gam@amdahl.UUCP (Gordon A. Moffett) (10/16/84)
> David DiGiacomo, BRAG Systems Inc., San Mateo CA (415) 342-3963 > (...decvax!ucbvax!hplabs!bragvax!david) > > Can someone convince me that the "new order" mod groups are not an example > of net.fascism? No, I can't. My gripe is the new 'mod.motss', being created because some contributors say things that some of the readers don't want to read; not that the contributions aren't worthwhile, but if you don't adhere to the new liberal sensibilities you apparently have to be muzzled. So now we have 'mod.motss', where only the "proper" sort of entries will be allowed. Have their been similar arguments in the other groups that have been "modded"? -- Gordon A. Moffett ...!{ihnp4,hplabs,amd,nsc}!amdahl!gam [ Only these only are only my only opinions, only. Thank you. ]
phil@amd.UUCP (Phil Ngai) (10/16/84)
> > David DiGiacomo, BRAG Systems Inc., San Mateo CA (415) 342-3963 > > Can someone convince me that the "new order" mod groups are not an example > > of net.fascism? > No, I can't. My gripe is the new 'mod.motss', being created because > some contributors say things that some of the readers don't want to > read; not that the contributions aren't worthwhile, but if you don't > adhere to the new liberal sensibilities you apparently have to be > muzzled. Why do you go around telling other people what to do? If you want anarchy and like reading junk, then continue to read net.motss. I don't see how mod.motss hurts you as long as net.motss exists. Clearly there are people who want it, for someone took the trouble to create it and moderate it. I even see people post to it, this might mean people read it too. mod.motss seems to fill a demand, why can't you let it be? If it stops filling a need that will become apparent too and then you can remove it. Meanwhile, I think it's a good idea. Who's the facist here anyway? -- Phil Ngai (408) 982-6554 UUCPnet: {ucbvax,decwrl,ihnp4,allegra,intelca}!amd!phil ARPAnet: amd!phil@decwrl.ARPA
gam@amdahl.UUCP (10/16/84)
> > > David DiGiacomo, BRAG Systems Inc., San Mateo CA (415) 342-3963 > > > Can someone convince me that the "new order" mod groups are not an example > > > of net.fascism? > > No, I can't. My gripe is the new 'mod.motss', being created because > > some contributors say things that some of the readers don't want to > > read; not that the contributions aren't worthwhile, but if you don't > > adhere to the new liberal sensibilities you apparently have to be > > muzzled. > > Why do you go around telling other people what to do? If you want anarchy > and like reading junk, then continue to read net.motss. I don't see how > mod.motss hurts you as long as net.motss exists. Clearly there are people > who want it, for someone took the trouble to create it and moderate it. > I even see people post to it, this might mean people read it too. mod.motss > seems to fill a demand, why can't you let it be? If it stops filling a need > that will become apparent too and then you can remove it. Meanwhile, > I think it's a good idea. > > Who's the facist here anyway? > -- > > Phil Ngai (408) 982-6554 > UUCPnet: {ucbvax,decwrl,ihnp4,allegra,intelca}!amd!phil > ARPAnet: amd!phil@decwrl.ARPA The difference is that net.motss is free and unmoderated, while mod.motss is not. Anyone can post and respond to articles in net.motss while articles to mod.motss are ``moderated'' (ie, selectively filtered). This hurts me because I know that discussions in mod.motss have to pass somebody's idea of quality control whereas net.motss was a lively exchange of ideas. I can't help see this as a case of ``I'm taking my marbles and going home!'' I propose ``mod.music''! (*snicker*) -- Gordon A. Moffett ...!{ihnp4,hplabs,amd,nsc}!amdahl!gam [ Only these only are only my only opinions, only. Thank you. ]
gam@amdahl.UUCP (10/16/84)
> I propose ``mod.music''! (*snicker*)
Oh my God! There *is* a mod.music ... !
--
Gordon A. Moffett ...!{ihnp4,hplabs,amd,nsc}!amdahl!gam
[ Only these only are only my only opinions, only. Thank you. ]chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Zonker T. Chuqui) (10/17/84)
> The difference is that net.motss is free and unmoderated, while > mod.motss is not. Anyone can post and respond to articles in net.motss > while articles to mod.motss are ``moderated'' (ie, selectively filtered). The difference is also that a very small but motivated group of people can 'take over' a group and make a group completely useless for it's intended target. This can be done by sheer volume, by endless bickering, by nausea, or by brute bigotry. Look at the recent problems in net.motss and the ongoing problems with net.music.classical for examples where a minority party has made a group pretty painful for the interested majority. This is unmoderated and free CENSORSHIP in another form, because many people give up in disgust and go elsewhere. A significant difference with moderators is that (1) they are approved and regulated by their readership-- if they are screwing up they can be booted out; and (2) there is a guaranteed forum for people to find out IF he is screwing up in the old net.<whatever> group because the readers can get together and compare notes. With the *ssh*l*s that take the advantages of 'free and unmoderated' without accepting the responsibilities of same, you can't do anything at all unless you can talk someone in control of their local site to shove a bicycle pump down their throats for you. As usenet has grown, the number of these immature idiots has grown to the point that using certain groups has become painful past the reasonable level for many people and they've unsubscribed. I've recently been taking a poll as to whether or not mod.singles should exist. Early results were VERY negative, but they have turned around significantly and the clear majority is currently in favor of moderating this group. One of the more common comments I've gotten is that a person is really looking forward to reading singles again because they simply ran out of 'n' key time to wade through the chaff and had to unsubscribe. You can call moderation censorship, but that is taking a very narrow view of the whole situation. Large numbers of messages is censorship, innappropriate or duplicated messages are censorship, offensive messages are censorship, anything that forces people to unsubscribe to a group that they would like to read is censorship. To me, moderation means removing as many of the NEGATIVE forms of censorship as possible to try to make reading the group as useful as possible to as wide an audience as possible. This does NOT mean limiting content, topics, or whatever-- it just means keeping the noise factor to a minimum. If I believed otherwise I wouldn't be spending part of my copious free time moderating something. I don't expect myself to be perfect, and I expect my readers will happily jump on my face when I make a mistake. I also expect that as time goes on the mistakes I make will become less frequent as I learn what my readers expect of me-- it basically comes down to the fact that I'm trying to save them time and trouble at my own expense. I don't think things will ever be perfect (and I dare anyone to claim that the status quo is) but I do think they will be better. > This hurts me because I know that discussions in mod.motss have to > pass somebody's idea of quality control whereas net.motss was a > lively exchange of ideas. > > I can't help see this as a case of ``I'm taking my marbles and going > home!'' Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. I don't see how an exchange of ideas can be any less lively under mod.<anything> simply because someone tries to keep the discussion within the frame of reference it should never left in the first place. A recent case in net.singles was a discussion of singles and Christianity that quickly devolved into a discussion of Christianity that had nothing to do singles and should have moved to net.religion. A moderator could have either steered the subject back to the original topic or asked them to move it-- as it was there were quite a few of us who sat back and steamed because it was making it really hard to deal with the topics that net.singles is really about. Is it censorship to ask a splinter discussion to move to a more appropriate place (such as mail)? Maybe. But I also propose that having splinter subjects in inappropriate places that keep the topic in general from functioning as they are supposed to (and frustrating the majority of readers as it does so) is also censorship of a more negative kind. This isn't a cocktail party where a group of people can move into another room. Everyone has to listen to everything if they want to listen at all, and the only saviour is the 'n' key. The one thing my results have shown is that there are many people out there that simply don't have the time or patience to 'n' through 20 messages a day to find the three or four in a group they WANT to see. The noise overwhelms the signal. And that is censorship of the worst kind. chuq -- From the Department of Bistromatics: Chuq Von Rospach {cbosgd,decwrl,fortune,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo}!nsc!chuqui nsc!chuqui@decwrl.ARPA How about 'reason for living?' (Editors note: Bistromatics is NOT a typo. Bistromathics is the study of math on an italian waiters checkpad. Bistromatics is the study of Italian cooking on females of the human species. Please quit sending me mail)
sdyer@bbncca.ARPA (Steve Dyer) (10/17/84)
Net.flame is certainly the place for this...
First, I agree with everything that Chuq said in reply to this message.
And...
