|
Total meltdown?
Following thoughtful article seen on another medium.....
Amateur Radio Newsgroups: Total Meltdown Paul W. Schleck (K3FU) on April 26, 2006 Way back in 1972, before there was a World-Wide Web, even before there was Usenet News, amateur radio enthusiasts on the then-ARPANet organized a mailing list known as Info-Hams. In 1979, a couple of researchers at Duke and UNC developed a system that used "Unix to Unix File Copy" or "uucp" to copy files from one system to another, to make a broadcast bulletin-board system called "Usenet." The Info-Hams mailing list eventually gatewayed to this system, becoming fa.info-hams (fa = "From ARPANet"), then rec.ham-radio, then rec.radio.amateur.*. Fast-forward to the present, and the newsgroups rec.radio.amateur.misc and rec.radio.amateur.policy are now in complete meltdown (the *.antenna, *.dx, *.equipment, and *.space newsgroups still seem to be in good shape, though). Both forums are almost completely bereft of any topic discussion. Instead, one can find run-on threads consisting of short, sniping, and personal attacks containing obscene language from what must be fewer than a dozen, mostly anonymous, users. What happened? -- Maybe too many run-on arguments about code, or attacks on individual ham's personal character. Maybe just the anarchy and Tragedy of the Commons that is encouraged by totally-open, unmoderated forums where no one is obliged to obey any rules, and no competent authority seems able or willing to enforce them if there were any. Further fanning the flames are free, and anonymous, news posting sites like Google Groups, Yahoo, etc., as well as any news site that simply doesn't care to enforce any net etiquette among its users. Some hams have even offered the explanation that better enforcement of amateur radio regulations by Riley Hollingsworth at the FCC has had the unintended consequence of driving problem hams off the bands and onto a less restrictive forum to wreck. As for Google Groups, it certainly deserves credit for archiving most newsgroup discussions since 1981 (thanks to old backup tapes meticulously maintained by Henry Spencer at the University of Toronto), but also a big raspberry for contributing to this problem. This hasn't happened to every newsgroup. Even though other newsgroups have trolls, there seems to be a "immune system" of constructive users who step in both to ostracize problem users, and continue positive contributions in the face of such troublemakers. Certainly this behavior is not tolerated on web logs such as qrz.com and eHam.net. The site owners simply would not allow it. There is at least one example of a licensed radio amateur who is Dr. Jekyll on the blogs, but Mr. Hyde on rec.radio.amateur.policy. There may even be others. I'm sure some would argue that Usenet is obsolete, and we are all better off going to moderated blogs. Still, I can't help but think that something is being lost here. For example, 20 years into the future, will we be able to read archived and indexed articles from most web logs that exist today, as we now have with Google Groups? Are there constructive solutions to the meltdown on rec.radio.amateur.*, such as converting newsgroups to moderated status, even if such moderated status is simply a self-approval, or anonymous user filter, mechanism? Posted from another medium by The Man in the Maze QRV at Baboquivari Peak |
Quote:
Amateur Radio Newsgroups: Total Meltdown Reply by K3FU on April 26, 2006 Thanks for everyone's comments, both here, and on QRZ. I admit that my article was intended to initiate preliminary discussion to start a formal proposal to moderate some of the amateur radio newsgroups on Usenet. Already, I have two other interested volunteers. I would welcome additional interested people to E-mail me before I contact the Usenet Group Mentors. These mentors would assist with any Request For Discussion (RFD), and possible Call For Votes (CFV), on news.groups and rec.radio.amateur.misc/policy. Again, this is all preliminary. I welcome good feedback from experienced Usenetters, particularly the Usenet Group Mentors, in the development of any proposal. When I say "meltdown," I don't just mean that problem users exist, or that people post opinions that are on-topic to amateur radio with which I or others disagree. I mean that probably less than a dozen problem users have nearly 100% taken over the misc and policy newsgroups with their postings. Whatever "immune system" the user community had previously - that was able to overcome, or just ignore, these problem users - has completely broken down. What I mean by "problem users" is that their posts are almost entirely short, sniping, and profanity-laden, personal attacks against each other, with no topic discussion. Nearly all of the posters are anonymous. Many of which are likely "sock-puppets" (i.e., various alter-egos of the same individual), posting from a small number of anonymous posting sites like Google Groups. A situation exists where virtually all constructive users have been run off and the misc and policy newsgroups have become a total write-off, serving as nothing but bad public relations for our hobby (service, whatever). My reading of Usenet newsgroup creation rules, and newsgroup