jessea@dynasys.UUCP ( Sysadmin.) (09/30/89)
I too have noticed an increase in flaming in a lot of different newsgroups.
A fews people are making life miserable for the others and, I for one don't
want to put up with it. Is there anything we can (should) do? The first
question is whether we should attempt to do something. I believe so.
Unfortunately, when something like USENET gets as big as its getting, you are
going to have these type of problems. It's not fair for a very, very small
minority to ruin it for the rest of us. Second question: How do we go about
it? Create a blackball list and let each system determine whether they want
to use it or not? How would the list be created? I don't want a "Flame
Patrol" or anything that idiot, so how would this be done? Have the net
nominate people for the various categories, i.e. "Most obnoxious", etc?
Any ideas/comments?
--
Jesse W. Asher
Dynasys (901) 382-1705
6196-1 Macon Rd., Suite 200, Memphis, TN 38134
uunet!dynasys!jesseawoods@ncar.ucar.edu (Greg Woods) (10/04/89)
In article <10@dynasys.UUCP> jessea@dynasys.UUCP (Jesse W. Asher - Sysadmin.) writes: >I too have noticed an increase in flaming in a lot of different newsgroups. >A fews people are making life miserable for the others and, I for one don't >want to put up with it. Is there anything we can (should) do? The best way to make an idiot go away is to ignore him/her. Really. People will stop flaming if they get no response. I confess that I do not practice what I preach 100% of the time, but the fact that I have human failings does not invalidate the point. The best way to stop a flamer is: DON'T RESPOND. Even if you are under personal attack, if the flamer is truly an idiot, everyone else will be able to see that too. --Greg
davidbe@sco.COM (The Cat in the Hat) (10/04/89)
news.admin's own jessea@dynasys.UUCP (Jesse W. Asher - Sysadmin.) said:
-I too have noticed an increase in flaming in a lot of different newsgroups.
-A fews people are making life miserable for the others and, I for one don't
-want to put up with it. Is there anything we can (should) do? The first
-question is whether we should attempt to do something. I believe so.
I don't believe so. To attempt to prohibit certain types of messages because
of content is censorship. I admit, I like to see certain types of
censorship (the relegation of advertising to biz.*, certain articles by
certain people), but to generalize into "doing something about flames" is
a bit much.
-Unfortunately, when something like USENET gets as big as its getting, you are
-going to have these type of problems. It's not fair for a very, very small
-minority to ruin it for the rest of us.
Are you *really* being hurt by the flame messages? If these "flamers"
bother you, the option of skipping their articles (whether automagically
with an rn kill file, or manually in notes) *is* available. It may not be
convenient, but it is available.
-Second question: How do we go about
-it? Create a blackball list and let each system determine whether they want
-to use it or not? How would the list be created? I don't want a "Flame
-Patrol" or anything that idiot, so how would this be done? Have the net
-nominate people for the various categories, i.e. "Most obnoxious", etc?
-Any ideas/comments?
There's really no way around it. The moment you create a "most something"
category, you'll have people trying to win it.
You could try ignoring these people you don't like, and hope they go away.
Or you could send polite mail to them, asking that they keep the flames
to alt.flame. These methods have worked in the past.
(Note: A flame of this article appears in alt.flame.)
--
David Bedno, Systems Administrator, The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc.
Email: davidbe@sco.COM / ..!{uunet,sun,ucbvax!ucscc,gorn}!sco!davidbe
Phone: 408-425-7222 x5123 Disclaimer: Speaking from SCO but not for SCO.
"Just another tragic case of terminal kinetic energy poisoning."
- Dr. Buen-Scheukpokey@well.UUCP (Jef Poskanzer) (10/04/89)
In the referenced message, woods@handies.UCAR.EDU (Greg Woods) wrote: }not invalidate the point. The best way to stop a flamer is: DON'T RESPOND. }Even if you are under personal attack, if the flamer is truly an idiot, }everyone else will be able to see that too. Except for all the other idiots, who will proceed to post followups. I find that a polite e-mailed form letter gets good results. For instance, here's the one I'm currently using on the idiots who post non-source to alt.sources: Please don't post stuff like this to alt.sources. The proper newsgroup for discussion is alt.sources.d. Posting non-source articles to alt.sources is very impolite, since many people attempt to archive it automatically and they don't want non-source articles. I suggest you cancel your article immediately. I just took a look in my control newsgroup, and found eleven cancels for alt.sources. Not bad. Andrew Beals has a nice collection of form letters for other occasions. Write to him (bandy@well.sf.ca.us) if you're interested. --- Jef Jef Poskanzer pokey@well.sf.ca.us {ucbvax, apple, hplabs}!well!pokey Yow! Are we interfacing yet?
cej@ll1a.att.com (Jones) (10/04/89)
In article <10@dynasys.UUCP>, jessea@dynasys.UUCP ( Sysadmin.) writes: > Is there anything we can (should) do? The first > > Jesse W. Asher You can what I have done in the past. E-mail the flamer, and, in a very reasonable manner, let them know that: 1) The are making a fool out of themselves in front of a *huge* audience. 2) By flaming, their point (if any) is lost, and no matter what else they say, they lose. 3) Flamers quickly end up in kill files, and if they keep it up at some point they will just be talking to themselves. (It's happened before.) 4) Suggest alt.flame, if they must flame. If you happen to agree with the point (if any) the flamer was flaming about, let them know. And let them know that their flame was *so* counter-productive that you are tempted to change your position, just so you don't have to agree with them. Receipt of several dozen letters of this nature from 'news admins' for each flame can work wonders. (9 out of 10 doctors agree. ;-) Above all, don't flame at them. And use e-mail only. And if they flame in response to your e-mail, don't answer. [Remember - it's the beginning of a new school year. There's lots of people at universities with usenet access for the first time. (Happens this time every year.) We have to teach them table manners early. Bad habits are hard to break.] You can always e-mail threatening notes to their sysadmin later. ;-) ...att!ll1a!cej Llewellyn Jones [Just me, not AT&T] cej@ll1a.att.com >> This article may NOT be forwarded by the 'In Moderation Network' << How many would vote for putting Pete Rose in the Hall of Fame, *and* taking his picture *off* of Wheaties? - Mark Russel
mvp@v7fs1.UUCP (Mike Van Pelt) (10/04/89)
Along the lines of the best way to eradicate flames being to ignore the flamemongers: Use rn, or some other newsreader with a KILL file feature. When a user comes to your attention as being an incurable flamemonger, add him to your KILL file, as follows: /user@site/a:j (This is for rn, other newsreaders may differ.) It's best if you can add it only to the groups which the flamemonger infests, but you can put it in the global KILL file if necessary. This will search the full text of all messages for user@site, thus killing all the flamebouant replies entered by those who don't follow the sound advice to ignore the twit. -- Mike Van Pelt "Beware the first release, my son, Headland Technology/Video 7 and shun the frumious 1.0" ...ames!vsi1!v7fs1!mvp