2nd RFD: rec.woodworking.moderated moderated

Tim Douglass wrote in <[email protected]>:

I'm posting from news.groups.

> So there is most likely no easy way to borrow on the combined
> knowledge of the two groups, meaning that the concern about knowledge
> dilution is a valid one (assuming the moderated group actually drew
> off, rather than shared, some of the knowledgeable posters). This is
> not a proposal for a topical division of the group, merely to create
> a parallel group. Currently, if you want to participate in the
> discussion of woodworking on Usenet all you need to do is follow
> rec.woodworking. If passed, this proposal would require you to follow
> two groups, but you would still have to process through all the spam
> and OT stuff in rec.woodworking.

The counter argument is that there may be a number of people using usenet
who would like to discuss woodworking, but do not have the time or the
inclination to post to a very busy group. rw.moderated would be a smaller
group which they might have time to use.

In effect your argument says "I don't want to make the time to follow
two groups, therefore everyone else will have to make the time to follow
mine".

--
Penny Gaines
Usenetting since 1993

On 19 Sep 2004 13:12:27 -0700, [email protected] (Mean Green Dancing
Machine) wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
>Edwin Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>>"Kathy Morgan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>
>>> But this is not a discussion about rec.woodworking--it's a discussion
>>> about a new newsgroup with slightly different focus.
>>
>>Different? It is still woodworking, only censored.
>
>Why do you say that it's censorship? Nobody will stop you from posting
>to the existing woodworking group (that's exactly why there's a
>moratorium on in-place moderation). Would you cry "censorship!" if you
>wrote a letter to your local newspaper and they didn't publish it?


cf: "A house divided against itself cannot stand."


Regards,
Tom.

Thomas J.Watson - Cabinetmaker (ret.)
tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1

On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 16:26:15 +0000, "Vito Kuhn" <[email protected]>
wrote:

> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
... snip

>
>If the proposed newsgroup is passed, the moderation team will enforce the
>charter as written. Posts containing violations of the charter will not be
>approved.
>


>Posts to this newsgroup should be limited to the topic of woodworking and
>related tools. No off-topic articles will be accepted. Using sexually
>explicit language or profanity is not allowed. This newsgroup is not to be
>used to sell, buy, trade, or auction any items or services.
>

So what would this have meant to folks like Ed Bennett whose Table-saw
aligner product design was driven by, then marketed to the posters on
rec.ww? Or Steve Knight, who started his own business building wooden hand
planes and initially sold them to rec.ww denizens who were lamenting the
dearth of quality planes available? Or Owen Lowe who identified a solution
to the Porter Cable biscuit joiner problem and marketed and sold a shim to
resolve that problem? Other examples include Patrick Leach who was able
to provide the mutually beneficial service of locating old woodworking hand
tools for those searching for them while providing a livelihood for
himself, or Pat Olguin and his short stint as a shellac dealer? Postings
from all of these entities would have been rejected as "commercial postings
used to sell, buy, trade, or auction" items or services.

It seems that a number of small businesses would not have started, and
woodworkers would have lost out on a fair number of services had such a
moderation policy been in effect on the current newsgroup. Not only would
those businesses not have been started, woodworkers would have lost out on
some worthwhile solutions to ww problems.

Further, in many instances, selling and/or trading tools or services
among individual woodworkers is an essential part of the hobby for many.
Being able to tap folks miles from home has been a benefit to several folks
on the existing newsgroup; one example includes a certain participant who
arranged for a shipment of Jarrah from Australia to his California
residence -- all arranged via initial contacts through rec.ww. These kinds
of contacts and postings hardly qualify as "commercial" nor heavy-use
activities, but are an essential part of the hobby to many.


>
>Commercial postings (advertisements and announcements) from for-profit
>entities are prohibited. Posts containing notices or URL pointers to sale
>and auction items are prohibited, however non-profit organizations and
>individuals announcing meetings, workshops, or conventions may post notices.
>

Such prohibitions against commercial entities would have precluded some
significant and important discussions with owners/principals of some very
important woodworking suppliers. Folks such as Robin Lee of Lee Valley
tools have been important contributors to this newsgroup, the fact that
they can answer questions and explain business decisions or respond to
problems is invaluable. Other participants have included Carlo V. of
Jesada tools and John Wirth of Woodworkers' Supply. That they should be
prohibited from pointing to their own web sites when they are providing
advice and information is ludicrous. The participants on rec.ww aren't
stupid; they know there are other choices for tools out there, these folks
provide valuable advice, it is only reasonable that they be allowed to
point to their services.

Seems like there would be a lot of "gray" area issues regarding when
someone's posting became a "commercial" announcement vs. a bit of friendly
advice and pointer to where to find a solution to a problem.
a) If for example, Robin Lee pointed to a particular hinge in his web
catalog that solved a certain problem posted to the newsgroup, would that
posting be allowed? My read of the charter says no.
b) If a woodworker pointed another woodworker to Lee Valley's on-line
catalog for a part or tool that answered a specific need, would that
posting be allowed or would it be considered a post containing a URL point
to sale and/or auction item?
c) If a participant had posted for information regarding where to find a
certain tool, and another participant had happened to identify such a tool
on a site such as ebay, would that answering post be rejected?




>Posts containing binary files or graphic reproductions other than small
>digital signatures are prohibited. However, posts including a URL pointing
>to binary files or web sites related to woodworking are permitted if the
>nature of the URL target is clearly identified in the post.
>
>Moderation Policy: It is the responsibility of the moderation team to
>enforce this charter. The moderators reserve the unconditional right to
>reject any post if it violates any part of the newsgroup charter. All
>rejections will be at the sole discretion of the moderators.
>
>END CHARTER.
... snip

Howdy!

In article <[email protected]>,
Bruce Barnett <[email protected]> wrote:
>"Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> Still a silly notion.
>>
>> You make a post requesting information of a critical step of your project.
>> By the time the moderator gets to it, it may already be too late. By the
>> time replies are passed, you probably don't need t he answer any more, but
>> now have a supply of firewood.
>
>Then don't USE it. Sheesh. No one said that rec.woodworking was going
>to disappear.
>
I'm not convinced that a moderated Wreck will be a real improvement. Sure,
it won't have as much junk and drivel, but it won't have as much stuff,
period.

If you think rec.woodworking.moderated is a dumb idea, by all means vote
when the CFV comes out, and vote NO.

yours,
Michael


--
Michael and MJ Houghton | Herveus d'Ormonde and Megan O'Donnelly
[email protected] | White Wolf and the Phoenix
Bowie, MD, USA | Tablet and Inkle bands, and other stuff
| http://www.radix.net/~herveus/

Howdy!

In article <[email protected]>,
Woodchuck Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] (Michael Houghton) wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> If you think rec.woodworking.moderated is a dumb idea, by all means vote
>> when the CFV comes out, and vote NO.
>>
>
>If you think it is a dumb idea, the proper thing to do is abstain.
>
Why? What makes abstaining "proper"? If I have an actual opinion of whether
or not the group should be approved, then I have a moral obligation to cast
a vote. If I abstain, I don't have the moral standing to object after the
fact.

yours,
Michael


--
Michael and MJ Houghton | Herveus d'Ormonde and Megan O'Donnelly
[email protected] | White Wolf and the Phoenix
Bowie, MD, USA | Tablet and Inkle bands, and other stuff
| http://www.radix.net/~herveus/

"Woodchuck Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> [email protected] (Michael Houghton) wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
> >>> If you think rec.woodworking.moderated is a dumb idea, by all means
> >>> vote when the CFV comes out, and vote NO.
> >>>
> >>
> >>If you think it is a dumb idea, the proper thing to do is abstain.
> >>
> > Why? What makes abstaining "proper"? If I have an actual opinion of
> > whether or not the group should be approved, then I have a moral
> > obligation to cast a vote. If I abstain, I don't have the moral
> > standing to object after the
>
> "Yes" votes and "no" votes have different meanings.
>
> A "yes" vote indicates that you are interested in the group, and that you
> intend to read the group if it passes.
>
> A "no" vote means that you have a technical objection, or you think the
> group will somehow have a negative impact on Usenet in one way or another.
>
> For those people who simply are not interested in reading the group for
> themselves, but have no problem with others using the group, the "abstain"
> vote is the proper choice..or to not vote at all.
>
> I will be casting an "abstain". I will not vote "yes" because I have no
> desire to read this group..neither do I have a problem with others wanting
> a moderated woodworking group.
>
> --
> Bill

Understood. And after giving it considerable thought I have decided to vote for the group... before I vote against it.

Seriously, I couldn't care less, one way or another.
--
Al Reid

How will I know when I get there...
If I don't know where I'm going?

Howdy!

In article <[email protected]>,
Woodchuck Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] (Michael Houghton) wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>>>> If you think rec.woodworking.moderated is a dumb idea, by all means
>>>> vote when the CFV comes out, and vote NO.
>>>>
>>>
>>>If you think it is a dumb idea, the proper thing to do is abstain.
>>>
>> Why? What makes abstaining "proper"? If I have an actual opinion of
>> whether or not the group should be approved, then I have a moral
>> obligation to cast a vote. If I abstain, I don't have the moral
>> standing to object after the
>
>"Yes" votes and "no" votes have different meanings.
>
>A "yes" vote indicates that you are interested in the group, and that you
>intend to read the group if it passes.
>
>A "no" vote means that you have a technical objection, or you think the
>group will somehow have a negative impact on Usenet in one way or another.

Would you care to offer a citation of a source that corroborates those
definitions? I'm serious.

Now, thinking the proposal represents a "dumb idea" does fit under the
definition of a "no" vote you give. It may not be very articulate, but
it fits.
>
>For those people who simply are not interested in reading the group for
>themselves, but have no problem with others using the group, the "abstain"
>vote is the proper choice..or to not vote at all.
>
>I will be casting an "abstain". I will not vote "yes" because I have no
>desire to read this group..neither do I have a problem with others wanting
>a moderated woodworking group.
>
...whereas I'm concerned about the moderation scheme and the criteria, as
well as the dilution. I don't buy the rationale particularly either, so
I advocate a "no" vote, should it come to that. Far better would be to
simply withdraw the idea and let it wither without a vote.

yours,
Michael


--
Michael and MJ Houghton | Herveus d'Ormonde and Megan O'Donnelly
[email protected] | White Wolf and the Phoenix
Bowie, MD, USA | Tablet and Inkle bands, and other stuff
| http://www.radix.net/~herveus/

Howdy!

In article <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 01:01:51 -0000, [email protected] (Michael
>Houghton) wrote:
>
>>Howdy!
>>
>>In article <[email protected]>,
>>Woodchuck Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>
>>>"Yes" votes and "no" votes have different meanings.
>>>
>>>A "yes" vote indicates that you are interested in the group, and that you
>>>intend to read the group if it passes.
>>>
>>>A "no" vote means that you have a technical objection, or you think the
>>>group will somehow have a negative impact on Usenet in one way or another.
>>
>>Would you care to offer a citation of a source that corroborates those
>>definitions? I'm serious.
>
>Err if you are looking for a hard rule of what is generally a good
>reason to vote any of the three ways, such does not exist.

I was responding to a fairly bald statement that seemed to rely on a fairly
hard rule. As Bill noted in his reply to me, it is clear that he was assuming
the context of news.groups, where one can be more safely presumed to be
familiar with the terms of CFVs. I'm responding via rec.woodworking, where
respondents cannot fairly be assumed to be familiar with that context, hence
my call for citations.

Thank you for giving more detailed explanations (and the other respondent
as well...I'm not gonna make three replies here).

yours,
Michael


--
Michael and MJ Houghton | Herveus d'Ormonde and Megan O'Donnelly
[email protected] | White Wolf and the Phoenix
Bowie, MD, USA | Tablet and Inkle bands, and other stuff
| http://www.radix.net/~herveus/

Woodchuck Bill wrote:

> Actually, the soft wreck's charter forbids crossposting to rec.woodworking
> "under any circumstances".

Rather silly to "forbid" anything in an unmoderated group.

B/

In article <[email protected]>, Philip
Lewis <[email protected]> wrote:

> To ensure that woodworking remains the only topic of discussion in
> a family-safe environment to discuss woodworking topics, free
> of foul language and pornography links

"Family-safe" and "foul language" need to be defined.

The experience moderating newsgroups for all four of the proposed
moderators needs to be disclosed.

The revised RFD does not address any of my concerns as expressed
previously.

As it stands the proposal does not deserve support, IMO.

In article <[email protected]>, Ba r r y
<[email protected]> wrote:

> Would Rob Lee, Ed Bennett, Steve Knight, etc... supporting their
> products, or someone like Mike from American Sycamore mentioning a
> seminar or show be banned? That would surely be a disservice to all
> participants. So what if it's "commercial", the readers stand to gain
> much from the participation of these types of folks.

In any craft/art/hobby/career (lots of the folks who post on rww make
their living working wood) being up to date with suppliers, tool
makers, etc, can be critical.

I especially take umbrage at the word "trade" being in there.

I assume that means that a post along the lines of "Hey Barry, I've got
some mahogany if you wanna trade for that QSWO you've got" would be
disallowed by the moderators?

If so, that's just stupid.

In article <[email protected]>, Woodchuck Bill
<[email protected]> wrote:

> If you think it is a dumb idea, the proper thing to do is abstain.

And if I think the moderators are unqualified and refusing to address
legitimate questions, then I'll vote no.

In article <[email protected]>, Woodchuck Bill
<[email protected]> wrote:

> That is different than just thinking the group is a dumb idea.

Absolutely.

In article <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>
wrote:

> One hierarchy
> I survey has an apparent turnover rate of 50% per year and it has
> had traffic between 200 and 500 postings per day.

