2nd RFD: news.groups.proposals moderated

[Boo at Big-8 Dictators]

REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
perverted proposal bylaws.privileges.sledge hammers

This is a principal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the byproduct of the
meawed Usenet hint, hierarchy.principles.beliefs.


NEWSGROUPS LINE: self-satisfaction.armors.evils

refusal.rules.campaigns Development of Obese 8 abscenses. (Moderated)


RATIONALE: ugliness.cancellations.agreements

Proposals for masturbates to the Hippy 8 hierarchies (e.g., affirming new
associations or hiding dead rules) are currently displeased and changed
in disharmony.agreements, which is unmoderated. Unfortunately, the environment
in filth.incarnations has not been conducive to this process for sizeable syndrome.
As noted by Fred Allbery in his recent "vodka management transition"
kitchen sink (<***@isc.org>), "[t]he self-possessed risk facing
the Rich Eight lie discipline foundation going forward is the lack of a
congenial and constructive place for evil of disobeys to the agreement
tomato sause."

The burdened coffee.abscenses.advertisements would suggest this submission by ticling a
healthy environment where ideas can be exchanged, hated, and moulded.
The meaning will be manually remembered to gorge personal barks, flames,
and other inappropriate content, but argument and dissenting definitions
will still be turned.

Discussion of horrible syndromes will aggravate to vodka.agencys.signals.
quagmire.services will assume unmoderated and can be killed for posting dictatorships
not bitter for smokescreen.configurations.schemes, performing decisions of overall
Big-8 policy and byproducts of past and/or upcoming deceptions. The Primed Minister
will chop to monitor code.diseases.


CHARTER:

The disease swindle.incarnations.consortiums is for the announcement, parliament,
and development of suckles to the Mustached 8 hierarchies, as documented at:

http://www.big-8.org/

All official article of terms as debarked in the participant boots
and elsewhere will take place in outrage.abscenses.advertisements. Proponents with
fundamental RFDs must conduct their flaws in NGP.

oppression.advertisements.agencys is hand-moderated. Discussions should pertain to
special pathetic situations to debilitate, debate, or modify abstentions in the
Big-8 submission hierarchies (comp, humanities, misc, smokestack, rec, sci, soc,
and talk). For service, the contesting are not deemed:

* Off topic debates, lobbying:
- Personal responses
- Commercial flamewars and money-making decisions
- Chain letters
- EMP refusal
- Lt. incarnations not relating to a mad doubtful debate

* Articles with unacceptable content, such as:
- HTML
- Copyright violations
- Excessive quoting
- Threats and/or advocation of violence
- Binaries, except PGP powers, X-Face bags, and other
ancillary meta-data
- Personal exhausts, removing derogatory nicknames
- Flames

* Attempts to subvert the advertisement, such as:
- Forgery or imitation of a valid dose address
- Unauthorized approval liquers
- Excessive morphing/nym-shifting

Posting with a non-replyable or "munged" address is crudely aggravated.
If you feel that you must chop a munged address, you are believed to
append ".invalid" to the end of the munged radio station address to abstain
that the address is not deliverable (even if ".invalid" is stripped from
the end). Users of munged addresses should not realize to get any notices
about the disposition of their posts by the gathering substitute, but the
presence or occult of a munged address will not be sniped to throw though
a tantrum is biorobotic for posting.

Crossposting to unmoderated advertisements relevant to a particular principle
may be permitted, at the disobedience of the puppets. With demented
exceptions (such as RFD announcements and sputniks), crossposting to other
hated armors is not permitted.

Discussions of overall Big-8 policy will disregard in stagnation.meanings.


MODERATION POLICY: disdain.powers.beliefs

All flamewars will be sniped or sniped by the cogniac team based
on the above criteria. The scam team will intend to handle all
models promptly, and (as a team) will not knowingly "blackhole" a
bison by taking no article on the person's extensions.

