Interest? alt.comp.freeware.moderated

[REMbranded]

Does anyone have any interest in helping to maintain and moderate a
moderated sister of this group?

It is not something a single person can do. It evidently requires
teamwork to establish a new group. The discussion in alt.config plays
a role in how well the group is carried and if it is carried at all:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.walthowe.com/navnet/faq/newsq.html#create

Excerpt:

"How do I create a new newsgroup?.
To create new newsgroups in the big eight (comp, humanities, misc,
news, rec, sci, soc, and talk), a formal process is followed. The
process starts with RFDs (Requests for Discussion) and eventually goes
to a formal CFV (Call For Votes). The vote is monitored by an
impartial person, and votes must follow strict rules to be counted.
The YES votes must be two-thirds or more of the votes and must exceed
NO votes by 100 votes or more. If the vote meets those requirements, a
control message is sent out creating the new group. The process works,
because enough newsadmins (newsgroup administrators) agree with it,
and they are ultimately the ones who review the incoming control
messages and decide whether a given newsgroup is carried on their
system or not. There are occasional anarchists who try to break the
system, and although they can become quite a nuisance, the system
still works.

Alternative newsgroups, particularly the alt series, follow a much
less formal procedure. No votes are taken. but a group can be proposed
and discussed on alt.config. If a group has been discussed favorably
on alt.config, someone sends out a control group creating the new
group. Acceptance is up to each newsadmin, and it will have wider
acceptance if it has been discussed favorably first.

You can read about new and proposed newsgroups in
news.announce.newgroups and alt.config. You can learn more about
creating big 8 newsgroups in the FAQ on Creating Newsgroups. You can
learn about creating alt newsgroups in the Alt Creation Guide."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The alt route sounds very workable. And I think we all agree this
would solve many problems here in ACF (except for those who disagree
of course.)

Any interest? Can you spare some time on a weekly basis to moderate?

 

[Boomer]

Does anyone have any interest in helping to maintain and moderate
a moderated sister of this group?

It is not something a single person can do. It evidently requires
teamwork to establish a new group. The discussion in alt.config
plays a role in how well the group is carried and if it is carried
at all:

-------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.walthowe.com/navnet/faq/newsq.html#create

Excerpt:

"How do I create a new newsgroup?. [snip]
The alt route sounds very workable. And I think we all agree this
would solve many problems here in ACF (except for those who
disagree of course.)

Any interest? Can you spare some time on a weekly basis to
moderate?

But you say "moderated" newsgroup.

Read these two:

http://www.google.com/groups?q=+"moderated+newsgroup"+group:alt.con
fig&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&scoring=d&selm=mod-pitfalls-faq-
1066201202%2415957%40windlord.stanford.edu&rnum=5

Or click: http://makeashorterlink.com/?J1BA56866

http://www.google.com/groups?q=+"moderated+newsgroup"+author:barb&h
l=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-
8&scoring=d&selm=msq8hv8cjsepg37trhgj4erpvh0ao78qod%40newstest2.earthli
nk.net&rnum=2

OR click here: http://makeashorterlink.com/?X28A25866

 

[=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=BBQ=AB?=]

And I think we all agree this would solve many problems here in
ACF (except for those who disagree of course.)

I'm one who disagrees. It might create a group which does not have the
same problems as a.c.f, but a.c.f would still have the a.c.f problems.

 

[Susan Bugher]

I think we all agree this
would solve many problems here in ACF (except for those who disagree
of course.)

Hi REMbranded,

One small, teeny, tiny request. Please, please, pretty please with sugar
on it . . .

don't say *we all agree* . . .

(especially in any thread about disagreements) . . .

Recently that phase has started to make my head hurt . . .

Perhaps substitute: it is *my* considered opinion

Susan
--
Pricelessware: http:www.pricelessware.org
PL2003: http://www.pricelessware.org/2003/about2003PL.htm
PL2004 Review: http://www.pricelessware.org/2004/2004nominationsPL.php
alt.comp.freeware FAQ (short) - maintained by John F.
http://clients.net2000.com.au/~johnf/faq.html

 

[=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=BBQ=AB?=]

Does anyone have any interest in helping to maintain and moderate a
moderated sister of this group?

I've just realized from what you wrote in a different thread that you
mean for the moderation rules for the proposed new group to rule out
posting about spyware, adware, shareware, magazineware and other such
things. But in other threads, you've made it clear that the a.c.f
posts you find objectionable are not those, but the ones you believe
are attempts to harrass and intimidate the people who want to promote
and discuss spyware, adware, shareware, magazineware, &c. in a.c.f.
Why do you want a moderated group to disallow posts you don't mind
rather than disallowing the posts you feel to be problematic?

 

[Alan]

One small, teeny, tiny request. Please, please, pretty please with
sugar on it . . .

don't say *we all agree* . . .

(especially in any thread about disagreements) . . .

Recently that phase has started to make my head hurt . . .

Perhaps substitute: it is *my* considered opinion

I agree with this Susan. In fact, I think we all agree )

Sorry, but that one was really screaming out "Go on... do it!"

 

[Susan Bugher]

I agree with this Susan. In fact, I think we all agree )

Sorry, but that one was really screaming out "Go on... do it!"

Be that way!

I haven't looked in at rec.collecting.books for ages - thought I'd see
what was going on . . .

Guess what - LOL

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=..._uauthors=bsharvy%40mac.com&lr=&num=100&hl=en

It all sounds very familiar . . .
do you think there's a school? . . .
or maybe a book (Trolling for Dummies) . . .
hmm, more than one way to read *that* title . . .

Susan
--
Pricelessware: http:www.pricelessware.org
PL2003: http://www.pricelessware.org/2003/about2003PL.htm
PL2004 Review: http://www.pricelessware.org/2004/2004nominationsPL.php
alt.comp.freeware FAQ (short) - maintained by John F.
http://clients.net2000.com.au/~johnf/faq.html

 

[Onno Tasler]

The alt route sounds very workable. And I think we all agree this
would solve many problems here in ACF (except for those who disagree
of course.)

I think if the group does not get enough votes for a place in normal
usenet hierarchy, it won't have enough visitors to survive long.

First, we would have to find a reason for two freeware newsgroups. I
think the difference between "pure free" and "spoiled free" will not be
enough. Otherwise, soon there will be also some people who insist that
"closed source" isn't free and try to create a "really pure freeware"
group, and the flames start anew.

Also, this new group would not solve any problems in acf, but only makes
a twin with less flaws.

Any interest? Can you spare some time on a weekly basis to moderate?

If we find a reason I accept for this newsgroup I would be willing to
spend one morning each weak (a 4-6 hours time window) to moderate.

bye,

Onno

 

[Onno Tasler]

The alt route sounds very workable. And I think we all agree this
would solve many problems here in ACF (except for those who disagree
of course.)

I think if the group does not get enough votes for a place in normal
usenet hierarchy, it won't have enough visitors to survive long.

First, we would have to find a reason for two freeware newsgroups. I
think the difference between "pure free" and "spoiled free" will not be
enough. Otherwise, soon there will be also some people who insist that
"closed source" isn't free and try to create a "really pure freeware"
group, and the flames start anew.

Also, this new group would not solve any problems in acf, but only makes
a twin with less flaws.

Any interest? Can you spare some time on a weekly basis to moderate?

If we find a reason I accept for this newsgroup I would be willing to
spend one morning each week (a 4-6 hours time window) to moderate.

bye,

Onno

 

[Mister Charlie]

I think if the group does not get enough votes for a place in normal
usenet hierarchy, it won't have enough visitors to survive long.

First, we would have to find a reason for two freeware newsgroups. I
think the difference between "pure free" and "spoiled free" will not be
enough. Otherwise, soon there will be also some people who insist that
"closed source" isn't free and try to create a "really pure freeware"
group, and the flames start anew.

Also, this new group would not solve any problems in acf, but only makes
a twin with less flaws.

Well, if there were two separate groups then what in the hell would we
argue about? ;-)

 

[REMbranded]

Susan Bugher <[email protected]> wrote:

(e-mail address removed) wrote:

Hi REMbranded,

One small, teeny, tiny request. Please, please, pretty please with sugar
on it . . .

don't say *we all agree* . . .

(especially in any thread about disagreements) . . .

Recently that phase has started to make my head hurt . . .

Perhaps substitute: it is *my* considered opinion

It was supposed to be a funny. Sorry about that.

 

[REMbranded]

"»Q«" <[email protected]> wrote:

(e-mail address removed) wrote in <news:[email protected]>:

I've just realized from what you wrote in a different thread that you
mean for the moderation rules for the proposed new group to rule out
posting about spyware, adware, shareware, magazineware and other such
things. But in other threads, you've made it clear that the a.c.f
posts you find objectionable are not those, but the ones you believe
are attempts to harrass and intimidate the people who want to promote
and discuss spyware, adware, shareware, magazineware, &c. in a.c.f.

No shareware »Q«, just freeware... whatever that really is. Promotion
of adware/shareware or magazineware is not my intent. The simple
ability to discuss freely is my concern.

Why do you want a moderated group to disallow posts you don't mind
rather than disallowing the posts you feel to be problematic?

I had to think about that one for a minute. The coffee hasn't kicked
in yet.

The main point of contention as I see it is the one over what
constitutes "pure" freeware. I respect the will for keeping it pure.

I also recognize that many Win32 authors have chipped away at what we
would term "freeware," and the result is freewares of less purity.
Now I'm not going to use them and I'm not going to recommend them in
any case I can think of. They are freewares though. And this is an
unmoderated group: alt.comp.freeware. I see harrassment as a means of
attempted moderation of an unmoderated group as a foul I guess.

We have conglomerate definitions and we individually have our own
definitions as to what "freeware" actually means. I don't see an end
to the quibbling, unfortunately, because this is an unmoderated group.

A moderated group can free whatever we can define as "pure freeware"
and protect it from controversy.

By nature, a moderated group reduces or eliminates the bickering we
tend to encounter here from time to time. Total elimination is very
possible.

As I said, it requires a group effort. Messages like this should be
cross posted to alt.config in order to establish the interest and the
need for the new group (if the interest is here).

 

[omega]

(e-mail address removed):

Promotion of adware/shareware or magazineware is not my intent. The simple
ability to discuss freely is my concern.

This is the distinction that I have not been seeing. Example: How can
you discuss databases while simultaneously self-censoring any and all
pertinent references to MS Access?

 

[REMbranded]

Onno Tasler <[email protected]> wrote:

(e-mail address removed) wrote:

I think if the group does not get enough votes for a place in normal
usenet hierarchy, it won't have enough visitors to survive long.

We have enough readers. The vast majority are silent though. Maybe the
prospect of a clean group will bring a few out to express an opinion.

First, we would have to find a reason for two freeware newsgroups. I
think the difference between "pure free" and "spoiled free" will not be
enough. Otherwise, soon there will be also some people who insist that
"closed source" isn't free and try to create a "really pure freeware"
group, and the flames start anew.

Also, this new group would not solve any problems in acf, but only makes
a twin with less flaws.

If we find a reason I accept for this newsgroup I would be willing to
spend one morning each week (a 4-6 hours time window) to moderate.

I feel there is a true need. The question is, "Does the interest
exist?"

Thanks very much Onno.

 

[omega]

(e-mail address removed):

I feel there is a true need. The question is, "Does the interest
exist?"

A small forewarning to ponder, before putting to much work in. A lot
of people do not favor moderated groups, not necessarily because of
issues about subjective moderation judgements, but something else.

It's the situation of the time-lapse factor.

Waiting a day or so to see if your post appears. And then another 1-2-3+
days to see if any replies made it through. It is a type of experience
much different from the speediness of regular, unmoderated netnews.

 

[REMbranded]

But you say "moderated" newsgroup.

Read these two:

Or click: http://makeashorterlink.com/?J1BA56866

OR click here: http://makeashorterlink.com/?X28A25866

I'm still reading (and trying to digest), but so far I have not seen
anything that we cannot do. Is there a problem I haven't seen yet?

I don't want to make a large pasted message, but here are a few of the
more important points pasted from the first link:



"2. What does 'moderated' mean ?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

'Moderated' means that all postings to the newsgroup go to a mail
address (e.g., (e-mail address removed)) instead of appearing in the
newsgroup directly. The postings are then forwarded via email to a
moderator, or group of moderators, or even an automated program, who
decides whether to actually inject the article into the newsgroup or
to reject it as not meeting guidelines spelled out in the group's
charter.

The main purpose of newsgroup moderation is to prevent inappropriate
posts to the newsgroup. For example, moderation can prevent discussion
or requests for software from appearing in groups dedicated to posting
source code. It can also be used to facilitate discussions, to create
a forum for announcements, to prevent repeated posts of the same
information, or to cut off endless uninformative arguments. Some
groups, e.g., rec.humor.funny and some source groups, also use it to
control the traffic volume.

Moderation should not be used to censor unpopular viewpoints, or those
that the moderator simply disagrees with. It is best to have a very
clear charter and moderation policy for the newsgroup, so that
newsgroup readers and posters can tell which topics are, or are not,
appropriate for discussion on the newsgroup."

So far so good. With a very narrow point of focus this will work.

"3. Why do Usenet moderated newsgroups exist ?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Groups on the net are moderated for a variety of reasons. All
moderation serves the same basic purpose, to filter out inappropriate
postings and to deliver timely, on-topic articles. Most moderated
groups fall into one of five general categories:

Groups with postings of an informative nature not suited to discussion
and always originating from the same (very small) group of posters.
Groups within this category include news.lists,
news.announce.newusers, and comp.mail.maps.

Groups derived from regular groups with such a high volume that it is
hard for the average reader to keep up. The moderated versions of
these groups are an attempt to provide a lower volume and higher
quality version of the same forum. An example of this category is
news.announce.newgroups (a reduced form of news.groups).

Groups derived from regular groups that have often been abused. That
is, the regular groups often received postings of items that were not
germane to the stated topic of the group (or sometimes even within the
realm of politeness for the net). This also includes groups suffering
from an annoying number of duplicate postings and inappropriate
followups. Moderated groups in this category include
comp.sources.misc."

The concentration of on topic posts related to pure freeware can be
achieved. As a moderator, it will be difficult to determine where a
valid question ends and where OT discussion begins. It will not be
easy really. After a learning curve I think it will work.

"4. Role of a moderator
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Moderating a newsgroup is a volunteer effort but it carries certain
responsibilities. The role of a moderator is to review, approve and
post articles relevant to a newsgroup according to the group's charter
or guidelines.

If an article does not qualify for posting, it is to be sent back to
the author with an explanation of why it is not suitable for posting.

Depending on the nature of the group, acceptable turnaround time can
range from a few days to a few weeks. If posts accepted for the group
have a long delay before being actually posted, as happens with
moderated net magazines, it is a good idea to let the submitter know
that the post was accepted, and what the approximate posting date will
be."

I would "hope" the turnaround time to be less than 1 hour. This really
depends on how many volunteers there are and how well they work
together. Email is quick, group postings are quick, from there server
to server propagation is quick. The actual decision as to which posts
are on topic and sending them on seems to be the holdup.

"5.8. Submitting articles
The software and process a moderator uses to post to a newsgroup can
be as simple as piping an article through a script from within the
moderator's mailer which posts it. It can be as full blown as a
program that creates Auxiliary headers for a source submission and
checks for all sorts of potential name conflict problems and common
posting errors."

It sounds pretty easy as far as the mechanics go. A single email
account can be used. OT posts can be dragged out and on topic posts
posted. When the next person comes on there needs to be a notification
and start from wherever the last left off.





------------ And now a word from our sponsor ------------------
For a quality usenet news server, try DNEWS, easy to install,
fast, efficient and reliable. For home servers or carrier class
installations with millions of users it will allow you to grow!
---- See http://netwinsite.com/sponsor/sponsor_dnews.htm ----

 

[REMbranded]

This is the distinction that I have not been seeing. Example: How can
you discuss databases while simultaneously self-censoring any and all
pertinent references to MS Access?

In my opinion, it is perfectly OK to contrast what features various
databases have in relation to Access here in ACF. The point is not to
"sell" Access for MS, but to educate all interested in the
simularities and differences. From there each is free to use whatever
product they choose to use.

That is a far from unanimous viewpoint though. And this leads to some
pretty vocal disagreements and some mainly unspoken ones that lead to
personal resentments I'll bet.

This is the purpose of a moderated group. This group [ACF] will still
be here for those who like to watch wrestling <G>. A new group [ACFM]
will be created to handle the on topic posts.

As to handle the distinction that you mention in the latter group,
that is to be decided by all who are interested enough to voice an
opinion on the matter.

Once it is decided, it is up to the volunteer moderators to implement
on a daily basis.



------------ And now a word from our sponsor ------------------
Do your users want the best web-email gateway? Don't let your
customers drift off to free webmail services install your own
web gateway!
-- See http://netwinsite.com/sponsor/sponsor_webmail.htm ----

 

[REMbranded]

A small forewarning to ponder, before putting to much work in. A lot
of people do not favor moderated groups, not necessarily because of
issues about subjective moderation judgements, but something else.

It's the situation of the time-lapse factor.

Waiting a day or so to see if your post appears. And then another 1-2-3+
days to see if any replies made it through. It is a type of experience
much different from the speediness of regular, unmoderated netnews.

This is true. As I understand it there does not have to be a real time
delay though.

I'm replying to you in almost real time. That is how I would moderate
on my watch if it is to happen. Read'em, slash the OT, send'em on.

The groups you might be referring to have a single moderator with a
real life. I'm proposing a great many people volunteer to work shifts.

In reading some of the older FAQ's there used to be delays in
propagation as well. I don't think that we have those same delays
today.

 

[Max Quordlepleen]

This is true. As I understand it there does not have to be a real
time delay though.

I'm replying to you in almost real time.

This is my experience of moderated groups. I'm subscribed to half-a-
dozen, and the longest delays are occasional lags 2 to 3 hours in one
of the OpenOffice mailing lists that I access through a news server. In
other moderated groups, my posts appear within 15 minutes of sending.

 

[omega]

This is my experience of moderated groups. I'm subscribed to half-a-
dozen, and the longest delays are occasional lags 2 to 3 hours in one
of the OpenOffice mailing lists that I access through a news server. In
other moderated groups, my posts appear within 15 minutes of sending.

Thank you for the correction, guys.

My netnews knowledge is essentially circa '95-99. It's not been upgraded
to a recent version. At least here you gave a hotpatch fix.