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

Consider this (relatively) new ham all in favor.

Marc, KD5LUR

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 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.

"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

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?

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.

So Loyd is a moderator...

The discussion has just begun, and already you people are incapable of
following directions.

....and already the "you people" remarks start.

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.

Help with what?

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.

Will forging attributes be tolerated? Will thread jacking be
tolerated?

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.

Robesin will be powerless? If so, that's reason enough. He's 90% of
this groups problem.

On 11 Jan 2007 18:40:17 -0800, wrote:

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.

So Loyd is a moderator...

Nope.

...and already the "you people" remarks start.

Dimwits always annoy me.

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.

Help with what?

The credibility of the RFD's proponents, dimwit.

Will forging attributes be tolerated? Will thread jacking be
tolerated?

You should try reading the RFD, dimwit.


Robesin will be powerless? If so, that's reason enough. He's 90% of
this groups problem.


Haven't seen a Robeson post in weeks. Can't say the same thing about
Mark or you.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Lloyd wrote:
On 11 Jan 2007 18:40:17 -0800, wrote:

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.

So Loyd is a moderator...

Nope.

...and already the "you people" remarks start.

Dimwits always annoy me.

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.

Help with what?

The credibility of the RFD's proponents, dimwit.

Will forging attributes be tolerated? Will thread jacking be
tolerated?

You should try reading the RFD, dimwit.

Robesin will be powerless? If so, that's reason enough. He's 90% of
this groups problem.

Haven't seen a Robeson post in weeks.

I think I have. I think you have, too. Notice your forging of the
attribute chain...