🚀 go-pugleaf

[Posted and mailed]

On Wed, 23 Aug 2000 20:40:53 GMT,
"Thomas Lang�rd" <vifgutt@c2i.net> wrote:

> Hey!

Ho!

> Is there a alt.music.redhotchillipeppers
> or something?

I don't know such a group (or something).

alt.music.red-hot-chilli-peppers would look better
anway.

> If not, could you "create" it?

We could...
but *YOU* can as well.

http://www.tgos.org/newbie/newgroup.html


***

See Intendant, that's a typical post.
You see, they are not interested in posting
as you'd like to see it, nor will they act
as you like to see it.

--
-=< TGOS >=-

Usenet?
http://www.tgos.org/newbie

"Scott is a first class asshole.
He always has been and always will be."
    - Reply to thread "ScottZf" on alt.config

On Wed, 23 Aug 2000 20:40:53 GMT, "Thomas Lang�rd" <vifgutt@c2i.net>
wrote:

>Hey!
>
>Is there a alt.music.redhotchillipeppers or something?
>
>If not, could you "create" it?
>
I can't believe it was never created. We discussed it, agreed on a
name, plenty of traffic,  but I guess the proponent never sent the
cmsg.

alt.music.red-hot-chili-peppers is over 20 characters in the last
component but I don't see any way to shorten it and keep it readable.
I think it will fly. There are a few other groups in a similar
situation.

That's one "L" in chili I believe...at least that's the way we spell
it in Texas.:)

Write out a charter.



BarB
--
pattist@ix.netcom.com ..moderation board, news:news.newusers.questions
General Newsgroup Help............... http://www.geocities.com/nnqweb/
Deja Power Search.............. http://www.deja.com/=dnc/home_ps.shtml
Creating New Groups..... http://www.geocities.com/nnqweb//ncreate.html

tmoero@yahoo.com (tm) posted:

>In article <Zxap5.9801$541.1882317@juliett.dax.net>, "Thomas Lang�rd"
><vifgutt@c2i.net> wrote:
>
>>"barbara pattist" <pattist@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
>>news:vot8qs45nugsdptda5trltob80oaj3ee1b@nntp.ix.netcom.com...
>>> On Wed, 23 Aug 2000 20:40:53 GMT, "Thomas Lang�rd" <vifgutt@c2i.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> >Hey!
>>> >
>>> >Is there a alt.music.redhotchillipeppers or something?
>>> >
>>> >If not, could you "create" it?
>>> >
>>> I can't believe it was never created. We discussed it, agreed on a
>>> name, plenty of traffic,  but I guess the proponent never sent the
>>> cmsg.
>>
>>So we'll do it!
>>
>>> alt.music.red-hot-chili-peppers is over 20 characters in the last
>>> component but I don't see any way to shorten it and keep it readable.
>>> I think it will fly. There are a few other groups in a similar
>>> situation.
>>
>>What about "alt.music.redhotchilipeppers" or "alt.music.redhot"?
>>
>>> That's one "L" in chili I believe...at least that's the way we spell
>>> it in Texas.:)
>>
>>That's right. I just typed wrong.
>>
>>> Write out a charter.
>>
>>A charter for what exactly?
>>
>
>alt.music.red-hot-chili-peppers.
>Just go ahead and csmg it, dumbass. If you're too stupid to figure it out
>ask Eugene or SailorMoon.
>HTH,
>TM

Hmmm, that sounds like official alt.config approval :0)

Thomas, read this URL over and follow the instructions on how to create the
group yourself. If you have any questions, come back and ask.

http://www.dw.net/~scottzf/hamish_mcsnetter/index.html

"MUHATAMA COAT" <happy_jihad@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b3naqs832p57koetvq0kfdg5etgpor66ok@4ax.com...
> tmoero@yahoo.com (tm) posted:
>
> >In article <Zxap5.9801$541.1882317@juliett.dax.net>, "Thomas Lang�rd"
> ><vifgutt@c2i.net> wrote:
> >
> >>"barbara pattist" <pattist@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> >>news:vot8qs45nugsdptda5trltob80oaj3ee1b@nntp.ix.netcom.com...
> >>> On Wed, 23 Aug 2000 20:40:53 GMT, "Thomas Lang�rd" <vifgutt@c2i.net>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> >Hey!
> >>> >
> >>> >Is there a alt.music.redhotchillipeppers or something?
> >>> >
> >>> >If not, could you "create" it?
> >>> >
> >>> I can't believe it was never created. We discussed it, agreed on a
> >>> name, plenty of traffic,  but I guess the proponent never sent the
> >>> cmsg.
> >>
> >>So we'll do it!
> >>
> >>> alt.music.red-hot-chili-peppers is over 20 characters in the last
> >>> component but I don't see any way to shorten it and keep it readable.
> >>> I think it will fly. There are a few other groups in a similar
> >>> situation.
> >>
> >>What about "alt.music.redhotchilipeppers" or "alt.music.redhot"?
> >>
> >>> That's one "L" in chili I believe...at least that's the way we spell
> >>> it in Texas.:)
> >>
> >>That's right. I just typed wrong.
> >>
> >>> Write out a charter.
> >>
> >>A charter for what exactly?
> >>
> >
> >alt.music.red-hot-chili-peppers.
> >Just go ahead and csmg it, dumbass. If you're too stupid to figure it out
> >ask Eugene or SailorMoon.
> >HTH,
> >TM

Hey, I don't do this often!!!

> Hmmm, that sounds like official alt.config approval :0)
>
> Thomas, read this URL over and follow the instructions on how to create
the
> group yourself. If you have any questions, come back and ask.
>
> http://www.dw.net/~scottzf/hamish_mcsnetter/index.html

Thanks!



Thomas!

On Thu, 24 Aug 2000 14:45:13 GMT,
"Thomas Lang�rd" <vifgutt@c2i.net> wrote:


>> Write out a charter.
>
> A charter for what exactly?

For messing up your group.
You can put rules there about...
well, about anything you want as the
topic "Charters for Newsgroups" isn't
documented anywhere.

Don't let you fool by many FAQs, they
are written by simple Usenet users and
they do *NOT* base on any official
documentation, but only their own
opinion.

While declaring rules for your groups
seems like a good idea to you, there
are two things you should consider:

1) ISPs won't help you to uphold them.
You may write there what's not okay in
your group, but nobody will punish
those who violate this charter.

2) You can never change this charter.
If it gets out-of-date or something would
have to be added or removed, it's not
possible. This may cause problems in the
long run you can't even think about
right now (as you can't predict what'll
be in one year)


--
-=< TGOS >=-

Usenet?
http://www.tgos.org/newbie

"Scott is a first class asshole.
He always has been and always will be."
    - Reply to thread "ScottZf" on alt.config

"barbara pattist" <pattist@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:vot8qs45nugsdptda5trltob80oaj3ee1b@nntp.ix.netcom.com...
> On Wed, 23 Aug 2000 20:40:53 GMT, "Thomas Lang�rd" <vifgutt@c2i.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Hey!
> >
> >Is there a alt.music.redhotchillipeppers or something?
> >
> >If not, could you "create" it?
> >
> I can't believe it was never created. We discussed it, agreed on a
> name, plenty of traffic,  but I guess the proponent never sent the
> cmsg.

So we'll do it!

> alt.music.red-hot-chili-peppers is over 20 characters in the last
> component but I don't see any way to shorten it and keep it readable.
> I think it will fly. There are a few other groups in a similar
> situation.

What about "alt.music.redhotchilipeppers" or "alt.music.redhot"?

> That's one "L" in chili I believe...at least that's the way we spell
> it in Texas.:)

That's right. I just typed wrong.

> Write out a charter.

A charter for what exactly?



Thomas!

On Thu, 24 Aug 2000 14:45:13 GMT, "Thomas Lang�rd" <vifgutt@c2i.net>
wrote:

>
>"barbara pattist" <pattist@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message

>
>> Write out a charter.
>
>A charter for what exactly?
>
>
>
>Thomas!
>
Please don't listen to those who tell you a charter isn't necessary.
It is at Mindspring for instance. Recently someone stole a group
name and posted a joke cmsg. I had to find the original proponent of
the group and get him to post a new cmsg with the charter he had
been working on before Mindspring would add the group.

Your charter will say what is on and off topic for the group. Do you
want to permit advertising about related products? Suppose a an
advertiser posts a message every day. Is that acceptable? How about
every week or every two weeks? You may not be able to get a news
admin to do anything about it, but they may.

You need to include a clause that says no binaries are permitted.
Binaries should be posted to an appropriate binary group in perhaps
celebrities or music. A pointer is sent to the text group to alert
them to look for the binary.

If you have no charter cooks may invade your group with chili
recipes :)

This is a particularly user friendly FAQ.

http://nylon.net/alt/newgroup.htm




posted/mailed

BarB

--
pattist@ix.netcom.com ..moderation board, news:news.newusers.questions
General Newsgroup Help............... http://www.geocities.com/nnqweb/
Deja Search Forms.........  http://www.geocities.com/nnqweb//deja.html
Creating New Groups..... http://www.geocities.com/nnqweb//ncreate.html

 Justification:

I thought I had done a search on this topic, it took me awhile to
find it.

Search Deja for keyword: red hot chili peppers
Limited to the dates   8/15/99 to 11/15/99  Limited to all groups
except those with 'food' in the name, newsgroup: * &! *food*
Deja found 'exactly 5086 matches for search red hot chili peppers'

That's 56 posts per day. About ten/ day is the lower limit to get an
alt group to propagate.

 You need to start posting to the music groups and discussing it. An
alt group doesn't propagate unless enough users know about it to
request it from their providers.

BarB

On Thu, 24 Aug 2000 18:08:03 -0500,
 barbara pattist <pattist@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

> Your charter will say what is on
> and off topic for the group. Do you
> want to permit advertising about related products?

Think about it:

You say: Yes, advertising is fine. What will happen
if the group now drowns in advertisements?
The people there will come back here and call for
a new group that doesn't allow advertisements.
Result: Two groups for one topic.

You say: No, advertising if forbidden. What will
happen if no plenty of people want to advertise
for related topics? They come here and request
for a group about this topic where advertising
is allowed.
Result: Two groups for one topic.

> How about every week or every two weeks?
> You may not be able to get a news
> admin to do anything about it, but they may.

OH, another group that will come here crying when
they drown in spam...wonderfully!

> You need to include a clause that
> says no binaries are permitted.

Evident by name.

> If you have no charter cooks may
> invade your group with chili
> recipes :)

If you have a charter, cooks may do so
as well; you can't stop them.

Instead of a charter, post a description
paragraph in your newgroup post that makes
sure that people won't misunderstand the
topic of your group.

Despite that, the name of the group is
alt.music.*, are you sure you intended
to write cooks and not kooks?

> posted/mailed

AHA, what do we have here.


Be warned about the trouble charters can cause.
Many NGs have no charter at all and they ARE
accessible via Mindspring!

It's only a question of users that bother their
ISPs until they setup a group. NGs that are not
moderated shall be free for all posts that are not
violating common accepted rules (like no
binary files in non-binary groups and so on)
and that are not off-topic.

The topic of your group is given by its name,
its short description and sometimes, by and
additionally description paragraph in the body
of your newgroup message.

If you feel such a paragraph is necessary to
keep out the "cooks" of your NG, make one, but
don't call it "Charter". Unmoderated NGs have
NO charter!

--
-=< TGOS >=-

Usenet?
http://www.tgos.org/newbie

"Scott is a first class asshole.
He always has been and always will be."
    - Reply to thread "ScottZf" on alt.config

On 24 Aug 2000 21:13:13 -0500, TGOS
<the-guardian-of-sailormoon@gmx.net> wrote:

>On Thu, 24 Aug 2000 18:08:03 -0500,
> barbara pattist <pattist@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>> Your charter will say what is on
>> and off topic for the group. Do you
>> want to permit advertising about related products?
>
>Think about it:
>
>You say: Yes, advertising is fine. What will happen
>if the group now drowns in advertisements?
>The people there will come back here and call for
>a new group that doesn't allow advertisements.
>Result: Two groups for one topic.

That's why most groups limit advertising to a reasonable level.
>
>You say: No, advertising if forbidden. What will
>happen if no plenty of people want to advertise
>for related topics? They come here and request
>for a group about this topic where advertising
>is allowed.
>Result: Two groups for one topic.

I'm not sure what " no plenty of people" means, but if there is a
demand for more advertising than the charter allows, the people
return and request a *.marketplace group or they use the general
marketplace groups like rec.music.marketplace.cd,
rec.music.marketplace.misc, rec.music.marketplace.vinyl.


>
>> How about every week or every two weeks?
>> You may not be able to get a news
>> admin to do anything about it, but they may.
>
>OH, another group that will come here crying when
>they drown in spam...wonderfully!

The purpose of the charter is to prevent spam and if it can't be
prevented to alert the offender's ISP.
>
>> You need to include a clause that
>> says no binaries are permitted.
>
>Evident by name.

Where is it evident in the name that binaries do not belong in text
groups? I know that, you know that, but a good proportion of users
do not when their ISP permits misplaced binaries.
>
>> If you have no charter cooks may
>> invade your group with chili
>> recipes :)
>
>If you have a charter, cooks may do so
>as well; you can't stop them.

Sure you can. Most nice people will not post off-topic. Trolls are a
different problem.
>
>Instead of a charter, post a description
>paragraph in your newgroup post that makes
>sure that people won't misunderstand the
>topic of your group.

Ah, but that's a charter by another name. :)
>
>Despite that, the name of the group is
>alt.music.*, are you sure you intended
>to write cooks and not kooks?

I could make an argument for the music created by the gastric
distress of spicy food. On second thought, let's not go there, shall
we? <G>


>Be warned about the trouble charters can cause.

I don't think you've made a case for charters causing trouble.
People can cause trouble by writing an uninforcable charter and
attempting to netcop. That's one reason to let this group take a
look at it first.

>Many NGs have no charter at all and they ARE
>accessible via Mindspring!

Of course many older groups have no charters, that's not the point.
If only a few ISPs are resisting a new group because of a lack of a
charter then proponents need to be aware of it and do their best to
maximize their chances.
>
>It's only a question of users that bother their
>ISPs until they setup a group. NGs that are not
>moderated shall be free for all posts that are not
>violating common accepted rules (like no
>binary files in non-binary groups and so on)
>and that are not off-topic.

The group that I was talking about, alt.games.the-sims, had been
requested many times by various users without result according to
their own posts to an internal group. It was getting good traffic on
the servers who had picked it up. Mindspring absolutely refused to
pick it up until that new charter was posted. At the same time I
found several other big commercial providers were not carrying it
either. They have since added it. So I have evidence that the
charter is needed in some cases in spite of what some other ISPs may
or may not do.
>
>The topic of your group is given by its name,
>its short description and sometimes, by and
>additionally description paragraph in the body
>of your newgroup message.
>
>If you feel such a paragraph is necessary to
>keep out the "cooks" of your NG, make one, but
>don't call it "Charter". Unmoderated NGs have
>NO charter!

Who's rule is that? We are here to tell users how it is, not how you
wish it were. ISPs set their own rules. We are not here to tell news
admins what their rules should be. All we can do is help users meet
as many of those rules as possible.

BarB

In article <vot8qs45nugsdptda5trltob80oaj3ee1b@nntp.ix.netcom.com>,
barbara pattist <pattist@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 23 Aug 2000 20:40:53 GMT, "Thomas Lang�rd" <vifgutt@c2i.net>
>wrote:
>
>>Hey!
>>
>>Is there a alt.music.redhotchillipeppers or something?
>>
>>If not, could you "create" it?
>>
>I can't believe it was never created. We discussed it, agreed on a
>name, plenty of traffic,  but I guess the proponent never sent the
>cmsg.
>
>alt.music.red-hot-chili-peppers is over 20 characters in the last
>component but I don't see any way to shorten it and keep it readable.
>I think it will fly. There are a few other groups in a similar
>situation.
>
>That's one "L" in chili I believe...at least that's the way we spell
>it in Texas.:)

And also the way the band spells it.


