kjones@talos.uucp (Kyle Jones) (10/14/89)
In article <2024@convex.UUCP> tchrist@convex.com (Tom Christiansen) writes: > I've been getting a lot of hate mail, most of which is automatic, > by self-appointed moderators of alt.sources for a comment I > posted there. And I'm pretty tired of it. > > I CAN'T CANCEL THE DAMN MESSAGE SO GET OFF MY BACK!!! > > I've tried and our news software is in some state of hosery > which disallows this practice. If you think alt.sources > should be restricted, moderate it. If not, stop bitching. I agree. If alt.sources was supposed to be a magical forum where everyone is Good and no non-source postings would occur, then I'd say the experiment has failed. People will forget to edit the newsgroups line when responding. New users will emerge who don't know about the sources-only rule, or who've never heard of alt.sources.d. And some people steadfastly refuse to stop posting discussions to the source groups no matter how much you plead. Or harangue. The latter may deserve "hate mail" but certainly not the others. So moderate alt.sources. But do it the way comp.sources.misc was originally going to be moderated: Axe non-source postings, and THAT'S ALL. Malcontents still can thwart the moderation scheme, but the main problem is articles posted by accident, or because of ignorance. The occasional miscreant can be cut off. kyle jones <kjones@talos.uu.net> ...!uunet!talos!kjones "Come to the edge," he said. But they held back. "It's dangerous," they said. "Come to the edge." "But we might fall..." "COME TO THE EDGE!" So they came to the edge. And he pushed them... And they FELL... --Hume Cronyn for SIGNET Bank (a pessimist's reprise)
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"))
dik@cwi.nl (Dik T. Winter) (10/14/89)
(Fell in that pitfall again, tried to follow-up; but no: alt.config is not received at our site, nor recognized, so I have to edit the Newsgroup line.) In article <1989Oct14.012800.12049@rpi.edu> tale@pawl.rpi.edu (David C Lawrence) writes: > 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. Well, the moderator of comp.sources.misc acts somthing like that. (Eh, no offense.) > (I don't send them; if > anyone wants to see one, some jerk just posted one back to alt.sources.) Depends on your definition of jerk. > 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. Something like that. Although, if I remember correctly, it was the fear that a moderator would inhibit distribution of some sources. But that discussion was long ago. > 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. Try comp.sources.misc (of course this requires that your mail is received by the moderator within one day and that he looks at his mail pretty frequently). The problem with alt.sources is of course that when you follow-up to an article there it goes to alt.sources, unless you edit the newsgroup line. But is alt.sources important enough to warrant measures as for ....general? And if so, how well will the newsreading programs comply? -- dik t. winter, cwi, amsterdam, nederland INTERNET : dik@cwi.nl BITNET/EARN: dik@mcvax -- dik t. winter, cwi, amsterdam, nederland INTERNET : dik@cwi.nl BITNET/EARN: dik@mcvax
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
dennis@mips.COM (Dennis Franklin) (10/15/89)
How 'bout a name change from alt.sources to something like alt.sources.only...
Jus' a thought.
--
Dennis Franklin {ames,decwrl,prls,pyramid}!mips!dennis
MIPS Computer Systems dennis@mips.com
928 Arques Ave, Sunnyvale CA, 94086 Ma Bell:(408) 720-2936 Fax:(408) 720-2949
#include <standard_disclaimer>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
tale@pawl.rpi.edu (David C Lawrence) (10/15/89)
Kyle> So moderate alt.sources.
Me> Sounds reasonable
In <2645@pur-phy> ray@dirac.physics.purdue.edu (Ray Moody) writes:
Ray> ... but there is a need for an unmoderated source group, and
Ray> alt.sources fills that need.
Okay, tell us what that need is. You've not provided any sort of
argument here, only made a claim that you've not attempted to
substantiate. At least counter the argument with something more than
"Does not, does not!"