threads discussing those rules, indicates to me that an existing, unmoderated newsgroup *can* be converted to moderated status. In fact, I believe that comp.infosystems.www.authoring.cgi is an example of a formerly unmoderated newsgroup that became moderated (though "moderated" only in the technical, implementation, sense; see more below). I believe most people agree that with the distributed nature of Usenet newsgroups and independent news servers, it is nearly impossible to have a newsgroup deleted. Even if it were possible, might even be seen as a cure worse than the disease. Moderating the existing newsgroups in place, rather than new newsgroups, is justified in the face of the existing, unmoderated, misc and policy newsgroups becoming totally damaged write-offs at this point. I've been in touch with the Usenet Group Mentors already, and one of them tells me that they wouldn't refuse outright a proposal to convert the existing newsgroups, but they would prefer instead to have a proposal that makes one or more new newsgroups with the *.moderated suffix (e.g., rec.radio.amateur.moderated). Yes, it is possible to reach problem users, even in unmoderated newsgroups. Most ethical ISP's have rules against using their services to "stalk," "threaten," or "harass" someone. Some even prohibit "off-topic" or "disruptive" postings to newsgroups, even unmoderated ones. Google Groups actually had conditions like these as part of their user policies in the past, but quietly dropped them. Google apparently doesn't care anymore, and thus serves as the source for most of the trash. Recently, I was able to get a problem user shut down, or at least got him to stop posting to rec.radio.amateur.policy and rec.radio.cb, but only because his ISP had ethical user policies and a willingness to enforce them. (Hint to the shut down user: It doesn't help your case to go on record in traceable Usenet postings that you don't feel obligated to follow any rules, including FCC regulations and your ISP's user agreement, even bragging publicly about the specifics of how you violated them on a willful and ongoing basis.). Such enforcement efforts are time-consuming and can only catch the grossest violators posting from the most ethical sites. At the end of the day, such efforts are more work than just implementing moderation in the first place. Moderation serves as much as a deterrence as a filter. Users know better than to step too far beyond the pale on eHam and QRZ, so the workload of their moderators is minimal. Moderation shouldn't be an ongoing battle beyond the initial implementation and fine-tuning. Moderation would consist of a very light hand, and simply to deal with the small number of abusive, beyond-the-pale, posters and their anonymous sock-puppets. If it's not obscene, not illegal, not an ad-hominem attack, not a threat, it is on-topic for amateur radio, and not part of a stale thread that has already been beaten to death over a reasonable period (say, two weeks), it should be posted. It might be necessary for the moderators to start the thread on the right newsgroups (policy vs. misc vs. rec.radio.swap vs. rec.radio.info), but that should be about it. One issue that would certainly be open for discussion would be that of anonymity. The "last name or callsign" rule from QST classified ads would be ideal. The use of a real E-mail address would be encouraged (and would be helpful to send moderator's replies). But, I suppose that some consistent use of a unique, well-known nickname and/or obfuscated E-mail address, used without intent to deceive, could be accommodated. With a team of moderators, and some automation techniques, moderation should not be an overwhelming workload. There are several newsgroup examples to choose from, not all of which require ongoing, close, manual review of hundreds of articles per day by a single moderator. One, sci.physics.research, has submissions sent to a central E-mail address, that then forwards each submission randomly to one of their team of moderators. The recipient decides whether it's appropriate to post, based on agreed-upon objective criteria, and posts the article to the newsgroup. Another newsgroup, comp.infosystems.www.authoring.cgi, is fully automated. Moderation in that case is simply to deflect first-time posters with an autoreply containing references, including an FAQ list. The second (and subsequent) posts would go right through. Even some traditional, single-moderator newsgroups like comp.dcom.telecom have moderators that will simply shut down a thread after everyone has reasonably had a say, but before it degrades into personal attacks or off-topic discussion. Some hybrid of all of these techniques could work for rec.radio.amateur.misc and rec.radio.amateur.policy. Heavy use of automated E-mail filter tools such as Spamassassin and Procmail would weed out from the moderator submission queue nearly all SPAM, problem posters (checking the harder-to-forge headers like NNTP-Posting-Host), and obvious profanity/obscenity. This would leave a much smaller batch of articles to be manually reviewed in a "service" queue by a team of moderators. Turnaround on articles should be less than 24 hours. This would be quick enough to keep discussion lively, but