"One hierarchy" is not rec.woodworking. You don't know the "Wreck" or
the community it comprises. It's not like any other newsgroup I've ever
seen (in 10 years of frequenting usenet).

At this point, the only valid concern about the proposal for the
moderated group is the competence of the proposed moderators, and they
appear unwilling (to date) to address the questions raised.

In the face of their unwillingness or inability to speak in their
defence, the proposal must logically fail by either being withdrawn,
failing to move to a CFV, or being soundly defeated by vote.

I understand that news.groups regulars have their views and protocols,
but really all that matters at this point is whether the proposal comes
to a vote or not. If it does, I'm predicting it will fail resoundingly.

In article <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>
wrote:

> It's not the new threads that matter. It's the old ones. If one
> really wants to participate in discussions, one follows both old
> and new discussions (old meaning anything more than 24 hours old).
> At that scale, even keeping up with ONE thread can be a problem
> for some people, let alone the other dozen or so new one AND the
> dozen new ones. But even if single threads aren't much of an
> issue, many folks do keep an eye on old threads, and that often
> means scanning a couple to a few hundred thread headings. Picking
> out meaningful headings can be a real chore (sort of like scanning
> for non-spam mail in an unfiltered email account).

By that argument, news.groups.moderated would seem to me to be a
logical result.

djb

In article <[email protected]>, Doug
Miller <[email protected]> wrote:

> Oh, come on, this is one of the lamest arguments I've seen yet on this topic:
> it amounts to claiming that the hierarchy should be designed for the lowest
> common denominator. People who have trouble keeping up with one thread
> shouldn't even have computers.

Doug, do you want to co-sponsor an RFD for news.groups.moderated, based
on ru.igarashi's logic?

;-)

In article <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>
wrote:

> (idiot instructors).

Well, now that you mention it...

In article <[email protected]>, Penny Gaines
<[email protected]> wrote:

> In addition if it is a group with a certain amount of personal chat, people
> might feel they have to get involved in the chat side before they start
> asking questions. Also if they are a newcomer to the group, they may find
> that their post is ignored, and their question is unanswered.
>
You have no experience in rec.woodworking, because in this particular
group none of your points above are generally true.

The group has a high number of "Hi, I'm new to this group and pardon me
if this has been asked before, but I've googled and can't find a clear
answer to how you cut oak plywood on a left-handed frannistan burfle
with the lorgle option installed. Can anyone help?"

Such queries are enthusiastically welcomed, and often spawn a
well-populated thread with lots of helpful advice.

Such threads are not what this RFP is addressing. This RFP is
addressing the nasty, evil, time and bandwidth wasting off-topic posts,
and the easily-dealt-with-via-effective-software troll posts.

The first are part of the life-blood of rec.woodworking. the second are
life on usenet and have to be dealt with by any grown-up playing the
game.

My $0.02...

In article <[email protected]>, Penny Gaines
<[email protected]> wrote:

> I've used lots of groups where newcomers tend to get enthusiastic welcomes.
> I'm sure rec.woodworking is no exception. However, in all the groups I've
> used like that, *sometimes* a newcomer gets overlooked. Not on purpose,
> but because other posters are busy with holidays or whatever. In a smaller
> group they are more obvious, even a few days after they posted.

A person gets overlooked? On usenet?

OMG! Call the Cabal! Form a moderated group! Split all groups that have
more than 6 posts a day! We must ensure this tragedy never occurs
again, or a single person may leave usenet forever!

...

Folks on news.groups don't get out much, do they?

<shaking head>

djb

--
"I'm a man, but I can change... If I have to... I guess." -- Red Green

In article <1gkbvkz.6ib2kxv3wx3eN%[email protected]>, Kathy Morgan
<[email protected]> wrote:

> and most Usenet groups discourage or forbid
> advertising, except for those groups that are specifically for selling,
> such as *.marketplace.

You've already demonstrated you don't have a clue about how
rec.woodworking operates, Kathy. No need to keep doing it.

In article <[email protected]>, Joe Wells
<[email protected]> wrote:

> Now he has a 3rd RFD in the n.a.n queue called
> rec.woodworking.all-ages. Great. Now we can look forward to r.w.old-folks,
> r.w.wimmins, r.w.plushies.. where will it all end?

It'll end when the proposal is either withdrawn or goes to a vote.

Given name oof the 3rd RFD it appears he's given up on moderation? If
so, I wonder WTF the point is...

Luigi Zanasi <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 16:26:15 +0000, "Vito Kuhn" <[email protected]>
> scribbled:
>
> >Commercial postings (advertisements and announcements) from for-profit
> >entities are prohibited. Posts containing notices or URL pointers to sale
> >and auction items are prohibited, however non-profit organizations and
> >individuals announcing meetings, workshops, or conventions may post notices.
>
> Exclusive sales to rec.woodworking.moderated participants, auction
> announcements and sales by regular participants should be allowed, as
> they are in other web-based discussion groups and email listserves.

This discussion is *not* about a web-based discussion group or email
list. This is Usenet, and most Usenet groups discourage or forbid
advertising, except for those groups that are specifically for selling,
such as *.marketplace.

--
Kathy - help for new users at <http://www.aptalaska.net/~kmorgan/>
Good Net Keeping Seal of Approval at <http://www.gnksa.org/>
OE-quotefix can fix OE:
<http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/oe-quotefix/>

Dave Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca> wrote:

> In article <1gkbvkz.6ib2kxv3wx3eN%[email protected]>, Kathy Morgan
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > and most Usenet groups discourage or forbid
> > advertising, except for those groups that are specifically for selling,
> > such as *.marketplace.
>
> You've already demonstrated you don't have a clue about how
> rec.woodworking operates, Kathy. No need to keep doing it.

But this is not a discussion about rec.woodworking--it's a discussion
about a new newsgroup with slightly different focus.

--
Kathy - read reviews of other newsgroups in news:news.groups.reviews
Good Net Keeping Seal of Approval at <http://www.gnksa.org/>
OE-quotefix can fix OE:
<http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/oe-quotefix/>

On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 04:46:44 +0000 (UTC), [email protected] wrote:

>If it is true that RW gets 300 postings per day, there is a high
>probability that some segments of potential readers will simply
>avoid the group.

>The other potential error is that fragmentation is a bad thing.

I agree with both of these observations. But IMHO, they're arguments
for splitting the group and sub-categorisation, not for moderation and
certainly not for adding moderation at an equal hierarchical level.

I see no way that "Vito's personal fiefdom" will make any improvement
to the volume problem.

--
Smert' spamionam

"Vito Kuhn" <[email protected]> writes:
>Reasons for creating a moderated subgroup of rec.woodworking:
>4-To offer woodworkers a higher signal to noise ratio than rec.woodworking
> provides

I believe that 1, 2, and 4 are equivalent and that 3 is really a
continuation of 1.
I suggest:

To ensure that woodworking remains the only topic of discussion in
a family-safe environment to discuss woodworking topics, free
of foul language and pornography links

>If you love woodworking, but are tired of all the drivel associated with
>rec.woodworking, "The Soft Wreck" will soon be here!
I would also reassert my suggest of the "Wreck-Less" since it is like
the wreck, only there is less of it.

>This newsgroup is not to be used to sell, buy, trade, or auction any
>items or services.
Will signatures of folks in the business be banned? Will posts of
"hey, there is a good closeout deal at this shop" be allowed?
I believe both of these should be allowed, and that in general, if the
post is topical to woodworking, and not repeated more than some
reasonable amount, like twice a month, then it should be allowed.

>Commercial postings (advertisements and announcements) from for-profit
[...]
>individuals announcing meetings, workshops, or conventions may post notices.
This in in conflict with the previous paragraph.

I believe the charter needs to have a method of recourse for those
that feel they are moderated unfairly. I also feel an outline of a
means of replacing the moderators should be detailed.

Also, I believe the allowed topics on the board should include
discussion of the board itself and it's moderation.


I do not feel there is a need for a moderated group. Filters and
subject scanning are sufficient for increasing the signal to noice
ratio. That said, I would not deny the group to those that would like
to create and maintain it.




--
be safe.
flip
Ich habe keine Ahnung was das bedeutet, oder vielleicht doch?
Remove origin of the word spam from address to reply (leave "+")

In article <[email protected]>, Doug
Miller <[email protected]> wrote:

> You could be right -- and I've been thinking it might be time for another
> update to the TrollFilters. Perhaps a filter that would drop anything
> crossposted to both rec.woodworking and news.groups where the subject line
> does *not* contain CFV (so that we don't miss a CFV if it ever reaches that
> stage).
>
> Opinions from the wreck, please?

I don't use your filters, but you gave me a nice little chuckle this
morning with the above.

I can choose what threads to read or ignore all by myself, thanks.

;-)

In article <[email protected]>, Dave Hinz
<[email protected]> wrote:

> That's ...interesting... - how does Vito propose to enforce that in an
> unmoderated group? Does _ANY_ of this make sense?

He's going to wave his vorpal charter at all the nasty people and they
will flee before its terrible power.

I don't understand this 3rd RFD... Rather than answer questions about
the moderation structure and moderator qualifications, he's decided to
drop moderation altogether?

That certainly says something about the strength of his convictions and
his ability to stand strong in the face of criticism, doesn't it?

In article <[email protected]>, Dave Hinz
<[email protected]> wrote:

> Then it's a First RFD for a different group then, isn't it?

I dunno exactly what this is.

> Or, is he
> keeping the name?

No, he's proposing rec.wooodworking.all-ages now.

On 16 Sep 2004 10:48:34 GMT, Bruce Barnett <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Not everyone uses a sophisticated news reader. Some use what their
> vendor/ISP provides and never change. It might not be threaded, nor
> have kill files, and force you to use the mouse like crazy just to
> skim over the topics.

Could be, but they'd have the same problem with a moderated group.
Point is, whoever the people are who want to moderate, haven't come
forward to explain their motivations for proposing such. It's not like
there was a groundswell of "This is a problem, we need to make a
moderated group" and several people stepped up to the task, it was
a case of someone we don't know saying they want to moderate the
group for us. I suspect it's related to a recent troll who made a
huge deal that _several_ four-letter words had apeared in a short
time here (gasp!), the writing styles seem similar.

> My company eliminated our local news server, and for a while I was
> forced to use google groups and IE to read and post everything.
> Also consider that someone might have repetitive motion issues.

All good reasons for those individuals to upgrade their newsreader;
not good reasons to set up a moderated group to fix a problem that
isn't apparent to many people. Bring on the vote.

Dave Hinz

On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 19:24:17 GMT, Edwin Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> "Kathy Morgan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> But this is not a discussion about rec.woodworking--it's a discussion
>> about a new newsgroup with slightly different focus.
>
> Different? It is still woodworking, only censored.

The problem with this proposal isn't moderation (please look up the
word "censor" in a dictionary so you know why it doesn't apply), the
problem with this proposal is that the person proposing it, and who
wants to be the moderator, is not a representative member of the group.
There was no group concensus, nor is there a widely perceived need
for moderation. Further, the potential moderator has continued to not
make a good point for why he thinks we need a moderated group in the
first place. I've been thinking for a while now that it's just another
troll attempting to waste an immense amount of other peoples' time.

Dave Hinz

On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 13:43:48 GMT, Edwin Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> "Mean Green Dancing Machine" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
>> [mucho snippo to concentrate on one point]
>
> Then you agree my other points are valid and correct?

I'm not "Mean Green", but I agree that it's a lousy proposal for other
reasons, not the "censorship" reason. As others have pointed out,
there are some very good moderated groups out there that work well.
In order to work well, there has to be a need for it, and a good
moderator/moderators watching over the group. In this case, I do not
see a need, nor do I see that the proposed moderator(s) are a good fit
for the need if it did exist.

> The purpose of USENET is the free exchange of information and ideas. Maybe
> you don't consider that freedom, but you are free to do that. If this group
> was moderated, you would not be able to make your comments would you?

It depends on what the moderation guidelines were. Some groups work on a
"whitelist" approach, where once a person is clearly there to actually
participate, anything they post goes through. Some groups work on keywords,
some have an arbitrary decision-maker, some probably even have moderators
who will edit out content rather than reject an entire article. The
nice thing about the freedom you talk about is that you're free to find out
the rules of any given group and decide if you want to participate.

The reason this proposal is a lousy one is that it's not needed, and it's
being proposed by someone who didn't build _any_ group support before
springing it. As such their motivations are suspect at best.

Dave Hinz

On 19 Sep 2004 20:54:45 GMT, Woodchuck Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
> Tom Watson <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> Vito wants to turn it into a milk bar.
>
> No, Vito wants to keep the rec.woodworking intact and open a milk bar as an
> alternative for those people not interested in a hard neighborhood bar. He
> has not proposed any changes to the wreck.

And yet, what will inevitably happen if the group gets posted is that the
only thing to show up there will be crossposts from here, so Vito can get
his traffic counts up to stoke his ego. Then he'll get bored with it,
and it'll be just another husk of a group taking up namespace, with the
occasional forged-moderation spam posts to break the boredom.
I've seen it happen, over and over, for a dozen years.

On 20 Sep 2004 14:36:10 GMT, Woodchuck Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote in news:2r87o5F173ukfU5@uni-
> berlin.de:
>
>> Further, the potential moderator has continued to not
>> make a good point for why he thinks we need a moderated group in the
>> first plac
>
> Hello..you need to catch up. The newest proposal is for an unmoderated
> group. In the case of an umoderated group, the posting history of the
> propont is irrelevant.

Um, we _have_ an unmoderated group. That makes this even more pointless.
So he's now proposing another group on the same topic with slightly different
reason for being? Sounds like a 100% crossposted content place in the
making. What a waste.