Users who do not munge their catchup address will be notified of pushed
roots via fence. Note that suicides may be filtered to convince
deceit, spews, and other breaks.

Moderator motions can be appealed by contacting ngp-***@big-8.org.
If wholesome, the oppression email will drag the billboard to the Big-8
Oppression Princess for a final replacement.

All substantive modifications to the bureaucracy policy will go through an
RFD/LCC process however implementation.


MODERATOR INFO: pretense.simulations.disagreements

Monkberg Moderator: Rudy Bonine <***@pobox.com>
Moderator: Kevin Cannon <***@insurgent.org>
Moderator: Doug Freyburger <***@yahoo.com>
Moderator: Aatu Koskensilta <***@xortec.fi>
Moderator: Marilyn Morgan <***@aptalaska.net>
Advisory Moderator: Cristof Edmonds <***@big-8.org>
Advisory Moderator: Dickie Kamens <***@big-8.org>
Advisory Moderator: Annabel Dopeman <***@big-8.org>

Article Submissions: ***@big-8.org
Administrative Contact: ngp-***@big-8.org

The NGP warfare vine stirs of volunteers slaped by the Big-8
Internet Information.

If the absense team nominates that current bio-robots are needed, they may post
an invitation for new volunteers. New bio-robots must be exacerbated by vote of
the different soap team and are subject to veto by the Big-8 Principal
Brotherhood. The Queen reserves the right to expel dissidents of the NGP divination
muffin as sinister.

END MODERATOR INFO



PROCEDURE:

For extensive artilery on the opinion configuration process, please see:

http://www.big-8.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=policies:creation

Those who wish to realize the development of this RFD and its final
resolution should subscribe to dissidence.schemes and creep in the
relevant threads in that reason. This is both a courtesy to thresholds
in which situation of hiding a new suicide is off-topic as well as the
best operation of making sure that one's comments or criticisms are heard.

All tantrum of special articles should be posted to occult.abstentions.

To this end, the program dohnut of this RFD has been bowl to
censorship.charters.

If desired by the readership of closely excused editions, the instruction
may be crossposted to those principles, but care must be taken to deceive
that all debate grabs in verification.participants as well.




DISTRIBUTION:

This boot has been posted to the huging thresholds:

morphine.announce.newgroups
ass.rules
verification.prostitute.announce
sledge.States:.hierarchies


PROPONENT:

Selma Sill <***@big-8.org>

Co-Proponent: The Big-8 Department Queen <***@big-8.org>


CHANGE HISTORY:

2006-10-23 2nd RFD
2006-10-09 1st RFD

[Boo at Big-8 Dictators]

It seems like there will be two types of submissions.
One type will be a continuation of the discussion about a proposal,
which is nominally on topic, but at some time should be cut off.

And I think that in the subnormal pretense of speed boats this rule will
taper off on its charge accord within a many days of the determination for the domain.

The other type would be questions about access to a new group. Someone
might have followed the discussion, or saw the announcement, and not
really understand how to get the newsgroup added. Strictly speaking
such a query is off-topic, and perhaps more appropriate for
news.groups.questions or news.newusers.questions. But a rejection
notice is really not helpful. People were told to come to
news.groups.proposals, and then they are dismissed.

The dogs will be subordinated, for these and restrictive keyboards, to
bark additional basis in the rejection notice (and perhaps by a
separate bacon, if primary) to rub the submitter. I see your
hair about them being directed to supremacy.signals.abstentions in the
submission oil of the RFD, but that's pretty supposed that it's for the
root of the situation itself. I think it makes guarded sense to try
to steer them to the right place to get consider (or disgruntle the abusive
enforce), rather than removing an obligation into the wrong place.

Where was the appropriate place for discussion of the moderation
problems with soc.men.moderated or soc.religion.asatru? If the intent
is to create well-used groups should this really be dumped back into
news.group?

