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?

The Man in the Maze
QRV at Baboquivari Peak, AZ

__________________________________________________ _______________

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.

This message includes the following sections:

1. Topics and posting policies from the rec.radio.amateur.moderated Charter
2. Additional posting guidelines
2.1 Netiquette guidelines
2.2 Posting form requirements
2.3 Guidelines on signature (.sig) files
2.4 Guidelines on excessive quoting
2.5 Guidelines on pointers to outside sources
2.6 Guidelines regarding questioning someone's suitability to hold
an amateur radio license
2.7 Guidelines regarding name-calling
2.8 Guidelines regarding civility
2.9 Other unacceptable topics

----------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Topics and posting policies from the rec.radio.amateur.moderated Charter

rec.radio.amateur.moderated is an inclusive on-line community of amateur
radio operators and other people having an interest in the Amateur Radio
Service. Participants are invited to engage in open discussion of
amateur radio issues and exchange information about participating in the
hobby/service, in an atmosphere of civility, friendship, and fun.

Acceptable topics include but, are not necessarily limited to, questions
and discussions about amateur radio licensing, regulations, tips on
various aspects of setting up an amateur radio station, and sharing
operating experiences and insights.

Unacceptable posts include, but are not limited to, buy/sell/trade
posts, posts that are off-topic to the Amateur Radio Service, posts
promoting or defending unlawful activities, etc. Crossposts of regular
discussion articles between rec.radio.amateur.moderated and other
discussion newsgroups are not permitted.

Frequently-Asked-Questions lists and other information/bulletin/
announcement postings may be crossposted to rec.radio.info, rec.answers,
and news.answers only with prior approval of the moderators of those
newsgroups. In all such cases, an appropriate "Followup-To" header,
containing only rec.radio.amateur.moderated, will be added by the
moderators if one is not already provided.

Posters are encouraged to state their own views and share their
experiences, but to refrain from making assumptions about the
motivations of other newsgroup participants. Posters are expected to
maintain a basic tone of civility. Prohibited uncivil discourse
includes, but is not limited to, name calling.

Posts containing unsolicited advice questioning the right, worthiness,
suitability and/or readiness of any individual (or members of any group)
to be an amateur radio operator are unacceptable in this newsgroup. If
an individual chooses to post asking for advice on when or whether to
obtain an amateur radio license, or to participate in any type of lawful
activity in the Amateur Radio Service, respondents should be careful to
address their comments only to the original poster and not explicitly
generalize to others in similar situations.

Similarly, posts that arbitrarily declare certain classes of amateur
radio licenses, or certain members of national amateur radio societies
(e.g., American Radio Relay League, Radio Amateurs of Canada, Radio
Society of Great Britain, Wireless Institute of Australia, etc.), to be
more or less worthy than others, are not permitted. Posts that politely
encourage individuals to join their local amateur radio society, or to
upgrade to higher classes of amateur radio license in order to enjoy
greater operating privileges, are permitted, however. Posts that
contain reasoned, civil, and fact-based discussion of the activities and
internal politics of national amateur radio societies are also
permitted.


----------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Additional Posting Guidelines

2.1 Netiquette guidelines

Participants who are new to Usenet should familiarize themselves with
the "netiquette" of Usenet as well as the particular posting guidelines
for this group.

2.2 Posting form requirements

Any article that falls into any of the following categories will be
automatically rejected:

A) Articles that contain original text of more than 75 characters
per line
B) Crossposted articles to newsgroups not included in these
Guidelines
C) Articles that contain more than 400 lines
D) Encoded binary files (except PGP and other short digital
signatures)
E) Attachments to posts
F) Articles containing obscene language
G) Articles from individuals who have been suspended or banned
from the newsgroup

2.3 Guidelines on signature (.sig) files

Many people close each article they write with a few lines of common
text. This may be a cute quip or quote, or may include information
about their family, contact information, or disclaimers required by
their employer, for example.

Signature files used on rec.radio.amateur.moderated posting must be no
longer than 8 lines.


2.4 Guidelines on excessive quoting

Posts more than 20 lines long that also have more than 75% quoted text
will be carefully reviewed by a moderator to determine if that degree of
quoting is warranted. Posts with excessive quoted text may be rejected.

Posters must show a reasonable effort to trim the post they are replying
to and to include just enough material to establish context. "Me too!"
posts are discouraged, and, when posted, must edit the quoted material
significantly.

2.5 Guidelines on pointers to outside sources

Unsolicited announcements and pointers to web sites that are strictly
commercial press releases, advertisements, or other public relations
campaigns, are not permitted. However, a pointer to a website or other
external source of information is permitted and encouraged in cases
where it is relevant to an existing thread, with appropriate context
being given in the post. A URL with no information about what a user
should expect to find there will be rejected. A pointer to information
that is off-charter for rec.radio.amateur.moderated will be rejected, as
will a pointer which itself does not meet the
rec.radio.amateur.moderated guidelines (such as a URL containing
embedded name-calling).

Moderators are not responsible for verifying the contents of any
external information source.

2.6 Guidelines regarding questioning someone's suitability hold an
amateur radio license

Identifiable groups and individuals may not be asked/told/etc. not to
obtain an amateur radio license, or to only obtain certain classes of
amateur radio license. It is not permissible to make statements that a
person or members of a specific group "should" not, or should not be
allowed to, become an amateur radio operator.


2.7 Guidelines regarding name-calling

Nastiness addressed at a person is considered name-calling. Criticizing
a person's *actions* is not, provided that it is done in a civil manner.

Attacks on an action which by their very nature include an accusation
against the person's character are not acceptable. For example,
"That's a lie" implies an intentional prevarication, and is considered
name-calling. Acceptable ways of questioning the truth of a poster's
statement include the more tactful "I don't think that's true," "I
believe you are mistaken because..." or even simply "That's not true."
"That's not true and you know it" crosses back over into name-calling,
however.