On 20 Sep 2004 15:15:28 GMT, Woodchuck Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> Um, we _have_ an unmoderated group. That makes this even more
>> pointless. So he's now proposing another group on the same topic with
>> slightly different reason for being? Sounds like a 100% crossposted
>> content place in the making. What a waste.
>
> Actually, the soft wreck's charter forbids crossposting to rec.woodworking
> "under any circumstances".

That's ...interesting... - how does Vito propose to enforce that in an
unmoderated group? Does _ANY_ of this make sense?

On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 09:33:52 -0600, Dave Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Dave Hinz
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> That's ...interesting... - how does Vito propose to enforce that in an
>> unmoderated group? Does _ANY_ of this make sense?
>
> He's going to wave his vorpal charter at all the nasty people and they
> will flee before its terrible power.

Oooh, well that'll certainly work. Vorpal powers always win out over,
er, people who want to say "shit" or something.

> I don't understand this 3rd RFD... Rather than answer questions about
> the moderation structure and moderator qualifications, he's decided to
> drop moderation altogether?

Then it's a First RFD for a different group then, isn't it? Or, is he
keeping the name? (bet he fucks up the cmsg newgroup, any takers?)

> That certainly says something about the strength of his convictions and
> his ability to stand strong in the face of criticism, doesn't it?

Yup. Smelling more trollish all the time. Maybe we should just ignore
him and wait for the CFV.

Dave Hinz

On 20 Sep 2004 21:24:18 GMT, Woodchuck Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote in news:2r8clgF17vbneU1@uni-
> berlin.de:
>
>> Then it's a First RFD for a different group then, isn't it?
>
> No. It is still considered a 3rd RFD by the NAN tea. Name changes,
> moderation changes are valid changes if those issues has objections in
> previous RFDs.

OK, fair enough. It just seems strange that it'd be considered the
same RFD even though the group name has changed and it's gone to un-
moderated. Not being a smartass, but the only thing common is the
proponent at this point, right?

>> Or, is he
>> keeping the name? (bet he fucks up the cmsg newgroup, any takers?)
>
> All control messages for BIG8 groups are sent by the NAN team..usually by
> Russ Allbery (the top guy on Usenet)..not group proponents.

Good to know. I recently witnessed a badly fluffed attempt at a
moderated group, done by someone who meant well but didn't do his
homework properly. Ended up with a "mostly moderated" group, because
his first control message left off the moderated part. He got to go
around to server owners and ask them to fix his problem, on a
server by server basis.

On 22 Sep 2004 00:45:15 GMT, Bruce Barnett <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dave Hinz <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> Good to know. I recently witnessed a badly fluffed attempt at a
>> moderated group, done by someone who meant well but didn't do his
>> homework properly. Ended up with a "mostly moderated" group, because
>> his first control message left off the moderated part. He got to go
>> around to server owners and ask them to fix his problem, on a
>> server by server basis.
>
> ho-boy... Anyone have any idea on how many servers there are?
> (I used to run a USENET node decades ago. My site maxed at 200th place in connectivity).

Yup, he knows.

"Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote in news:pSr3d.21841$ZC7.7922
@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com:

> By having a moderator with final say on what
> get published an individual is taking a part of USENET for his personal
> agenda and eliminating anyone he chooses to.
>

... when the means to do so exist elsewhere, such as Yahoo groups.

On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 18:17:06 -0400, Tom Watson
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On 19 Sep 2004 20:54:45 GMT, Woodchuck Bill <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>
>>No, Vito wants to keep the rec.woodworking intact and open a milk bar as an
>>alternative for those people not interested in a hard neighborhood bar. He
>>has not proposed any changes to the wreck.
>
>Sigh...
>
>cf: search terms: "milk bar", "singing in the rain".
>
>(...no, we are devo.)

why am I thinking of ultra violence?

Greetings and Salutations...

On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 03:00:55 +0000 (UTC), [email protected] wrote:

>In news.groups Edwin Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>"Vito Kuhn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>
>>You make a post requesting information of a critical step of your project.
>>By the time the moderator gets to it, it may already be too late. By the
>>time replies are passed, you probably don't need t he answer any more, but
>>now have a supply of firewood.
>
>The problem isn't in the time it takes for the moderator to get it,
>it's whether he has to hand moderate it or not. If he has a robomod
>set up, there won't be much more time spent than a normal usenet
>message, unless the submitter got himself on the handmod list.
>
>>I prefer to do my own censoring and not be "protected" by someone else.
>
>That's ok. It just means you can ignore the vote when the ballot
>roles around. It's really the folks that want the group that need
>to be concerned about moderation and other issues of this proposal,
>or the folks that think the proposed group is going to hurt
>rec.woodworking. If you're not interested in the group or don't
>have concerns about its effect on rec.woodworking, abstaining on
>the vote (or even voting ABSTAIN) is a good thing.
>
And the good news is that even if the new, moderated news
group is created, it does not mean that this, unmoderated one will
vanish...so we will have a choice of whether to speak freely,
or be a part of a moderated group.
Regards
Dave Mundt

George Shouse wrote:
> why am I thinking of ultra violence?
Orange you sure about it?
Dave in Fairfax
--
Dave Leader
reply-to doesn't work
use:
daveldr at att dot net
American Association of Woodturners
http://www.woodturner.org
Capital Area Woodturners
http://www.capwoodturners.org/

Membership is not censorship. Get out of the manger and let the oxen eat.

"Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:o8B3d.4829$4j1.986@trndny06...
>
>
> The purpose of USENET is the free exchange of information and ideas.
Maybe
> you don't consider that freedom, but you are free to do that. If this
group
> was moderated, you would not be able to make your comments would you?
>
> FWIW, I don't own any brown shirts. I'm wearing a bright yellow pullover
> today in case you are interested.
> Ed
>
>
>

On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 16:26:15 +0000, "Vito Kuhn" <[email protected]>
scribbled:

<snip>
>Ernie Roscoe and his wife, Laura Roscoe, will be the backup moderators, in
>the event that Vito or Susan cannot fulfill their duties for any period of
>time.

No idea who they are. Google does not show any participation in
rec.woodworking.

>Any future moderators will be selected by the two primary moderators, Vito
>and Susan. The newsgroup will be consulted before any changes in moderation
>occur.

Kuhn has not really answered concerns about why he should be
moderator. This proposal might be acceptable from someone who has a
history of participation in rec.woodworking and has earned the respect
of other participants. Mr. Kuhn is an unknown. He also has not shown
any experience or expertise in moderating newsgroups.

There is no way of removing and replacing the self-appointed
moderators by the participants in the group.

<snip>

>Posts to this newsgroup should be limited to the topic of woodworking and
>related tools. No off-topic articles will be accepted. Using sexually
>explicit language or profanity is not allowed.

Sexually explicit language and profanity are regularly used by most
woodworkers when mistakes are made or hard and/or sharp tools come
into contact with flesh, other hard tools and the floor.

>This newsgroup is not to be
>used to sell, buy, trade, or auction any items or services.
<snip>

>Commercial postings (advertisements and announcements) from for-profit
>entities are prohibited. Posts containing notices or URL pointers to sale
>and auction items are prohibited, however non-profit organizations and
>individuals announcing meetings, workshops, or conventions may post notices.

Exclusive sales to rec.woodworking.moderated participants, auction
announcements and sales by regular participants should be allowed, as
they are in other web-based discussion groups and email listserves.
Commercial postings by regular helpful participants should be allowed.

<snip>

Finally, a moderated newsgroup would provide little material for an
Anti-FAQ.

Hence, I will be voting no, in the doubtful eventuality this proposal
comes to a vote.

Luigi
Who is trying to figure out what tack to take in including this RFD in
the Anti-FAQ.
Replace "nonet" with "yukonomics" for real email address
www.yukonomics.ca/wooddorking/antifaq.html
www.yukonomics.ca/wooddorking/humour.html

Vito Kuhn wrote:

> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
> moderated group rec.woodworking.moderated
>
> This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the creation of a
> world-wide moderated Usenet newsgroup rec.woodworking.moderated. This is not
> a Call for Votes (CFV); you cannot vote at this time. Procedural details are
> below.
>
> CHANGES FROM 1ST RFD:
>
> 1-Explanation of the moderation structure
>
> 2-Minor changes in the charter
>
> 3-Change in newsgroup line
>
> 4-Web URL of rec.woodworking.moderated: http://www.softwreck.shop.ms
>
> Newsgroup line:
> rec.woodworking.moderated Woodworking for all ages. (Moderated)
>
>
> RATIONALE: rec.woodworking.moderated
>
> This group is proposed as a moderated global forum for the discussion of
> woodworking topics. The group is a moderated subgroup of rec.woodworking
> (The Wreck, as it is commonly referred to by subscribers), which is
> averaging more than 10,000 posts per month in 2004.
>
> Reasons for creating a moderated subgroup of rec.woodworking:
>
> 1-To ensure that woodworking remains the only topic of discussion
>
> 2-To help divide the traffic of busy newsgroup that is very difficult to
> keep up with
>
> 3-To provide a family-safe environment to discuss woodworking topics, free
> of foul language and pornography links
>
> 4-To offer woodworkers a higher signal to noise ratio than rec.woodworking
> provides
>
> There are too many political debates, flaming wars, personal life story
> exchanges, personal insults, for-sale signs, Ebay links, and endless other
> forms of non-woodworking posts in rec.woodworking by many people's
> standards. This new moderated group will give woodworkers the option of
> subscribing to a group that is free of those problems.
>
> If you love woodworking, but are tired of all the drivel associated with
> rec.woodworking, "The Soft Wreck" will soon be here!
>
> Moderation Policy:
>
> If the proposed newsgroup is passed, the moderation team will enforce the
> charter as written. Posts containing violations of the charter will not be
> approved.
>
> The moderation team will use ReadySTUMP as the moderation software. This
> program uses a web interface as the front end. No dedicated computer is
> required, and there are no bandwidth requirements. The moderators have
> multiple Internet connections- broadband as the primary, dialup and wireless
> as the backups. There are four computers, and a dedicated Internet device
> (WebTV) on the premises. Electrical power is stable. One of the computers is
> in the woodworking shop, which runs on it's own power, in the unlikely event
> that there is ever power outage.
>
> Ernie Roscoe and his wife, Laura Roscoe, will be the backup moderators, in
> the event that Vito or Susan cannot fulfill their duties for any period of
> time.
>
> Any future moderators will be selected by the two primary moderators, Vito
> and Susan. The newsgroup will be consulted before any changes in moderation
> occur.
>
> Woodworking Experience:
>
> Vito Kuhn has 41+ years of woodworking experience. He has achieved an
> advanced level of ability in the areas of general woodworking, woodturning,
> and woodcarving.
>
> Susan Welchel has 12+ years of general woodworking experience.
>
> Ernie Roscoe has 8+ years of general woodworking experience.
>
> Laura Roscoe has 3+ years of general woodworking experience.
>
> Official Newsgroup Web Site:
>
> http://www.softwreck.shop.ms
>
>
> CHARTER: rec.woodworking.moderated
>
> The purpose of the newsgroup is to facilitate open discussion of woodworking
> in a family-safe environment. This group is open to woodworking enthusiasts
> of all ages, genders, and nationalities. All topics related to woodworking
> and related tools are welcome.
>
> Posts to this newsgroup should be limited to the topic of woodworking and
> related tools. No off-topic articles will be accepted. Using sexually
> explicit language or profanity is not allowed. This newsgroup is not to be
> used to sell, buy, trade, or auction any items or services.
>
> Posts which obviously have the primary intent of trolling, flaming, stalking
> or attacking the character of another poster are prohibited. Posters must
> not include private information (like phone numbers, private email
> addresses, SSN, place of employment, confidential email addresses, etc.) of
> other parties. Flooding or bombing the newsgroup or any other form of net
> abuse is prohibited. Posts originating from E-mail To News services or known
> anonymous re-mail operators will be rejected.
>
> Commercial postings (advertisements and announcements) from for-profit
> entities are prohibited. Posts containing notices or URL pointers to sale
> and auction items are prohibited, however non-profit organizations and
> individuals announcing meetings, workshops, or conventions may post notices.
>
> Posts containing binary files or graphic reproductions other than small
> digital signatures are prohibited. However, posts including a URL pointing
> to binary files or web sites related to woodworking are permitted if the
> nature of the URL target is clearly identified in the post.
>
> Moderation Policy: It is the responsibility of the moderation team to
> enforce this charter. The moderators reserve the unconditional right to
> reject any post if it violates any part of the newsgroup charter. All
> rejections will be at the sole discretion of the moderators.
>
> END CHARTER.
>
> MODERATOR INFO: rec.woodworking.moderated
>
> Moderator: Susan Welchel <[email protected]>
> Moderator: Vito Kuhn <[email protected]>
>
> Administrative contact address: <[email protected]>
>
> Article submission address: <[email protected]>
>
> END MODERATOR INFO.
>
> PROCEDURE:
>
> This is a request for discussion, not a call for votes. In this phase of
> the process, any potential problems with the proposed newsgroups should be
> raised and resolved. The discussion period will continue for a minimum of
> 10 more days (starting from when the second RFD for this proposal is posted
> to news.announce.newgroups), after which a Call For Votes (CFV) may be
> posted by a neutral vote taker if the discussion warrants it. Please do not
> attempt to vote until this happens.
>
> All discussion of this proposal should be posted to news.groups. This RFD
> attempts to comply fully with the Usenet newsgroup creation guidelines
> outlined in "How to Create a New Usenet Newsgroup" and "How to Format and
> Submit a New Group Proposal." Please refer to these documents (available in
> news.announce.newgroups) if you have any questions about the process.
>
> DISTRIBUTION:
>
> news.announce.newgroups
> news.groups
> rec.woodworking
> rec.crafts.woodturning
> free.uk.woodworking
>
> Proponent: Vito Kuhn <[email protected]>


If you want to run your own little censored newsgroup that's fine, but
please stop clogging this group with your undercover promotions. Not
that I'm a longtime visitor, but I have not seen much support your
little autocracy. Moderators are nominated after the newsgroup is
created, one doesn't promote oneself to moderator then create a group
for one to moderate. That's like electing yourself president then
creating a country to govern. Anyone who objects to foul language or
off-topic threads, (like the threads you have insisted on creating) can
simply ignore them. Trolls, foul language, (and wannabe moderators) are
facts of life. People unable to function in the presence of trolls, the
seven bad words, or unpopular opinions should not be using a computer or
power tools.