not so fast that impulsive, cascaded flame wars full of ad-hominem attacks are allowed to grow. I believe that filtering of rogue sites and problem users can be done surgically enough such that constructive users won't be shut out, or unfairly delayed, just because they are posting from Google Groups, for example. It should also be possible to "white-list" verified posters with good conduct, either placing them in a priority queue for cursory review, or even posting their articles immediately (this concept is similar to how "Karma" is implemented on slashdot.org, for example). This would further reduce the moderation workload, and serve as an incentive for good behavior. Whatever filtering, and submission queue management, schemes are used can be adapted in the face of new or changing threats. In terms of any automated "black-listing," it should even be possible to deal with violators on a flexible basis (warnings, suspension, only using permanent expulsion as a last resort in the face of gross, repeated, and willful violations). The existing first-time poster welcome message service for rec.radio.amateur.*, in use since 1996, can also serve as an ongoing monitor and cross-check. Specifically, it would measure the amount of "sock-puppeting" that might be occurring to try to game any automation, and get around moderation restrictions. Large numbers of new, throwaway, anonymous addresses would result in a statistically-significant surge in "new" posters being sent the welcome message, for example. After a while, the problem users will just give up and go elsewhere, preferably off of Usenet entirely. Copied from another site and posted here by The Man in the Maze QRL at Baboquivari Peak |
Total meltdown?
You are nothing but a common everyday
NetKKKop. Get a life weirdo! BWAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH |
Total meltdown?
On Sat, 6 May 2006 14:20:11 +0000, Iitoi wrote:
Following thoughtful article seen on another medium..... Amateur Radio Newsgroups: Total Meltdown Paul W. Schleck (K3FU) on April 26, 2006 Way back in 1972, before there was a World-Wide Web, even before there [snip] This is a very predictable post from the indivdual involved. It also pretty much ignores the details about how Usenet moderated groups have traditionally worked. First mistake: It is for all practical purposes not feasible to turn an unmoderated news group into one which is moderated. Instead, you need to create a new, moderated news group such as rec.radio.amateur.policy.moderated. You have to hope that the news servers which receive the control message which creates the moderated group process the message properly. Many news server admins simply think that moderated groups really don't work well, and they ignore such messages. That's because moderated Usenet groups have mostly been a failure. Why? It was trivial to spoof the standard moderated groups in the past by supplying your own Approved header. Right up through the middle 1990's, people who understood the basics of Usenet could easily post to any moderated news group, completely bypassing the moderator's control. I know: I used to post to a couple of moderated news groups by supplying the header "Approved: of course" and the posts would appear in spite of any moderator (c.f. alt.2600.moderated). After the advent of asymmetric key authentication (such as that used by SSL/TLS or GPG), there was an attempt to harden moderation by requiring that approvals be cryptographicaly signed by the moderator. Similar requirements were put on cancel and rmgroup control messages. Unfortunately, neither approach really worked. The Usenet server admins weren't particularly interested in adding crypto capability to their servers, and the method foundered. Even now, if you take a look at control.cancel, you'll see that most cancel messages do not use any kind of public/private key authentication. They are mostly in the original format first used by Usenet back in the 1980s. Mr. Schleck, in spite of his claims to a long tenure on Usenet, seems to misunderstand its technical details. He also wants to deal with problem news groups by asserting control over them so that people "do it his way." And that completely ignores decades of Usenet history. For decades, Usenet readers have been admonished to take responsibility for cleaning up news groups into their own hands. Such responsibility is carried out by means of local filters (a kill file in the old terminology). If you don't like what you see, drop the poster or his whole domain into a kill file and be forever done with him. I've been successfully killing 99% of the junk posts in rrap/m while allowing the useful posts to get through. It isn't rocket science; it doesn't require moderation, but it DOES require the kind of technical ability that hams supposedly possess. Go out and download the free Xnews or slrn news readers (the latter runs on all popular OSes) and learn how to get rid of the junk posts instead of expecting someone else like a moderator to do it for you. Don't let the control freaks like Schleck attempt to have their way (BTW, he's in my kill file and has been there for years). Make a serious effort to take responsibility for what you read yourself. |
Total meltdown?
