RFD: news.admin.moderation moderated

[Terminator]

REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
moderated group news.admin.moderation
This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the creation of the
moderated Usenet newsgroup, news.admin.moderation.

Before we begin, the original RFD for news.admin.moderation
as NON "moderated" group, is included at the end of this
post for references.

Russ Allbery, this is your creation,
this ugliest nazi perverion,
trying to take over name space
for one of the most important groups on usenet,
news.admin.moderation.

This group has been voted for 3 times as NON "moderated"
group and had over 100 votes to support it.
And YOU, Russ Allbery, that crawling worm,
having enough guts and arrogance to call himself an eagle,
have prevented this group from being created.
At least 3 times to date.
After torturing the proponents for MONTHS on.

And now, this lil nazi louse, hand picked by you,
is doing the ultimate perversion number,
trying to create a group to discuss the issues of
"moderation" being moderated itself!

With this recent frenzy of creating the "moderated"
groups left and right by this nazi puppet theatre
of yours, called B8MB (Big 8 Management Board),
you are simply attempting to COMPLETELY block
ANY and ALL discussions on the issue of "moderation".

It is YOU, who is issuing the control messages
to create just about ANY "moderated" group imaginable
as it implements YOUR long time dream of taking over
big-8 COMPLETELY.

It is YOU, who created the idea of so called Usenet 2
as described on www.usenet2.org.

It is YOUR not so famous rants that state that
Usenet as it is is "no good" and it has to be
converted into a "moderated" version, called Usenet 2,
where ANY and ALL groups are made "moderated"
and are controlled by the "tsars", LITERALLY speaking,
and the super-tsar, controlling those local "tsars"
is who?

Well, it is YOU, Russ Allbery, a crawling nazi worm,
doing ALL he can to destroy the most fundamental
principles of Democracy.

It is YOU, who is associated with ISC,
Internet Software Consortium www.isc.org,
sponsored by the US military and intelligence agencies,
such as DISA, Defense Information Systems Agency.

It is YOU, who placed ALL sorts of tricks
into the INN configuration files to make sure
the MOST propagated set of hierarchies, big-8,
is controlled by no one else than YOU.

It is YOU, who made configuration of INN
in such a way that the ONLY "authorized" address
for big-8 group creation and maintenance is
group-***@isc.org.

Not only that, but it is YOU, and that previous
herr fuehrer, David Lawrence, aka tale,
one of the most poisonous nazi perverts in the
entire history of Usenet, who created and implemented
the idea of PGP signatures for control messages
on big-8, and, unless those messages originate
from group-***@isc.org and are PGP signed with
YOUR key, they are not even SEEN by the news admins
as they are simply pre-filtered before they even
have a chance to see the controls.


These lil nazi puppets of yours merely reflect
YOUR totalitarian ambitions.

This so called "RFD", which you WILL "authorize"
and WILL issue the control message to create this
group in a "MODERATED" version is nothing but a final
spit into the face of all people participating in
OPEN PUBLIC forums, which is what Usenet it.

Instead, you forever craved for a totally nazi controlled
version of the Universe, and now, with these nazi puppets
of yours, you pretend not to be responsible for all this
totalitarian garbage.

You claimed you retired. But this was just a lie,
a typical lie, representing your sadistic nazi nature.

From now on, the game is different,
as this is a final nail on a coffin of nothing less
than Democracy itself.

Beware now.

NEWSGROUPS LINE: news.admin.moderation
news.admin.moderation Moderated Usenet newsgroups. (Moderated)
RATIONALE: news.admin.moderation
Currently, newsgroup moderation is discussed primarily in meta-discussions
throughout the Big-8 hierarchies, especially in news.groups.* and
news.admin.net-abuse.*. However, none of these newsgroups is truly
appropriate for these discussions. A dedicated newsgroup would help
consolidate and nurture these conversations.

How can you "nurture these conversations"
in a group taken over by nazis of YOUR kind
that will prevent ANY and ALL conversations of ANY value,
you lil nazi pervert?

This is just about the most poisonous trick imaginable.

news.admin.moderation is a moderated newsgroup

The group discussing the issues of "moderation"
can not be "moderated" itself.
This is the most arrogant and ugliest perversion possible.

for discussion of topics
of interest to both moderators and users of moderated newsgroups. Some
* how to be a good/neutral/effective moderator
* problems using moderation software
* "moderation ethics"
* developing appropriate moderation policies and implementations
* methods for filling vacancies in a moderation team
* evaluation of moderation software
* personal complaints about individual moderators
* proposals for new moderated newsgroups, or to unmoderate existing
groups
MODERATION POLICY: news.admin.moderation
news.admin.moderation is robot-moderated. The robot will automatically
* Are not crossposted.
* Are not excessively quoted.
* Contain no (large) binaries, HTML, or other similar content types.
* Are not spam, spew, or otherwise clearly inappropriate content (to be
determined programmatically).
A current list of posting criteria will be published regularly.
Users may be blocked from posting for consistently violating the group
charter, especially in regards to the "unsuitable topics".
MODERATOR INFO: news.admin.moderation
I (Tim) am willing, but not excited, to write and run the moderation
'bot for news.admin.moderation. Other volunteers would be welcome.
I also welcome discussion as to whether or not this group should be
moderated at all.
http://www.big-8.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=policies:creation
Those who wish to influence the development of this RFD and its final
resolution should subscribe to news.groups.proposals and participate in the
relevant threads in that newsgroup. This is both a courtesy to groups in
which discussion of creating a new group is off-topic as well as the best
method of making sure that one's comments or criticisms are heard.
All discussion of active proposals should be posted to news.groups.proposals.
To this end, the 'Followup-To' header of this RFD has been set to this group.
If desired by the readership of closely affected groups, the discussion
may be crossposted to those groups, but care must be taken to ensure
that all discussion appears in news.groups.proposals as well.
We urge those who would like to read or post in the proposed newsgroup
to make a comment to that effect in this thread; we ask proponents to
keep a list of such positive posts with the relevant message ID
Such lists of positive feedback for the proposal may constitute good
evidence that the group will be well-used if it is created.
news.announce.newgroups
news.groups.proposals
news.admin.announce
news.software.nntp
news.admin.net-abuse.policy

Following is the original RFD posted numerous times
to news.groups and those "moderated" news hierarchy
groups that was COMPLETELY ignored and the article
was simply censored out by these nazi puppets of
herr fuehrer Russ Allbery.

======================== QUOTE BEGIN ==========================

You, lil nazi puppet, ALREADY managed to take over
a few groups in news hierarchy in your long dream
of becoming the next herr fuehrer of Usenet,
replacing this pathetic fuehrer Russ Allbery.

But I tellya one thing, and listen carefully.

THE HELL WILL SOONER GETS FROZEN
THAN YOU SUCCEED.

2007-02-22 1st RFD

From: ***@invalid.addr
Subject: Re: RFD: news.admin.moderation
Newsgroups:
news.groups,news.admin.net-abuse.usenet,news.admin.censorship,alt.config
Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2000 08:51:53 GMT
Organization: MindSpring Enterprises
Message-ID: <8k45km$49o$***@slb7.atl.mindspring.net>

Here is an article for news.admin.moderation proposal,
a 2nd attempt to create a group. The author was Giovanni Greco.


REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
unmoderated group news.admin.moderation

This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the creation of a
world-wide unmoderated Usenet newsgroup news.admin.moderation.

This is not a Call for Votes (CFV); you cannot vote at this time.
Procedural details are below.

Newsgroup line:
news.admin.moderation A forum for moderation (unmoderated).

RATIONALE: news.admin.moderation

Since the introduction of group moderation (1980) members of the
Usenet community have always had different opinions about moderation:
some users think newsgroup moderation means censorship;
others do it as work with no pay.

What is needed is a specific forum where this
topic can be talked about.

At the moment there is no appropriate newsgroup for discussion
of this topic, so posts on the subject are debated mainly in
other places like news.groups, news.admin.net-abuse.usenet,
news.admin.censorship and the debate tends to go nowhere.

The purpose of news.admin.moderation is to provide a focal point
of discussion on this issue. In the Big Eight hierarchies there are
almost 300 moderated groups: this should offer sufficient traffic
for such a forum.

As we all know, the future will bring increased flows of messages
and more and more moderated newsgroups.

Two mailing lists for moderators already exist. The newsgroup will be
something more and will involve normal users bringing their personal
know-how to this specific group.

CHARTER: news.admin.moderation

The news.admin.moderation newsgroup is intended to be unmoderated
to allow users who don't think their message is off-topic to come
into the proposed group and show their message there: "People of
news.admin.moderation, why can't this message of mine be approved
in this newsgroup?" And, of course, the newsgroup can also be used
by moderators to justify their work.

Here new moderators can ask for advice from experienced ones about
the best way to moderate a newsgroup or how to behave with certain
kinds of posters. Users who would like to open a moderated newsgroup
can ask in the group about all the problems that moderation can
include or find out about the help that robo-moderation can give to
save a lot of work (thanks, for instance, to the pre-approved list).

Information on moderation's software tools will be welcome here.

If a moderator disappears, or any other problems occur, posters from
that group can come into the newsgroup and discuss how to deal
with this matter, deciding what to do and who can replace the old
moderator. Everything about moderation can be discussed in this
newsgroup. The goal of this newsgroup is to preserve the freedom
of one and all, users and moderators alike.

END CHARTER.

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 21 days (starting from when the first 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
it.news.moderazione

Proponent: Giovanni Greco <***@tiscalinet.it>
And now the proponent is ***@invalid.addr.
You can send your feedback to /dev/null at that address.


Following comments are a part of proposal:

This group was sabotaged out of existence twice by the same
megalomaniacs and perverts, sucking life out of usenet,
calling themselves the public servants at the same time
and their assorted output hole lickers, aka news groupies.

This group SHOULD have been created by default as soon,
as the first "moderated" group was created.
This so called moderation trick is used by the most intolerant
censors, megalomaniacs and assorted parasites as a double edged
sword. On one hand, it allows the most intolerant of all to take
over the group and TOTALLY control the content, reducing the
discussion to the level of the lowest common denominator.
One the other hand, it is a trick of self promotion, allowing
those very parasites to establish a certain status symbol.

First of all, moderation is nothing but PURE form of censorship.
Furthermore, these very perverts and megalomaniacs effectively
establish an ownership of the group and convert the PUBLIC
groups into their personal "property", where they can do
ANYTHING they please. Nevermind, they are using the public
resources and public forums.

Some of the most significant groups are already
converted into these outlets of propaganda, peddled by
the intellectual pigmeys to assert their dictates.

Again, comp.ai, sci.psychology.consciousness and plenty
of other groups of profound significance are already
coverted into either bulletin boards of advertisement
or the outlets for peddling the propaganda of the lowest
grade.

Comp.ai is one of the oldest groups. It was created
even before the usenet was created on the first place.
It isued to be an interesting group discussing general
issues of AI. It had a fair amount of traffic and
everything just fine.
This group turns out to be the very root of entire AI
hierarchy. Any article that is crossposted from some
other AI group, would automatically be subject to
censorship by this so called "moderator".

Then, this self-admitted fascist, David Kinny, began the
campaign of trying to take it over using the trick of
"moderation. He started inviting people to talk behind
the scene via private email messages.

