|
RFD: rec.radio.amateur.moderated moderated
REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
moderated group rec.radio.amateur.moderated This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the creation of the moderated Usenet newsgroup, rec.radio.amateur.moderated. NEWSGROUPS LINE: rec.radio.amateur.moderated rec.radio.amateur.moderated Amateur radio practices, rules, etc. (Moderated) RATIONALE: rec.radio.amateur.moderated rec.radio.amateur.moderated is a moderated alternative to the existing rec.radio.amateur.misc and rec.radio.amateur.policy newsgroups. The rec.radio.amateur.misc newsgroup is chartered to discuss amateur ("ham") radio practices, contents, events, rules, etc., including anything related to amateur radio not specifically covered by another rec.radio.amateur.* newsgroup. The rec.radio.amateur.policy newsgroup is chartered to discuss ham radio rules, regulations, and policy. Over the past several years, the traffic on both groups has become largely flame wars, spam, and personal ad-hominem discussions of past, present, and future violations and violators, having little or no bearing on amateur radio. Polite requests by serious group posters to the offenders to refrain from such behavior have not resulted in elimination of such behavior and has in fact resulted in another series of flame wars. As a result, many knowledgeable and concerned posters in both groups have ceased being active therein. Prior to the deterioration of rec.radio.amateur.misc and rec.radio.amateur.policy, both groups had active discussion of their chartered topics. It is expected that offering a moderated group will persuade those who formerly participated to resume their participation in rational, focussed, and informed discussion. Proper moderation will enable serious postings to the group to remain on topic while not limiting who can voice opinions or what opinions can be voiced. Combining the topics of the unmoderated rec.radio.amateur.misc and rec.radio.amateur.policy newsgroups into a single moderated newsgroup is offered as the most practical solution for both the moderators and the participants at this time. This proposal does not necessarily presume that any other rec.radio.amateur.* newsgroups and their topics require moderated alternatives at this time. CHARTER: rec.radio.amateur.moderated is for the discussion of amateur ("ham") radio. It is not limited to the rules of any one country or time period. Possible topics include past, present, and future operating practices; events; contests; past, present, and potential-future rules; power limitations; authorized frequencies; allowed modes and band plans (or other gentlemen's agreements) that govern how we are to operate; what constitutes the acceptable operation of amateur stations. General communications law or government policy of various government agencies is also on-topic, as long as the discussion relates to amateur radio. Examples would be emergency communications, local antenna restrictions, and property deed restrictions applying to operation of amateur radio stations. Discussion of other type of radio, such as Citizens Band, Broadcast, other Personal Radio Services, Commercial or Private Land Mobile, and Marine or Aviation services are off-topic, except when *directly* related to amateur radio. Similarly, discussion of methods violating applicable communication law and regulations concerning radio equipment or operations are off-topic. The following are prohibited: * Personal advertisements. * Commercial advertisements and money-making schemes. * Chain letters. * Posts in HTML. * EMP spam. * Binaries, apart from PGP signatures, X-Face headers, and other ancillary article meta-data. * Forgery of valid e-mail addresses. * Excessive morphing/nym-shifting. * Copyright violations. Pointers to news articles, blogs, etc. on this topic are welcome but are required to comply with fair use standards. * Personal attacks and flames, as defined by the moderation team. * Advertising items and/or services for sale. * Links to "objectionable" web content, including pornographic sites, sites encouraging illegal activities, or sites deemed unacceptable by the moderation team. * Discussion of moderation decisions. See below for information on appealing moderator action. LINKS: Amateur Radio Newsgroups in Total Meltdown (QRZ) http://www.qrz.com/ib-bin/ikonboard....T;f=7;t=119282 Amateur Radio Newsgroups: Total Meltdown (eHam) http://www.eham.net/articles/13581 Secure, Team-Based Usenet Moderation Program (STUMP) http://www.algebra.com/~ichudov/stump/ MODERATION POLICY: rec.radio.amateur.moderated A moderation robot will scan all submitted posts. Each post will be either automatically approved, rejected, or sent to the moderators for manual review. The moderator 'bot will enforce the following guidelines: * Crossposting is generally not allowed, with the general exception of crossposts of bulletins, FAQ's, and other informational articles to rec.radio.info, rec.answers, and news.answers. Infrequent administrative crossposts may occasionally be allowed at the sole discretion of the moderator. * Postings must be in plain text. In particular no HTML or mixed text and HTML posts will be allowed. Messages that are multipart/alternative will be automatically filtered to pass just the text/plain version to the newsgroup. * No binary postings of any sort will be accepted. Exceptions will be made for cryptographic signatures and such. * Messages must not have a 'Followup-To' header that points out of rec.radio.amateur.moderated (other than to "poster"). * Messages must not continue a thread that has been "closed" by the moderators. Individual posters may be temporarily banned for consistently violating the group charter. Posters who feel that their posts have been unfairly rejected or banned by a specific moderator may appeal the decision by contacting the Appeals Board, consisting of a rotating group of 2 or more moderators, at the Administrative Contact address below. The Board will discuss and vote on the appeal and respond within 14 days if the appeal is successful. Multiple temporary bans, attempting to circumvent the ban, or abuse of the appeal system may result in a permanent ban. MODERATOR INFO: rec.radio.amateur.moderated Moderator: Paul W. Schleck, K3FU Moderator: Bob Diepenbrock, KC4UAI Moderator: Jack Cook, VK2CJC Moderator: Jim Hampton, AA2QA Moderator: Ace Ratliff, WH2T Moderator: Jeff Angus, WA6FWI Moderator: Hans Brakob, K0HB In addition, the rec.radio.amateur.moderated Moderation Team will utilize the expertise of the following consultants: Consultant: Cecil A. Moore, W5DXP Consultant: Phil Kane, K2ASP Consultant: Brian Short, K7ON The moderators are seeking additional candidates for the moderation team in order to ensure minimal posting delays and to avoid any appearance of bias. We would especially like to find moderators in other time zones, countries/continents, etc. Article Submissions: Administrative Contact: END MODERATOR INFO PROCEDU For more information on the newsgroup creation process, please see: http://www.big-8.org/dokuwiki/doku.p...icies:creation Those who wish to influence the development of this RFD and its final resolution should subscribe to news.groups.proposals and participate in the relevant threads in that newsgroup. This is both a courtesy to groups in which discussion of creating a new group is off-topic as well as the best method of making sure that one's comments or criticisms are heard. All discussion of active proposals should be posted to news.groups.proposals. To this end, the 'Followup-To' header of this RFD has been set to this group. If desired by the readership of closely affected groups, the discussion may be crossposted to those groups, but care must be taken to ensure that all discussion appears in news.groups.proposals as well. We urge those who would like to read or post in the proposed newsgroup to make a comment to that effect in this thread; we ask proponents to keep a list of such positive posts with the relevant message ID (e.g., Barney Fife, ). Such lists of positive feedback for the proposal may constitute good evidence that the group will be well-used if it is created. DISTRIBUTION: This document has been posted to the following newsgroups: news.announce.newgroups news.groups.proposals rec.radio.info rec.radio.amateur.misc rec.radio.amateur.policy The proponent will also post pointers to: http://www.qrz.com/ PROPONENT: "Paul W. Schleck, K3FU" CHANGE HISTORY: 2007-01-10 1st RFD |
RFD: rec.radio.amateur.moderated moderated
wrote: On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 08:45:08 -0600, "Paul W. Schleck, K3FU" wrote: SNIP first the timing of this proposal would seem to indicate that the makers of the of are unable to deviler the proposed NG in a timely manner as this was first being discussed in July 2006 with a promised delveiery date of falll 2006 as can be by this being JAN 2007 I find it highly dubious that the ng can in fact function in timely if it can't be rolled out in a timly manner I don't see a valid reason to object for this reason. This was in progress for quite some time and the fact that we didn't rush out and file the RFD before we felt we where ready seems like a good thing to me. the charter would exclude materail from the general topic of comuncation by RF which means it can't not truely further the interestes of the Topic amateur except in reinforcing the insular view held by some Hams that Ham radio exists in total isolation from the rest of RF How so? As I read the RFD (which I helped draft) discussions of Ham Radio as compared and contrasted to other types of service are not considered off topic as long as there is a connection of interest to Ham Radio. Moderator: Paul W. Schleck, K3FU Moderator: Bob Diepenbrock, KC4UAI Moderator: Jack Cook, VK2CJC Moderator: Jim Hampton, AA2QA Moderator: Ace Ratliff, WH2T Moderator: Jeff Angus, WA6FWI Moderator: Hans Brakob, K0HB the pronent has hardly been in RRAP in year Busy with many other things, including getting this project underway... So that disqualifies him? Hardly think so myself. (Grin) amoug the moderators areis at least one individual that has taken part.... snip No single moderator will control the group and if you have any difficulties with a moderation decision, you have the ability to appeal said decision to the whole team. The point of the proposed moderation is not to control the viewpoint expressed, but to keep things on topic and useful to the readers. the body consists of people largely unknown to a comon poster over many years what poster I know something NONE comes from that gruop that thinks Code USE is not good for the ARS not merely testing and as far as I know only one was even a member of NCI or the NoCode test movement in general I don't understand why this is an issue. No code testing is now the reality and soon will be the law of the land. Why the FCC did or did not retain this or what my personal feelings are about it does not enter into the decision to allow a post or not on the proposed group. I think the folks who have signed up thus far all would agree that this is not an attempt to limit discussion to our own viewpoint, but an effort to keep things on topic and useful by eliminating personal attacks and some of the real trash that gets posted here. Snip Ok.. You don't like it... |
RFD: rec.radio.amateur.moderated moderated
Consider this (relatively) new ham all in favor.
