tale@pawl.rpi.edu (David C Lawrence) (10/14/89)
In article <2024@convex.UUCP> tchrist@convex.com (Tom Christiansen): Tom> I've been getting a lot of hate mail, most of which is automatic, Tom> by self-appointed moderators of alt.sources for a comment I Tom> posted there. And I'm pretty tired of it. [...] If you think Tom> alt.sources should be restricted, moderate it. If not, stop Tom> bitching. It isn't automatic. If it could be automated like that I think we would moderate it, with the moderator being the system that automatically made decisions about what was source and what wasn't. Perhaps a relatively simple heuristic could look for things that appear to be sharchives, but for the time being the messages being sent to people require human intervention. (I don't send them; if anyone wants to see one, some jerk just posted one back to alt.sources.) In <1989Oct13.192835.1330@talos.uucp> kjones@talos.uucp (Kyle Jones) writes: Kyle> So moderate alt.sources. But do it the way comp.sources.misc was Kyle> originally going to be moderated: Axe non-source postings, and THAT'S Kyle> ALL. Malcontents still can thwart the moderation scheme, but the main Kyle> problem is articles posted by accident, or because of ignorance. The Kyle> occasional miscreant can be cut off. Sounds reasonable, if anyone is volunteering (and the mailpaths sites will moderate another group in an alternate hierarchy). Note that one of the main reasons for having alt.sources as unmoderated was for the near instantaneous turn around time; with no moderator intervention the postings went there as soon as you made them. I think a very good approximation of this (ie, posted within a day of being mailed to the moderator) would be necessary before you got many people to agree to it. How very interesting this all is in light of the fact that alt.sources.amiga was just made unmoderated about a week ago. Dave -- (setq mail '("tale@pawl.rpi.edu" "tale@itsgw.rpi.edu" "tale@rpitsmts.bitnet"))
wolfgang@mgm.mit.edu (Wolfgang Rupprecht) (10/14/89)
I guess I don't get it. If we moderate alt.sources how will it differ from mod.sources, ahem, comp.sources.unix? I always figured alt.sources was the high-noise low-delay optimization. Mod.sources is on the other extreme. -wolfgang Wolfgang Rupprecht ARPA: wolfgang@mgm.mit.edu (IP 18.82.0.114) TEL: (703) 768-2640 UUCP: mit-eddie!mgm.mit.edu!wolfgang
ray@dirac.physics.purdue.edu (Ray Moody) (10/15/89)
In <1989Oct13.192835.1330@talos.uucp> kjones@talos.uucp (Kyle Jones) writes: >So moderate alt.sources. In article <1989Oct14.012800.12049@rpi.edu>, tale@pawl (David C Lawrence) writes: >Sounds reasonable Wait a second! Alt.sources was created so that we could have an *unmoderated* group for sources. If you want a moderated group, unsubscribe to alt.sources and subscribe to comp.sources.whatever. The comp.sources groups are very nice groups. In fact, they are "more important" than alt.sources, but there is a need for an unmoderated source group, and alt.sources fills that need. Ray
pokey@well.UUCP (Jef Poskanzer) (10/17/89)
Making alt.sources moderated would be unacceptable. If anyone tries it
I will immediately newgroup yet another sources group, since quick
turnaround and reliability against single-point hardware, software, and
moderator failures are desirable features.
I also agree that there is a problem with leaving alt.sources
unmoderated. Sending mail to people who post non-source articles works
great for them. No repeat offenders until this Dunc asshole. But the
net has an infinite supply of bozos in addition to the fairly small
supply of Duncs.
I suggest that alt.sources be moderated, but the moderator's address
should be an automatic reply script that mails something like this back
to the sender:
You have posted the appended article to alt.sources, which is a
moderated newsgroup. However, it's not *really* moderated, it's
more like *self* moderated. You see, back when it was unmoderated,
many people would post non-source articles, either accidentally
or through ignorance. This was very annoying to those who archive
the group. So finally someone suggested making it moderated, but
having the moderator's address be an automatic reply script that
sends this message.
There are plenty of other newsgroups for non-source postings about
sources: alt.sources.d, comp.sources.d, comp.sources.bugs, comp.bugs.*.
If your message is not source code of some kind, please post it in
one of these other groups.
If, on the other hand, your posting is source code, GREAT!! The net
needs more source code. To post it for real, all you have to do
is "forge" a moderator's approval. Here's what you do: save the
message into a file; edit it, and anywhere in the headers area add
this line:
Approved: by me
Then feed it to inews like this:
inews -h < file
And that's all. If you have any trouble with this procedure, feel
free to mail the article to <insert human secondary moderator's
address>, and it will be posted within a few days just like with
a real moderated newsgroup.