The reason this group was sabotaged out of existence not
only once, but twice, is simple enough to comprehend.
This is one of the most "dangerous" groups for all these
megalomaniacs, ruling usenet, and their output hole lickers.
They will not allow any feedback, opinions and complaints
to be voiced because there simply exist no such a place.

Last time, the "vote" was rigged by the vote taker jjd,
who was usually assigned to "unwanted" (by the power elite)
proposals in order to defat them no matter what are
the results, rigging the vote counts or whatever he pleases.
Just make sure this group will not be created. As simple as
it gets.

I am personally aware of numerous "votes" that did not appear
in the final results. They just evaporated out of existence.
They were not even classified as "illegal".
Simply vanished.


Robomoderation:

"Moderation software tools" is simply obscene.
There exist no technology at this junction to allow "moderation"
by the machines. Even Artificial Suckology, they used to call
Artificial Intelligence, is not capable of producing ANYTHING
of a kind beyond the stupid string matching, translating into
outright censorship, no matter what the criteria is.

It is simply an idea of obscene grade.
How can you "robomoderate" the content?
By creating the lists of "evil" words?
So, if someone posts an article with subject
"Robots also want to have sex",
what are the chances that "robomoterator" gadget
will be able to figure out that this is not an advertizement?

Black lists and white lists:

PURE form of totalitarian censorship. No matter what kind of garbage
the "whitelisted" individuals post, their articles will be
automatically approved by the stupid robo script, because they are
pure blooded Aryans, and, no matter what the "blacklisted" individuals
say, their posts are automatically junked upon arrival. Because they
are considered to be the filth of inferior race.
PURE 4th Reich in virtual domain!

======================== QUOTE END ==========================

[Terminator]

REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
moderated group news.admin.moderation
This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the creation of the
moderated Usenet newsgroup, news.admin.moderation.
NEWSGROUPS LINE: news.admin.moderation
news.admin.moderation Moderated Usenet newsgroups. (Moderated)

The description, as it is, to me suggests that it is about moderated
usenet groups, rather than the meta-discussion about moderation as it
refers to Usenet groups. Perhaps change it to
news.admin.moderation meta-discussion of moderation. (Moderated)

Perhaps you choke?

Get lost.

I don't want to see your trace on Usenet.

Your nazi puppet theatre is closed.
For good.

Enough.

news.admin.moderation Meta-discussion of moderation of Usenet newsgroups.
(Moderated)
The last 'Moderated' doesn't count towards the line limit.

I would also add discussion about the pros and cons of moderation.

Added, as a clarification under "moderation ethics".

I also welcome discussion as to whether or not this group should be
moderated at all.

It might be possible (un-moderated), however it all depends on the
level of experience of theose who would use the group.

I'm kindof dubious, really, that it would work, but I can see
why having an unmoderated place to discuss this kind of thing would be a
good thing too. One suggestion: perhaps we could create two newsgroups,
one moderated, one un-moderated. The best name I've thought of for the
unmoderated one is 'news.admin.moderation.advocacy'.
If we do have two groups, it might be more important to
hand-moderate the first one, or at least involve more human work. I'm
really interested in finding some kind of balance on the issue.

Count me as interested and would more than likely use.

I'm glad to hear it.

[Terminator]

I support the creation of this group and would use it.....

Because you are nazi yourself.

What groups do you post to?

Forget about usenet.

If you knew how lil does it take to slaugher
lice of your kind...

Enough.

I feel, having
been involved in two RFDs for moderated groups (one whilst there was a
moratorium on all groups and the other being rec.ponds.moderated) that a
group such as this would have been invaluable - not because the
information was not provided by the Big8, which it has been, but because
I believe that the sharing of this information would be of benefit to
all thinking of taking this route.....also, the experiences of both
successful and failed group proposals would be of great help to anyone
attempting such a proposal in the future...Open discussions on the pros
and cons not just of moderation policies but also software available
would save much time for all concerned - and educated decisions could be
then made.
I think that by the very nature and by how emotive the whole
moderated/unmoderated Usenet group thing is that the group should be
moderated....however, I would want those opposing moderation to also get
a fair say when expressing their opinions - providing that the content
is non-abusive and conforms with the charter of the group.
Gill

[Terminator]

I believe that this newsgroup, if created, should itself be moderated in
order to keep the main subject/ operational issues at the forefront, and
to avoid all the flames and trolling that would result from people who
are simply opposed to moderation in principle.

If we're going to do that,

Who is weeee?

How is with you on this scam?

we'll need to moderate with something
stronger than just robo-moderation;

Are you sure?

But what if there is something even stronger
than your strongest thing?

Shaking good, you lil louse?

Enough.

we'd probably need a full moderation
team, and appropriate software. I'm not necessarily opposed to the idea,
but it will certainly make things more complicated.

In my opinion, it should deal primarily with the actual operation/s of
moderation newsgroups. Discussion of the larger issues of whether
moderation is "good or bad" should be limited/restricted to rationale, civil,
non-repetitive debate.

So noted. What do you think of the '.advocacy' idea I suggested?

[Terminator]

On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 13:03:02 -0600, Tim Skirvin

This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the creation of the
moderated Usenet newsgroup, news.admin.moderation.

As a moderator, I would find this group useful.

That is why it has been said:

You, so called moderators, are some of the MOST
immoderate entities there are.

Because of your complex of inferiority,
you are compelled to oppress and dominate others.

Because that is what nazism is.

You are nothing more than intolerant blood boiling
idiots that can not possibly accept that someone
is not as perverted as YOU are.

Enough.

[snip]

I also welcome discussion as to whether or not this group should be
moderated at all.

I think that moderation will be required to ensure that the group
remains reasonably functional. While I'm perfectly capable of using a
kill-file, morphing trolls are likely to be a problem if some of the
more vociferous anti-moderation kooks decide to make life miserable
for moderators. The moderation policy is designed only to keep the
posts on topic, so this strikes me as a case of eating our own dog
food.

[Terminator]

REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
moderated group news.admin.moderation
This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the creation of the
moderated Usenet newsgroup, news.admin.moderation.
NEWSGROUPS LINE: news.admin.moderation
news.admin.moderation Moderated Usenet newsgroups. (Moderated)

Given the charter I like "Discussion of moderation issues."

Look at these nazis...

RATIONALE: news.admin.moderation
Currently, newsgroup moderation is discussed primarily in meta-discussions
throughout the Big-8 hierarchies, especially in news.groups.* and
news.admin.net-abuse.*. However, none of these newsgroups is truly
appropriate for these discussions. A dedicated newsgroup would help
consolidate and nurture these conversations.

The rationale should mention the regularly posted FAQ files that deal
with moderation issues.

news.admin.moderation is a moderated newsgroup for discussion of topics
of interest to both moderators and users of moderated newsgroups. Some
* how to be a good/neutral/effective moderator
* problems using moderation software
* "moderation ethics"
* developing appropriate moderation policies and implementations
* methods for filling vacancies in a moderation team

So also mention the usenet volunteer moderators mailing list in
the rationale as well as the ISC mailing list of moderators.

* evaluation of moderation software

And development discussion? And recruiting for sourceforge
efforts?

* personal complaints about individual moderators
* proposals for new moderated newsgroups, or to unmoderate existing
groups
MODERATION POLICY: news.admin.moderation
news.admin.moderation is robot-moderated. The robot will automatically
* Are not crossposted.
* Are not excessively quoted.
* Contain no (large) binaries, HTML, or other similar content types.
* Are not spam, spew, or otherwise clearly inappropriate content (to be
determined programmatically).
A current list of posting criteria will be published regularly.

This sounds like NANU.policy. That software and configs could be
cloned.

Users may be blocked from posting for consistently violating the group
charter, especially in regards to the "unsuitable topics".

Unless you want to draw new posters. That requirement for bracketed
handles in the subject line takes a small amount of practice so
complete
rank beginners get confused. The regularly posted criteria needs to
include example subject lines.

MODERATOR INFO: news.admin.moderation
I (Tim) am willing, but not excited, to write and run the moderation
'bot for news.admin.moderation. Other volunteers would be welcome.
I also welcome discussion as to whether or not this group should be
moderated at all.

On the one hand - There's no way the mission posters on news.groups
will fail to attack this group if it's made unmoderated.
On the other hand - You're overloaded already. At very least you need
other folks involved.
There are folks who have a strong reaction against any moderated
groups. Here is some solice for them - Each and every moderated
group takes moderators. There is a limited pool of people willing
to become moderators and to stay moderators. The number of
moderated groups on Usenet is inherently limited by this. Should
the level of trolling on UseNet decrease, the pool of willing
moderators
would gradually decrease. Even with active trolling on UseNet the
pool
of willing moderators remains limited.

[Terminator]

news.admin.moderation Meta-discussion of moderation of Usenet newsgroups.

(Moderated)
It's metadiscussion on other groups, discussion on this one.

Look at these nazis.

[Terminator]

REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
moderated group news.admin.moderation
This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the creation of the
moderated Usenet newsgroup, news.admin.moderation.

This is certainly a group I would find extremely useful,

Uhu.

especially
given my own proposal as to creating a moderated group.

Yep, once a nazi, nazi forever.

The idea of
having a central place to discuss the technical side of moderation

In a MODERATED group!!!

is
one that I find very appealing

Yes, the idea of COMPLETELY destroying the very
possiblity of discussing the issues of totalitarian dictatorship
by creating a "moderated" group to talk about "moderation",
and not only that,
but taking up the name space for UNMODERATED version,
so that it could NEVER been created in the future,
is what?

and this would be a group I would
participate in on a regular basis.

Sure.

Enough of this blatant nazi perversion.

I fully agree that this group should be moderated as this will allow,
not only a relatively 'noise free' discussion but also, as I mentioned
elsewhere, it could provide a 'living' example of, or even a 'workbench'
for, the sort of techniques (new and old) being discussed.
In addition, I would happily offer my services and time, in whatever
capacity I may be useful to the group, if needed, as I think this is an
excellent idea for a group and one worth creating and supporting.
The suggestion of also having an non-moderated group to discuss the
'rights and wrongs' of moderation itself is a fairly good idea but I
have a feeling that the two sides (for and against) are pretty much
entrenched in their opinions and so I am not sure how much 'real'
discussion would take place in this group. Having said that however, it
would provide a place for such discussions and debates where no such
place really exists at this time other than as side issues in such
groups as n.g. for example, hence my general support for such an
additional group.

[Terminator]

REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
moderated group news.admin.moderation

In addition, it does seem unreasonable for those wishing to discuss the
'bad' side of moderation, to have to post to a moderated group, to do
so.

Uhu.
So whats the idea here?

Therefore, I'm not sure that the 'ethics' part of the Charter should be
something that should be on-topic for a moderated group.

What "charter"?
You can shove it up yerr tootoo.
That "charter" ain't worth a jackshit
as even if it originally meant something,
it could be changed ANY time these nazi "moderators",
who are about the MOST immoderate people you can find.

And you KNOW that, you lil nazi puppet.

--
Nigel Sixsmith
The Art Of Sound Studios

Do you have that as a sticker on your forehead also?

Gilbert, AZ

[Terminator]

REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
moderated group news.admin.moderation
This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the creation of the
moderated Usenet newsgroup, news.admin.moderation.
NEWSGROUPS LINE: news.admin.moderation

First of all, this group ALREADY exists on some servers
for at least 6 years now. Check Google.

Secondly, the contorls to create the UNMODERATED version
of this group, as it was originally conceived,
were ALREADY sent. Check control.newgroup.