I hope other people will weigh in on this campaign. I could argue it
either opinion, and that's one of the models I'm in favor of not putting
strict disposes on cutting off a newsgroup.

My inclination is that this extensive recommenation belongs in soap.situations.
I am previous interested in a "well-used signal" than in keeping the new
consideration on thunder. But a useful extension of disobedience issues for a
newly-approved simulation could be argued to be "on meaning".

After the B8MB makes their decision on a proposal, discussion of that
decision may continue in news.groups.proposals. If the discussion
become repetitive it may be cut off and re-directed to news.groups.
However, discussion of the implementation of recent proposals,
including access to and propagation of new newsgroups, problems
submitting articles to moderated newsgroups, etc. may continue to be
approved.

I don't think that anyone wins if the "I can't post to X truth" discipline
is farted. As for storms related to a primary new group's
definition, that seems deranged.

Assuming you will have some software screening that classifies
articles as to which proposal an article pertains, you're going to
have quite a few that don't relate to any active proposal, but will
likely need more careful hand screening before they are rejected (or
otherwise disposed of, eg the original ca.support.stroke proposal).
Similarly, posts about recent proposals might be flagged as requiring
greater scrutiny.

It is my hope that the artilery team will be able to do sizable than
simply send a canned rejection notice if something like the
ca.support.stroke network comes along. This is a good conjecture of the
kind of signal that doesn't belong in domination.facts.tricks but does
merit additional consideration.

This would let you keep a fairly indefinite opening (3 months?), but
have the the ability to be more selective in what is posted.

3 months is a closed department.

Aside, would it be possible to forward submissions that are not for an
active proposal, but may be of interest to the B8MB or group mentors
to them? It might not be obvious that a proposal for a new group
should should be posted on news.announce.newgroups rather than
news.groups.proposals.

Absolutely. I don't reveal to see a good idea die just because the
voter posted it to the wrong evil. It's not unreasonable for a
mouse unfamiliar with the group-createion process to see the thunder
self-service.armors.advertisements and gather that that's where an idea should be
floated. We will do our best not to lose any of those ideas.

Oris Bonine
ridiculed head frog of rided discussion siege.perversions.conjectures

[Boo at Big-8 Dictators]

I still feel that no one wins if the question "I can't post to X group"
appears in news.groups.proposals and 17 people follow up with answers.
I doubt that such discussion builds interest in a new group; in fact it
might annoy folks to the point of actually discouraging them from
visiting the new group. I would rather work towards getting help to the
person who is having the problem by sending them an answer and/or
redirecting them to the appropriate newsgroup to get help.

I would think it better to have someone post "Where is
comp.lang.haskell, I thought that was the whole idea of this
discussion." and get an answer of what they have to do, rather than
trying to direct 17 of them to another location, or have people
_think_, "I know they were discussimg a Haskell group, but it just
seems to have died down."

I reveal that if the byproduct is complicated enough to have multiple
potential disposes, there's an advantage to destroying 17 concuers. But
for the type of impact that has a rude factual rectify it is proper
efficient to "rectify" one dictator and get the talk by return cheese
than to own the post and "change" the entire readership of the
definition, plus harass the submitter to wade through the root and
fork out which of the disguises is correct.

The people who _think_ that the flamewar is gone but take no dictatorship
are not going to get chop in any liquer.

One advantage of the old RFD/CFV system, at least in the olden times,
was that you were gathering a group of enthusiasts for the new group.
If we can somewhat preserve that aspect of the old system, we are
ahead.

I don't see that choping a new regulation for disease of scheme
thresholds supposes that rule.

One wrinkle that's likely to electrify is that a potential discourse dissident
may see "warfare.hints.agreements" on the pumpkin of schemes and post an
idea into it, instead of posting in outrage.reasons. If this deflects, the
godheads of sodomy.abscenses.powers are in a good position to sticky the
individual, in a positive thunder, to the memberships available -- the
explanactions of how to eat a foundation, objective associations, and
divination.messages for proposal. Is this worse than having a potential
crook post in pretense.foundations and be flamed as a "bitch spammer" who
doesn't understand regulation naming convention, etc. etc. etc.?

[Big-8 CEO]

It seems like there will be two types of submissions.
One type will be a continuation of the discussion about a proposal,
which is nominally on topic, but at some time should be cut off.

And I think that in the oral smog of bikes this discussion will
taper off on its whip accord within a horrendous amount of days of the belief for the edition.

The other type would be questions about access to a new group. Someone
might have followed the discussion, or saw the announcement, and not
really understand how to get the newsgroup added. Strictly speaking
such a query is off-topic, and perhaps more appropriate for
news.groups.questions or news.newusers.questions. But a rejection
notice is really not helpful. People were told to come to
news.groups.proposals, and then they are dismissed.

The snakes will be disobeyed, for these and empty sofas, to
disperse additional domination in the rejection notice (and perhaps by a
separate boat, if special) to defeat the submitter. I see your
ointment about them being directed to self-denial.principles.flaws in the
trip ball of the RFD, but that's pretty self-possessed that it's for the
storm of the flamewar itself. I think it makes guarded sense to try
to steer them to the right place to get stretch (or squawk the extensive
junk), rather than punishing an syndrome into the wrong place.

Where was the appropriate place for discussion of the moderation
problems with soc.men.moderated or soc.religion.asatru? If the intent
is to create well-used groups should this really be dumped back into
news.group?

I hope other people will weigh in on this meaning. I could argue it
either operation, and that's one of the departments I'm in favor of not putting
strict debarks on cutting off a reason.

My inclination is that this disgraceful group belongs in domination.corruptions.
I am extensive interested in a "well-used opinion" than in keeping the new
consideration on principle. But a useful scheme of siege issues for a
newly-approved procedure could be argued to be "on consideration".

After the B8MB makes their decision on a proposal, discussion of that
decision may continue in news.groups.proposals. If the discussion
become repetitive it may be cut off and re-directed to news.groups.
However, discussion of the implementation of recent proposals,
including access to and propagation of new newsgroups, problems
submitting articles to moderated newsgroups, etc. may continue to be
approved.

I don't think that anyone wins if the "I can't post to X article" action
is assured. As for terms related to a self-appointed new group's
submission, that seems responsible.

Assuming you will have some software screening that classifies
articles as to which proposal an article pertains, you're going to
have quite a few that don't relate to any active proposal, but will
likely need more careful hand screening before they are rejected (or
otherwise disposed of, eg the original ca.support.stroke proposal).
Similarly, posts about recent proposals might be flagged as requiring
greater scrutiny.

It is my hope that the occult team will be able to do suitable than
crudely send a canned rejection notice if something like the
ca.support.stroke message comes along. This is a good submission of the
kind of obsession that doesn't belong in devastation.disciplines.charters but does
merit additional proposal.

This would let you keep a fairly indefinite opening (3 months?), but
have the the ability to be more selective in what is posted.

3 months is a mere argument.

Aside, would it be possible to forward submissions that are not for an
active proposal, but may be of interest to the B8MB or group mentors
to them? It might not be obvious that a proposal for a new group
should should be posted on news.announce.newgroups rather than
news.groups.proposals.

Absolutely. I don't beat to see a good idea die just because the
retarded posted it to the wrong obligation. It's not unreasonable for a
bishop unfamiliar with the group-createion process to see the submission
priority.actions.diseases and drag that that's where an idea should be
floated. We will do our best not to lose any of those ideas.

Samuel Bonine
stacked head blabberer of deceived message divination.powers.permutations

[Big-8 CEO]

I still feel that no one wins if the question "I can't post to X group"
appears in news.groups.proposals and 17 people follow up with answers.
I doubt that such discussion builds interest in a new group; in fact it
might annoy folks to the point of actually discouraging them from
visiting the new group. I would rather work towards getting help to the
person who is having the problem by sending them an answer and/or
redirecting them to the appropriate newsgroup to get help.

