rst@tardis.UUCP (Robert Thau) (11/18/85)
Yes, I'm serious. If net.bizarre and net.flame were threats to the networks's continued existence, then Rich Rosen is doubly so. Let's examine the facts: Rich Rosen's volume is enormous. His postings comprise two percent of the network's volume. Remember, that's two percent of the backbone sites' phone bills. This is top twenty *newsgroup* volume no matter how you count. Expressed as a raw number of bytes per week, the number is horrendous. It is impossible for one man to produce this much cogent thought in a week. Speaking only for myself (perhaps a poor comparison) I don't think I could even type that fast. What's worse: Rich Rosen causes articles to be posted to the net which otherwise would not have appeared. I am referring in particular to followups to his postings, which are generally as large and as obnoxious as the originals. When the followup is unfavorable, Rosen tends to riposte with more of the same --- and yes, there are positive feedback loops. Net.philosophy, for example, is one. The Larry Palena---Doug Alan--- Rich Rosen---Paul Kirsch flame axis in net.music is another. Above all: Rich Rosen's articles have an extremely low signal-to-noise ratio. Many (most?) of his postings are point-by-point replies; often, most of the text was previously posted. Transmitting this text is an utter waste. What little he has to say is blasted out so many times one gets sick of reading it. For instance, he recently posted an article in net.music saying that he did not like the Grateful Dead album Terrapin Station. He has since posted at least twenty more articles which point out that he does not like the Grateful Dead album Terrapin Station, and he will no doubt keep it up until the Deadheads that disagree with him are exhausted. Due to his high volume and near-total lack of redeeming value, I propose that Rich Rosen be removed from USENET. In order to preserve the usual facade of democracy, I'm doing this as a poll. I will take replies (by mail only please), and after two weeks, forward the results (pro or con) to the net and to pyuxd!root. Help stamp out cretinism!!! ********************* EXIT SATIRE MODE ************************ This is only partially in jest. I *do* wish the man would shut up. However, high-volume posters, like high-volume newsgroups, are red herrings for the real problem, which is that too many people are posting too much. There are two possible solutions. Moderation is one. However, it has problems. Finding moderators that people will respect is going to be difficult. Dealing with poor performance on the part of a moderator could be next to impossible. Lastly, the increased delay times of a moderated group would (or at least, could) wipe out discussions on the net; I don't believe this is a Good Thing. The other solution is to encourage restraint, and above all, to show it. Quite simply, if every posting to the net (or even most of them) had some original content, the volume problem would go away; people simply can't think that fast. Now for the $64,000 question: can we get there from here? I don't think it's impossible. The "obligatory joke" rule of net.jokes has no software enforcement, yet since this custom arose there have been very, very few completely inappropriate postings to jokes. The reason: anyone dumb enough to try it gets flamed into oblivion. (Hate mail may be ugly, but it sometimes works). However, keep in mind, the problem is not *them*, it is *us*. (I don't mean to belittle the problems of backbone admins, but the "the net is dying" postings are getting monotonous. It's not that you aren't thoughtful, it's just that of late your postings are all thoughtful in precisely the same way. This also goes for any postings on net.sources.mac, pro *or* con). Net.news.group is a high volume newsgroup. If everybody's seen it, we don't need to see it again. Let's all reduce net volume. Don't post. --- rst@tardis
campbell@maynard.UUCP (Larry Campbell) (11/19/85)
If Rich Rosen were a site all by himself, he'd be the number 2 site
in volume (based on the last stats from seismo).
--
Larry Campbell decvax!genrad
The Boston Software Works, Inc. \
120 Fulton St. seismo!harvard!wjh12!maynard!campbell
Boston MA 02109 / /
ihnp4 cbosgd
ARPA: maynard.UUCP:campbell@harvard.ARPAmcb@k.cs.cmu.edu (Michael Browne) (11/19/85)
I don't know if he should be deleted, because some of his articles are pretty interesting. Perhaps he should be moderated instead. -- UUCP: ..!seismo!k.cs.cmu.edu!mcb ARPA: mcb@k.cs.cmu.edu "It came time to move, so I packed up my Salvador Dali print of two blindfolded dental hygienists trying to make a circle on an Etch-a-Sketch..."