Thirdly,
this group has ALREADY been voted for 3 times to date
with over 100 supporters. But it was defeated by
herr fuehrer Russ Allbery and all sorts of lies and
fabrications used to make sure that group is NOT
created.

Then, you nazi puppet "tsar" Tim Skirvin,
had enough arrogance to propose to make this group
as "moderated" during the original discussions
over 6 years ago,
DURING THE RFD PHASE.

You see, you lill nazi power hungry sicko.
In the MIDDLE of active RFD on UNMODERATED version
of this group, this puppet "tsar" of yours,
had enough guts to spit into the faces of hundreds
of peoply by proposing to "moderate" that group,
just as he is doing it right now.

The issue with news.admin.moderation is not new
by ANY means, and these nazis KNOW it all too well.

The reason your nazi puppet "tsar" is proposing
this group right now is because he has seen the
controls on control.newgroup.

Zo...

He is trying to make this fake "RFD" trip
and make it look like it is something "official",
and all the nazis of your kind and grade WILL
support it, no question about it,
and then, herr fuehrer Russ Allbery
WILL issue the control, PGP signed and all that,
to finally implement his long lasting dream
of COMPLETELY taking over usenet
and convert it into the outlet of nazi propaganda.

Herr fuehrer is associated with ISC,
(Internet Software Consortium), www.isc.org,
sponsored by the US military and intelligence
agencies, such as DISA (Defense Information Systems Agency),
working on the issues of electronic warfare,
global disinformation systems and things of that nature.

So, big-8 is "managed" by no one less than US military
and intelligence agencies.

Simple as that.

Enough.

news.admin.moderation Moderated Usenet newsgroups. (Moderated)

Like others, I am not keen on the name. The suggested change seems OK,
but still not quite there. A minor thing.

RATIONALE: news.admin.moderation
Currently, newsgroup moderation is discussed primarily in meta-discussions
throughout the Big-8 hierarchies, especially in news.groups.* and
news.admin.net-abuse.*.

And elsewhere.

However, none of these newsgroups is truly
appropriate for these discussions. A dedicated newsgroup would help
consolidate and nurture these conversations.

Agreed.

news.admin.moderation is a moderated newsgroup for discussion of topics
of interest to both moderators and users of moderated newsgroups. Some
* how to be a good/neutral/effective moderator
* problems using moderation software

* Selecting and using moderation software, including problem
discussions
Or something like that.

* "moderation ethics"
* developing appropriate moderation policies and implementations
* methods for filling vacancies in a moderation team
* evaluation of moderation software

See above.

* personal complaints about individual moderators

There is a pretty fine line here - often meta discussions need to be
illustrated by example. The use of such examples may reflect badly on a
moderator. Should such discussion be disallowed?

* proposals for new moderated newsgroups, or to unmoderate existing
groups
MODERATION POLICY: news.admin.moderation
news.admin.moderation is robot-moderated. The robot will automatically
* Are not crossposted.
* Are not excessively quoted.

Define excessive?

* Contain no (large) binaries, HTML, or other similar content types.

Define Large? Personally, I'd just ban all binaries except pgp-sigs.

* Are not spam, spew, or otherwise clearly inappropriate content (to be
determined programmatically).

How can you programmatically determine clearly inappropriate content?
What limits are there?

A current list of posting criteria will be published regularly.
Users may be blocked from posting for consistently violating the group
charter, especially in regards to the "unsuitable topics".

I would vote against this suggestion. If you have to moderate, moderate
on content alone. Banning people makes it personal, which ultimately
helps no one (and creates work for mods and others about who is banned).
Oh and probably will create shit-storms there and elsewhere.

MODERATOR INFO: news.admin.moderation
I (Tim) am willing, but not excited, to write and run the moderation
'bot for news.admin.moderation. Other volunteers would be welcome.

I'd love to offer but have no experinece with moderation software (and
less spare time to engage in learning).

I also welcome discussion as to whether or not this group should be
moderated at all.

I suspect that this question will engage and provide considerable
amusement to the chattering classes for some weeks to come.
Moderation is probably required. And I suspect, you need human
moderators.
Count me as someone who supports and may dip into and out of. If I am
ever so foolish to offer to moderate any group, I'd find this one useful
and would certainly try to contribute to.
Thomas

[Terminator]

Subject: Re: RFD: news.admin.moderation moderated
Newsgroups: news.groups.proposals
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 20:26:55 CST
On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 13:03:02 -0600, Tim Skirvin

REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
moderated group news.admin.moderation
...

I'd definitely read it, I think it would be rather valuable.

Oh, another nazi cock sucker from ngp?

[Terminator]

Look at all these nazi ass lickers and wannabies from ngp.

Subject: Re: RFD: news.admin.moderation moderated
Newsgroups: news.groups.proposals
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 15:27:53 CST
Organization: http://groups.google.com

REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
moderated group news.admin.moderation
This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the creation of the
moderated Usenet newsgroup, news.admin.moderation.
NEWSGROUPS LINE: news.admin.moderation
news.admin.moderation Moderated Usenet newsgroups. (Moderated)

The description, as it is, to me suggests that it is about moderated
usenet groups, rather than the meta-discussion about moderation as it
refers to Usenet groups. Perhaps change it to
news.admin.moderation meta-discussion of moderation. (Moderated)

news.admin.moderation is a moderated newsgroup for discussion of topics
of interest to both moderators and users of moderated newsgroups. Some
* how to be a good/neutral/effective moderator
* problems using moderation software
* "moderation ethics"
* developing appropriate moderation policies and implementations
* methods for filling vacancies in a moderation team
* evaluation of moderation software

I would also add discussion about the pros and cons of moderation.
However, I realize that this topic might (probably will, it all
depends on those doing the discussion) result in a more-or-less
constant flame-war appearing in every thread.

I also welcome discussion as to whether or not this group should be
moderated at all.

It might be possible (un-moderated), however it all depends on the
level of experience of theose who would use the group. If they are
experienced, and willing to use killfiles/filters, it might be
possible.
While I think that it would be nice to have this be unmoderated, I
don't know if it would be feasable. I think having it unmoderated
*would* result in a constant stream of flames and ad-hom attacks
(fascist, power-trip, etc) in every thread.

news.announce.newgroups
news.groups.proposals
news.admin.announce
news.software.nntp
news.admin.net-abuse.policy

I would also post a pointer into news.groups
Count me as interested and would more than likely use.
Marcel

[Terminator]

Look at these lil nazi puppets from ngp.
What a snakepit!

Subject: Re: RFD: news.admin.moderation moderated
Newsgroups: news.groups.proposals
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 15:28:10 CST
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
X-No-Archive: yes
I strongly support this RFD for the creation of a newsgroup dedicated to
moderation issues. I believe it is very much needed and would be extremely
helpful to persons seeking a new moderated newsgroup as well as the moderators
and users of current mod groups.

Finally.
Yep, that is about the BEST trick one can imagine.
Have a protection of puppet "tsar" Tim Skirvin,
destroy the very possibilty of discussions of this
rotten nazi idea of "moderation",
and have a nice warm place to have a chat
about nazi censoring techniques
without EVER being bothered by those
"enemies of da people", they call dissidents.

What would you, lil suckers, do without those dissidents?

Enough.

I would read and post to this newsgroup, if created.
I believe that this newsgroup, if created, should itself be moderated in
order to keep the main subject/ operational issues at the forefront, and to
avoid all the flames and trolling that would result from people who are simply
opposed to moderation in principle.
In my opinion, it should deal primarily with the actual operation/s of
moderation newsgroups. Discussion of the larger issues of whether
moderation is "good or bad" should be limited/restricted to rationale, civil,
non-repetitive debate.
Thank you, Tim, for being the proponent of this RFD. It's a
__great__ idea.
Ron Schompert, proponent, rec.ponds.moderated

[Terminator]

Look at these nazi puppets from news.groups.proposals
and their puppet tsar, mouth foaming and blood boiling
poisonous snake Tim Skirvin, who ALREADY accumulated
quite a few "moderated" groups up his sleeve
in his everlasting last for power, control, domination,
oppression, blatant censorship, and perversion of the
MOST fundamental principles of nothing less than
Democracy itself.

Subject: Re: RFD: news.admin.moderation moderated
Newsgroups: news.groups.proposals
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 16:46:33 CST

REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
moderated group news.admin.moderation
This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the creation of the
moderated Usenet newsgroup, news.admin.moderation.
NEWSGROUPS LINE: news.admin.moderation
news.admin.moderation Moderated Usenet newsgroups. (Moderated)

The description, as it is, to me suggests that it is about moderated
usenet groups, rather than the meta-discussion about moderation as it
refers to Usenet groups. Perhaps change it to
news.admin.moderation meta-discussion of moderation. (Moderated)

news.admin.moderation Meta-discussion of moderation of Usenet newsgroups.
(Moderated)
The last 'Moderated' doesn't count towards the line limit.

I would also add discussion about the pros and cons of moderation.

Added, as a clarification under "moderation ethics".

I also welcome discussion as to whether or not this group should be
moderated at all.

It might be possible (un-moderated), however it all depends on the
level of experience of theose who would use the group.

I'm kindof dubious, really, that it would work, but I can see
why having an unmoderated place to discuss this kind of thing would be a
good thing too. One suggestion: perhaps we could create two newsgroups,
one moderated, one un-moderated. The best name I've thought of for the
unmoderated one is 'news.admin.moderation.advocacy'.
If we do have two groups, it might be more important to
hand-moderate the first one, or at least involve more human work. I'm
really interested in finding some kind of balance on the issue.

Count me as interested and would more than likely use.

I'm glad to hear it.

[Terminator]

Look at these lil nazi puppets of herr fuehrer Russ Allbery
from ngp.

These suckers are LITERALLY sick.

Subject: Re: RFD: news.admin.moderation moderated
Newsgroups: news.groups.proposals
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 16:47:00 CST
I support the creation of this group and would use it.....

Sure. What else is new under the sun?

I feel, having
been involved in two RFDs for moderated groups (one whilst there was a
moratorium on all groups and the other being rec.ponds.moderated) that a
group such as this would have been invaluable

Yep, a perfect nazi hideout masturbation club indeed.

Enough.

- not because the
information was not provided by the Big8, which it has been, but because
I believe that the sharing of this information would be of benefit to
all thinking of taking this route.....also, the experiences of both
successful and failed group proposals would be of great help to anyone
attempting such a proposal in the future...Open discussions on the pros
and cons not just of moderation policies but also software available
would save much time for all concerned - and educated decisions could be
then made.
I think that by the very nature and by how emotive the whole
moderated/unmoderated Usenet group thing is that the group should be
moderated....however, I would want those opposing moderation to also get
a fair say when expressing their opinions - providing that the content
is non-abusive and conforms with the charter of the group.
Gill

[Terminator]

Look at these nazi puppets of herr fuehrer Russ Allbery.
They are simply blinded with that "power" of "moderation",
which is nothing more than an attempt to pervert the
very nature of nazi censorship and present it in the
opposite light, to call blatant nazi censorship
"moderation".

These nazis are simply sick in their open blatantness.
They have created this nazi outlet news.groups.proposals,
with the bloodied hands of herr fuehrer Russ Allbery,
and now, his puppet "tsar" Tim Skirvin is making a last
ditch attempt to forever squash the very idea of
discussing the nazi censorship techniques.