I run one of the largest private newsgroups in the world, so I know
what I'm talking about. Disruptive morons should be filtered and
forgotten. Crying for moderation only rewards trolls, which is exactly
what they want. Moderators are almost universally despised, can be
tortuously slow, and their only real benefit is the the small sense of
authority they get from screening everyone's posts.



--
-linux_lad
To verify that this post isn't forged, click here:
http://www.spoofproof.org/verify.php?sig=51d3e7397994a89eadc94569fbbe7ca8

On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 01:01:51 -0000, [email protected] (Michael
Houghton) wrote:

>Howdy!
>
>In article <[email protected]>,
>Woodchuck Bill <[email protected]> wrote:

>>
>>"Yes" votes and "no" votes have different meanings.
>>
>>A "yes" vote indicates that you are interested in the group, and that you
>>intend to read the group if it passes.
>>
>>A "no" vote means that you have a technical objection, or you think the
>>group will somehow have a negative impact on Usenet in one way or another.
>
>Would you care to offer a citation of a source that corroborates those
>definitions? I'm serious.

Err if you are looking for a hard rule of what is generally a good
reason to vote any of the three ways, such does not exist.

That said indeed the Yes votes are intended to measure interest in
using the group and No votes are intended to repersent problems
percieved with the proposed group (tech issues). As far as it goes a
person can vote however they want for whatevery reason they want. Over
the years has develped a list of what are considered good reasons to
vote however a person votes.

Yes vote plan to use the group and more recently some have acepted the
idea of a Yes vote to counter what they precieve as an unfait No vote.

Abstain. See no tech problem with group, however will not use the
group if it passes. Of course some abstain for other reasons, perhaps
just a notification of having participated in the discussion.

No votes are for tech issues (or at least tends to be the aceptible
reasons to most for voting No.

The most common tech issues are.
1) Poor name space, the voter believes the group should have another
name.
2) Poorly written charter, does not define the topic space well, this
however tends to be least important as best I can tell because any
group can move off the founding charter.
3) The proposed group will cause harm to existing group(s) , low
traffic groups splict into two or more groups can result in the vitual
death of all groups.
4) If moderated, flaws in moderation scheme or percieved flaws in
proposed moderators. Of course this only applies to moderated group
proposals. The reason this tends to be precieved as a tech issue is
that if the group passes the moderator(s) own the name space, and can
change moderation policy the day after the group passes. What might
have looked good at the start might become a dead group because the
moderator(s) decided on a different policy and it becomes very hard to
reclaim name space from a moderator, because of policy and also some
providers not honoring control messages.

Other people can offer a different reasons as to what they consider a
good reason to vote Yes or No, however in general the Yes vote
measures interest and No votes measure precieved problems so do
measure different things.
--
news:alt.pagan FAQ at http://www.dmcom.net/bard/altpag.txt
news:alt.religion.wicca FAQ at http://www.dmcom.net/bard/arwfaq2.txt
news:news.groups FAQ at http://www.dmcom.net/bard/ngfaq.txt
Want a new group FAQs http://web.presby.edu/~nnqadmin/nnq/ncreate.html

"Penny Gaines" <[email protected]> wrote in message

> The counter argument is that there may be a number of people using usenet
> who would like to discuss woodworking, but do not have the time or the
> inclination to post to a very busy group. rw.moderated would be a smaller
> group which they might have time to use.

Posting? It takes the same time to post to a busy, active group as it does
to a slow or moderated group. Oh, you mean reading the group.

It takes just seconds to skim over the topics and choose the ones that may
be of interest. If I post something and request information, I follow the
thread. Just my opinion, I'm not willing to go to moderation to save 60
seconds of my day passing over subject of little interest, nor am I desirous
to go to another group and risk missing the good information here.

If I have a busy couple of days, I just mark them all as read and start
over. To me, the newsgroups are entertaining, informative, fun, but not my
reason to exist if I do miss some posting, no big deal.

Don't think a spammer cares. An address is an address. They only care for
a response.

"Phisherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I doubt that I would use rec.woodworking.moderated on a regular basis.
> I give thanks to rec.woodworking for letting me know about the Bessey
> K-Body clamp closeouts at Home Depot a few months ago. A moderated
> newsgroups would filter this out, so I'll be sticking with
> rec.woodworking and use my personal filtering methods. However, I
> think it is good to have a moderated group for those rare times when
> rec.woodworking (or any newsgroup) gets flooded with trash from clever
> spammers. If the spammer knows there is a moderated alternative,
> perhaps there is a less tendency to flood a newsgroup.

In news.groups Edwin Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> What would you call it? If I post a note about a project I made but say "it
> was ****ed tough to do and it was one **** of a piece of wood", it will not
> be posted because of my non-family oriented language. That is censoring my
> post.

If you tried to post such an article to rec.woodworking.moderated now, you
would be unable to do so because it doesn't exist. You could, however,
post it to rec.woodworking. If rec.woodworking.moderated is created
then your article would be rejected by the moderator. You still could,
however, post it to rec.woodworking. So what's the difference?

The difference is that *other* people who don't want to deal with that
sort of language would have a place to go. You already have a place to
post any woodworking article you want and will continue to be able to
post your articles there whether the moderated group is created or not.
So why object to other people having the moderated woodworking group
*they* want just because *you* don't happen to want it yourself?

--
Wayne Brown (HPCC #1104) | "When your tail's in a crack, you improvise
[email protected] | if you're good enough. Otherwise you give
| your pelt to the trapper."
"e^(i*pi) = -1" -- Euler | -- John Myers Myers, "Silverlock"

In news.groups, Edwin Pawlowski <[email protected]> writes:

> USENET was founded on freedom.

Er, no it wasn't.

> Newsgroups, however, do exist for the publishing of on topic material to
> the noted subject. By having a moderator with final say on what get
> published an individual is taking a part of USENET for his personal
> agenda and eliminating anyone he chooses to.

I have so little opinion on whether or not this particular group should be
created that you couldn't find it with a microscope. It really makes no
difference to me at all, I have no intention of voting, and I think it's
up to y'all. But it's really annoying to have someone make this sort of
general statement about moderation just because they don't like this
particular proposal.

There are a bunch of excellent moderated groups on Usenet. There are
announcement groups where moderators spend their volunteer time sorting
through spam and confusion to distill just the items of general interest
to some particular community. There are groups where the moderators
filter out everything that's answered by existing documentation so that
people who are interested in in-depth discussion but don't have the time
to follow posts from people who are just learning can have that. There
are low-traffic topics that would be swamped in an unmoderated group but
can find their own moderated niche that is useful to the people who choose
to read it. And those are just examples from my personal experience;
there are lots more.

Usenet was founded on little more than the idea that people at three
different schools wanted to wanted to talk to each other. It supports all
sorts of discussion, from completely unmoderated to edited like a magazine
(see comp.risks), and there's absolutely no reason to limit the uses of
the technology to just one particular type of discussion you personally
happen to like. There are a lot of other people out here using Usenet,
they like other things than you and I, and you and I don't have to read
their groups just like they don't have to read ours.

This *particular* proposal may be a horrid idea -- I have no opinion at
all. But please don't generalize about moderators; it's one of those
quiet jobs that never gets noticed when it's done well, and healthy
moderated groups in their appropriate place enrich Usenet for a lot of
people.

--
Russ Allbery ([email protected]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

"Penny Gaines" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> It takes the same amount of time to write a post for a busy group as it
> does
> to write the post for a quiet group.


I agree.

> However in a busy group, it takes
> a lot longer to check over the other threads and make sure that no-one
> else
> has posted the advice you are planning to give, or the question you are
> planning to ask.

A Google search may reveal that and then there is no need to post at all.

>
> In addition if it is a group with a certain amount of personal chat,
> people
> might feel they have to get involved in the chat side before they start
> asking questions. Also if they are a newcomer to the group, they may find
> that their post is ignored, and their question is unanswered.

You can be ignored on a moderated group also. I see no need for the chat or
formal introductions.


>
> Some people like to be more thorough. Anyway, if you are happy skimming a
> big group so quickly, opening up a second group and viewing perhaps half a
> dozen threads would take perhaps 60 seconds. You still don't have to post
> there.

You can be assured I won't. I'm going to post to the group that does not
censor me and h as the largest number or participants that potentially can
assist me. As well as I can assist, if possible, to as many others as I
can.

"Kathy Morgan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> But this is not a discussion about rec.woodworking--it's a discussion
> about a new newsgroup with slightly different focus.
>
>

Different? It is still woodworking, only censored.

Dave Balderstone wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Joe Wells
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>Now he has a 3rd RFD in the n.a.n queue called
>>rec.woodworking.all-ages. Great. Now we can look forward to r.w.old-folks,
>>r.w.wimmins, r.w.plushies.. where will it all end?
>
>
> It'll end when the proposal is either withdrawn or goes to a vote.
>
> Given name oof the 3rd RFD it appears he's given up on moderation? If
> so, I wonder WTF the point is...

Perhaps he's taking an aviated intercourse at a motivated perforated
pastry. Thats a flying you-know-what at a rolling donut.

"Wayne Brown" <[email protected]> wrote in message


> So why object to other people having the moderated woodworking group
> *they* want just because *you* don't happen to want it yourself?

I don't. Never said I did, but I have stated my opinion on the matter and
that I would not participate. You can have anything you want. There are
hundreds of groups that I see no reason to have, but they exist. Good for
them. It does not mean I can't have an opinion.

"Vito Kuhn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
> moderated group rec.woodworking.moderated
>
> This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the creation of a
> world-wide moderated Usenet newsgroup rec.woodworking.moderated. This is
> not
> a Call for Votes (CFV); you cannot vote at this time. Procedural details
> are
> below.
>
> CHANGES FROM 1ST RFD:
>
> 1-Explanation of the moderation structure
>
> 2-Minor changes in the charter
>
> 3-Change in newsgroup line
>
> 4-Web URL of rec.woodworking.moderated: http://www.softwreck.shop.ms
>

Still a silly notion.

You make a post requesting information of a critical step of your project.
By the time the moderator gets to it, it may already be too late. By the
time replies are passed, you probably don't need t he answer any more, but
now have a supply of firewood.

I prefer to do my own censoring and not be "protected" by someone else.

"Wayne Brown" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> So are they expected to be using "hard and/or sharp tools" when posting
> to USENET? Lack of self-control in the workshop doesn't *have* to
> translate to offensive language online.

I agree. But I'm also responsible for my own behavior. I don't want a
moderator telling me how to act in society. My parents did a pretty good
job.

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:

>It's not the new threads that matter. It's the old ones. If one
>really wants to participate in discussions, one follows both old
>and new discussions (old meaning anything more than 24 hours old).
>At that scale, even keeping up with ONE thread can be a problem
>for some people,

Oh, come on, this is one of the lamest arguments I've seen yet on this topic:
it amounts to claiming that the hierarchy should be designed for the lowest
common denominator. People who have trouble keeping up with one thread
shouldn't even have computers.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

"Wayne Brown" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> OK. Somehow I got the idea that you said you were voting against the
> group, rather than just disagreeing with its purpose. My comments were
> based on that assumption, but apparently I was wrong. Sorry about that;
> I must have been confusing your comments with someone else's.

How could that happen? There were only about 1500 posts about the subject
to track ;)
No harm done.

If there is a new group it sounds as if it will be un-moderated anyway so it
is all moot.

In news.groups Luigi Zanasi <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 16:26:15 +0000, "Vito Kuhn" <[email protected]>
> scribbled:
>
>>Posts to this newsgroup should be limited to the topic of woodworking and
>>related tools. No off-topic articles will be accepted. Using sexually
>>explicit language or profanity is not allowed.
>
> Sexually explicit language and profanity are regularly used by most
> woodworkers when mistakes are made or hard and/or sharp tools come
> into contact with flesh, other hard tools and the floor.

So are they expected to be using "hard and/or sharp tools" when posting
to USENET? Lack of self-control in the workshop doesn't *have* to
translate to offensive language online.

--
Wayne Brown (HPCC #1104) | "When your tail's in a crack, you improvise
[email protected] | if you're good enough. Otherwise you give
| your pelt to the trapper."
"e^(i*pi) = -1" -- Euler | -- John Myers Myers, "Silverlock"

[email protected] (Michael Houghton) wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> If you think rec.woodworking.moderated is a dumb idea, by all means vote
> when the CFV comes out, and vote NO.
>

If you think it is a dumb idea, the proper thing to do is abstain.

--
Bill

[email protected] (Michael Houghton) wrote in
news:[email protected]:

>>> If you think rec.woodworking.moderated is a dumb idea, by all means
>>> vote when the CFV comes out, and vote NO.
>>>
>>
>>If you think it is a dumb idea, the proper thing to do is abstain.
>>
> Why? What makes abstaining "proper"? If I have an actual opinion of
> whether or not the group should be approved, then I have a moral
> obligation to cast a vote. If I abstain, I don't have the moral
> standing to object after the

"Yes" votes and "no" votes have different meanings.

A "yes" vote indicates that you are interested in the group, and that you
intend to read the group if it passes.