I volunteer to set up this reply script. Improvements to the wording
are welcome.
---
Jef
Jef Poskanzer pokey@well.sf.ca.us {ucbvax, apple, hplabs}!well!pokey
"Never do anything if you can find someone to do it better - except for the
things you want to do most of all." -- Thomas Jamestale@pawl.rpi.edu (David C Lawrence) (10/17/89)
In article <14117@well.UUCP>, pokey@well.UUCP (Jef Poskanzer) writes:
Jef> Making alt.sources moderated would be unacceptable. If anyone tries it
Jef> I will immediately newgroup yet another sources group, since quick
Jef> turnaround and reliability against single-point hardware, software, and
Jef> moderator failures are desirable features.
Jef> I suggest that alt.sources be moderated, but the moderator's address
Jef> should be an automatic reply script that mails something like this back
Jef> to the sender:
Jef> [proposed message deleted]
Jef> I volunteer to set up this reply script. Improvements to the wording
Jef> are welcome.
While I like this idea, there are three problems I have with it.
o The issue regarding single-point hardware/software failure has not
been dealt with. Pretty major problem if that is part of the
argument against human moderation.
o The message you drafted includes one particular way of getting the
article in to the group, which might not be true or quite as
convenient for some people as it is presented. Minor problem.
o You tell just about any yutz who would post non-source to
alt.sources how to go about forging an article into a moderated
group. While such information is far from secret, it is not
exactly common knowledge either. Also a pretty minor problem, but
it doesn't sit well with me.
It could be made moderated by Russ Nelson (see his "I volunteer!"
message in alt.config). He is a reliable guy and I like his proposal
as it stands. We could also add to the charter that no one gets
uptight when someone does do the ol' forge-the-moderator-approval bit
to get some source into the group without waiting for it to go through
Russ.
Dave
--
(setq mail '("tale@pawl.rpi.edu" "tale@itsgw.rpi.edu" "tale@rpitsmts.bitnet"))tale@pawl.rpi.edu (David C Lawrence) (10/17/89)
In <1989Oct15.161425.1638@NCoast.ORG>, allbery@NCoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery):
Brandon> My original intent for comp.sources.misc was to do
Brandon> essentially what has been proposed for a moderated
Brandon> alt.sources: get it out fast if it's source, reject it if
Brandon> not. But I ran into a snag: archivers. It seems that once
Brandon> you moderate a sources group, people start archiving it...
Brandon> and they prefer specific formats, such as all the
Brandon> auxiliary-header baggage. There's also the problem that once
Brandon> a moderator is in the loop, people expect him/her to reject
Brandon> or repack uuencoded arc/compress/whatever postings. So there
Brandon> is now a potential delay in c.s.misc.
So, put it right in the moderation's charter. No special formats,
just purging of non-source messages. Russ has already indicated that
he is willing to do as much (little?) as that. Furthermore, you could
just ignore the moderatedness of the group and post sources right past
him. No one should mind that at all, given only a "sources only!"
charter.
Dave
--
(setq mail '("tale@pawl.rpi.edu" "tale@itsgw.rpi.edu" "tale@rpitsmts.bitnet"))karl@sugar.hackercorp.com (Karl Lehenbauer) (10/17/89)
I've been thinking about this and I do not want alt.sources moderated. There are pretty many people who want to retain the status quo plus there is no precedent within alt for the action. However, the people who want to moderate alt.sources are perfectly welcome to create a moderated sources group within the alt subnet. As to a moderator's ability to check the net every day, I would say only a few people manage to be moderators and give continuously good service for long periods. Brandon Alberry, Rich Salz and Peter Neumann come to mind. All too often people get real hot to be moderators, but school/family/work/duty/fun/programming calls, and before you know it, no postings for weeks or months... -- -- uunet!sugar!karl "There is hopeful symbolism in the fact that -- flags do not wave in a vacuum." -- Arthur C. Clarke -- Usenet access: (713) 438-5018
scott@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Scott Hazen Mueller) (10/17/89)
I propose: alt.sources.mod Moderated alternate source postings from alt.sources 0.5 :-) It's too bad that it's not possible to ex-post-facto crosspost something... -- Scott Hazen Mueller| scott@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (ames|pyramid|vsi1)!zorch!scott 685 Balfour Drive | (408) 298-6213 |Mail to fusion-request@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG San Jose, CA 95111 |No room for quote.|for sci.physics.fusion digests via email
chasm@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Charles Marslett) (10/18/89)
One of the things I have noticed is that short source files that I would post to a moderated group, I often post to the unmoderated discussion group because there is such a delay in getting things through the cycle -- and in the case of one moderated posting both I and the moderator (Rahul Dhesi) were roundly flamed for a pair of minor (or major, if you are a net-wolf) infractions. Since the trash that befell us was just as bad as the mechanical nasty notes that come back in response to non-source postings to alt.sources, I find the current situation quite acceptable (I'd like to cut down on the nasty notes and flames, but that might harass those few who really enjoy them). Charles =============================================================================== "Those who would sacrifice ** Charles Marslett liberty for security, ** STB Systems, Inc. <-- apply all std. disclaimers deserve neither." ** Wordmark Systems <-- that's just me -- Benjamin Franklin ** chasm\@attctc.dallas.tx.us -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
tale@pawl.rpi.edu (David C Lawrence) (10/23/89)
This isn't a matter of wanting another newsgroup, it's a matter of
wanting only sources in alt.sources. Use the "n" key? Why do people
think that is a cure-all? To take the example to the extremes, I like
bicycling. I do not want to see articles about bicycling in
alt.sources though. I love my motorcycle and I thoroughly enjoy
horseback riding, but I don't want to find articles about motorcycling
in rec.equestrian.