Dave
--
(setq mail '("tale@pawl.rpi.edu" "tale@itsgw.rpi.edu" "tale@rpitsmts.bitnet"))baur@venice.SEDD.TRW.COM (Steven L. Baur) (10/15/89)
in article <2645@pur-phy>, ray@dirac.physics.purdue.edu (Ray Moody) says: > Xref: venice alt.sources.d:39 alt.config:19 > In-reply-to: tale@pawl.rpi.edu (David C Lawrence) > > ... but there is a need for an unmoderated > source group, and alt.sources fills that need. > Ray What need? (Just asking) I haven't seen anything in alt.sources that was worth the need of an unmoderated source group. If I am wrong, flame me. steve (baur@venice.sedd.trw.com)
allbery@NCoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery) (10/15/89)
As quoted from <8467@boring.cwi.nl> by dik@cwi.nl (Dik T. Winter): +--------------- | Something like that. Although, if I remember correctly, it was the fear that | a moderator would inhibit distribution of some sources. But that discussion | was long ago. +--------------- That was indeed one of the sticking points, although it came up late in the discussion. Rich Salz's "editor ban" in comp.sources.unix proved that there was a point to it, but on the other hand I responded to it by specifically inviting editor postings in c.s.misc. It's more a "good moderator"/"bad moderator" problem tha anything else. Perhaps a solution is to allow moderator voting, a la newsgroup voting... but that's a different topic for a different group. +--------------- | > 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. | Try comp.sources.misc (of course this requires that your mail is received | by the moderator within one day and that he looks at his mail pretty | frequently). +--------------- I look daily, networks permitting (e.g. if I can't rlogin to uunet I wait until I can or until the weekend, whichever comes first), and post daily. But I have to *get* the submissions. (hint hint ;-) +--------------- | The problem with alt.sources is of course that when you follow-up to an | article there it goes to alt.sources, unless you edit the newsgroup line. | But is alt.sources important enough to warrant measures as for | ....general? And if so, how well will the newsreading programs comply? +--------------- I think the news programs should have a general mechanism for this: a newsgroup can have a followup-to newsgroup specified, or a list of suggested followup-to newsgroups with the implicit statement that if such a list exists, followups to the original group are frowned upon. One more note on moderated newsgroups: My original intent for comp.sources.misc was to do essentially what has been proposed for a moderated alt.sources: get it out fast if it's source, reject it if not. But I ran into a snag: archivers. It seems that once you moderate a sources group, people start archiving it... and they prefer specific formats, such as all the auxiliary-header baggage. There's also the problem that once a moderator is in the loop, people expect him/her to reject or repack uuencoded arc/compress/whatever postings. So there is now a potential delay in c.s.misc. Are you sure you want that headache here? ++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)*
karl@sugar.hackercorp.com (Karl Lehenbauer) (10/16/89)
In article <15110@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> wolfgang@BBN.COM (Wolfgang Rupprecht) writes: >I guess I don't get it. If we moderate alt.sources how will it differ >from mod.sources, ahem, comp.sources.unix? Agree, agree! The interesting and useful thing about alt.sources over comp.sources.unix and comp.sources.misc is that it is not moderated. If it were moderated, hardly anybody would use it, because c.s.u and c.s.m have better distribution. If someone makes it moderated, I will create alt.sources.unmoderated or an equivalent, which is perfectly within the charter of the alt hierarchy. -- -- 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
jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) (10/16/89)
In article <1989Oct15.003835.9012@rpi.edu> tale@pawl.rpi.edu (David C Lawrence) writes: >Okay, tell us what that need is. You've not provided any sort of >argument here, only made a claim that you've not attempted to >substantiate. At least counter the argument with something more than >"Does not, does not!" How about you tell us what the need =isn't=. Your argument has been no more persuading than his. My argument is as follows: % grep alt.sources /usr/lib/news/active alt.sources 00970 00954 y alt.sources.amiga 00013 00008 y alt.sources.d 00137 00122 y Looks like a need to me. Hells-Bells, now that Peter da Silva Did The Right Thing[tm] and UN-moderated alt.sources.amiga there's even traffic in that there newsgroup. I will now state, without further proof, that in the case of alt.sources and friends moderation is a Bad Thing[tm]. -- John F. Haugh II +-Things you didn't want to know:------ VoiceNet: (512) 832-8832 Data: -8835 | The real meaning of MACH is ... InterNet: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org | ... Messages Are Crufty Hacks. UUCPNet: {texbell|bigtex}!rpp386!jfh +--------------------------------------