Here ya go.

Subject: Re: RFD: news.admin.moderation moderated
Newsgroups: news.groups.proposals
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 16:47:24 CST

I believe that this newsgroup, if created, should itself be moderated in
order to keep the main subject/ operational issues at the forefront, and
to avoid all the flames and trolling that would result from people who
are simply opposed to moderation in principle.

If we're going to do that, we'll need to moderate with something
stronger than just robo-moderation; we'd probably need a full moderation
team, and appropriate software. I'm not necessarily opposed to the idea,
but it will certainly make things more complicated.

In my opinion, it should deal primarily with the actual operation/s of
moderation newsgroups. Discussion of the larger issues of whether
moderation is "good or bad" should be limited/restricted to rationale, civil,
non-repetitive debate.

So noted. What do you think of the '.advocacy' idea I suggested?

[Terminator]

Hey, another nazi puppet wannabe.

Maaan, that ngp hole is filled with the nazi snakes
to the brim.

Now they invented a new version of nazi paradise.

Subject: Re: RFD: news.admin.moderation moderated
Newsgroups: news.groups.proposals
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 16:47:49 CST
Organization: NewsGuy - Unlimited Usenet $19.95
On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 13:03:02 -0600, Tim Skirvin

This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the creation of the
moderated Usenet newsgroup, news.admin.moderation.

As a moderator, I would find this group useful.

Sure, you lil nazi.
That is why you are posting in that nazi masturbation
club called ngp on the first place.

ANY active neurons on line?

[snip]

I also welcome discussion as to whether or not this group should be
moderated at all.

I think that moderation will be required to ensure that the group
remains reasonably functional. While I'm perfectly capable of using a
kill-file, morphing trolls are likely to be a problem if some of the
more vociferous anti-moderation kooks decide to make life miserable
for moderators. The moderation policy is designed only to keep the
posts on topic, so this strikes me as a case of eating our own dog
food.

[Terminator]

Oh, another one of those nazi puppets of Russ Allbery,
who also comes to news.groups to present his neo-nazi
propaganda.

These suckers are criminals.

LITERALLY.

Subject: Re: RFD: news.admin.moderation moderated
Newsgroups: news.groups.proposals
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 19:09:55 CST
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com

news.admin.moderation Meta-discussion of moderation of Usenet newsgroups.

(Moderated)
"Meta-discussion" is kind of jargony and isn't really applicable here,
where the discussion about moderation of other groups is appropriate,
but discussion about the moderation of news.admin.moderation is not
really what the group is intended to cover.
Slash the "meta" and you're closer, but including "discussion" in any
newsgroups entry is somewhat redundant. That leaves "Moderation of
Usenet newsgroups", which is succinct, but probably too terse. How about
news.admin.moderation Technical and social group moderation issues

Zig hail!

I support the proposal and will participate if the group is created.
Since the primary audience is moderators, who should be expected to be
fairly Usenet savvy and capable of effective filtering, I don't think
moderating the group is mandatory.

[Terminator]

And here is another nazi puppet of herr fuehrer Russ Allbery
from than nazi perversion called news.groups.proposals.

These suckers are simply blinded with the idea
of "unlimited power" provided with the trick of "moderation".

Subject: Re: RFD: news.admin.moderation moderated
Newsgroups: news.groups.proposals
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 19:10:50 CST
Organization: http://groups.google.com

REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
moderated group news.admin.moderation
This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the creation of the
moderated Usenet newsgroup, news.admin.moderation.
NEWSGROUPS LINE: news.admin.moderation
news.admin.moderation Moderated Usenet newsgroups. (Moderated)

Given the charter I like "Discussion of moderation issues."

Sure, muddle it up and pervert it to the point
that no one will be able to realize what is going on
in REALITY.

Nice stroke, suckazoid!

RATIONALE: news.admin.moderation
Currently, newsgroup moderation is discussed primarily in meta-discussions
throughout the Big-8 hierarchies, especially in news.groups.* and
news.admin.net-abuse.*. However, none of these newsgroups is truly
appropriate for these discussions. A dedicated newsgroup would help
consolidate and nurture these conversations.

The rationale should mention the regularly posted FAQ files that deal
with moderation issues.

And those so called "faqs" are created by whom?
YOU, blood boiling nazis, by ANY chance?

news.admin.moderation is a moderated newsgroup for discussion of topics
of interest to both moderators and users of moderated newsgroups. Some
* how to be a good/neutral/effective moderator
* problems using moderation software
* "moderation ethics"
* developing appropriate moderation policies and implementations
* methods for filling vacancies in a moderation team

So also mention the usenet volunteer moderators mailing list in
the rationale as well as the ISC mailing list of moderators.

* evaluation of moderation software

And development discussion? And recruiting for sourceforge
efforts?

And what about the masturbation sessions?

* personal complaints about individual moderators
* proposals for new moderated newsgroups, or to unmoderate existing
groups
MODERATION POLICY: news.admin.moderation
news.admin.moderation is robot-moderated. The robot will automatically
* Are not crossposted.
* Are not excessively quoted.
* Contain no (large) binaries, HTML, or other similar content types.
* Are not spam, spew, or otherwise clearly inappropriate content (to be
determined programmatically).
A current list of posting criteria will be published regularly.

This sounds like NANU.policy. That software and configs could be
cloned.

Users may be blocked from posting for consistently violating the group
charter, especially in regards to the "unsuitable topics".

Unless you want to draw new posters. That requirement for bracketed
handles in the subject line takes a small amount of practice so
complete
rank beginners get confused. The regularly posted criteria needs to
include example subject lines.

MODERATOR INFO: news.admin.moderation
I (Tim) am willing, but not excited, to write and run the moderation
'bot for news.admin.moderation. Other volunteers would be welcome.
I also welcome discussion as to whether or not this group should be
moderated at all.

On the one hand - There's no way the mission posters on news.groups
will fail to attack this group if it's made unmoderated.
On the other hand - You're overloaded already. At very least you need
other folks involved.
There are folks who have a strong reaction against any moderated
groups. Here is some solice for them - Each and every moderated
group takes moderators. There is a limited pool of people willing
to become moderators and to stay moderators. The number of
moderated groups on Usenet is inherently limited by this. Should
the level of trolling on UseNet decrease, the pool of willing
moderators
would gradually decrease. Even with active trolling on UseNet the
pool
of willing moderators remains limited.

You mean there isn't enough nazis of your kind
to completely take over usenet?

What a pitty!

[Terminator]

Subject: Re: RFD: news.admin.moderation moderated
Newsgroups: news.groups.proposals
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 19:11:08 CST
Organization: http://groups.google.com

news.admin.moderation Meta-discussion of moderation of Usenet newsgroups.

(Moderated)
It's metadiscussion on other groups, discussion on this one.

Sure.
Because it will become DA "official" channel
for nazi propaganda on big-8.

Smart, I tellya.

[Terminator]

Oh, this nazi cock sucker is pouring his heart out again?

and again?

and again?

and again?

What kinda CPU these lil suckers have between their ears?
About the stone age version?

Subject: Re: RFD: news.admin.moderation moderated
Newsgroups: news.groups.proposals
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 19:11:36 CST
Organization: The Art Of Sound Studios
X-No-Archive: yes

REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
moderated group news.admin.moderation
This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the creation of the
moderated Usenet newsgroup, news.admin.moderation.

This is certainly a group I would find extremely useful , especially
given my own proposal as to creating a moderated group. The idea of
having a central place to discuss the technical side of moderation is
one that I find very appealing and this would be a group I would
participate in on a regular basis.
I fully agree that this group should be moderated as this will allow,
not only a relatively 'noise free' discussion but also, as I mentioned
elsewhere, it could provide a 'living' example of, or even a 'workbench'
for, the sort of techniques (new and old) being discussed.
In addition, I would happily offer my services and time, in whatever
capacity I may be useful to the group, if needed, as I think this is an
excellent idea for a group and one worth creating and supporting.
The suggestion of also having an non-moderated group to discuss the
'rights and wrongs' of moderation itself is a fairly good idea but I
have a feeling that the two sides (for and against) are pretty much
entrenched in their opinions and so I am not sure how much 'real'
discussion would take place in this group. Having said that however, it
would provide a place for such discussions and debates where no such
place really exists at this time other than as side issues in such
groups as n.g. for example, hence my general support for such an
additional group.

[Terminator]

Subject: Re: RFD: news.admin.moderation moderated
Newsgroups: news.groups.proposals
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 19:12:06 CST
Organization: The Art Of Sound Studios
X-No-Archive: yes

REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
moderated group news.admin.moderation

In addition, it does seem unreasonable for those wishing to discuss the
'bad' side of moderation, to have to post to a moderated group, to do
so.

Yep. Cause their posts would go directly to the nazi junk bin.

Great idea, I tellya.

Therefore, I'm not sure that the 'ethics' part of the Charter should be
something that should be on-topic for a moderated group.

Nazis NEVER even consider the issues of ethics,
you lil nazi puppet.

--
Nigel Sixsmith
The Art Of Sound Studios

Do you also have this sticker on your forehead?

Gilbert, AZ

[Terminator]

On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 22:43:14 CST, "Doug McLaren"

... (Nobody is likely to be happy arguing that 'moderation is bad!' on a
moderated group.)

I buy the argument that the premise of the new group is that
moderation is OK, that moderators should have a place where
they can help each other with the work of moderation
(technical and social), and that such a group cannot
survive unless it is moderated.

Farty, what are you farting about here on news.groups?

Enough.

I do not think that opening a companion unmoderated group
is necessary or desirable.

Sure, your nazi suckiness.

Why would anyone want to talk about nazis of your kind?

Makes a lot of nonsense indeed.

n.a.m has its own rationale and purpose.

Yep, and the "purpose" is...

Tadaaaaaam.

To KILL ANY and ALL possibilities of discussing
the nazi censorship tricks.

Btw, who is da "moderator" of that nazi masturbation
club called ngp (news.groups.proposals)?

Tadaaaaaaam.

If the anti-moderation folks want to propose an anti-moderation
group,

If you sniff my whiff,
you're gonna get it stiff.

let them write the RFD and back the group.

Well, suckazoid with a "dimly lit kerosine lamp between your ears",
lying his shart teeth off every time he opens his sucky
input hole, tellya this, just one more time:

The news.admin.moderation WAS "voted" for 3 times
on record, with over 100 "yes votes".

Been sabotaged out of existence by your fuehrerr
Russ Allbery, about the most destructive nazi
in the entire history of Usenet.

And...

Tadaaaaam.
It was also posted to YOUR sucky ngp,
and YOU, lil nazi cock sucker,
junked it upon arrival.

And it was MONTHS before your nazi "tsar",
Tim Skirving, getting freaked out after seeing
the newgroup controls on creating it,
all of a sudden got this most perverted idea:

Why not create an illusion of a "discussion"?
Then give the "overwhelming" support
among all 10 nazis from ngp snake pit
and let him issue the "official" newgroup control?

GREAT idea, suckers.

Buts...

Ok, keep sucking, and then?

Another way of putting it is that I don't think we should
create groups that the proponent intends to abandon
immediately.

Go back to your nazi masturbation club
with this kind of monkay logic.

Marty

Farty, what are you doing here on news.groups?
There isn't a SINGLE idiot that can POSSIBLY
eat all your totalitarian garbage
except of that "referent" of yours?

