it comes back for an implementation strategy.
There *are* some conceptual ideas worth a second look, but for
the nonce, the hard feelings make it a bit difficult to seperate concept
from personalities.
Greg "Wolfe" Woodbury
--
Usenet Net News Administrator @ The Wolves Den (G. Wolfe Woodbury)
ne...@wolves.durham.nc.us news%wol...@cs.duke.edu ...duke!wolves!news
"The flame war is a specific Usenet art form." --me
Richard E. Depew
> Here, then, is the real rub. You see the basic unit as one of a
>"community" and I see individuals. H.Sapiens *is* a social animal, but
>the question of what produces the "maximum happiness" for any individual
>is one of the thorniest questions in moral philosophy.
>
> You are (apparently) of the school that believes that the
>individual should *submit* (unconditionally?) to the will of the
>community that they are embedded in.
No, I am asserting only that individuals may take a responsible role
in defining and defending the interests of their chosen communities.
I see the newsgroup community as the basic unit of self-government in
Usenet.
> I, on the other hand, think that the individual owes the
>community only so much allegiance as the community gives to them. It
>can be shown that there are *many* times when the individual who was out
>of step with the community, and spoke forecfully about the issues, is
>ultimately shown to be "right" in the long run. [Trite observation
>about Gallileo and the Inquisition inserted here. :-) ]
I agree that the majority isn't always right, and that the views
of dissenters should not be suppressed. However, there *is* a
distinction betweeen dissent and vandalism. I have crossed that line
on occasion. :-)
[...]
> As for being old-timers. I know my own history, and I claim
>being on usenet "before the beginning" as one of my strong points for
>being a "personality" in this electronic community. :-)
And I'll defer to you in that category. I was still a "lurker"
at the time of the "great renaming".
> I also got bathed in fire during the first few months of the
>net's operation, and it is a lesson I've never forgotten. I try to
>think at least twice before I post these days. There are lots of times
>that I spend an hour or so preparing a detailed response to some
>posting, only to abort the whole thing and forget it because I didn't
>feel that I could really contribute anything to the discussion.
Thanks for your thoughtful response on this issue. I value your
contribution to this discussion.
[...]
> You don't need to quote back at me the posting that I was
>summarizing from. :-)
Well, I had an additional point to make. :-)
> I note, however, that Chip is *probably* not too thrilled to see
>you holding him or his posting up as a paradigm or "law". :-)
I expect to hear from him, if that is the case. :-)
[...]
> Now I see the (overly) subtle desire in the use of that
>definition. You are focusing on the fact that there is no restriction
>on initial distribution as the *sine qua non* of an unmoderated
>newsgroup.
Only so far as the software goes. Retroactive moderation will
use the same posting mechanisms as unmoderated newsgroups do.
> For me, and I suspect for many others, the main attraction or
>benefit of an unmoderated group is that there is *no* restriction,
>either before or after the fact, on the contents of a posting.
>
> That this leaves us subject to the un-informed (or deliberate)
>abuse of the *conventions* of the group is a necessary part of the
>freedom to explore the full limits of any given topic.
>
> Most of the "abusers" of newsgroup "charters" do so out of
>ignorance. And ignorance is easily cured.
And this has worked well so far, but is running into problems of
scale.
> Few do it out of stupidity or malice.
But those few cause disproportionate trouble.
[...]
> Again, the philosophical differences show up. I *don't*
>particularly care for the "enforced mediocrity" that most
>implementations of "democracy" inflict on the groups that use them.
>There are, fortunately, better methods of voting and consensus-finding
>than the "american style" elections. And the use of these methods can
>significantly empower the individual as opposed to empowering the
>"group."
Good. Let's use these better methods.
[...]
> I hope the significance of the title (The Camel's Nose) is not
>lost on you.
Not at all. But I am inviting the camel into the tent. :-)
[...]
> Certainly, society (as a whole, and especially USA) needs to
>become more tolerant and respectful of "the dignity and worth of every
>person."
Agreed.
> But the contention that Usenet is a "society" is rather
>interesting. Certainly, there is a developing electronic "culture", but
>I'm not so sure that it can really be a "society."
>
> The main barrier to being a "social" medium is that there is no
>physical, face-to-face, contact between most of the members of the
>group. In those groups that we generally label as "societies" in the
>non-electronic world, part of the definition is that the members
>interact physically with each other in the course of their daily lives.
>
> I read NetNews about 4 or five hours a day, and this is wrested
>from the normal social structures in which I live in "real life." Much
>of what I read here becomes fodder for my real life, in that I share
>much of what I read with others, and converse (in corpus) with others
>who have read the same materials.
>
> It is this community of "real" folks who form the societies of
>which I am a member. This electronic community is not a society in the
>sense of this definition.