ray@dirac.physics.purdue.edu (Ray Moody) (10/16/89)
Kyle> So moderate alt.sources. David> Sounds reasonable Me> ... but there is a need for an unmoderated source group, and Me> alt.sources fills that need. David>Okay, tell us what that need is. You've not provided any sort of David>argument here, only made a claim that you've not attempted to David>substantiate. At least counter the argument with something more than David>"Does not, does not!" The only difference between comp.sources.mumble and alt.sources is that alt.sources is not moderated. If people wanted to read and post to a moderated source group, they would use comp.sources.mumble instead of alt.sources. People do read and post to alt.sources. Therefore, there is a need for an unmoderated sources group. Please do not make alt.sources a comp.sources.misc look-alike. Comp.sources.misc is a very nice group, but we only need one of them. Ray
kevin@ttidca.TTI.COM (Kevin Carothers) (10/16/89)
In article <4363@sugar.hackercorp.com> karl@sugar.hackercorp.com (Karl Lehenbauer) writes: >In article <15110@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> wolfgang@BBN.COM (Wolfgang Rupprecht) writes: >>I guess I don't get it. If we moderate alt.sources how will it differ >>from mod.sources, ahem, comp.sources.unix? > >Agree, agree! The interesting and useful thing about alt.sources over >comp.sources.unix and comp.sources.misc is that it is not moderated. > >If it were moderated, hardly anybody would use it, because c.s.u and c.s.m >have better distribution. > I agree three. I'll probably lose interest in it if it gets moderated. Personally I don't like throwing things at a moderator -- Kind of removes the spirit of a posting if it is first "judged" or otherwise "screened" -- I think (no offense) that Rich $alz's pithy "comments" at the beginning of some postings would otherwise discourage some people from posting. Take the "bozo.c" source posted here -- God knows what Rich or some other moderator would do to me or others for posting some of the versions of that little ditty :) People who get all bent-out-of-shape at one or two non-source postings need to lighten up. IMHO the group is doing great (so far). A mild flame directed at someone who infarc's should suffice. We simply don't need another moderated source group. -- Kevin Carothers {philabs,csun,psivax}!ttidca!kevin
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 Jamesallbery@NCoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery) (10/17/89)
As quoted from <29486@abbott.mips.COM> by dennis@mips.COM (Dennis Franklin):
+---------------
| How 'bout a name change from alt.sources to something like alt.sources.only...
+---------------
I propose "alt.source-code". If the "submissions" I get are any indication,
most people see *.sources and think of "sources" in its mundane sense: where
you can get something.
++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) (10/17/89)
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 article <17149@rpp386.cactus.org>, jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II):
John> How about you tell us what the need =isn't=. Your argument has been
John> no more persuading than his.
I never said my argument was persuading, but at least it does have the
characteristics of a more civilized debate. I already had stated what
the need "=isn't=". I not only presented further elaboration on
Kyle's posting I also presented why that position might be supported
and why it might be undermined. And then Ray returned by saying "but
there is a need for an unmoderated source group, and alt.sources fills
that need" without providing _anything_ to indicate what that need is.
I asked for more support for that point of view (which I am very
receptive to -- I am not steadfastly pushing for moderated
alt.sources) and then you came and did a grep of your active file and
said that I need to tell you why moderation would be a good thing,
which I had already done. There has _got_ to be more to than this
simply countering with, "No. It's not good."
John> I will now state, without further proof, that in the case of
John> alt.sources and friends moderation is a Bad Thing[tm].
Okay, why? And how was a grep on your active file was sufficient proof?
alt.sources.amiga was being "actively" moderated by Peter, so it isn't
a good comparison for the matter at hand. It was also limited to one
sort of source code which has a companion group or comp.sources.amiga.
I like Russ Nelson's proposal. Read it in alt.config.
