I'll decide where to post a followup, thank you very much. I refuse to
post in news.groups.proposals. Gee, the hierarchy administrators sure
don't see irony in directing discussion to a moderated newsgroup
designed to thwart discussion (criticsm of the past hierarchy
administrators for being trolled into the discussions of the socmen
herding group and pondscum group, both absurd proposals for moderated newsgroups discussion of which wouldn't die out for months) to discuss
the failure of the moderation scheme for these two newsgroups.

Usenet Big-8 Management Board <board@big-8.org> wrote:

This is a formal Request for Discussion (RFD) to remove the moderated >newsgroups rec.arts.comics.reviews and rec.arts.comics.info.

Newsgroups Lines:

rec.arts.comics.info Reviews, convention information and other comics
news. (Moderated)
rec.arts.comics.reviews Reviews of comics and comics-related materials. >(Moderated)

Rationale for removal:

rec.arts.comics.reviews and rec.arts.comics.info haven't seen posts in
the last 12 years and currently don't have moderators.

On 2012-06-01, the moderator of rec.arts.comics.reviews, Tim Skirvin,
posted an article indicating that he would like to step down and
calling for a replacement moderator: ><https://groups.google.com/g/rec.arts.comics.reviews/c/Cfcr3NW6ovQ>
The search was evidently unsuccessful as the ISC currently has no
moderator address registered for the group.

Another time when skirv wanted to withdraw as a group moderator (I
forget which group), he posted an MVI, which was an abuse of process.

This is all irrelevant. What needs to be done, which would be hard but
useful work, is to contact each and every currently used moderated
newsgroup to verify that they have a moderation team in place and a
moderator succession policy.

Are you going to do that? No, of course not, 'cuz that might ensure that
these might be useable for the indefinite future.

Leave all the failed moderated newsgroups in the checkgroups to remind
the Usenet community of the folly of the current moderation scheme with
its single point of (inevitable) failure.

As always, cleaning up checkgroups doesn't save Usenet. It's busy work.

. . .

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 12/6/24 20:28, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

I'll decide where to post a followup, thank you very much. I refuse to
post in news.groups.proposals. Gee, the hierarchy administrators sure
don't see irony in directing discussion to a moderated newsgroup
designed to thwart discussion (criticsm of the past hierarchy
administrators for being trolled into the discussions of the socmen
herding group and pondscum group, both absurd proposals for moderated newsgroups discussion of which wouldn't die out for months) to discuss
the failure of the moderation scheme for these two newsgroups.

Another time when skirv wanted to withdraw as a group moderator (I
forget which group), he posted an MVI, which was an abuse of process.

This is all irrelevant. What needs to be done, which would be hard but
useful work, is to contact each and every currently used moderated
newsgroup to verify that they have a moderation team in place and a
moderator succession policy.

Are you going to do that? No, of course not, 'cuz that might ensure that these might be useable for the indefinite future.

Leave all the failed moderated newsgroups in the checkgroups to remind
the Usenet community of the folly of the current moderation scheme with
its single point of (inevitable) failure.

As always, cleaning up checkgroups doesn't save Usenet. It's busy work.

People are with you! We stand with you. All peasant are willing to take
flags and move to the square.

--
morena
http://morena.rip
gopher://morena.rip

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

morena <morena@morena.rip> wrote:

. . .

People are with you! We stand with you. All peasant are willing to take
flags and move to the square.

Will someone please send the troll a mesage from a server monitoring
test newsgroups to distract him from making bizarre followups in
configging discussions? Thank you.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Fri, 6 Dec 2024 20:58:24 +0100, morena <morena@morena.rip> wrote:

On 12/6/24 20:28, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

On Fri, 6 Dec 2024 13:39:55 EST, Usenet Big-8 Management Board <board@big-8.org> wrote:

Path: news..!feeder9.news.weretis.net!panix!.POSTED.panix6.panix.com!nan.panix.com!robomod!not-for-mail
From: Usenet Big-8 Management Board <board@big-8.org>
Newsgroups: news.announce.newgroups,news.groups.proposals,rec.arts.comics.reviews,rec.arts.comics.info,rec.arts.comics.misc
Subject: 2nd RFD: Remove rec.arts.comics.reviews and rec.arts.comics.info >>>Followup-To: news.groups.proposals
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2024 13:39:55 EST
Organization: Usenet Big-8 Management Board
Approved: Moderator of news.announce.newgroups <newgroups-request@isc.org>, NGP Approval Key <ngp-approval-key@ngp.big-8.org>
Message-ID: <vivehu$an0$1@reader2.panix.com>
Injection-Info: reader2.panix.com; posting-host="panix6.panix.com:166.84.1.6";
logging-data="10310"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@panix.com"
...
Xref: news.. news.announce.newgroups:81 news.groups.proposals:322
rec.arts.comics.reviews:2 rec.arts.comics.info:2 rec.arts.comics.misc:152

This is a formal Request for Discussion (RFD) to remove the moderated >>>newsgroups rec.arts.comics.reviews and rec.arts.comics.info.
Newsgroups Lines:
rec.arts.comics.info Reviews, convention information and other comics >>>news. (Moderated)
rec.arts.comics.reviews Reviews of comics and comics-related materials. >>>(Moderated)
Distribution:
news.announce.newgroups
news.groups.proposals
rec.arts.comics.reviews
rec.arts.comics.info
rec.arts.comics.misc

snip

All discussion of active proposals should be posted to >>>news.groups.proposals.

I'll decide where to post a followup

People are with you! We stand with you. All peasant are willing to take
flags and move to the square.

for twenty-six years, the weekly transmission to news.admin.net-abuse.usenet has ever been like an old scratched record that keeps skipping over the same repeating flapdoodle . . . to wit, this same exact post will appear again at midnight this sunday universal time, and again, every week, for all eternity:

On Sun, 01 Dec 2024 00:02:01 +0000 tskirvin@killfile.org (Tim Skirvin) wrote >Archive-name: usenet/spam-faq

Posting-Frequency: weekly
Last-modified: 1998/11/10

^^^^ ^^ ^^

1998/11/10 (derelict "faq")
- 1977/11/17 (skirvin's dob)
= 7663 days (~20.9806 years)

9514 days since moon-shot
= 26.048 years and counting . . .


p.s. cross-posting has always been a darn nuisance and should be eliminated altogether . . . nntp servers that accept articles crossposted to unmoderated newsgroups should be depeered; the aforequoted article stipulates "discussion of active proposals should be posted to news.groups.proposals" . . . somebody should notify these usenet authoritarians that: if you make a rule, follow it

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)