woods@hao.UUCP (Greg Woods) (11/19/85)
> Rich Rosen's articles have an extremely low signal-to-noise ratio. They consist mainly of Rich stating his axiomatic beliefs as though they were proven facts, and following that with a logical argument based on those beliefs to prove that his opponent(s) are "wrong". > Many (most?) of his postings are point-by-point replies; often, > most of the text was previously posted. Transmitting this text is > an utter waste. What little he has to say is blasted out so many > times one gets sick of reading it. Not to mention arguments carried on by mail. I got involved with a discussion with Rich recently (it started from the "emotional responsibility" discussion in net.singles, if anyone remembers all the flames THAT caused) that rapidly degenerated into multi hundred line flames about how I was ignoring the "facts" (his beliefs) and how "wrong" I was for believing the way I do. > Due to his high volume and near-total lack of redeeming value, I propose > that Rich Rosen be removed from USENET. Do I REALLY get to vote on this? This is too good to be true! :-) > This is only partially in jest. I *do* wish the man would shut up. > However, high-volume posters, like high-volume newsgroups, are red > herrings for the real problem, which is that too many people are > posting too much. Acknowledged that we are only kidding, Rich. But you are correct; high-volume newsgroups and posters are merely the most obvious and therefore the most noticeable part of the problem. But eliminating Rich Rosen, even if we really wanted to and could do so, is not even going to make a dent in the problem. > There are two possible solutions. Moderation is one. However, it > has problems. Finding moderators that people will respect is going > to be difficult. Not really. For any newsgroup I read, I can think of a couple of people that I would be willing to let moderate it. I could even do the job myself (and would be willing to do so if the readers would have me). > Dealing with poor performance on the part of a > moderator could be next to impossible. Obviously, we would have to have some guidelines for moderators to follow, and some procedures for electing/replacing moderators. > Lastly, the increased delay > times of a moderated group would (or at least, could) wipe out > discussions on the net; I don't believe this is a Good Thing. I do not agree that this is so. > The other solution is to encourage restraint, and above all, to show > it. Quite simply, if every posting to the net (or even most of them) > had some original content, the volume problem would go away. > Now for the $64,000 question: can we get there from here? I say no. I am firmly convinced that anything that demands cooperation of a large group of users and/or administrators is doomed to failure. > I don't think it's impossible. The "obligatory joke" rule of net.jokes > has no software enforcement, yet since this custom arose there have > been very, very few completely inappropriate postings to jokes. ...except for endless reruns of Paddy O'Furniture jokes, light bulb jokes, etc. that caused me to unsubscribe long ago. > The > reason: anyone dumb enough to try it gets flamed into oblivion. There are many people who couldn't care less how many flames they get. > However, keep in mind, the problem is not *them*, it is *us*. You are correct here. One thing I'm sure of: any rules we adopt had better be enforceable. Otherwise there will ALWAYS be people who refuse to follow them. --Greg -- {ucbvax!hplabs | allegra!nbires | decvax!noao | mcvax!seismo | ihnp4!noao} !hao!woods CSNET: woods@NCAR ARPA: woods%ncar@CSNET-RELAY
kurt@unmvax.UUCP (11/23/85)
USENET was created to support the UNIX, basically as a information
service for gurus and such. Lets remove all the garbage. Here is one
solution I think would be quite effective. Let each site guru decide
who on their machine needs or should have access to USENET? The
backbone or some group of gurus should then have the power to stop
servicing sites which abuse their PRIVILEDGES. (Yes, USENET is a
priviledge, not a right)
---
Kurt D. Zeilenga | UUCP: {ucbvax|lanl|gatech}!unmvax!kurt
Computer Science Department | ARPA: unmvax!kurt@berkeley.ARPA
University of New Mexico | (505) 277-3112 (Dept. Office)
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87131 | (505) 277-6571 (Lab./Office)rcj@burl.UUCP (Curtis Jackson) (11/25/85)
In article <10108@tardis.UUCP> rst@tardis.UUCP (Robert Thau) writes: >Yes, I'm serious. If net.bizarre and net.flame were threats to the >networks's continued existence, then Rich Rosen is doubly so. Let's >examine the facts: >Rich Rosen's volume is enormous..... Blanket reply -- since I don't read any of the groups that Rich Rosen [allegedly] terrorizes, I can't comment on his actions, but: If someone's volume is *really* that incredible and *really* that obnoxious and *really* that repetitive, and if said person refuses to be swayed by common sense or any sense of netiquette, then perhaps that person's management would like to receive an anonymous paper copy of all that person's postings for a month or so with the dates AND TIMES of posting circled in red. Be forewarned, however, that this might cause the loss of net access for that user's entire user community, so one should take care. I know that here and most other places I know of, peer pressure is enough to squelch a postaholic; perhaps if you mail your intentions to the '"root" of the problem' site you might get some action that way. 'Nuff said, -- The MAD Programmer -- 919-228-3313 (Cornet 291) alias: Curtis Jackson ...![ ihnp4 ulysses cbosgd mgnetp ]!burl!rcj ...![ ihnp4 cbosgd akgua masscomp ]!clyde!rcj
ron@brl-sem.ARPA (Ron Natalie <ron>) (11/27/85)
> USENET was created to support the UNIX, basically as a information > service for gurus and such. Lets remove all the garbage. Here is one > solution I think would be quite effective. Let each site guru decide > who on their machine needs or should have access to USENET? The > backbone or some group of gurus should then have the power to stop > servicing sites which abuse their PRIVILEDGES. (Yes, USENET is a > priviledge, not a right) The code is in the news code to do that right now. I only know of it's use on machines like UNIROT which are open to almost everyone. Far be it from me to judge one of my users. We have better ways of dealing with people who post trash, but I am not going to use this to block even our biggest posters views. -Ron
gds@mit-eddie.UUCP (Greg Skinner) (11/28/85)
"Each site guru" does not necessarily have the authority to allow or
prevent people access to USENET. Complaints about an individual's
postings should probably be directed to the management at the site and
not the SA. The SA could speak to his management on behalf of
complainers that a user of the machine should be prevented from
accessing USENET, but I don't think (unless s/he has been specifically
given that power) s/he should be expected to take it upon his/her own to
determine access. There might be a situation where the supervisor of an
SA is posting obnoxious articles -- what could the SA do in that case,
order his/her boss of the net?
--
It's like a jungle sometimes, it makes me wonder how I keep from goin' under.
Greg Skinner (gregbo)
{decvax!genrad, allegra, ihnp4}!mit-eddie!gds
gds@mit-eddie.mit.edu