"Stagger Lee" wrote in message ... On Sat, 6 May 2006 14:20:11 +0000, Iitoi wrote: Following thoughtful article seen on another medium..... Amateur Radio Newsgroups: Total Meltdown Paul W. Schleck (K3FU) on April 26, 2006 Way back in 1972, before there was a World-Wide Web, even before there [snip] This is a very predictable post from the indivdual involved. It also pretty much ignores the details about how Usenet moderated groups have traditionally worked. First mistake: It is for all practical purposes not feasible to turn an unmoderated news group into one which is moderated. Instead, you need to create a new, moderated news group such as rec.radio.amateur.policy.moderated. You have to hope that the news servers which receive the control message which creates the moderated group process the message properly. Many news server admins simply think that moderated groups really don't work well, and they ignore such messages. That's because moderated Usenet groups have mostly been a failure. Why? It was trivial to spoof the standard moderated groups in the past by supplying your own Approved header. Right up through the middle 1990's, people who understood the basics of Usenet could easily post to any moderated news group, completely bypassing the moderator's control. I know: I used to post to a couple of moderated news groups by supplying the header "Approved: of course" and the posts would appear in spite of any moderator (c.f. alt.2600.moderated). After the advent of asymmetric key authentication (such as that used by SSL/TLS or GPG), there was an attempt to harden moderation by requiring that approvals be cryptographicaly signed by the moderator. Similar requirements were put on cancel and rmgroup control messages. Unfortunately, neither approach really worked. The Usenet server admins weren't particularly interested in adding crypto capability to their servers, and the method foundered. Even now, if you take a look at control.cancel, you'll see that most cancel messages do not use any kind of public/private key authentication. They are mostly in the original format first used by Usenet back in the 1980s. Mr. Schleck, in spite of his claims to a long tenure on Usenet, seems to misunderstand its technical details. He also wants to deal with problem news groups by asserting control over them so that people "do it his way." And that completely ignores decades of Usenet history. For decades, Usenet readers have been admonished to take responsibility for cleaning up news groups into their own hands. Such responsibility is carried out by means of local filters (a kill file in the old terminology). If you don't like what you see, drop the poster or his whole domain into a kill file and be forever done with him. I've been successfully killing 99% of the junk posts in rrap/m while allowing the useful posts to get through. It isn't rocket science; it doesn't require moderation, but it DOES require the kind of technical ability that hams supposedly possess. Go out and download the free Xnews or slrn news readers (the latter runs on all popular OSes) and learn how to get rid of the junk posts instead of expecting someone else like a moderator to do it for you. Don't let the control freaks like Schleck attempt to have their way (BTW, he's in my kill file and has been there for years). Make a serious effort to take responsibility for what you read yourself. I did set up my controls and sent a number of folks to the trash bin. Unfortunately, almost nothing was left. There is little discussion around these parts about amateur radio policy. Perhaps I am missing something here, but I suspect that when the number of flames reaches a certain level, serious folks simply leave the newsgroup. Rec.radio.amateur.misc was a trash bin 4 or 5 years ago. Perhaps 3 years ago, rec.radio.cb went down the tubes. This group has been a mess for the past year or so. As to control freaks, I prefer that folks drive on the right side of the road here in the U.S. Some rules appear necessary to protect the majority of users. Whilst the thought of a moderated group does not particularly appeal to me, I would be open to options that would get a newsgroup back to a semblance of what it was designed for. Kill-filing offenders leaves you with nothing around these parts today. Take a look in this newsgroup right now. 73 from Rochester, NY Jim AA2QA |
Total meltdown?