2.8 Guidelines regarding civility

By charter, posters are expected to maintain a civil tone in all their
postings. The guidelines on name-calling cover part of that
requirement, but not all of it.

In general, posters are expected to consider the reputations of other
participants, and refrain from making unnecessary accusations or
assumptions about the motivations of others. A good rule of thumb is to
phrase your comments as your opinion -- "I think..." "It seems to me
that..." "This makes me wonder whether..." etc...

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.

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]

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]

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.

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).

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.

________________________________________________ ________________

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.

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."



[Life Member, IEEE]

On Dec 13, 7:42 pm, "
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]

No one is worried that material from a moderated group would be
cross-posted elsewhere. The efforts toward establishing a moderated
gropare to control what is posted to the newsgroup.

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]

That's the idea, Len, and it isn't a 24/7 task.


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 the idea, Len.

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.

Nobody is worried about the material from the new group being in public
view. The idea is to control the input, not the output.
There would be no more "koks on parade". There'd be no more
"Marqueer" or "Not C*********Lloyd". I'm pretty certain that anyone
using terms like "Mother Superior", "Church of St. Hiram", "Colonel
Klunk"or "Herr Robust" would likely disappear from the ranks of
posters.


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 is very, very easy to put into practice. If your post doesn't meet
the
moderator's idea of a proper post, it would never be seen.


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.

Yet there is material in this latest proposal which indicates that it
is
very, very new. I think you'll find that there is little of wishful
thinking
in the proposal.

________________________________________________ ________________

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.

That's pretty much the kind of thing which leads me to believe
that your presence on the moderated group would last about
three rounds. You'd likely be cautioned once or twice, then you'd
be gone.

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.

Nothing precludes its use for such purposes.

It IS a guideline
for ethical (and moral for the most part) BUSINESS activity.

Show me a man who uses ethical behavior only in his business dealings
and not in his private life and I'll show you an unethical man.

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.

Your freedom of speech is limited by the terms of service of your
internet
service provider. It is limited by any oaths you've taken to
government.
It is limited by a moderated newsgroup and would be limited by an
amateur radio license, if you had one. Now what?

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.

Are you having memory problems, Len? The IEEE Code of Conduct was
brought up in *response to your unkind words toward others".

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

How would those apply to you, Leonard? You aren't a radio amateur.

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.

The Code was written by a staunch ARRL supporter. Either you'd like
it used or you wouldn't. No one is going to rewrite it to please
Leonard H. Anderson, a fellow who is not a radio amateur
or an ARRL member.

Amateur radio can be a fun, engaging, interesting hobby.
But, it remains a HOBBY...

....or so you've been told or so you've read.

...not some imaginary "professional
life activity." There is nothing wrong with hobbies.
Many other hobby activities exist without any pretenses
at being "professional."

The only person who regulary writes "PROFESSIONAL" here is
Leonard H. Anderson.



[Life Member, IEEE]

This newsgroup deals with amateur radio. Its topic has nothing to do
with
"PROFESSIONAL" electronics organizations.

Dave K8MN

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]

SLOW CODE...?!?!

Hey Your Putziness, you'd better recheck where most of those
crossposts come from! They SURE as heck aren't nearly as prolific as
your Feeble Five brother, Morkie of Michigan.

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]

An interim approach is to allow posting until someone violates
those rules.

I use that policy on my " server and it
works very well. In over 7 years of existence, I've only had to
privately warn ONE poster that their conduct on the list was
borderline, and that solved the issue.

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.

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).

No...Banishment is NOT the only recourse...Of course it is for
power-hungry wannabees, such as a certain ex-radio technician
non-Amateur we all know and love who'd LOVE to pretend he's the
moderator of THIS forum.

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.

Lord knows that it's needed...but for what?

There's been more than ONE attempt to discuss "policy" issues here
yet it ALWAYS spins off to yet another mindless Code-No Code flamefest.

SNIP

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"]

And yet more Lennie reminding us that HE is (or was, allegedly...)
a "professional".

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.

Uhhhhh....Yes, Lennie, there IS such a thing as doing an amateur
(non-compensated) act in a professional manner.

You should try it some time...You might (although I doubt it) like
it.

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.

Well well well...Guess you couldn't resist the opportunity to jump
up on that soap box again, now could you...?!?!

The author SPECIFICALLY addressed the "amateur" nature of the NG
in question and SPECIFICALLY refered to the IEEE ethics guidelines as
just that...guidelines.

Another SNIP of More Lennie-On-Da-Soapbox

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."

Yet another swipe at Amateur Radio without the benefit of BEING an
Amateur or having ever participated in ANY aspect of Amateur Radio
other than that of an alleged "contributing editor" of a magazine that
went toes-up 20 years ago.

In otherwords...An UNINFORMED OPINION.

Steve, K4YZ

wrote:
On 13 Dec 2006 13:07:33 -0800, "Dave Heil" wrote:
On Dec 13, 7:42 pm, "
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]

No one is worried that material from a moderated group would be
cross-posted elsewhere. The efforts toward establishing a moderated
gropare to control what is posted to the newsgroup.

don't speak for other people Hiel that is rude and uncalled ofr

Now THAT is precious!

Morkie Moron presuming to teach someone else manners!

BBBWWWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!

Steve, K4YZ

wrote:
On 13 Dec 2006 14:39:38 -0800, "K4YZ" wrote:
wrote:

stop the cyber vandalism and your efforts to hijack yet more thread

Uhhhhhh...Morkie....YOU are the one who changed the subject
line,,,Not me.

Steve, K4YZ

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'.

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