[KH6HZ]

"KC4UAI" wrote:

You mean he was not told this in "advance" because the e-mail he
quoted clearly says that the thread was closed and that was why his
post was automatically rejected. Which is part of what I didn't snip
out of the original message.

To be fair to John, though, it would appear the thread was only alive for 2
days. The first post on 3/4 at 12:49, the last post 3/6 1:07pm.

Is 49 hours a legitimate amount of time to allow a thread to be alive in any
newsgroup, given USENET message propagation characteristics?

I would probably side with John on this one, personally. Unless you're
talking about a thread which has a certain timeliness (i.e. announcing a
special event this weekend and it is currently Thursday) it would seem a
thread should be open for discussion longer than 49 hours.

73
kh6hz

[KC4UAI]

On Mar 8, 1:09 pm, "
wrote:
On Mar 8, 8:30?am, "KC4UAI" wrote:





On Mar 6, 8:04 pm, John Smith I wrote:

To Whom It May Concern:

Following is a message taken from RRAM. ?My REJECTED response to that
message. ?And, a message from the automaton on WHY the message was rejected.
snip
Your message has been rejected because you posted into a thread that had
strayed off topic and was closed by the moderators. All messages from
all posters, posted to this thread, are autorejected, and this rejection
does not single you out in any way.

Please read the charter of rec.radio.amateur.moderated at:

? ? ? ?http://www.panix.com/~rram/usenet/rram/index.html

Please direct any queries to .
snip

John,

So your message was rejected because the thread was closed.... I don't
see a problem with that.

Not if one is a moderator. :-(

I suppose you can claim bias because I'm a moderator... Even if it's
not true, how do you go about disproving that charge?

Try understanding that not everyone is a daily participant
in any newsgroup. They may be absent for several days.
Those non-daily participants MAY have something cogent
and meaningful about a discussion topic. A solution to the
"closed thread" could be a simple posting that a particular
thread has been closed by "the moderators."

I'll take that as a valid suggestion, that we post a message to the
thread that says it is closed to further posting. I'll bring that up
to the group and see what they say.

I've been a participant in computer-modem communications
for 23 years on BBSs, private networks, and the Internet
carried "usenet" newsgroups. Yes, I've also been a moderator
on some large local BBSs and know what it is like. You WILL
get angry denunciations from the dissatisfied. TS. The skin
MUST grow tough and thick to do the job.

Don't think my feathers are ruffled here. I too have been involved in
BBS activities for over two decades and had multiple fido-net nodes
over the years. I do care that *constructive* critics are listened
to, but I'm not offended when somebody disagrees with me.

Now there is a "board" of moderators...more likely one has
their "turn in the barrel" for a day, checking up on content.
If the "board" wanted to do a good job, go out on PATROL;
i.e., roam the territory and, if something irritates them, try
sending warning messages privately, then publicly. It is
better than simply "closing the doors" and not saying
anything to anyone in public.


Well, this is not how our policy works from your point of view. There
is no way you could tell if the board is actively looking at the
individual moderation decisions or not. I can assure you that the
moderation software keeps logs, and the logs are being reviewed by the
board on a regular basis. We have had regular discussions about
decisions that where considered "border line" though just this avenue.

However, if you feel a decision was improper, we have provided you a
means of calling a specific event to their attention. That is the
point of the appeals process.

If you do, please appeal the decision and it will be reviewed by the
board, who are not involved in any of the day to day moderation
decisions.

The "board" ought to get its act together as a unit...work
on this "moderation" as a cohesive unit, not a disparate
collection of individuals relying on some (unknown)
program "robocop" checking out the post content of
those NOT on the "white list," sending out private e-mail
notices, and generally wasting time with all this "appeals"
busy work which can take days.

So you would propose that we handle every message on the group one at
a time though a single filter? I'm sorry, but that is not very
workable in the real world. We are trying to maintain a reasonable
discussion with a minimum of delay and what you propose might cause
very large delays in getting posts approved. We decided that it was
more important to be timely and depend upon a group of moderators
making individual decisions. What you propose is a group of
moderators debating every choice every time. Automation has it's
limits and problems, I won't argue that point, but it's much better
than doing this all by hand and having to deal with the delays
involved with doing it that way.

Snip the Orwell referance..

On "moderation" I've been there, got lots of T-shirts,
wore out a few. The "moderated newsgroup" idea is
nice only in theory but, in practice, it is just trying to
re-invent a wheel...one that has lots of flat sections
on it. That's been done before and hasn't worked well.
The "board" may be an innovation but all those "appeals"
are just time-wasting busy work. Think about it.

Well I have only one T-Shirt and one Hat for my past efforts.... And
we have thought about this quite a lot as a group. I'm satisfied that
we have a reasonable compromise on how we are going about this. Is it
perfect? Perhaps not, but what human endeavor is? We are open to
suggestions on how to improve, and over time we surely will if we keep
trying.

-= bob =-

[Leo]

On 8 Mar 2007 11:09:21 -0800, "
wrote:

On Mar 8, 8:30?am, "KC4UAI" wrote:
On Mar 6, 8:04 pm, John Smith I wrote:
snip

73, AF6AY

Hey - nice shiny new callsign you have there!