>Write out a charter.
>
>
>
>BarB
>--
>pattist@ix.netcom.com ..moderation board, news:news.newusers.questions
>General Newsgroup Help............... http://www.geocities.com/nnqweb/
>Deja Power Search.............. http://www.deja.com/=dnc/home_ps.shtml
>Creating New Groups..... http://www.geocities.com/nnqweb//ncreate.html

On Thu, 24 Aug 2000 23:27:21 -0500,
barbara pattist <pattist@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

> On 24 Aug 2000 21:13:13 -0500, TGOS
> <the-guardian-of-sailormoon@gmx.net> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 24 Aug 2000 18:08:03 -0500,
>> barbara pattist <pattist@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Your charter will say what is on
>>> and off topic for the group. Do you
>>> want to permit advertising about related products?
>>
>> Think about it:
>>
>> You say: Yes, advertising is fine. What will happen
>> if the group now drowns in advertisements?
>> The people there will come back here and call for
>> a new group that doesn't allow advertisements.
>> Result: Two groups for one topic.
>
> That's why most groups limit advertising
> to a reasonable level.

And if advertisers ignore those levels, what
will you do theen?

>> You say: No, advertising if forbidden. What will
>> happen if no plenty of people want to advertise
>> for related topics? They come here and request
>> for a group about this topic where advertising
>> is allowed.
>> Result: Two groups for one topic.
>
> I'm not sure what " no plenty of people" means,
> but if there is a demand for more advertising
> than the charter allows, the people
> return and request a *.marketplace group

Yeah for sure, they will.
Don't make me laugh.

But I will remember that and will gratefully
tell all Ebay advertisers who make whole groups
go crazy to contact you for a marketplace NG.

<snip>

>> OH, another group that will come here crying when
>> they drown in spam...wonderfully!
>
> The purpose of the charter is to prevent spam

And this is achieved how?
<sarcasm>
Oh right, I forgot that spammers are all very nice
people who will certainly read the charters of those
NGs and who will never consider sending spam
to a group where this isn't allowed.
</sarcasm>

Have you ever tried to get spam out of a group that
really has a problem with that?


> and if it can't be
> prevented to alert the offender's ISP.

In case ISPs forbid spam in their TOS, they'll act,
otherwise they won't. The last place they will
take a look whether they shall act or not will
be the charter of a group.

>>> You need to include a clause that
>>> says no binaries are permitted.
>>
>> Evident by name.
>
> Where is it evident in the name that binaries
> do not belong in text groups?

Very simply, as they don't belong in text-NGs.

> I know that, you know that, but a good
> proportion of users do not when their
> ISP permits misplaced binaries.

And those users also don't know what the
ISC is, what a charter is, how to look
up a charter, nor anything else like
that.

There are users who inform themselves
in advance and those who don't. Those who
inform themselves in advance may read
the charter of a group, but they also
know about the binary/non-binary conventions
of the Uenet.

Those who do not inform themselves in
advance won't know such conventions, but
they'll also not read charters.

>> If you have a charter, cooks may do so
>> as well; you can't stop them.
>
> Sure you can. Most nice people will
> not post off-topic. Trolls are a
> different problem.

And they won't need a charter to know
if anything is off-topic or not.

When the group is
alt.music.red-hot-chili-peppers		The band

Then you already have your topic.

>> Instead of a charter, post a description
>> paragraph in your newgroup post that makes
>> sure that people won't misunderstand the
>> topic of your group.
>
> Ah, but that's a charter by another name. :)

Charter:
a) a written statement describing the rights that
a group of people have or should have
b) a written statement by a ruler or a government
giving certain rights and privileges to a town,
company, etc.

That's not an explanation!!!

The body of a newgroup message is used to give
additional description about the topic of a
group. I see differences between a description
and what I quoted above.

Who in the world gave the creator of a group
the rights to "make a charter" for this group?
Organizations can make charters, or when you
create a BIG-8 group and let people VOTE for
it, you can let them indirectly also vote
for a charter.

But a single person who just likes to a group
for a certain topic to the Usenet are not in
a position to make charters unless they are
some kind of rulers, in this case dictators.

> I don't think you've made a case
> for charters causing trouble.
> People can cause trouble by writing
> an uninforcable charter and
> attempting to netcop.

Every charter is unenforceable,
thus every charter can cause trouble.
This was no counter-argument, it was backing up
my point.

> The group that I was talking about, alt.games.the-sims, had been
> requested many times by various users without result according to
> their own posts to an internal group. It was getting good traffic on
> the servers who had picked it up. Mindspring absolutely refused to
> pick it up until that new charter was posted. At the same time I
> found several other big commercial providers were not carrying it
> either. They have since added it. So I have evidence that the
> charter is needed in some cases in spite of what some other ISPs may
> or may not do.

Hello there, you remember this incident, don you?

The newgroup post that ScottZf sent here looked like being
written by a completely idiot (a role where ScottZf seems
to have lot's of practice) and taking a look at it, it
looked like some stupid Troll tried to create a joke
Newsgroup without any intention of really using it
afterwards.

If I would have been an ISP, I hadn't took the group either,
but that has nothing to do with presence or absence of a
charter.

I bet if this group has had no charter at all, it would have
distributed a lot better than it had in this one case.

So all that this example shows is that a bad charter can
cause terrible harm to a group. IOW before you take the risk
to write a bad charter, you better don't write any charter
at all. With no charter at all, Mindspring had certainly
took it on its first newgroup post.


And I say it once again, no charter is enforceable. You
can't prevent people from advertising in a group just
because you wrote so in your charter.

>> If you feel such a paragraph is necessary to
>> keep out the "cooks" of your NG, make one, but
>> don't call it "Charter". Unmoderated NGs have
>> NO charter!
>
> Who's rule is that?

Look definition of charter.

> We are here to tell users how it is, not how you
> wish it were.

I wish NGs could have a real charter, I wish
that this charter would be enforceable and I
wish that you are allowed to create a second
group about a topic if you can't agree with
the charter of the first one. As well as I
wish that charters would be exchangeable
on the ISC archive.
That's what I wish!

Right now it is like that:
NGs usually don't have a charter, those
who have one can't enforce it, you will get
heavy objections from every side when you create
a second NG about a topic and charters are not
exchangeable in case they exist.

> ISPs set their own rules.
> We are not here to tell news
> admins what their rules should be.

And the relation to what I wrote is?

I know ISPs rules, I collect them (yes, I collect
copies of TOS rules on my PC of various ISPs
all over the world).

> All we can do is help users meet
> as many of those rules as possible.

And none of them has any rules for which newgroup
posts are valid and which not.
The only rules that you have to meet are the ones
set by the RFC.


--
-=< TGOS >=-

Usenet?
http://www.tgos.org/newbie

"Scott is a first class asshole.
He always has been and always will be."
    - Reply to thread "ScottZf" on alt.config

On Fri, 25 Aug 2000 15:54:36 GMT,
"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.chient.com> wrote:

> TGOS <the-guardian-of-sailormoon@gmx.net> wrote:
>
>> 1) ISPs won't help you to uphold them.
>> You may write there what's not okay in
>> your group, but nobody will punish
>> those who violate this charter.
>
>> 2) You can never change this charter.
>> If it gets out-of-date or something would
>> have to be added or removed, it's not
>> possible. This may cause problems in the
>> long run you can't even think about
>> right now (as you can't predict what'll
>> be in one year)
>
> Your second point contradicts your first
> point, for if (according to you)
> charters are not enforced, how can they
> cause problems in a year?

a) People may contradict to them and although they
are not enforced, they may go and create a new NG,
splitting up a community into two camps, causing
a second NG for a single topic and causing that
way too groups with poor traffic instead one
with good traffic.

b) Some people may try to "enforce" them on their
own:
# People can cause trouble by writing
# an unenforceable charter and
# attempting to netcop.
	- Barbara P.

Since no charter is enforceable, they always cause
trouble when they try to uphold them, no matter
what's written there.

c) You may place your own idea about a good group
there and later on find out, those hadn't been
good ideas after all. You may start to simply
violate your own rules. While people can't avoid
it, you'll be permanently attacked as being a
hypocrite as if nobody else upholds your charter,
people will at least expect that you yourself
(as person who wrote it) will uphold it.


I ask once again:
Who gives the creator of a group any right to decide
what posts are acceptable there and what are not?
Who? You?

All that a creator of a group may do is choose the
topic of the group that s/he's creating and for
that, you don't need to state a charter.

Every post that is on-topic in a group belongs into
that group, no matter what a possible existing charter
says.

--
TGOS

** Shameless commercial **
Register for AHSM/ABHSM at:
http://www.tgos.org/ahsm/members

TGOS <the-guardian-of-sailormoon@gmx.net> wrote:

>1) ISPs won't help you to uphold them.
>You may write there what's not okay in
>your group, but nobody will punish
>those who violate this charter.

>2) You can never change this charter.
>If it gets out-of-date or something would
>have to be added or removed, it's not
>possible. This may cause problems in the
>long run you can't even think about
>right now (as you can't predict what'll
>be in one year)

Your second point contradicts your first point, for if (according to you)
charters are not enforced, how can they cause problems in a year?

Do you have clue number one as to the purpose of a charter?

In article <Zxap5.9801$541.1882317@juliett.dax.net>, "Thomas Lang�rd"
<vifgutt@c2i.net> wrote:

>"barbara pattist" <pattist@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
>news:vot8qs45nugsdptda5trltob80oaj3ee1b@nntp.ix.netcom.com...
>> On Wed, 23 Aug 2000 20:40:53 GMT, "Thomas Lang�rd" <vifgutt@c2i.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Hey!
>> >
>> >Is there a alt.music.redhotchillipeppers or something?
>> >
>> >If not, could you "create" it?
>> >
>> I can't believe it was never created. We discussed it, agreed on a
>> name, plenty of traffic,  but I guess the proponent never sent the
>> cmsg.
>
>So we'll do it!
>
>> alt.music.red-hot-chili-peppers is over 20 characters in the last
>> component but I don't see any way to shorten it and keep it readable.
>> I think it will fly. There are a few other groups in a similar
>> situation.
>
>What about "alt.music.redhotchilipeppers" or "alt.music.redhot"?
>
>> That's one "L" in chili I believe...at least that's the way we spell
>> it in Texas.:)
>
>That's right. I just typed wrong.
>
>> Write out a charter.
>
>A charter for what exactly?
>

alt.music.red-hot-chili-peppers.
Just go ahead and csmg it, dumbass. If you're too stupid to figure it out
ask Eugene or SailorMoon.
HTH,
TM

On Sat, 26 Aug 2000 04:29:24 GMT,
"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.chinet.com> wrote:

> TGOS <the-guardian-of-sailormoon@gmx.net> wrote:

> You attribute bad splits to what may or
> may not be in the charter? When splits
> are proposed, more often than not,
> the proponent has not read the charter.

But charters can give posters good arguments for
a splits about questions like advertising.

>> b) Some people may try to "enforce" them on their
>> own:
>> # People can cause trouble by writing
>> # an unenforceable charter and
>> # attempting to netcop.
>>	- Barbara P.
>>
>> Since no charter is enforceable, they always cause
>> trouble when they try to uphold them, no matter
>> what's written there.
>
> Barbara P. was discussing a
> proponent becoming a net cop after
> the group is established, while you seem
> to be mentioning net copping in general.

Who care?
You can't netcop a NG that has no charter as you
have nothing you can base your netcopping on.
I remember the that case of an astrology NG...

> It's ridiculous when the proponent does it,
> as he was the only one who had control
> of the charter.

Exactly. He is the only one who has control
of the charter, here we have already one reason
why I think charters no good idea.

> If there were flaws in the charter,
> he has only himself
> to blame.

Every charter will have flaws in the eyes of other
people, you can NEVER write a charter to that all
NG posters will agree to.

> Generally, bad charters don't
> create net cops among others.

No, I only said charters very often cause netcopping.

> You haven't a clue what a charter is for;
> it's not a set of rules.

Posts like <this> and <that> are not allowed.

Sounds pretty much like rules for me.
Rules that may most likely cause netcopping
if people violate those rules.

--
-=< TGOS >=-

Usenet?
http://www.tgos.org/newbie

"Scott is a first class asshole.
He always has been and always will be."
    - Reply to thread "ScottZf" on alt.config

TGOS <the-guardian-of-sailormoon@gmx.net> wrote:
>"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.chinet.com> wrote:
>>TGOS <the-guardian-of-sailormoon@gmx.net> wrote:

>>You attribute bad splits to what may or may not be in the charter? When
>>splits are proposed, more often than not, the proponent has not read
>>the charter.

>But charters can give posters good arguments for a splits about questions like
>advertising.

Huh? That's the same as arguing to split a group because it has become overrun
with trolls. If the traffic actually moves to the new group, the advertisers
would follow. God forbid anyone should learn to use killfiles.

>Who care?  You can't netcop a NG that has no charter as you have nothing you
>can base your netcopping on.  I remember the that case of an astrology NG...

YOU can't netcop on the basis of anything! charter or no. A netcop is simply
a troll in another form.

>>It's ridiculous when the proponent does it, as he was the only one who
>>had control of the charter.

>Exactly. He is the only one who has control of the charter, here we have
>already one reason why I think charters no good idea.

You still have no idea what charters are for, do you? Take the word literally:
the purpose of the charter is to help publicize the group, to help promote it
when trying to get it started. After the group has been established, it no
longer does anything. At that point, what's on topic is whatever can sustain
a conversation (vaguely related to the original topic).

The charter is the place where the proponent puts his thoughts in order and
spells out his idea for what the group should be.

>>If there were flaws in the charter, he has only himself to blame.

>Every charter will have flaws in the eyes of other people, you can NEVER
>write a charter to that all NG posters will agree to.

Not the point I was making. If the proponent is the netcop, he's trying to
overcome flaws in the charter that HE perceives.

>>Generally, bad charters don't create net cops among others.

>No, I only said charters very often cause netcopping.

Uh, you just rephrased it. Charters don't cause anything.

>>You haven't a clue what a charter is for; it's not a set of rules.

>Posts like <this> and <that> are not allowed.

>Sounds pretty much like rules for me.  Rules that may most likely cause
>netcopping if people violate those rules.

Bad charters are phrased in that manner. A charter cannot ban topics of
discussion. A good charter sets guidelines.

If a proponent has framed sets of rules in the charter, it's because he has
the same misconception of its purpose as you have. He can call 'em rules, but
they ain't.

On Sat, 26 Aug 2000 14:37:30 GMT, in
<KCQp5.20962$ZI2.1237334@news1.rdc1.il.home.com> [name suppressed] wrote:

<snip>
>If a proponent has framed sets of rules in the charter, it's because he has
>the same misconception of its purpose as you have. He can call 'em rules, but
>they ain't.

Ummmm....actually, that all depends on the poster's provider and can vary
from charters are everything to charters are nothing and anything in
between.

g

g <gypsy@cyberelectric.com> wrote:

>>If a proponent has framed sets of rules in the charter, it's because he has
>>the same misconception of its purpose as you have. He can call 'em rules, but
>>they ain't.

>Ummmm....actually, that all depends on the poster's provider and can vary
>from charters are everything to charters are nothing and anything in
>between.

Unless TGOS says different (and he likely will), I thought we were trying to
discuss topics of discussion in text groups exclusively. I'd put spamming and
binaries in a different position. If a user is discovered doing either, he'd
lose his account, not because the news administrator is enforcing a charter
but because of violation of terms of service. Posting a binary to a text group?
I'd like to believe that that violates TOS on some systems, and that could get
such people kicked off REGARDLESS of the charter addressing binaries.

Advertising (that isn't spam)? I can see that there could be people who lose
an account for advertising that may or may not be a charter violation. I
suppose it is quite rare, though.

Does anyone know of specific recent examples of this?

On the other hand, attempting to start a discussion that's off topic, or
trolling, or flaming (regardless of charter violations) isn't going to cause
you to lose an account unless the poster has also violated TOS. Does anyone
have an example of a troll or flame losing an account (short of being caught
forging headers or something)?

On Thu, 24 Aug 2000 23:27:21 -0500,
barbara pattist <pattist@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

What I forgot to comment on the other post was...

> The group that I was talking about,
> alt.games.the-sims,
[...]
> It was getting good traffic on
> the servers who had picked it up.

What is interesting, as this was exactly the reason
why all posters of this NG objected to this group?

Wasn't it exactly ScottZf who said that all the posters
refuse to move to this group and that this group will
be vanished and never have any traffic.

--
-=< TGOS >=-

Usenet?
http://www.tgos.org/newbie

"Scott is a first class asshole.
He always has been and always will be."
    - Reply to thread "ScottZf" on alt.config

TGOS <the-guardian-of-sailormoon@gmx.net> wrote:
>"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.chient.com> wrote:
>>TGOS <the-guardian-of-sailormoon@gmx.net> wrote:

>>>1) ISPs won't help you to uphold them.
>>>You may write there what's not okay in
>>>your group, but nobody will punish
>>>those who violate this charter.

