wrote:
From: Iitoi on Tues, Dec 12 2006 6:20
am

I found the below FAQ on the web, but can't find the referenced
newsgroup on any server? Looks like it could be the salvation of
RRAP?

I think it won't and for several reasons:

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

That won't affect rrap(m) itself.

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

Not really. Much of the work can be automated so that the moderators
don't need to spend much time actually moderating.

Step One: No anonymous posting.

Step Two: Limits on the length and number of postings from any
individual in a given amount of time.

Step Three: If a person submits one posting that is rejected by the
moderators, they are warned. Two rejections and they are not allowed to
post for a given length of time. Three rejections and they are banned
for a longer time. Etc.

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

That's a reason why a moderated group will succeed, not fail.

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

Doesn't matter. If all postings must be routed through the moderator
system, or can
be deleted by the moderators, the end result is a group without all the
noise.

Eliminate the "noise" postings here and rrap becomes a low-volume
group, really.

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

It may be difficult, but not impossible.

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

Moderated groups already exist. The resources available today
are not as limited as those of 1998.

________________________________________________ ________________

Welcome to rec.radio.amateur.moderated! This is a moderated newsgroup
for amateur radio operators and other people having an interest in the
Amateur Radio Service, as defined by national regulations and
international treaties. Following are the posting guidelines for this
newsgroup.

In general, I don't see any real fault (except for one) and
these guidelines seem a sincere, honest effort to improve
the lot of newsgroups as they exist today.

Do you think that *you* could participate according to these
guidelines, Len?

2.8 Guidelines regarding civility

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

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

Though the Amateur Radio Service is not a professional endeavor, the
moderators strongly feel that the IEEE Code of Ethics is also a
worthwhile set of guiding principles for participants in the
rec.radio.amateur.moderated newsgroup.

The amateur radio service is, by US federal definition, NOT a
professional organization. [that is the reason the activity
is named as "amateur"]

If the guidelines make sense, there is no reason amateurs cannot
adopt them and abide by them.

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

Nevertheless, those guidelines can be adapted to amateur use.

The IEEE "Code of Ethics" is for WORK-related activity, the
professional part of IEEE members. It is NOT designed as a
guideline or code of conduct for messaging. It IS a guideline
for ethical (and moral for the most part) BUSINESS activity.

The parts about how people interact with each other are applicable
to an online forum such as rrap.

As a 33-year member of the IEEE I support that and follow it.

Maybe elsewhere - but not in rrap.

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

Freedom of speech does not mean that you can say whatever you
want without any responsibility.

Freedom of speech does not mean that you must be allowed to speak
in each and every possible venue.

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

Your replies are as unkind as anyone's, Len. They are much
more unkind than my replies to you.

One does not have to be a member of IEEE to abide by their
guidelines for interpersonal communications.

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

Perhaps.

Do you think you could abide by that code of behavior, Len?

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

That is not logical. If there are two groups with diametrically
opposed viewpoints and goals, they cannot both be supported
honetly by the same person.

Amateur radio can be a fun, engaging, interesting hobby.

It is that, for hundreds of thousands of US radio amateurs, and
many more around the world.

Amateur radio is also more than a hobby, for many radio amateurs.

But, it remains a HOBBY, not some imaginary "professional
life activity."

Activities are not limited to being either hobbies or professions, Len.

There are many other categories of "life activity".

There is nothing wrong with hobbies.
Many other hobby activities exist without any pretenses
at being "professional."

By definition, Amateur Radio is not "professional" but that does not
mean it is 'only a hobby'.