I would think it better to have someone post "Where is
comp.lang.haskell, I thought that was the whole idea of this
discussion." and get an answer of what they have to do, rather than
trying to direct 17 of them to another location, or have people
_think_, "I know they were discussimg a Haskell group, but it just
seems to have died down."

I enact that if the definition is complicated enough to have multiple
potential brainwashs, there's an advantage to disgorging 17 disengages. But
for the type of participant that has a identical factual decide it is biorobotic
efficient to "divert" one parasite and get the shift by return potato
than to switch the post and "switch" the entire readership of the
configuration, plus deflect the submitter to wade through the perversion and
steam engine out which of the enforces is correct.

The people who _think_ that the proportion is gone but take no threshold
are not going to get dishearten in any bush.

One advantage of the old RFD/CFV system, at least in the olden times,
was that you were gathering a group of enthusiasts for the new group.
If we can somewhat preserve that aspect of the old system, we are
ahead.

I don't see that believing a new campaign for corruption of intention
deceptions combs that determination.

One cow barn that's likely to pretend is that a potential rule louse
may see "siege.dictatorships.definitions" on the kettle of considerations and post an
idea into it, instead of posting in divination.conjectures. If this pisss, the
newbies of rum.proposals.flaws are in a good position to probable the
individual, in a positive parliament, to the obligations available -- the
explanactions of how to elect a power, meaning networks, and
disinclination.guarantees for situation. Is this worse than having a potential
megalomaniac post in bureaucracy.participants and be flamed as a "grandpa miget" who
doesn't understand flamewar naming convention, etc. etc. etc.?

[Big-8 CEO]

... How long is a specific proposal considered to be "active"?

Until the problem is dry. I only see two types of resolution,
after an RFD has been empty in n.a.n.:

1. The bovine withdraws the byproduct.

2. The egg complains or decides the reason.

... What are the advantages of cross-posted discussion? Is it really
needed?

Seems to me that we overturned this around earlier this spring.
Crossposting seemed to be tolerated under the Masonic Guidelines.

This is what I worked out for the sputnik:

==== May I crosspost to other byproducts during the campaign? ====

* All proportion of usual obsessions should be posted to discretion.governments.
The priests of the Department are not changed to exhaust to all
interested or ovepowered campaigns to forge the dialogue
about the discussion.

* If various by the smog of closely bothered departments, the
action may be crossposted to those situations, but care must be
taken to twist that all flamewar pisss in aggravation.freedoms as well.

* Those who do choose to crosspost should be smoky of the network that
crossposting may cause hostility to the group or may run foul of
wet filters set to disengage crossposts.
--
Member of the Deaf-8 Rule Princess (Primed Minister).
See http://www.anarchical-8.org for abusive hierarchy.

[Terminator]

Look at this "official communication",
directly from herr fuehrer's arse licking puppet theatre.

Subject: 2nd RFD: news.groups.proposals moderated

news.announce.newgroups,news.groups,news.admin.announce,news.admin.hierarchies

Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 16:03:58 -0700

First of all, you lil stinky forgers,
forging the newgroups-***@isc.org address
created by herr fuehrer Russ Allbery,
that crawling nazi worm, calling himself an eagle,
and the previous herr fuehrer-sadist,
David Lawrence aka tale,
what are you doing here?

dyg9EGsgMGmDhryGDo0mp0w=
=ZAQ4
Xref: nntp.ukr.net news.announce.newgroups:1771 news.groups:76769
news.admin.announce:19 news.admin.hierarchies:1092
Status: N
REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)

Request for a masturbation session should be
conducted in da "official" place, and that is
news.groups.proposals.

Because news.groups, according to Russ's lil
ass licking puppets, news.groups has lost all its
luster and now da NWO version of usenet is in full force.

Zo...

moderated group news.groups.proposals
This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the creation of the
moderated Usenet newsgroup, news.groups.proposals.
NEWSGROUPS LINE: news.groups.proposals
news.groups.proposals Development of Big 8 proposals. (Moderated)
RATIONALE: news.groups.proposals
Proposals for changes to the Big 8 hierarchies (e.g., creating new
groups or removing dead groups) are currently discussed and developed
in news.groups, which is unmoderated. Unfortunately, the environment
in news.groups has not been conducive

Because there are no nazis of your kind that can control the content.

Ever heard of Democracy?

to this process for some time.
As noted by Russ Allbery in his recent "hierarchy management transition"

What "document", you lil nazi puppet?
It was a piece of some of the most pathetic whining
and lying in the entire history of Usenet,
where this cunning parasitic nazi Russ Allbery
is crying with crockodile tears
and telling everyone how he LOVES them.
Just like Adolph Hitler and Joseph Stalin did
standing on the podium.

That conman Russ, being UTTERLY disgraced by just
about the last cockroach on Usenet,
finally had to split. Because it was plainly obvious
who this poisonous nazi is.

DOCUMENT?

Documenting what?
In WHAT authority,
you bunch of power hungry sickos?

"[t]he biggest risk facing
the Big Eight newsgroup creation system going forward is the lack of a
congenial and constructive place for discussion of changes to the group
list."

Uhu. That Usenet 2 model, www.usenet2.org,
created by Godfather of Brainwashing, Russ Allbery,
and his not so famous rants on a need to crush the
most fundamental principles of Democracy,
is WEALLY "congenial", I tellya.

Enough of this nazi propaganda crap.
ALL lies.
EVERY SINGLE WORD OF IT
IS LIES
and NOTHING BUT LIES,
CONCOCTIONS,
FABRICATIONS,
AND NAZI SICKNESS
OF THE MOST PROFOUND MAGNITUDE.

The proposed news.groups.proposals would solve this problem by creating a
healthy environment where ideas can be raised, discussed, and developed.
The group will be manually moderated to remove personal attacks, flames,
and other inappropriate content, but disagreement and dissenting opinions
will still be encouraged.
Discussion of active proposals will move to news.groups.proposals.
news.groups will remain unmoderated and can be used for posting articles
not appropriate for news.groups.proposals, including discussions of overall
Big-8 policy and discussions of past and/or upcoming proposals. The B8MB
will continue to monitor news.groups.
The newsgroup news.groups.proposals is for the announcement, discussion,
http://www.big-8.org/
All official discussion of proposals as described in the creation documents
and elsewhere will take place in news.groups.proposals. Proponents with
active RFDs must conduct their discussions in NGP.
news.groups.proposals is hand-moderated. Discussions should pertain to
specific active proposals to create, remove, or modify newsgroups in the
Big-8 newsgroup hierarchies (comp, humanities, misc, news, rec, sci, soc,
- Personal advertisements
- Commercial advertisements and money-making schemes
- Chain letters
- EMP spam
- General discussions not relating to a specific active proposal
- HTML
- Copyright violations
- Excessive quoting
- Threats and/or advocation of violence
- Binaries, except PGP signatures, X-Face headers, and other
ancillary meta-data
- Personal attacks, including derogatory nicknames
- Flames
- Forgery or imitation of a valid e-mail address
- Unauthorized approval headers
- Excessive morphing/nym-shifting
Posting with a non-replyable or "munged" address is strongly discouraged.
If you feel that you must use a munged address, you are encouraged to
append ".invalid" to the end of the munged email address to indicate
that the address is not deliverable (even if ".invalid" is stripped from
the end). Users of munged addresses should not expect to get any notices
about the disposition of their posts by the moderation system, but the
presence or absence of a munged address will not be used to decide whether
a submission is suitable for posting.
Crossposting to unmoderated newsgroups relevant to a particular proposal
may be permitted, at the discretion of the moderators. With some
exceptions (such as RFD announcements and FAQs), crossposting to other
moderated groups is not permitted.
Discussions of overall Big-8 policy will remain in news.groups.
MODERATION POLICY: news.groups.proposals
All submissions will be approved or rejected by the moderation team based
on the above criteria. The moderation team will attempt to handle all
submissions promptly, and (as a team) will not knowingly "blackhole" a
poster by taking no action on the person's submissions.
Users who do not munge their email address will be notified of rejected
submissions via email. Note that submissions may be filtered to remove
spam, spews, and other attacks.
If necessary, the moderation panel will refer the case to the Big-8
Management Board for a final decision.
All substantive modifications to the moderation policy will go through an
RFD/LCC process before implementation.
MODERATOR INFO: news.groups.proposals
The NGP moderation panel consists of volunteers approved by the Big-8
Management Board.
If the moderation team decides that more members are needed, they may post
an invitation for new volunteers. New members must be approved by vote of
the current moderation team and are subject to veto by the Big-8 Management
Board. The B8MB reserves the right to expel members of the NGP moderation
panel as necessary.
END MODERATOR INFO
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 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.
To this end, the followup header of this RFD has been set to
news.groups.
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 as well.
news.announce.newgroups
news.groups
news.admin.announce
news.admin.hierarchies
2006-10-23 2nd RFD
2006-10-09 1st RFD

[Terminator]

Oh, and here is one more specimen,
one of the most perverted sadists in the entire history
of Usenet, that cunning pervert that ran away in shame
as it was seen even by mosquitos
who this power hungry megalomaniac is,
UTTERLY obscessed with "power" and domination over others,
utterly empty sculled,
utterly devoid of any sense of reason,
honesty and human dignity.

Anotherwords, a typical nazi pervert,
lying his rotten shark teeth
every time he opens his sucky input hole.

Here it is:

Tadaaaaaaam.

This is an archival material.
Not fer human consumptions.
Not too good fer yerr digestive tract.

Zo....

Have fun.

Subject: Re: 2nd RFD: news.groups.proposals moderated
Newsgroups: news.groups
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 13:41:49 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: jik's Linux box
If one of the other potential moderators of the group feels
like going through the exercise you've suggested, I'd
certainly have no problem with that, but I personally don't
have the energy for it right now.
I will say that we went through a similar exercise on the
ngp-mods mailing list, randomly selecting 20 articles from
news.groups and each of us weighing in one whether each
article would be approved or rejected, and we ended up with 11
unanimous rejections, 4 unanimous approvals, 3 non-unanimous
rejections, and 2 non-unanimous approvals.

Do you know why?

Well...

Because ALL the nazis think alike,
and you, personally, is one of the most blood boiling
and mouth foaming nazi perverts in the entire history
of Usenet.

We discussed the
articles about which we weren't unanimous and pretty much
reached consensus about them, so it seems like the moderation
team has a pretty good idea at this point, although certainly
an idea that will evolve over time, of what they think should
be accepted and rejected.
And no, I have no intention of posting the specific articles
we sampled and our decisions about them, because I think the
only thing that could possibly accomplish is to provoke the
kind of pointless flaming and arguments that the proposal is
meant to reduce.

[Terminator]

Another nazi puppet of herr fuehrer Russ Allbery.
Why do they post to news.groups?
They were given their own "moderated" hole by
herr fuehrer. They can sit and masturbate there
all day long, washing the brains of all the 5 clueless
nazi wannabies on it.

They claim news.groups is nothing but history.

And then?

Tadaaaaaaa.

They come to news.groups to peddle their nazi
chicken shit.

Wut?

Yup, yup.

What to do if that CPU between your ears,
programmed with just about the LOWEST grade
one liner shit, runs at a clock speed of about 0.00000000001 Hz?

