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

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...

Consider this (relatively) new ham all in favor.

Marc, KD5LUR

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...

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

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?

wrote:

it seem obbiosu to read the coment that are not being acceptoon the
moderated proposal grupo that this is a shame

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.

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

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 =-