Marc, KD5LUR |
RFD: rec.radio.amateur.moderated moderated
MAMMY SAY THE WHITE FOLKS WILL BAN THAT OLE GAY BOY JUS LIKE THE WHITE
FOLKS ON QRZ DID KC4UAI wrote: wrote: On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 08:45:08 -0600, "Paul W. Schleck, K3FU" wrote: SNIP first the timing of this proposal would seem to indicate that the makers of the of are unable to deviler the proposed NG in a timely manner as this was first being discussed in July 2006 with a promised delveiery date of falll 2006 as can be by this being JAN 2007 I find it highly dubious that the ng can in fact function in timely if it can't be rolled out in a timly manner I don't see a valid reason to object for this reason. This was in progress for quite some time and the fact that we didn't rush out and file the RFD before we felt we where ready seems like a good thing to me. the charter would exclude materail from the general topic of comuncation by RF which means it can't not truely further the interestes of the Topic amateur except in reinforcing the insular view held by some Hams that Ham radio exists in total isolation from the rest of RF How so? As I read the RFD (which I helped draft) discussions of Ham Radio as compared and contrasted to other types of service are not considered off topic as long as there is a connection of interest to Ham Radio. Moderator: Paul W. Schleck, K3FU Moderator: Bob Diepenbrock, KC4UAI Moderator: Jack Cook, VK2CJC Moderator: Jim Hampton, AA2QA Moderator: Ace Ratliff, WH2T Moderator: Jeff Angus, WA6FWI Moderator: Hans Brakob, K0HB the pronent has hardly been in RRAP in year Busy with many other things, including getting this project underway... So that disqualifies him? Hardly think so myself. (Grin) amoug the moderators areis at least one individual that has taken part.... snip No single moderator will control the group and if you have any difficulties with a moderation decision, you have the ability to appeal said decision to the whole team. The point of the proposed moderation is not to control the viewpoint expressed, but to keep things on topic and useful to the readers. the body consists of people largely unknown to a comon poster over many years what poster I know something NONE comes from that gruop that thinks Code USE is not good for the ARS not merely testing and as far as I know only one was even a member of NCI or the NoCode test movement in general I don't understand why this is an issue. No code testing is now the reality and soon will be the law of the land. Why the FCC did or did not retain this or what my personal feelings are about it does not enter into the decision to allow a post or not on the proposed group. I think the folks who have signed up thus far all would agree that this is not an attempt to limit discussion to our own viewpoint, but an effort to keep things on topic and useful by eliminating personal attacks and some of the real trash that gets posted here. Snip Ok.. You don't like it... |
RFD: rec.radio.amateur.moderated moderated
Great proposal.
Can't wait to cast my vote for the affirmative. The only dissenting opinion you'll find are those who wish to spew their sewage into a forum like such, and will otherwise be shut out from doing so. 73 KH6HZ |
RFD: rec.radio.amateur.moderated moderated
KC4UAI wrote: wrote: On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 08:45:08 -0600, "Paul W. Schleck, K3FU" wrote: SNIP first the timing of this proposal would seem to indicate that the makers of the of are unable to deviler the proposed NG in a timely manner as this was first being discussed in July 2006 with a promised delveiery date of falll 2006 as can be by this being JAN 2007 I find it highly dubious that the ng can in fact function in timely if it can't be rolled out in a timly manner I don't see a valid reason to object for this reason. This was in progress for quite some time and the fact that we didn't rush out and file the RFD before we felt we where ready seems like a good thing to me. that you clearly under estimated the time required casts doubts on your ability to deliver the rest the charter would exclude materail from the general topic of comuncation by RF which means it can't not truely further the interestes of the Topic amateur except in reinforcing the insular view held by some Hams that Ham radio exists in total isolation from the rest of RF How so? As I read the RFD (which I helped draft) discussions of Ham Radio as compared and contrasted to other types of service are not considered off topic as long as there is a connection of interest to Ham Radio. as defined by whom most of the ProCode member from the recent discussion felt no relatavcnce existed no indaiacted is given that you will see these matters differently Moderator: Paul W. Schleck, K3FU Moderator: Bob Diepenbrock, KC4UAI Moderator: Jack Cook, VK2CJC Moderator: Jim Hampton, AA2QA Moderator: Ace Ratliff, WH2T Moderator: Jeff Angus, WA6FWI Moderator: Hans Brakob, K0HB the pronent has hardly been in RRAP in year Busy with many other things, including getting this project underway... So that disqualifies him? Hardly think so myself. (Grin) yes it does indeed I find post fromhim her or you or the rest being unfamilier with the territory seem to be disquailifing to me amoug the moderators areis at least one individual that has taken part.... snip No single moderator will control the group and if you have any difficulties with a moderation decision, you have the ability to appeal said decision to the whole team. The point of the proposed moderation is not to control the viewpoint expressed, but to keep things on topic and useful to the readers. and yet if someone has to appela many or most discision made by a single moderateor as seem likely then it is possible fr siad moderator to effectively sideline anyone he wishes that I objected to a particaular moderator fro bring his religious views into the subject of discussion and indeed being a particapate in the behoavir mdoeration is suposed to curb does not inspire confednce but I disagree the point DOES seem to control the veiwpoints expressed the scruour behavoir of the PrOcder Like Ace and Robeson in seking to use sexaulity as issue was acceptable to most the problem only seem to arive when one of the targeted persons choose to resist vigorously the body consists of people largely unknown to a comon poster over many years what poster I know something NONE comes from that gruop that thinks Code USE is not good for the ARS not merely testing and as far as I know only one was even a member of NCI or the NoCode test movement in general I don't understand why this is an issue. thatbis precisely why it is one that you don't understand the matter . In the mind sof many it is hardly settled that I still am geting a at least one threat of violence over my stand shows it is not settled yet in the minds of many incentive licensing in the 50's is still brought from time to time here in RRAP the Code test issue seems certain to have at least the same longeivity No code testing is now the reality and soon will be the law of the land. Why the FCC did or did not retain this or what my personal feelings are about it does not enter into the decision to allow a post or not on the proposed group. I think the folks who have signed up thus far all would agree that this is not an attempt to limit discussion to our own viewpoint, but an effort to keep things on topic and useful by eliminating personal attacks and some of the real trash that gets posted here. I saw none of you obejecting to the ProCode acusing everyone on the other side with charges of Pedhia attacking the sexuaility of the poster making accusations of criminal behovois involed fraud child abuse and elder abuse. I have seen from some of the list of moderators is one particapted in these attacks on ME and other and other such as Pual objecting to my responding to the widespread effrot to importer me while asserting the right to defend Himself from such action In moderatortion I would like to see some balcane and frank that has been lacking to date Snip Ok.. You don't like it... you respond dismissively to coment on the propaosal and serious expect me or anybody else NOT to see this as some sort of power play? |
RFD: rec.radio.amateur.moderated moderated
wrote: it seem obbiosu to read the coment that are not being acceptoon the moderated proposal grupo that this is a shame |
Bad followups - Was: RFD: rec.radio.amateur.moderated moderated
On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 15:09:35 CST, marc wrote:
Consider this (relatively) new ham all in favor. Marc, KD5LUR [this followup directed only to rram and rrap] The followups in the original RFD were directed to news.groups.proposals and ONLY to news.groups.proposals for a reason: That group is moderated. Hence, I trimmed that moderated newsgroup from this thread, because this thread is not presently following the no crossposts protocol. The discussion has just begun, and already you people are incapable of following directions. Indeed, Mark Morgan is correct that a search of Google Groups reveals that Paul W. Schleck has NOT been a user of the groups he proposes to rescue. As a non-user, his credibility will be hurt with the Big 8 Board if they continue with their past behavior. However, the suggested moderators are not strangers to the rec.radio.amateur news groups, and that should help immeasurably. But Mark has an axe to grind and actually fears the creation of a moderated group. That's one of the reasons that I will file a proper comment to news.groups.proposals in favor of the creation of the new group. I would like to see abusers like Mark lose their ability to destroy any rec.radio.amateur news group at will. Should rec.radio.amateur.moderated be approved, that will be a group which cannot be vandalized by his kind. There will be no impact on anyone using rrap or rram, because both of those groups will continue "as is." According to the RFD, the new group will be an additional group in which noise suppression by means of a robot will at first be attempted. I see no reason for anyone to oppose the creation of such a group, and I can see that there is at least the possibility that it will turn out to be an asset to the amateur radio community. So I say, yes! Go ahead and give it a try. Only kooks can possibly feel threatened by its creation. I will shortly post an affirmative comment in news.groups.proposals. Also note that, by posting your comments only to news.groups.proposals, you will assured that people like Mark can't try out what they call "thread hijacking." The vandals are powerless there. |
RFD: rec.radio.amateur.moderated moderated
Lloyd wrote: On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 15:09:35 CST, marc wrote: Consider this (relatively) new ham all in favor. Marc, KD5LUR [this followup directed only to rram and rrap] The followups in the original RFD were directed to news.groups.proposals and ONLY to news.groups.proposals for a reason: That group is moderated. Hence, I trimmed that moderated newsgroup from this thread, because this thread is not presently following the no crossposts protocol. The discussion has just begun, and already you people are incapable of following directions. Indeed, Mark Morgan is correct that a search of Google Groups reveals that Paul W. Schleck has NOT been a user of the groups he proposes to rescue. As a non-user, his credibility will be hurt with the Big 8 Board if they continue with their past behavior. However, the suggested moderators are not strangers to the rec.radio.amateur news groups, and that should help immeasurably. "lloyd" Hand has barely posted in in the last year I don't ever recall seeing mr cook post here or never seen much of mr Diepenbrock Jim Hapmton is a rare psoter as well Mr Angus I do not recall seeing at all ( i have NOT googled them to check hovere But Mark has an axe to grind and actually fears the creation of a moderated group. incorrect I do not faer a fairly moderated one I don't believ e that is being proposed That's one of the reasons that I will file a proper comment to news.groups.proposals in favor of the creation of the new group. I would like to see abusers like Mark lose their ability to destroy any rec.radio.amateur news group at will. but you had no objection to vadaliizing the ngs YOURself with your non stop gay bashing nor did you object To Roberson eneging in such gay bashing pedohia accusations it is only someone defending themselves you object to Should rec.radio.amateur.moderated be approved, that will be a group which cannot be vandalized by his kind. instead since one th e lessor vandals is proosed as a modert discusion is simply to be stiffed and you are one of the vandal not Lloyd your history is clear There will be no impact on anyone using rrap or rram, because both of those groups will continue "as is." According to the RFD, the new group will be an additional group in which noise suppression by means of a robot will at first be attempted. I see no reason for anyone to oppose the creation of such a group, and I can see that there is at least the possibility that it will turn out to be an asset to the amateur radio community. the possiblity exists I agree but I doubt it So I say, yes! Go ahead and give it a try. Only kooks can possibly feel threatened by its creation. I will shortly post an affirmative comment in news.groups.proposals. good luck Also note that, by posting your comments only to news.groups.proposals, you will assured that people like Mark can't try out what they call "thread hijacking." The vandals are powerless there. indeed the NG will not even permit me to post my comments or to vote that makes the lack of fairness of the result obvious from before we begin why not make a real proposaul and do thing fairly |
RFD: rec.radio.amateur.moderated moderated
an_old_friend wrote: KC4UAI wrote: wrote: On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 08:45:08 -0600, "Paul W. Schleck, K3FU" wrote: SNIP Big SNIP I saw none of you obejecting to the ProCode acusing everyone on the other side with charges of Pedhia attacking the sexuaility of the poster making accusations of criminal behovois involed fraud child abuse and elder abuse. I have seen from some of the list of moderators is one particapted in these attacks on ME and other and other such as Pual objecting to my responding to the widespread effrot to importer me while asserting the right to defend Himself from such action In moderatortion I would like to see some balcane and frank that has been lacking to date Again, I don't understand your objections for a number of reasons. First, I'm finding it difficult to wade though your post and determine exactly what you are trying to say. (I think there is some spelling and gramar issues that are causing me problems, so forgive me if I get something wrong here.) Second, this group is not moderated so my failure to attempt to moderate (by objecting to what he posted) a poster in this group is a reason you would not support a moderated group? That doesn't make sense to me. Had I come out and railed against all the trash that gets posted here it would be used to bash the proposal just because my name is on the proponent list? I don't read all the trash that gets posted here mainly because it's not worth the time to sort through all the garbage, I'm sure I'm not alone. This is the reason I started to work on this RFD months ago. Given this, how can a failure to denounce specific posts be used as reason to reject this RRD? Second, are you saying that you don't think the criteria used to evaluate prospective postings are acceptable or that you don't think it will be used fairly? Given our past discussions, it seems that you want your cake and to eat it to... On one hand you want me to openly object to content in these unmoderated groups, but on the other you are afraid of having your view point squashed by the establishment of a moderated group being created. Nowhere does the proposed policy list "disagreement with the moderator's personal views" as grounds for rejection of posts. You and I have had debates on these forums in the past. I cannot speak for the whole team, nor can I address posts of yours I haven't read, but I don't seem to recall any of your posts that I would have rejected based on the conditions in the proposed RFD. I certainly don't agree with many of the view points you may have, but we can still have a meaningful debate of the facts, agree that we don't agree, and move on without having to get into nasty personal attacks. Further, these forums will not be changed by this RFD should it be approved. They will continue to be as they are now, free for all to post what they want. The only thing that will change is that there will be a new place that will hopefully be a lot less garbage to wade through so meaningful debate can more easily take place. -= bob =- |
rec.radio.amateur.moderated moderated