Moffett really makes me gag. This guy has had literally NOTHING to
say in net.motss over the past year, yet every now and then he crawls out
of his bunker with a dumb comment about how the "gays" are muzzling
people like him. Note, too, that when people spoke up for the positive
reasons for the creation of mod.motss, he didn't bother presenting
reasoned arguments against it. No, all we were treated to was an
occasional self-satisfied, bilious belch. These people who complain
the most about "facism" are really arguing for a return to the playpens
and mudholes of their childhood, where they can throw sand, pull the
girls' pigtails, play in the mud, and, being grownups now, grind their
axes, all without Mom being around.
If Moffett feels deprived of a newsgroup where he can rehash tired
old canards about the immorality of gay people, and most importantly,
not engage in dialogue with those who disagree with him (the most
important thing is to say the same thing over and over again, NOT to
address any points raised by others), he can take his pick, or maybe
even start his own group. Why not open THAT up to net.news.group?
Just as net.motss not only confounded the sceptics, but actually
became one of the most intelligent, serious and well-run newsgroups
on USENET in the past year (notwithstanding the past few months in
the company of Arndt and Brunson), so too, it is my intention to
see that this record continue with mod.motss. I hope to bring the
benefits of moderation to the group, while keeping its free-wheeling
style intact.
--
/Steve Dyer
{decvax,linus,ima,ihnp4}!bbncca!sdyer
sdyer@bbncca.ARPAmoriarty@fluke.UUCP (10/17/84)
>I don't see how mod.motss hurts you as long as net.motss exists.
I think this says it all... freedom of speech is not impaired as long as
there is an equivalent, non-moderated group. One can even respond to
articles in the moderated group in the non-moderated group (though they will
probably not be published in both, to save space). Remember, the mod groups
are no more/less prestigous ( :-) ? ) than the net groups... I think that it
has rightly been pointed out that some of the groups tend to drift off of
the subject they were created for, and that this will allow both "pure" and
"side" issues to prosper. For instance, a lot of net.movies has become
movie trivia, and upcoming movie news, etc. (all of which I enjoy). But
many people want to just read movie reviews... mod.movies will allow this.
Looking over the list of moderators, I'm struck that these are people whose
articles show a fairly even-handed attitude (i.e. low-or-no occurences of
frothing at the mouth); while I'd like to see how it works, I believe this
to be a good solution to the "net anarchy vs. irrelevant posting" problem.
I'd have to say I'm VERY much for it (especially as one who often posts what
could be considered "silly" articles).
Net.facism? Nah... that word is used too much. At the very worst, perhaps,
net.elitism :-)... I suggest net.specialization!
"She's not only merely dead, she's really most sincerely dead."
Moriarty, aka Jeff Meyer
John Fluke Mfg. Co., Inc.
UUCP:
{cornell,decvax,ihnp4,sdcsvax,tektronix,utcsrgv}!uw-beaver \
{allegra,gatech!sb1,hplabs!lbl-csam,decwrl!sun,ssc-vax} -- !fluke!moriarty
ARPA:
fluke!moriarty@uw-beaver.ARPAgam@amdahl.UUCP (Gordon A. Moffett) (10/17/84)
> Chuq von Rospach > nsc!chuqui > > Look at the recent problems in net.motss and > the ongoing problems with net.music.classical for examples where a minority > party has made a group pretty painful for the interested majority. Sorry but I don't see it that way. Net.motss was suffering from extreme divergence of viewpoint, not garbage generated by assholes. Net.music.classical has been languishing, if anything, because its purpose has never been clearly defined (because ``classical music'' apparently means different things to different people). The very fact that we disagree on the issue of moderated newsgroups suggests that something is wrong here. > You can > call moderation censorship, but that is taking a very narrow view of the > whole situation. Large numbers of messages is censorship, innappropriate or > duplicated messages are censorship, offensive messages are censorship, > anything that forces people to unsubscribe to a group that they would like > to read is censorship. It amazes me how you redefine free speech (with all its problems) as censorship. WHO is defining "inappropriate"? WHAT do you mean by "offensive"? As for "anything that forces people to unsubscribe to a group", that seems to include "anything that I don't want to read because I disagree with it." This is exactly what was/is happening in net.motss. > To me, moderation means removing as many of the > NEGATIVE forms of censorship as possible to try to make reading the group > as useful as possible to as wide an audience as possible. This does NOT > mean limiting content, topics, or whatever-- it just means keeping the > noise factor to a minimum. We obviously disagree about what "noise" is. Again, going back to net.motss, it wasn't suffering from noise, it was suffering from a great intolerance of Ken Ardnt. Can you tell me that if Ken Ardnt had never posted to net.motss that it would still have wrought mod.motss? Can Ken Ardnt post to mod.motss? Will he want to? > [as a moderator] I don't expect myself to > be perfect, and I expect my readers will happily jump on my face when I > make a mistake. I also expect that as time goes on the mistakes I make will > become less frequent as I learn what my readers expect of me-- it basically > comes down to the fact that I'm trying to save them time and trouble at my > own expense. I don't think things will ever be perfect (and I dare anyone > to claim that the status quo is) but I do think they will be better. I don't want a moderator to select just what I want to read. I want to read things that perhaps I don't want to read (if you get my drift) because I like to be exposed to opinions different from my own. (I have no quarrel with your moderation of mod.singles, btw, as I don't read net.singles anyway). > I don't see how an exchange of ideas can be any > less lively under mod.<anything> simply because someone tries to keep the > discussion within the frame of reference it should never left in the first > place. A recent case in net.singles was a discussion of singles and > Christianity that quickly devolved into a discussion of Christianity that > had nothing to do singles and should have moved to net.religion. A good point, except that where YOU draw the line might be different than where I would, which is my point. Leave the editing of newsgroups to me and my 'n' key, and I'll be happy. > Is it censorship to ask a splinter > discussion to move to a more appropriate place (such as mail)? Maybe. But I > also propose that having splinter subjects in inappropriate places that > keep the topic in general from functioning as they are supposed to (and > frustrating the majority of readers as it does so) is also censorship of a > more negative kind. I don't think asking a discussion to be moved to a more appropriate place is the issue here. The issue is WHO should decide when that move should take place, and WHO will be the one to say, "sorry, you can't post that here," and enforce that decision? It seems the net is exchanging social controls (peer pressure, if you will), for centralized controls (moderators). > Everyone has to listen to everything if they want to listen at all, > and the only saviour is the 'n' key. The one thing my results have shown is > that there are many people out there that simply don't have the time or > patience to 'n' through 20 messages a day to find the three or four in a > group they WANT to see. The noise overwhelms the signal. And that is > censorship of the worst kind. That is probably a good case for mod.singles, when net.singles seemed to consist entirely of articles like "How come I'm so lonely?" and "Should I be using Dentyne or Binaca?" But this logic does not apply to net.motss. Again, my complaint is not with mod.singles but with mod.motss. I think the reasons for their existence are quite different from one another. -- "Welcome to the Future -- it's just starting now..." Gordon A. Moffett ...!{ihnp4,hplabs,amd,nsc}!amdahl!gam [ This is just me talking. ]
david@bragvax.UUCP (David DiGiacomo) (10/17/84)
I was apparently quoted as follows in 371@amdahl: (>> my quote, > someone else's comment) >> Can someone convince me that the "new order" mod groups are not an example >> of net.fascism? > No, I can't. My gripe is the new 'mod.motss', being created because > some contributors ... I'd like to make it clear that I have no objection to moderated groups, or to mod.motss. However, I'm very unhappy that mod.movies, mod.music, mod.newslists, mod.singles, mod.sources, and mod.unix were created anonymously with no advance discussion or justification. Who are the moderators for these groups, who selected them, and what are their qualifications? -- David DiGiacomo, BRAG Systems Inc., San Mateo CA (415) 342-3963 (...decvax!ucbvax!hplabs!bragvax!david)
chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Zonker T. Chuqui) (10/18/84)
> == amdahl!gam > Sorry but I don't see it that way. Net.motss was suffering from extreme > divergence of viewpoint, not garbage generated by assholes. Another divergence of viewpoint here. Not.motss was set up so that the gay people could have a place to discuss the issues surrounding being gay. Unfortunately they have been harrassed by a number of people who keep bringing up discussions of whether gay's SHOULD exist and force the readers of the group to defend themselves instead of using the group to understand themselves better. The majority of the readers of net.motss seem to be tired of having deal with this harrassment and would like to use the group for what it is defined as. You can call this a divergence of view if you like, most of the readers see it as harrassment and as an inappropriate use of the topic. The moderator is put there to keep things to a minimum. Perhaps we need net.is_gay_perversion to keep those other types happy, or even net.religion.is_gay_against_god... > The very fact that we disagree on the issue of moderated newsgroups > suggests that something is wrong here. Disagreement does not imply problems-- disagreements can occur because perspectives are different even though the attitudes are the same. > It amazes me how you redefine free speech (with all its problems) > as censorship. Free speech can be censorship. If I stand up to talk, I am exercising my right to free speech. But if you want to talk as well, and I won't let you because I'm exercising my right, am I not also infringing upon yours and censoring you? If we BOTH talk and I talk louder, and I also not censoring you? The problem is that usenet is not really a great medium for 'free speech' because it is a dedicated line-- you can hear only one voice at a time. If someone decides to use his right to the exclusion of others, there isn't much that the listeners can do about it, and the moderators are one way of helping to minimize this problem (just because you have the right to talk doesn't mean we have the responsibility to listen). > WHO is defining "inappropriate"? WHAT do you mean by "offensive"? As far as I am concerned, the readers make those definitions. They will do so by telling me, the moderator, what they don't want to see. I will make the minimal assumptions on applicability neccesary and let them tell me where they want the lines drawn. Specifically to mod.singles I am making two restrictions to postings: (1) it has to be oriented towards singles. We recently had a discussion of religion and singles degenerate into a discussion of religion only. I would have suggested that the discussion be taken into private mail or to {net,mod}.religion because it was more appropriate there. (2) items of an inflammatory nature. Personal attacks (as considered separate from disagreements) and items such as the recent postings by Mr. Williams from DEC (I talked to the DEC people about him. They have assured me that Mr. Williams will act in a manner becoming a gentleman in the future on net.singles) are clearly inappropriate. I may also make suggestions that certain discussions be moved to mail, especially in the case where it looks like two or three people are arguing to the exclusion of the rest of the group. On any article I decide to not post, the person has the right to ask me to reconsider and discuss the situation. I might change my mind, I might post it with a request for the readers to let me know whether or not it was appropriate so that I would have a better idea next time, or I might suggest that he post to net.singles and let the readers tell me if I screwed up. From the feedback that I've gotten from the readers of net.singles, this is what they are looking for, and it certainly doesn't look restrictive to me. > As for "anything that forces people to unsubscribe to a group", that > seems to include "anything that I don't want to read because I disagree > with it." This is exactly what was/is happening in net.motss. Maybe for you, but I don't think that is the majority viewpoint. With the case of net.motss, many people simple get VERY tired of constantly having their sexual alignments being challenged and bombarded. It does wonders for your self image. Imagine being the only smoker in a room of fanatics. Imagine being the only meat eater in a room of vegetarians. Wouldn't you eventually get tired of the harrasement? I think it is not so much a case of people not wanting to hear other viewpoints but a case of self-preservation-- there is a group of people who feel that any pro-gay discussion is wrong and try to sabotage it at any opportunity. THEY are the ones doing the censoring because they are the ones refusing to allow disagreeing opinions to exist. > We obviously disagree about what "noise" is. Again, going back to > net.motss, it wasn't suffering from noise, it was suffering from > a great intolerance of Ken Ardnt. Can you tell me that if Ken Ardnt > had never posted to net.motss that it would still have wrought mod.motss? It was more than just Ken. This is just a disagreement of what noise is, so I won't even try to argue it. > Can Ken Ardnt post to mod.motss? Will he want to? Can he? I won't talk for the mod.motss moderator, but my feeling is if Ken is willing to deal with the motss group on a rational level he will be welcome. Whether he will want to (I haven't seen a lot of it yet) is simply up to Ken. I do know that we shouldn't let a single negative case such as Ken create problems for the majority of readers to the level he has. > I don't want a moderator to select just what I want to read. I want > to read things that perhaps I don't want to read (if you get my drift) > because I like to be exposed to opinions different from my own. > (I have no quarrel with your moderation of mod.singles, btw, as I > don't read net.singles anyway). I won't be selecting what you read. I'll be protecting you from the things you've already told me that you don't want to read anyway-- Look at me more as a filter than an arbitrator of thoughts. I personally don't care WHAT you say as long as it has something to do with what we were supposed to be talking about in the first place. > except that where YOU draw the line might be different > than where I would, which is my point. Leave the editing of newsgroups > to me and my 'n' key, and I'll be happy. I think I said this before-- not everone has the time or the patience to use the 'n' key. My hope is to remove as many of the 'automatic' n-key messages from the group so that you can make intelligent choices about what you want to read. I've found myself (and I'm not unique) going into n-key mode-- there is so much stuff that I just 'n' everything until I realize that I've moved past a couple of articles I DID want to see. If I reduce the noise, I'll be more aware (and willing) to look at what is left. Right now, it is basically a situation of 'Why should I read this' instead of 'do I really want to read this' because of the noise. I'd rather see people default to a positive action (read this unless...) instead of a negative action (don't read this unless...) and that seems to be the default for most people right now. > I don't think asking a discussion to be moved to a more appropriate place > is the issue here. The issue is WHO should decide when that move should > take place, and WHO will be the one to say, "sorry, you can't post that > here," and enforce that decision? > > It seems the net is exchanging social controls (peer pressure, if you will), > for centralized controls (moderators). Peer pressure hasn't worked, for one reason-- we asked that the religious discussion move along a number of times to no avail. The decision will STILL be with the peers-- for once, someone, the moderator, will have some chance of enforcing it. That is better than the old way where nobody could enforce it. chuq -- From the Department of Bistromatics: Chuq Von Rospach {cbosgd,decwrl,fortune,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo}!nsc!chuqui nsc!chuqui@decwrl.ARPA (Editors note: Bistromatics is NOT a typo. Bistromathics is the study of math on an italian waiters checkpad. Bistromatics is the study of Italian cooking on females of the human species. Please quit sending me mail) I'd know those eyes from a million years away....