You know?

That lil suckazoid,
a fascist louse.

Rings the bell now?

[Terminator]

Subject: Re: RFD: news.admin.moderation moderated
Newsgroups: news.groups.proposals
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 07:03:46 CST
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com

I believe that this newsgroup, if created, should itself be moderated in
order to keep the main subject/ operational issues at the forefront, and
to avoid all the flames and trolling that would result from people who
are simply opposed to moderation in principle.

If we're going to do that, we'll need to moderate with something
stronger than just robo-moderation; we'd probably need a full moderation
team, and appropriate software. I'm not necessarily opposed to the idea,
but it will certainly make things more complicated.

If it is created, I believe it should be hand moderated with a full
moderation team; I don't believe it should be created at all if we can't
find a team to hand moderate.

Oh, this nazi sadist bitch is here again?
What else is new under Sun?

In my opinion, it should deal primarily with the actual operation/s
of moderation newsgroups. Discussion of the larger issues of whether
moderation is "good or bad" should be limited/restricted to rationale,
civil, non-repetitive debate.

So noted. What do you think of the '.advocacy' idea I suggested?

I'm opposed. If it is not moderated, it's likely to become a
crossposted flame war.

Zig hail, mr. stalinist "committee" cock sucker!

It's already discussed in news.groups and is not
overwhelming the other traffic there;

You, dirty smut, did not allow the REAL proposal,
posted to your nazi ngp hole MONTHS before this
scam of yours.

I think we should just leave it alone.

Well...

Here it is, just one more time:

The original "RFD" is, voted for 3 times to date
and having over 100 "yes votes", and sabotaged
out of existence by herr fuehrer Russ Allbery,

Subject: Re: RFD: news.admin.moderation

news.groups,news.admin.net-abuse.usenet,news.admin.censorship,alt.config

Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2000 08:51:53 GMT
Organization: MindSpring Enterprises

Here ya go, you lil nazi puppets:

========================== Quote begin =================================

Here is an article for news.admin.moderation proposal,
a 2nd attempt to create a group. The author was Giovanni Greco.


From: ***@invalid.addr (nukleus)
Subject: Re: RFD: news.admin.moderation
Newsgroups:
news.groups,news.announce.newgroups,news.admin.net-abuse.usenet,news.admin.
censorship,alt.config
Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2006 04:27:49 GMT
Organization: none
Message-ID: <ehum85$***@te.net.ua>


REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
unmoderated group news.admin.moderation

This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the creation of a
world-wide unmoderated Usenet newsgroup news.admin.moderation.

This is not a Call for Votes (CFV); you cannot vote at this time.
Procedural details are below.

Newsgroup line:
news.admin.moderation A forum for moderation (unmoderated).

RATIONALE: news.admin.moderation

Since the introduction of group moderation (1980) members of the
Usenet community have always had different opinions about moderation:
some users think newsgroup moderation means censorship;
others do it as work with no pay.

What is needed is a specific forum where this
topic can be talked about.

At the moment there is no appropriate newsgroup for discussion
of this topic, so posts on the subject are debated mainly in
other places like news.groups, news.admin.net-abuse.usenet,
news.admin.censorship and the debate tends to go nowhere.

The purpose of news.admin.moderation is to provide a focal point
of discussion on this issue. In the Big Eight hierarchies there are
almost 300 moderated groups: this should offer sufficient traffic
for such a forum.

As we all know, the future will bring increased flows of messages
and more and more moderated newsgroups.

Two mailing lists for moderators already exist. The newsgroup will be
something more and will involve normal users bringing their personal
know-how to this specific group.

CHARTER: news.admin.moderation

The news.admin.moderation newsgroup is intended to be unmoderated
to allow users who don't think their message is off-topic to come
into the proposed group and show their message there: "People of
news.admin.moderation, why can't this message of mine be approved
in this newsgroup?" And, of course, the newsgroup can also be used
by moderators to justify their work.

Here new moderators can ask for advice from experienced ones about
the best way to moderate a newsgroup or how to behave with certain
kinds of posters. Users who would like to open a moderated newsgroup
can ask in the group about all the problems that moderation can
include or find out about the help that robo-moderation can give to
save a lot of work (thanks, for instance, to the pre-approved list).

Information on moderation's software tools will be welcome here.

If a moderator disappears, or any other problems occur, posters from
that group can come into the newsgroup and discuss how to deal
with this matter, deciding what to do and who can replace the old
moderator. Everything about moderation can be discussed in this
newsgroup. The goal of this newsgroup is to preserve the freedom
of one and all, users and moderators alike.

END CHARTER.

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 21 days (starting from when the first 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
it.news.moderazione

Proponent: Giovanni Greco <***@tiscalinet.it>
And now the proponent is ***@invalid.addr.
You can send your feedback to /dev/null at that address.


Following comments are a part of proposal:

This group was sabotaged out of existence twice by the same
megalomaniacs and perverts, sucking life out of usenet,
calling themselves the public servants at the same time
and their assorted output hole lickers, aka news groupies.

This group SHOULD have been created by default as soon,
as the first "moderated" group was created.
This so called moderation trick is used by the most intolerant
censors, megalomaniacs and assorted parasites as a double edged
sword. On one hand, it allows the most intolerant of all to take
over the group and TOTALLY control the content, reducing the
discussion to the level of the lowest common denominator.
One the other hand, it is a trick of self promotion, allowing
those very parasites to establish a certain status symbol.

First of all, moderation is nothing but PURE form of censorship.
Furthermore, these very perverts and megalomaniacs effectively
establish an ownership of the group and convert the PUBLIC
groups into their personal "property", where they can do
ANYTHING they please. Nevermind, they are using the public
resources and public forums.

Some of the most significant groups are already
converted into these outlets of propaganda, peddled by
the intellectual pigmeys to assert their dictates.

Again, comp.ai, sci.psychology.consciousness and plenty
of other groups of profound significance are already
coverted into either bulletin boards of advertisement
or the outlets for peddling the propaganda of the lowest
grade.

Comp.ai is one of the oldest groups. It was created
even before the usenet was created on the first place.
It isued to be an interesting group discussing general
issues of AI. It had a fair amount of traffic and
everything just fine.
This group turns out to be the very root of entire AI
hierarchy. Any article that is crossposted from some
other AI group, would automatically be subject to
censorship by this so called "moderator".

Then, this self-admitted fascist, David Kinny, began the
campaign of trying to take it over using the trick of
"moderation. He started inviting people to talk behind
the scene via private email messages.

The reason this group was sabotaged out of existence not
only once, but twice, is simple enough to comprehend.
This is one of the most "dangerous" groups for all these
megalomaniacs, ruling usenet, and their output hole lickers.
They will not allow any feedback, opinions and complaints
to be voiced because there simply exist no such a place.

Last time, the "vote" was rigged by the vote taker jjd,
who was usually assigned to "unwanted" (by the power elite)
proposals in order to defat them no matter what are
the results, rigging the vote counts or whatever he pleases.
Just make sure this group will not be created. As simple as
it gets.

I am personally aware of numerous "votes" that did not appear
in the final results. They just evaporated out of existence.
They were not even classified as "illegal".
Simply vanished.


Robomoderation:

"Moderation software tools" is simply obscene.
There exist no technology at this junction to allow "moderation"
by the machines. Even Artificial Suckology, they used to call
Artificial Intelligence, is not capable of producing ANYTHING
of a kind beyond the stupid string matching, translating into
outright censorship, no matter what the criteria is.

It is simply an idea of obscene grade.
How can you "robomoderate" the content?
By creating the lists of "evil" words?
So, if someone posts an article with subject
"Robots also want to have sex",
what are the chances that "robomoterator" gadget
will be able to figure out that this is not an advertizement?

Black lists and white lists:

PURE form of totalitarian censorship. No matter what kind of garbage
the "whitelisted" individuals post, their articles will be
automatically approved by the stupid robo script, because they are
pure blooded Aryans, and, no matter what the "blacklisted" individuals
say, their posts are automatically junked upon arrival. Because they
are considered to be the filth of inferior race.
PURE 4th Reich in virtual domain.

========================== Quote end =================================

[Terminator]

Oh, another lil nazi cock sucker...

Subject: Re: RFD: news.admin.moderation moderated
Newsgroups: news.groups.proposals
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 08:13:57 CST
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Count Phyllis and me in as strongly supportive and as people who will
use the group.

Sure.
ALL nazis do the same number.
What else is new?

We have not yet read the proposal through,

You don't need to, you lil puppet.
You mind is ALREADY set,
if you have ANYTHING left in that empty cockpit
between your elephant sized ears.

Next!

so we will have to comment
further after we do.
Jim

[Terminator]

Another lil nazi from ngp...
Looks like that ngp hole attracts only "moderators"
or "moderator" wannabies.

Subject: Re: RFD: news.admin.moderation moderated
Newsgroups: news.groups.proposals
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 16:17:36 CST
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Moderation seems to be the wave of the
future.
I support this group.
kthirtya
future moderator
of rec.ponds moderated

[Terminator]

This nazi cocksucker from ngp is finally unmasking his sucky input hole.

Subject: Re: RFD: news.admin.moderation moderated
Newsgroups: news.groups.proposals
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 16:41:00 CST
Organization: The Art Of Sound Studios
X-No-Archive: yes
On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 15:07:02 CST, "Marcel Beaudoin"

On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 09:46:47 CST, "Marcel Beaudoin"

... If the group is being created solely to draw off flames from another
group, should it be created at the same time? ...

Wow. I was mighty tired when I invented the grammar up there...

I think not.
Creating a group that the proponent intends to abandon
to unwanted others seems to me like a very bad strategy.

If the unmoderated group is being creted solely for the purpose of
allowing a place for "moderation useful"/"moderation evil"
discussions, then it probably isn't, IMO, a valid reason in the first
place.

<snip>
To me, the solution is not to allow discussion on the 'ethics' of
moderation at all, in the new group.

You forgot to say Seig Heil!!!

I say this for two reasons;

1. You suck.

1) It will serve no purpose because the two sides are firmly entrenched
in their views to change much and so the same old arguments will go on
as they have done before and so will serve no real purpose.
but more pointedly, imho...
2) Those that are opposed to moderation are hardly likely to post to a
moderated group so any 'discussion' about the 'ethics' of moderation
will be pretty one sided!

2. Zig hail!

Suggestion: Simply remove the part about 'ethics' being on-topic from
the charter and keep the new group moderated.

Zig hail!

After all, the group is
all about moderation itself and not about 'not moderating' so it would
seem that to allow discussions regarding "to moderate or not moderate'
in such general terms, would simply attract unwanted distractions from
the real purpose of the group.

Maaaaan, this suckazoid is quite a specimen.

Enough.

If that is done, and the new group is created, then.. maybe... the
creation of another non-moderated group in which the subject of the
'ethics' of moderation could be discussed... could be proposed, though
as I said above, I'm not sure any 'real' discussion would take place due
to the entrenched viewpoints of those for and against moderation itself
and would probably just be a short lived flamefest type group.
Nigel

[Terminator]

Another nazi specimen from ngp...

Subject: Re: RFD: news.admin.moderation moderated
Newsgroups: news.groups.proposals
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 18:39:16 CST
Organization: http://groups.google.com

... I can see
why having an unmoderated place to discuss this kind of thing would be a
good thing too. One suggestion: perhaps we could create two newsgroups,
one moderated, one un-moderated. The best name I've thought of for the
unmoderated one is 'news.admin.moderation.advocacy'.