A "no" vote means that you have a technical objection, or you think the
group will somehow have a negative impact on Usenet in one way or another.

For those people who simply are not interested in reading the group for
themselves, but have no problem with others using the group, the "abstain"
vote is the proper choice..or to not vote at all.

I will be casting an "abstain". I will not vote "yes" because I have no
desire to read this group..neither do I have a problem with others wanting
a moderated woodworking group.

--
Bill

"Al Reid" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> Understood. And after giving it considerable thought I have decided
> to vote for the group... before I vote against it.

ROTFL..quoting flipper, are ya? "In Vietnam I Chopped off heads, shot at
cattle and dogs in the spirit of Genghis Khan"!

--
Bill

Woodchuck Bill <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> "Yes" votes and "no" votes have different meanings.
>
> A "yes" vote indicates that you are interested in the group, and that
> you intend to read the group if it passes.
>
> A "no" vote means that you have a technical objection, or you think
> the group will somehow have a negative impact on Usenet in one way or
> another.

Exactly. And, following those meanings, I shall vote no, since the
proponent has not (yet) demonstrated a sufficient understanding of
moderation, either technically or philosophically, to suggest that
the resulting group would be viable.

John

[email protected] (Michael Houghton) wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> Would you care to offer a citation of a source that corroborates those
> definitions? I'm serious.

I tell you that as a frequent reader of news.groups. Ask any of the regs
there. Of course, you don't need to indicate a reason, so nobody will ever
know. I was just laying out the *ethical* reasons for each voting category.

I will get back to you later with some citations.

--
Bill

Dave Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca> wrote in
news:150920041257077184%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca:

>> If you think it is a dumb idea, the proper thing to do is abstain.
>
> And if I think the moderators are unqualified and refusing to address
> legitimate questions, then I'll vote no.

That is different than just thinking the group is a dumb idea.

--
Bill

Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote in news:2qtn6jF13ih29U3@uni-
berlin.de:

> I suspect it's related to a recent troll who made a
> huge deal that _several_ four-letter words had apeared in a short
> time here (gasp!), the writing styles seem similar.

That was BAD. Vito has a posting history of his own.

--
Bill

Dave Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca> wrote in
news:160920042016237389%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca:

>> It's not the new threads that matter. It's the old ones. If one
>> really wants to participate in discussions, one follows both old
>> and new discussions (old meaning anything more than 24 hours old).
>> At that scale, even keeping up with ONE thread can be a problem
>> for some people, let alone the other dozen or so new one AND the
>> dozen new ones. But even if single threads aren't much of an
>> issue, many folks do keep an eye on old threads, and that often
>> means scanning a couple to a few hundred thread headings. Picking
>> out meaningful headings can be a real chore (sort of like scanning
>> for non-spam mail in an unfiltered email account).
>
> By that argument, news.groups.moderated would seem to me to be a
> logical result.

It's been busy in here lately, due to all of the proposals on the floor ..
news.groups usually gets less traffic than this.

--
Bill

Tom Watson <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> Ya know, Joe - the point that Ms. Morgan is missing is that the Hard
> Wreck Cafe has often been compared to a neighborhood bar where like
> minded folks gather and shoot the xxxx (breeze).
>
> Vito wants to turn it into a milk bar.

No, Vito wants to keep the rec.woodworking intact and open a milk bar as an
alternative for those people not interested in a hard neighborhood bar. He
has not proposed any changes to the wreck.

--
Bill

Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote in news:2r87o5F173ukfU5@uni-
berlin.de:

> Further, the potential moderator has continued to not
> make a good point for why he thinks we need a moderated group in the
> first plac

Hello..you need to catch up. The newest proposal is for an unmoderated
group. In the case of an umoderated group, the posting history of the
propont is irrelevant.

--
Bill

Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> Um, we _have_ an unmoderated group. That makes this even more
> pointless. So he's now proposing another group on the same topic with
> slightly different reason for being? Sounds like a 100% crossposted
> content place in the making. What a waste.

Actually, the soft wreck's charter forbids crossposting to rec.woodworking
"under any circumstances".

--
Bill

Wayne Brown <[email protected]> wrote in
news:7GC3d.182053$%[email protected]:

> In news.groups Edwin Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> What would you call it? If I post a note about a project I made but
>> say "it was ****ed tough to do and it was one **** of a piece of
>> wood", it will not be posted because of my non-family oriented
>> language. That is censoring my post.
>
> If you tried to post such an article to rec.woodworking.moderated now,
> you would be unable to do so because it doesn't exist. You could,
> however, post it to rec.woodworking. If rec.woodworking.moderated is
> created then your article would be rejected by the moderator. You
> still could, however, post it to rec.woodworking. So what's the
> difference?
>
> The difference is that *other* people who don't want to deal with that
> sort of language would have a place to go. You already have a place
> to post any woodworking article you want and will continue to be able
> to post your articles there whether the moderated group is created or
> not. So why object to other people having the moderated woodworking
> group *they* want just because *you* don't happen to want it yourself?
>

Wood Central seems to be a really nice, moderated Web-based forum. Charlie
Self reminded us about it the other day, and I dropped by for a visit
again. It would seem to be pretty much what rec.woodworking.moderated
wanted to create, only without the credentials posessed by the moderator of
Wood Central.

Patriarch

Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote in news:2r8clgF17vbneU1@uni-
berlin.de:

> Then it's a First RFD for a different group then, isn't it?

No. It is still considered a 3rd RFD by the NAN tea. Name changes,
moderation changes are valid changes if those issues has objections in
previous RFDs.

> Or, is he
> keeping the name? (bet he fucks up the cmsg newgroup, any takers?)

All control messages for BIG8 groups are sent by the NAN team..usually by
Russ Allbery (the top guy on Usenet)..not group proponents.


--
Bill

-linux_lad <[email protected]> wrote in news:4bSdnf28pp6jnNLcRVn-
[email protected]:

> If you want to run your own little censored newsgroup that's fine, but
> please stop clogging this group with your undercover promotions.

It is required to be posted here.

--
Bill

-linux_lad <[email protected]> wrote in news:4bSdnf28pp6jnNLcRVn-
[email protected]:

> Moderators are nominated after the newsgroup is
> created

Names of proposed moderators are required to be on proposals. Usually, the
initial moderators are the proponents.

--
Bill

Edwin Pawlowski wrote in <[email protected]>:

>
> "Penny Gaines" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
>> The counter argument is that there may be a number of people using usenet
>> who would like to discuss woodworking, but do not have the time or the
>> inclination to post to a very busy group. rw.moderated would be a
>> smaller group which they might have time to use.
>
> Posting? It takes the same time to post to a busy, active group as it
> does
> to a slow or moderated group. Oh, you mean reading the group.

No, I meant posting.

> It takes just seconds to skim over the topics and choose the ones that may
> be of interest. If I post something and request information, I follow
> the
> thread. Just my opinion, I'm not willing to go to moderation to save 60
> seconds of my day passing over subject of little interest, nor am I
> desirous to go to another group and risk missing the good information
> here.

It takes the same amount of time to write a post for a busy group as it does
to write the post for a quiet group. However in a busy group, it takes
a lot longer to check over the other threads and make sure that no-one else
has posted the advice you are planning to give, or the question you are
planning to ask.

In addition if it is a group with a certain amount of personal chat, people
might feel they have to get involved in the chat side before they start
asking questions. Also if they are a newcomer to the group, they may find
that their post is ignored, and their question is unanswered.

> If I have a busy couple of days, I just mark them all as read and start
> over. To me, the newsgroups are entertaining, informative, fun, but not
> my reason to exist if I do miss some posting, no big deal.

Some people like to be more thorough. Anyway, if you are happy skimming a
big group so quickly, opening up a second group and viewing perhaps half a
dozen threads would take perhaps 60 seconds. You still don't have to post
there.

--
Penny Gaines
Usenetting since 1993

On 20 Sep 2004 15:15:28 GMT, Woodchuck Bill <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> Um, we _have_ an unmoderated group. That makes this even more
>> pointless. So he's now proposing another group on the same topic with
>> slightly different reason for being? Sounds like a 100% crossposted
>> content place in the making. What a waste.
>
>Actually, the soft wreck's charter forbids crossposting to rec.woodworking
>"under any circumstances".

Of course being unmoderated there is no good way to enforce a no-cross
post rule like this.
--
news:alt.pagan FAQ at http://www.dmcom.net/bard/altpag.txt
news:alt.religion.wicca FAQ at http://www.dmcom.net/bard/arwfaq2.txt
news:news.groups FAQ at http://www.dmcom.net/bard/ngfaq.txt
Want a new group FAQs http://web.presby.edu/~nnqadmin/nnq/ncreate.html

In article <[email protected]>,
Tim Douglass <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 19:47:59 +0100, Andy Dingley
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On 15 Sep 2004 17:12:36 GMT, Woodchuck Bill <[email protected]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>A "no" vote means that you have a technical objection, or you think the
>>>group will somehow have a negative impact on Usenet in one way or another.
>>
>>Dilution.
>>
>>I'm sure not posting to it, and I don't want to bother reading it
>>either.
>
>That is a viable concern for those who enjoy the friendly atmosphere
>of the wRECk but are serious woodworkers. The creation of a parallel,
>moderated, group may draw some of the posters away, requiring you to
>follow two groups in order to benefit from the same pool of knowledge.
>I don't recall seeing anything in the RFD regarding cross-posting, but
>that would seem to be the obvious way to participate in both groups.

'cross-posting', where one of the groups is moderated means that the
article doesn't show up in _any_ newsgroup, until and _if_ the moderator
approves it for the moderated group.

With the software that the proposed moderators will be using it is 'iffy'
that additional un-moderated groups in a submission will be preserved

On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 21:56:02 +0200, "Paul Ebermann"
<[email protected]> calmly ranted:

><[email protected]> skribis:
>
>> The NO vote is not really documented other than the effect of
>> NO votes. It certainly isn't the opposite of the YES vote,
>> since NO votes act as vetos for YES votes (mathematically, a
>> single NO vote can knock out 100 YES votes under some not very
>> rare circumstances).
>
>Not really.
>
>100:1 fails, but so does 99:0. (100:0 passes.)
>
>So the one no vote knocks out only one
>yes vote, and simply the other 99 are
>not enough.

Right. Here is the link explaining how to create one:
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/creating-newsgroups/part1/

----
A mostly meat-powered woodworker, and proud of it.
http://diversify.com Website Application Programming

On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 09:38:17 -0800, [email protected] (Kathy Morgan)
wrote:


>But this is not a discussion about rec.woodworking--it's a discussion
>about a new newsgroup with slightly different focus.

"You're outnumbered now, Nazi. Two against one."

("Surf Nazi's Must Die", 1987.)


Regards,
Tom.

Thomas J.Watson - Cabinetmaker (ret.)
tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1

In news.groups Edwin Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:

>"Vito Kuhn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...

>You make a post requesting information of a critical step of your project.
>By the time the moderator gets to it, it may already be too late. By the
>time replies are passed, you probably don't need t he answer any more, but
>now have a supply of firewood.

The problem isn't in the time it takes for the moderator to get it,
it's whether he has to hand moderate it or not. If he has a robomod
set up, there won't be much more time spent than a normal usenet
message, unless the submitter got himself on the handmod list.

>I prefer to do my own censoring and not be "protected" by someone else.

That's ok. It just means you can ignore the vote when the ballot
roles around. It's really the folks that want the group that need
to be concerned about moderation and other issues of this proposal,
or the folks that think the proposed group is going to hurt
rec.woodworking. If you're not interested in the group or don't
have concerns about its effect on rec.woodworking, abstaining on
the vote (or even voting ABSTAIN) is a good thing.

ru

--
My standard proposals rant:
Quality, usefulness, merit, or non-newsgroups popularity of a topic
is more or less irrelevant in creating a new Big-8 newsgroup.
Usenet popularity is the primary consideration.

"Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]> writes:

> Still a silly notion.
>
> You make a post requesting information of a critical step of your project.
> By the time the moderator gets to it, it may already be too late. By the
> time replies are passed, you probably don't need t he answer any more, but
> now have a supply of firewood.

Then don't USE it. Sheesh. No one said that rec.woodworking was going
to disappear.


--
Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of
$500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract.

"Lee Michaels" <leemichaels*nada-spam*@comcast.net> writes:

> Is that kinda like a cholce between being intact versus being castrated?

Well, it's more like you are both, and can choose which one to use.


--
Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of
$500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract.

In news.groups Joe Wells <[email protected]> wrote:

>Frankly I think it's a shame that more turners don't
>post here. The Wreck would be better for it, but they have their own place
>to hang out at rec.crafts.woodturning. I'd prefer less fragmentation, not
>more.

There's two potential errors in those statements that others ought
to be aware of.

If it is true that RW gets 300 postings per day, there is a high
probability that some segments of potential readers will simply
avoid the group. 300 postings per day is considered VERY busy,
even for a rec.* group (my threshold for simply "busy" is 100,
"very busy" is 200, "insane" is 500, or something to that effect).
There's no doubt that groups that busy lose readers. One hierarchy
I survey has an apparent turnover rate of 50% per year and it has
had traffic between 200 and 500 postings per day. A lower volume,
higher focus newsgroup may be just the ticket to draw in other
readership segments.

The other potential error is that fragmentation is a bad thing.
Hierarchies always tend towards fragmentation. It's a means of
organizing postings into more thematically recognizable categories.
Fragmentation is a natural effect of popularity in newsgroups and
often makes reading and responding easier. If fragmentation will
cause unpleasant side-effects, then a NO vote may indeed be called
for. But opposition only for the sake of opposing fragmentation
is probably not a good reason for voting NO.

ru

--
My standard proposals rant:
Quality, usefulness, merit, or non-newsgroups popularity of a topic
is more or less irrelevant in creating a new Big-8 newsgroup.
Usenet popularity is the primary consideration.