"an_old_friend" wrote in message oups.com... Lloyd wrote: On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 15:09:35 CST, marc wrote: Consider this (relatively) new ham all in favor. Marc, KD5LUR [this followup directed only to rram and rrap] The followups in the original RFD were directed to news.groups.proposals and ONLY to news.groups.proposals for a reason: That group is moderated. Hence, I trimmed that moderated newsgroup from this thread, because this thread is not presently following the no crossposts protocol. The discussion has just begun, and already you people are incapable of following directions. Indeed, Mark Morgan is correct that a search of Google Groups reveals that Paul W. Schleck has NOT been a user of the groups he proposes to rescue. As a non-user, his credibility will be hurt with the Big 8 Board if they continue with their past behavior. However, the suggested moderators are not strangers to the rec.radio.amateur news groups, and that should help immeasurably. "lloyd" Hand has barely posted in in the last year I don't ever recall seeing mr cook post here or never seen much of mr Diepenbrock Jim Hapmton is a rare psoter as well Mr Angus I do not recall seeing at all ( i have NOT googled them to check hovere But Mark has an axe to grind and actually fears the creation of a moderated group. incorrect I do not faer a fairly moderated one I don't believ e that is being proposed That's one of the reasons that I will file a proper comment to news.groups.proposals in favor of the creation of the new group. I would like to see abusers like Mark lose their ability to destroy any rec.radio.amateur news group at will. but you had no objection to vadaliizing the ngs YOURself with your non stop gay bashing nor did you object To Roberson eneging in such gay bashing pedohia accusations it is only someone defending themselves you object to Should rec.radio.amateur.moderated be approved, that will be a group which cannot be vandalized by his kind. instead since one th e lessor vandals is proosed as a modert discusion is simply to be stiffed and you are one of the vandal not Lloyd your history is clear There will be no impact on anyone using rrap or rram, because both of those groups will continue "as is." According to the RFD, the new group will be an additional group in which noise suppression by means of a robot will at first be attempted. I see no reason for anyone to oppose the creation of such a group, and I can see that there is at least the possibility that it will turn out to be an asset to the amateur radio community. the possiblity exists I agree but I doubt it So I say, yes! Go ahead and give it a try. Only kooks can possibly feel threatened by its creation. I will shortly post an affirmative comment in news.groups.proposals. good luck Also note that, by posting your comments only to news.groups.proposals, you will assured that people like Mark can't try out what they call "thread hijacking." The vandals are powerless there. indeed the NG will not even permit me to post my comments or to vote that makes the lack of fairness of the result obvious from before we begin why not make a real proposaul and do thing fairly You can't be serious. Why not include you? Because your objectionable and continually disruptive behaviour preceeds you, Mark. Your record with QRZ is one indicator, but the other, and worst, is that you were summarily banned from the very bottom-feeder of groups, the Nim Busters board. Your vote and/or comments is just what a new, moderated group does NOT need. YOU are exactly what a moderated group is, by design, intending to prohibit. You are solely responsible for your bed of thorns, Mark. Now lay in, accept it, and stop whining. |
rec.radio.amateur.moderated moderated
"Katie" anon@anon wrote in message ... "an_old_friend" wrote in message oups.com... Lloyd wrote: On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 15:09:35 CST, marc wrote: Consider this (relatively) new ham all in favor. Marc, KD5LUR [this followup directed only to rram and rrap] The followups in the original RFD were directed to news.groups.proposals and ONLY to news.groups.proposals for a reason: That group is moderated. Hence, I trimmed that moderated newsgroup from this thread, because this thread is not presently following the no crossposts protocol. The discussion has just begun, and already you people are incapable of following directions. Indeed, Mark Morgan is correct that a search of Google Groups reveals that Paul W. Schleck has NOT been a user of the groups he proposes to rescue. As a non-user, his credibility will be hurt with the Big 8 Board if they continue with their past behavior. However, the suggested moderators are not strangers to the rec.radio.amateur news groups, and that should help immeasurably. "lloyd" Hand has barely posted in in the last year I don't ever recall seeing mr cook post here or never seen much of mr Diepenbrock Jim Hapmton is a rare psoter as well Mr Angus I do not recall seeing at all ( i have NOT googled them to check hovere But Mark has an axe to grind and actually fears the creation of a moderated group. incorrect I do not faer a fairly moderated one I don't believ e that is being proposed That's one of the reasons that I will file a proper comment to news.groups.proposals in favor of the creation of the new group. I would like to see abusers like Mark lose their ability to destroy any rec.radio.amateur news group at will. but you had no objection to vadaliizing the ngs YOURself with your non stop gay bashing nor did you object To Roberson eneging in such gay bashing pedohia accusations it is only someone defending themselves you object to Should rec.radio.amateur.moderated be approved, that will be a group which cannot be vandalized by his kind. instead since one th e lessor vandals is proosed as a modert discusion is simply to be stiffed and you are one of the vandal not Lloyd your history is clear There will be no impact on anyone using rrap or rram, because both of those groups will continue "as is." According to the RFD, the new group will be an additional group in which noise suppression by means of a robot will at first be attempted. I see no reason for anyone to oppose the creation of such a group, and I can see that there is at least the possibility that it will turn out to be an asset to the amateur radio community. the possiblity exists I agree but I doubt it So I say, yes! Go ahead and give it a try. Only kooks can possibly feel threatened by its creation. I will shortly post an affirmative comment in news.groups.proposals. good luck Also note that, by posting your comments only to news.groups.proposals, you will assured that people like Mark can't try out what they call "thread hijacking." The vandals are powerless there. indeed the NG will not even permit me to post my comments or to vote that makes the lack of fairness of the result obvious from before we begin why not make a real proposaul and do thing fairly You can't be serious. Why not include you? Because your objectionable and continually disruptive behaviour preceeds you, Mark. Your record with QRZ is one indicator, but the other, and worst, is that you were summarily banned from the very bottom-feeder of groups, the Nim Busters board. Your vote and/or comments is just what a new, moderated group does NOT need. YOU are exactly what a moderated group is, by design, intending to prohibit. You are solely responsible for your bed of thorns, Mark. Now lay in, accept it, and stop whining. Well said! Now Mark, take that! Ha! Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services ---------------------------------------------------------- ** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY ** ---------------------------------------------------------- http://www.usenet.com |
RFD: rec.radio.amateur.moderated moderated
"an_old_friend" ) writes:
KC4UAI wrote: wrote: On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 08:45:08 -0600, "Paul W. Schleck, K3FU" wrote: SNIP first the timing of this proposal would seem to indicate that the makers of the of are unable to deviler the proposed NG in a timely manner as this was first being discussed in July 2006 with a promised delveiery date of falll 2006 as can be by this being JAN 2007 I find it highly dubious that the ng can in fact function in timely if it can't be rolled out in a timly manner I don't see a valid reason to object for this reason. This was in progress for quite some time and the fact that we didn't rush out and file the RFD before we felt we where ready seems like a good thing to me. that you clearly under estimated the time required casts doubts on your ability to deliver the rest It's likely worth pointing out that their "ability to deliver" actually rests on outsiders. This isn't a popularity vote (and of course this isn't yet a vote). The process is about ensuring that not yet another unneeded newsgroup is created. So while I forget the exact proportions, a Call for Vote requires not just sufficient votes in favor, but those votes have to be greater than the no votes. And unlike those particularly interested in the topic at hand, the no votes can come from everywhere, because yet another newsgroup requires more resources, and the voting process is to filter out the unneeded. So a vote, if it gets that far (and getting to a vote also depends on those outsiders), will require not just convincing hams to vote for it, it requires convincing outsiders that there is good reason not to vote against the new newsgroup. I should also point out, while I'm posting, that you'd actually want disinterested moderators. Because then they'd be filtering the junk, and not being concerned with what is being said beyond making sure it's not off-topic. "Balanced" moderators may be worse than disinterested moderators. Michael VE2BVW |
rec.radio.amateur.moderated moderated
