In . com " writes:

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?

Looks like someone found the final draft copy of the Posting Guidelines
for the proposed moderated newsgroup, which I previously posted to
misc.test.moderated and referred to in my previous reply to Len the
other day.

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]

A new moderated newsgroup can only reasonably address the contents of
its own newsgroup. About the only leverage that moderators can exert on
the posters to unmoderated newsgroups would be a "universal conduct
clause" in egregious cases (no white-listing on the moderated newsgroup
for such users) and prohibiting inappropriate crossposting and followups
(by using moderation software to automatically screen the Newsgroups:
and Followup-To: headers).

The misc.kids.moderated newsgroup (from which these Posting Guidelines
were adapted, with permission), has been successful since at least 1999
through the use of:

- a team of moderators

- clear, objective, and fair editorial criteria

- use of standard, proven, multi-moderator moderation software (Secure,
Team-Based Usenet Moderation Program, aka "STUMP")

- white-listing and black-listing, with fair and objective standards for
adding users to both (three good articles or three bad articles would
result in nomination to the white-list or the black-list,
respectively)

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]

It's not necessary to do this 24/7. We can guarantee reasonable message
latency that will not interrupt the flow of discussion, especially if we
have a team of moderators distributed across time zones. Those
submitters who wish faster turnaround can meet (and continue to comply
with) the reasonable requirements for white-listing.

Over time, the newsgroup's readership will quickly fall into the
following three categories:

- white-listed (poster is trusted to have his articles go right through
without moderator intervention, optionally with PGP signature
verification)

- black-listed (poster is automatically blocked from the newsgroup, and
his articles will be returned unread)

- posters not white-listed or black-listed will have their articles drop
into a queue for a moderator to manually review, and make an
appropriate approval or rejection decision by pressing buttons on a
web interface

The last category should get smaller with time. White-listing will not
prevent us from applying automated sanity checking (via Spamassassin,
Procmail, and STUMP) to guard against forgeries, abuse, and newsgroup
charter violations. If someone abuses our trust, they will certainly
not be white-listed for very long after. STUMP also allows us to shut
down threads once they have run their course, also by automatically
rejecting and returning articles to the submitters. I suspect that
closing threads after a reasonable amount of time will be the principal
means of editorial quality control, versus rejecting specific posts.

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.

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.

If you're arguing that unauthenticated (i.e., non-NoCeM) cancellation is
dead on the modern-day Usenet, then you would be correct. The best
solution is to prevent those who will misbehave from posting to the
newsgroup in the first place. Hence the white-listing/black-listing/
manual review scheme described above.

It is possible to forge articles to moderated newsgroups. However,
there are several mitigations:

- PGPMoose and NoCeM, which we have set up and intend to use, can
automatically detect forgeries and send authenticated ("NoCeM")
cancels.

- The originating news server sites are generally very receptive to
complaints about such forgeries, and will usually take swift action to
prevent someone from doing it more than once. If PGPMoose checking
fails, the moderators have recourse to report the offender to their
ISP. This can even be done automatically.

- It is not possible to forge articles to moderated newsgroups from
Google Groups.

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).

Once someone is black-listed in STUMP, his articles will be
automatically rejected and bounced back to him unread. No moderator
intervention, or aggravation, required.

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.

I've been seriously looking into the matter since at least 2002. The
biggest obstacle was simply finding volunteers who were interested, had
the time, had appropriate access at their ISP, and were technically
savvy. The use of moderation software like STUMP (with its Web
interface) mitigated the ISP access and technical savvy parts, freeing
me to recruit interested people with good conduct and a good sense of
what constitutes good conduct. All they need to do is read articles and
push buttons. We have a moderation team, and will be passing along a
Request for Discussion for the news.announce.newgroups moderator to post
to news shortly after the first of the year. At that point, it will be
a specific, concrete, proposal, with the members of our team identified,
and our charter and objective editorial criteria clearly laid out. The
readers can then read our proposal and provide meaningful feedback. No
wishful thinking required.

In addition, the STUMP software is available for anyone to test now by
sending submissions to:



We would be happy to demonstrate approval, rejection, white-listing,
black-listing, PGP signing, NoCeM cancellation, etc., to any interested
individual. Currently the target newsgroup is misc.test.moderated.

_______________________________________________ _________________

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

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


2.8 Guidelines regarding civility


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Posters are not required to support the American Radio Relay League
(ARRL). However, they are expected to adhere to the spirit of the other
parts of the ARRL's 'Amateur's Code'"

Note the part about not having to support the ARRL.

Amateur radio can be a fun, engaging, interesting hobby.
But, it remains a HOBBY, not some imaginary "professional
life activity." There is nothing wrong with hobbies.
Many other hobby activities exist without any pretenses
at being "professional."

That's why the Posting Guidelines state:

"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."

Note the words "worthwhile set of guiding principles" and within the
context of the moderated newsgroup only. We're not presuming to police
all of amateur radio.

While we don't expect to have significant problems with, for example,
non-compliance with part 4 of the IEEE Code:

4. to reject bribery in all its forms;

we do expect that compliance with parts 7, 8, and 9:

7. to seek, accept, and offer honest criticism of technical work, to
acknowledge and correct errors, and to credit properly the
contributions of others;

8. to treat fairly all persons regardless of such factors as race,
religion, gender, disability, age, or national origin;

9. to avoid injuring others, their property, reputation, or employment
by false or malicious action;

will weigh very heavily on our decision whether to approve a given
submitter's articles, and certainly whether that submitter should be
white-listed.

Do you really feel that it would seriously crimp your ability to express
yourself if you were not able:

7. to avoid, refuse, and withhold honest criticism of technical work, to
deny and ignore errors, and to credit improperly the contributions of
others;

8. to treat unfairly all persons particularly of such factors as race,
religion, gender, disability, age, or national origin;

9. to seek injuring others, their property, reputation, or employment
by false or malicious action;

?

As someone else pointed out in this thread, situational ethics are
practically no ethics at all.



[Life Member, IEEE]

--
Paul W. Schleck, K3FU

http://www.novia.net/~pschleck/
Finger for PGP Public Key