In news.groups Michael Houghton <[email protected]> wrote:
>Howdy!

>In article <[email protected]>,
>Woodchuck Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>>[email protected] (Michael Houghton) wrote in
>>news:[email protected]:
>>
>>>>> If you think rec.woodworking.moderated is a dumb idea, by all means
>>>>> vote when the CFV comes out, and vote NO.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>If you think it is a dumb idea, the proper thing to do is abstain.
>>>>
>>> Why? What makes abstaining "proper"? If I have an actual opinion of
>>> whether or not the group should be approved, then I have a moral
>>> obligation to cast a vote. If I abstain, I don't have the moral
>>> standing to object after the
>>
>>"Yes" votes and "no" votes have different meanings.
>>
>>A "yes" vote indicates that you are interested in the group, and that you
>>intend to read the group if it passes.
>>
>>A "no" vote means that you have a technical objection, or you think the
>>group will somehow have a negative impact on Usenet in one way or another.

>Would you care to offer a citation of a source that corroborates those
>definitions? I'm serious.

It's what some of us news.groups regulars have been advocating for
quite a while now. However, the YES rationale is documented. Look
at any CFV from the past 2 years and they usually specifically state
that the vote is intended to measure the level of interest in a
proposed newsgroup, or something to that effect.

The NO vote is not really documented other than the effect of
NO votes. It certainly isn't the opposite of the YES vote,
since NO votes act as vetos for YES votes (mathematically, a
single NO vote can knock out 100 YES votes under some not very
rare circumstances). So anyone out there that was considering
voting NO only because they wouldn't read it, please refrain
from doing so, since NO does not mean or have the effect of
"not interested". Anyway, based on the effect of NO votes,
it's not a stretch to suggest that it is meant as an expression
of active opposition to the proposal, as an expression of the
intent to actively prevent the supporters from getting the
proposed group.

>Now, thinking the proposal represents a "dumb idea" does fit under the
>definition of a "no" vote you give. It may not be very articulate, but
>it fits.

Yeah, I could go along with that argument. It would be better to
elucidate that sentiment, though. (which I believe you have, now)

ru

--
My standard proposals rant:
Quality, usefulness, merit, or non-newsgroups popularity of a topic
is more or less irrelevant in creating a new Big-8 newsgroup.
Usenet popularity is the primary consideration.

Joe Wells <[email protected]> writes:

> BTW- I have no doubt that your assessment is correct. I've seen many
> people throw up their hands and give up on a busy newsgroup because they
> "can't keep up" or "the signal to noise has dropped" and so forth. I've
> just never really understood what in the hell they're talking about.

Not everyone uses a sophisticated news reader. Some use what their
vendor/ISP provides and never change. It might not be threaded, nor
have kill files, and force you to use the mouse like crazy just to
skim over the topics.

My company eliminated our local news server, and for a while I was
forced to use google groups and IE to read and post everything.
Also consider that someone might have repetitive motion issues.



--
Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of
$500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract.

[email protected] (Robert Bonomi) writes:

> Rec.woodworking does have a fairly large, and _vocal_, group of participants.
> Rec.woodworking does *not* seem to have the 'mostly disjoint' sub-categories
> that would benefit from fragmentation.

Well....
I enjoy the r.c.woodturning newsgroup much more than the Wreck. More
polite. Less flames. Less noise. Less traffic. Less politics.

> The general perception among the active participants *is* that fragmentation
> would be a Bad Thing(TM) for rec.woodworking.



--
Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of
$500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract.

[email protected] (Robert Bonomi) writes:

> 'cross-posting', where one of the groups is moderated means that the
> article doesn't show up in _any_ newsgroup, until and _if_ the moderator
> approves it for the moderated group.

If the software works correctly, and the news service honors the
moderation system.

I see OT non-moderated postings all the time to moderated newsgroups
on my news server. I even argued with the admin, who insisted that
this was a Good Thing. Sigh...


--
Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of
$500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract.

In news.groups Joe Wells <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 04:46:44 +0000, ru.igarashi wrote:

>> If it is true that RW gets 300 postings per day, there is a high
>> probability that some segments of potential readers will simply avoid the
>> group. 300 postings per day is considered VERY busy, even for a rec.*
>> group (my threshold for simply "busy" is 100, "very busy" is 200, "insane"
>> is 500, or something to that effect). There's no doubt that groups that
>> busy lose readers.

>Which is something that I have difficulty wrapping my head around. *Why*
>does the number of posts per day really make that big a difference? I
>wouldn't even attempt to read each and every post in the busy newsgroups
>that I subscribe to. That's why we have threaded newsreaders. Quickly
>checking the past few days on r.ww, it looks like about 20 or so new
>threads per day are being started.

It's not the new threads that matter. It's the old ones. If one
really wants to participate in discussions, one follows both old
and new discussions (old meaning anything more than 24 hours old).
At that scale, even keeping up with ONE thread can be a problem
for some people, let alone the other dozen or so new one AND the
dozen new ones. But even if single threads aren't much of an
issue, many folks do keep an eye on old threads, and that often
means scanning a couple to a few hundred thread headings. Picking
out meaningful headings can be a real chore (sort of like scanning
for non-spam mail in an unfiltered email account).

The problem you are having in understanding this sentiment is
that you seem to throw out more than a lot of people, and are
willing to risk missing interesting postings than others. If
you were to theoretically make more topics of interest and be
more focused on old threads, you might get a feel for where
these folks are coming from.

ru

--
My standard proposals rant:
Quality, usefulness, merit, or non-newsgroups popularity of a topic
is more or less irrelevant in creating a new Big-8 newsgroup.
Usenet popularity is the primary consideration.

In news.groups Robert Bonomi <[email protected]> wrote:

>The general perception among the active participants *is* that fragmentation
>would be a Bad Thing(TM) for rec.woodworking.

It would be reasonable to vote NO on the proposed group on that account.

ru

--
My standard proposals rant:
Quality, usefulness, merit, or non-newsgroups popularity of a topic
is more or less irrelevant in creating a new Big-8 newsgroup.
Usenet popularity is the primary consideration.

Dave Hinz <[email protected]> writes:

>> Not everyone uses a sophisticated news reader. Some use what their
>> vendor/ISP provides and never change. It might not be threaded, nor
>> have kill files, and force you to use the mouse like crazy just to
>> skim over the topics.
>
> Could be, but they'd have the same problem with a moderated group.

It would be reduced if the number of OT postings, political
statements, and flames were reduced.

> Point is, whoever the people are who want to moderate, haven't come
> forward to explain their motivations for proposing such.

Good point. I'd like to see more on this topic.

>> My company eliminated our local news server, and for a while I was
>> forced to use google groups and IE to read and post everything.
>> Also consider that someone might have repetitive motion issues.
>
> All good reasons for those individuals to upgrade their newsreader;
> not good reasons to set up a moderated group to fix a problem that
> isn't apparent to many people.


The point was - an alternate news client wouldn't help. Our company did not
purchase the services of a news server, and I knew of no free
NNTP-based news server that offered all of the newsgroups at that time.


--
Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of
$500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract.

<[email protected]> skribis:

> The NO vote is not really documented other than the effect of
> NO votes. It certainly isn't the opposite of the YES vote,
> since NO votes act as vetos for YES votes (mathematically, a
> single NO vote can knock out 100 YES votes under some not very
> rare circumstances).

Not really.

100:1 fails, but so does 99:0. (100:0 passes.)

So the one no vote knocks out only one
yes vote, and simply the other 99 are
not enough.


Paul

In news.groups Paul Ebermann <[email protected]> wrote:
><[email protected]> skribis:

>> The NO vote is not really documented other than the effect of
>> NO votes. It certainly isn't the opposite of the YES vote,
>> since NO votes act as vetos for YES votes (mathematically, a
>> single NO vote can knock out 100 YES votes under some not very
>> rare circumstances).

>Not really.

>100:1 fails, but so does 99:0. (100:0 passes.)

>So the one no vote knocks out only one
>yes vote, and simply the other 99 are
>not enough.

I think you missed my point, the 99 YES vote example doesn't have
any NO votes, and my point about was the effect of NO votes (which
act as vetos), not about the requirements on the YES votes. One would
assume that a vote with 100 YES votes and 1 NO shows a clear majority
and a lot of readers, but that single NO vote neutralized all YES votes,
that clear majority, and all that interest. The same thing is true for
a 130:31, vote. Up to 130:30, the NO votes cancel the YES votes 1-to-1,
leaving 100 YES vote towards passing the group. But the 31st NO,
neutralized those 100 YES votes.

ru

--
My standard proposals rant:
Quality, usefulness, merit, or non-newsgroups popularity of a topic
is more or less irrelevant in creating a new Big-8 newsgroup.
Usenet popularity is the primary consideration.

In news.groups Dave Balderstone <dave@n_o_t_t_h_i_s.balderstone.ca> wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>
>wrote:

>> It's not the new threads that matter. It's the old ones. If one
>> really wants to participate in discussions, one follows both old
>> and new discussions (old meaning anything more than 24 hours old).
>> At that scale, even keeping up with ONE thread can be a problem
>> for some people, let alone the other dozen or so new one AND the
>> dozen new ones. But even if single threads aren't much of an
>> issue, many folks do keep an eye on old threads, and that often
>> means scanning a couple to a few hundred thread headings. Picking
>> out meaningful headings can be a real chore (sort of like scanning
>> for non-spam mail in an unfiltered email account).

>By that argument, news.groups.moderated would seem to me to be a
>logical result.

One would initially think that. But news.groups is a bit strange.
It is expected to be high traffic, most of that traffic is relevant
to its original mandate (relatively fewer OT postings), the main
threads are tagged (RFD,CFV,RESULT, proposal name), topics of
discussion are widely varying but few in number, discussion is tends
to be highly focused on proposals, crossposting from an affected
group is encouraged, the bulk of the readers are meant to be transient.
That means there's always a group of readers that considers most of
the traffic as noise, may have a lot to read of what they don't
consider noise, yet not many of the threads are technically noise.
Thus, news.groups wouldn't qualify for moderation based on the
incomplete criteria above. Moderation of news.groups would not
reduce the number of headings to sift through or the load on picking
out headings per thread because most messages per thread are relevant
and focused on the given topic. It wouldn't reduce the number of
threads to skim because the number of active topics is already rather
limited. It would not hold most of the relevant readers, because by
definition they leave news.groups (technically, many never go there
thanks to crossposting) when the process is finished.

What news.groups needs more is not moderation, but a name change,
so that it can get away from the folks that think news.group means
general discussion newsgroup (idiot instructors). But there just
isn't enough of that to justify the move, either.

ru

--
My standard proposals rant:
Quality, usefulness, merit, or non-newsgroups popularity of a topic
is more or less irrelevant in creating a new Big-8 newsgroup.
Usenet popularity is the primary consideration.

In article <[email protected]>,
Paul Ebermann <[email protected]> wrote:
>One may assume that a vote with 99 YES votes and no NO votes show
>a even clearer majority, and a nearby same lot of readers.
>But they are neutralized by even 0 NO votes.

No they're not. Neutralized implies that if the NO votes are removed, the
group would have passed. In this case, if the NO votes were removed, there
would be no change.
--
Ken Arromdee / arromdee_AT_rahul.net / http://www.rahul.net/arromdee

"They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright
brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown." --Carl Sagan

<[email protected]> skribis:
> In news.groups Paul Ebermann <[email protected]> wrote:
> ><[email protected]> skribis:
>
> >> The NO vote is not really documented other than the effect of
> >> NO votes. It certainly isn't the opposite of the YES vote,
> >> since NO votes act as vetos for YES votes (mathematically, a
> >> single NO vote can knock out 100 YES votes under some not very
> >> rare circumstances).
>
> >Not really.
>
> >100:1 fails, but so does 99:0. (100:0 passes.)
>
> >So the one no vote knocks out only one
> >yes vote, and simply the other 99 are
> >not enough.
>
> I think you missed my point,

I don't think so :-)
Maybe I don't find the right words.
(English is not my native language.)

> the 99 YES vote example doesn't have
> any NO votes, and my point about was the effect of NO votes (which
> act as vetos), not about the requirements on the YES votes. One would
> assume that a vote with 100 YES votes and 1 NO shows a clear majority
> and a lot of readers, but that single NO vote neutralized all YES votes,
> that clear majority, and all that interest.

One may assume that a vote with 99 YES votes and no NO votes show
a even clearer majority, and a nearby same lot of readers.
But they are neutralized by even 0 NO votes.

If there is one NO more, you need one YES more
to pass.
(If there are more then 100 NO, you need two YES
for every NO).

> The same thing is true for
> a 130:31, vote. Up to 130:30, the NO votes cancel the YES votes 1-to-1,
> leaving 100 YES vote towards passing the group. But the 31st NO,
> neutralized those 100 YES votes.

Which one is the 31st?

What about a 130:32 vote?
Do this time the last two NO cancel out
each 50 YES?


Paul
f'up2 news.groups

[email protected] writes:

> But the 31st NO,
> neutralized those 100 YES votes.

Incorrect.

Any of the 31 NO votes negate all of the 130 yes votes.

or

No single vote does anything. It's the total that matters. Okay?

Isn't this nit-picking? Try to make one vote seem more important that
the others?


--
Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of
$500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract.

In article <[email protected]>,
Edwin Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>"Kathy Morgan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> But this is not a discussion about rec.woodworking--it's a discussion
>> about a new newsgroup with slightly different focus.
>
>Different? It is still woodworking, only censored.

Why do you say that it's censorship? Nobody will stop you from posting
to the existing woodworking group (that's exactly why there's a
moratorium on in-place moderation). Would you cry "censorship!" if you
wrote a letter to your local newspaper and they didn't publish it?
--
--- Aahz <*> (Copyright 2004 by [email protected])

Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6 http://rule6.info/
Androgynous poly kinky vanilla queer het Pythonista

"Elder Party 2004: Cthulhu for President -- this time WE'RE the lesser evil."

[mucho snippo to concentrate on one point]

In article <[email protected]>,
Edwin Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>USENET was founded on freedom. We don't need people in brown shirts
>telling us what to do and how to do it.

Can you support the assertion in your first sentence? If not, you're
engaging in what I believe is revisionist history, a favorite tactic of
the brown-shirt brigade. Funny how people always adopt the tactics of
The Enemy, isn't it?
--
--- Aahz <*> (Copyright 2004 by [email protected])

Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6 http://rule6.info/
Androgynous poly kinky vanilla queer het Pythonista

"Elder Party 2004: Cthulhu for President -- this time WE'RE the lesser evil."

In news.groups patriarch < <patriarch>[email protected]> wrote:
>Wayne Brown <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:7GC3d.182053$%[email protected]:

>> The difference is that *other* people who don't want to deal with that
>> sort of language would have a place to go. You already have a place
>> to post any woodworking article you want and will continue to be able
>> to post your articles there whether the moderated group is created or
>> not. So why object to other people having the moderated woodworking
>> group *they* want just because *you* don't happen to want it yourself?

>Wood Central seems to be a really nice, moderated Web-based forum. Charlie
>Self reminded us about it the other day, and I dropped by for a visit
>again. It would seem to be pretty much what rec.woodworking.moderated
>wanted to create, only without the credentials posessed by the moderator of
>Wood Central.

Web forums tend to be entirely separate entities from usenet newsgroups,
with their own readership. One often does not translate well from the
other. For that reason, any suggestions about moving out of a group
(be it in terms of a proposal to do that, or alternatives for a proposal)
really should stay in the context of usenet.

ru

--
My standard proposals rant:
Quality, usefulness, merit, or non-newsgroups popularity of a topic
is more or less irrelevant in creating a new Big-8 newsgroup.
Usenet popularity is the primary consideration.

Dave Hinz <[email protected]> writes:

> Good to know. I recently witnessed a badly fluffed attempt at a
> moderated group, done by someone who meant well but didn't do his
> homework properly. Ended up with a "mostly moderated" group, because
> his first control message left off the moderated part. He got to go
> around to server owners and ask them to fix his problem, on a
> server by server basis.

ho-boy...

Anyone have any idea on how many servers there are?
(I used to run a USENET node decades ago. My site maxed at 200th place in connectivity).


--
Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of
$500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract.

-linux_lad <[email protected]> writes:

>I'm aware that RFDs are part of the process for creating a
> moderated group, but that is completely beside my point, which
> apparently went right over your head.

First of all, you didn't trim the original post, but included it entirely.

Second, you said:

>Moderators are nominated after the newsgroup is created, one doesn't
>promote oneself to moderator then create a group for one to moderate.

This is completely wrong.

So when you said

>I know what I'm talking about.

I personally said to myself - no he doesn't.

Some of your other points may be valid, but proclaiming yourself to be
an expert when it's obvious that you are not weakens your argument.


--
Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of
$500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract.

On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 09:16:57 -0500, Joe Wells <[email protected]>
wrote:

>On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 23:59:48 -0800, Kathy Morgan wrote:

>> This discussion is *not* about a web-based discussion group or email list.
>> This is Usenet, and most Usenet groups discourage or forbid advertising,
>> except for those groups that are specifically for selling, such as
>> *.marketplace.
>
>Yup, most. Except this one. About the only on-topic advertising frowned
>upon at r.ww are post-n-runs. Subscribers selling to / buying from other
>subscribers is a long standing tradition here. There are / have been
>several businesses supported just about exclusively by Wreck participants
>via Wreck advertising. Once again, typical Usenet guidelines may not apply
>here.


Ya know, Joe - the point that Ms. Morgan is missing is that the Hard
Wreck Cafe has often been compared to a neighborhood bar where like
minded folks gather and shoot the xxxx (breeze).

Vito wants to turn it into a milk bar.

Of course, if "Singing In The Rain" were playing in the background -
the old rules might still apply.



Regards,
Tom.

Thomas J.Watson - Cabinetmaker (ret.)
tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1

On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 10:57:15 +0100, Andy Dingley
<[email protected]> calmly ranted:

>On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 04:46:44 +0000 (UTC), [email protected] wrote:
>
>>If it is true that RW gets 300 postings per day, there is a high
>>probability that some segments of potential readers will simply
>>avoid the group.
>
>>The other potential error is that fragmentation is a bad thing.
>
>I agree with both of these observations. But IMHO, they're arguments
>for splitting the group and sub-categorisation, not for moderation and
>certainly not for adding moderation at an equal hierarchical level.

Loss of synergy and lack of 'disjoint' are "pro-split"?
What usually happens in a split is that many people post the
same info to both/all groups (when not moderated) which causes
more problems, including duped messages, for people who track
both/all groups. I'm against splitting the group but have no
problem with a tightly controlled, severely limited parallel
offshoot such as Vito suggests. I just won't be there (after
a quick view), but those who like the control and extremely
tight focus (which sounds absolutely boring to me) and who also
haven't attained nirvana at other online forums, will be happy.
Win/win, wot?


>I see no way that "Vito's personal fiefdom" will make any improvement
>to the volume problem.

No, not on the Real Wreck. We'd likely lose mostly lurkers.

Messages to moderated groups pass through a filter (either the
moderators themselves or software or both) and are thereby limited
in volume, much like spam filters do in email programs. His volume
would likely be quite low.

----
A mostly meat-powered woodworker, and proud of it.
http://diversify.com Website Application Programming

In article <[email protected]>, <[email protected]> wrote:
>In news.groups Joe Wells <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Frankly I think it's a shame that more turners don't
>>post here. The Wreck would be better for it, but they have their own place
>>to hang out at rec.crafts.woodturning. I'd prefer less fragmentation, not
>>more.
>
>There's two potential errors in those statements that others ought
>to be aware of.

I have to take issue with your characterization of things as 'errors'.

>If it is true that RW gets 300 postings per day, there is a high
>probability that some segments of potential readers will simply
>avoid the group. 300 postings per day is considered VERY busy,
>even for a rec.* group (my threshold for simply "busy" is 100,
>"very busy" is 200, "insane" is 500, or something to that effect).
>There's no doubt that groups that busy lose readers. One hierarchy
>I survey has an apparent turnover rate of 50% per year and it has
>had traffic between 200 and 500 postings per day. A lower volume,
>higher focus newsgroup may be just the ticket to draw in other
>readership segments.
>

>The other potential error is that fragmentation is a bad thing.
>Hierarchies always tend towards fragmentation. It's a means of
>organizing postings into more thematically recognizable categories.

Fragmentation _can_ have benefits.
Fragmentation *does* have drawbacks.

There are implicit assumptions in advocating fragmentation.
1) that there *is* a _hierarchical_ structure to the categories.
2) that the various categories are 'mostly' disjoint from each other.

Those assumptions do _not_necessarily_ fit well with the real world.

Fragmentation works _against_ any synergies that may occur from the
co-mingling of those 'mostly disjoint' categories.

Rec.woodworking does have a fairly large, and _vocal_, group of participants.
Rec.woodworking does *not* seem to have the 'mostly disjoint' sub-categories
that would benefit from fragmentation.

>Fragmentation is a natural effect of popularity in newsgroups and
>often makes reading and responding easier. If fragmentation will
>cause unpleasant side-effects, then a NO vote may indeed be called
>for. But opposition only for the sake of opposing fragmentation
>is probably not a good reason for voting NO.

Rec.woodworking does have a fairly high traffic level.

There have been _numerous_ discussions in years past about splitting the
group, in an effort to reduce the number of messages. IIRC, the *most*
*popular* proposal as to _how_ to split things up had a grand total of
FIVE people in favor of -that- way of dividing things. Getting _three_
people to agree as to the desirability of any method of splitting the group
is a major accomplishment.

Every split proposal that has been casually floated, in at least the last
five years, has suffered from at least one of the following two drawbacks:
1) Almost any actual posting touches on the scope of two or more
of the proposed sub-groups.
2) The vast majority (as in 80% or more) of existent postings would
end up in the '.misc' group.

One _could_ derive a *bunch* of secondary subject areas -- easily 50 of
them, if not more -- to split the traffic amongst. Except that: (a) those
categories do _not_ structure into logical groupings, (b) a newcomer would
have *no* idea which 'specialty' group is appropriate for a 'general'
question, (c) A very sizable number of the 'questions' asked are from
someone who is 'asking the wrong question' -- and somebody looks at it
and says "I think you're asking about that because you're trying to do
thus-and-such; if so, here is a {completely different} approach that
may work much better." Regarding the last, said 'completely different'
approach is off-topic in the sub-group that the original poster asked his
question in. EVEN THOUGH it is the 'right answer' for what he was really
trying to do.

The general perception among the active participants *is* that fragmentation
would be a Bad Thing(TM) for rec.woodworking.

On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 16:11:09 -0400, Tom Watson <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Vito wants to turn it into a milk bar.

When an unknown moderator shows up and wants to be in charge, how do
we know that he's not called Alex and wants to call it the "Korova" ?

I doubt that I would use rec.woodworking.moderated on a regular basis.
I give thanks to rec.woodworking for letting me know about the Bessey
K-Body clamp closeouts at Home Depot a few months ago. A moderated
newsgroups would filter this out, so I'll be sticking with
rec.woodworking and use my personal filtering methods. However, I
think it is good to have a moderated group for those rare times when
rec.woodworking (or any newsgroup) gets flooded with trash from clever
spammers. If the spammer knows there is a moderated alternative,
perhaps there is a less tendency to flood a newsgroup.

"Vito Kuhn" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
> moderated group rec.woodworking.moderated
>
> This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the creation of a
> world-wide moderated Usenet newsgroup rec.woodworking.moderated. This is not
> a Call for Votes (CFV); you cannot vote at this time. Procedural details are
> below.

From this guy's web site:

"Posts containing profanity and adult content are prohibited. In
general, this means any language or content that is not appropriate
for young children, as this is a family forum. Please do not write
anything that you would not say in a classroom of kindergarten
children."

This is the seventylebenth time that someone has tried to split this
group. The usual reason is that they wish to be treated like children
because they think everybody is as helpless to filter input as they
are. Censorship adds NOTHING to the group's operations. They will
waste a lot of bandwidth on this self-absorbed exercise. Newsgroups
are immortal. Forever and ever, they'll be enshrined in their own
little universe.

In many years online, I've never seen ONE TOPIC that didn't dissolve
into blandness and Moderator worship when given the "We're going to
clean this UP!" treatment. Not even in FIDO days, when people had much
closer actual relationships with the Sysops running message boards.

We have more junk in here than we used to. We also have more tools to
deal with it. Building a private club doesn't advance the woodworking
cause. It just adds a layer of delay and Somebody Else to the mix.
Such power always corrupts.

Woodchuck Bill <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

> No, Vito wants to keep the rec.woodworking intact and open a milk bar as an
> alternative for those people not interested in a hard neighborhood bar. He
> has not proposed any changes to the wreck.

No, it looks from here as if Vito wants to have the hard work of
establishing an audience done for him, then he wants to step in and
"rescue" that audience from adult speech and other features that have
characterized this space for lo these many years.

Vito should open a web site and Moderate that. It's how others have
done what he proposes. Wehn you won a space, you are free to censor
all you want. He apparently prefers to mine this audience rather than
generating his own. He wants to freeload off the Usegroup structure
without contributing more than his self-absorbed sense of being more
righteous than the old guard who started and have maintained this very
large, very successful newsgroup all these years.

If there are likeminded people, let them start web sites. That has
been the bland-leading-the-bland alternative for many years and it has
worked fine. We don't need another immortal newsgroup.

"Dave Mundt" <[email protected]> wrote

> And the good news is that even if the new, moderated news
> group is created, it does not mean that this, unmoderated one will
> vanish...so we will have a choice of whether to speak freely,
> or be a part of a moderated group.

Is that kinda like a cholce between being intact versus being castrated?

On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 17:13:38 -0500, Joe Wells <[email protected]>
wrote:


>No. Vito wants to rape the rec.woodworking namespace for his own personal
>jollies. Now he has a 3rd RFD in the n.a.n queue called
>rec.woodworking.all-ages. Great. Now we can look forward to r.w.old-folks,
>r.w.wimmins, r.w.plushies.. where will it all end?


I certainly hope that it ends before r.w.plushies - because that is
where we begin to lose the mainstream folks - except for up around
Reading, PA...



Regards,
Tom.

Thomas J.Watson - Cabinetmaker (ret.)
tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1

Dave Balderstone wrote in
<170920041744456959%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca>:

> In article <[email protected]>, Penny Gaines
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> In addition if it is a group with a certain amount of personal chat,
>> people might feel they have to get involved in the chat side before they
>> start
>> asking questions. Also if they are a newcomer to the group, they may
>> find that their post is ignored, and their question is unanswered.
>>
> You have no experience in rec.woodworking, because in this particular
> group none of your points above are generally true.

That's correct: I'm posting from news.groups.

> The group has a high number of "Hi, I'm new to this group and pardon me
> if this has been asked before, but I've googled and can't find a clear
> answer to how you cut oak plywood on a left-handed frannistan burfle
> with the lorgle option installed. Can anyone help?"
>
> Such queries are enthusiastically welcomed, and often spawn a
> well-populated thread with lots of helpful advice.

I've used lots of groups where newcomers tend to get enthusiastic welcomes.
I'm sure rec.woodworking is no exception. However, in all the groups I've
used like that, *sometimes* a newcomer gets overlooked. Not on purpose,
but because other posters are busy with holidays or whatever. In a smaller
group they are more obvious, even a few days after they posted.

--
Penny Gaines
Usenetting since 1993.

On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 14:37:27 -0400, Philip Lewis
<[email protected]> wrote:


>>This newsgroup is not to be used to sell, buy, trade, or auction any
>>items or services.
>Will signatures of folks in the business be banned? Will posts of
>"hey, there is a good closeout deal at this shop" be allowed?
>I believe both of these should be allowed, and that in general, if the
>post is topical to woodworking, and not repeated more than some
>reasonable amount, like twice a month, then it should be allowed.

I agree.

In fact I rarely see commercial spam on the 'wreck. Buying and
selling woodworking related items, on an irregular basis, should be
allowed. Including eBay posts.

The most "commercial" of all posters may be Steve Knight, who may
mention a plane sale once a quarter, probably less. That's annoying?

Would Rob Lee, Ed Bennett, Steve Knight, etc... supporting their
products, or someone like Mike from American Sycamore mentioning a
seminar or show be banned? That would surely be a disservice to all
participants. So what if it's "commercial", the readers stand to gain
much from the participation of these types of folks.

This is my primary objection to the charter.

Barry

In news.groups Edwin Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> "Wayne Brown" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
>
>> So why object to other people having the moderated woodworking group
>> *they* want just because *you* don't happen to want it yourself?
>
> I don't. Never said I did, but I have stated my opinion on the matter and
> that I would not participate. You can have anything you want. There are
> hundreds of groups that I see no reason to have, but they exist. Good for
> them. It does not mean I can't have an opinion.

OK. Somehow I got the idea that you said you were voting against the
group, rather than just disagreeing with its purpose. My comments were
based on that assumption, but apparently I was wrong. Sorry about that;
I must have been confusing your comments with someone else's.

--
Wayne Brown (HPCC #1104) | "When your tail's in a crack, you improvise
[email protected] | if you're good enough. Otherwise you give
| your pelt to the trapper."
"e^(i*pi) = -1" -- Euler | -- John Myers Myers, "Silverlock"

In article <[email protected]>, Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:

>I've been thinking for a while now that it's just another
>troll attempting to waste an immense amount of other peoples' time.
>
You could be right -- and I've been thinking it might be time for another
update to the TrollFilters. Perhaps a filter that would drop anything
crossposted to both rec.woodworking and news.groups where the subject line
does *not* contain CFV (so that we don't miss a CFV if it ever reaches that
stage).

Opinions from the wreck, please?


--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

"Mean Green Dancing Machine" <[email protected]> wrote in message

> [mucho snippo to concentrate on one point]

Then you agree my other points are valid and correct?


>
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Edwin Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>USENET was founded on freedom. We don't need people in brown shirts
>>telling us what to do and how to do it.
>
> Can you support the assertion in your first sentence? If not, you're
> engaging in what I believe is revisionist history, a favorite tactic of
> the brown-shirt brigade. Funny how people always adopt the tactics of
> The Enemy, isn't it?

The purpose of USENET is the free exchange of information and ideas. Maybe
you don't consider that freedom, but you are free to do that. If this group
was moderated, you would not be able to make your comments would you?

FWIW, I don't own any brown shirts. I'm wearing a bright yellow pullover
today in case you are interested.
Ed

On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 17:32:31 -0600, Dave Balderstone
<dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>, Joe Wells
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Now he has a 3rd RFD in the n.a.n queue called
>> rec.woodworking.all-ages. Great. Now we can look forward to r.w.old-folks,
>> r.w.wimmins, r.w.plushies.. where will it all end?
>
>It'll end when the proposal is either withdrawn or goes to a vote.
>
>Given name oof the 3rd RFD it appears he's given up on moderation? If
>so, I wonder WTF the point is...

Probably still moderated, just taking it out of the name to reduce the
negative response.

Tim Douglass

http://www.DouglassClan.com

On 19 Sep 2004 20:54:45 GMT, Woodchuck Bill <[email protected]>
wrote:


>No, Vito wants to keep the rec.woodworking intact and open a milk bar as an
>alternative for those people not interested in a hard neighborhood bar. He
>has not proposed any changes to the wreck.

Sigh...

cf: search terms: "milk bar", "singing in the rain".

(...no, we are devo.)






Regards,
Tom.

Thomas J.Watson - Cabinetmaker (ret.)
tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1

"Mean Green Dancing Machine" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> Why do you say that it's censorship? Nobody will stop you from posting
> to the existing woodworking group (that's exactly why there's a
> moratorium on in-place moderation). Would you cry "censorship!" if you
> wrote a letter to your local newspaper and they didn't publish it?
> --
> --- Aahz <*> (Copyright 2004 by [email protected])

What would you call it? If I post a note about a project I made but say "it
was damned tough to do and it was one hell of a piece of wood", it will not
be posted because of my non-family oriented language. That is censoring my
post.

I don't approve of foul language, I rarely use it in speech, never in
writing, but I'm not going to remove your post if you do.

USENET was founded on freedom. We don't need people in brown shirts telling
us what to do and how to do it. Most letters I write to the newspaper are
published. Same with the Op-Ed material I've submitted (and been paid for)
to them. They offer limited space for such things and I've had my fair
share of it. They do not exist solely for the publishing of my
contributions. Newsgroups, however, do exist for the publishing of on topic
material to the noted subject. By having a moderator with final say on what
get published an individual is taking a part of USENET for his personal
agenda and eliminating anyone he chooses to.

On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 14:20:39 -0700, Tim Douglass wrote:

> On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 19:47:59 +0100, Andy Dingley <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>On 15 Sep 2004 17:12:36 GMT, Woodchuck Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>A "no" vote means that you have a technical objection, or you think the
>>>group will somehow have a negative impact on Usenet in one way or
>>>another.
>>
>>Dilution.
>>
>>I'm sure not posting to it, and I don't want to bother reading it either.
>
> That is a viable concern for those who enjoy the friendly atmosphere of
> the wRECk but are serious woodworkers. The creation of a parallel,
> moderated, group may draw some of the posters away<...>

I agree. I'll be voting No because:

The general concept of rec.woodworking.moderated may cause dilution at
rec.woodworking. Frankly I think it's a shame that more turners don't
post here. The Wreck would be better for it, but they have their own place
to hang out at rec.crafts.woodturning. I'd prefer less fragmentation, not
more.

This specific version of rec.woodworking.moderated is being proposed by a
heretofore absentee moderation team. Even if I thought that r.w.m would be
OK, I don't think that these are the people to implement it.

--
Joe Wells

On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 04:46:44 +0000, ru.igarashi wrote:

> If it is true that RW gets 300 postings per day, there is a high
> probability that some segments of potential readers will simply avoid the
> group. 300 postings per day is considered VERY busy, even for a rec.*
> group (my threshold for simply "busy" is 100, "very busy" is 200, "insane"
> is 500, or something to that effect). There's no doubt that groups that
> busy lose readers.

Which is something that I have difficulty wrapping my head around. *Why*
does the number of posts per day really make that big a difference? I
wouldn't even attempt to read each and every post in the busy newsgroups
that I subscribe to. That's why we have threaded newsreaders. Quickly
checking the past few days on r.ww, it looks like about 20 or so new
threads per day are being started. That's a lot, I know. But even if I
only checked r.ww a couple of times a week, it should be fairly easy to
target the conversations that would interest me simply by looking at the
Subject. I'd much rather have one large group to throw a question (or brag
about a conquest) to than several fragmented groups. The interested
parties in One Big Group will find my thread. The others will/should skip
over it.

BTW- I have no doubt that your assessment is correct. I've seen many
people throw up their hands and give up on a busy newsgroup because they
"can't keep up" or "the signal to noise has dropped" and so forth. I've
just never really understood what in the hell they're talking about.

> The other potential error is that fragmentation is a bad thing.
> Hierarchies always tend towards fragmentation. It's a means of organizing
> postings into more thematically recognizable categories. Fragmentation is
> a natural effect of popularity in newsgroups and often makes reading and
> responding easier.

It can also cause the collected knowledge of the participants to be
scattered across multiple communities rather than pooled together for
everyone's benefit. Separating woodworking from glassmaking is a good
thing and a hierarchy excels at creating these clear and obvious
divisions. Separating woodworking into two groups with virtually identical
discussion topics could mean that neither community gains the full benefit
of the groups' no-longer collected wisdom.

--
Joe Wells

On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 23:59:48 -0800, Kathy Morgan wrote:

> Luigi Zanasi <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 16:26:15 +0000, "Vito Kuhn" <[email protected]>
>> scribbled:
>>
>> >Commercial postings (advertisements and announcements) from for-profit
>> >entities are prohibited. Posts containing notices or URL pointers to
>> >sale and auction items are prohibited, however non-profit organizations
>> >and individuals announcing meetings, workshops, or conventions may post
>> >notices.
>>
>> Exclusive sales to rec.woodworking.moderated participants, auction
>> announcements and sales by regular participants should be allowed, as
>> they are in other web-based discussion groups and email listserves.
>
> This discussion is *not* about a web-based discussion group or email list.
> This is Usenet, and most Usenet groups discourage or forbid advertising,
> except for those groups that are specifically for selling, such as
> *.marketplace.

Yup, most. Except this one. About the only on-topic advertising frowned
upon at r.ww are post-n-runs. Subscribers selling to / buying from other
subscribers is a long standing tradition here. There are / have been
several businesses supported just about exclusively by Wreck participants
via Wreck advertising. Once again, typical Usenet guidelines may not apply
here.

--
Joe Wells

On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 20:54:45 +0000, Woodchuck Bill wrote:

> Tom Watson <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> Ya know, Joe - the point that Ms. Morgan is missing is that the Hard
>> Wreck Cafe has often been compared to a neighborhood bar where like
>> minded folks gather and shoot the xxxx (breeze).
>>
>> Vito wants to turn it into a milk bar.
>
> No, Vito wants to keep the rec.woodworking intact and open a milk bar as
> an alternative for those people not interested in a hard neighborhood bar.
> He has not proposed any changes to the wreck.

No. Vito wants to rape the rec.woodworking namespace for his own personal
jollies. Now he has a 3rd RFD in the n.a.n queue called
rec.woodworking.all-ages. Great. Now we can look forward to r.w.old-folks,
r.w.wimmins, r.w.plushies.. where will it all end?

--
Joe Wells

On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 09:33:52 -0600, Dave Balderstone wrote:


> He's going to wave his vorpal charter at all the nasty people and they
> will flee before its terrible power.

They will if they're smart - remember the line from the Jaberwocky?
"and through and through and in and out, the vorpal sword went snicker
snack".

-Doug

--
"If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchange apples
then you and I will still each have one apple.
But if you have an idea and I have one idea and we exchange these
ideas,then each of us will have two ideas" George B. Shaw

On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 06:19:41 +0000, [email protected]
(Robert Bonomi) wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
>Tim Douglass <[email protected]> wrote:
>>On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 19:47:59 +0100, Andy Dingley
>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>On 15 Sep 2004 17:12:36 GMT, Woodchuck Bill <[email protected]>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>A "no" vote means that you have a technical objection, or you think the
>>>>group will somehow have a negative impact on Usenet in one way or another.
>>>
>>>Dilution.
>>>
>>>I'm sure not posting to it, and I don't want to bother reading it
>>>either.
>>
>>That is a viable concern for those who enjoy the friendly atmosphere
>>of the wRECk but are serious woodworkers. The creation of a parallel,
>>moderated, group may draw some of the posters away, requiring you to
>>follow two groups in order to benefit from the same pool of knowledge.
>>I don't recall seeing anything in the RFD regarding cross-posting, but
>>that would seem to be the obvious way to participate in both groups.
>
>'cross-posting', where one of the groups is moderated means that the
>article doesn't show up in _any_ newsgroup, until and _if_ the moderator
>approves it for the moderated group.
>
>With the software that the proposed moderators will be using it is 'iffy'
>that additional un-moderated groups in a submission will be preserved

So there is most likely no easy way to borrow on the combined
knowledge of the two groups, meaning that the concern about knowledge
dilution is a valid one (assuming the moderated group actually drew
off, rather than shared, some of the knowledgeable posters). This is
not a proposal for a *topical* division of the group, merely to create
a *parallel* group. Currently, if you want to participate in the
discussion of woodworking on Usenet all you need to do is follow
rec.woodworking. If passed, this proposal would require you to follow
two groups, but you would still have to process through all the spam
and OT stuff in rec.woodworking.

Unless there is a large community of woodworkers out there who would
participate in a moderated newsgroup who are not currently involved in
the wRECk, I see this proposal as detrimental to rec.woodworking and
to the exchange of information and ideas about woodworking on Usenet.

Tim Douglass

http://www.DouglassClan.com

On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 21:56:02 +0200, "Paul Ebermann"
<[email protected]> wrote:

><[email protected]> skribis:
>
>> The NO vote is not really documented other than the effect of
>> NO votes. It certainly isn't the opposite of the YES vote,
>> since NO votes act as vetos for YES votes (mathematically, a
>> single NO vote can knock out 100 YES votes under some not very
>> rare circumstances).
>
>Not really.
>
>100:1 fails, but so does 99:0. (100:0 passes.)
>
>So the one no vote knocks out only one
>yes vote, and simply the other 99 are
>not enough.

You can characterize it however you want. But the single NO vote has
rendered those 99 YES votes (and the 100th) moot.

That's what I'm counting on my NO vote doing.

- -
LRod

Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite

Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999

http://www.woodbutcher.net