wrote in message ... On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 17:59:17 -0600, "U-Know-Who" wrote: "Katie" anon@anon wrote in message ... Well said! Now Mark, take that! Ha! take what Tom another is Not Lloyd batch of lies and half truth and outright fantsy http://bi-boi.blogspot.com/ No Markie. It is the truth. You deserve the mess you've made for yourself. Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services ---------------------------------------------------------- ** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY ** ---------------------------------------------------------- http://www.usenet.com |
rec.radio.amateur.moderated moderated
U-Know-Who wrote: wrote in message ... take what Tom another is Not Lloyd batch of lies and half truth and outright fantsy http://bi-boi.blogspot.com/ now you join the ranks of the outright forgers I see Tom No Markie. It is the truth. You deserve the mess you've made for yourself. it is lie the problem is not of My making at all. It results from Steve to go stlaking ing into my life bring up something I never would deny and try to balckmail me with he then moved on to making death threats about it I certainly did nothing to deserve being blackmailed nor do I deserve to be harrassed by the like of you who I hope but doubt would be excluded by the proposed moderation which is the topic of this thread dispite your efforts at threadjacking no one deserves to be threatened with MURDER and meyhem and harrased for many simply for being Bisexaul and out of the closet my principle objection to the proposal is that one of the proposed mods is guilty of gay bashing HERE in RRAP another the listed prime author is guilty of aserting preveldges for himself that he has tried to deny others I have no real obection to a moderated gruop but I object to one moderated unfairly as I expect this proposal to result in if adopted in its present form http://kb9rqz.blogspot.com/ |
rec.radio.amateur.moderated moderated
"an_old_friend" wrote in message ups.com... U-Know-Who wrote: wrote in message ... take what Tom another is Not Lloyd batch of lies and half truth and outright fantsy http://bi-boi.blogspot.com/ now you join the ranks of the outright forgers I see Tom No Markie. It is the truth. You deserve the mess you've made for yourself. it is lie the problem is not of My making at all. It results from Steve to go stlaking ing into my life bring up something I never would deny and try to balckmail me with he then moved on to making death threats about it I certainly did nothing to deserve being blackmailed nor do I deserve to be harrassed by the like of you who I hope but doubt would be excluded by the proposed moderation which is the topic of this thread dispite your efforts at threadjacking Mark, you constantly stick your big nose where it's not wanted or needed. You deserve what you get. You don't know when to/can't keep your mouth shut. You remind me of the little punks at school who hid behind the principle all day talking ****, knowing all the while that when they left school walking home that they would get the **** pounded out of them. Then the following day, it all started over. That Mark, is you. You're only saving grace is that this us Usenet, and no one can touch you. And Mark, yes, that is a problem in your mental makeup. Now, the big kids are tired of you, and they are making their own Mark-free zone, and it ****es you off. Well, just consider that being similar to the cool kids playing sports. You can't make the team. Get over it and move on. no one deserves to be threatened with MURDER and meyhem and harrased for many simply for being Bisexaul and out of the closet Call the ACLU. my principle objection to the proposal is that one of the proposed mods is guilty of gay bashing HERE in RRAP another the listed prime author is guilty of aserting preveldges for himself that he has tried to deny others Oh well, life is funny that way. Get used to it. You cannot change what others think. I have no real obection to a moderated gruop but I object to one moderated unfairly as I expect this proposal to result in if adopted in its present form Did anyone ask you what you objected to? Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services ---------------------------------------------------------- ** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY ** ---------------------------------------------------------- http://www.usenet.com |
RFD: rec.radio.amateur.moderated moderated
wrote: On 10 Jan 2007 15:33:42 -0800, "KC4UAI" wrote: an_old_friend wrote: KC4UAI wrote: wrote: snip you missed it I object to the fact that one of the pronent (paul) of the moderated aserts from himself preveledges that he attacks me for for when I do the same thing particaularly when this person proposes to be a moderator One on the team of many, and hopefully more folks will be willing to help with the moderation tasks. snip Second, are you saying that you don't think the criteria used to evaluate prospective postings are acceptable or that you don't think it will be used fairly? I don't know that I understand the criteria so I don't know/. some RRAP poster such Dave Heil have argued that My sexuality is relavant to RRAP as somehow reflecting on my trustworthness and other charter related isses I conceed he has SOME point in this but how your crtieria would deal with this I don't know. Given the inclusion in the moderating team a man that has expressed strong antiBLGT views I don't realy excpect even handed treament I would not expect that any of this would be "in play" in a new group. Read the proposed criteria and decide for yourself. I for one don't intend to be heavy handed in the moderation. Stay on topic and be respectful to others and I'm not going to reject your posts. snip Nowhere does the proposed policy list "disagreement with the moderator's personal views" as grounds for rejection of posts. so what? your moderator are indeed stil human Thus the appeals process. I don't expect that we will always get it 100% right the first time, but I hope we can keep things in the center of the road most of the time by getting a number of folks all looking at it objectively. You and I have had debates on these forums in the past. have we realy? I honestly don't recall any Perhaps we haven't, but I thought I was responding to a different person "an old friend" with whom I recall having a few debates over the last year. I cannot speak for the whole team, nor can I address posts of yours I haven't read, but I don't seem to recall any of your posts that I would have rejected based on the conditions in the proposed RFD. where I recall post of my own that I would HOPE you would rejected I would also HOPe that I would not find need to resort to those tactics I hope that if the RFD ends up generating the new group that merely the threat of being moderated would keep things under control and the actual moderation task will be very limited. Indeed from reading Ruals Post I believe I am personaly am one of the targets of this effort. Indeed Paul seem to begin to complain about RRAP when I choose to finaly RESPOND in something like kind to the treatment that he began to object I can recall posts and private email from Pual derected at my posts and I saw no posts from him comending the posts that drove to those unpleasent tactics Having been involved in the formation of the RFD and involved in the debate of the moderation policy, I don't think any of these personal issues matter to the proposed group and certainly is not part of any discussions the proposed moderators have had by my mail records. I for one would not stand by and let personal differences knowingly impact moderation decisions by me or others in the team. This is why the appeal process in the RFD was included and why we are even now appealing for more volunteers to help with the moderation tasks. -= bob =- |
rec.radio.amateur.moderated moderated