>>>2) You can never change this charter.
>>>If it gets out-of-date or something would
>>>have to be added or removed, it's not
>>>possible. This may cause problems in the
>>>long run you can't even think about
>>>right now (as you can't predict what'll
>>>be in one year)

>>Your second point contradicts your first point, for if (according to you)
>>charters are not enforced, how can they cause problems in a year?

>a) People may contradict to them and although they
>are not enforced, they may go and create a new NG,
>splitting up a community into two camps, causing
>a second NG for a single topic and causing that
>way too groups with poor traffic instead one
>with good traffic.

You attribute bad splits to what may or may not be in the charter? When splits
are proposed, more often than not, the proponent has not read the charter.

>b) Some people may try to "enforce" them on their
>own:
># People can cause trouble by writing
># an unenforceable charter and
># attempting to netcop.
>	- Barbara P.

>Since no charter is enforceable, they always cause
>trouble when they try to uphold them, no matter
>what's written there.

You are attributing a personality to the charter, a static document that
doesn't go out and beat posters over the head. Barbara P. was discussing a
proponent becoming a net cop after the group is established, while you seem
to be mentioning net copping in general. Do you see the distinction? It's
ridiculous when the proponent does it, as he was the only one who had control
of the charter. If there were flaws in the charter, he has only himself
to blame.

Generally, bad charters don't create net cops among others.

>c) You may place your own idea about a good group
>there and later on find out, those hadn't been
>good ideas after all. You may start to simply
>violate your own rules. While people can't avoid
>it, you'll be permanently attacked as being a
>hypocrite as if nobody else upholds your charter,
>people will at least expect that you yourself
>(as person who wrote it) will uphold it.

You haven't a clue what a charter is for; it's not a set of rules.

>I ask once again:
>Who gives the creator of a group any right to decide
>what posts are acceptable there and what are not?
>Who? You?

You've now returned to straw man mode.

g <gypsy@cyberelectric.com> wrote:
>[name suppressed] wrote:
>>g <gypsy@cyberelectric.com> wrote:

>>>>On the other hand, attempting to start a discussion that's off topic,
>>>>or trolling, or flaming (regardless of charter violations) isn't going to
>>>>cause you to lose an account unless the poster has also violated [terms of
>>>>service]. Does anyone have an example of a troll or flame losing an account
>>>>(short of being caught forging headers or something)?

>>>Well, not exactly again.  Intentional disruption of a newsgroup got a
>>>couple of commercial news admins panties in a wad in May.  They complained
>>>to the guy's provider, but the provider had no problem with it and the guy
>>>didn't lose his account.  It was, however, rather clearly stated that had
>>>the guy done the same off their services, he'd be toast.

>>Can you be a lot more clear about what he did?

>Here's one direct quote:
>============================
>>   Indeed they should. However, your behavior in your already off-topic
>>posts is clearly abusive, harassing, and above all else, annoying. On top of
>>that, you've clearly demonstrated a true disregard for my ample warnings and
>>went on to harass other users in this group after I referenced the charter
>>and pointed out your inability to follow those guidelines.
>============================

That says he did two things: posted off topic, and annoyed and harassed other
posters. It seems like the warnings were given for the harassment. How many
charters address the harassment of posters? Again, that would be someone losing
his account for violating terms of service. Since you didn't describe what the
topic of discussion should have been, and what topic he was posting on, I can't
judge he should have lost his account for merely being off topic.

As you won't be more specific, I'll offer a hypothetical. For the hell of it,
let's pick on Robert.

Robert starts a group to discuss the safe use of a mood-altering substance
which, er, may or may not have been properly prescribed by a doctor. In his
charter, Robert bans discussion of the benefits of sobriety, getting off drugs,
enforcing drug laws, and similar issues.

A fanatic starts posting, trying to save souls by telling them they must get
off drugs. A "get tough on crime" type starts posting, arguing that if only
jail sentences were longer, fewer people would use drugs.

Let's say they both posted via home.net. Robert net.cops 'em to the news
administrator for violating the charter. According to the TOS, they would lose
their account. Should they?

What's a likely outcome of the situation? Several people on the group would get
mad, and argue vociferously with the posters. They argue back. Threads develop.
Despite what Robert wrote in the charter, the topics of discussion have now
expanded to include the benefits of getting off drugs and the length of
sentences for violating drug laws.

Someone can amend charters, someone can update FAQs repeatedly. But no one can
predict from day to day what people will wish to talk about. Furthermore,
charters and FAQs are always going to reflect the personal biases of their
authors. Given Robert's net.copping attitude, he's not going to change his
opinion and either amend the charter or write an FAQ to announce that the
policy of the group has changed to "allow" such discussions, even though it is
obvious that such discussions are taking place on the group.

This is normal human behavior, most common on Usenet. Charters, FAQs, and TOS
should never be used to attempt to control it.

If the users of the group didn't want to see discussions of the morality of
sobriety or drug sentences, all they had to do was sit on their fingers and
refuse to post followups. If that had happened, the topics of discussion would
not have changed from what Robert wrote in the charter. The two posters would
have been off topic. Even if they kept on posting such messages, even if
people didn't like it, even if they tried to net.cop them, the two posters
should not lose their accounts under any common sense Usenet administration
policy.

Earlier in this thread, I think that's what The Rent-a-Cop of Bad Drawing was
getting at in his usual "charters are evil!" rant. The point I was making is
that he has the same incorrect view of the purpose of charters as do net.cops,
supposedly the very types he is opposed to.

You appear to have the same view of charters that he has!

>>>Another provider shines FAQs yet expects charters of alt.* groups to be
>>>very detailed and modified to keep them current; the charter is a set of
>>>rules according to that provider.

>>Uh, he expects CHARTERS to be modified? Of course, there ain't no accepted
>>procedure for that. It's ridiculous, anyhow. By definition, the charter is
>>what was written to start the newsgroup. Will he cancel an account for
>>making an off topic post (not a spam, advertisement, nor binary)?

>Yes, absolutely, he expects charters to be modified.

That's insane. How, exactly, does one modify a charter, getting all of the
affected people to agree that yes, the charter has been modified? (These
affected people would include all of the world's news administrators.) That
can't be done anymore than a dead alt.* group can be removed everywhere.

>HOWEVER, consider the implications of what someone might call just an "off
>topic" post to one of the alt.support newsgroups.....   One off topic post,
>or continued.  What's the intent?

What you wrote here ain't clear. Can you rephrase?

>>>Then ya gotta go read the AUP for assorted large ISPs.  Check the service
>>>you use - www.home.com/aup under Newsgroups.  Note the "Charters or FAQ"
>>>compliance,

>>Yeah, I know what it says, but that's too damn vague to be enforceable. 

>I disagree.

Most charters are too vague for this purpose.

>>The rest of it is a lot more clear: no commercial messages in newsgroups,
>>unless it is allowed specifically. No binaries in text groups. Observe
>>posting limitations in binary groups. No excessive crossposting. No
>>flooding. No forging headers.

>>>but a FAQ is much more likely to reflect current newsgroup "operations"
>>>if it's a policy statement - which FAQs can be - see the FAQ on FAQs.

>>Ah, no. An FAQ can remain static for years, and so would be as out-of-date
>>as the charter. 

>Of course, a FAQ can remain static for years but read rest of the sentence
>- if it's a policy statement.  Newsgroups *do* keep "policy" up to date.

No they don't. See the hypothetical I gave above. Despite what a statement
claiming to reflect policy says, topics of discussion change with time in
all sorts of unpredictable ways.

>>FAQ is the wrong mechanism to use to spell out topicality. It's just too
>>damn fluid, particularly as you never know who has dropped in and out of
>>participation on the group.

>Here you wanna hold binaries to a different measure and I include them.  
>Posting pr0n in a binary group not for pr0n?  They're binaries, right?

You are going off on a tangent here; I'm strictly discussing discussions.

There are completely different reasons for bans of that nature, and you
well know it: News administrators don't wish to expose themselves to criminal
prosecution in various jurisdictions.

Besides, there's no such thing as pr0n. It's art!

>>I prefer FAQs to be... answers to frequently asked questions.

>There are those - and there FAQs that are policy statements also.

Those are failures, for the instant the topic has broadened, or narrowed even,
they are out of date.

>>>Mindspring/Earthlink says charters, faq's, published guidelines or community
>>>standards.

>>Community standards is something else entirely, and no one knows what it
>>means. Some prosecutor, somewhere, could find a "community" whose standards
>>a specific post violated.

>But that would not be the "community standards" for the group in question.
>Irrelevant.

Hahahahaha. Mr. Prosecutor will pick and chose the community on your behalf
to ensure an indictment. It will include neither news administrators nor
Usenet users, but regular church-going folks and Sunday school teachers who are
shocked SHOCKED by what takes place on News and are pleased to stamp it out.

On a newsgroup, nothing could be simpler than not changing the subject to what
a rogue poster wants to discuss: Don't post a followup! That's the ideal thing
about News, self-enforcement by the users without the need to rely on outside
intervention or administration.

>>>Allbery says he ignores charters and checks out the FAQ.  That's all
>>>I remember offhand, but you can also take a look through two threads
>>>in news.admin.misc - one from January and one from March.  Skirvin
>>>started the first, don't remember who started the second (got the
>>>MIDs/subjects somewhere if you want 'em) but they're both HUGE threads
>>>on charters/modifications and FAQs vs charters.  The admins responding
>>>were all over the place; regardless, a news admin is unlikely to handle
>>>abuse so it's back to being totally dependent on the provider's policy.

>>Perhaps I'll read it at some point; not now.

>>Topicality is too vague a criterion for anyone to lose an account over. 

>I disagree.

Let's say those followups are posted and those threads are sustainable. The guy
who posted the root article now has evidence that the topics of discussion
include what he posted about. He shouldn't lose his account.

Taking this notion to the extreme, as all those other people also violated
written policy by sustaining the thread (even to post to say they disagreed),
they would lose their accounts.

>>The poster should have committed a clearly-defined bit of obnoxiousness,
>>such as advertising, excessive crossposting, spamming, misdirected binaries,
>>forging, etc.

>Well, what if someone continued posting to alt.support.learning.difficulties
>that they were just stupid and retarded?  Totally intentionally disruptive.

If anyone responded, I'd say the troll made his point.

>>Even a troll is going to be vaguely topical; it can't work otherwise.

>>Proponents sometimes put ridiculous restrictions in their charters, merely
>>reflecting their own taste. What if someone posts on such a sub-topic? If
>>it doesn't start a thread, the proponent's taste was prophetic. If it did,
>>the proponent was wrong. Surely, no such clause in a charter should be
>>enforced by a news administrator even if there is a complaint, even if
>>by the proponent.

>>Charters have a highly specific purpose: To force a proponent to think about
>>what direction the newsgroup he wants to start should take. It then becomes
>>one of the tools he uses to promote the group. He wants to send discussion in
>>the group in a specific direction.

>>But once the group becomes established, the charter no longer has a direct
>>function with respect to steering conversation.

>Yes and no and depends on the group which is why "community standards" and
>a current FAQ become all the more important.

This is just so wrong. Policy statements in FAQs don't reflect community
standards, but the personal opinions of the author. There are newsgroups that
have conflicting FAQs, FAQs written to harass specific posters, etc.

Actual example: From its name, you might think that alt.usenet.offline-reader
was a dry, technical group. It has two different, conflicting, reasonably
well-written FAQs. Both contain subtle insults of the other author. They
have a fundamental disagreement over whether the QWK method of exchanging
messages could be adapted for exchanging messages between the FIDO network
and Internet Mail or Usenet. One says it is impossible, and that the UQWK
method should be used instead. The other says QWK can be used to encapsulate
messages containing proper Internet headers, and the gateway should make
the translation.

The main purpose of the former FAQ is to restrict discussion in the newsgroup
to what he considers "pure" Internet methods, and stamping out any discussion
of whatever development there still is of FIDO applications. The main purpose
of the latter FAQ is to tweak the author of the former FAQ, and continue to
allow more broadly-based discussion in the newsgroup.

You explain to me how the hell some news administrator attempting to enforce
community standards is going to be able to handle this controversy in a fair
and impartial manner. Now he's going to have to make a value judgment as to
which FAQ reflects actual policy! Is this a permanent condition? Can't be.
There could be some programmer out there looking at some older FIDO methods
who latches onto an elegant application from years ago and decides to update
it. Suddenly, there could be a lot more talk about QWK on this newsgroup, so
the second FAQ now reflects "policy", and the first one does not.

>>It's difficult to believe that a news administrator would attempt to use one
>>to narrowly limit discussion of a topic.

>They can.  They can do exactly what they want to do on their service with
>their customers. 

Really. With all the news servers in the world, how likely is it that when a
news administrator receives a complaint about one of his users, it's going to
come from another user on his network? If he's as strict about charter
enforcement as you say some are, he'll handle the complaint seriously, against
the interest of his own customer. Unless his customer did something really
harmful, it can't possibly be good business for him to devote any time to it.

Only if there was a complaint between two of his own users would he have a
direct business interest in resolving it. (If they both whine an equal amount,
each should lose his account.)

On Sun, 27 Aug 2000 18:34:55 GMT,
"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.chinet.com> wrote:

<blah-snip>

Why not simply saving all these troubles
and just get rid of telling people
to include charters?

Most people won't do that unless you tell
them to do that and NGs without charters
will hardly have any problems mentioned
before.

What belongs into a NG and what not is only
set by topic and the topic of a NG is set
by its name and description.

Many people will take charters as rules,
not as guidelines. And even guidelines are
rules up to a certain amount (not mandatory
ones, but still rules).

Whenever somebody looses his account because
violating a charter of a NG (and that although
the post was on-topic if you ignore the
charter for a moment), you have a VERY good
reason to object charters in newgroup posts.

You see, even ISPs misunderstand this term
(otherwise they wouldn't force people to uphold
those charters) and users will do so as well.

I know NGs that had a charter and it turned
out to be a bad one, they wrote a FAQ and
placed a new one there. Now the NG has two
camps that are in a big flame war and try
to convince ISPs that their charter is the
only valid charter. Several accounts had
already been terminated on both sides...

This is all fucking bullshit!

A FAQ is to answer frequent questions, not
to state rules! And what you call charter,
should be an additional description paragraph
below the "For your newsgroups file:" lines.

Only by removing the word "charter", you gave the
whole thing a more "description"-like character,
instead of a "rule"-character. And as you can see,
people who have the word charter in their
proposal are a lot more likely to create rules
with this charter (aren't you seeing it here all
the time?), while people that don't have this
word in their post, seems to only use this paragraph
as description to give posters and ISPs additional
information about the group.


Why are you trying to uphold an idea that can
cause so many troubles? A good written "charter"
(in the meaning of charter that Adam states,
one that doesn't sets rule but describes the
topic of the group)
is still a good written charter if you omit
the word "charter"!
But when you omit, it's a description and
not a charter.

Fact is:
Right now all the people post bad charters,
because they misunderstand this term.
Those that don't use the term at all
post quite well "charters", in the meaning
of "describing the topic of a NG".

--
-=< TGOS >=-

Usenet?
http://www.tgos.org/newbie

"Scott is a first class asshole.
He always has been and always will be."
    - Reply to thread "ScottZf" on alt.config

On 27 Aug 2000 14:44:50 -0500, TGOS <the-guardian-of-sailormoon@gmx.net>
scribbled:

>this is all fucking bullshit!

Yes, most things you write are.

--

Want to propose a newsgroup? Browse these links for help:
http://www.faqs.org/usenet/alt/
http://www.gweep.bc.ca/~edmonds/usenet/good-newgroup.html
http://nylon.net/alt/newgroup.htm
For information on moderating a newsgroup:
http://www.swcp.com/~dmckeon/mod-faq.html
For help with Deja keyword search:
http://www.deja.com/help/help_lang.shtml
For Deja power search:
http://www.exit109.com/~jeremy/news/deja.html
Details on doing a Deja power search:
http://skyscraper.fortunecity.com/skylon/1307/index.html
For proposing WebTV alt.discuss groups:
http://www.munitions.com/~advotes/ad-voterules.html
Tale discusses control messages:
ftp://ftp.isc.org/pub/usenet/CONFIG/README

TGOS <the-guardian-of-sailormoon@gmx.net> wrote:
>"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.chinet.com> wrote:

><blah-snip>

Thanks for the feedback.

>Why not simply saving all these troubles
>and just get rid of telling people
>to include charters?

You are the only one seeing trouble.

