the moderation issue -- revisited

the moderation issue -- revisited

Post by Roy G Bi » Thu, 03 Jul 2003 20:02:22



   On Wed, 2 Jul 2003 at 07:26:31 +0800, "Clockmeister" (gerryvdb at
tnet dot com dot au) scribbled:
->You are only speaking for yourself, his ads do not belong in this
->forum. No amount of rhetoric on your part will change that fact
->any time soon.

   It's funny <ha-ha-ha> how the *s who responsibly post here
are "only speaking for themselves," whereas the juvenile trouble-
makers posting filth and personal attacks believe they own this
newsgroup, which thereby gives them the right to state the rules.
Oh, it's so funny <ho-ho-ho> -- not!

   As I said some seven months ago at another peak point in
activity by the troublemakers, this forum needs to be moderated.
(And the moderator(s) need to be old enough to be mature, and cer-
tified to NOT be raving homophobes.)

   Unfortunately, as far as I'm aware the bureaucratic rules and
red tape insisted on by the lords of the Usenet for creating news-
groups (and probably also for making changes) are cumbersome, time-
consuming, and tilted against practicality.  As a result, proposals
have had a decreasing chance of success in recent years.

   The road to floating formal proposals to be voted on by the lords
of the Usenet is paved with difficulty and frustration.  Neverthe-
less, it needs to be done.  We need to get rid of the troublemakers,
and moderation is the only way to do it.  Without it, it's the decent
people who are leaving.  Are there any volunteers out there to help
work on a project to get a moderated newsgroup?

   An alternative, which might or might not be any easier, would be
the creation of a moderated 'alt' group.  My ISP has said they won't
get involved in creating 'alt' groups, but other ISPS might possibly
take a different position.

   Another idea would be trying to start up discussion somewhere
else (like what used to be called a "club," now known as a "group"
on Yahoo).  I think that's doomed to fail.  The Usenet is the only
place where there's going to be sufficient interest and participa-
tion to keep an Atari 8-bit newsgroup alive.  But it won't survive
as long as the troublemakers hold sway.  So let's get the ball roll-
ing for moderation! -- whatever it takes, and however long it takes.
--
        >>>----------------------------------------------<<<
        >>>  david moeser -- erasmus39 at yahoo dot com  <<<
        >>>            Censornati, Ohio - USA            <<<
        >>>----------------------------------------------<<<
        * An Atari 8-Bitter Since 1982 (or was it 2082?!)  *

(Headers munged to foil spammers; real info in taglines)

 
 
 

the moderation issue -- revisited

Post by richard cortes » Fri, 04 Jul 2003 01:13:51




Quote:>    As I said some seven months ago at another peak point in
> activity by the troublemakers, this forum needs to be moderated.
> (And the moderator(s) need to be old enough to be mature, and cer-
> tified to NOT be raving homophobes.)

Just some points from someone that does participate in a moderated forem.

#1 Is that they become clicks. That is nothing a moderator's *buddies
say is off topic, nothing a moderators *buddies does is inappropriate,
anyone that gets in a legitimate argument with a 'regular' has their posts
removed as off topic while the regulars can respond to anyone with the same
homophobe type posts our current mental case does.

#2 Is who do you trust to do it? Just as a for instance: Posts are only
supposed to be made to the most appropriate group. There *is* an emulator
group so all emulator questions should be posted there vs. .8bit since this
is a hardware/8 bit software group. If you get a rule guy, they may not just
enforce the rules you want them too but all the rules.

#3 Who has the time? Time will narrow your choices as to who admins #1 & #2.
I think the list of people with enough free time on their hands to do the
job would be limited to Ben Smith and the mental case.

 
 
 

the moderation issue -- revisited

Post by Alan Sharki » Fri, 04 Jul 2003 02:26:29


Hello All,

The theory, at least, behind alt groups is that they are
"self-moderating." This means, in some cases, that when somebody posts
something outlandish or distasteful, the majority of posters in the
group jump all over it, prompting the following typical reactions from
the original poster:

        1. He/she turns up the heat and comes back with personal
            attacks on all who answered his first post; or,

        2. He/she begs for sympathy, hoping that it will get more
            attention.  The tears flow like rain, the violin comes
            out, etc. People who disagreed with the obnoxious poster
            are now apologizing for doing so, and you can just
            imagine what comes next..

Of course, there's the occasional group where outrageous posts are
simply ignored.  That seems to work better, and most obnoxious posters
go away.  If they don't, after a reasonable amount of time, some
member usually takes it upon him/herself to contact the obnoxious
poster's ISP and that settles the issue.

Richard and David have both made good points re: moderation, but I
tend to lean toward the idea that we can do it ourselves -- via
appropriate silence.

Take care.

Alan

 On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 16:13:51 GMT, "richard cortese"




>>    As I said some seven months ago at another peak point in
>> activity by the troublemakers, this forum needs to be moderated.
>> (And the moderator(s) need to be old enough to be mature, and cer-
>> tified to NOT be raving homophobes.)

>Just some points from someone that does participate in a moderated forem.

>#1 Is that they become clicks. That is nothing a moderator's *buddies
>say is off topic, nothing a moderators *buddies does is inappropriate,
>anyone that gets in a legitimate argument with a 'regular' has their posts
>removed as off topic while the regulars can respond to anyone with the same
>homophobe type posts our current mental case does.

>#2 Is who do you trust to do it? Just as a for instance: Posts are only
>supposed to be made to the most appropriate group. There *is* an emulator
>group so all emulator questions should be posted there vs. .8bit since this
>is a hardware/8 bit software group. If you get a rule guy, they may not just
>enforce the rules you want them too but all the rules.

>#3 Who has the time? Time will narrow your choices as to who admins #1 & #2.
>I think the list of people with enough free time on their hands to do the
>job would be limited to Ben Smith and the mental case.

--
You can read the FAQ for alt.binaries.karaoke at:

http://www.veryComputer.com/
                                  or
http://www.veryComputer.com/~j.a.komrij/faq.htm

 
 
 

the moderation issue -- revisited

Post by Roy G Bi » Fri, 04 Jul 2003 16:13:36


   On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 at 16:13:51 GMT, "richard cortese" scribbled:
->Just some points from someone that does participate in a moderated
->forem.

   Your input is appreciated.  In the past, under ordinary circum-
stances, I have not tended to be favorable toward the idea of moder-
ating Usenet newsgroups.  (Further comments below.)  But this news-
group has a history of longterm disruption caused by enemies of a
particular dealer posting irresponsibly for years and years.  The
anti-Terry Ortman postings, e.g., continued for years after Ortman
was long gone from this newsgroup (and long gone from Atari).

   The juvenile troublemakers and assorted nutcases obviously have
no lives (not to mention no brains), so they have to keep posting
their filth; they don't have anything better to do in life.  In the
latter years of anti-Ortman postings there were signs that one or
more of the anti-Ortman crowd were sending fake Ortman postings to
this newsgroup just to keep the "issue" alive.  Examination of the
long message headers of postings in the current imbroglio causes me
to be suspicious of the "legitimacy" of certain postings.  But in
any case, the bottom line remains that the troublemakers are deter-
mined to ruin this newsgroup by posting filth and personal attacks.
As in the Ortman case, the troublemakers are going to continue post-
ing their filth for ump* years, because that's the only life they
have.  Something needs to be done.

->#1 Is that they become clicks.

   The Bush White House uses the term "regime" for ruling groups
they don't like.  <grin>  "Clique" is more esoteric.  But I notice
the dictionary definition doesn't indicate that a clique has to be
negative.  It merely defines clique as a small or closed group with
shared interests.  Any group of newsgroup moderators would inevit-
ably fit that description.  It's up to the moderators to act
responsibly.  And in the case where a moderator didn't act respon-
sibly (or disappeared), I believe the Usenet rules allow for comp-
laints to be filed, which could result in a change of moderators.

->That is nothing a moderator's *buddies say is off topic,
->nothing a moderators *buddies does is inappropriate,

   I've followed two moderated newsgroups over the years, and they
aren't like that.  Both of those groups deal with areas of the
broadcasting and media world, and there are many "important" people
in those fields who follow and post on those groups.  The moderators
of those groups act responsibly, and thus make it possible for both
VIPs and ordinary readers to participate in those groups -- because
those groups are expected to be free of spam, filth, personal at-
tacks, and other unwanted trash.

   I think this newsgroup has some similarity to those situations.
There are many "important" people in the Atari 8-bit field who have
participated here over the years.  Programmers, vendors, and gurus
are just some of the people who are important to the success of this
group.  Active users, on real hardware or by emulation, are also
important.  The 8-bit users deserve a safe and clean environment
here.  Moderation may not be 100% guaranteed, but it is probably
the most feasible solution.

->#2 Is who do you trust to do it?

   Well, I humorously hinted at two standards in my original post-
ing.  To be more specific, but still with a large dose of humor, I
would suggest a minimum age of 40 and a requirement of a signed
statement pledging to be as "fair" as, for example, last week's
U.S. Supreme Court decision.  (Which the resident homophobes on
this newsgroup are probably foaming at the mouth over.)  OK, I'm
kidding about the age 40 thing (maybe it should be 60 or 70?!),
but any candidates need to be (1) mature, and (2) fair.

->Posts are only supposed to be made to the most appropriate group.