But if we eliminate the requirement for face-to-face contact,
newsgroups fit a reasonable definition of community... a community of
common interests... perhaps like a professional society, or a club of
hobbyists.
You can be a member of a democracy without sacrificing your
integrity.
[...]
> You are introducing the "charter" as a defacto "law" and you are
>proposing to institute corporate responsibility for the contents of a
>group with the "moderators" of the group.
>
> Have you considered the full implications of this?
>
> The "moderator" could be saddled with the *responsibility* for
>every posting that appears on the group! Even with a massive
>disclaimer (both implicit and explicit) some idiot is going to take
>offense at the action of the moderator and cause trouble.
>
> Is the "group" going to guarantee that the moderator's legal
>defense fund is paid?
It seems to me that this is much more of a concern for a
traditional moderator (editor) than for a retroactive moderator. In a
retroactively moderated newsgroup the responsibility for the post
rests clearly with the poster. The responsibility for a post to a
traditionally moderated group is more evenly shared between the poster
and the moderator.
[...]
> How are you going to determine the "official" membership of any
>particular group? Is there going to be a membership fee paid to bind
>folks into a legal contract? Is someone going to monitor and archive
>all the postings in a group so that it can be officially determined that
>"so and so" is a "member" of "such and such" a group? (More than
>anything else, will this produce a "chilling" of discussion on the
>group? Thus destroying the usefullness of the group?) The excercise
>and mental masturbation can go on and on.
For a first draft, interest and participation in the vote should
be sufficient qualification. Self-selection is the key idea.
[...]
>>> You are proposing a totally new structure and bear the burden of
>>>showing that it is better than what we have now, or is worth the costs
>>>it entails.
>>
>> A demonstration or two would be much more revealing about the
>>costs and benefits, if any, of retroactive moderation. I hope to find
>>a newsgroup that is considering moving from unmoderated to moderated
>>status and try to convince it to try retroactive moderation instead.
>
> Recall that there may be an extreme price to pay for such a
>change. I admire the fortitude and committment of Usenet newsgroup
>moderators. I honor them for placing reputation and life (in a sense)
>on the line to serve a voluntary community. Were I in a position to
>honorably and reliably carry out the implied responsibilities, I'd serve
>as a moderator for some groups, but I know that I could not honor such
>responsibilites, so I defer to those who have the ability.
>
> Actually, there is a form of "reteroactive" moderation in some
>groups. There are some groups where cadres of "friendly" persons have
>taken an interest in the groups welfare, and endeavor to keep the group
>somewhat on track despite their non-moderated status. For example,
>(don't) try posting a non-source code item to alt.sources, and see what
>sort of mail you get over the next several days. Start posting
>bigoted material to soc.motss or soc.culture.indian and see what sort of
>mail fills your electronic mailbox, and what sort of letters your system
>administrators' mailboxes get.
And I am using these folk as my model for retroactive moderation.
They could be more effective if their actions were sanctioned by the
newsgroup.
[...]
> You have, at least, managed to reduce this discussion to a
>situation where it becomes an experiment in a new or re-organized
>newsgroup, but it still remains that -- an experiment.
>
>> In a democracy, any group can elect people to whatever positions
>>in that group that they choose. They may also choose to make
>>decisions that are binding upon the members of that group. This can
>>be done with little or no formal structure, so long as the group
>>itself can remain cohesive. One of the big dangers, of course, of
>>introducing democracy is of "Balkanizing" the group and/or of
>>suppressing minorities. This is not unique to retroactive moderation.
>o
> You are proposing a network "government," and I, and apparently
>many others, are adamantly opposed to the introduction of such a
>structure.
>
> And there is a problem in the news software. It presumes that a
>group is either moderated or unmoderated. There is no other option in
>the software. There is, therefore, no other option for the groups
>implemented with that software.
But no software changes are necessary, only changes in attitude. :-)
[...]
> Think carefully about the ramifications of constituting a new
>government.
>
>> Perhaps, or perhaps the misunderstanding is yours... in that you
>>may have missed the fact that I am proposing something that *extends* what
>>we have now into something that we *can* have in the future.
>>
>> I have a dream. :-)
>
> Certainly, I may be an outlier opinion, but my gut feeling is
>that you represent a more radical opinion than I do.
>
> I certainly also have dreams about the future of electronic
>communications, and the ubiqitous Usenet/NetNews type networks.
>
> Additionally, I was in DC just the other weekend *working* for a
>dream, were you?
Not in DC, but in Akron... for an Akron Regional Free-Net.
>>> He seems to recognize that it is a cooperative. And he seems to
>>>recognize that it is an anarchy. And then he starts proposing *laws*
>>>and all sorts of things based on a presumption of "democracy!"
>>
>> Careful, someone may think that you are not in favor of extending
>>democracy. :-)
>
> I'm not.