gam@amdahl.UUCP (Gordon A. Moffett) (10/18/84)
> > == amdahl!gam (me) > == nsc!chuqui > > Sorry but I don't see it that way. Net.motss was suffering from extreme > > divergence of viewpoint, not garbage generated by assholes. > Another divergence of viewpoint here. Not.motss was set up so that the gay > people could have a place to discuss the issues surrounding being gay. > Unfortunately they have been harrassed by a number of people who keep > bringing up discussions of whether gay's SHOULD exist and force the readers > of the group to defend themselves instead of using the group to understand > themselves better. The majority of the readers of net.motss seem to be > tired of having deal with this harrassment and would like to use the group > for what it is defined as. You can call this a divergence of view if you > like, most of the readers see it as harrassment and as an inappropriate use > of the topic. The moderator is put there to keep things to a minimum. > Perhaps we need net.is_gay_perversion to keep those other types happy, or > even net.religion.is_gay_against_god... While there were the intolerant anti-gay types making appearances in net.motss, it wasn't that much. Further I am of the view that Ken Ardnt was actually a valuable contributor to that forum. He was one of the better read people in that group, and he was asking a lot of questions that people frequently could not answer; he was also a realist, in that he was not pretending that gay people were experiencing a New Era of Tolerance. He was also abrasively humorous, if one could not take it so personally. All I'm really flaming about, then, is how someone like Ken can be so easily dismissed as ``irrational'' (he wasn't), because people didn't like what he had to say. With the mod.all groups you sow the seeds of your own limitations. > > It amazes me how you redefine free speech (with all its problems) > > as censorship. > Free speech can be censorship. If I stand up to talk, I am exercising my > right to free speech. But if you want to talk as well, and I won't let you > because I'm exercising my right, am I not also infringing upon yours and > censoring you? If we BOTH talk and I talk louder, and I also not censoring > you? The problem is that usenet is not really a great medium for 'free > speech' because it is a dedicated line-- you can hear only one voice at a > time. If someone decides to use his right to the exclusion of others, there > isn't much that the listeners can do about it, and the moderators are one > way of helping to minimize this problem (just because you have the right to > talk doesn't mean we have the responsibility to listen). The analogy is imperfect (excercise left to the reader). > > As for "anything that forces people to unsubscribe to a group", that > > seems to include "anything that I don't want to read because I disagree > > with it." This is exactly what was/is happening in net.motss. > Maybe for you, but I don't think that is the majority viewpoint. With the > case of net.motss, many people simple get VERY tired of constantly having > their sexual alignments being challenged and bombarded.... > I think it is not so much a case > of people not wanting to hear other viewpoints but a case of > self-preservation -- there is a group of people who feel that any pro-gay > discussion is wrong and try to sabotage it at any opportunity. THEY are the > ones doing the censoring because they are the ones refusing to allow > disagreeing opinions to exist. But that was not happening. Other ideas and opinions were (loudy!) existant. Further, in Ken's case, he reversed the assumptions: people asserted that gayness was gayness was something you're born with, yet in a significant number of cases one's orientation can be changed. This example infuriated people so much... yet they wouldn't attempt to rebutt it -- OR EVEN READ THE STUDY THAT PRODUCED THE STATISTICS! Truly a sad state of affairs. Ken violates the rules of polite society and gentlemanly behavior. He probably doesn't even wear a tie. I dread the day we loose such people, even if they are offensive. > My hope is to remove as many of the 'automatic' n-key > messages from the group so that you can make intelligent choices about what > you want to read. I've found myself (and I'm not unique) going into n-key > mode-- there is so much stuff that I just 'n' everything until I realize > that I've moved past a couple of articles I DID want to see. If I reduce > the noise, I'll be more aware (and willing) to look at what is left. I see your point. There probably is a lot of noise in net.singles and a few other groups. And I have 'n'-ed overthings in a Pavlovian way only to discover I need to back up a few articles .... but this is not to be taken as an implicite approval of moderated groups. My case is against mod.motss and the motivations for its creation. I have not seen a need for it but rather a sickening attempt to censor what some people have to say. I'm not talking about the religious bozos, either. I have seen something in Ken Ardnt that facinates me, and I don't want to see him driven away. -- "Welcome to the Future -- it's just starting now..." Gordon A. Moffett ...!{ihnp4,hplabs,amd,nsc}!amdahl!gam [ This is just me talking. ]
bch@mcnc.UUCP (Byron Howes) (10/18/84)
As another moderator (mod.movies) and a l o n g term news reader, I side
with Chuq and Steve. Too many good newsgroups have been polluted with
irrelevant, immature and self-indulgent postings. There was a time when
net.movies was a fascinating newsgroup. We had substantial contributions
from people in the profession, good reviews, and a minimum of gratuitous
flaming. My sense, from corresponding with other 'old folks,' is that the
deterioration in the signal to noise ratio has lost us not only readers,
but our best contributors as well.
A moderator can improve the organization of material in a newsgroup. We
can collect related articles so that readers don't have to sort through
the news. We can take over the drudgework of taking polls so that readers
aren't subjected to millions of "My 10 most favorite...." articles. We
can condense answers to simple requests for information. In the case
of mod.movies we can make sure that readers are protected from unwanted
spoilers. The issue of censorship is really minimal. What I think we're
trying to do is turn news back into a lively and pleasant experience
rather than a wearer down of index fingers. If it doesn't work, we'll
give it up. Please don't judge the experiment before it gets started.
--
Byron C. Howes
{decvax|akgua}!mcnc!ecsvax!bchchuqui@nsc.UUCP (Zonker T. Chuqui) (10/18/84)
Hmm.... this may end up becoming the next net.abortion. Net.mod.flame, anyone? Oh, well, lest anyone start thinking I might actually be starting to believe Gordon here are my latest rebuttals to his rebuttals of my rebuttals of his comments on my comments. Or some such. Please note that I'm going to do some strong philosophical posturing and use some vague generalities to attempt to handle gordon's in an appropriate manner. People with weak stomachs should probably stop reading. > While there were the intolerant anti-gay types making appearances in > net.motss, it wasn't that much. Further I am of the view that > Ken Ardnt was actually a valuable contributor to that forum. If you consider thoughtless rhetoric, biased commenting, excerpting quotes out of context and sexual bigotry valuable, then yes, I'll agree that Ken was a valuable contributor. If you use him as a role model of what you DON'T want to invite to your next net party, then yes, he was a valuable contributor. If you feel he made constructive comments to the topics of discussion, I'll have to disagree. > He was one of the better read people in that group, and he was > asking a lot of questions that people frequently could not answer; > he was also a realist, in that he was not pretending that gay people > were experiencing a New Era of Tolerance. [Ed. note: satiric comment ahead] Was that 'read' or 'red'? [end of satiric comment] My feeling of his 'realism' is that it might have been appropriate for the Spanish Inquisition or the McCarthy trials-- there are areas in the country that still believe that McCarthy was right, of course, but I think that adopting a dogmatically negative attitude (yelling loudly and sticking carrots in your ears to make sure you won't have your mind changed by the subversives) isn't a good way of dealing with it. > He was also abrasively humorous, if one could not take it so personally. I happen to know you aren't gay, Gordon-- it's a lot easier for you to not take his comments personally than someone who is. I'm not gay either, but I found a lot of Ken's comments repulsive because a good percentage of my friends ARE gay. > All I'm really flaming about, then, is how someone like Ken can > be so easily dismissed as ``irrational'' (he wasn't), because people > didn't like what he had to say. The word isn't irrational. It's bigoted. And it wasn't because they didn't like what he had to say, they were repulsed by it. > With the mod.all groups you sow the seeds of your own limitations. [ed. note: broad generalization warning] As a good friend says: 'Life is a bitch and then you die' [end of broad generalization; philosophical spouting warning] People who see life as a limitation will see limitations in all that happens in life. People who view life as a challenge will see challenges in all of life. [end of philosophical spouting] Actually, I'm not sure how relevant that is, but it sounded as good as his and made about as much sense. > > > It amazes me how you redefine free speech (with all its problems) > > > as censorship. > > Free speech can be censorship. If I stand up to talk, I am exercising my > > right to free speech. But if you want to talk as well, and I won't let you > > because I'm exercising my right, am I not also infringing upon yours and > > censoring you? If we BOTH talk and I talk louder, and I also not censoring > > you? The problem is that usenet is not really a great medium for 'free > > speech' because it is a dedicated line-- you can hear only one voice at a > > time. If someone decides to use his right to the exclusion of others, there > > isn't much that the listeners can do about it, and the moderators are one > > way of helping to minimize this problem (just because you have the right to > > talk doesn't mean we have the responsibility to listen). > > The analogy is imperfect (excercise left to the reader). [ed note: philosophical generality warning] The rebuttal is incomplete. (Describe the history of the world to date and how it affects world cotton prices. Be complete, reference sources. Use back side of page if neccessary. you have 5 minutes) [end of philosophical generality] > Ken violates the rules of polite society and gentlemanly behavior. > He probably doesn't even wear a tie. I dread the day we loose such > people, even if they are offensive. I agree, to a point-- offensive people are the people who keep reminding me why gentlemanly behaviour and polite society were invented. But I would much rather keep them in a cage where they belong and bring them out when neccessary rather than have them forced into my existence on a continuing basis. > I see your point. There probably is a lot of noise in net.singles > and a few other groups. And I have 'n'-ed overthings in a Pavlovian > way only to discover I need to back up a few articles .... > but this is not to be taken as an implicite approval of moderated groups. No, it looks more like an explicit approval of moderated groups. you've agreed that the exact things we are trying to solve is a problem, even for a person as aware of them as you. > My case is against mod.motss and the motivations for its creation. > I have not seen a need for it but rather a sickening attempt to > censor what some people have to say. I'm not talking about the > religious bozos, either. The people that net.motss (and mod.motss) were designed for seem to disagree with you. They don't see these discussions as an interesting philosophical or theoretical discussion of an obscure subject-- they see it as a practical and very real attack on them, their way of life, and the values that they have set for themselves. It is a lot easier to be able to step back and rant about the 'proper' way of doing things when it isn't your ego, your life, and your self-esteem at stake. The gay people don't want to spend all of their time defending the fact that they are gay-- they want to get together to discuss what being gay means to them in a world that frowns at their existence and how to succeed in being what they want to be. Having someone constantly at their throats makes that purpose much, much harder. > I have seen something in Ken Ardnt that facinates me, and I don't > want to see him driven away. Well, if he fascinates you, why not take him out to lunch and talk to him. Or talk to him by mail. It's fairly obvious that he doesn't fascinate most of the motss readers. [ed note-- final summary (hopefully the final, final summary)] Gordon and I have a basic philosophical difference-- he doesn't like mod.motss, I do. I also feel that the majority of motss readers disagree with him. My comments above have been enlarged, generalized, muddied, warped, expanded and wierded out beyond recognition because I realized that we weren't accomplishing anything besides posturing and I felt it was time to wind down the argument before feelings got hurt or the volume grew to infinity. No offense to any party was intended, although I've probably insulted someone. My apologies. Gordon seems to feel that a moderated group will be limited by the viewpoints of the moderator, a censorship of content based upon the ideologies of the 'censor'. I disagree with this-- I feel that it is possible for a person to put aside his personal feelings and deal with situations in a way that are appropriate for a group in general, even if they might disagree with them. I don't have to like someone to deal with them in my life (although it does help)-- I often have to do things that I personally disagree with because I feel that it is in the best interest of the people around me. By implying a content censorship, Gordon is implying that the moderators will be manipulating the net for personal issues rather than serving the net. I don't believe this is the case, or I wouldn't be involved in it. [ end of final, final posturing] [random pithy saying] A wise man once said 'it is not realistic to hide an elephant behind a peanut-- the elephant will usually eat it at an inconvenient time.' [finis] -- From the Department of Bistromatics: Chuq Von Rospach {cbosgd,decwrl,fortune,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo}!nsc!chuqui nsc!chuqui@decwrl.ARPA (Editors note: Bistromatics is NOT a typo. Bistromathics is the study of math on an italian waiters checkpad. Bistromatics is the study of Italian cooking on females of the human species. Please quit sending me mail) I'd know those eyes from a million years away....