   OK.  But how does that relate to the current problem?  Should
we be telling the troublemakers to post their filth on alt.filth?
Or alt.unacceptable.lies?  Or alt.ben.smith.die.die.die?  You
know, those would've been good jokes in Modemland ten years ago,
but I'll bet most Usenet readers today don't even know what that
joke is about.  But technically, it would be correct to say to
the troublemakers, "You should take your filth to alt.filth, and
if there isn't such a group, you should start it."  Will they heed
that advice?  I doubt it.

->There *is* an emulator group so all emulator questions should be
->posted there vs. .8bit since this is a hardware/8 bit software
->group.

   There are 49,820 newsgroups currently listed as available on my
ISP.  I checked all groups with the word "atari" in either the name
or the description, and found no Atari group having anything to do
with emulation.  In fact, the only other 8-bit oriented (English-
language) Atari newsgroup was alt-no-advertising.files.warez.atari-
8-bit.  Not only were there no postings in that group, but it's
name ("warez") implies an orientation toward, or toleration of,
illegal activity.  So it appears that this is still the only Usenet
newsgroup for all kinds of discussion (in the English language)
regarding Atari 8-bits.

->If you get a rule guy, they may not just enforce the rules you
->want them too but all the rules.

   Such people usually make themselves unpopular and don't last
long!  <grin>

->#3 Who has the time?

   No problem.  I'm sure there are responsible people out there who
would do it.  However, as I said, I think the Usenet red tape is a
bigger obstacle.  I think the biggest question is who has the time
to delve into all the bureaucratic procedures that are required and
actually do the work needed (i.e., red tape) that the Usenet rules
call for?  Are there any volunteers?
--
        >>>----------------------------------------------<<<
        >>>  david moeser -- erasmus39 at yahoo dot com  <<<
        >>>            Censornati, Ohio - USA            <<<
        >>>----------------------------------------------<<<
        *           ATARI -- Love it or leave it!          *

(Headers munged to foil spammers; real info in taglines)

 
 
 

the moderation issue -- revisited

Post by richard cortes » Sat, 05 Jul 2003 01:27:16




Quote:>    On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 at 16:13:51 GMT, "richard cortese" scribbled:
> ->Just some points from someone that does participate in a moderated
> ->forem.

>    Your input is appreciated.  In the past, under ordinary circum-
> stances, I have not tended to be favorable toward the idea of moder-
> ating Usenet newsgroups.  (Further comments below.)  But this news-
> group has a history of longterm disruption caused by enemies of a
> particular dealer posting irresponsibly for years and years.

Well nomen is a well known troll who's 'thing' is disruption. He's kind of
all over the place with paranoid rants. Hard to tell if he just has a sick
sense of humor or is genuinely sick. Sick is the keyword anyway. I'm not
even sure if it isn't a kibo kind of thing.

http://www.masonicinfo.com/kenids.htm

<snip>

Quote:> ->There *is* an emulator group so all emulator questions should be
> ->posted there vs. .8bit since this is a hardware/8 bit software
> ->group.

>    There are 49,820 newsgroups currently listed as available on my
> ISP.  I checked all groups with the word "atari" in either the name
> or the description, and found no Atari group having anything to do
> with emulation.

alt.emulators is where people wanted to stick them.

I would estimate around 1/3 of the newsgroup was against emulator talk in
comp.sys.atari.8bit due to the nature of their contribution. Most of their
posts were ~How come there aren't warez sites for Atari like their are for
the C64?
~How do I get the emulator to recognize my Gateway built in video card?
Which was kind of tough to answer since most people had real Ataris and
didn't fool with the emulators.

I can't remember a single post from anyone other then an emulator user that
wanted them here, but they came anyway.
<snip>

Quote:> ->#3 Who has the time?

>    No problem.  I'm sure there are responsible people out there who
> would do it.  However, as I said, I think the Usenet red tape is a
> bigger obstacle.  I think the biggest question is who has the time
> to delve into all the bureaucratic procedures that are required and
> actually do the work needed (i.e., red tape) that the Usenet rules
> call for?  Are there any volunteers?

I'm sure there are qualified people but the rub is the time it takes.
 
 
 

the moderation issue -- revisited

Post by Ben Yat » Sat, 05 Jul 2003 07:35:50



<snip>

Quote:

>    Another idea would be trying to start up discussion somewhere
> else (like what used to be called a "club," now known as a "group"
> on Yahoo).  I think that's doomed to fail.  The Usenet is the only
> place where there's going to be sufficient interest and participa-
> tion to keep an Atari 8-bit newsgroup alive.  But it won't survive
> as long as the troublemakers hold sway.  So let's get the ball roll-
> ing for moderation! -- whatever it takes, and however long it takes.