Congrats to the new Extra!

73, Leo

[Bob Brock]

On 8 Mar 2007 12:28:06 -0800, "KC4UAI" wrote:



or simply move on and forget it.

I predict that there will be a lot of that going on over there for
awhile.

[[email protected]]

On Mar 8, 1:01�pm, "KC4UAI" wrote:
On Mar 8, 1:09 pm, "
wrote:

On Mar 8, 8:30?am, "KC4UAI" wrote:

On Mar 6, 8:04 pm, John Smith I wrote:

To Whom It May Concern:

Following is a message taken from RRAM. ?My REJECTED response to that
message. ?And, a message from the automaton on WHY the message was rejected.
snip
Your message has been rejected because you posted into a thread that had
strayed off topic and was closed by the moderators. All messages from
all posters, posted to this thread, are autorejected, and this rejection
does not single you out in any way.

Please read the charter of rec.radio.amateur.moderated at:

? ? ? ?http://www.panix.com/~rram/usenet/rram/index.html

Please direct any queries to .
snip

John,

So your message was rejected because the thread was closed.... I don't
see a problem with that.

* *Not if one is a moderator. *:-(

I suppose you can claim bias because I'm a moderator... Even if it's
not true, how do you go about disproving that charge? *

No one can "disprove" an unseen "charge." It is a matter of
OPINION that some do not like a particular system.

* *Try understanding that not everyone is a daily participant
* *in any newsgroup. *They may be absent for several days.
* *Those non-daily participants MAY have something cogent
* *and meaningful about a discussion topic. *A solution to the
* *"closed thread" could be a simple posting that a particular
* *thread has been closed by "the moderators."

I'll take that as a valid suggestion, that we post a message to the
thread that says it is closed to further posting. *I'll bring that up
to the group and see what they say.

It could be a simple posting of just "closed." Takes up the
least space, even with a short message of why it was closed.

* *I've been a participant in computer-modem communications
* *for 23 years on BBSs, private networks, and the Internet
* *carried "usenet" newsgroups. *Yes, I've also been a moderator
* *on some large local BBSs and know what it is like. *You WILL
* *get angry denunciations from the dissatisfied. *TS. *The skin
* *MUST grow tough and thick to do the job.

Don't think my feathers are ruffled here. *I too have been involved in
BBS activities for over two decades and had multiple fido-net nodes
over the years. *I do care that *constructive* critics are listened
to, but I'm not offended when somebody disagrees with me.

No sweat on that here. FIDO was a good training ground
for some inordinately-dissatisfied posters.

* *Now there is a "board" of moderators...more likely one has
* *their "turn in the barrel" for a day, checking up on content.
* *If the "board" wanted to do a good job, go out on PATROL;
* *i.e., roam the territory and, if something irritates them, try
* *sending warning messages privately, then publicly. *It is
* *better than simply "closing the doors" and not saying
* *anything to anyone in public.

Well, this is not how our policy works from your point of view. *There
is no way you could tell if the board is actively looking at the
individual moderation decisions or not. *I can assure you that the
moderation software keeps logs, and the logs are being reviewed by the
board on a regular basis. We have had regular discussions about
decisions that where considered "border line" though just this avenue.

The "invisibility" of the current moderation process is what
bothers many, including myself. I don't care how long a
message is about the moderation process, all that such a
message says is rather boilerplate PR to me. I've seen
enough of that kind of "justification" from many sources
and just hang a tag on it that says "Politics as Usual."

One moderator, one quick action is what I CAN under-
stand.

However, if you feel a decision was improper, we have provided you a
means of calling a specific event to their attention. *That is the
point of the appeals process.

And that can take days to resolve. That newsgroup is
NOT a Court. Reach a decision and do it quickly,
heated tempers will cool down faster and things return
to normal (whatever that is) quickly.

So you would propose that we handle every message on the group one at
a time though a single filter? *I'm sorry, but that is not very
workable in the real world. *We are trying to maintain a reasonable
discussion with a minimum of delay and what you propose might cause
very large delays in getting posts approved.

"I proposed that?" Not quite. As I said, one moderator and
one action. The way I see it is a "moderated" group IS
moderated and, if that means to you each message
reviewed, then so be it. To have SOME on a "non-moderated"
basis in a "white list" of "pre-approved" posters will
obviously invite the accusations of elitism.

*We decided that it was
more important to be timely and depend upon a group of moderators
making individual decisions. *What you propose is a group of
moderators debating every choice every time. Automation has it's
limits and problems, I won't argue that point, but it's much better
than doing this all by hand and having to deal with the delays
involved with doing it that way.

Since practicality of volunteerism MUST be considered, a
group is necessary. But, the spectre of a moderator
getting away from desired goals is ever-present. What is
the check-and-balance for moderators? Any? If all they
lose is some self-defined Status, that isn't much of a
penalty.

Snip the Orwell referance..