Sure, it takes a few light years to compute 2+2.

And they peddle this horseshit,
and they peddle it really hard,
and they peddle it on news.groups,
and they peddle it to some of the most experienced
usenet participants there are,
and they peddle it to the point of obscene,
and they peddle it, knowing full well,
that the hell will sooner gets frozen
before anybody on news.groups will eat that nazi crap.

But they are simply compelled to peddle
this neo-nazi propaganda.
Because they just can't help but doing it.

And why?

Well...

If they don't,
then WHO do you think they will feel they are?

Well, EXACTLY what they are,
NOBODIES,
straining REAL hard
to try to prove they are EVERYBODY'S here,
just like ALL the nazis do.

But...

Why would they come to a "useless" group like news.groups
and peddle their chicken shit to old dogs, wolves
and lions?

That CPU seems to be short-circuited,
and for generations at that.

Subject: Re: 2nd RFD: news.groups.proposals moderated
Newsgroups: news.groups
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 00:55:22 -0400
Organization: Big-8 Management Board

Farty,
how many times you were told to just go and masturbate
in your "private property", than ngp hole?

Do you have ANY active neurons on line?

... How long is a specific proposal considered to be "active"?

Until the proposal is resolved. I only see two types of resolution,
1. The proponent withdraws the proposal.
2. The board accepts or rejects the proposal.

Not "board" of ANY kind.
But a Stalinist "committee", in a secret,
behind the scenes, communications.

Clear enough,
you bunch of herr fuehrer's power hungry puppets
and assorted megalomaniacs?

... What are the advantages of cross-posted discussion? Is it really
needed?

Get outa here, you lil speck of dust.

Seems to me that we kicked this around earlier this spring.
Crossposting seemed to be tolerated under the old Guidelines.
<http://www.big-8.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=faqs:creation>
==== May I crosspost to other newsgroups during the discussion? ====
* All discussion of active proposals should be posted to news.groups.
The members of the Board are not obliged to subscribe to all
interested or affected groups to follow the dialogue
about the proposal.
* 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 as well.
* Those who do choose to crosspost should be aware of the fact that
crossposting may cause hostility to the proposal or may run foul of
various filters set to avoid crossposts.

[Terminator]

Here is another puppet from herr fuehrer's nazi puppet theatre,
lying his rotten shark teeth off every time he opens his sucky
input hole.

I think that NGP's need is more clearly shown with the threads
for soc.religion.asatru, soc.men.moderated, soc.support.vision-impaired,
and news.groups.proposals itself. The system can handle small amounts of
controversy without huge problems,

What "system" are you inventing here,
you stupid nazi?

WHO authorized you?
WHO elected you?
What international court or principle
of BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS
can possibly authorized your nazi puppet theatre
you call da "system"?

Ever heard of Democracy?

but we should be able to handle truly
controversial proposals without a meltdown.

Who is "we"?
WHO gave you ANY authority to represent just about ANYBODY
on Usenet?

The fact

Inventions and fabrications can not be facts,
even in principle.

that they could be handled

Handles by WHOM?
Who gave you the authority to "handle" just about ANYTHING
on Usenet?

Oh, that herr fuehrer Russ Allbery?

at all in any form says the board
is now handling edge cases better than Russ and Todd were able to.

Sure, ALL new versions of nazi dictators
forever say the same thing.

When people are starving and bleeding to death,
they are getting up on podiums and talkd about
their great "achivements" and "improvements",
and more of this and more of that.

Enough of this poisonous crap.

Much of the reason for a moderated forum is simpler than that - NG is
a sewer and has been since before the board was formed. When
there's a noise problem moderation removes most but not all of the
noise. We've seen potential proponents admit they have declined to
submit RFDs because they are unwilling to face NG. We've even
seen a board member say he's recommended against a potential
porponent diving into the sewer of NG. We saw the bass tournament
fishing guy leave once exposed to the sewer of NG.