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
aubrey@rpp386.cactus.org (Aubrey McIntosh) (10/17/89)
In article <29486@abbott.mips.COM> dennis@mips.COM (Dennis Franklin) writes: >How 'bout a name change from alt.sources to something like alt.sources.only... > Hmm, the medium is the message? >Jus' a thought. In the case of ~my~ posting to alt.sources the proposed name would have worked. I recommend supporting the idea. -- Aubrey McIntosh Freelance using Modula-2 Real time, embedded, instruments. Austin, TX 78723 Enquiries welcome 1-(512)-452-1540 aubrey%rpp386.Cactus.org@cs.utexas.edu
mesard@bbn.com (Wayne Mesard) (10/18/89)
scott@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Scott Hazen Mueller) writes: >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... Okay, so here's my Great Idea(tm): A moderator could post a message once or twice a day containing alt.sources message ID's in the Summary field. Then a little program could run once a night at local sites which would read these messages and link the alt.sources articles into a.s.m. The body of the moerator's message could contain editorial information about the referenced articles or even a summary of interesting non-source messages. And, of course, every message from the moderator should have the same string at the beginning of its Subject so that anyone who doesn't even want to see these can put them in a KILL file. It may not be worth the trouble given the typical volume in a.s. But it'd make everyone happy. -- void *Wayne_Mesard(); Mesard@BBN.COM BBN, Cambridge, MA
karl@sugar.hackercorp.com (Karl Lehenbauer) (10/18/89)
In article <72@venice.SEDD.TRW.COM> baur@venice.SEDD.TRW.COM (Steven L. Baur) writes: >What need? (Just asking) >I haven't seen anything in alt.sources that was worth the need of >an unmoderated source group. Yeah, there may not be a lot of need, but it is nice to just blast sources off and know they'll go out, plus I just like anarchy. >If I am wrong, flame me. FWOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSH!! :-) -- -- 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
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 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) (10/18/89)
In article <1989Oct17.005207.16223@rpi.edu> tale@pawl.rpi.edu (David C Lawrence) writes: >In article <17149@rpp386.cactus.org>, jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II): >John> How about you tell us what the need =isn't=. Your argument has been >John> no more persuading than his. > >I never said my argument was persuading, but at least it does have the >characteristics of a more civilized debate. The only arguments which have ever been persuading on USENET are those involving usage and approval by some majority. Outside of the mainstream USENET [ here in the alt.wasteland ;-) ] there is no need for anyones approval and usage suffices quite well to justify a newsgroup. Hence, since there is considerable usage the newsgroup is quite valid as it is. > I am not steadfastly pushing for moderated >alt.sources) and then you came and did a grep of your active file and >said that I need to tell you why moderation would be a good thing, >which I had already done. There has _got_ to be more to than this >simply countering with, "No. It's not good." As I said above, usage is the -only- well recognized reason for existence. You are quite free to issue a newgroup for alt.sources.mod and see who stands up and salutes it. I know this sounds like `it's my sandbox go play in your own', but alt is a lot like that. >John> I will now state, without further proof, that in the case of >John> alt.sources and friends moderation is a Bad Thing[tm]. > >Okay, why? And how was a grep on your active file was sufficient proof? >alt.sources.amiga was being "actively" moderated by Peter, so it isn't >a good comparison for the matter at hand. It was also limited to one >sort of source code which has a companion group or comp.sources.amiga. Actually alt.sources.amiga was a great example. I spoke with someone who had been on UUNET and they informed me that the entire Amiga archive which Peter had been maintaining was approximately 14 files. Prior to being unmoderated my active file showed only one article and that was one which Peter posted in response to my rmgroup'ing the newsgroup. It turns out unmoderating the newsgroup would have been a much better idea, oh well ... >I like Russ Nelson's proposal. Read it in alt.config. Why? I like leaving things alone. You want a new newsgroup, make your own. I everyone keeps whining, I'll even do it for you! -- John F. Haugh II +-Things you didn't want to know:------ VoiceNet: (512) 832-8832 Data: -8835 | The real meaning of MACH is ... InterNet: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org | ... Messages Are Crufty Hacks. UUCPNet: {texbell|bigtex}!rpp386!jfh +--<><--<><--<><--<><--<><--<><--<><---
kjones@talos.uucp (Kyle Jones) (10/18/89)
Ray Moody says: > ... but there is a need for an unmoderated > source group, and alt.sources fills that need. Steven L. Baur writes: > What need? (Just asking) > > I haven't seen anything in alt.sources that was worth the need of > an unmoderated source group. I haven't seen anything either. There were two articles waiting in alt.sources here today, both of them non-source postings. :-|
kjones@talos.uucp (Kyle Jones) (10/18/89)
Wayne Mesard writes: > Okay, so here's my Great Idea(tm): > > A moderator could post a message once or twice a day containing > alt.sources message ID's in the Summary field. Then a little program > could run once a night at local sites which would read these messages > and link the alt.sources articles into a.s.m. I like this idea, except the message-ID's should be in the body of the article. Wayne's also suggested that the body of the message could contain editorial information about the referenced articles but I'd prefer to see things remain simpler, i.e. just the message-ID's. A program could use the IDs to find the articles and do anything it wants from that point. I don't think anyone here wants anything close to what the moderators of the comp.sources.* groups do; all is needed is a way to unerringly pick the sources postings from the non-source postings, without incurring the delays of moderation. I think Wayne's idea would keep everyone happy. All that's needed is a group for the index postings, say "alt.sources.index", and someone to post the lists of message-ID's. I'm willing to do the latter, if enough people think this idea is worth pursuing. Hell, I might just do it anyway...
tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff) (10/19/89)
No need for an unmoderated source group??! Thus do we trash the last
remaining pockets of original net.spirit. Now that the moderated source
colossi are reduced to grinding out 23-part graphics packages for Turbo
C after weeks or months of delay, alt.sources is all we have left for
short, fun, timely code sharing. Sure, I junk 90% of the stuff that
comes through and so should You, Dear Reader; but the key is that it'll
be a different 90% for everyone. Sure, it's a problem that net.ignorami
clutter the group with discussion, but education -- not abolition -- is
the answer. A monthly WELCOME TO ALT.SOURCES posting with a 30-day
expire would be welcome; it could remind folks to put discussion in .d
while it tells how to find 'shar' and so forth.
--
'We have luck only with women -- \\\ Tom Neff
not spacecraft!' *-((O tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET
-- R. Kremnev, builder of FOBOS \\\ uunet!bfmny0!tneff (UUCP)tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff) (10/19/89)
Another thing we could do to cut down chatter in source groups is modify the common newsreaders to automatically redirect followups to the associated discussion group. The algorithm would be: if following up to a non-null article, then if the newsgroup contains ".sources" but does not end in ".d", then if newsgroup.d exists, then change the Newsgroups: header line to newsgroup.d This would take a while to percolate through but would be a civilized thing to do. It would not affect original postings (followups to the null article at end-of-group in RN) or explicit invocations of Pnews, but would still make a difference. -- 1955-1975: 36 Elvis movies. | Tom Neff 1975-1989: nothing. | tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET
jeffy@teraida.UUCP (Jeffrey Youngstrom) (10/19/89)
I think we should moderate alt.sources.d in the attempt to kill
the discussion about moderating alt.sources :-)
I don't think we've had enough of a problem with non-source
postings to warrant moderation. I don't mind hitting one key
once in a while when a neophyte wanders into alt.sources
Send them mail and we probably won't see them again. In the
case of net.dweebs like the one who started this war, they're
just desparate for attention -- ignore them and they will go
away.
my $.02
jeffy
--
Jeffrey Youngstrom |"It's a beautiful world
...!{decwrl,sun}!teraida!jeffy <--email | if people would just
(408)980-5200 ext 505 <--work | look!" -- my Grandma
(408)736-3132 <--home | kjones@talos.uucp (Kyle Jones) (10/20/89)
Jeffrey Youngstrom writes: > I don't think we've had enough of a problem with non-source > postings to warrant moderation. Well, how much is enough? It's been going on for years, and no end is in sight. Sure things are quiet now, but wait...
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"))news@laas.laas.fr (USENET News System) (10/26/89)
Well, why not have an automatic filter program as moderator. It would check whether the posting has lines of the form #!/bin/[c]sh, 'cut here', etc., and would only post those that conform (genrated by your favorite `shar' program :-). The others could either be automatically posted to alt.sources.d, or if they contain flamage (nice new word, huh?) then the filter could reply with a tasty hot flame of its own, or pass the posting along to the USENET oracle server. :-) ;-( Happy Halloween, Ralph P. Sobek Disclaimer: The above ruminations are my own. ralph@laas.laas.fr Addresses are ordered by importance. ralph@laas.uucp, or ...!uunet!mcvax!laas!ralph If all else fails, try: SOBEK@FRMOP11.BITNET sobek@eclair.Berkeley.EDU =============================================================================== Upon the instruments of death the sunlight brightly gleams. -- King Crimson
allbery@NCoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery) (10/30/89)
As quoted from <459@laas.laas.fr> by news@laas.laas.fr (USENET News System): +--------------- | Well, why not have an automatic filter program as moderator. It would | check whether the posting has lines of the form #!/bin/[c]sh, 'cut | here', etc., and would only post those that conform (genrated by your | favorite `shar' program :-). The others could either be automatically +--------------- I could find a use for that [ ;-) ], but alt.sources? Foo. One of the reasons for alt.sources is the fact that things sent to us moderator types have to include shars, fancy auxiliary headers, etc.; if I have a small-but- useful script I'd like to share with others (as with "bg"/"fg") I don't see much point in adding baggage that doubles the size of it. :-( ++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)* >>> Shall we try for comp.protocols.tcp-ip.eniac next, Richard? <<<
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"))