Yes, I'm convinced moderating alt.sources would be impossible. But
not because anyone has shown what the great need of an unmoderated
sources group is -- we on the "c'mon, try moderation" side have never
said it should be moderated as much as comp.sources groups. Approved:
forgeries and all would be more than fair game. There will probably
never be a "newgroup alt.sources moderated" message that wouldn't be
immediately followed by newgroup for an alt.sources.unmod or such.
And that completely defeats the purpose. I personally already read
both alt.sources and alt.sources.d; if another alt.sources.* group
showed up I would probably be reading that too.
Brandon (I think) and one or two other people have suggested that
perhaps just a name change would help. Can we agree on that or is
there going to be conniptions and newgroup/rmgroup trigger-happiness?
Variations on alt.sources-only or alt.source-code seem the most likely
candidates. Problems?
Dave
--
(setq mail '("tale@pawl.rpi.edu" "tale@itsgw.rpi.edu" "tale@rpitsmts.bitnet"))tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff) (10/23/89)
Name changes, moderation etc. are all solutions hunting for a problem. If the group were moderated, an unmoderated alternative would be started and THAT group would experience problems with non-source postings. If the name were changed, people would still post requests for reposts and "does anyone have X" to it. Only education will solve the problem. -- Hey, where'd the Colombian Coffee ads go all of %8 Tom Neff a sudden! Is Juan Valdez hiding in Panama? 8% tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET
allbery@NCoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery) (10/25/89)
+--------------- | Name changes, moderation etc. are all solutions hunting for a problem. > . . . | the name were changed, people would still post requests for reposts and | "does anyone have X" to it. Only education will solve the problem. +--------------- Part of the education can be skipped with a name change. The point is that *all* of the mis-posted submissions I get for comp.sources.misc are derived from confusion about the intent of the word "sources". It should be more explicit about what it means; please remember that most people do *not* use the word the way it is often used in program-related newsgroups and in the names of the existing source-code newsgroups. Education, yes, but you won't reach the people who are most likely to make this mistake: new net.users who are not yet familiar with the "jargon" of Usenet. And it takes sufficient time to "digest" a newusers info posting that putting a definition there won't help much. Clarify the name. It'll do wonders. ++Brandon -- Brandon S. Allbery, moderator of comp.sources.misc allbery@NCoast.ORG uunet!hal.cwru.edu!ncoast!allbery ncoast!allbery@hal.cwru.edu bsa@telotech.uucp 161-7070 (MCI), ALLBERY (Delphi), B.ALLBERY (GEnie), comp-sources-misc@backbone [comp.sources.misc-related mail should go ONLY to comp-sources-misc@<backbone>] *Third party vote-collection service: send mail to allbery@uunet.uu.net (ONLY)*
tale@pawl.rpi.edu (David C Lawrence) (10/26/89)
In <1989Oct24.223853.16789@NCoast.ORG> allbery@NCoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery):
Brandon> Education, yes, but you won't reach the people who are most
Brandon> likely to make this mistake: new net.users who are not yet
Brandon> familiar with the "jargon" of Usenet. And it takes
Brandon> sufficient time to "digest" a newusers info posting that
Brandon> putting a definition there won't help much.
Brandon> Clarify the name. It'll do wonders.