wrote in message ... On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 20:53:15 -0600, "U-Know-Who" wrote: "an_old_friend" wrote in message roups.com... U-Know-Who wrote: wrote in message ... take what Tom another is Not Lloyd batch of lies and half truth and outright fantsy http://bi-boi.blogspot.com/ now you join the ranks of the outright forgers I see Tom No Markie. It is the truth. You deserve the mess you've made for yourself. it is lie the problem is not of My making at all. It results from Steve to go stlaking ing into my life bring up something I never would deny and try to balckmail me with he then moved on to making death threats about it I certainly did nothing to deserve being blackmailed nor do I deserve to be harrassed by the like of you who I hope but doubt would be excluded by the proposed moderation which is the topic of this thread dispite your efforts at threadjacking Mark, you constantly stick your big nose where it's not wanted or needed. the same can siad of yourself You deserve what you get. You don't know when to/can't keep your mouth shut. bull**** you seem to want to try and force other to toe YOUR personal insanity What? You remind me of the little punks at school who hid behind the principle all day talking ****, knowing all the while that when they left school walking home that they would get the **** pounded out of them. nah you are the one that hides behind someone talking **** in your case knowing you are safe Then the following day, it all started over. That Mark, is you. nope Yes, Mark. You're only saving grace is that this us Usenet, and no one can touch you. another lie Tom you can easily find my address and show up anytime and deal with me. I can't stop you from making the trip. I have no intention of trying, but if you try any **** one or both of will end up DEAD either you will be forced to kill me after I find out who you are on my land or I will kill for being a clear threat to my safety with yourself frequent coments about beating people up or we will kill each other. Are you threatening me, Mark? those are the facts Tom you are afraid of the light of day as you should be I am not untouchable and I know it. OTOH I feel there are principles worth taking some rsik for. I make that choice freely the rest is up to you and the rest I judge unlikely any of you will have the combination of guts and insaity needeed to make the trip. OTOH I am prepared for one of you to prove me wrong You don't matter that much. And Mark, yes, that is a problem in your mental makeup. being brave can be a mental illness if taken to extreme Ok, brave guy. Now, the big kids are tired of you, and they are making their own Mark-free zone, and it ****es you off. gibven the fact they need a vote at some and I frankly DO have friends I supect they are more likely to listen to my concerns and avoid a fight with me rather choose to fight You crack me up! Do you really consider yourself that worthy an opponent? LOL! nor do I expect it to Mark Free I merely expect with gay bashing mod it will be an uphill fight The problem is the most of these so called have no real idea of how people like have been operating Well, just consider that being similar to the cool kids playing sports. You can't make the team. Get over it and move on. I can make the team Tom you can't or at least you will have to make up a lot of nyms to do so Ok Konstans, An old freind, an old friend, Mark@whatever, ad infinitum.... no one deserves to be threatened with MURDER and meyhem and harrased for many simply for being Bisexaul and out of the closet Call the ACLU. why? my principle objection to the proposal is that one of the proposed mods is guilty of gay bashing HERE in RRAP another the listed prime author is guilty of aserting preveldges for himself that he has tried to deny others Oh well, life is funny that way. Get used to it. You cannot change what others think. I don't care what they think Tom I care what they DO See what caring gets you. I have no real obection to a moderated gruop but I object to one moderated unfairly as I expect this proposal to result in if adopted in its present form Did anyone ask you what you objected to? yes Paul Shecnk and Bob KC4CAI haven't you been reading the thread Tom? No, they just stated the way it will be. You were not asked if it was ok with you. LOL! Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services ---------------------------------------------------------- ** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY ** ---------------------------------------------------------- http://www.usenet.com |
RFD: rec.radio.amateur.moderated moderated
wrote in message ... On 10 Jan 2007 19:17:47 -0800, "KC4UAI" wrote: wrote: On 10 Jan 2007 15:33:42 -0800, "KC4UAI" wrote: an_old_friend wrote: KC4UAI wrote: wrote: snip you missed it I object to the fact that one of the pronent (paul) of the moderated aserts from himself preveledges that he attacks me for for when I do the same thing particaularly when this person proposes to be a moderator One on the team of many, and hopefully more folks will be willing to help with the moderation tasks. one bad aple can as I understnad the matter make mylfe hell snip Second, are you saying that you don't think the criteria used to evaluate prospective postings are acceptable or that you don't think it will be used fairly? I don't know that I understand the criteria so I don't know/. some RRAP poster such Dave Heil have argued that My sexuality is relavant to RRAP as somehow reflecting on my trustworthness and other charter related isses I conceed he has SOME point in this but how your crtieria would deal with this I don't know. Given the inclusion in the moderating team a man that has expressed strong antiBLGT views I don't realy excpect even handed treament I would not expect that any of this would be "in play" in a new group. Read the proposed criteria and decide for yourself. I for one don't intend to be heavy handed in the moderation. Stay on topic and be respectful to others and I'm not going to reject your posts. I do expect it play it has too ingrained in this gruop to expect it is going away anytime soon but somebody else can and indeed how will I even know it was done? snip Nowhere does the proposed policy list "disagreement with the moderator's personal views" as grounds for rejection of posts. so what? your moderator are indeed stil human Thus the appeals process. I don't expect that we will always get it 100% right the first time, but I hope we can keep things in the center of the road most of the time by getting a number of folks all looking at it objectively. which work HOW? I certainly see nothing that tells how I will know a post has been rejected or why or anything on how this apeals process is suposed to work You and I have had debates on these forums in the past. have we realy? I honestly don't recall any Perhaps we haven't, but I thought I was responding to a different person "an old friend" with whom I recall having a few debates over the last year. I am not saying you are wrong but I don't recall seeing your call at least not very often I cannot speak for the whole team, nor can I address posts of yours I haven't read, but I don't seem to recall any of your posts that I would have rejected based on the conditions in the proposed RFD. where I recall post of my own that I would HOPE you would rejected I would also HOPe that I would not find need to resort to those tactics I hope that if the RFD ends up generating the new group that merely the threat of being moderated would keep things under control and the actual moderation task will be very limited. that is a hope but given the behavoir HERE of a number of the worst offenders I would expect you might bend up getting what amount to DoS attack flooding the mods hoping to either get stuff through out of fatague or prvent the NG from funtioning at all such tactics have been used By Robeson and Wismen here, Indeed I have used them in kind in the worst of these triades defensively not a tactic I care for but one uses the tools at hand Right Mark! LOL!!! You launched a DoS attack? Do you even have ANY DAMN CLUE what you're talking about? Indeed from reading Ruals Post I believe I am personaly am one of the targets of this effort. Indeed Paul seem to begin to complain about RRAP when I choose to finaly RESPOND in something like kind to the treatment that he began to object I can recall posts and private email from Pual derected at my posts and I saw no posts from him comending the posts that drove to those unpleasent tactics Having been involved in the formation of the RFD and involved in the debate of the moderation policy, I don't think any of these personal issues matter to the proposed group and certainly is not part of any discussions the proposed moderators have had by my mail records. I for one would not stand by and let personal differences knowingly impact moderation decisions by me or others in the team. This is why the appeal process in the RFD was included and why we are even now appealing for more volunteers to help with the moderation tasks. which works how given the moderation has not cleared a single post of mine that I am aware to the proposal gruop where it bleong I am frankly dubious of the concet proposed if I am excluded from that process My posts have neither apeared nor has anything been the email account they were tagged with indiacted they have been rejected I frankly find myself wondering if it will be physcail possible for me to post to the proposed NG Doubtful, at least not after the first day you are allowed there. Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services ---------------------------------------------------------- ** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY ** ---------------------------------------------------------- http://www.usenet.com |
RFD: rec.radio.amateur.moderated moderated
KH6HZ wrote: Great proposal. Can't wait to cast my vote for the affirmative. The only dissenting opinion you'll find are those who wish to spew their sewage into a forum like such, and will otherwise be shut out from doing so. 73 KH6HZ Ummm, you may have missed it... there is no voting. |