> Flatly, I don't think democracy, or any other form of
>government, is worth a plugged nickel.
> However, I've yet to see a system that works better than the
>pseudo-cooperative-anarchy of NetNews. But it's experience is probably
>not directly applicable to real life (TM). :-)
>
>>> You are proposing nothing less than the *legislation* of *ex
>>>post facto* censorship for NetNews -- not just Usenet groups, but the
>>>whole netnews complex.
>>
>> Well, perhaps I am suggesting something that is more revolutionary
>>than I first suspected. I *thought* I was only suggesting a new state
>>for a newsgroup, roughly half-way between unmoderated and moderated.
>>However, it seems from your comments that I am suggesting that newsgroups
>>move from Feudalism to Democracy. If that is your charge, so be it.
>
> No. I'll modify the charge. You do seem to learn, and I can
>see the apparently genuine concern you have for the preservation of the
>net in the fashion that you wish, but you are proposing the imposition
>of a formal organizational structure on a situation that doesn't have
>one, and furthermore, doesn't *want* one.
Thanks for the complement. I'll also agree that Usenet doesn't
want a formal structure, but I suspect that one or two newsgroups may.
That's what I'd like to see for the initial trials of these ideas.
> The argument of "feudal barons" vs. "democratic populism" is an
>old one, and it isn't going to be resolved anytime soon. As it stands,
>it is my opinion that the reality of the situation is closer to "feudal
>baronies" (with the barons having enlightened self-interest) than to any
>form of formal democracy.
[...]
> I want to say (about these quotes from "What is Usenet") "Don't
>try to teach your grandmother to suck eggs."
I *said* it wasn't directed at you, grandma. :-)
I *like* that. It emphasizes that this proposal is still
theoretical. I'll move it to news.future. :-)
> There *are* some conceptual ideas worth a second look, but for
>the nonce, the hard feelings make it a bit difficult to seperate concept
>from personalities.
You have given me much food for thought. Thanks.
Best regards,
Dick
--
Richard E. Depew, Munroe Falls, OH r...@redpoll.mrfs.oh.us (home)
Best question in sci.archaeology: "z>I have a car for sale"
"How old is it?" - d...@col.hp.com
John Stanley
In an article which it seems NOTHING was summarized ...
> Not at all. But I am inviting the camel into the tent. :-)
If you invite someone else's camel into the tent, don't start
complaining when his nose is hairy and then decide to cut his nose off.
You will be hurting someone else's property.
> But if we eliminate the requirement for face-to-face contact,
>newsgroups fit a reasonable definition of community... a community of
>common interests... perhaps like a professional society, or a club of
>hobbyists.
I don't know about the clubs YOU belong to, but those that I do elect a
President to conduct the meetings. That is the way they control who may
speak at a meeting. If you want to control who may speak in your USENET
club, elect a moderator. If you don't elect a moderator, don't expect to
have any control.
Don't get together with a few of your cronies, decide for yourselves
that you are a majority, and then start shouting down anyone who says
anything you don't like.
> You can be a member of a democracy without sacrificing your
>integrity.
USENET is not a democracy. You certainly can be a member of USENET
without sacrificing your integrity -- it is not a display of integrity
to cancel the postings of others because you don't like them.
> It seems to me that this is much more of a concern for a
>traditional moderator (editor) than for a retroactive moderator.
No, sorry. A "retroactive moderator" is acting to censor material that
he has not been elected to have any control over. That is vandalism.
A "retroactive moderator" is defacing other people's works without the
authority to do so.
> For a first draft, interest and participation in the vote should
>be sufficient qualification. Self-selection is the key idea.
No, sorry again. If you want to try to pretend that a majority of
newsgroup participants wants something, then you had better be able to
define the members of the group that you think you have a majority of.
>> Actually, there is a form of "reteroactive" moderation in some
>>groups. There are some groups where cadres of "friendly" persons have
>>taken an interest in the groups welfare, and endeavor to keep the group
> And I am using these folk as my model for retroactive moderation.
No, sorry Dicky. You are acting to cancel or supercede articles that
you do not like. This is considerably different than sending mail to
the authors. Sending mail to them does not prevent anyone else from seeing
their posting if they want to see it, whereas cancelling it does.
Sending mail to the author does not deface someone else's authorship.
Perhaps you need to learn how news and mail works?
>They could be more effective if their actions were sanctioned by the
>newsgroup.
A moderator is quite effective. If you want moderation, use the system
that is already in place.
>> You are proposing a network "government," and I, and apparently
>>many others, are adamantly opposed to the introduction of such a
>>structure.
He is proposing a network vigilantism. One ARMM today, two tomorrow,
five next week, all set up by people who don't like what other peopel
say and who think they have a right to stop them from saying it.