>Whenever somebody looses his account because
>violating a charter of a NG (and that although
>the post was on-topic if you ignore the
>charter for a moment), you have a VERY good
>reason to object charters in newgroup posts.

Oh, come up with an example. g's made the same argument, and he hasn't
provided an example either.

>You see, even ISPs misunderstand this term
>(otherwise they wouldn't force people to uphold
>those charters) and users will do so as well.

Users can easily uphold charters with the simple expedient of not posting
followups to people trying to discuss topics they don't wish to discuss.

>I know NGs that had a charter and it turned
>out to be a bad one, they wrote a FAQ and
>placed a new one there. Now the NG has two
>camps that are in a big flame war and try
>to convince ISPs that their charter is the
>only valid charter. Several accounts had
>already been terminated on both sides...

>This is all fucking bullshit!

Yeah, unless you can support that claim.

>A FAQ is to answer frequent questions, not to state rules!

My ghod, you agree with something I wrote.

>And what you call charter, should be an additional description paragraph
>below the "For your newsgroups file:" lines.

>Only by removing the word "charter", you gave the
>whole thing a more "description"-like character,
>instead of a "rule"-character.

Let's keep the word as the title for that section of the proposal. It's
unambiguous. Here's the closest dictionary definition to what it means with
respect to starting an alt.* group: A document outlining the principals,
functions, and organization of a corporate body; constitution.

"Constitution" is the right analogy, for "organizations" require bylaws to
fully spell out the specific functions, while the constitution provides the
broad outline. For the purposes of a newsgroup, the "bylaws" are analogous
to what topics are actually discussed.

Not a wonderful analogy, but you ought to get the point.

>Why are you trying to uphold an idea that can
>cause so many troubles? A good written "charter"
>(in the meaning of charter that Adam states,
>one that doesn't sets rule but describes the
>topic of the group)
>is still a good written charter if you omit
>the word "charter"!
>But when you omit, it's a description and
>not a charter.

You know what? "Description" might have been a better word to use than
"charter". So what? It's been called Charter for a very long time. News
administrators who review newgroup messages expect to see a Charter. It's
not possible to change it now.

Anyone who associates strict enforcement of rules of discussion with alt.*
should neither post to alt.* nor carry alt.* groups on his news server.

g <gypsy@cyberelectric.com> wrote:

>>On the other hand, attempting to start a discussion that's off topic,
>>or trolling, or flaming (regardless of charter violations) isn't going to
>>cause you to lose an account unless the poster has also violated [terms of
>>service]. Does anyone have an example of a troll or flame losing an account
>>(short of being caught forging headers or something)?

>Well, not exactly again.  Intentional disruption of a newsgroup got a
>couple of commercial news admins panties in a wad in May.  They complained
>to the guy's provider, but the provider had no problem with it and the guy
>didn't lose his account.  It was, however, rather clearly stated that had
>the guy done the same off their services, he'd be toast.

Can you be a lot more clear about what he did?

>Another guy flooding a text discussion group with binaries didn't lose
>his account - not against the AUP/TOS from that provider.

Flooding a newsgroup, text or binaries, should cause someone to lose his
account. That need not be covered in the charter; it's assumed the ISP will
show a bit of sense.

>Another provider shines FAQs yet expects charters of alt.* groups to be
>very detailed and modified to keep them current; the charter is a set of
>rules according to that provider.

Uh, he expects CHARTERS to be modified? Of course, there ain't no accepted
procedure for that. It's ridiculous, anyone. By definition, the charter is
what was written to start the newsgroup. Will he cancel an account for
making an off topic post (not a spam, advertisement, nor binary)?

>Then ya gotta go read the AUP for assorted large ISPs.  Check the service
>you use - www.home.com/aup under Newsgroups.  Note the "Charters or FAQ"
>compliance,

Yeah, I know what it says, but that's too damn vague to be enforceable. The
rest of it is a lot more clear: no commercial messages in newsgroups, unless
it is allowed specifically. No binaries in text groups. Observe posting
limitations in binary groups. No excessive crossposting. No flooding. No
forging headers.

>but a FAQ is much more likely to reflect current newsgroup "operations"
>if it's a policy statement - which FAQs can be - see the FAQ on FAQs.

Ah, no. An FAQ can remain static for years, and so would be as out-of-date
as the charter. FAQ is the wrong mechanism to use to spell out topicality.
It's just too damn fluid, particularly as you never know who has dropped in
and out of participation on the group.

I prefer FAQs to be... answers to frequently asked questions.

>Mindspring/Earthlink says charters, faq's, published guidelines or community
>standards.

Community standards is something else entirely, and no one knows what it
means. Some prosecutor, somewhere, could find a "community" whose standards
a specific post violated.

>Allbery says he ignores charters and checks out the FAQ.  That's all
>I remember offhand, but you can also take a look through two threads in
>news.admin.misc - one from January and one from March.  Skirvin started the
>first, don't remember who started the second (got the MIDs/subjects somewhere
>if you want 'em) but they're both HUGE threads on charters/modifications
>and FAQs vs charters.  The admins responding were all over the place;
>regardless, a news admin is unlikely to handle abuse so it's back to being
>totally dependent on the provider's policy.

Perhaps I'll read it at some point; not now.

Topicality is too vague a criterion for anyone to lose an account over. The
poster should have committed a clearly-defined bit of obnoxiousness, such
as advertising, excessive crossposting, spamming, misdirected binaries,
forging, etc.

Even a troll is going to be vaguely topical; it can't work otherwise.

Proponents sometimes put ridiculous restrictions in their charters, merely
reflecting their own taste. What if someone posts on such a sub-topic? If
it doesn't start a thread, the proponent's taste was prophetic. If it did, the
proponent was wrong. Surely, no such clause in a charter should be enforced
by a news administrator even if there is a complaint, even if by the proponent.

Charters have a highly specific purpose: To force a proponent to think about
what direction the newsgroup he wants to start should take. It then becomes
one of the tools he uses to promote the group. He wants to send discussion in
the group in a specific direction.

But once the group becomes established, the charter no longer has a direct
function with respect to steering conversation.

It's difficult to believe that a news administrator would attempt to use one
to narrowly limit discussion of a topic.

On Sun, 27 Aug 2000 07:34:16 GMT, in
<Yv3q5.22236$ZI2.1304738@news1.rdc1.il.home.com> [name suppressed] wrote:

>g <gypsy@cyberelectric.com> wrote:
>
>>>On the other hand, attempting to start a discussion that's off topic,
>>>or trolling, or flaming (regardless of charter violations) isn't going to
>>>cause you to lose an account unless the poster has also violated [terms of
>>>service]. Does anyone have an example of a troll or flame losing an account
>>>(short of being caught forging headers or something)?
>
>>Well, not exactly again.  Intentional disruption of a newsgroup got a
>>couple of commercial news admins panties in a wad in May.  They complained
>>to the guy's provider, but the provider had no problem with it and the guy
>>didn't lose his account.  It was, however, rather clearly stated that had
>>the guy done the same off their services, he'd be toast.
>
>Can you be a lot more clear about what he did?

Here's one direct quote:
============================
>   Indeed they should. However, your behavior in your already off-topic
>posts is clearly abusive, harassing, and above all else, annoying. On top of
>that, you've clearly demonstrated a true disregard for my ample warnings and
>went on to harass other users in this group after I referenced the charter
>and pointed out your inability to follow those guidelines.
============================

>>Another guy flooding a text discussion group with binaries didn't lose
>>his account - not against the AUP/TOS from that provider.
>
>Flooding a newsgroup, text or binaries, should cause someone to lose his
>account. That need not be covered in the charter; it's assumed the ISP will
>show a bit of sense.

Unfortunately, not all NSPs/ISPs have "sense."  
>
>>Another provider shines FAQs yet expects charters of alt.* groups to be
>>very detailed and modified to keep them current; the charter is a set of
>>rules according to that provider.
>
>Uh, he expects CHARTERS to be modified? Of course, there ain't no accepted
>procedure for that. It's ridiculous, anyone. By definition, the charter is
>what was written to start the newsgroup. Will he cancel an account for
>making an off topic post (not a spam, advertisement, nor binary)?

Yes, absolutely, he expects charters to be modified.  I didn't ask him
about TOS questions.  I was just gathering information to possibly put
together something for a.c.  HOWEVER, consider the implications of what
someone might call just an "off topic" post to one of the alt.support
newsgroups.....   One off topic post, or continued.  What's the intent?  
>
>>Then ya gotta go read the AUP for assorted large ISPs.  Check the service
>>you use - www.home.com/aup under Newsgroups.  Note the "Charters or FAQ"
>>compliance,
>
>Yeah, I know what it says, but that's too damn vague to be enforceable. 

I disagree.  

The
>rest of it is a lot more clear: no commercial messages in newsgroups, unless
>it is allowed specifically. No binaries in text groups. Observe posting
>limitations in binary groups. No excessive crossposting. No flooding. No
>forging headers.
>
>>but a FAQ is much more likely to reflect current newsgroup "operations"
>>if it's a policy statement - which FAQs can be - see the FAQ on FAQs.
>
>Ah, no. An FAQ can remain static for years, and so would be as out-of-date
>as the charter. 

Of course, a FAQ can remain static for years but read rest of the sentence
- if it's a policy statement.  Newsgroups *do* keep "policy" up to date.

FAQ is the wrong mechanism to use to spell out topicality.
>It's just too damn fluid, particularly as you never know who has dropped in
>and out of participation on the group.

Here you wanna hold binaries to a different measure and I include them.  
Posting pr0n in a binary group not for pr0n?  They're binaries, right?  

>I prefer FAQs to be... answers to frequently asked questions.

There are those - and there FAQs that are policy statements also.  
>
>>Mindspring/Earthlink says charters, faq's, published guidelines or community
>>standards.
>
>Community standards is something else entirely, and no one knows what it
>means. Some prosecutor, somewhere, could find a "community" whose standards
>a specific post violated.

But that would not be the "community standards" for the group in question.
Irrelevant.
>
>>Allbery says he ignores charters and checks out the FAQ.  That's all
>>I remember offhand, but you can also take a look through two threads in
>>news.admin.misc - one from January and one from March.  Skirvin started the
>>first, don't remember who started the second (got the MIDs/subjects somewhere
>>if you want 'em) but they're both HUGE threads on charters/modifications
>>and FAQs vs charters.  The admins responding were all over the place;
>>regardless, a news admin is unlikely to handle abuse so it's back to being
>>totally dependent on the provider's policy.
>
>Perhaps I'll read it at some point; not now.
>
>Topicality is too vague a criterion for anyone to lose an account over. 

I disagree.

The
>poster should have committed a clearly-defined bit of obnoxiousness, such
>as advertising, excessive crossposting, spamming, misdirected binaries,
>forging, etc.

Well, what if someone continued posting to
alt.support.learning.difficulties that they were just stupid and retarded?
Totally intentionally disruptive.  
>
>Even a troll is going to be vaguely topical; it can't work otherwise.
>
>Proponents sometimes put ridiculous restrictions in their charters, merely
>reflecting their own taste. What if someone posts on such a sub-topic? If
>it doesn't start a thread, the proponent's taste was prophetic. If it did, the
>proponent was wrong. Surely, no such clause in a charter should be enforced
>by a news administrator even if there is a complaint, even if by the proponent.
>
>Charters have a highly specific purpose: To force a proponent to think about
>what direction the newsgroup he wants to start should take. It then becomes
>one of the tools he uses to promote the group. He wants to send discussion in
>the group in a specific direction.
>
>But once the group becomes established, the charter no longer has a direct
>function with respect to steering conversation.

Yes and no and depends on the group which is why "community standards" and
a current FAQ become all the more important.
>
>It's difficult to believe that a news administrator would attempt to use one
>to narrowly limit discussion of a topic.

They can.  They can do exactly what they want to do on their service with
their customers. 

g

On Sat, 26 Aug 2000 15:52:24 GMT, in
<YIRp5.21015$ZI2.1244893@news1.rdc1.il.home.com> [name suppressed] wrote:

>g <gypsy@cyberelectric.com> wrote:
>
>>>If a proponent has framed sets of rules in the charter, it's because he has
>>>the same misconception of its purpose as you have. He can call 'em rules, but
>>>they ain't.
>
>>Ummmm....actually, that all depends on the poster's provider and can vary
>>from charters are everything to charters are nothing and anything in
>>between.
>
>Unless TGOS says different (and he likely will), I thought we were trying to
>discuss topics of discussion in text groups exclusively. I'd put spamming and
>binaries in a different position. If a user is discovered doing either, he'd
>lose his account, not because the news administrator is enforcing a charter
>but because of violation of terms of service. Posting a binary to a text group?
>I'd like to believe that that violates TOS on some systems, and that could get
>such people kicked off REGARDLESS of the charter addressing binaries.

It could.  Or could not.  It all depends on the provider.  To some
providers that is not a TOS violation.
>
>Advertising (that isn't spam)? I can see that there could be people who lose
>an account for advertising that may or may not be a charter violation. I
>suppose it is quite rare, though.
>
>Does anyone know of specific recent examples of this?
>
>On the other hand, attempting to start a discussion that's off topic, or
>trolling, or flaming (regardless of charter violations) isn't going to cause
>you to lose an account unless the poster has also violated TOS. Does anyone
>have an example of a troll or flame losing an account (short of being caught
>forging headers or something)?

Well, not exactly again.  Intentional disruption of a newsgroup got a
couple of commercial news admins panties in a wad in May.  They complained
to the guy's provider, but the provider had no problem with it and the guy
didn't lose his account.  It was, however, rather clearly stated that had
the guy done the same off their services, he'd be toast.  Another guy
flooding a text discussion group with binaries didn't lose his account -
not against the AUP/TOS from that provider.  Another provider shines FAQs
yet expects charters of alt.* groups to be very detailed and modified to
keep them current; the charter is a set of rules according to that
provider.

Then ya gotta go read the AUP for assorted large ISPs.  Check the service
you use - www.home.com/aup under Newsgroups.  Note the "Charters or FAQ"
compliance, but a FAQ is much more likely to reflect current newsgroup
"operations" if it's a policy statement - which FAQs can be - see the FAQ
on FAQs.  GTEs AUP is pretty much the same as @home.  So's Epix.  Chello's
too but that puppy is in Dutch. <G>  Mindspring/Earthlink says charters,
faq's, published guidelines or community standards.  Roadrunner is all over
the place with assorted AUPs for different locations (very bizarre) and at
least one location has one that says something like (paraphrased) "don't
disrupt network operations" - nothing in there about no spamming, flooding,
forging, cancelling, nada.  Allbery says he ignores charters and checks out
the FAQ.  That's all I remember offhand, but you can also take a look
through two threads in news.admin.misc - one from January and one from
March.  Skirvin started the first, don't remember who started the second
(got the MIDs/subjects somewhere if you want 'em) but they're both HUGE
threads on charters/modifications and FAQs vs charters.  The admins
responding were all over the place; regardless, a news admin is unlikely to
handle abuse so it's back to being totally dependent on the provider's
policy.

g

On Sun, 27 Aug 2000 18:34:55 GMT, in
<jbdq5.22525$ZI2.1341784@news1.rdc1.il.home.com> [name suppressed] wrote:

>g <gypsy@cyberelectric.com> wrote:
>>[name suppressed] wrote:
>>>g <gypsy@cyberelectric.com> wrote:

<assorted snippages along the way>
>
>>Here's one direct quote:
>>============================
>>>   Indeed they should. However, your behavior in your already off-topic
>>>posts is clearly abusive, harassing, and above all else, annoying. On top of
>>>that, you've clearly demonstrated a true disregard for my ample warnings and
>>>went on to harass other users in this group after I referenced the charter
>>>and pointed out your inability to follow those guidelines.
>>============================
>
>That says he did two things: posted off topic, and annoyed and harassed other
>posters. It seems like the warnings were given for the harassment. How many
>charters address the harassment of posters? Again, that would be someone losing
>his account for violating terms of service. 

And how would that happen?  Where does it say that in your AUP, for
example?  Under chat and under web space - not usenet.  

Since you didn't describe what the
>topic of discussion should have been, and what topic he was posting on, I can't
>judge he should have lost his account for merely being off topic.