rec.radio.amateur.moderated moderated
Katie wrote: You can't be serious. Why not include you? Because your objectionable and continually disruptive behaviour preceeds you, Mark. Your record with QRZ is one indicator, but the other, and worst, is that you were summarily banned from the very bottom-feeder of groups, the Nim Busters board. Your vote and/or comments is just what a new, moderated group does NOT need. YOU are exactly what a moderated group is, by design, intending to prohibit. You are solely responsible for your bed of thorns, Mark. Now lay in, accept it, and stop whining. Robesin, why do you lie about not posting anonymously? |
rec.radio.amateur.moderated moderated
wrote: On 10 Jan 2007 20:56:05 -0800, wrote: wrote: On 10 Jan 2007 20:10:12 -0800, wrote: Katie wrote: You can't be serious. Why not include you? Because your objectionable and continually disruptive behaviour preceeds you, Mark. Your record with QRZ is one indicator, but the other, and worst, is that you were summarily banned from the very bottom-feeder of groups, the Nim Busters board. BTW I just noticed this lie I have not been banned from Nimbusters indeed according to the admin nobody is currectly banned Your vote and/or comments is just what a new, moderated group does NOT need. YOU are exactly what a moderated group is, by design, intending to prohibit. You are solely responsible for your bed of thorns, Mark. Now lay in, accept it, and stop whining. Robesin, why do you lie about not posting anonymously? indeed it may well be Robeson Sounds like him. Lots of CAPS, use of "summarily" and ordering you to lay in you "bed of thorns." Sheesh. I think all he learned from the USMC was the drama from the guys in the campaign hats. Or from watching too "Stripes" once too often. yep or full metal jacket or green berets any coment of the propoasol for moderation BB? We've gone from Paul talking about this stuff a year ago to "POOF!" a whole list of moderators and consultants, many of whom I've never heard of and the others posting very infrequently, complete with a constitution, articles of incorporation, and rules of enagement. you have have not heard of most of these folks either? Nope. So when did all this happen? not sure And wh6hz thinks he gets to vote! Hi, hi! alegedly even I get to vote but nobody is saying how that works I see nothing about this being a demoracy. |
RFD: rec.radio.amateur.moderated moderated
KH6HZ wrote:
Great proposal. Agreed! Can't wait to cast my vote for the affirmative. Me too. The only dissenting opinion you'll find are those who wish to spew their sewage into a forum like such, and will otherwise be shut out from doing so. That pretty much sums it up. I have observed the online behavior of several of the folks on the moderation team, and to a person they would all make good moderators IMHO. Not a clunker in the bunch I know. I read several moderated reflectors. They are very well behaved. 73 es KC de JIm, N2EY |
RFD: rec.radio.amateur.moderated moderated
Jonathan Kamens wrote: "an old freind" writes: is it going to realy permited to coment on this propasal Yes. no sir it isn't the the fact you a memeber of this are mistaing as I have shown in rrap on my blog kb9rqz.blogspot.com shows that this a farce and fraud I have made 4 posts so far none have either been posted nor has anything returned to my email box saying that the post has been rejected Rejection notices were sent to for the articles that were rejected. I have confirmed from examining the server logs that those notices were successfully delivered to hotmail's servers. I of course can't comment on what happened to them after that. "Your submission has been rejected because it is off-topic in the newsgroup news.groups.proposals. This newsgroup is for the announcement, discussion, and development of active proposals for changes to the Big 8 hierarchies, as documented at http://www.big-8.org/. Discussion begins in news.groups.proposals when the Request for Discussion (RFD) is posted in news.announce.newgroups and continues until a decision is announced." nothing about civl and the response was long this an obviosu farce sir something I will where the posts are not moderated Your previous two submissions (two, not four) were rejected both because you quoted the entire RFD in your response and because you were uncivil. -- Member of the Big-8 Management Board, www.big-8.org (Speaking for myself, not for the Board) |
RFD: rec.radio.amateur.moderated moderated
wrote: which works how given the moderation has not cleared a single post of mine that I am aware to the proposal gruop where it bleong I am frankly dubious of the concet proposed if I am excluded from that process My posts have neither apeared nor has anything been the email account they were tagged with indiacted they have been rejected If you are talking about posts to news.groups.proposals being rejected, I'd like to point out that nobody on the proposed moderation team has any control over that group. If your posts are not reaching the moderators for some reason, who's falut is that? Or if the rejection messages are being lost after they are sent, who needs to look into that? This has nothing to do with the proposed group or it's moderation team.. -= bob =- |
RFD: rec.radio.amateur.moderated moderated
wrote: On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 08:45:08 -0600, "Paul W. Schleck, K3FU" wrote: REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD) moderated group rec.radio.amateur.moderated this whole thing is a farce any dicussion not aprved of aboutt his proposal is rejected by the offical gruop as off topic Ahhhh.. So you are getting rejection messages from them... Then the system is working correctly. Again, I have no control over the Big8 moderation decisions, but I think I understand why this last post was rejected... Seems you where trying to engage the moderator in a debate about why he rejected your posts and they think that is off topic. -= bob =- |
RFD: rec.radio.amateur.moderated moderated
"KC4UAI" ) writes:
wrote: which works how given the moderation has not cleared a single post of mine that I am aware to the proposal gruop where it bleong I am frankly dubious of the concet proposed if I am excluded from that process My posts have neither apeared nor has anything been the email account they were tagged with indiacted they have been rejected If you are talking about posts to news.groups.proposals being rejected, I'd like to point out that nobody on the proposed moderation team has any control over that group. If your posts are not reaching the moderators for some reason, who's falut is that? Or if the rejection messages are being lost after they are sent, who needs to look into that? This has nothing to do with the proposed group or it's moderation team.. And of course, early on news.groups.proposals was dropped from the crossposted by one of the repliers, so most of the posts in these two newsgroups aren't even being seen by the moderators in news.groups.proposals I don't know whether that was deliberate, or just cluelessness. ANd if they are getting over there but being rejected, one immediate reason I can see as a possible reason is the quoting of the full message being replied to, which often includes the full text of previous messages, with only a line or two of "new material". That makes it really hard to grasp what is being added, or even that is being added. But that isn't really a surprise, since that is some of the problem we are seeing in the rec.radio.amateur.* hierarchy. I gather news.groups.proposals has gone to moderated status (I don't remember it being so the last time I looked, years back) in order to keep existing feuds out of that newsgroup. But a lot of the replies here are that existing feud. FInally, of course if people aren't posting with legit email addresses, and I don't know if that's the case, then the moderators can't reach the posters to acknowledge receipt of the post, or acknowledge acceptance or rejection of those posts. Michael VE2BVW |
RFD: rec.radio.amateur.moderated moderated
wrote:
That pretty much sums it up. I have observed the online behavior of several of the folks on the moderation team, and to a person they would all make good moderators IMHO. I've probably exchanged "words" with several members of the moderation team over the years. I certainly have no problems with any of them. I believe the only ones who will are those who have issues with self-restraint, which is exactly why this newsgroup has become a cesspool. Best to stay above the fray and ignore the anklebiters. 73 KH6HZ |
RFD: rec.radio.amateur.moderated moderated more un answered questions