"Iitoi" wrote in message ... Following thoughtful article seen on another medium..... Amateur Radio Newsgroups: Total Meltdown Paul W. Schleck (K3FU) on April 26, 2006 no no no, you got it all wrong. HR NG's have gone to shi+ because Hollingsworth wanted it that way. After he cleaned up the major players of the 14.313 mess that went on un-checked for over 20 Years, followed shortly by a clean sweep of the 75 Meter clownss, RH made several statements to the effect that "..all the former QRM'ers he didn't get should go to Usenet where they can play all day via the keyboard and clear off of Ham Radio". Guess what......THEY DID JUST THAT. (...including me too - I was the "Dancing JP Chicken" from 14.313 for many Years. Drove Herbie nuts. Loved every minute too. Another person on RRAP, who I will not reveal, is the legendary "Spongeboy-Bucketmouth" which the late Mike 'MUJ made famous) So - they you go boys - and we used to say: "ENJOY.....YA'VE EARNED IT"(....on the BARF Cannonball!) Baaaaaaaaa hahahahhahahaha! |
Total meltdown?
"Jim Hampton" wrote in message ... [snip] I did set up my controls and sent a number of folks to the trash bin. Unfortunately, almost nothing was left. There is little discussion around these parts about amateur radio policy. Perhaps I am missing something here, but I suspect that when the number of flames reaches a certain level, serious folks simply leave the newsgroup. That's pretty much true. Some of us though are waiting around for the flamers to finally get tired. [snip] As to control freaks, I prefer that folks drive on the right side of the road here in the U.S. Some rules appear necessary to protect the majority of users. Where safety is involved, yes we need such rules. But a bunch of junk news postings are only an annoyance not a safety issue. Whilst the thought of a moderated group does not particularly appeal to me, I would be open to options that would get a newsgroup back to a semblance of what it was designed for. Kill-filing offenders leaves you with nothing around these parts today. Take a look in this newsgroup right now. Perhaps someday they'll get tired. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
Total meltdown?
Iitoi wrote: Following thoughtful article seen on another medium..... Amateur Radio Newsgroups: Total Meltdown Paul W. Schleck (K3FU) on April 26, 2006 Way back in 1972, before there was a World-Wide Web, even before there was Usenet News, amateur radio enthusiasts on the then-ARPANet organized a mailing list known as Info-Hams. In 1979, a couple of researchers at Duke and UNC developed a system that used "Unix to Unix File Copy" or "uucp" to copy files from one system to another, to make a broadcast bulletin-board system called "Usenet." The Info-Hams mailing list eventually gatewayed to this system, becoming fa.info-hams (fa = "From ARPANet"), then rec.ham-radio, then rec.radio.amateur.*. Fast-forward to the present, and the newsgroups rec.radio.amateur.misc and rec.radio.amateur.policy are now in complete meltdown (the *.antenna, *.dx, *.equipment, and *.space newsgroups still seem to be in good shape, though). Both forums are almost completely bereft of any topic discussion. Instead, one can find run-on threads consisting of short, sniping, and personal attacks containing obscene language from what must be fewer than a dozen, mostly anonymous, users. What happened? -- Maybe too many run-on arguments about code, or attacks on individual ham's personal character. Maybe just the anarchy and Tragedy of the Commons that is encouraged by totally-open, unmoderated forums where no one is obliged to obey any rules, and no competent authority seems able or willing to enforce them if there were any. Further fanning the flames are free, and anonymous, news posting sites like Google Groups, Yahoo, etc., as well as any news site that simply doesn't care to enforce any net etiquette among its users. Some hams have even offered the explanation that better enforcement of amateur radio regulations by Riley Hollingsworth at the FCC has had the unintended consequence of driving problem hams off the bands and onto a less restrictive forum to wreck. As for Google Groups, it certainly deserves credit for archiving most newsgroup discussions since 1981 (thanks to old backup tapes meticulously maintained by Henry Spencer at the University of Toronto), but also a big raspberry for contributing to this problem. This hasn't happened to every newsgroup. Even though other newsgroups have trolls, there seems to be a "immune system" of constructive users who step in both to ostracize problem users, and continue positive contributions in the face of such troublemakers. Certainly this behavior is not tolerated on web logs such as qrz.com and eHam.net. The site owners simply would not allow it. There is at least one example of a licensed radio amateur who is Dr. Jekyll on the blogs, but Mr. Hyde on rec.radio.amateur.policy. There may even be others. I'm sure some would argue that Usenet is obsolete, and we are all better off going to moderated blogs. Still, I can't help but think that something is being lost here. For example, 20 years into the future, will we be able to read archived and indexed articles from most web logs that exist today, as we now have with Google Groups? Are there constructive solutions to the meltdown on rec.radio.amateur.*, such as converting newsgroups to moderated status, even if such moderated status is simply a self-approval, or anonymous user filter, mechanism? Posted from another medium by The Man in the Maze QRV at Baboquivari Peak -- Iitoi What a ****ing idiot. |
Total meltdown?