As you wish. I found it quite significant...and I was
never a member of SWINE (Students Wildly Indignant
about Nearly Everything) nor a draft-dodging rationalizer
hoping for no draft call in the 60s (I'd already served
my time in northeast Asia). One MUST be ever-watchful
of "authority." Not to actively distrust them, but be WARY.

That, too, is a human trait and gave rise to another little
homily: Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts
absolutely.

Well I have only one T-Shirt and one Hat for my past efforts.... And
we have thought about this quite a lot as a group. *I'm satisfied that
we have a reasonable compromise on how we are going about this. *Is it
perfect? *Perhaps not, but what human endeavor is? *We are open to
suggestions on how to improve, and over time we surely will if we keep
trying.

I'm still waiting for this Perestroika, the "openness" to
happen in the moderation "human endeavor." I don't see
a trace of it yet.

Color me skeptical if you will.

73, AF6AY

[Dee Flint]

"KH6HZ" wrote in message
...
"KC4UAI" wrote:

You mean he was not told this in "advance" because the e-mail he
quoted clearly says that the thread was closed and that was why his
post was automatically rejected. Which is part of what I didn't snip
out of the original message.

To be fair to John, though, it would appear the thread was only alive for
2 days. The first post on 3/4 at 12:49, the last post 3/6 1:07pm.

Is 49 hours a legitimate amount of time to allow a thread to be alive in
any newsgroup, given USENET message propagation characteristics?

I would probably side with John on this one, personally. Unless you're
talking about a thread which has a certain timeliness (i.e. announcing a
special event this weekend and it is currently Thursday) it would seem a
thread should be open for discussion longer than 49 hours.

73
kh6hz


I was told by one of the moderators that there seems to be some type of
issue that causes this rejection when the thread gets too long or too deeply
nested.

I've suggested that they have it autopost a final message when a thread is
closed so that we know to simply start anew.

Dee, N8UZE

[Bob Brock]

On Thu, 8 Mar 2007 18:14:58 -0500, "Dee Flint"
wrote:


"KH6HZ" wrote in message
...
"KC4UAI" wrote:

You mean he was not told this in "advance" because the e-mail he
quoted clearly says that the thread was closed and that was why his
post was automatically rejected. Which is part of what I didn't snip
out of the original message.

To be fair to John, though, it would appear the thread was only alive for
2 days. The first post on 3/4 at 12:49, the last post 3/6 1:07pm.

Is 49 hours a legitimate amount of time to allow a thread to be alive in
any newsgroup, given USENET message propagation characteristics?

I would probably side with John on this one, personally. Unless you're
talking about a thread which has a certain timeliness (i.e. announcing a
special event this weekend and it is currently Thursday) it would seem a
thread should be open for discussion longer than 49 hours.

73
kh6hz


I was told by one of the moderators that there seems to be some type of
issue that causes this rejection when the thread gets too long or too deeply
nested.

I've suggested that they have it autopost a final message when a thread is
closed so that we know to simply start anew.

ROTFLMAO

One can readily tell that band space is a problem in the ng with all
the posting going on over there.

[John Smith I]

KC4UAI wrote:

...
John,

So your message was rejected because the thread was closed.... I don't
see a problem with that.

If you do, please appeal the decision and it will be reviewed by the
board, who are not involved in any of the day to day moderation
decisions.

-= bob =-


You don't huh? Well, just goes to show ya, some are a bit sharper than
the avg razor ...

It is moderated, let 'em KILL THE WHOLE THREAD THEN!!!

JS
--
http://assemblywizard.tekcities.com

[[email protected]]

On Mar 8, 1:53�pm, Leo wrote:
On 8 Mar 2007 11:09:21 -0800, "

wrote:
On Mar 8, 8:30?am, "KC4UAI" wrote:
On Mar 6, 8:04 pm, John Smith I wrote:
snip

* 73, AF6AY

Hey - nice shiny new callsign you have there! *

Congrats to the new Extra!

Thank you, Leo. "Shiny"? Non. I'm resisting the impulse
to order a police shield with wallet to display that callsign
when off-line. :-) [like Never will I do that...]

All I need now is an antenna or two, transmitter(s) or
transceiver(s) and a whole lotta other stuff. I feel like
"The Six Million Dollar Ham"..."we have the technology,
we can build him a station, bigger and better than
before..." [hmmm...might be a TV series idea there!]

73, AF6AY

[John Smith I]

wrote:
On Thu, 08 Mar 2007 17:33:50 -0800, John Smith I
wrote:

KC4UAI wrote:

...
John,

So your message was rejected because the thread was closed.... I don't
see a problem with that.

If you do, please appeal the decision and it will be reviewed by the
board, who are not involved in any of the day to day moderation
decisions.

-= bob =-

You don't huh? Well, just goes to show ya, some are a bit sharper than
the avg razor ...

thestaus quo almost never see anything wrong with it

but we knew that
It is moderated, let 'em KILL THE WHOLE THREAD THEN!!!

as i understand they can't in practical terms anymore cancel bot don't
work

and they already ****ed up and apporved the thread
JS
http://kb9rqz.blogspot.com/


Let 'em hang themselves, they are doing a good enough job, no need to
hurry it

JS