You think it would be doomed to fail to use a group? Check out
comp.sys.ti - pretty much dead. Then check out the TI group on Yahoo!
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ti99-4a/). Look at the activity (#
messages per month) at the bottom of the page. There are over 500
members there.
It just takes someone to setup the group, advertise it, post rules and
throw-out the losers. It will eventually become self-moderating, with
just occasional problems.
Plus there are benefits like a chat area, files area, and links
area...

Ben

 
 
 

the moderation issue -- revisited

Post by Shawn Jeffers » Sat, 05 Jul 2003 10:25:20




>You think it would be doomed to fail to use a group? Check out
>comp.sys.ti - pretty much dead. Then check out the TI group on Yahoo!
>(http://www.veryComputer.com/). Look at the activity (#
>messages per month) at the bottom of the page. There are over 500
>members there.
>It just takes someone to setup the group, advertise it, post rules and
>throw-out the losers. It will eventually become self-moderating, with
>just occasional problems.
>Plus there are benefits like a chat area, files area, and links
>area...

AtariAge does a pretty good job for atari related messages.  Granted, there
is more than just an 8-bit forum, and it is an HTTP based forum which can
sometimes be slow..

Another group I used to read has made the progression from UseNet to web
forum and it has only been good for all concerned.  Well, not for the
trolls and losers who can't seem to figure out that their *is not
wanted.  They find out soon enough on the web forum when they are booted.

---
Shawn Jefferson
(fix reply to for email)

 
 
 

the moderation issue -- revisited

Post by Roy G Bi » Sat, 05 Jul 2003 20:14:20


   On 3 Jul 2003 at 15:35:50 -0700, Ben Yates scribbled:
->It just takes someone to setup the group, advertise it, post rules
->and throw-out the losers. It will eventually become self-moderat-
->ing, with just occasional problems.

   Based on what I've seen others do, setting up a new group on
Yahoo is easy compared to what the Usenet demands.  But the groups
I've followed on Yahoo that have small followings have almost all
dried up.  I'll have to admit, tho, that I haven't seen any of the
organizers of those groups do any "advertising."
--
        >>>----------------------------------------------<<<
        >>>  david moeser -- erasmus39 at yahoo dot com  <<<
        >>>            Censornati, Ohio - USA            <<<
        >>>----------------------------------------------<<<
        *      2 bits, 4 bits, 8 bits... Burma Shave!      *

(Headers munged to foil spammers; real info in taglines)

 
 
 

the moderation issue -- revisited

Post by Daniel Mille » Sun, 06 Jul 2003 00:11:44


I have gone through the rigamarole and bureaucracy of starting a
Usenet newsgroup (comp.sys.amiga.morphos) and I can tell the
uninitiated: it is one heck of a lot of work and about a million
things can go wrong and in the end you might be unsuccessful.

The logical name of a new newsgroup is "comp.sys.atari.8bit.moderated"
I think.

I have read comp.sys.atari.8bit for several years. It was actually the
first newsgroup I ever posted in IIRC. It is a shame that we have to
consider this.

I think what may happen is that we endure until the offensive person
finally tires and goes away (no way of knowing how long that will be)
and lose disgusted participants all along the way. Or someone makes a
heroic effort to terminate his access by *sleuthing the correct
organizations to complain to, writing passionate complaints to
convince the anonymous remailers to give him the boot, complaining to
the authorities to the extent that libel or whatever has been
committed, and so on. But these anonymous remailers... you have to be
frickin' Osama bin Laden to be kicked off these anonymous remail
services, being Jeffrey Dahmer is not nearly bad enough.

 
 
 

1. New eBay auction - 13 issues of Atari Classics inc. Issue 1 + other stuff

Hello All,

Just started a new eBay auction for 13 issues of Atari Classics magazine,
including the first issue. I still have other various Atari items on eBay,
which are due to end soon including the manual for the rare Victagraph
system for the 1020 plotter, DOS3 manuals, PAL TV cable, 'Dice Poker' APX
tape, along with some other items of interest. The link is below (this will
split on to two lines, so please copy both lines into your browser):

http://cgi6.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewSellersOtherItems&userid=...
raghty

Dean Garraghty

2. Diamond Fire GL 4000 15MB 3DRAM & 16MB CRAM $275

3. WTB ST Format Issue 25 and issue 27 cover disk

4. how many mailboxes bigger than 100 MB on my server?

5. Blackbox revisited

6. ST/STE/STF/STFM...arghhh!!!

7. What was the "Ram Jammer" [revisited]

8. problem

9. Interfacing 800XL to ST, revisited

10. 800xl help revisited

11. AR revisited

12. Uniterm Problems (Revisited)