Neither you nor I have any business discussing anyone losing any account,
notwithstanding your subject line.  Neither of us run an abuse desk and our
comments here are purely personal opinions.  
>
>As you won't be more specific, I'll offer a hypothetical. For the hell of it,
>let's pick on Robert.
>
No thanks, let's not. <snip without reading>  It doesn't matter what either
of us thinks of anyone's "topicality" in any newsgroup.  That has no
bearing on someone's proposal for a newsgroup.  Are you and I going to
subscribe to all these groups and check on the topicality of the
discussion?  
>
>>Yes, absolutely, he expects charters to be modified.
>
>That's insane. How, exactly, does one modify a charter, 

I dug up his email where he explained his opinion.  Paraphrased.  The group
discusses the proposed change(s) in the relevant newsgroup.  A post to
alt.config is supposed to be made as sort of a "notification" of the
discussion but all discussion takes place in the group.  The group
concensus is written into a newgroup message and posted to
control.newgroup.  There were also a quite a few comments about how this
process evolved, groups that have done this, etc.

If you would like a copy of the email I received, please let me know, and I
will ask him if it's ok to send on to you.  I don't publish email and (my
own druthers) also don't publish posts made to other newsgroups.  

>>>>Then ya gotta go read the AUP for assorted large ISPs.  Check the service
>>>>you use - www.home.com/aup under Newsgroups.  Note the "Charters or FAQ"
>>>>compliance,
>
>>>Yeah, I know what it says, but that's too damn vague to be enforceable. 
>
>>I disagree.
>
>Most charters are too vague for this purpose.

But that's not all your AUP says...
>
>>>Ah, no. An FAQ can remain static for years, and so would be as out-of-date
>>>as the charter. 
>
>>Of course, a FAQ can remain static for years but read rest of the sentence
>>- if it's a policy statement.  Newsgroups *do* keep "policy" up to date.
>
>No they don't. See the hypothetical I gave above. Despite what a statement
>claiming to reflect policy says, topics of discussion change with time in
>all sorts of unpredictable ways.
>
Then that is the choice of the group and that is the policy - policy is not
one guy's opinion.  

>>>FAQ is the wrong mechanism to use to spell out topicality. It's just too
>>>damn fluid, particularly as you never know who has dropped in and out of
>>>participation on the group.
>
>>Here you wanna hold binaries to a different measure and I include them.  
>>Posting pr0n in a binary group not for pr0n?  They're binaries, right?
>
>You are going off on a tangent here; I'm strictly discussing discussions.

Nope, we're supposedly discussing "topicality" in charters for newsgroups
in alt.*.  Why would you hold a binary group to a different standard?
There is no topicality WRT a binary post?
>
>There are completely different reasons for bans of that nature, and you
>well know it: News administrators don't wish to expose themselves to criminal
>prosecution in various jurisdictions.
>
No, I don't know.  What is the difference?  Criminal prosecution?  For
what?  If they were concerned with prosecution, they wouldn't carry any
binary groups nor would they carry a number of discussion newsgroups I
could list.  

If you're talking copyright infringement, my understanding is any complaint
about file content has to come from the copyright holder or his duly
appointed agent.  Who else would determine it really was an infringement?
How?  Someone can post a whole herd of files labeled "microsoft windows
2000"  Is that copyright infringement?  No.  Not unless you examine the
content, compare it with the "real thing" and file a claim based on your
ownership/copyright.  Does an ISP/NSP have ownership to make any claim? 

>>>I prefer FAQs to be... answers to frequently asked questions.
>
>>There are those - and there FAQs that are policy statements also.
>
>Those are failures, for the instant the topic has broadened, or narrowed even,
>they are out of date.

HUH?  
>
>>But that would not be the "community standards" for the group in question.
>>Irrelevant.
>
>Hahahahaha. Mr. Prosecutor will pick and chose the community on your behalf
>to ensure an indictment. It will include neither news administrators nor
>Usenet users, but regular church-going folks and Sunday school teachers who are
>shocked SHOCKED by what takes place on News and are pleased to stamp it out.
>
HUH?  Indictment for what?  Which part of "community standards for the
group in question" does not make sense to you?  I would tell Mr. Prosecutor
to kindly read those little old ladies TOS/AUP.  I will quote the relevant
section(s) of yours:

>ANY USER
>WHO DOES NOT AGREE TO BE BOUND BY THESE TERMS SHOULD IMMEDIATELY STOP
>USE OF THE SERVICES AND NOTIFY THE @HOME CUSTOMER SERVICE DEPARTMENT
>SO THAT THE USER'S ACCOUNT MAY BE CLOSED. 

>There may be content on the Internet or otherwise available through the Services which may
>be offensive to some individuals, or which may not be in compliance with all local laws,
>regulations and other rules.

If the school marm doesn't like what she finds on the net, that's her
problem and she should notify the service so that they may terminate her
account.

>>>Perhaps I'll read it at some point; not now.

Please read those threads.  Even though those are news admins and not the
abuse desk guys, the comments about charters/faqs are interesting and
contrary to your views, they're all over the place.
>
>>>Topicality is too vague a criterion for anyone to lose an account over. 
>
>>I disagree.
>
>Let's say those followups are posted and those threads are sustainable. The guy
>who posted the root article now has evidence that the topics of discussion
>include what he posted about. He shouldn't lose his account.

What followups?
>
>Taking this notion to the extreme, as all those other people also violated
>written policy by sustaining the thread (even to post to say they disagreed),
>they would lose their accounts.

Have you ever worked an abuse desk and TOSd someone?  You're very handy
with those TOS statements but I haven't seen anyone get TOSd as quickly as
I would assume you do/did.
>
>>Well, what if someone continued posting to alt.support.learning.difficulties
>>that they were just stupid and retarded?  Totally intentionally disruptive.
>
>If anyone responded, I'd say the troll made his point.

And what point might that be?  And continued "points" by nymshifting to
avoid filtering?  What point is that?  

Policy statements in FAQs don't reflect community
>standards, but the personal opinions of the author. There are newsgroups that
>have conflicting FAQs, FAQs written to harass specific posters, etc.
>
>Actual example: 

<snip flame war between two views in alt.usenet.offline-reader>

I pulled headers and saw an Agent FAQ and a faq for that group.  I looked
at the control message.  Neither FAQ purports to be a policy statement and
the auor faq is purely one man's personal opinion - no question, it's not a
group policy.  

And I can give you other examples where there is one FAQ which written by
group members and approved along the way by the group.  So what?  So we see
different groups.  There is no one "rule", Adam, much as you might like
one.

>You explain to me how the hell some news administrator 

Except for Chris Caputo, I know of no news administrator who handles any
complaints.  Do you?  Every other provider (except Joe's Really Really Good
Internet Company) has it setup as a separate function/job.  Please don't
say "news admins" handle complaints.

attempting to enforce
>community standards is going to be able to handle this controversy in a fair
>and impartial manner. 

Neither is a policy statement for the group and neither can be used to make
any judgement.  You have exactly what you like - your "frequently asked
questions" faq.  

>>They can.  They can do exactly what they want to do on their service with
>>their customers. 
>
>Really. 

Yep.  They can.  You gonna tell them otherwise?  Why should they listen to
you? 

With all the news servers in the world, how likely is it that when a
>news administrator receives a complaint about one of his users, it's going to
>come from another user on his network? 

First off, why would it have to come from another one of his subscribers?
Does that assign more worth in your eyes?  If you were handling abuse at
@home and I reported one of your cable spammers, you'd disregard my
complaint because I'm not a subscriber?  

If he's as strict about charter
>enforcement as you say some are, he'll handle the complaint seriously, against
>the interest of his own customer. Unless his customer did something really
>harmful, it can't possibly be good business for him to devote any time to it.
>
>Only if there was a complaint between two of his own users would he have a
>direct business interest in resolving it. (If they both whine an equal amount,
>each should lose his account.)

And I don't ever see a news admin getting involved at all. <G>  Do you know
how your abuse desk handles complaints?  They don't want to lose customers.
They keep track of incidents.  I read this in a binary newsgroup about 18
months ago when a customer was waiting for the guys to come and take back
their cablemodem (just working from memory) - first offense, a warning.
Second, a brief suspension of posting privileges.  Third, a longer
suspension.  Fourth, adios.  I have seen comments validating that same
senario since then so I ASSume the information is correct but as I do not
handle abuse for @home, I cannot guaranty it.  Your claims of immediately
yanking an account occur only with extremely blatant disregard of AUP/TOS,
i.e., voluminous spamming, and even that is no "guaranty" a spammer will
get TOSd.  

AFAICT, there ain't any guaranty about anyone ever getting TOSd.  It's all
up to the company and their own policies. 

g

g <gypsy@cyberelectric.com> wrote:
>[name suppressed] wrote:
>>g <gypsy@cyberelectric.com> wrote:
>>>[name suppressed] wrote:
>>>>g <gypsy@cyberelectric.com> wrote:

>>>Here's one direct quote:
>>>============================
>>>>   Indeed they should. However, your behavior in your already off-topic
>>>>posts is clearly abusive, harassing, and above all else, annoying. On
>>>>top of that, you've clearly demonstrated a true disregard for my
>>>>ample warnings and went on to harass other users in this group after I
>>>>referenced the charter and pointed out your inability to follow those
>>>>guidelines.
>>>============================

>>That says he did two things: posted off topic, and annoyed and harassed
>>other posters. It seems like the warnings were given for the harassment. How
>>many charters address the harassment of posters? Again, that would be
>>someone losing his account for violating terms of service.

>And how would that happen?  Where does it say that in your AUP, for
>example?  Under chat and under web space - not usenet.

You didn't describe what form the harassment took. I figured it was also done
in Mail.

>>Since you didn't describe what the topic of discussion should have been,
>>and what topic he was posting on, I can't judge he should have lost his
>>account for merely being off topic.

>Neither you nor I have any business discussing anyone losing any account,
>notwithstanding your subject line.  Neither of us run an abuse desk and our
>comments here are purely personal opinions.

It depends how public the harassment was. The victim had no privacy, but the
harasser does?

>>As you won't be more specific, I'll offer a hypothetical. For the hell of it,
>>let's pick on Robert.

>No thanks, let's not. <snip without reading>  It doesn't matter what either
>of us thinks of anyone's "topicality" in any newsgroup.  That has no
>bearing on someone's proposal for a newsgroup.  Are you and I going to
>subscribe to all these groups and check on the topicality of the discussion?

I don't know why you refused to read that. We weren't talking about a
PROPOSAL, but the potential for losing an account by posting in apparent
violation of allowable topics of discussion as described in the charter.

I'd appreciate it you read it, as it addresses the issue we were discussing.
You seem to want to change it to something else.

>>>Yes, absolutely, he expects charters to be modified.

>>That's insane. How, exactly, does one modify a charter, 

>I dug up his email where he explained his opinion.  Paraphrased.  The group
>discusses the proposed change(s) in the relevant newsgroup.  A post to
>alt.config is supposed to be made as sort of a "notification" of the
>discussion but all discussion takes place in the group.  The group
>concensus is written into a newgroup message and posted to
>control.newgroup.  There were also a quite a few comments about how this
>process evolved, groups that have done this, etc.

>If you would like a copy of the email I received, please let me know,

Please pass it along to me; I'd like to read it.

>>>>>Then ya gotta go read the AUP for assorted large ISPs.  Check the service
>>>>>you use - www.home.com/aup under Newsgroups.  Note the "Charters or FAQ"
>>>>>compliance,

>>>>Yeah, I know what it says, but that's too damn vague to be enforceable. 

>>>I disagree.

>>Most charters are too vague for this purpose.

>But that's not all your AUP says...

As I said, the rest of it was more specific.

>>>>Ah, no. An FAQ can remain static for years, and so would be as out-of-date
>>>>as the charter. 

>>>Of course, a FAQ can remain static for years but read rest of the sentence
>>>- if it's a policy statement.  Newsgroups *do* keep "policy" up to date.

>>No they don't. See the hypothetical I gave above. Despite what a statement
>>claiming to reflect policy says, topics of discussion change with time in
>>all sorts of unpredictable ways.

>Then that is the choice of the group and that is the policy - policy is not
>one guy's opinion.

The group won't write the document; one guy will. And if the group discusses
a draft of the document long enough, the topics of discussion will have changed
again as the group's users change.

>>>>FAQ is the wrong mechanism to use to spell out topicality. It's just too
>>>>damn fluid, particularly as you never know who has dropped in and out of
>>>>participation on the group.

>>>Here you wanna hold binaries to a different measure and I include them.  
>>>Posting pr0n in a binary group not for pr0n?  They're binaries, right?

>>You are going off on a tangent here; I'm strictly discussing discussions.

>Nope, we're supposedly discussing "topicality" in charters for newsgroups
>in alt.*.  Why would you hold a binary group to a different standard?
>There is no topicality WRT a binary post?

You well know my opinions of binary groups, and if you want this to remain
civil, you won't ask me to repeat them.

>>>>I prefer FAQs to be... answers to frequently asked questions.

>>>There are those - and there FAQs that are policy statements also.

>>Those are failures, for the instant the topic has broadened, or narrowed
>>even, they are out of date.

>HUH?

A proponent can imagine that the users of the group would like to discuss a
laundry list of sub-topics. Some of them may never be discussed, others will
fall out of favor over time. It's possible for the range of topics discussed
to either broaden or narrow. It's fluid.

>>>But that would not be the "community standards" for the group in question.
>>>Irrelevant.

>>Hahahahaha. Mr. Prosecutor will pick and chose the community on your behalf
>>to ensure an indictment. It will include neither news administrators nor
>>Usenet users, but regular church-going folks and Sunday school teachers who
>>are shocked SHOCKED by what takes place on News and are pleased to stamp it
>>out.

>If the school marm doesn't like what she finds on the net, that's her problem
>and she should notify the service so that they may terminate her account.

The prosecutor has packed the jury with school marms. You do recall the case a
few years back in which an ambitious federal prosecutor found a couple in
Tennessee to ftp some pr0n from a server in another state? The owners of the
server were convicted, their equipment confiscated, and they were given a long
jail sentence.

You are the one who brought up "community standards". I'm telling you it means
something else entirely.

>>>>Perhaps I'll read it at some point; not now.

>Please read those threads.  Even though those are news admins and not the
>abuse desk guys, the comments about charters/faqs are interesting and
>contrary to your views, they're all over the place.

I read one of them, and realized I had participated in the one in January.
Russ Allbery agrees with me, btw.

From: Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu>
Subject: Re: Charter Server
Date: 21 Jan 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <ylk8l2c0rf.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>

. . . Finally, charters for unmoderated groups are really not particularly
meaningful or useful after the group has been around for six months or a
year.  By that point, it develops its own culture, and it's not
particularly important what the charter says.

>>>>Topicality is too vague a criterion for anyone to lose an account over. 

>>>I disagree.

>>Let's say those followups are posted and those threads are sustainable. The
>>guy who posted the root article now has evidence that the topics of
>>discussion include what he posted about. He shouldn't lose his account.

>What followups?

Your fault for not reading my hypothetical.

>>>Well, what if someone continued posting to alt.support.learning.difficulties
>>>that they were just stupid and retarded?  Totally intentionally disruptive.

>>If anyone responded, I'd say the troll made his point.

>And what point might that be?  And continued "points" by nymshifting to
>avoid filtering?  What point is that?

If no one responds, the troll cannot disrupt anything. The only people who can
disrupt a newsgroup are regulars who followup to trolls. The troll, then,
becomes the new topic of discussion.

That's what I like about Usenet; it's self-administered. No one has to rely
on outside administration. The group can decide to either keep the troll or
send him packing based on its own actions.

Same with topics of discussion. An individual wants to change the topic? He
can't, unless the group decides to post followups.

>And I can give you other examples where there is one FAQ which written by
>group members and approved along the way by the group.  So what?  So we see
>different groups.  There is no one "rule", Adam, much as you might like one.

Hold on there, bucko. You are the one arguing that rules for discussions can
be imposed by a written policy document.

>>You explain to me how the hell some news administrator 

>Except for Chris Caputo, I know of no news administrator who handles any
>complaints.  Do you?  Every other provider (except Joe's Really Really Good
>Internet Company) has it setup as a separate function/job.  Please don't
>say "news admins" handle complaints.

Whatever.

>>attempting to enforce community standards is going to be able to handle
>>this controversy in a fair and impartial manner.

>Neither is a policy statement for the group and neither can be used to make
>any judgement.  You have exactly what you like - your "frequently asked
>questions" faq.

You've lost me; you were arguing that FAQs containing policy are enforceable.

>>With all the news servers in the world, how likely is it that when a news
>>administrator receives a complaint about one of his users, it's going to
>>come from another user on his network? 

>First off, why would it have to come from another one of his subscribers?
>Does that assign more worth in your eyes?  If you were handling abuse at
>@home and I reported one of your cable spammers, you'd disregard my
>complaint because I'm not a subscriber?

Will you stop changing the topic? I'm not discussing spam.

>>If he's as strict about charter enforcement as you say some are,
>>he'll handle the complaint seriously, against the interest of his own
>>customer. Unless his customer did something really harmful, it can't
>>possibly be good business for him to devote any time to it.

>>Only if there was a complaint between two of his own users would he have
>>a direct business interest in resolving it. (If they both whine an equal
>>amount, each should lose his account.)

>Do you know how your abuse desk handles complaints?  They don't want to lose
>customers.

Then you agree with me!

>Your claims of immediately yanking an account occur only with extremely
>blatant disregard of AUP/TOS, i.e., voluminous spamming, and even that is no
>"guaranty" a spammer will get TOSd.

That is unfortunate.

>AFAICT, there ain't any guaranty about anyone ever getting TOSd.  It's all
>up to the company and their own policies. 

Of course. But you still haven't given an example of someone being disciplined
(that could lead to losing an account) for posting off topic, when it isn't
also something else like spamming or another type of egregious behavior.

On Tue, 29 Aug 2000 08:41:39 GMT, in
<7HKq5.27115$ZI2.1658518@news1.rdc1.il.home.com> [name suppressed] wrote:

>g <gypsy@cyberelectric.com.invalid> wrote:

<fixed >'s>

>Ah fuck. What's the point in putting in proper attribution lines? g will
>cut them out, and those of you trying to read this won't be able to figure
>out who said what.

Well, I'll leave a roadmap - if there is a ">>" before words, that's mine
and if there is only ">" it's yours and if there is nothing, that's mine
again! <G>

>Then let me make my comments stronger: You're not debating the subject I
>raised, but setting up a straw man.

No straw man.  There is no way to "prove" your premise.

>>OR you could have one guy putting words to "paper" yet the group is the
>>author.
>
>Uh, huh. Authors are highly subjective.

With a group overseeing the writing?  Kinda hard to accomplish that.

>>Why can you not answer a few questions and remain civil?  You close your
>>eyes to 98.5% of usenet?  That's your prerogative but it has nothing to do
>>with reality.
>
>Happily reading Usenet with trn on a 386 with an amber monitor. I have a
>14.4 modem. So phbbbt.

I know.  And what does that have to do with anything?

>Such technical guidelines for *.binaries.* groups are in no way comparable to
>defining acceptable topics of discussion in text groups in policy statements
>in FAQs or the original charter.

I don't limit my "discussion" to text-only or binary-only - it's all
"newsgroup" related.

>Binaries on Usenet are a goddam waste of resources that you don't pay for.
>They are a monstrously inefficient way to distribute enormous files.
>
>There are efficient methods, especially ftp servers. But you won't use them
>because using Usenet instead means less money out-of-pocket for you. Obviously,
>since the binaries are distributed in violation of someone's copyright, Usenet
>in lieu of ftp is used to hide from the copyright holders.

Is that the generic "you" or me in particular?  And yes, I really do know
how inefficient binaries on usenet are.  Unfortunately, the majority of
people on usenet want binary files.  Nobody really publishes statistics
except for spamhippo's site - please compare text reads vs binary reads:

http://www.newsadmin.com/top100reads.htm

Yup, those virtuous text newsgroup readers - top text group - alt.dss.hack.

>>ftp = usenet?  Ya sure could have fooled me!
>
>From the prosecutor's perspective, yes.

Perhaps in 1988 or whever year you're talking about...

>>And what about the kiddie pr0n case in NY state which was totally usenet-
>>related?
>
>I don't know that one; you tell me.
>
I'll leave it to cnn.
http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-334825.html?st.ne.fd.gif.e

>>I used the term to define the standards in that newsgroup.  If that has a
>>legal definition somewhere, please direct me to it as I am unaware of it.
>
>Supreme Court decision in the late '60's written by Justice Powell. That's
>the one with the famous line, "I can't define what porn is, but I know it
>when I see it."

Isn't the phrase you meant "contemporary community standards"?  Close but
no cigar

>>Gosh, didn't I say that before?
>
>I thought you said he disagreed with me.
>
Nope.  I listed the views of assorted NSPs/ISPs - all that I could remember
at that point in time.

>>I could *swear* I wrote that.  And doesn't he say he looks at a FAQ?
>
>I didn't find that article yet.

It's on deja:
http://x53.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN`5054075&CONTEXT–7550582.1116995621&hitnum=7
>
>>On the news server you run, perhaps, but apparently not on a few commercial
>>servers.  Might you want to pass along that news server name so we all
>>might partake in it?
>
>On ANY server in any newsgroup in which a troll "takes over". What truly
>happens is that the regulars start letting themselves be baited. That's their
>decision to allow the troll to flourish.
>
>And if that's what threads are active, then engaging the troll is now on topic.

Then (back to the beginning) why would a commercial news admin file an
abuse complaint against someone trolling and nymshifting to continue
trolling?

>>And how might you "send him packing"?
>
>Obviously by refusing to post followups.
>
And that would "send him packing"?

>Why are you asking rhetorical questions?

and here I am waiting for your answers....

>>Did I say "impose" or did you?  Gosh, it looks like you!  How can a policy
>>document impose anything?   It's a document.  It only has the "power" a
>>provider gives it.
>
>I'll phrase it more carefully then. You are the one saying that rules for
>discussion can be placed in a written policy document to be imposed by
>certain news administrators. That conflicts with your jibe at me.

Which jibe was that?  All I'm saying is there is no one rule that applies
to all newsgroups.  Period.  You seem to think so but where is this rule?
You say a FAQ cannot be a policy statement and I provide the FAQ on FAQs.
You say charters are nothing and yet there are threads with hundreds of
responses which cover the gamut from only a charter vs only a faq to both
to everything in between.  There's no one-size-fits-all.

EVERYTHING depends on the provider.

>>Ok, if you were handling abuse @home and I reported one of your
>>cablekiddies flooding a text discussion group with binary files, would you
>>disregard my complaint because I'm not a subscriber to your service?  If I
>>were to complain about one of your cablekiddies flooding
>>alt.binaries.cartoons with the latest hardcore pr0n video, would you ignore
>>my complaint?
>
>I'm not discussing posting binaries to text groups, and I'm not discussing
>flooding. Neither is a point of contention, so why are you raising them?
>
Geez, and I thought you were yakking about abuse complaints related to
charters.  What exactly are we discussing then?

>>And how might anyone do that?  Do we all have access to everyone else's
>>email and telephone so we all know when everyone gets slapped by his
>>provider?
>
>So what it all comes down to is that you cannot back up your argument that an
>ISP would use a policy statement in a charter or FAQ to enforce topicality
>against one of his customers, unless that customer did something especially
>egregious comparable to spamming or flooding or posting binaries to text groups
>or threatening someone in an illegal manner or doing anything illegal.

All I say it it's all up to the provider.  You cannot back up your argument
that an ISP/NSP will never enforce topicality.  The closest I can come to
(without working at an abuse desk because nobody else knows that
information including you) is the comments of a news admin at a commercial
provider stating that he'd sent in a complaint about someone in a newsgroup
and that had it been done on his server, the guy would be gone.

g

g <gypsy@cyberelectric.com.invalid> wrote:
>[name suppressed] wrote:
>>g <gypsy@cyberelectric.com.invalid> wrote:

><fixed >'s>

>>Ah fuck. What's the point in putting in proper attribution lines? g will
>>cut them out, and those of you trying to read this won't be able to figure
>>out who said what.

>Well, I'll leave a roadmap - if there is a ">>" before words, that's mine
>and if there is only ">" it's yours and if there is nothing, that's mine
>again! <G>

But I don't see any attribution lines. Who am I? Oh, yeah, [name suppressed].
I appear to be the only person you ever respond to in News. Gosh, I've written
a lot of messages.

>>Binaries on Usenet are a goddam waste of resources that you don't pay for.
>>They are a monstrously inefficient way to distribute enormous files.

>>There are efficient methods, especially ftp servers. But you won't use
>>them because using Usenet instead means less money out-of-pocket for
>>you. Obviously, since the binaries are distributed in violation of someone's
>>copyright, Usenet in lieu of ftp is used to hide from the copyright holders.

>Is that the generic "you" or me in particular?  And yes, I really do know
>how inefficient binaries on usenet are.  Unfortunately, the majority of
>people on usenet want binary files.

Perhaps a majority of the people can handle stills, but that majority cannot
handle the binaries that are larger. The larger the binary, the more
inefficient, the smaller the potential audience.

>Nobody really publishes statistics except for spamhippo's site - please
>compare text reads vs binary reads:

>http://www.newsadmin.com/top100reads.htm

I can't find how that's compiled.

>Yup, those virtuous text newsgroup readers - top text group - alt.dss.hack.

>>>And what about the kiddie pr0n case in NY state which was totally usenet-
>>>related?

>>I don't know that one; you tell me.

>I'll leave it to cnn.
>http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-334825.html?st.ne.fd.gif.e

That seems to support what I said earlier, and why most news administrators
would prefer to have erotic images segregated into groups with "erotic" in
the name. There's always some prosecutor, somewhere, who will go after it,
and those who don't want the exposure to criminal liability won't carry
such groups.

>>>I used the term to define the standards in that newsgroup.  If that has a
>>>legal definition somewhere, please direct me to it as I am unaware of it.

>>Supreme Court decision in the late '60's written by Justice Powell. That's
>>the one with the famous line, "I can't define what porn is, but I know it
>>when I see it."

>Isn't the phrase you meant "contemporary community standards"?  Close but
>no cigar

Too lazy to look it up.

>>>I could *swear* I wrote that.  And doesn't he say he looks at a FAQ?

>>I didn't find that article yet.

>It's on deja:
>http://x53.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN`5054075&CONTEXT–7550582.1116995621&hitnum=7

He says topicality can have narrowed from the charter (which I agree with).
But in addition to the FAQ, he says he looks at what's currently being
discussed in the group (which I also agree with). But then he says he'd ask
a poster to stop starting flame wars in that group on some other topic IF other
threads don't discuss those issues. That I don't agree with, as the flame war
has become topical.

>>>On the news server you run, perhaps, but apparently not on a few commercial
>>>servers.  Might you want to pass along that news server name so we all
>>>might partake in it?

>>On ANY server in any newsgroup in which a troll "takes over". What truly
>>happens is that the regulars start letting themselves be baited. That's
>>their decision to allow the troll to flourish.

>>And if that's what threads are active, then engaging the troll is now on
>>topic.

>Then (back to the beginning) why would a commercial news admin file an abuse
>complaint against someone trolling and nymshifting to continue trolling?

By "nymshifting", do you mean forging headers? That's not a point of
contention, so why do you raise it?

>>>Did I say "impose" or did you?  Gosh, it looks like you!  How can a policy
>>>document impose anything?   It's a document.  It only has the "power" a
>>>provider gives it.

>>I'll phrase it more carefully then. You are the one saying that rules for
>>discussion can be placed in a written policy document to be imposed by
>>certain news administrators. That conflicts with your jibe at me.

>Which jibe was that?

You cut it.

>All I'm saying is there is no one rule that applies to all newsgroups.
>Period.  You seem to think so but where is this rule?  You say a FAQ cannot
>be a policy statement and I provide the FAQ on FAQs.

Don't like the policy statement in an FAQ? Write a conflicting one.

>You say charters are nothing

I NEVER said any such thing.

>and yet there are threads with hundreds of responses which cover the
>gamut from only a charter vs only a faq to both to everything in between.
>There's no one-size-fits-all.

>EVERYTHING depends on the provider.

That's not a point of contention. What IS a point of contention is that FAQs
and charters containing policy statement cannot reflect current, ongoing
discussion in a group. I say what's on topic is what's being discussed. You
say what's on topic is what doesn't conflict with the policy statement.

At least Russ says he looks at discussions in a newsgroup, though how he has
time to do that, I don't know.

>>>Ok, if you were handling abuse @home and I reported one of your
>>>cablekiddies flooding a text discussion group with binary files,
>>>would you disregard my complaint because I'm not a subscriber to your
>>>service?  If I were to complain about one of your cablekiddies flooding
>>>alt.binaries.cartoons with the latest hardcore pr0n video, would you
>>>ignore my complaint?

>>I'm not discussing posting binaries to text groups, and I'm not discussing
>>flooding. Neither is a point of contention, so why are you raising them?

>Geez, and I thought you were yakking about abuse complaints related to
>charters.  What exactly are we discussing then?

You know, we settled this 20 rounds back. I expect ISPs to enforce common
sense with respect to their own users REGARDLESS of what the charter says.

I am trying to talk about enforcing topicality, in the absense of specific
egregious behavior that itself should violate AUP. You raise tangent issues.

>>>And how might anyone do that?  Do we all have access to everyone else's
>>>email and telephone so we all know when everyone gets slapped by his
>>>provider?

>>So what it all comes down to is that you cannot back up your argument
>>that an ISP would use a policy statement in a charter or FAQ to enforce
>>topicality against one of his customers, unless that customer did
>>something especially egregious comparable to spamming or flooding or
>>posting binaries to text groups or threatening someone in an illegal
>>manner or doing anything illegal.

>All I say it it's all up to the provider.  You cannot back up your argument
>that an ISP/NSP will never enforce topicality.

Damnit, did I SAY that anywhere? I say that charters and FAQs cannot REFLECT
topicality, as it's too fluid. I asked YOU to come up with an example of
discipline that could lead to account termination in an attempt to enforce
a "policy" statement.

Russ's article said he might enforce an FAQ but he still reviews the group
to see what's what! In his hypothetical, he was enforcing topicality upon
review of the group, not reading the FAQ. He doesn't recognize "constantly
starting flame wars" as topical, though I do.

On Mon, 28 Aug 2000 18:51:55 GMT, in
<fxyq5.24851$ZI2.1555816@news1.rdc1.il.home.com> [name suppressed] wrote:

<snip>
>>And how would that happen?  Where does it say that in your AUP, for
>>example?  Under chat and under web space - not usenet.
>
>You didn't describe what form the harassment took. I figured it was also done
>in Mail.

Well, we were discussing usenet - no?

>>Neither you nor I have any business discussing anyone losing any account,
>>notwithstanding your subject line.  Neither of us run an abuse desk and our
>>comments here are purely personal opinions.
>
>It depends how public the harassment was. The victim had no privacy, but the
>harasser does?

If that is what the provider says, yep.
>
>>No thanks, let's not. <snip without reading>  It doesn't matter what either
>>of us thinks of anyone's "topicality" in any newsgroup.  That has no
>>bearing on someone's proposal for a newsgroup.  Are you and I going to
>>subscribe to all these groups and check on the topicality of the discussion?
>
>I don't know why you refused to read that. We weren't talking about a
>PROPOSAL, but the potential for losing an account by posting in apparent
>violation of allowable topics of discussion as described in the charter.

>I'd appreciate it you read it, as it addresses the issue we were discussing.
>You seem to want to change it to something else.

I will repeat my comments above

>>Neither you nor I have any business discussing anyone losing any account,
>>notwithstanding your subject line.  Neither of us run an abuse desk and our
>>comments here are purely personal opinions.

>>Then that is the choice of the group and that is the policy - policy is not
>>one guy's opinion.
>
>The group won't write the document; one guy will.

OR you could have one guy putting words to "paper" yet the group is the
author.  You don't subscribe to 95,000 newsgroups and do not know what
happens in each and every one of them, do you?

And if the group discusses
>a draft of the document long enough, the topics of discussion will have changed
>again as the group's users change.

Really?  That's not what I've seen happen.
>
>>Nope, we're supposedly discussing "topicality" in charters for newsgroups
>>in alt.*.  Why would you hold a binary group to a different standard?
>>There is no topicality WRT a binary post?
>
>You well know my opinions of binary groups, and if you want this to remain
>civil, you won't ask me to repeat them.

Why can you not answer a few questions and remain civil?  You close your
eyes to 98.5% of usenet?  That's your prerogative but it has nothing to do
with reality.

>>HUH?
>
>A proponent can imagine that the users of the group would like to discuss a
>laundry list of sub-topics. Some of them may never be discussed, others will
>fall out of favor over time. It's possible for the range of topics discussed
>to either broaden or narrow. It's fluid.