Okay, so lets have a little poll. ("*Gasp*! A vote on the alt
net?!") Please send me your suggestions with the following names as
beginning suggestions:
alt.sources.only
alt.source.code
alt.source-code.only
alt.leave.it.the.hell.alone
...or whatever variation on words and/or punctuation make it the most
clear. In a few days I'll post the results, which will probably be
pretty scant. Please don't bother flaming me if you happen to agree
with line four up there, just tell me that's what you think.
Belligerence really isn't necessary.
Dave
--
(setq mail '("tale@pawl.rpi.edu" "tale@itsgw.rpi.edu" "tale@rpitsmts.bitnet"))paul@devon.LNS.PA.US (Paul Sutcliffe Jr.) (10/30/89)
In article <1989Oct26.062219.18414@rpi.edu>, tale@pawl.rpi.edu (David C Lawrence) writes: +--------- | Okay, so lets have a little poll. ("*Gasp*! A vote on the alt | net?!") Please send me your suggestions with the following names as | beginning suggestions: | | alt.sources.only | alt.source.code | alt.source-code.only | alt.leave.it.the.hell.alone +--------- alt.source-code.damnit - paul -- INTERNET: paul@devon.lns.pa.us | (All together now:) UUCP: ...!rutgers!devon!paul | Life is just a cherr of bowlies!
lee@sq.sq.com (Liam R. E. Quin) (11/02/89)
Brandon S. Allbery (allbery@NCoast.ORG) wrote: >| Name changes, moderation etc. are all solutions hunting for a problem. >> . . . >| the name were changed, people would still post requests for reposts and >| "does anyone have X" to it. Only education will solve the problem. >[...] The point is that >*all* of the mis-posted submissions I get for comp.sources.misc are derived >from confusion about the intent of the word "sources". It should be more >explicit about what it means; please remember that most people do *not* use >the word the way it is often used in program-related newsgroups and in the >names of the existing source-code newsgroups. You have a good point there, I think. Maybe alt.sourcecode (and comp.sourcecode) would be a better name. At least "sourcecode" is not a normal English (American? Canadian?) word. On the other hand, vaster than empires, the mighty Usenet slowly turns, and I would expect that changing the name of sources groups would irritate everyone who archived them. It is obviously helpful if all of the sourcecode groups have similar names. Lee -- lee@sq.com (a visitor to Toronto for a few weeks, not an "sq" employee)
allbery@NCoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery) (11/05/89)
Quoth lee@sq.com (Liam R. E. Quin) in <1989Nov2.033731.14704@sq.sq.com>: +--------------- | On the other hand, vaster than empires, the mighty Usenet slowly turns, and | I would expect that changing the name of sources groups would irritate | everyone who archived them. +--------------- Which makes alt.sources a much better testing ground than comp.sources.* would be. Or maybe we should create alt.source-code and let it run concurrently with alt.sources, and observe the results. If it works well, it can be proposed for the mainstream Usenet. ++Brandon -- Brandon S. Allbery allbery@NCoast.ORG, BALLBERY (MCI Mail), ALLBERY (Delphi) uunet!hal.cwru.edu!ncoast!allbery ncoast!allbery@hal.cwru.edu bsa@telotech.uucp *(comp.sources.misc mail to comp-sources-misc[-request]@backbone.site, please)* *Third party vote-collection service: send mail to allbery@uunet.uu.net (ONLY)* >>> The *.aquari* debate: news.groups gone news.playpen <<<
tale@pawl.rpi.edu (David C Lawrence) (11/07/89)
In <1989Nov4.172417.25968@NCoast.ORG> allbery@NCoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery):
Brandon> Or maybe we should create alt.source-code and let it run
Brandon> concurrently with alt.sources, and observe the results. If
Brandon> it works well, it can be proposed for the mainstream Usenet.
Perhaps we should, though the redundancy might confuse people.
Unfortunately I feel as though I've lost direction in this issue
because very soon after I posted the summary of the poll a newgroup
was issued for alt.sources.wanted. There were no non-sources postings
to alt.sources (coincidentally, there were no articles at all to
alt.sources.wanted) for a while but today two more appeared, the
second of which was the most pathetic "ME TOO!" request I have seen in
a long time.
My personal opinion, at this exact moment, is to let alt.source-code
and alt.sources coexist before making any further decisions. This is
alt, let's use its freedom. I'd appreciate if someone else sent the
newgroup on this though, because a) it would mean at least one other
person thought the idea had enough merit to back it with some action,
and b) I think people are sick of seeing control messages from me.
If no one does go with this suggestion, I won't lose any sleep over
it. In fact, I think I'll get some now. G'night.
Dave
--
(setq mail '("tale@pawl.rpi.edu" "tale@ai.mit.edu" "tale@rpitsmts.bitnet"))