On Dec 13, 7:42 pm, "
wrote:
From: Iitoi on Tues, Dec 12 2006 6:20 am

I found the below FAQ on the web, but can't find the referenced
newsgroup on any server? Looks like it could be the salvation of
RRAP? I think it won't and for several reasons:

1. Nothing has been done/proposed to stop the incessant
cross-posting of the same material to other news-
groups. [see "Slow Code" as prime example lately]

No one is worried that material from a moderated group would be
cross-posted elsewhere. The efforts toward establishing a moderated
gropare to control what is posted to the newsgroup.

2. Effective moderation can only be done by HOLDING all
submitted messages/replies for review prior to public
posting. [labor-intensive work for moderators,
almost a 24-hour a day task]

That's the idea, Len, and it isn't a 24/7 task.


3. Some moderation is possible by a mechanism where all
moderators can delete postings not fitting guidelines.
When the "attention-getting" posters don't see their
postings in public they will be dissuaded from posting
more later. Only a rare few will persist.

That's the idea, Len.

The above would seem impossible with the Internet as-is
and the wide distribution (and rapidity of such) in the
'Web. Somewhere, someplace on the 'Web such postings
would remain in public view; Google can only control
what is on Google.

Nobody is worried about the material from the new group being in public
view. The idea is to control the input, not the output.
There would be no more "koks on parade". There'd be no more
"Marqueer" or "Not C*********Lloyd". I'm pretty certain that anyone
using terms like "Mother Superior", "Church of St. Hiram", "Colonel
Klunk"or "Herr Robust" would likely disappear from the ranks of
posters.


4. As one who has a few years experience in moderation on
a Bulletin Board System, moderation is possible ONLY
with a "closed system," i.e., one where postings go no
further than the BBS and moderators have a greater range
of controls from the Sysop than do ordinary subscribers.
Even then it is possible to have postings remain on-line
for hours, begin more arguments and name-calling before
moderators can access a 'newsgroup' to do moderator
actions. Excessive non-guideline activity can only be
stopped with subscriber banishment from posting, again
effective in a BBS but very difficult to achieve on the
Internet (that carries Usenet).

It is very, very easy to put into practice. If your post doesn't meet
the
moderator's idea of a proper post, it would never be seen.


5. A search for "rec.radio.amateur.moderated" items has
turned up a few messages dating back to 1998. The "idea"
has been kicking around for eight years with NO real
action taken. This is akin to government "study
groups" doing "studies" on something for a long time
and producing NOTHING tangible but lots of words and
paper with NO authority to correct anything. The "idea"
of a moderated group seems more like wishful thinking
than anything else.

Yet there is material in this latest proposal which indicates that it
is
very, very new. I think you'll find that there is little of wishful
thinking
in the proposal.

________________________________________________ ________________

Welcome to rec.radio.amateur.moderated! This is a moderated newsgroup
for amateur radio operators and other people having an interest in the
Amateur Radio Service, as defined by national regulations and
international treaties. Following are the posting guidelines for this
newsgroup. In general, I don't see any real fault (except for one) and
these guidelines seem a sincere, honest effort to improve
the lot of newsgroups as they exist today.

2.8 Guidelines regarding civility
Posters are expected to make factual claims, to debate topics openly and
in good faith, and to accept honest criticism, all without provocation
or prevarication. At least one professional organization, the Institute
of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), has recognized that such
fair dealings are necessary components of ethical conduct, and has
incorporated them into its Code of Ethics:

http://www.ieee.org/portal/pages/about/whatis/code.html

Though the Amateur Radio Service is not a professional endeavor, the
moderators strongly feel that the IEEE Code of Ethics is also a
worthwhile set of guiding principles for participants in the
rec.radio.amateur.moderated newsgroup. The amateur radio service is, by US federal definition, NOT a
professional organization. [that is the reason the activity
is named as "amateur"]

Unfortunately, many amateurs have the imagination to assume
they are 'professional' in their operating procedures, jargon,
and (to some) their way of life, that is no more than an
assumption, perhaps a fantasy of theirs. There is NO such
thing as a "professional amateur," itself an oxymoron.

That's pretty much the kind of thing which leads me to believe
that your presence on the moderated group would last about
three rounds. You'd likely be cautioned once or twice, then you'd
be gone.

The IEEE "Code of Ethics" is for WORK-related activity, the
professional part of IEEE members. It is NOT designed as a
guideline or code of conduct for messaging.

Nothing precludes its use for such purposes.

It IS a guideline
for ethical (and moral for the most part) BUSINESS activity.

Show me a man who uses ethical behavior only in his business dealings
and not in his private life and I'll show you an unethical man.

As a 33-year member of the IEEE I support that and follow it.
But, neither does the IEEE "Code" require me to obey it in
ALL things...including my personal opinions on politics,
religion, or anything else. I retain a freedom of choice
permitted (in the USA) by the Constitution of the United
States. That includes a freedom of speech.

Your freedom of speech is limited by the terms of service of your
internet
service provider. It is limited by any oaths you've taken to
government.
It is limited by a moderated newsgroup and would be limited by an
amateur radio license, if you had one. Now what?

It would seem obvious to me that this sudden appearance of
the IEEE "Code" has come about from other newsgroupies.
making unkind replies to me in here...none of which are
(or have admitted to being) members of the IEEE.

Are you having memory problems, Len? The IEEE Code of Conduct was
brought up in *response to your unkind words toward others".

If there
are to be "guidline references" then the Amateur's Code
written by Paul Segal many decades ago should suffice.

How would those apply to you, Leonard? You aren't a radio amateur.

However, article two of the Amateur's Code should be re-
written to apply to all or none of the amateur membership
organizations, not just to patronize a particular US club.

The Code was written by a staunch ARRL supporter. Either you'd like
it used or you wouldn't. No one is going to rewrite it to please
Leonard H. Anderson, a fellow who is not a radio amateur
or an ARRL member.

Amateur radio can be a fun, engaging, interesting hobby.
But, it remains a HOBBY...

....or so you've been told or so you've read.

...not some imaginary "professional
life activity." There is nothing wrong with hobbies.
Many other hobby activities exist without any pretenses
at being "professional."

The only person who regulary writes "PROFESSIONAL" here is
Leonard H. Anderson.



[Life Member, IEEE]

This newsgroup deals with amateur radio. Its topic has nothing to do
with
"PROFESSIONAL" electronics organizations.

Dave K8MN