Reading through the rest of the thread I have come to think an
unmoderated companion would be a good idea. I prefer
alt.admin.moderation or free.admin.moderation

Just like Joseph Stalin would do.
Nice stroke.

for it's name.
Would it be worth news.admin.moderation.mod and .unmod?
Shrug.
The idea that folks new to moderation would make the group very
useful. Posters who want to learn what moderation is could post
or read a FAQ. New or potential moderators could discuss ideas.
Current moderators could discuss software packages. Experienced
moderators could give long term perspectives.

Anothewords, the nazi paradise.

Zig hail!

[Isabelle Y. Bender]

I support the creation of this group and would use it.....

Because you are nazi yourself.

What groups do you post to?

Forget about usenet.

If you knew how lil does it take to slaugher
lice of your kind...

Enough.

I feel, having
been involved in two RFDs for moderated groups (one whilst there was a
moratorium on all groups and the other being rec.ponds.moderated) that a
group such as this would have been invaluable - not because the
information was not provided by the Big8, which it has been, but because
I believe that the sharing of this information would be of benefit to
all thinking of taking this route.....also, the experiences of both
successful and failed group proposals would be of great help to anyone
attempting such a proposal in the future...Open discussions on the pros
and cons not just of moderation policies but also software available
would save much time for all concerned - and educated decisions could be
then made.
I think that by the very nature and by how emotive the whole
moderated/unmoderated Usenet group thing is that the group should be
moderated....however, I would want those opposing moderation to also get
a fair say when expressing their opinions - providing that the content
is non-abusive and conforms with the charter of the group.
Gill

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"World progress is only possible through a search for
universal human consensus as we move forward to a
new world order."

--- Mikhail Gorbachev,
Address to the U.N., December 7, 1988

[a***@mindspring.com]

I believe that this newsgroup, if created, should itself be moderated in
order to keep the main subject/ operational issues at the forefront, and
to avoid all the flames and trolling that would result from people who
are simply opposed to moderation in principle.

If we're going to do that,

Who is weeee?

How is with you on this scam?

we'll need to moderate with something
stronger than just robo-moderation;

Are you sure?

But what if there is something even stronger
than your strongest thing?

Shaking good, you lil louse?

Enough.

we'd probably need a full moderation
team, and appropriate software. I'm not necessarily opposed to the idea,
but it will certainly make things more complicated.

In my opinion, it should deal primarily with the actual operation/s of
moderation newsgroups. Discussion of the larger issues of whether
moderation is "good or bad" should be limited/restricted to rationale, civil,
non-repetitive debate.

So noted. What do you think of the '.advocacy' idea I suggested?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
'Now, we are getting very close to the truth of the matter here.
Mason Trent Lott [33rd Degree] sees fellow Mason, President
Bill Clinton, in trouble over a silly little thing like Perjury
and Obstruction of Justice.

Since Lott took this pledge to assist a fellow Mason,
"whether he be right or wrong", he is obligated to assistant
Bill Clinton. "whether he be right or wrong".

Furthermore, Bill Clinton is a powerful Illuminist witch, and has
long ago been selected to lead America into the coming
New World Order.

As we noted in the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion,
the Plan calls for many scandals to break forth in the previous
types of government, so much so that people are wearied to death
of it all.'

[Terminator]

Where's the part that says "Thanks to PJR for writing a draft RFD from
which whole sentences have been copied verbatim"?

And you say the Board never listens.

You listen only when you can find something to steal.

To be fair, Tim Skirvin was interested in creating the group back when
Giovanni Greco and IRS Agent were proposing it. Even Bloxy's posted
an RFD last October.
Did Peter J Ross give credit to Greco, Skirvin, Agent, and Bloxy's?

...and Tim has given credit where credit is due, to PJR.

Here, you lil nazi cock sucker:

======================= Quote begin =========================

From: ***@invalid.addr
Subject: Re: RFD: news.admin.moderation
Newsgroups:
news.groups,news.admin.net-abuse.usenet,news.admin.censorship,alt.config
Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2000 08:51:53 GMT
Organization: MindSpring Enterprises
Message-ID: <8k45km$49o$***@slb7.atl.mindspring.net>

Here is an article for news.admin.moderation proposal,
a 2nd attempt to create a group. The author was Giovanni Greco.


REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
unmoderated group news.admin.moderation

This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the creation of a
world-wide unmoderated Usenet newsgroup news.admin.moderation.

This is not a Call for Votes (CFV); you cannot vote at this time.
Procedural details are below.

Newsgroup line:
news.admin.moderation A forum for moderation (unmoderated).

RATIONALE: news.admin.moderation

Since the introduction of group moderation (1980) members of the
Usenet community have always had different opinions about moderation:
some users think newsgroup moderation means censorship;
others do it as work with no pay.

What is needed is a specific forum where this
topic can be talked about.

At the moment there is no appropriate newsgroup for discussion
of this topic, so posts on the subject are debated mainly in
other places like news.groups, news.admin.net-abuse.usenet,
news.admin.censorship and the debate tends to go nowhere.

The purpose of news.admin.moderation is to provide a focal point
of discussion on this issue. In the Big Eight hierarchies there are
almost 300 moderated groups: this should offer sufficient traffic
for such a forum.

As we all know, the future will bring increased flows of messages
and more and more moderated newsgroups.

Two mailing lists for moderators already exist. The newsgroup will be
something more and will involve normal users bringing their personal
know-how to this specific group.

CHARTER: news.admin.moderation

The news.admin.moderation newsgroup is intended to be unmoderated
to allow users who don't think their message is off-topic to come
into the proposed group and show their message there: "People of
news.admin.moderation, why can't this message of mine be approved
in this newsgroup?" And, of course, the newsgroup can also be used
by moderators to justify their work.

Here new moderators can ask for advice from experienced ones about
the best way to moderate a newsgroup or how to behave with certain
kinds of posters. Users who would like to open a moderated newsgroup
can ask in the group about all the problems that moderation can
include or find out about the help that robo-moderation can give to
save a lot of work (thanks, for instance, to the pre-approved list).

Information on moderation's software tools will be welcome here.

If a moderator disappears, or any other problems occur, posters from
that group can come into the newsgroup and discuss how to deal
with this matter, deciding what to do and who can replace the old
moderator. Everything about moderation can be discussed in this
newsgroup. The goal of this newsgroup is to preserve the freedom
of one and all, users and moderators alike.

END CHARTER.

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 21 days (starting from when the first 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
it.news.moderazione

Proponent: Giovanni Greco <***@tiscalinet.it>
And now the proponent is ***@invalid.addr.
You can send your feedback to /dev/null at that address.


Following comments are a part of proposal:

This group was sabotaged out of existence twice by the same
megalomaniacs and perverts, sucking life out of usenet,
calling themselves the public servants at the same time
and their assorted output hole lickers, aka news groupies.

This group SHOULD have been created by default as soon,
as the first "moderated" group was created.
This so called moderation trick is used by the most intolerant
censors, megalomaniacs and assorted parasites as a double edged
sword. On one hand, it allows the most intolerant of all to take
over the group and TOTALLY control the content, reducing the
discussion to the level of the lowest common denominator.
One the other hand, it is a trick of self promotion, allowing
those very parasites to establish a certain status symbol.

First of all, moderation is nothing but PURE form of censorship.
Furthermore, these very perverts and megalomaniacs effectively
establish an ownership of the group and convert the PUBLIC
groups into their personal "property", where they can do
ANYTHING they please. Nevermind, they are using the public
resources and public forums.

Some of the most significant groups are already
converted into these outlets of propaganda, peddled by
the intellectual pigmeys to assert their dictates.

Again, comp.ai, sci.psychology.consciousness and plenty
of other groups of profound significance are already
coverted into either bulletin boards of advertisement
or the outlets for peddling the propaganda of the lowest
grade.

Comp.ai is one of the oldest groups. It was created
even before the usenet was created on the first place.
It isued to be an interesting group discussing general
issues of AI. It had a fair amount of traffic and
everything just fine.
This group turns out to be the very root of entire AI
hierarchy. Any article that is crossposted from some
other AI group, would automatically be subject to
censorship by this so called "moderator".

Then, this self-admitted fascist, David Kinny, began the
campaign of trying to take it over using the trick of
"moderation. He started inviting people to talk behind
the scene via private email messages.

The reason this group was sabotaged out of existence not
only once, but twice, is simple enough to comprehend.
This is one of the most "dangerous" groups for all these
megalomaniacs, ruling usenet, and their output hole lickers.
They will not allow any feedback, opinions and complaints
to be voiced because there simply exist no such a place.

Last time, the "vote" was rigged by the vote taker jjd,
who was usually assigned to "unwanted" (by the power elite)
proposals in order to defat them no matter what are
the results, rigging the vote counts or whatever he pleases.
Just make sure this group will not be created. As simple as
it gets.

I am personally aware of numerous "votes" that did not appear
in the final results. They just evaporated out of existence.
They were not even classified as "illegal".
Simply vanished.


Robomoderation:

"Moderation software tools" is simply obscene.
There exist no technology at this junction to allow "moderation"
by the machines. Even Artificial Suckology, they used to call
Artificial Intelligence, is not capable of producing ANYTHING
of a kind beyond the stupid string matching, translating into
outright censorship, no matter what the criteria is.

It is simply an idea of obscene grade.
How can you "robomoderate" the content?
By creating the lists of "evil" words?
So, if someone posts an article with subject
"Robots also want to have sex",
what are the chances that "robomoterator" gadget
will be able to figure out that this is not an advertizement?

Black lists and white lists:

PURE form of totalitarian censorship. No matter what kind of garbage
the "whitelisted" individuals post, their articles will be
automatically approved by the stupid robo script, because they are
pure blooded Aryans, and, no matter what the "blacklisted" individuals
say, their posts are automatically junked upon arrival. Because they
are considered to be the filth of inferior race.
PURE 4th Reich in virtual domain!

======================= Quote end =========================

[Apurvo I. Hannover]

REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
moderated group news.admin.moderation
This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the creation of the
moderated Usenet newsgroup, news.admin.moderation.
NEWSGROUPS LINE: news.admin.moderation
news.admin.moderation Moderated Usenet newsgroups. (Moderated)

Given the charter I like "Discussion of moderation issues."

Look at these nazis...

RATIONALE: news.admin.moderation
Currently, newsgroup moderation is discussed primarily in meta-discussions
throughout the Big-8 hierarchies, especially in news.groups.* and
news.admin.net-abuse.*. However, none of these newsgroups is truly
appropriate for these discussions. A dedicated newsgroup would help
consolidate and nurture these conversations.

The rationale should mention the regularly posted FAQ files that deal
with moderation issues.

news.admin.moderation is a moderated newsgroup for discussion of topics
of interest to both moderators and users of moderated newsgroups. Some
* how to be a good/neutral/effective moderator
* problems using moderation software
* "moderation ethics"
* developing appropriate moderation policies and implementations
* methods for filling vacancies in a moderation team

So also mention the usenet volunteer moderators mailing list in
the rationale as well as the ISC mailing list of moderators.

* evaluation of moderation software

And development discussion? And recruiting for sourceforge
efforts?