In Stagger Lee writes:
On Sat, 6 May 2006 14:20:11 +0000, Iitoi wrote: Following thoughtful article seen on another medium..... Amateur Radio Newsgroups: Total Meltdown Paul W. Schleck (K3FU) on April 26, 2006 Way back in 1972, before there was a World-Wide Web, even before there [snip] This is a very predictable post from the indivdual involved. It also pretty much ignores the details about how Usenet moderated groups have traditionally worked. [...] Don't let the control freaks like Schleck attempt to have their way (BTW, he's in my kill file and has been there for years). Make a serious effort to take responsibility for what you read yourself. PSSSSSTTTT!!! Since Stagger Lee has me in his kill file, and thus won't see this article, I can let the rest of the newsgroup in on a little secret. Most of the points in his post were anticipated, and rebutted, in the third post of mine, made on April 27th, to the QRZ/eHam thread that has been relayed by an anonymous user to this newsgroup. It wasn't me (I always post from Novia), but it's probably just as well that the matter has broken open for discussion here. You can view the entire threads of discussion at: http://www.qrz.com/ib-bin/ikonboard....T;f=7;t=119282 and http://www.eham.net/articles/13581 Furthermore, any proposed moderated newsgroup will have a team of moderators, applying objective moderation criteria to be decided upon, and announced before, any newsgroup approval or creation. Volunteer moderators have been, and will be, solicited. In the meantime, if anyone is sincerely interested in joining such a team, please contact me at my E-mail address above. Remember, mum's the word! SHHHHHHH!!! -- 73, Paul W. Schleck, K3FU http://www.novia.net/~pschleck/ Finger for PGP Public Key |
Total meltdown?
On Sun, 7 May 2006 08:58:34 -0400, Dee Flint wrote:
: : "Jim Hampton" wrote in message : ... : : [snip] : : : I did set up my controls and sent a number of folks to the trash bin. : Unfortunately, almost nothing was left. There is little discussion around : these parts about amateur radio policy. : : Perhaps I am missing something here, but I suspect that when the number of : flames reaches a certain level, serious folks simply leave the newsgroup. : : : That's pretty much true. Some of us though are waiting around for the : flamers to finally get tired. It's a little early to be positive, but it appears that you are getting your wish. For the past 10 days, the flaming has died down considerably. I now only see a handful of posts killed as my newsreader opens this newsgroup. Two weeks ago, 50 or 60 posts would be nuked each day, and almost nothing would be left behind. : As to control freaks, I prefer that folks drive on the right side of the : road here in the U.S. Some rules appear necessary to protect the majority : of users. : : : Where safety is involved, yes we need such rules. But a bunch of junk news : postings are only an annoyance not a safety issue. Moderation (censorship) replaces one problem with another. If some people think that moderation is a good idea, then they should have the common courtesy to let the newsgroup users make a choice between this newsgroup and a new, moderated group. Only the users can decide which option is best for them. Attempting to "take over" the current group in order to force moderation on its regular users is not only unlikely to work (too many news servers will not respond to the control message), it is also arrogant. The person proposing the moderation is not even a regular here any longer. According to Google's profile, he has made a grand total of four posts to amateur radio news groups for the entire year of 2006! *spit* |
Total meltdown?
"Iitoi" wrote in message ////FLUSHED//// 1. Start a radio club. 2. Maintain total control & ownership of the club repeater. 3. Have yourself elected permanent president of the club. Now go away and play control freak. |
Total meltdown?
Stagger Lee wrote: On Sun, 7 May 2006 08:58:34 -0400, Dee Flint wrote: : : "Jim Hampton" wrote in message : ... : : [snip] : : I did set up my controls and sent a number of folks to the trash bin. : Unfortunately, almost nothing was left. There is little discussion around : these parts about amateur radio policy. : : Perhaps I am missing something here, but I suspect that when the number of : flames reaches a certain level, serious folks simply leave the newsgroup. : : That's pretty much true. Some of us though are waiting around for the : flamers to finally get tired. It's a little early to be positive, but it appears that you are getting your wish. It's a trap. For the past 10 days, the flaming has died down considerably. I now only see a handful of posts killed as my newsreader opens this newsgroup. Two weeks ago, 50 or 60 posts would be nuked each day, and almost nothing would be left behind. Maybe business is up in the ER. : As to control freaks, I prefer that folks drive on the right side of the : road here in the U.S. Some rules appear necessary to protect the majority : of users. : : Where safety is involved, yes we need such rules. But a bunch of junk news : postings are only an annoyance not a safety issue. Moderation (censorship) replaces one problem with another. State the problem that moderation introduces, please. If some people think that moderation is a good idea, then they should have the common courtesy to let the newsgroup users make a choice between this newsgroup and a new, moderated group. Only the users can decide which option is best for them. Who are the users? They're almost all anonymous. Attempting to "take over" the current group in order to force moderation on its regular users is not only unlikely to work (too many news servers will not respond to the control message), The gulag system served the Soviets well. it is also arrogant. What is arrogant are the incessant posting which have no bearing on amateur radio. The person proposing the moderation is not even a regular here any longer. He was once a regular. Wonder why he just visits now? According to Google's profile, he has made a grand total of four posts to amateur radio news groups for the entire year of 2006! That is an impossible assertion. This is only month 5 of the 2006 calendar. *spit* Ptui??? |
Total meltdown?
-- Quote --
Whilst the thought of a moderated group does not particularly appeal to me, I would be open to options that would get a newsgroup back to a semblance of what it was designed for. Kill-filing offenders leaves you with nothing around these parts today. Take a look in this newsgroup right now. ------- I understand the issue here with moderation. Where I'm not going to start quoting form "1984", I agree that heavy handed moderation is unlikely to get you something that anybody wants to read as apparently the open to everything buries the good stuff in too much noise that nobody wants to sift though. But the problem here is much like the trade offs in good receiver design. To much bandwidth, to much noise to hear the desired signal, not enough bandwidth and you will loose valuable information. Right now we have a first IF that's way to wide and the meaningful stuff is lost in the noise. Imagine trying to hear that CW signal when you have to hear everything for 6Khz? You can do it, but why go though the pain? Why would you try to listen to a SSB conversation with the 500Hz CW filter in place? Of course it all has trade offs. I'm not so sure that a bit of bandwidth reduction might not be useful on this group. I'm a bit tired of the flame wars myself however any attempt to do this must recognize that disagreement (while not being disagreeable) is a good thing. -= KC4UAI =- |
Total meltdown?
|
Total meltdown?
blubbered & whined in a message... of the flame wars myself however, blah blah blah blah blah blah blah KC4UAI *FLUSHED* //another psycho for the blocked-sender file// PLONK |
Total meltdown?
"Paul W. Schleck" whined in a message... //FLUSHED// Hey Control Freak, have you started your own radio club and purchased a repeater yet? |
Total meltdown?
"Saggtytits Lee" has been plagiarizing all along. What his M.O. is to
cut and paste others' words and add a few comments of his own so it appears he did the entire body of work. He's an idiot, (says Steve Gielda) and tried to net-cop others whose opinions didn't match his. Hr tried to pass off an Alabama ARES website for an WV ARES organization. He is a plain imbecile. |
Total meltdown?
Stagger Lee wrote: It's a more plagiarism ****UP Lee" geography idiot and imbecile ****s up as usual when he thinks Marshall County, Alabama and Marshall County, West Virginia are the same place in message : " Then what is at http://www.geocities.com/skywarncanwarn/ doodle brain? It sure looks like the Marshall County ARES, and it even has a place to send email." |
Total meltdown?