Yes, and what does that have to do with anything?  You're the one saying
that discussing verizon doesn't belong in alt.cellular.verizon.
>
>>If the school marm doesn't like what she finds on the net, that's her problem
>>and she should notify the service so that they may terminate her account.
>
>The prosecutor has packed the jury with school marms. You do recall the case a
>few years back in which an ambitious federal prosecutor found a couple in
>Tennessee to ftp some pr0n from a server in another state? The owners of the
>server were convicted, their equipment confiscated, and they were given a long
>jail sentence.

ftp = usenet?  Ya sure could have fooled me!  And what about the kiddie
pr0n case in NY state which was totally usenet-related?
>
>You are the one who brought up "community standards". I'm telling you it means
>something else entirely.

I used the term to define the standards in that newsgroup.  If that has a
legal definition somewhere, please direct me to it as I am unaware of it.
>
>>Please read those threads.  Even though those are news admins and not the
>>abuse desk guys, the comments about charters/faqs are interesting and
>>contrary to your views, they're all over the place.
>
>I read one of them, and realized I had participated in the one in January.
>Russ Allbery agrees with me, btw.

Gosh, didn't I say that before?  I could *swear* I wrote that.  And doesn't
he say he looks at a FAQ?  And didn't I also say the news admins are all
over the place?  What about the rest of them?
>
>>And what point might that be?  And continued "points" by nymshifting to
>>avoid filtering?  What point is that?
>
>If no one responds, the troll cannot disrupt anything. The only people who can
>disrupt a newsgroup are regulars who followup to trolls. The troll, then,
>becomes the new topic of discussion.

On the news server you run, perhaps, but apparently not on a few commercial
servers.  Might you want to pass along that news server name so we all
might partake in it?
>
>That's what I like about Usenet; it's self-administered. No one has to rely
>on outside administration. The group can decide to either keep the troll or
>send him packing based on its own actions.

And how might you "send him packing"?
>
>Same with topics of discussion. An individual wants to change the topic? He
>can't, unless the group decides to post followups.
>
>>And I can give you other examples where there is one FAQ which written by
>>group members and approved along the way by the group.  So what?  So we see
>>different groups.  There is no one "rule", Adam, much as you might like one.
>
>Hold on there, bucko. You are the one arguing that rules for discussions can
>be imposed by a written policy document.
>
Did I say "impose" or did you?  Gosh, it looks like you!  How can a policy
document impose anything?   It's a document.  It only has the "power" a
provider gives it.

>>Except for Chris Caputo, I know of no news administrator who handles any
>>complaints.  Do you?  Every other provider (except Joe's Really Really Good
>>Internet Company) has it setup as a separate function/job.  Please don't
>>say "news admins" handle complaints.
>
>Whatever.

WHATEVER?  You've said that many many times and it's plain ol' not true.
Just making things clear for any peanut gallery who might be lurking. (tnjq
xabjf jul jvgu gurfr ybatjvaqrq cbfgf jr unir)

>>Neither is a policy statement for the group and neither can be used to make
>>any judgement.  You have exactly what you like - your "frequently asked
>>questions" faq.
>
>You've lost me; you were arguing that FAQs containing policy are enforceable.

They are enforceable by ISPs/NSPs.  But you didn't bring up a policy FAQ so
it's irrelevant.
>
>>First off, why would it have to come from another one of his subscribers?
>>Does that assign more worth in your eyes?  If you were handling abuse at
>>@home and I reported one of your cable spammers, you'd disregard my
>>complaint because I'm not a subscriber?
>
>Will you stop changing the topic? I'm not discussing spam.

Ok, if you were handling abuse @home and I reported one of your
cablekiddies flooding a text discussion group with binary files, would you
disregard my complaint because I'm not a subscriber to your service?  If I
were to complain about one of your cablekiddies flooding
alt.binaries.cartoons with the latest hardcore pr0n video, would you ignore
my complaint?   Oh, that's right - in your usenet there are no binary
groups.  But this is not usenet2.

>>>Only if there was a complaint between two of his own users would he have
>>>a direct business interest in resolving it. (If they both whine an equal
>>>amount, each should lose his account.)
>
>>Do you know how your abuse desk handles complaints?  They don't want to lose
>>customers.
>
>Then you agree with me!

Adam, please don't be so stupid and selectively snip to prove a bogus
point.  You also snipped all my questions about your background in TOSsing
someone as well as the policy of your own news provider.  That some clue
musk might sink in somewhere within those 4 attempts at communication is
ignored by you.

>>AFAICT, there ain't any guaranty about anyone ever getting TOSd.  It's all
>>up to the company and their own policies.
>
>Of course. But you still haven't given an example of someone being disciplined
>(that could lead to losing an account) for posting off topic, when it isn't
>also something else like spamming or another type of egregious behavior.

And how might anyone do that?  Do we all have access to everyone else's
email and telephone so we all know when everyone gets slapped by his
provider?

g

g <gypsy@cyberelectric.com.invalid> wrote:
>Ah fuck. What's the point in putting in proper attribution lines? g will
>cut them out, and those of you trying to read this won't be able to figure
>out who said what.

>>>No thanks, let's not. <snip without reading>  It doesn't matter what either
>>>of us thinks of anyone's "topicality" in any newsgroup.  That has no
>>>bearing on someone's proposal for a newsgroup.  Are you and I going to
>>>subscribe to all these groups and check on the topicality of the discussion?

>>I don't know why you refused to read that. We weren't talking about a
>>PROPOSAL, but the potential for losing an account by posting in apparent
>>violation of allowable topics of discussion as described in the charter.

>>I'd appreciate it you read it, as it addresses the issue we were discussing.
>>You seem to want to change it to something else.

>I will repeat my comments above

Then let me make my comments stronger: You're not debating the subject I
raised, but setting up a straw man.

>>>Neither you nor I have any business discussing anyone losing any account,
>>>notwithstanding your subject line.  Neither of us run an abuse desk and our
>>>comments here are purely personal opinions.

>>>Then that is the choice of the group and that is the policy - policy is not
>>>one guy's opinion.

>>The group won't write the document; one guy will.

>OR you could have one guy putting words to "paper" yet the group is the
>author.

Uh, huh. Authors are highly subjective.

>>And if the group discusses a draft of the document long enough, the topics
>>of discussion will have changed again as the group's users change.

>Really?  That's not what I've seen happen.

Then you are not very observant. New threads begin in groups all the time that
don't resemble the types of discussion the proponent specifically envisioned.
The group mix changes; people's concerns change. It's fluid.

What's on topic? Whatever can sustain a thread at any given time. Not what's
"stated policy" in an FAQ or the charter.

>>>Nope, we're supposedly discussing "topicality" in charters for newsgroups
>>>in alt.*.  Why would you hold a binary group to a different standard?
>>>There is no topicality WRT a binary post?

>>You well know my opinions of binary groups, and if you want this to remain
>>civil, you won't ask me to repeat them.

>Why can you not answer a few questions and remain civil?  You close your
>eyes to 98.5% of usenet?  That's your prerogative but it has nothing to do
>with reality.

Happily reading Usenet with trn on a 386 with an amber monitor. I have a
14.4 modem. So phbbbt.

If you wish to write technical guidelines for the size and type of binaries,
quantity of binaries, etc., for posting to various alt.binaries.* hierarchies,
I don't give a shit. I'll neither support nor hinder your efforts. Barbara W.
has even said in the past that you are doing the right thing.

Such technical guidelines for *.binaries.* groups are in no way comparable to
defining acceptable topics of discussion in text groups in policy statements
in FAQs or the original charter.

As it happens, in binary groups for stills, yeah, I think some erotica would
be on topic regardless of any attempt to ban it in the charter. It depends
on the image and the group.

Earlier, I said that news administrators attempt to keep erotica out of
alt.binaries.* groups (unless they have "erotica" in the name) to avoid
criminal prosecution. There's no bright line between erotica, which is
protected speech, and pr0n, which isn't. It's determined by "community
standards" which is no kind of standard at all, basically leaving things up
to the prosecutor.

Binaries on Usenet are a goddam waste of resources that you don't pay for.
They are a monstrously inefficient way to distribute enormous files.

There are efficient methods, especially ftp servers. But you won't use them
because using Usenet instead means less money out-of-pocket for you. Obviously,
since the binaries are distributed in violation of someone's copyright, Usenet
in lieu of ftp is used to hide from the copyright holders.

You insisted, so you get my rant.

>>>HUH?

>>A proponent can imagine that the users of the group would like to discuss a
>>laundry list of sub-topics. Some of them may never be discussed, others will
>>fall out of favor over time. It's possible for the range of topics discussed
>>to either broaden or narrow. It's fluid.

>Yes, and what does that have to do with anything?  You're the one saying
>that discussing verizon doesn't belong in alt.cellular.verizon.

You baiting me now? I said that a *.verizon group is not needed for the
inevitable discussions comparing competitors and that such discussion should
remain in the miscellaneous group.

>>>If the school marm doesn't like what she finds on the net, that's her
>>>problem and she should notify the service so that they may terminate
>>>her account.

>>The prosecutor has packed the jury with school marms. You do recall the case
>>a few years back in which an ambitious federal prosecutor found a couple in
>>Tennessee to ftp some pr0n from a server in another state? The owners of the
>>server were convicted, their equipment confiscated, and they were given a long
>>jail sentence.

>ftp = usenet?  Ya sure could have fooled me!

From the prosecutor's perspective, yes. The method of transmission of the
images isn't addressed in law in a way that couldn't be used against Usenet.
The facts were that convicted the owners of the server involved not preventing
transmission of the images to places in which they violated community
standards, even though the prosecutor enlisted the aid of someone in that
community to ftp the images. The method used could have been as easily Usenet.

>And what about the kiddie pr0n case in NY state which was totally usenet-
>related?

I don't know that one; you tell me.

>>You are the one who brought up "community standards". I'm telling you it
>>means something else entirely.

>I used the term to define the standards in that newsgroup.  If that has a
>legal definition somewhere, please direct me to it as I am unaware of it.

Supreme Court decision in the late '60's written by Justice Powell. That's
the one with the famous line, "I can't define what porn is, but I know it
when I see it."

>>>Please read those threads.  Even though those are news admins and not the
>>>abuse desk guys, the comments about charters/faqs are interesting and
>>>contrary to your views, they're all over the place.

>>I read one of them, and realized I had participated in the one in January.
>>Russ Allbery agrees with me, btw.

>Gosh, didn't I say that before?

I thought you said he disagreed with me.

>I could *swear* I wrote that.  And doesn't he say he looks at a FAQ?

I didn't find that article yet.

>>>And what point might that be?  And continued "points" by nymshifting to
>>>avoid filtering?  What point is that?

>>If no one responds, the troll cannot disrupt anything. The only people who
>>can disrupt a newsgroup are regulars who followup to trolls. The troll, then,
>>becomes the new topic of discussion.

>On the news server you run, perhaps, but apparently not on a few commercial
>servers.  Might you want to pass along that news server name so we all
>might partake in it?

On ANY server in any newsgroup in which a troll "takes over". What truly
happens is that the regulars start letting themselves be baited. That's their
decision to allow the troll to flourish.

And if that's what threads are active, then engaging the troll is now on topic.

>>That's what I like about Usenet; it's self-administered. No one has to rely
>>on outside administration. The group can decide to either keep the troll or
>>send him packing based on its own actions.

>And how might you "send him packing"?

Obviously by refusing to post followups.

Why are you asking rhetorical questions?

>>>And I can give you other examples where there is one FAQ which written by
>>>group members and approved along the way by the group.  So what?  So we see
>>>different groups.  There is no one "rule", Adam, much as you might like one.

>>Hold on there, bucko. You are the one arguing that rules for discussions can
>>be imposed by a written policy document.

>Did I say "impose" or did you?  Gosh, it looks like you!  How can a policy
>document impose anything?   It's a document.  It only has the "power" a
>provider gives it.

I'll phrase it more carefully then. You are the one saying that rules for
discussion can be placed in a written policy document to be imposed by
certain news administrators. That conflicts with your jibe at me.

>>>First off, why would it have to come from another one of his subscribers?
>>>Does that assign more worth in your eyes?  If you were handling abuse at
>>>@home and I reported one of your cable spammers, you'd disregard my
>>>complaint because I'm not a subscriber?

>>Will you stop changing the topic? I'm not discussing spam.

>Ok, if you were handling abuse @home and I reported one of your
>cablekiddies flooding a text discussion group with binary files, would you
>disregard my complaint because I'm not a subscriber to your service?  If I
>were to complain about one of your cablekiddies flooding
>alt.binaries.cartoons with the latest hardcore pr0n video, would you ignore
>my complaint?

I'm not discussing posting binaries to text groups, and I'm not discussing
flooding. Neither is a point of contention, so why are you raising them?

>>>>Only if there was a complaint between two of his own users would he have
>>>>a direct business interest in resolving it. (If they both whine an equal
>>>>amount, each should lose his account.)

>>>Do you know how your abuse desk handles complaints?  They don't want to lose
>>>customers.

>>Then you agree with me!

>Adam, please don't be so stupid and selectively snip to prove a bogus
>point.  You also snipped all my questions about your background in TOSsing
>someone as well as the policy of your own news provider.  That some clue
>musk might sink in somewhere within those 4 attempts at communication is
>ignored by you.

I'm not taking this bait.

>>>AFAICT, there ain't any guaranty about anyone ever getting TOSd.  It's all
>>>up to the company and their own policies.

>>Of course. But you still haven't given an example of someone being
>>disciplined (that could lead to losing an account) for posting off
>>topic, when it isn't also something else like spamming or another type
>>of egregious behavior.

>And how might anyone do that?  Do we all have access to everyone else's
>email and telephone so we all know when everyone gets slapped by his
>provider?

So what it all comes down to is that you cannot back up your argument that an
ISP would use a policy statement in a charter or FAQ to enforce topicality
against one of his customers, unless that customer did something especially
egregious comparable to spamming or flooding or posting binaries to text groups
or threatening someone in an illegal manner or doing anything illegal.

On Tue, 29 Aug 2000 16:03:41 GMT, in
<x9Rq5.27213$ZI2.1689570@news1.rdc1.il.home.com> [name suppressed] wrote:

>g <gypsy@cyberelectric.com.invalid> wrote:
>>[name suppressed] wrote:
>>>g <gypsy@cyberelectric.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>><fixed >'s>
>
>>>Ah fuck. What's the point in putting in proper attribution lines? g will
>>>cut them out, and those of you trying to read this won't be able to figure
>>>out who said what.
>
>>Well, I'll leave a roadmap - if there is a ">>" before words, that's mine
>>and if there is only ">" it's yours and if there is nothing, that's mine
>>again! <G>
>
>But I don't see any attribution lines. Who am I? Oh, yeah, [name suppressed].
>I appear to be the only person you ever respond to in News. Gosh, I've written
>a lot of messages.

You write the MID's that are included....
>
>>>Binaries on Usenet are a goddam waste of resources that you don't pay for.
>>>They are a monstrously inefficient way to distribute enormous files.
>
>>>There are efficient methods, especially ftp servers. But you won't use
>>>them because using Usenet instead means less money out-of-pocket for
>>>you. Obviously, since the binaries are distributed in violation of someone's
>>>copyright, Usenet in lieu of ftp is used to hide from the copyright holders.
>
>>Is that the generic "you" or me in particular?  And yes, I really do know
>>how inefficient binaries on usenet are.  Unfortunately, the majority of
>>people on usenet want binary files.
>
>Perhaps a majority of the people can handle stills, but that majority cannot
>handle the binaries that are larger. The larger the binary, the more
>inefficient, the smaller the potential audience.

I'd like to AGAIN draw your attention to the only "stats" that I can find
on usenet readership - http://www.newsadmin.com/top100reads.htm

The number of people who accessed alt.binaries.multimedia.erotica yesterday
(and the day before and the day before, etc., etc.,) is more than the total
EVERYONE accessing the top 100 most read text groups.

6.54% vs 7.55%

That would suggest to me where the interest lies...  But these are limited
stats.  There has been discussion in nanau about dropping all binary groups
- from what I remember, the comments were along the lines of - yeah, it
would make usenet nice and clean again but nobody would read it so why
bother.
>
>>Nobody really publishes statistics except for spamhippo's site - please
>>compare text reads vs binary reads:
>
>>http://www.newsadmin.com/top100reads.htm
>
>I can't find how that's compiled.

You'll have to ask them.
>
>>Yup, those virtuous text newsgroup readers - top text group - alt.dss.hack.
>
>>>>And what about the kiddie pr0n case in NY state which was totally usenet-
>>>>related?
>
>>>I don't know that one; you tell me.
>
>>I'll leave it to cnn.
>>http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-334825.html?st.ne.fd.gif.e
>
>That seems to support what I said earlier, and why most news administrators
>would prefer to have erotic images segregated into groups with "erotic" in
>the name. There's always some prosecutor, somewhere, who will go after it,
>and those who don't want the exposure to criminal liability won't carry
>such groups.

HUH?  I think your train of thought got derailed because I can't follow you
or what that has to do with what I said or what you said about ftp usenet.

Wanna know what happened on usenet when that "equipment confiscation"
happened?  All commercial providers put in a hotline phone call to their
attorneys.   altopia was the only server who did not at least temporarity
drop those newsgroups.  Every other commercial provider did temporarily
drop 'em and every commercial news provider brought 'em right back after
the phone call.  Even airnews has abpep-t.  Newscene (where a lot of posts
originated) did drop the groups and picked them back up along with adding
that one little two word phrase to their main web page - "Content
Disclaimer" as well as the link http://www.newscene.com/disclaimer.html

They are not responsible.  @home is not responsible if the school marm
doesn't like what she finds on usenet.  Mr prosecutor can take a flying
leap.

>>>>I used the term to define the standards in that newsgroup.  If that has a
>>>>legal definition somewhere, please direct me to it as I am unaware of it.
>
>>>Supreme Court decision in the late '60's written by Justice Powell. That's
>>>the one with the famous line, "I can't define what porn is, but I know it
>>>when I see it."
>
>>Isn't the phrase you meant "contemporary community standards"?  Close but
>>no cigar
>
>Too lazy to look it up.

You were and because of that you misunderstood me.
>
>>>>I could *swear* I wrote that.  And doesn't he say he looks at a FAQ?
>
>>>I didn't find that article yet.
>
>>It's on deja:
>>http://x53.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN`5054075&CONTEXT–7550582.1116995621&hitnum=7
>
>He says topicality can have narrowed from the charter (which I agree with).
>But in addition to the FAQ, he says he looks at what's currently being
>discussed in the group (which I also agree with).

Sorry I was not clear - that's a given IMO.

But then he says he'd ask
>a poster to stop starting flame wars in that group on some other topic IF other
>threads don't discuss those issues. That I don't agree with, as the flame war
>has become topical.

You gonna tell him to change his policy?
>
>>>>On the news server you run, perhaps, but apparently not on a few commercial
>>>>servers.  Might you want to pass along that news server name so we all
>>>>might partake in it?
>
>>>On ANY server in any newsgroup in which a troll "takes over". What truly
>>>happens is that the regulars start letting themselves be baited. That's
>>>their decision to allow the troll to flourish.
>
>>>And if that's what threads are active, then engaging the troll is now on
>>>topic.
>
>>Then (back to the beginning) why would a commercial news admin file an abuse
>>complaint against someone trolling and nymshifting to continue trolling?
>
>By "nymshifting", do you mean forging headers? That's not a point of
>contention, so why do you raise it?

Forging headers can mean too many things - path hacks, MID hacks, posting
host hacks.  What this individual did (and what is commonly done by trolls)
is just change the From line which is normally enough to get his posts out
from a kf which is what you keep saying people should do...
>
>>>>Did I say "impose" or did you?  Gosh, it looks like you!  How can a policy
>>>>document impose anything?   It's a document.  It only has the "power" a
>>>>provider gives it.
>
>>>I'll phrase it more carefully then. You are the one saying that rules for
>>>discussion can be placed in a written policy document to be imposed by
>>>certain news administrators. That conflicts with your jibe at me.
>
>>Which jibe was that?
>
>You cut it.
>
HUH?

>>All I'm saying is there is no one rule that applies to all newsgroups.
>>Period.  You seem to think so but where is this rule?  You say a FAQ cannot
>>be a policy statement and I provide the FAQ on FAQs.
>
>Don't like the policy statement in an FAQ? Write a conflicting one.

If your second FAQ does not reflect the group's policy but only one guy's
policy, it's not the group's policy.
>
>>You say charters are nothing
>
>I NEVER said any such thing.
>
>>and yet there are threads with hundreds of responses which cover the
>>gamut from only a charter vs only a faq to both to everything in between.
>>There's no one-size-fits-all.
>
>>EVERYTHING depends on the provider.
>
>That's not a point of contention. What IS a point of contention is that FAQs
>and charters containing policy statement cannot reflect current, ongoing
>discussion in a group. I say what's on topic is what's being discussed.

And what f*cking news server do you manage with your own private rules?
Please, adam, tell us all.

You
>say what's on topic is what doesn't conflict with the policy statement.
>
>At least Russ says he looks at discussions in a newsgroup, though how he has
>time to do that, I don't know.

Every single person who handles an abuse claim will look at the group in
question.  You didn't answer me before - have you ever handled any abuse
complaint?  Do you know what they do or are you making still more
assumptions based on your own private ruleset?

>>>>Ok, if you were handling abuse @home and I reported one of your
>>>>cablekiddies flooding a text discussion group with binary files,
>>>>would you disregard my complaint because I'm not a subscriber to your
>>>>service?  If I were to complain about one of your cablekiddies flooding
>>>>alt.binaries.cartoons with the latest hardcore pr0n video, would you
>>>>ignore my complaint?
>
>>>I'm not discussing posting binaries to text groups, and I'm not discussing
>>>flooding. Neither is a point of contention, so why are you raising them?
>
>>Geez, and I thought you were yakking about abuse complaints related to
>>charters.  What exactly are we discussing then?
>
>You know, we settled this 20 rounds back. I expect ISPs to enforce common
>sense with respect to their own users REGARDLESS of what the charter says.
>
>I am trying to talk about enforcing topicality, in the absense of specific
>egregious behavior that itself should violate AUP. You raise tangent issues.

And - going back to 20 rounds ago - WTF does that have to do with
alt.config?  And what would you call your "shoulds"?  They're only your
private ruleset.  They are not in every TOS/AUP I've ever seen.
>
>>>>And how might anyone do that?  Do we all have access to everyone else's
>>>>email and telephone so we all know when everyone gets slapped by his
>>>>provider?
>
>>>So what it all comes down to is that you cannot back up your argument
>>>that an ISP would use a policy statement in a charter or FAQ to enforce
>>>topicality against one of his customers, unless that customer did
>>>something especially egregious comparable to spamming or flooding or
>>>posting binaries to text groups or threatening someone in an illegal
>>>manner or doing anything illegal.
>
>>All I say it it's all up to the provider.  You cannot back up your argument
>>that an ISP/NSP will never enforce topicality.
>
>Damnit, did I SAY that anywhere? I say that charters and FAQs cannot REFLECT
>topicality, as it's too fluid.

What you call "fluid" I call adam's hot air.

I asked YOU to come up with an example of
>discipline that could lead to account termination in an attempt to enforce
>a "policy" statement.
>
Adam, prove your point to me.  Can't you get it through your head that
either is UNPROVABLE without direct access to people's email and/or
telephones.

>Russ's article said he might enforce an FAQ but he still reviews the group
>to see what's what! In his hypothetical, he was enforcing topicality upon
>review of the group, not reading the FAQ. He doesn't recognize "constantly
>starting flame wars" as topical, though I do.

So then why would he even check a FAQ if it was of no importance?

g

>
>Fuck you, g.

Adam, you just joined froggie.

g

g <gypsy@cyberelectric.com.invalid> wrote:
>[name suppressed] wrote:

You don't have my permission to quote me without a proper attribution line.

>>g <gypsy@cyberelectric.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>[name suppressed] wrote:
>>>>g <gypsy@cyberelectric.com.invalid> wrote:

>>>>Ah fuck. What's the point in putting in proper attribution lines? g will
>>>>cut them out, and those of you trying to read this won't be able to figure
>>>>out who said what.

>>>Well, I'll leave a roadmap - if there is a ">>" before words, that's mine
>>>and if there is only ">" it's yours and if there is nothing, that's mine
>>>again! <G>

>>But I don't see any attribution lines. Who am I? Oh, yeah, [name suppressed].
>>I appear to be the only person you ever respond to in News. Gosh, I've written
>>a lot of messages.

>You write the MID's that are included....

Perhaps YOU write your own Message-IDs. I leave it to inews.

>I'd like to AGAIN draw your attention to the only "stats" that I can find
>on usenet readership - http://www.newsadmin.com/top100reads.htm

Till you establish how the uncollectable was collected, it has no validity.

>>That seems to support what I said earlier, and why most news administrators
>>would prefer to have erotic images segregated into groups with "erotic" in
>>the name. There's always some prosecutor, somewhere, who will go after it,
>>and those who don't want the exposure to criminal liability won't carry
>>such groups.

>HUH?  I think your train of thought got derailed because I can't follow you
>or what that has to do with what I said or what you said about ftp = usenet.

>Wanna know what happened on usenet when that "equipment confiscation"
>happened?  All commercial providers put in a hotline phone call to their
>attorneys.   altopia was the only server who did not at least temporarity
>drop those newsgroups.  Every other commercial provider did temporarily
>drop 'em and every commercial news provider brought 'em right back after
>the phone call.  Even airnews has abpep-t.  Newscene (where a lot of posts
>originated) did drop the groups and picked them back up along with adding
>that one little two word phrase to their main web page - "Content
>Disclaimer" as well as the link http://www.newscene.com/disclaimer.html

>They are not responsible.  @home is not responsible if the school marm
>doesn't like what she finds on usenet.  Mr prosecutor can take a flying leap.

Can you read what I wrote? "exposure to criminal liability" That means facing
the threat of prosecution. It's not the same as what you are describing when
you say "They are not responsible". A trial might determine that, but not
a prosecutor who have far too much discretion to threaten charges or bring
charges. Providers attempt to have erotica/pr0n segregated in an attempt to
reduce expose. The actions the other ISPs took were an attempt to reduce
exposure. I have great confidence in you that you'll keep arguing this point,
which is really a minor one.

>>>>>I used the term to define the standards in that newsgroup.  If that has a
>>>>>legal definition somewhere, please direct me to it as I am unaware of it.

>>>>Supreme Court decision in the late '60's written by Justice Powell. That's
>>>>the one with the famous line, "I can't define what porn is, but I know it
>>>>when I see it."

>>>Isn't the phrase you meant "contemporary community standards"?  Close but
>>>no cigar

>>Too lazy to look it up.

>You were and because of that you misunderstood me.

You were similarly too lazy to look it up. Why not drop it?

[about Russ Allbery]

>>>It's on deja:
>>>http://x53.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN`5054075&CONTEXT–7550582.1116995621&hitnum=7

>>He says topicality can have narrowed from the charter (which I agree with).
>>But in addition to the FAQ, he says he looks at what's currently being
>>discussed in the group (which I also agree with).

>Sorry I was not clear - that's a given IMO.

There are no "givens" with you; you've been arguing the most picyune points.

>>But then he says he'd ask a poster to stop starting flame wars in that
>>group on some other topic IF other threads don't discuss those issues. That
>>I don't agree with, as the flame war has become topical.

>You gonna tell him to change his policy?

As I said, you'll raise any straw man and argue anything. News administrators
have ultimate authority. That's not controversial.

>>>Then (back to the beginning) why would a commercial news admin file an abuse
>>>complaint against someone trolling and nymshifting to continue trolling?

>>By "nymshifting", do you mean forging headers? That's not a point of
>>contention, so why do you raise it?

>Forging headers can mean too many things - path hacks, MID hacks, posting
>host hacks.  What this individual did (and what is commonly done by trolls)
>is just change the From line which is normally enough to get his posts out
>from a kf which is what you keep saying people should do...

You're CONTINUING with your straw man? Changing From (to anything other than
a mailbox you control or have permission to use) is forging a header; it's
not controversial that an ISP might enforce a policy against forging headers.
Why do you keep raising it?

>>>All I'm saying is there is no one rule that applies to all newsgroups.
>>>Period.  You seem to think so but where is this rule?  You say a FAQ cannot
>>>be a policy statement and I provide the FAQ on FAQs.

>>Don't like the policy statement in an FAQ? Write a conflicting one.

>If your second FAQ does not reflect the group's policy but only one guy's
>policy, it's not the group's policy.

It's not group policy if the group isn't doing it. Are trolls off topic by
the "policy"? If regulars are continuously engaging the trolls, then the
regulars don't think the "policy" means shit. If someone else is motivated
enough to write an FAQ, then there was either no consensus for the first one,
or the earlier one was badly out of date. If there was no consensus, then the
FAQ couldn't have been group policy.

>>>EVERYTHING depends on the provider.

>>That's not a point of contention. What IS a point of contention is that FAQs
>>and charters containing policy statement cannot reflect current, ongoing
>>discussion in a group. I say what's on topic is what's being discussed. You
>>say what's on topic is what doesn't conflict with the policy statement.

>>At least Russ says he looks at discussions in a newsgroup, though how he has
>>time to do that, I don't know.

>Every single person who handles an abuse claim will look at the group in
>question.

Now YOU are hedging. In other words, the abuse desk isn't solely comparing
the controversial message to the "policy statement" in the charter or the FAQ.
He's making a value judgment, by reviewing the group, to see what the group
itself is doing. He's only willing to enforce it if it appears that it reflects
the current state of the group.

He's checking topicality by looking at what the group IS doing.

Perhaps I have a broader definition of topicality than someone on an abuse
desk, as I see flame wars as topical. If they enforce anything, I'd prefer
that an abuse desk give more weight to an attempted troll (everyone refused
to post followups) than a successful troll (flame war starts).

It's not controversial (for the 2,521st time) that an ISP can do what it likes.

>You didn't answer me before - have you ever handled any abuse
>complaint?  Do you know what they do or are you making still more
>assumptions based on your own private ruleset?

The most horrible crime anyone in alt.config can be accused of is imposing
rules. The accusation stinks, g. Groups determine topicality for themselves
without outside influence; in other words, I am making an argument AGAINST
rules. Topicality is determined by discussing a topic. By your claim above
that anyone handling a complaint reviews the group, then EVEN THE ISP decides
topicality by seeing what is currently being discussed, and according to you,
they wouldn't do it solely by reading a policy statement in the charter or FAQ.

An ISP, with respect to its own customers, can do what it likes. It can chose
to give weight to a policy statement or not, after reviewing the group. It can
chose to sanction those who start flame wars. I wouldn't agree with that, but
that's their call.

Policy statements aren't enforced in isolation; somehow has to check to see
if they are actually, uh, policy. If it DOESN'T reflect policy, then that
supports my argument that they are ineffective at reflecting the current
state of discussion in the group.

>>>>>And how might anyone do that?  Do we all have access to everyone else's
>>>>>email and telephone so we all know when everyone gets slapped by his
>>>>>provider?

>>>>So what it all comes down to is that you cannot back up your argument
>>>>that an ISP would use a policy statement in a charter or FAQ to enforce
>>>>topicality against one of his customers, unless that customer did
>>>>something especially egregious comparable to spamming or flooding or
>>>>posting binaries to text groups or threatening someone in an illegal
>>>>manner or doing anything illegal.

>>>All I say it it's all up to the provider.  You cannot back up your argument
>>>that an ISP/NSP will never enforce topicality.

>>Damnit, did I SAY that anywhere? I say that charters and FAQs cannot REFLECT
>>topicality, as it's too fluid.

>What you call "fluid" I call adam's hot air.

Fuck you, g.

>>I asked YOU to come up with an example of discipline that could lead to
>>account termination in an attempt to enforce a "policy" statement.

>Adam, prove your point to me.  Can't you get it through your head that either
>is UNPROVABLE without direct access to people's email and/or telephones.

Now that you've admitted that the crux of your argument is unprovable, you
gonna drop it now?

>>Russ's article said he might enforce an FAQ but he still reviews the group
>>to see what's what! In his hypothetical, he was enforcing topicality upon
>>review of the group, not reading the FAQ. He doesn't recognize "constantly
>>starting flame wars" as topical, though I do.

>So then why would he even check a FAQ if it was of no importance?

If it's well written, the best it could do is clarify what the topic is, but
it's of no importance if it's no longer (or never was) truly reflective of
what the group is discussing.

g <gypsy@cyberelectric.com.invalid> wrote:

>>Fuck you, g.

>Adam, you just joined froggie.

Well, I let g troll me and took the bait. He's shocked SHOCKED to find that
someone might get mad when baited.

So in the grand tradition of Usenet, he announces an addition to his killfile.

(Rather ironic, given that he was arguing that some news administrators
might enforce a policy statement against a troll for disrupting a newsgroup
so that regulars in the group don't have to bother to learn to use killfiles.)

This is unfair to me. I don't have a killfile. When do I get to make my
big dramatic announcement?

drum role (dig at Eugene) please.
Fanfare. Lights.

I don't have a killfile. Thank you. [bow]
curtain