biep@klipper.UUCP (J.A. 'Biep' Durieux) (10/18/84)
e fact [especially in newsgroups like net.politics] some
people want to provide facts, others want to flame, etc. I think a so-
lution could be found in a more consequent use of keywords. My pnews
program provides a header line `Keywords:'. If news could be selected
on a logical expression of keywords [e.g.: Facts & ~Flame], and people
would be willing to use the header line [I guess that will be the problem],
news reading could be worthwile again. Special discussions could be
given the keyword `Special', so people with `~Special' in their selector
would never see them. Christian discussions about motts? OK, in net.motts
even, if you want, but then with keywords `Special, Christian', so
people not wanting to read them shouldn't have to. It of course requires
an adaptation of newsread programs, enabling such filters [or do they
exist already, without having to be invoked especially?]. Another
advantage is that creating new newsgroups will become unnecessary.
[of course, the Keywords header should be inherited in followups!]
net.general=all news with *no keywords at all*; all followups get default
`followup' as a keyword; flames as "This article doesn't belong in
this newsgroup" should be replaces by "This article should contain
the keywords ... ", and, finally: people wanting to talk about
something just make their own place.
I stop, for I see that wat began as a minor proposal is ending up
being a revolutionary pamphlet.
Biep.
{seismo|decvax|philabs}!mcvax!vu44!botter!klipper!biep
P.S.: A `special' discussion is a discussion provoking flames
merely because of ist existence.msc@qubix.UUCP (Mark Callow) (10/18/84)
gam and chuqui can you please stop this long, boring, and pointless
argument or at the very least confine it to mail. I cannot understand
why gam is so upset. Noone has suggested that net.motss is going to
go away. If you don't like mod.motss don't subscribe. Just keep reading
net.motss.
--
From the TARDIS of Mark Callow
msc@qubix.UUCP, qubix!msc@decwrl.ARPA
...{decvax,ucbvax}!decwrl!qubix!msc, ...{amd,ihnp4,ittvax}!qubix!msc
"Nothing shocks me. I'm an Engineer."gam@amdahl.UUCP (Gordon A. Moffett) (10/18/84)
OK, I am done now.
--
"Welcome to the Future -- it's just starting now..."
Gordon A. Moffett ...!{ihnp4,hplabs,amd,nsc}!amdahl!gam
[ This is just me talking. ]mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (10/18/84)
When the whole news world is running RN (which I can hardly recmommend enough, even in the only partially functioning version I have), then we can dispose of the mo.* groups; until that time, there will be too many people who cannot deal with the lengthy exchanges which they find all too frequently in the unmoderated groups. Those who are arguing against the moderated groups seem to be implying that they have a right to he heard. This is not so; they have the right to SPEAK, and we have the right not to listen. Charley Wingate
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (10/19/84)
> My gripe is the new 'mod.motss', being created because > some contributors say things that some of the readers don't want to > read; not that the contributions aren't worthwhile, but if you don't > adhere to the new liberal sensibilities you apparently have to be > muzzled. [GORDON MOFFETT] As a reader of net.motss, let me point out that there's a major difference between a posting that asks: "What should gay people do about public reaction to the gay movement resulting from the AIDS situation?" and one that says: "If you'll take your friend's cock out of your mouth, you might see what an asshole you are! I'm not knocking faggots, but these queers just won't answer my question!" (NOTE THAT NO QUESTION WAS ASKED.) The first type of posting has yet to be seen. The second has been the exclusive and extensive domain of one Ken Arndt and one David Brunson. If Messrs. Arndt and Brunson do have questions to ask gay people, as many more gullible people seem to believe, then perhaps knowing that their "questions" will be screened by a moderator might encourage them to "ask" in a more civil manner, perhaps even approaching the first type of posting above. > Look at the recent problems in net.motss and the ongoing problems with > net.music.classical for examples where a minority party has made a group > pretty painful for the interested majority. [CHUQ VON ROSPACH] Huh? Last time I looked there were no "problems" in net.music.classical, as articles on a wide variety of topics flowed through the group. However, a moderated music newsgroup might solve some of the main problems that those who requested a classical subgroup had with an eclectic newsgroup. Articles could be grouped/digested by topic, and a weekly/biweekly index of articles of interest to those of particular tastes or interests could be posted (by keyword?), alleviating the "there's-so-much-I'm-not-interested-in-so-why-should -I-have-to-wade-through-it-all" problem. -- AT THE TONE PLEASE LEAVE YOUR NAME AND NET ADDRESS. THANK YOU. Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr
toml@oliveb.UUCP (Dave Long) (10/19/84)
[WORST CASE ASSUMPTION]
Does it really matter if the mod.* groups are fascist? Everbody still has the
good old anarchistic net.* groups. It seems to me like people are just crying
because they don't get to insult people anywhere they want. If you want to
generally be a pest, it is easy enough to do so in the net.* groups.
[MY VIEW OF REALITY]
Actually, I think that the administrators are just there to cut down on the
volume of messages, rather than practicing outright censorship. Also, anyone
who feels that they are being censored in a mod.* group can always post to the
same net.* group. There is no such thing as total freedom of speech. You
could always shout "Fire" in a theater, but that would not be the proper thing
to do.
----------
I just hope no one reads the documentation and finds out how to post directly
to mod.all groups.