DeLorean wrote: On 9 May 2006 07:36:07 -0700, wrote: "Saggtytits Lee" has been plagiarizing all along. What his M.O. is to cut and paste others' words and add a few comments of his own so it appears he did the entire body of work. He's an idiot, (says Steve Gielda) and tried to net-cop others whose opinions didn't match his. Hr tried to pass off an Alabama ARES website for an WV ARES organization. He is a plain imbecile. Wiseman, Stagger Lee has outed your plagiarism and your ISPs so often that you have to hide behind Google's free accounts now. You even hid from Dave Heil's wife, you mewling pussy. Reason? You're literally a raving lunatic in real life, so you have no idea of what's happening in the real world. Look at your lie about Gielda, who in fact called YOU an idiot, as can be verified by anyone who looks at frankly I have come to the conclusion that Wismen is trying a form of "suicide by cop" behaving so badly he hopes someone will kill him since i guess the cops in his town have seen thugh his efforts and will not play along http://groups.google.com/group/alt.2...10e1ef18?hl=en Mark is right. Get help. Not even NIM Busters wants you around. That's why they elected you "Cocksucker of the Year" for 2006. yep wismen get help please, aor find a better means of offing yourself the present strategy sn't going to work |
Total meltdown?
A perfect example of stuff that would be filtered as noise should this group go moderated someday. Despite the objections I've heard here, I think there is much to gain here. Of course this whole debate is a bit out of topic for this group to start with... I'm done now... Miami Wind wrote: blubbered & whined in a message... of the flame wars myself however, blah blah blah blah blah blah blah KC4UAI *FLUSHED* //another psycho for the blocked-sender file// PLONK |
Total meltdown?
|
Total meltdown?
Well Old Friend,
I'm not sure I understand what you mean... You doubt that moderation could help or you think it's just too far gone? I think that a lot of the objectionable material that is obviously off topic and the flame wars that have grown up around such junk as you indicate would be *easy* to moderate away without giving up any freedom to debate all sides of the issues. You can disagree without being disagreeable... One only has to respect the other guy, no matter how much you disagree with them. For example, you may think that somebody doesn't know anything about the topic they are making statements about, but you don't need to call him stupid to debate the issues. You can just start bringing up the *facts* you think they missed and ask for their thoughts on them. I think you and I have had such discussions without having to resort to a name calling flame war.. It can be done. -= bob =- |
Total meltdown?
|
Total meltdown?
wrote in message oups.com... Well Old Friend, More idiocy and moronic Psycho-Babble from the entity calling itself bob_deep Get a life you Moron!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
Total meltdown?
Well,
I suppose you are right that there is a risk in going fully moderated, but at this point I don't see that this news group would have much to loose. Any reasonable debate is currently lost in the noise of the flamers as evidenced in this thread. Personally I don't think ones race, religion, sex, orientation etc has any bearing on their ability to add to the debate of amateur radio policy and I don't see how any of your responses to me would come close to being the type of thing that should be moderated out of the group. About facts being ignored you are right in part. Many folks only want to stand on the soap box and don't want to be confused by the facts. Some actually are interested in the facts and read such groups to find them. I just don't think anybody is served when we get 15 posts in a 20 post thread that are obviously just flaming with nothing valueable to add or some fine point to discuss. We simply are not going to attract new readers like this. I'm a bit tired of all the gutter talk that the bulk of this group seems to be about. I personally don't care (from a rec.radio.amateur.policy perspective anyway) what somebodies sexual orientation is (real or imagined). I would generally ignore the content anyway when such inflammatory language is used, the poster must just not have anything worth while to say. Don't be fooled though, some of us actually *do* look for those who present logical arguments or new facts for our consideration. It may not work with the general rabble flame throwers, but there are some folks here who are willing to step back and consider new thinking. Don't give up trying. -= Bob =- |
Total meltdown?
whined & cried in a message Well, (such a deep subject for your shallow brain) Do you ever stop whining and crying???? BWAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH |
Total meltdown?
shut op asscrack
.. wrote in message oups.com... A perfect example of stuff that would be filtered as noise should this group go moderated someday. Despite the objections I've heard here, I think there is much to gain here. Of course this whole debate is a bit out of topic for this group to start with... I'm done now... Miami Wind wrote: blubbered & whined in a message... of the flame wars myself however, blah blah blah blah blah blah blah KC4UAI *FLUSHED* //another psycho for the blocked-sender file// PLONK |
Total meltdown?
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:48 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com