wrote: On 10 Jan 2007 19:17:47 -0800, "KC4UAI" wrote: I would not expect that any of this would be "in play" in a new group. Read the proposed criteria and decide for yourself. I for one don't intend to be heavy handed in the moderation. Stay on topic and be respectful to others and I'm not going to reject your posts. I do expect it play it has too ingrained in this gruop to expect it is going away anytime soon but somebody else can and indeed how will I even know it was done? again I ask and have received no answer how does the process of rejection occour and how will I know about it has happend given the time between anything being sient to me about the offical comment gruop and time they were sent I hav e to wonder how timely such a response will be snip Nowhere does the proposed policy list "disagreement with the moderator's personal views" as grounds for rejection of posts. so what? your moderator are indeed stil human Thus the appeals process. I don't expect that we will always get it 100% right the first time, but I hope we can keep things in the center of the road most of the time by getting a number of folks all looking at it objectively. which work HOW? I certainly see nothing that tells how I will know a post has been rejected or why or anything on how this apeals process is suposed to work again how is this suposed to work how can anyone be assured it will occour in a timely manner |
Mark hijacks again
wrote in message ... On 11 Jan 2007 04:43:59 -0800, wrote: KH6HZ wrote: Great proposal. Agreed! Can't wait to cast my vote for the affirmative. Me too. The only dissenting opinion you'll find are those who wish to spew their sewage into a forum like such, and will otherwise be shut out from doing so. That pretty much sums it up. I have observed the online behavior of several of the folks on the moderation team, and to a person they would all make good moderators IMHO. Not a clunker in the bunch I know. I read several moderated reflectors. They are very well behaved. 73 es KC de JIm, N2EY gay basher is part of the problem and yet you think it proper to include a gay basher in th e moderating crew oh well you do not object to Robesons or Wismen or Hail when they engage in gay bashing either ............ It is not their place to do so. Nor is it yours. Ever stop to think that perhaps THEY don't approve of perverted lifestyles? |
The Myna Bird chirps
wrote in message ... On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 08:45:08 -0600, "Paul W. Schleck, K3FU" wrote: REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD) moderated group rec.radio.amateur.moderated this whole thing is a farce any dicussion not aprved of aboutt his proposal is rejected by the offical gruop as off topic Oh, poor baby. And how many times have you chided Roger or others for making posts that are off topic? Hmmm???? And now you are whining. |
RFD: rec.radio.amateur.moderated moderated
"Michael Black" wrote in message news:eo5p9f$hb6$ I don't know whether that was deliberate, or just cluelessness. ANd if they are getting over there but being rejected, one immediate reason I can see as a possible reason is the quoting of the full message being replied to, which often includes the full text of previous messages, with only a line or two of "new material". That makes it really hard to grasp what is being added, or even that is being added. But that isn't really a surprise, since that is some of the problem we are seeing in the rec.radio.amateur.* hierarchy. (The message? Learn to quote, Mark.) |
RFD: rec.radio.amateur.moderated moderated
wrote in message ... On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 13:29:21 -0500, "KH6HZ" wrote: wrote: That pretty much sums it up. I have observed the online behavior of several of the folks on the moderation team, and to a person they would all make good moderators IMHO. I've probably exchanged "words" with several members of the moderation team over the years. I certainly have no problems with any of them. you think it is proper to include a Gay basher on the Moderating team? It is about Amateur Radio, Mark! Stay on topic and take your mewling concerns to the gay groups. |
RFD: rec.radio.amateur.moderated moderated
Ralph wrote: "Michael Black" wrote in message (The message? Learn to quote, Mark.) why you throwing this at me how many people are you going to pretend to be today just interested out of curiousity |
RFD: rec.radio.amateur.moderated moderatedquestion still unadressed
wrote in message ... On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 08:45:08 -0600, "Paul W. Schleck, K3FU" wrote: REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD) RATIONALE: rec.radio.amateur.moderated MODERATOR INFO: rec.radio.amateur.moderated Moderator: Paul W. Schleck, K3FU Moderator: Bob Diepenbrock, KC4UAI Moderator: Jack Cook, VK2CJC Moderator: Jim Hampton, AA2QA Moderator: Ace Ratliff, WH2T Moderator: Jeff Angus, WA6FWI Moderator: Hans Brakob, K0HB at what point if any do we those asked for comets get to know some about some the proposed modartors of this proposed gruop? You don't get to make comments, you idiot! Don't you get it? The proposed group is about Amateur Radio...and they intend to keep you and your ilk out of it. This ain't a Democracy, Mark. |
Mark goes whining
wrote in message ... On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 17:27:29 -0500, "Ralph" anon@anon wrote: wrote in message .. . On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 08:45:08 -0600, "Paul W. Schleck, K3FU" wrote: REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD) moderated group rec.radio.amateur.moderated this whole thing is a farce any dicussion not aprved of aboutt his proposal is rejected by the offical gruop as off topic Oh, poor baby. And how many times have you chided Roger or others for making posts that are off topic? Hmmm???? many time but onyl when he MAKES off topic post But this time YOU made an off topic post and it was rejected. Leave it alone, Mark. Get used to the simple fact that you simply are not wanted there and move on. Or would that be too "grown up" for you? |
gay basing
wrote in message ... On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 17:41:57 -0500, "Ralph" anon@anon wrote: wrote in message .. . On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 13:29:21 -0500, "KH6HZ" wrote: wrote: That pretty much sums it up. I have observed the online behavior of several of the folks on the moderation team, and to a person they would all make good moderators IMHO. I've probably exchanged "words" with several members of the moderation team over the years. I certainly have no problems with any of them. you think it is proper to include a Gay basher on the Moderating team? It is about Amateur Radio, Mark! indeed which why someone that chose to enage in Gay bashing on these NG why you YOU enegae in gay bashing in a radio NG? Stay on topic and take your mewling concerns to the gay groups. I would love to care to stop your gay basing? Nobody, especially me, is gay "basing". Stop putting words in the mouths of others, especially when they disagree with you. |
still more thread jacking of the proposal thread
Ralph wrote: wrote in message ... On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 17:41:57 -0500, "Ralph" anon@anon wrote: I would love to care to stop your gay basing? Nobody, especially me, is gay "basing". bul**** you have made one of your mission in live to harrass for daring to Bi and not hiding it from staker like yourself Stop putting words in the mouths of others, especially when they disagree with you. just describing YOUR actions |
RFD: rec.radio.amateur.moderated moderated
On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 17:13:00 -0500, "KH6HZ" wrote:
Great proposal. Can't wait to cast my vote for the affirmative. The only dissenting opinion you'll find are those who wish to spew their sewage into a forum like such, and will otherwise be shut out from doing so. 73 KH6HZ That's not true. I'll vote against it and you can hardly accuse me of being shut out since I left here years ago rather than waste many hours accomplishing nothing constructive. The reason being that this group is too polarized with no room for dissenting opinions. No moderation is going to be impartial because no moderators are impartial. Therefore, a moderated ng will not reflect the opinions of hams in general. Instead, they will reflect the opinions approved by biased moderators. My advice is to go to googlegroups, yahoogroups, or any of the other *.groups and start your own moderated community/group there instead of trying to start your own moderated newsgroup on Usenet. It's a lot easier. I would say that without people whose only objective is to stifle dissenting opinion gone, this would be a better newsgroup. However, we all know that people will post to both newsgroups and probably get banned for something that they posted here. I had hoped that, once the code vs. no-code childishness was over, these ng's would be useful again. I'm beginning to see that I was wrong. I'll try back here in a few years to see if things have improved any. 73 |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:09 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com