* personal complaints about individual moderators
* proposals for new moderated newsgroups, or to unmoderate existing
groups
MODERATION POLICY: news.admin.moderation
news.admin.moderation is robot-moderated. The robot will automatically
* Are not crossposted.
* Are not excessively quoted.
* Contain no (large) binaries, HTML, or other similar content types.
* Are not spam, spew, or otherwise clearly inappropriate content (to be
determined programmatically).
A current list of posting criteria will be published regularly.

This sounds like NANU.policy. That software and configs could be
cloned.

Users may be blocked from posting for consistently violating the group
charter, especially in regards to the "unsuitable topics".

Unless you want to draw new posters. That requirement for bracketed
handles in the subject line takes a small amount of practice so
complete
rank beginners get confused. The regularly posted criteria needs to
include example subject lines.

MODERATOR INFO: news.admin.moderation
I (Tim) am willing, but not excited, to write and run the moderation
'bot for news.admin.moderation. Other volunteers would be welcome.
I also welcome discussion as to whether or not this group should be
moderated at all.

On the one hand - There's no way the mission posters on news.groups
will fail to attack this group if it's made unmoderated.
On the other hand - You're overloaded already. At very least you need
other folks involved.
There are folks who have a strong reaction against any moderated
groups. Here is some solice for them - Each and every moderated
group takes moderators. There is a limited pool of people willing
to become moderators and to stay moderators. The number of
moderated groups on Usenet is inherently limited by this. Should
the level of trolling on UseNet decrease, the pool of willing
moderators
would gradually decrease. Even with active trolling on UseNet the
pool
of willing moderators remains limited.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[NWO, Skull and Bones, propaganda, brainwash, mind control,
fanatic, puppet, President, war, terror, dictator, totalitarian,
fascis, extremis]

"The Bush family fortune came from the Third Reich."

--- John Loftus, former US Justice Dept.
Nazi War Crimes investigator and
President of the Florida Holocaust Museum.
Sarasota Herald-Tribune 11/11/2000:

"George W's grandfather Prescott Bush was among the chief
American fundraisers for the Nazi Party in the 1930s and '40s.
In return he was handsomely rewarded with plenty of financial
opportunities from the Nazis helping to create the fortune
and legacy that his son George inherited."

[Fedya]

news.admin.moderation Meta-discussion of moderation of Usenet newsgroups.

(Moderated)
It's metadiscussion on other groups, discussion on this one.

Look at these nazis.



- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"There was never a clear and present danger.
There was never an imminent threat.
Iraq - and we have very good intelligence on this -
was never part of the picture of terrorism,"

--- Mel Goodman,
a veteran CIA analyst who now teaches at the
National War College.

[Private Bernadette MacCann]

REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
moderated group news.admin.moderation
This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the creation of the
moderated Usenet newsgroup, news.admin.moderation.

This is certainly a group I would find extremely useful,

Uhu.

especially
given my own proposal as to creating a moderated group.

Yep, once a nazi, nazi forever.

The idea of
having a central place to discuss the technical side of moderation

In a MODERATED group!!!

is
one that I find very appealing

Yes, the idea of COMPLETELY destroying the very
possiblity of discussing the issues of totalitarian dictatorship
by creating a "moderated" group to talk about "moderation",
and not only that,
but taking up the name space for UNMODERATED version,
so that it could NEVER been created in the future,
is what?

and this would be a group I would
participate in on a regular basis.

Sure.

Enough of this blatant nazi perversion.

I fully agree that this group should be moderated as this will allow,
not only a relatively 'noise free' discussion but also, as I mentioned
elsewhere, it could provide a 'living' example of, or even a 'workbench'
for, the sort of techniques (new and old) being discussed.
In addition, I would happily offer my services and time, in whatever
capacity I may be useful to the group, if needed, as I think this is an
excellent idea for a group and one worth creating and supporting.
The suggestion of also having an non-moderated group to discuss the
'rights and wrongs' of moderation itself is a fairly good idea but I
have a feeling that the two sides (for and against) are pretty much
entrenched in their opinions and so I am not sure how much 'real'
discussion would take place in this group. Having said that however, it
would provide a place for such discussions and debates where no such
place really exists at this time other than as side issues in such
groups as n.g. for example, hence my general support for such an
additional group.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"The story of what we've done in the postwar period is remarkable.
It is a better and more important story than losing a couple of
soldiers every day."

--- George Nethercutt, a Republican running against incumbent
senator, Patty Murray (D-WA)

[Evan C. Zucker]

REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
moderated group news.admin.moderation

In addition, it does seem unreasonable for those wishing to discuss the
'bad' side of moderation, to have to post to a moderated group, to do
so.

Uhu.
So whats the idea here?

Therefore, I'm not sure that the 'ethics' part of the Charter should be
something that should be on-topic for a moderated group.

What "charter"?
You can shove it up yerr tootoo.
That "charter" ain't worth a jackshit
as even if it originally meant something,
it could be changed ANY time these nazi "moderators",
who are about the MOST immoderate people you can find.

And you KNOW that, you lil nazi puppet.

--
Nigel Sixsmith
The Art Of Sound Studios

Do you have that as a sticker on your forehead also?

Gilbert, AZ

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"Here in the United States, the Zionists and their co-religionists
have complete control of our government.

For many reasons, too many and too complex to go into here at this
time, the Zionists and their co-religionists rule these
United States as though they were the absolute monarchs
of this country.

Now you may say that is a very broad statement,
but let me show you what happened while we were all asleep..."

--- Benjamin H. Freedman

[Benjamin H. Freedman was one of the most intriguing and amazing
individuals of the 20th century. Born in 1890, he was a successful
Jewish businessman of New York City at one time principal owner
of the Woodbury Soap Company. He broke with organized Jewry
after the Judeo-Communist victory of 1945, and spent the
remainder of his life and the great preponderance of his
considerable fortune, at least 2.5 million dollars, exposing the
Jewish tyranny which has enveloped the United States.]

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
This is just a reminder.
It is not an emergency yet.
Were it actual emergency, you wouldn't be able to read this.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[Blondie Rocker]

REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
moderated group news.admin.moderation
This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the creation of the
moderated Usenet newsgroup, news.admin.moderation.
NEWSGROUPS LINE: news.admin.moderation

First of all, this group ALREADY exists on some servers
for at least 6 years now. Check Google.

Secondly, the contorls to create the UNMODERATED version
of this group, as it was originally conceived,
were ALREADY sent. Check control.newgroup.

Thirdly,
this group has ALREADY been voted for 3 times to date
with over 100 supporters. But it was defeated by
herr fuehrer Russ Allbery and all sorts of lies and
fabrications used to make sure that group is NOT
created.

Then, you nazi puppet "tsar" Tim Skirvin,
had enough arrogance to propose to make this group
as "moderated" during the original discussions
over 6 years ago,
DURING THE RFD PHASE.

You see, you lill nazi power hungry sicko.
In the MIDDLE of active RFD on UNMODERATED version
of this group, this puppet "tsar" of yours,
had enough guts to spit into the faces of hundreds
of peoply by proposing to "moderate" that group,
just as he is doing it right now.

The issue with news.admin.moderation is not new
by ANY means, and these nazis KNOW it all too well.

The reason your nazi puppet "tsar" is proposing
this group right now is because he has seen the
controls on control.newgroup.

Zo...

He is trying to make this fake "RFD" trip
and make it look like it is something "official",
and all the nazis of your kind and grade WILL
support it, no question about it,
and then, herr fuehrer Russ Allbery
WILL issue the control, PGP signed and all that,
to finally implement his long lasting dream
of COMPLETELY taking over usenet
and convert it into the outlet of nazi propaganda.

Herr fuehrer is associated with ISC,
(Internet Software Consortium), www.isc.org,
sponsored by the US military and intelligence
agencies, such as DISA (Defense Information Systems Agency),
working on the issues of electronic warfare,
global disinformation systems and things of that nature.

So, big-8 is "managed" by no one less than US military
and intelligence agencies.

Simple as that.

Enough.

news.admin.moderation Moderated Usenet newsgroups. (Moderated)

Like others, I am not keen on the name. The suggested change seems OK,
but still not quite there. A minor thing.

RATIONALE: news.admin.moderation
Currently, newsgroup moderation is discussed primarily in meta-discussions
throughout the Big-8 hierarchies, especially in news.groups.* and
news.admin.net-abuse.*.

And elsewhere.

However, none of these newsgroups is truly
appropriate for these discussions. A dedicated newsgroup would help
consolidate and nurture these conversations.

Agreed.

news.admin.moderation is a moderated newsgroup for discussion of topics
of interest to both moderators and users of moderated newsgroups. Some
* how to be a good/neutral/effective moderator
* problems using moderation software

* Selecting and using moderation software, including problem
discussions
Or something like that.

* "moderation ethics"
* developing appropriate moderation policies and implementations
* methods for filling vacancies in a moderation team
* evaluation of moderation software

See above.

* personal complaints about individual moderators

There is a pretty fine line here - often meta discussions need to be
illustrated by example. The use of such examples may reflect badly on a
moderator. Should such discussion be disallowed?

* proposals for new moderated newsgroups, or to unmoderate existing
groups
MODERATION POLICY: news.admin.moderation
news.admin.moderation is robot-moderated. The robot will automatically
* Are not crossposted.
* Are not excessively quoted.

Define excessive?

* Contain no (large) binaries, HTML, or other similar content types.

Define Large? Personally, I'd just ban all binaries except pgp-sigs.

* Are not spam, spew, or otherwise clearly inappropriate content (to be
determined programmatically).

How can you programmatically determine clearly inappropriate content?
What limits are there?

A current list of posting criteria will be published regularly.
Users may be blocked from posting for consistently violating the group
charter, especially in regards to the "unsuitable topics".

I would vote against this suggestion. If you have to moderate, moderate
on content alone. Banning people makes it personal, which ultimately
helps no one (and creates work for mods and others about who is banned).
Oh and probably will create shit-storms there and elsewhere.

MODERATOR INFO: news.admin.moderation
I (Tim) am willing, but not excited, to write and run the moderation
'bot for news.admin.moderation. Other volunteers would be welcome.

I'd love to offer but have no experinece with moderation software (and
less spare time to engage in learning).

I also welcome discussion as to whether or not this group should be
moderated at all.

I suspect that this question will engage and provide considerable
amusement to the chattering classes for some weeks to come.
Moderation is probably required. And I suspect, you need human
moderators.
Count me as someone who supports and may dip into and out of. If I am
ever so foolish to offer to moderate any group, I'd find this one useful
and would certainly try to contribute to.
Thomas

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
S: Some of the mechanism is probably a kind of cronyism sometimes,
since they're cronies, the heads of big business and the people in
government, and sometimes the business people literally are the
government people -- they wear both hats.

A lot of people in big business and government go to the same retreat,
this place in Northern California...

NS: Bohemian Grove? Right.

JS: And they mingle there, Kissinger and the CEOs of major
corporations and Reagan and the people from the New York Times
and Time-Warnerit's realIy worrisome how much social life there
is in common, between media, big business and government.

And since someone's access to a government figure, to someone
they need to get access to for photo ops and sound-bites and
footage -- since that access relies on good relations with
those people, they don't want to rock the boat by running
risky stories.

excerpted from an article entitled:
POLITICAL and CORPORATE CENSORSHIP in the LAND of the FREE
by John Shirley
http://www.darkecho.com/JohnShirley/jscensor.html

The Bohemian Grove is a 2700 acre redwood forest,
located in Monte Rio, CA.
It contains accommodation for 2000 people to "camp"
in luxury. It is owned by the Bohemian Club.