--
-- Dave Long --
{fortune,idi,ios,hplabs,tymix}!oliveb!toml
{allegra,ihnp4,msoft,tty3b,uvacs}!oliveb!tomlsdyer@bbncca.ARPA (Steve Dyer) (10/19/84)
> == Chuq >The [gay] people that net.motss (and mod.motss) were designed for >seem to disagree with you. "Designer newsgroups?" What a concept! While Chuq has done an admirable job of defending mod.all in general, and mod.motss in particular, I again want to dispel the misconception that *.motss are in anyway "designed for" gay people, any more than "net.women" is "designed for" women. A news group has a stated topic, and *.motss have as their topic "gay issues." Naturally, gay people are going to be intersted in reading and contributing to these forums, but I emphasize that everyone is welcome to read and contribute, including Moffett and including Arndt, subject to the direction of the groups as stated in their first postings. -- /Steve Dyer {decvax,linus,ima,ihnp4}!bbncca!sdyer sdyer@bbncca.ARPA
jwp@sdchema.UUCP (John Pierce) (10/19/84)
chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Zonker T. Chuqui) writes [in part]: > ... bringing up discussions of whether gay's SHOULD exist and force the > readers of the group to defend themselves instead of using the group to > understand themselves better... Sorry, but I have to disagree with that. Nobody can *force* adult human beings to defend themselves; and certainly not in this context [net news]. If homosexuals [I really dislike the use of the term "gay" in this context; "gay" is a perfectly good English word with a defined meaning that does not, and etymologically should not, include "homosexual"] felt a need to defend themselves, that is their problem, not anyone elses'. The second best course of action in dealing with idiots is to simply ignore them - they will usually go away (eventually). [The preferred course of action is, unfortuantely, illegal, and in the context of net news probably difficult to obtain in any case.] > ...Mr. Williams from DEC (I talked to the DEC people about him...) Thank you, sir. You saved me the trouble of finding out where that machine was and making the phone call. > I'd know those eyes from a million years away.... Do you make these up yourself, or do you crib them from various places? I'm curious, because occassionally (as in this example) I like them a great deal. John Pierce, Chemistry, UC San Diego {decvax,sdcsvax}!sdchema!jwp
jwp@sdchema.UUCP (John Pierce) (10/19/84)
chuqui, quoting Gordon-somebody: > > With the mod.all groups you sow the seeds of your own limitations. chuqui: > People who see life as a limitation will see limitations in all that > happens in life. People who view life as a challenge will see challenges in > all of life. jwp: People who see life as getting stoned will get stoned. People who see life as being uptight won't. Interestingly, these are often the same people. chuqui: > Actually, I'm not sure how relevant that is, but it sounded as good as his > and made about as much sense. John Pierce, Better living through Chemistry, UC San Diego {sdcsvax,decvax}!sdchema!jwp
chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Zonker T. Chuqui) (10/19/84)
> I'd like to make it clear that I have no objection to moderated groups, > or to mod.motss. However, I'm very unhappy that mod.movies, mod.music, > mod.newslists, mod.singles, mod.sources, and mod.unix were created > anonymously with no advance discussion or justification. Who are the > moderators for these groups, who selected them, and what are their > qualifications? Well, the people who made the decision to experiment with moderated groups were the people who have put long hours into making the net work so that people can complain about it (*grin, dammit*). People like Mark and Karen Horton, people like Gene Spafford, Adam Buschaum, Rick Adams, Lauren Weinstein, and some strange person with a fascination for plaid. There was a LOT of discussion involved, but the discussion did not take place primarily on the network, but through mail. A few months ago a call on the net was made for people interested in discussing the network, and they were included in many of the discussions. It was NOT discussed on the net for a number of reasons-- it would have generated a LOT of traffic for a very limited audience; it would have slowed communications significantly; and a lot of useless noise would have been generated that would have needed to be waded through. We felt it was much better to come out with a decent proposal for the network users to try and comment on than try to develop one one the net because the last few attempts to do anything useful about the net on the net have failed miserably because of how large the net has grown. Because of logistic problems the detailed announcements for all of this was delayed-- no fault to anyone, these things happen. If everything had gone as smoothly as your average first installation of a new software product (guaranteed bug free, you know) we might have been able to avoid some of these problems. Of course, reality has a better idea. chuq -- From the Department of Bistromatics: Chuq Von Rospach {cbosgd,decwrl,fortune,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo}!nsc!chuqui nsc!chuqui@decwrl.ARPA (Editors note: Bistromatics is NOT a typo. Bistromathics is the study of math on an italian waiters checkpad. Bistromatics is the study of Italian cooking on females of the human species. Please quit sending me mail) I'd know those eyes from a million years away....
gregbo@houxm.UUCP (Greg Skinner) (10/21/84)
> From: ken@ihuxq.UUCP (ken perlow) > This whining about censorship is obviously silly. But understandable. > Of course all the corresponding newsgroups still exist in their > effulgent, anarchic splendor, but what fun is it to post (for example) > an anti-gay piece if there are no real, live gays there to taunt? It appears to me that the people who are complaining about the mod.* groups are upset because their right to flame at the people they disagree with will be taken away. I have only one response to that: !! GROW UP !! If you MUST flame at people you disagree with, you still have the net.* groups! But don't ruin the mod.* groups for people who want to carry on serious discussions! -- Hug me till you drug me, honey! Greg Skinner (gregbo) {allegra,cbosgd,ihnp4}!houxm!gregbo
kk@cbrma.UUCP (Karl Kleinpaste) (10/21/84)
---------- >From: chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Zonker T. Chuqui) >> == amdahl!gam >... >> As for "anything that forces people to unsubscribe to a group", that >> seems to include "anything that I don't want to read because I disagree >> with it." This is exactly what was/is happening in net.motss. >Maybe for you, but I don't think that is the majority viewpoint. With the >case of net.motss, many people simple get VERY tired of constantly having >their sexual alignments being challenged and bombarded. It does wonders for >your self image. Imagine being the only smoker in a room of fanatics. >Imagine being the only meat eater in a room of vegetarians. Wouldn't you >eventually get tired of the harrasement? ---------- I find this extremely interesting, because it reflects on a similar occurrence in the recent past in net.religion. A group of Christian participants and readers of net.religion got to the point where they just didn't bloody well want to see all the constant attack which goes on there. A lot of these Christians were unsubscribing because of it. The probability of being able to create mod.religion (or some subgroup of net.religion) was thought to be zero, so we have created a mailing list for ourselves. It's alive, functioning quite well, and currently serves a little over 30 people; we tend to gain new people in short bursts of 3 or 4. There's no particular organization to it, no real moderation (though we made an attempt at it which seems to have failed; it wasn't really needed anyway, I guess), and the arguments that go on are generally quite calm and well done. There were other reasons for creating the mailing list as well, which are similar in spirit though certainly not detail to why mod.motss was created. We felt that we needed a place where we could go to discuss things important to us as a group without having to defend ourselves repeatedly for the basic, bottom-line tenets of our faith. Also, some of the topics discussed there simply wouldn't interest a huge majority of the net, and this reduces net traffic (mail to 30 people costs a lot less than news to 900 sites). It serves a further purpose to which we sometimes refer as "internal ministry," that is, a chance to talk and help one another without being accosted that we even hold these beliefs. But we're not hiding in our mailing list; the people posting to net.{religion,origins,whatever} are evidence of that. Things have been a bit quiet in our mailing list for the past month or so, but periodically something will come up that starts a lively discussion, and quite a bit of traffic can be generated over short periods of time. Personally, I don't care what happens with {net,mod}.{singles,motss}, because I don't read any of them, and as long as all net.* groups aren't replaced with mod.* groups, I'm not going to worry about it. But I must say that I don't care for moderated groups in general, at least in the sense in which they are moderated on the Usenet. It seems to me that if you've got a (relatively) small group of seriously interested parties involved in some topic, that group would be much better off if they were to create their own (semi-?)permanent mailing list among themselves, rather than create an enforced-but-public "moderated" group. ---------- >> except that where YOU draw the line might be different >> than where I would, which is my point. Leave the editing of newsgroups >> to me and my 'n' key, and I'll be happy. >I think I said this before-- not everone has the time or the patience to >use the 'n' key. My hope is to remove as many of the 'automatic' n-key >messages from the group so that you can make intelligent choices about what >you want to read. I've found myself (and I'm not unique) going into n-key >mode-- there is so much stuff that I just 'n' everything until I realize >that I've moved past a couple of articles I DID want to see. If I reduce >the noise, I'll be more aware (and willing) to look at what is left. ---------- Good point. No, you're not unique; I periodically unsubscribe from net.religion because I get tired of n-keying too many things. That's what the mailing list has provided: a place where I don't have to worry about the problems of n-keying things quite so often, but it didn't have to affect the general Usenet public to get to a suitable solution. (Nor did we have to deal with the outrage of the Usenet public in setting ourselves up in this way; note the fact that the argument even exists over the creation of mod.{motss,singles}.) I would suggest that the people in the motss and singles groups try it for a while. -- Karl Kleinpaste @ Bell Labs, Columbus 614/860-5107 {cbosgd,ihnp4}!cbrma!kk @ Ohio State University 614/891-5058 cbosgd!osu-dbs!karl karl.Ohio-State@Rand-Relay
ado@elsie.UUCP (Arthur David Olson) (10/23/84)
Perhaps it's time to reinvent the wheel. Readers' Digest has spent years making money off people who feel they don't have time to read everything. They do it by selecting and digesting articles from sundry places. It's the selection process that might be useful here. With the wonders of modern electronics, USENET editors wouldn't have to send copies of original articles...just pointers to them. I, for example, could post (or send to interested parties--"subscribers") an article of this ilk: Here's my list of worthwhile articles in "net.plumbing": <30102@firesign.UUCP> <101@dalmations.UUCP> . . . Those folks who chose to take my advise could then read the articles in the list for the relevant news group, skipping others. Hooks could be put into news software to aid folks with lists of articles they wanted to see. Such an approach might both obviate the need for moderated news groups and, at the same time, give everyone the chance to do their own moderation. -- Readers' Digest enjoys some form of legal protection. -- ..decvax!seismo!elsie!ado (301) 496-5688 DEC, VAX and Elsie are Digital Equipment and Borden trademarks
smb@ulysses.UUCP (Steven Bellovin) (10/23/84)
As a point of historical interest, it's worth noting that the first big spurt in USENET growth came about when some ARPAnet mailing lists -- yes, moderated lists -- were gatewayed into USENET. So a moderated group can hardly be called "contrary to the spirit of USENET"....
dhb@rayssd.UUCP (10/23/84)
I realize that I will probably be demoted to VMS for this, but what the heck. I think that we should form a new news group to combat discussions of this type: mod.news.group -- Dave Brierley Raytheon Co.; Portsmouth RI; (401)-847-8000 x4073 ...!decvax!brunix!rayssd!dhb ...!allegra!rayssd!dhb ...!linus!rayssd!dhb
gam@amdahl.UUCP (Gordon A. Moffett) (10/23/84)
> /Steve Dyer > {decvax,linus,ima,ihnp4}!bbncca!sdyer > sdyer@bbncca.ARPA > > Moffett really makes me gag. This guy has had literally NOTHING to > say in net.motss over the past year, yet every now and then he crawls out > of his bunker with a dumb comment about how the "gays" are muzzling > people like him. I have never said such a thing. My postings to net.motss (other than those regarding Ken Ardnt) have been attempts at understanding homosexual behavior, either in reference to Behaviorism or in Kinsey's scale of sexual orientations (the latter an attempt to diffuse the us-them view of homosexuality and encourage the view that sexual orientation is a spectrum and not an either/or/both proposition; the behaviorist remarks attemted to show that homosexuality does not need to be linked to reproductive behavior in order to justify itself). Someone who has bothered to archive net.motss can go back and read these; as I recall they generated no discussion whatsoever. I have been annoyed by the witchburning arguments made against Ken Ardnt. That many people see his articles as completely worthless surprises me; but then if you label someone as an anti-gay bigot you don't have to think about what they are saying anymore. > If Moffett feels deprived of a newsgroup where he can rehash tired > old canards about the immorality of gay people, and most importantly, > not engage in dialogue with those who disagree with him (the most > important thing is to say the same thing over and over again, NOT to > address any points raised by others), he can take his pick, or maybe > even start his own group. I have never suggested that gay people are any more or less moral than anybody else. However, because I have attempted to show that Ken Ardnt was contributing something useful to the group, I am now branded as a flaming anti-gay bigot and I must be in complete agreement with him. I have previously stated in net.motss that I do not agree with everything Ken has to say. There is an interesting tactic being used here .... > Just as net.motss not only confounded the sceptics, but actually > became one of the most intelligent, serious and well-run newsgroups > on USENET in the past year (notwithstanding the past few months in > the company of Arndt and Brunson), so too, it is my intention to > see that this record continue with mod.motss. I hope to bring the > benefits of moderation to the group, while keeping its free-wheeling > style intact. Good. Glad to hear it. -- Gordon A. Moffett ...!{ihnp4,hplabs,amd,nsc}!amdahl!gam ~ You say you want a revolution ... ~ [ This is just me talking. ]
gam@amdahl.UUCP (Gordon A. Moffett) (10/24/84)
> >I don't see how mod.motss hurts you as long as net.motss exists. > > I think this says it all... freedom of speech is not impaired as long as > there is an equivalent, non-moderated group. I think the expression is, "Separate but equal."? -- The truth is often paradoxical. Gordon A. Moffett ...!{ihnp4,hplabs,amd,nsc}!amdahl!gam [ This is just me talking. ]
biep@klipper.UUCP (J. A. "Biep" Durieux) (10/24/84)
[Is this a bug or such? I only receive first lines...]
The main argument (for me) against mailing lists
is that they are invisible for the net. If I don't know
they exist, I may miss very interesting discussions.
Further, if all interesting discussions are to be replaced
to mailing lists, the newsgroups will become really unbear-
able. Finally, it seems to be a sort of "leave the sinking
ship" mentality. Since my first proposal (keyword selection)
seems to be rejected (response nihil until now), I propose
net.{motts|singles|anygroup}.only. Anybody posting to such
a group declares by doing so to be a member of whatever is
appropiate. How many garbage would be left in net.motts.only?
Biep.
P.S.: Let's build net.religion.christian[.only],
to build a place for christians. Why does only ".jewish"
exist?
{seismo|decvax|philabs}!mcvax!vu44!botter!klipper!bieparnold@ucsfcgl.UUCP (10/24/84)
> With the wonders of modern electronics, USENET editors wouldn't have to send > copies of original articles...just pointers to them... > (or send to interested parties--"subscribers") an article of this ilk: > > Those folks who chose to take my advise could then read the articles in the > list for the relevant news group, skipping others. Hooks could be put into > news software to aid folks with lists of articles they wanted to see. > Now THAT makes sense. Isn't this a much nicer solution to the overload problem? This has the following advantages over the "mod.fred + net.fred" system: 1. No reason for duplication of articles. The discussion over "mod." newsgroups has already shown an internal split over whether these groups should include postings from the "net." equivalent or not. This solution, in effect, merges the two, completely obviating the awkwardness of either solution to the problem. 2. No possible cries of censorship. The full discussion is always available to anyone who wishes to look outside of their list(s). 3. Multiple moderatores coexist without conflict. No one has to decide who is going to be THE Moderator for the group, not to mention that no one has to decide who gets to decide which person (or AI project :-}) is going to be the moderator. For example, in net.religion, people who don't want to listen to the fundamentalists could subscribe to one list, and and those who don't like the sceptics could subscribe to another, and those who only want scholarly discussions could subscribe to a third. 4. With list-merging capabilities, a user can listen to more than one moderator. In the above example, someone could listen to both scholarly and fundamentalist discussions. So let's go with it. We have global article ID's -- let's put 'em to work! Ken Arnold
chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Zonker T. Chuqui) (10/26/84)
> Exactly how can this be accomplished if the moderator in question does > not want to be booted? Easy. Someone else sets up as moderator and everyone else mails to them instead. There is nothing in the software saying that there is only ONE moderator, and nothing in the software explicitly points to a moderator except a single text file in /usr/lib/news for the 2.10.2 postnews. I think that if moderators are carefully chosen, and they tend to be, malicious moderators are going to be a minimal to non-existant problem. > A malicious moderator can do more damage than 100 ordinary > *ssh*l*s (sp?). I may be dense, but I don't see how this can be the case? All a moderator can really do is NOT publish something, publish something edited out of context, or publish his own garbage instead. In all three cases the users can go back to the net.<group> until the moderator can be dealt with properly (tactical nuclear weapons would be appropriate) so you really haven't lost anything. chuq -- From the Department of Bistromatics: Chuq Von Rospach {cbosgd,decwrl,fortune,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo}!nsc!chuqui nsc!chuqui@decwrl.ARPA I'd know those eyes from a million years away....
chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Zonker T. Chuqui) (10/26/84)
> Sorry, but I have to disagree with that. Nobody can *force* adult human > beings to defend themselves; and certainly not in this context [net news]. Have you ever talked about the weather to someone when a third person was yelling in your ear about nuclear holocaust? You tend to lose your concentration after a while, especially when the third party doesn't understand the term 'shut up or I'll break your face'. I think that was what was happening in net.motts-- the volume raised to the point where nothing else could get through. > > ...Mr. Williams from DEC (I talked to the DEC people about him...) > > Thank you, sir. You saved me the trouble of finding out where that machine > was and making the phone call. *sigh* Thanks, I was getting tired of the hate mail. I hadn't realized I looked so much like my dear dead (I hope) Uncle Adolph.... > > I'd know those eyes from a million years away.... > > Do you make these up yourself, or do you crib them from various places? I'm > curious, because occassionally (as in this example) I like them a great deal. In many cases they're cribbed from something that caught my eye. Recently I was doing a series from Doonesbury to commemorate his return. With few exceptions they are chosen to say something, although it may say it to a very limited audience (I love in jokes). This one happens to be an original and is aimed at a single person-- that doesn't reduce the fact that I also think it is a beautiful line on general principles as well. I happen to really enjoy the English language, and feel sorry that I butcher it as often as I do. chuq -- From the Department of Bistromatics: Chuq Von Rospach {cbosgd,decwrl,fortune,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo}!nsc!chuqui nsc!chuqui@decwrl.ARPA I'd know those eyes from a million years away....
ag5@pucc-i (Dish of the Day) (10/26/84)
<<>>
klipper!biep states that perhaps there should be net.<blah>.only,
and that persons posting to those groups are stating <by their posting> that
they "belong" to the <blah> group... ("How many people would be posting to
net.motss.only then?")
This defeats the purpose of {mod|net}.motss. You see, we (the
gay community) *don't* seek to keep non-gays from posting to the news-
group (example: oliven!rap isn't gay, but he does support gay rights..)
The idea behind mod.motss seems to be to keep discussions which
require a defense of homosexuality out... That wasn't the purpose of the
net.motss (although it does seem to be the primary activity there now.)
I have to defend that which I was given to live with everyday; I don't
want to have to defend it in a group where we are *supposed* to be
discussing gay issues.. Gays who recognize the fact that they're gay
have accepted the fact that "Gay is OK.." <I do hope that this isn't
a gross generalization; I do feel that this is the fact... I know
that it is in my case.> In many cases this has taken a *lot* of
doing... they don't want to go through all that sort of stuff again
for the benefit of the rest of the world; all that is wanted is a
discussion of *issues* which affect gays. Whether homosexuality is
moral/immoral, correct/incorrect, etc. simply *isn't* an issue.
As a result, we don't want to discuss non-issues.
I hope this makes sense. I think that it does..
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Henry C. Mensch | User Confuser | Purdue University User Services
{ihnp4|decvax|ucbvax|purdue|sequent|inuxc|uiucdcs}!pur-ee!pucc-i!ag5
{allegra|cbosgd|hao|harpo|seismo|intelca|masscomp}!pur-ee!pucc-i!ag5
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Hit me with your laser beam!"lab@qubix.UUCP (Q-Bick) (10/29/84)
> Henry Mensch: > ...all that is wanted is a > discussion of *issues* which affect gays. Whether homosexuality is > moral/immoral, correct/incorrect, etc. simply *isn't* an issue. > As a result, we don't want to discuss non-issues. Saying that X "simply *isn't* an issue" is censorship. Imagine the result if this were applied to presidential debates... :-) [Henry and I have already discussed the issue of issues via mail. However, we have not settled the issue on how to settle the issue of issues. Note also the .signature :-] -- The Ice Floe of Larry Bickford {amd,decwrl,sun,idi,ittvax}!qubix!lab You can't settle the issue until you've settled how to settle the issue.
ag5@pucc-k (Leo Buscaglia) (11/01/84)
<<>>
Regarding qubix!lab's remarks on censorship and non-issues;
this isn't what I intended to discuss in item <725@pucc-i> .
My only intention there was to speak *against* groups like
{net|mod}.motss.only. The gay community does *not* want to keep
the rest of the world out of the newsgroup; we just don't feel up
to defending our lifestyle every waking moment, and the newsgroup
(whichever you choose, net or mod) is a place where this doesn't
have to happen. Fortunately, in mod.motss, it *doesn't* happen.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Henry C. Mensch | User Confuser | Purdue University User Services
{ihnp4|decvax|ucbvax|purdue|sequent|inuxc|uiucdcs}!pur-ee!pucc-i!ag5
{allegra|cbosgd|hao|harpo|seismo|intelca|masscomp}!pur-ee!pucc-i!ag5
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"It's a radio for deaf-mutes!"mp@ganehd.UUCP (Scott Barman) (11/03/84)
/**/
After three weeks away, I return and see the net in war!
I really cannot say which I like but I am going to sit back and see what
happens. Maybe others should do that too. It appears that the people
who help make the net run smoothly (and we should thank them!) are trying
to stop the "this discussion does not belong here", "this discussion really
ought to stop", "VERY HOT FLAME ON ...", etc. responses. Who knows, this
might be a good idea!
[An old bumper sticker Chrysler dealers used to give their new car customers]
[in the early 70's: CALM DOWN / Life is S.E. (S.E. = Short Enough) ]
I would like to ask a question though:
Only one other person mentioned this in the 200+ articles I read in the
last few days (sorry, I forgot who) -- is there anyway to get the news reading
software (readnews, vnews, etc.) to display a "Table of Contents" based on the
Subject Line or Keywords Line of, for example, a screenful of articles. At
that point, the user would be able to decide which articles they do not want
to read. Then the software would take that info and update the .newsrc file
to reflect the wishes of the user.
I would like to appologize if this has been discussed before, but in
my (roughly) nine months with access to the net, I have never heard this
discussed. If it has, will the net gurus mail me the resluts of that
discussion, please.
Thanks!
--
Scott A. Barman USPS: Department of Computer Science
UUCP: {akgua, gatech}!ganehd!mp The University of Georgia
DDD: (404) 542-2911 415 Boyd Graduate Studies Research Ctr.
Athens, Georgia 30602bytebug@pertec.UUCP (roger long) (11/04/84)
As I have been occupied with other things recently, I discovered this morning that I had a month's bickering to catch up with in this newsgroup. I can't really say I support the recent creation of most of the moderated newsgroups. The only ones I do support are those such as mod.news.map and mod.sources, especially because of the problems with discussions and requests for source to net.sources. I would also support getting rid of net.news.map and net.sources because I don't see a need for both the net and mod flavors. However, mod.singles and mod.motss? I agree that net.singles and net.motss are two of the most active newsgroups, and often find myself using the "n" key alot. However, I don't think splitting off moderated groups is the answer, as it only adds to the storage and transmission costs of the net. I'd rather see the problem solved via new software, since it seems to me that the real problem is not being able to effectively filter out the noise. If there are a bunch of people who are seen to be the cause of most of the noise, perhaps there should be a way to filter out submissions from those people BY THE NEWS-READER SOFTWARE. If I don't like to listen to the ravings of Fred, then I add his net address to a file, and his ravings are silently filtered by my news-reader. Other people who agree with what Fred is saying can continue to listen to him. I think the real answer is by making the news-reader software powerful enough to deal effectively with the large amount of information that we all have to deal with. One thing that this all has prompted me to finally do is spend the time and install "rn" to see if that is an effective answer to some of the problems. Other random things that I'd like to respond to: > From: ucla-cs!booth > Message-ID: <1792@ucla-cs.ARPA> > > Someone privately mentioned the need for anonymous postings to newsgroups. Does anyone really agree that people have the right to post anonymously to the net? > From: vortex!lauren > Message-ID: <429@vortex.UUCP> > > The whole point of moderated groups is (as far as I am concerned) > to cut down on repetition (such as 500 people answering the same > question) and to insure a more valuable level of information > content. People, if we continue on our current course, we'll shortly > find major sites dropping out of the netnews business, and setting > up separate groups to distribute the repetitous answers and obviously > meaningless drivel isn't going to help at all. Here again, I'd like to see us handle this with a software solution. Perhaps we can come up with a way to mark a message so that you are unable to "f"ollow-up on it. Hitting "f" should still produce a mail response. Perhaps by putting a net-address in the "Followup-To:" header? Yes, people could get around that by posting a response, but I would hope that we could cut out a lot of the meaningless drivel this way. -- roger long pertec computer corp {ucbvax!unisoft | scgvaxd | trwrb | felix}!pertec!bytebug
edhall@randvax.UUCP (Ed Hall) (11/10/84)
] Here again, I'd like to see us handle this with a software solution. ] Perhaps we can come up with a way to mark a message so that you are ] unable to "f"ollow-up on it. Hitting "f" should still produce a ] mail response. ] -- ] roger long Bingo! Another good idea! I just wish we had had these discussions before... -Ed Hall decvax!randvax!edhall