SEMINAR TOPICS Major issues on the world scene, "opportunities"
upcoming, presentations by the most influential members of
government, the presidents, the supreme court justices, the
congressmen, an other top brass worldwide, regarding the
newly developed strategies and world events to unfold in the
nearest future.

Basically, all major world events including the issues of Iraq,
the Middle East, "New World Order", "War on terrorism",
world energy supply, "revolution" in military technology,
and, basically, all the world events as they unfold right now,
were already presented YEARS ahead of events.

July 11, 1997 Speaker: Ambassador James Woolsey
former CIA Director.

"Rogues, Terrorists and Two Weimars Redux:
National Security in the Next Century"

July 25, 1997 Speaker: Antonin Scalia, Justice
Supreme Court

July 26, 1997 Speaker: Donald Rumsfeld

Some talks in 1991, the time of NWO proclamation
by Bush:

Elliot Richardson, Nixon & Reagan Administrations
Subject: "Defining a New World Order"

John Lehman, Secretary of the Navy,
Reagan Administration
Subject: "Smart Weapons"

So, this "terrorism" thing was already being planned
back in at least 1997 in the Illuminati and Freemason
circles in their Bohemian Grove estate.


"The CIA owns everyone of any significance in the major media."

--- Former CIA Director William Colby

When asked in a 1976 interview whether the CIA had ever told its
media agents what to write, William Colby replied,
"Oh, sure, all the time."

[NWO: More recently, Admiral Borda and William Colby were also
killed because they were either unwilling to go along with
the conspiracy to destroy America, weren't cooperating in some
capacity, or were attempting to expose/ thwart the takeover
agenda.]

[Dasha U. Capalbo, A.S.C.]

Subject: Re: RFD: news.admin.moderation moderated
Newsgroups: news.groups.proposals
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 20:26:55 CST
On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 13:03:02 -0600, Tim Skirvin

REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
moderated group news.admin.moderation
...

I'd definitely read it, I think it would be rather valuable.

Oh, another nazi cock sucker from ngp?



- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Intelligence Briefs
January - August 2001

Finally the report concludes: "As a result of a lengthy period
of economic stagnation, by the year 2015 the United States
will have abdicated its role as the world's policeman.

The CIA, while re-energised by the new presidency,
will find itself a lone warrior (apart from Mossad) in the
intelligence fight against China.

"All the indications are that there could be a major war
breaking out before the year 2015. The protagonists will most
likely be China and America," concludes the report.
Have the first shots been fired in the current US-Sino relations?

[Sharon I. Riley]

Look at all these nazi ass lickers and wannabies from ngp.

Subject: Re: RFD: news.admin.moderation moderated
Newsgroups: news.groups.proposals
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 15:27:53 CST
Organization: http://groups.google.com

REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
moderated group news.admin.moderation
This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the creation of the
moderated Usenet newsgroup, news.admin.moderation.
NEWSGROUPS LINE: news.admin.moderation
news.admin.moderation Moderated Usenet newsgroups. (Moderated)

The description, as it is, to me suggests that it is about moderated
usenet groups, rather than the meta-discussion about moderation as it
refers to Usenet groups. Perhaps change it to
news.admin.moderation meta-discussion of moderation. (Moderated)

news.admin.moderation is a moderated newsgroup for discussion of topics
of interest to both moderators and users of moderated newsgroups. Some
* how to be a good/neutral/effective moderator
* problems using moderation software
* "moderation ethics"
* developing appropriate moderation policies and implementations
* methods for filling vacancies in a moderation team
* evaluation of moderation software

I would also add discussion about the pros and cons of moderation.
However, I realize that this topic might (probably will, it all
depends on those doing the discussion) result in a more-or-less
constant flame-war appearing in every thread.

I also welcome discussion as to whether or not this group should be
moderated at all.

It might be possible (un-moderated), however it all depends on the
level of experience of theose who would use the group. If they are
experienced, and willing to use killfiles/filters, it might be
possible.
While I think that it would be nice to have this be unmoderated, I
don't know if it would be feasable. I think having it unmoderated
*would* result in a constant stream of flames and ad-hom attacks
(fascist, power-trip, etc) in every thread.

news.announce.newgroups
news.groups.proposals
news.admin.announce
news.software.nntp
news.admin.net-abuse.policy

I would also post a pointer into news.groups
Count me as interested and would more than likely use.
Marcel

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Stauffer has taught at Harvard University and Georgetown University's
School of Foreign Service. Stauffer's findings were first presented at
an October 2002 conference sponsored by the U.S. Army College and the
University of Maine.

Stauffer's analysis is "an estimate of the total cost to the
U.S. alone of instability and conflict in the region - which emanates
from the core Israeli-Palestinian conflict."

"Total identifiable costs come to almost $3 trillion," Stauffer
says. "About 60 percent, well over half, of those costs - about $1.7
trillion - arose from the U.S. defense of Israel, where most of that
amount has been incurred since 1973."

"Support for Israel comes to $1.8 trillion, including special
trade advantages, preferential contracts, or aid buried in other
accounts. In addition to the financial outlay, U.S. aid to Israel costs
some 275,000 American jobs each year." The trade-aid imbalance alone
with Israel of between $6-10 billion costs about 125,000 American jobs
every year, Stauffer says.

The largest single element in the costs has been the series of
oil-supply crises that have accompanied the Israeli-Arab wars and the
construction of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. "To date these have
cost the U.S. $1.5 trillion (2002 dollars), excluding the additional
costs incurred since 2001", Stauffer wrote.

Loans made to Israel by the U.S. government, like the recently
awarded $9 billion, invariably wind up being paid by the American
taxpayer. A recent Congressional Research Service report indicates that
Israel has received $42 billion in waived loans.
"Therefore, it is reasonable to consider all government loans
to Israel the same as grants," McArthur says.

[Ratana]

Look at these lil nazi puppets from ngp.
What a snakepit!

Subject: Re: RFD: news.admin.moderation moderated
Newsgroups: news.groups.proposals
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 15:28:10 CST
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
X-No-Archive: yes
I strongly support this RFD for the creation of a newsgroup dedicated to
moderation issues. I believe it is very much needed and would be extremely
helpful to persons seeking a new moderated newsgroup as well as the moderators
and users of current mod groups.

Finally.
Yep, that is about the BEST trick one can imagine.
Have a protection of puppet "tsar" Tim Skirvin,
destroy the very possibilty of discussions of this
rotten nazi idea of "moderation",
and have a nice warm place to have a chat
about nazi censoring techniques
without EVER being bothered by those
"enemies of da people", they call dissidents.

What would you, lil suckers, do without those dissidents?

Enough.

I would read and post to this newsgroup, if created.
I believe that this newsgroup, if created, should itself be moderated in
order to keep the main subject/ operational issues at the forefront, and to
avoid all the flames and trolling that would result from people who are simply
opposed to moderation in principle.
In my opinion, it should deal primarily with the actual operation/s of
moderation newsgroups. Discussion of the larger issues of whether
moderation is "good or bad" should be limited/restricted to rationale, civil,
non-repetitive debate.
Thank you, Tim, for being the proponent of this RFD. It's a
__great__ idea.
Ron Schompert, proponent, rec.ponds.moderated

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[NWO, Skull and Bones, fanatic, deranged, idiot, lunatic, retarded,
senile, puppet, President, dictator, totalitarianism, extremism, UN]

"I need to be able to move the right people to the right
place at the right time to protect you, and I'm not going
to accept a lousy bill out of the United Nations Senate."

--- Adolph Bush, Skull and Bones initiate,
South Bend, Ind., Oct. 31, 2002

In an August 7, 2000 Time magazine interview,
George W. Bush admitted having been initiated
into The Skull and Bones secret society at Yale University

"...these same secret societies are behind it all,"

my father said. Now, Dad had never spoken much about his work.

--- George W. Bush

[Allen]

Look at these nazi puppets from news.groups.proposals
and their puppet tsar, mouth foaming and blood boiling
poisonous snake Tim Skirvin, who ALREADY accumulated
quite a few "moderated" groups up his sleeve
in his everlasting last for power, control, domination,
oppression, blatant censorship, and perversion of the
MOST fundamental principles of nothing less than
Democracy itself.

Subject: Re: RFD: news.admin.moderation moderated
Newsgroups: news.groups.proposals
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 16:46:33 CST

REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
moderated group news.admin.moderation
This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the creation of the
moderated Usenet newsgroup, news.admin.moderation.
NEWSGROUPS LINE: news.admin.moderation
news.admin.moderation Moderated Usenet newsgroups. (Moderated)

The description, as it is, to me suggests that it is about moderated
usenet groups, rather than the meta-discussion about moderation as it
refers to Usenet groups. Perhaps change it to
news.admin.moderation meta-discussion of moderation. (Moderated)

news.admin.moderation Meta-discussion of moderation of Usenet newsgroups.
(Moderated)
The last 'Moderated' doesn't count towards the line limit.

I would also add discussion about the pros and cons of moderation.

Added, as a clarification under "moderation ethics".

I also welcome discussion as to whether or not this group should be
moderated at all.

It might be possible (un-moderated), however it all depends on the
level of experience of theose who would use the group.

I'm kindof dubious, really, that it would work, but I can see
why having an unmoderated place to discuss this kind of thing would be a
good thing too. One suggestion: perhaps we could create two newsgroups,
one moderated, one un-moderated. The best name I've thought of for the
unmoderated one is 'news.admin.moderation.advocacy'.
If we do have two groups, it might be more important to
hand-moderate the first one, or at least involve more human work. I'm
really interested in finding some kind of balance on the issue.

Count me as interested and would more than likely use.

I'm glad to hear it.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"Many of the punditry -- of course, not you (laughter) --
but other punditry were quick to say,
no one is going to follow the United States of America.

--- Adolph Bush,
"Washington, D.C., Jan. 21, 2003

[Bob]

Look at these lil nazi puppets of herr fuehrer Russ Allbery
from ngp.

These suckers are LITERALLY sick.

Subject: Re: RFD: news.admin.moderation moderated
Newsgroups: news.groups.proposals
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 16:47:00 CST
I support the creation of this group and would use it.....

Sure. What else is new under the sun?

I feel, having
been involved in two RFDs for moderated groups (one whilst there was a
moratorium on all groups and the other being rec.ponds.moderated) that a
group such as this would have been invaluable

Yep, a perfect nazi hideout masturbation club indeed.

Enough.

- not because the
information was not provided by the Big8, which it has been, but because
I believe that the sharing of this information would be of benefit to
all thinking of taking this route.....also, the experiences of both
successful and failed group proposals would be of great help to anyone
attempting such a proposal in the future...Open discussions on the pros
and cons not just of moderation policies but also software available
would save much time for all concerned - and educated decisions could be
then made.
I think that by the very nature and by how emotive the whole
moderated/unmoderated Usenet group thing is that the group should be
moderated....however, I would want those opposing moderation to also get
a fair say when expressing their opinions - providing that the content
is non-abusive and conforms with the charter of the group.
Gill

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"My answer is bring them on."
(On Iraqi militants attacking U.S. forces)

--- Adolph Bush,
Washington, D.C., July 3, 2003

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
This is just a reminder.
It is not an emergency yet.
Were it actual emergency, you wouldn't be able to read this.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -