• Re: 1st RfD: Mass-deletion of moderated groups without a moderator

    From Adam H. Kerman@21:1/5 to board@big-8.org on Sat Jan 4 15:30:19 2025
    The irony of discussing the failure of moderation in a moderated
    newsgroup that has no reason to exist continues to be missed. I am
    posting in news.groups.

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

    REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)

    This is a formal Request for Discussion (RFD) to remove the following
    101 moderated newsgroups.

    RATIONALE:

    Currently, those groups cannot be used for discussion because of the
    lack of a moderator. Most of those groups haven't had a moderator for
    a long time and have been unused for years. We consider it unlikely
    that they will ever be revived with a new moderator. Nonetheless,
    anyone interested in becoming a moderator for a group listed in this
    RFD is invited to contact the Big-8 Management Board.

    The audience for potential moderators of these specific newsgroups is
    not to be found here in news.groups.

    DISTRIBUTION:

    news.announce.newgroups
    news.groups.proposals
    news.groups

    Because of the magnitude of the group list, this proposal is not
    cross-posted to target groups. In the course of these proceedings the
    Board will post pointers to this announcement to appropriate
    groups. Readers are encouraged to take the initiative and spread the
    message.

    Brilliant stuff there, Way to literally go behind everybody's back.

    PROCEDURE:

    The procedure shall take at least 8 weeks, with announcements posted
    every 4 weeks: 1st RFD, 2nd RFD, and Last Call for Comments (LCC).

    I look forward to your next trick, mass rmgrouping of unmoderated Big 8 newsgroups.

    None of this is useful work and none of this will find even a single new
    Usenet user, which I could have sworn was what you said was your most
    important task.

    This is all meaningless busywork.

    . . .

    If you have any objections, please make them heard in moderated group >news.groups.proposals. The "Followup-To:" header is set on this message,
    so simply replying to this post should do the right thing.

    You MUST NOT instruct me where to post my followup, It's my decision,
    not yours.

    I'm using unmoderated Usenet. You feel free to use moderated Usenet
    whilst literally declaring moderation to be a complete and utter
    failure.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From D@21:1/5 to board@big-8.org on Sat Jan 4 23:14:54 2025
    On Fri, 3 Jan 2025 20:33:02 EST, Big-8 Management Board <board@big-8.org> wrote:
    REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
    This is a formal Request for Discussion (RFD) to remove the following
    101 moderated newsgroups.
    RATIONALE:
    Currently, those groups cannot be used for discussion because of the
    lack of a moderator. Most of those groups haven't had a moderator for
    a long time and have been unused for years. We consider it unlikely
    that they will ever be revived with a new moderator. Nonetheless,
    anyone interested in becoming a moderator for a group listed in this
    RFD is invited to contact the Big-8 Management Board.
    DISTRIBUTION:
    news.announce.newgroups
    news.groups.proposals
    news.groups
    Because of the magnitude of the group list, this proposal is not
    cross-posted to target groups. In the course of these proceedings the
    Board will post pointers to this announcement to appropriate
    groups. Readers are encouraged to take the initiative and spread the
    message.
    PROCEDURE:
    The procedure shall take at least 8 weeks, with announcements posted
    every 4 weeks: 1st RFD, 2nd RFD, and Last Call for Comments (LCC). The
    group lists may be revised during this stage and additional RFDs
    posted as necessary. Discussion about candidate groups should take
    place in the moderated group news.groups.proposals. After publication
    of the LCC, the Board will vote. If there are specific reasons to vote >individually for some groups, the Board will do, but the default will
    be a ballot covering all groups.
    More details can be found here:
    https://www.big-8.org/wiki/Mass_removal_of_groups
    NEWSGROUP LINES:
    comp.binaries.cbm For the transfer of 8bit Commodore binaries. >(Moderated)
    comp.doc.techreports Lists of technical reports. (Moderated) >comp.internet.library Discussing electronic libraries. (Moderated) >comp.lang.c.moderated The C programming language. (Moderated)
    comp.newprod Announcements of new products of interest. >(Moderated)
    comp.org.cauce The Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial
    E-Mail. (Moderated)
    comp.robotics.research Academic, government & industry research in
    robotics. (Moderated)
    comp.simulation Simulation methods, problems, uses. (Moderated) >comp.soft-sys.math.mathematica Mathematica discussion group. (Moderated) >comp.sources.games Postings of recreational software. (Moderated) >comp.std.announce Announcements about standards activities.
    (Moderated)
    comp.sys.amiga.announce Announcements about the Amiga. (Moderated) >comp.sys.sun.announce Sun announcements and Sunergy mailings. (Moderated) >humanities.philosophy.objectivism The ideas of Ayn Rand. (Moderated) >misc.activism.progressive Information for Progressive activists. >(Moderated)
    misc.business.consulting The business of consulting. (Moderated) >misc.business.marketing.moderated Roundtable for marketing topics. >(Moderated)
    misc.business.moderated Roundtable for general business topics. (Moderated) >misc.entrepreneurs.moderated Entrepreneur/business topics. (Moderated) >misc.invest.financial-plan Financial planning in general. (Moderated) >misc.transport.air-industry Airlines, airports, commercial aircraft. >(Moderated)
    misc.writing.screenplays.moderated Craft/business of screenwriting. >(Moderated)
    news.admin.net-abuse.policy Discussion of net abuse policy. (Moderated) >news.announce.conferences Calls for papers and conferences.
    (Moderated)
    rec.arts.anime.creative Original works by fans, related to anime/manga. >(Moderated)
    rec.arts.anime.info Announcements about Japanese animation. (Moderated) >rec.arts.ascii ASCII art, info on archives, art, & artists. >(Moderated)
    rec.arts.drwho.moderated Discussion of "Doctor Who". (Moderated) >rec.arts.erotica Erotic fiction and verse. (Moderated) >rec.arts.movies.erotica Aspects of erotic films and videos. (Moderated) >rec.arts.movies.reviews Reviews of movies. (Moderated)
    rec.arts.sf.announce Major announcements of the SF world. (Moderated) >rec.arts.sf.starwars.info General information pertaining to Star
    Wars. (Moderated)
    rec.autos.sport.f1.moderated Discussion of Formula One racing.
    (Moderated)
    rec.autos.sport.nascar.moderated NASCAR and Stockcar Racing. >(Moderated)
    rec.boats.marketplace Boating products for sale and wanted. (Moderated) >rec.crafts.jewelry Jewelry making and gemology. (Moderated) >rec.drugs.announce Announcements about drugs and related issues. >(Moderated)
    rec.food.cuisine.jewish All matters concerning Jewish cuisine. (Moderated) >rec.food.recipes Recipes for interesting food and drink. (Moderated) >rec.gardens.ecosystems Ecosystems and organic gardening. (Moderated) >rec.humor.funny Jokes that are funny (in the moderator's
    opinion). (Moderated)
    rec.humor.funny.reruns Reposts of rec.humor.funny archive material. >(Moderated)
    rec.martial-arts.moderated Martial-arts in general. (Moderated) >rec.music.beatles.info Latest press notes about the Beatles. (Moderated) >rec.music.beatles.moderated Fab Four analytical & investigative
    articles. (Moderated)
    rec.music.gaffa Discussion of Kate Bush & other alternative
    music. (Moderated)
    rec.music.info News and announcements on musical topics.
    (Moderated)
    rec.music.makers.guitar.tablature Guitar tablature and
    performance. (Moderated)
    rec.music.promotional Information and promo materials from record >companies. (Moderated)
    rec.music.reviews Reviews of music of all genres and mediums. >(Moderated)
    rec.pets.dogs.info General information and FAQs posted here.
    (Moderated)
    rec.pets.ferrets Forum on ferret care and husbandry. (Moderated) >rec.photo.moderated The art and science of photography. (Moderated) >rec.skiing.alpine.moderated Alpine (downhill) skiing. (Moderated) >rec.skiing.announce FAQ, competition results, automated snow
    reports. (Moderated)
    sci.aeronautics The science of aeronautics & related technology. >(Moderated)
    sci.archaeology.moderated All aspects of archaeology. (Moderated) >sci.bio.evolution Discussions of evolutionary biology. (Moderated) >sci.bio.phytopathology All aspects of plant diseases and pests. (Moderated) >sci.chem.organic.synthesis Synthetic organic chemistry related
    topics. (Moderated)
    sci.econ.research Research in all fields of economics. (Moderated) >sci.med.orthopedics Orthopedic Surgery, related issues and
    management. (Moderated)
    sci.military.moderated Military technology. (Moderated)
    sci.nanotech Self-reproducing molecular-scale machines. >(Moderated)
    sci.physics.foundations Fundamental and philosophical physics. (Moderated) >sci.physics.strings String theory and related fields. (Moderated) >sci.space.moderated Discussions about space related topics. (Moderated) >sci.space.news Announcements of space-related news items. >(Moderated)
    soc.adoption.adoptees Discussion of adoption by adoptees. (Moderated) >soc.atheism Living as an atheist and atheism in society. >(Moderated)
    soc.culture.african.american.moderated African-American perspectives. >(Moderated)
    soc.culture.basque Basque culture and related issues. (Moderated) >soc.culture.belarus All things about Belarus. (Moderated) >soc.culture.hawaii Aloha kakou, E KOMO MAI! Eh, no forget hemo da
    shoes. (Moderated)
    soc.culture.indian.goa About Goa, India's smallest state. (Moderated) >soc.culture.jewish.parenting Issues about raising Jewish children. >(Moderated)
    soc.culture.kuwait.moderated Kuwaiti culture, society, and history. >(Moderated)
    soc.culture.turkish.moderated Issues related to Turks/Turkey. (Moderated) >soc.feminism Discussion of feminism & feminist issues.
    (Moderated)
    soc.genealogy.african Genealogy of Africa and the African Diaspora. >(Moderated)
    soc.genealogy.surnames.britain Surnames queries - Great Britain.
    (Moderated)
    soc.genealogy.surnames.canada Surnames queries - Canada. (Moderated) >soc.genealogy.surnames.german Surnames queries - German speaking
    countries. (Moderated)
    soc.genealogy.surnames.global Surnames queries central database. >(Moderated)
    soc.genealogy.surnames.misc Surnames - regions not covered
    elsewhere. (Moderated)
    soc.genealogy.surnames.usa Surnames queries - USA. (Moderated) >soc.history.moderated All aspects of history. (Moderated)
    soc.personals Personal ads -- people in search of (ISO)
    others. (Moderated)
    soc.politics Political problems, systems, solutions. (Moderated) >soc.politics.marxism Karl Marx and his legacy in theory and practice. >(Moderated)
    soc.religion.asatru Following the Gods and Goddesses of Northern
    Europe. (Moderated)
    soc.religion.bahai Discussion of the Baha'i Faith. (Moderated) >soc.religion.hindu Discussion about the Hindu dharma, philosophy, >culture. (Moderated)
    soc.religion.mormon The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. >(Moderated)
    soc.religion.paganism Networking for Pagans. (Moderated) >soc.religion.unitarian-univ Unitarian-Universalism & non-creedal >religions. (Moderated)
    soc.sexuality.spanking Adult sexual spanking. (Moderated) >soc.support.fat-acceptance.moderated Self-acceptance for fat people. >(Moderated)
    soc.support.loneliness Mutual help and chat for those of us who feel
    alone. (Moderated)
    soc.support.youth.gay-lesbian-bi Gay youths helping each other. >(Moderated)
    If you have any objections, please make them heard in moderated group >news.groups.proposals. The "Followup-To:" header is set on this message,
    so simply replying to this post should do the right thing.

    no objections your honour . . . the ayes have it . . . why not just admit
    that there can be no discussion in any unmoderated forum including active unmoderated usenet newsgroups, the latter overrun by big brother's usenet trollfarm for the express unremitting purpose of discouraging substantive dialogue among outsiders to the "nanny state" (albeit posting still works)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Adam H. Kerman@21:1/5 to Marco Moock on Sun Jan 5 21:43:36 2025
    Marco Moock <mm+usenet-es@dorfdsl.de> wrote:
    On 05.01.2025 09:04 Uhr noel wrote:

    If nobody is moderating the groups, why not unmoderate them instead
    of removing them, if they get use, fair enough, if not, there is no
    harm, no extra resources used other than a handful of bytes for a one
    line entry in active file which already has thousands of unmoderated
    groups that haven't been posted to in 10 years anway.

    The group lists are full of unused groups and that makes finding active >groups much harder, so cleaning that up is always a good idea. We are
    here to discuss which of the groups might be still relevant and might
    be revived.

    A simple keyword search of the newsgroups file will allow the user to
    find groups of interest to subscribe to. Actually posting to the group
    on topic with something of interest to say is the only way to determine
    if some will post a followup.

    We don't require a mass purge of unmoderated Big 8 newsgroups either.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Adam H. Kerman@21:1/5 to Computer Nerd Kev on Wed Jan 8 12:23:36 2025
    Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote:

    . . .

    Well there are things I haven't posted about because I couldn't
    find a vaguely relevant group. . . .

    Then you didn't try very hard. tale newgrouped *.misc groups all over
    the Big 8.

    I suggest it's impossible to be unable to post on topic on any given
    topic of discussion.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Steve Bonine@21:1/5 to All on Wed Jan 8 10:28:30 2025
    Big-8 Management Board wrote:
                  REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)

    This is a formal Request for Discussion (RFD) to remove the following
    101 moderated newsgroups.
    When these groups are removed, the history associated with the contents
    of the group will disappear. I do not know how much this matters. There
    are cases where someone doing research could use the information, but it
    is rare. But when it's gone, it's gone.

    If I thought that the removal of 101 groups would make a difference in
    anything that matters, I would be more supportive. But this is a drop
    in the bucket in terms of the number of inactive groups. The effect of
    this change would be to slightly reduce the chance of someone posting
    into a newsgroup that they found by doing a name search and their action
    being a waste of time because there is no moderator or no users of the
    group.

    The bottom line for me is that it's not worth investing the effort at
    this point in the life of Usenet. But it's not my time . . .

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From D@21:1/5 to Steve Bonine on Wed Jan 8 18:24:54 2025
    On Wed, 8 Jan 2025 10:28:30 -0600, Steve Bonine <spb@pobox.com> wrote:
    Path: news..!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
    From: Steve Bonine <spb@pobox.com>
    Newsgroups: news.groups
    Subject: Re: 1st RfD: Mass-deletion of moderated groups without a moderator >Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2025 10:28:30 -0600
    Message-ID: <vlm93g$2s1vg$1@dont-email.me>
    References: <vla2t6$5g57$1@dont-email.me>
    Injection-Info: dont-email.me; ..="abuse@eternal-september.org";
    ...
    Big-8 Management Board wrote:
                  REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
    This is a formal Request for Discussion (RFD) to remove the following
    101 moderated newsgroups.

    When these groups are removed, the history associated with the contents
    of the group will disappear. I do not know how much this matters. There
    are cases where someone doing research could use the information, but it
    is rare. But when it's gone, it's gone.
    If I thought that the removal of 101 groups would make a difference in >anything that matters, I would be more supportive. But this is a drop
    in the bucket in terms of the number of inactive groups. The effect of
    this change would be to slightly reduce the chance of someone posting
    into a newsgroup that they found by doing a name search and their action >being a waste of time because there is no moderator or no users of the
    group.
    The bottom line for me is that it's not worth investing the effort at
    this point in the life of Usenet. But it's not my time . . .

    fwiw, googlegroups is still available (san raw message headers) for those searching for remnants, and the blueworld server appears to have complete retention going back about 21 years (csiph 9, paganini 5, netfront 4) etc.

    about 10% of currently active newsgroups are moderated, but the remaining
    90% unmoderated active newsgroups have been continually flooded by trolls
    (and what's left on server spools after the global googlespam inundation),
    so anyone doing serious research of usenet newsgroups had better learn to
    use comprehensive scoring filters to winnow down the wheat from the chaff

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Marco Moock@21:1/5 to All on Wed Jan 8 21:00:42 2025
    On 08.01.2025 10:28 Uhr Steve Bonine wrote:

    Big-8 Management Board wrote:
                  REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)

    This is a formal Request for Discussion (RFD) to remove the
    following 101 moderated newsgroups.
    When these groups are removed, the history associated with the
    contents of the group will disappear. I do not know how much this
    matters. There are cases where someone doing research could use the information, but it is rare. But when it's gone, it's gone.

    Those groups were mostly unused more than 10 years, most servers won't
    carry any articles anymore. The group's history itself can still be
    found at the ISC ftp server, all control messages, including
    descriptions, can be found there.


    --
    kind regards
    Marco

    Send spam to 1736328510muell@stinkedores.dorfdsl.de

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Computer Nerd Kev@21:1/5 to Winston on Thu Jan 9 07:08:51 2025
    Winston <wbe@ubeblock.psr.com.invalid> wrote:
    Big-8 Management Board wrote:
    REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)

    This is a formal Request for Discussion (RFD) to remove the
    following 101 moderated newsgroups.

    On 08.01.2025 10:28 Uhr Steve Bonine responded:
    When these groups are removed, the history associated with the
    contents of the group will disappear. I do not know how much this
    matters. There are cases where someone doing research could use the
    information, but it is rare. But when it's gone, it's gone.

    Marco Moock <mm+usenet-es@dorfdsl.de> replied:
    Those groups were mostly unused more than 10 years, most servers won't
    carry any articles anymore.

    I think the concern is a bit different: there are some hosts that try to archive the entire history of their chosen set of newsgroups (e.g., non-binary groups) and that have articles from, say, 21 years ago or
    more. If removing a newsgroup makes that history unavailable, that's a concern. ISTM that deleting a newsgroup, and the archive host honoring
    that delete control message, would make articles in that group
    unavailable via NNTP, so the archiver would have to set up an alternate
    way of accessing the old articles, even assuming they were careful
    enough to preserve the articles when the group is deleted.

    Yes. On Ausics, which doesn't expire articles, I've been
    subscribing to some dead groups just to gradually read through the
    old articles. Converting abandoned moderated groups to unmoderated
    (with a post in each group explaining the change and risk of some
    servers not implementing it) would be better in this regard.

    --
    __ __
    #_ < |\| |< _#

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Winston@21:1/5 to Marco Moock on Wed Jan 8 16:00:19 2025
    Big-8 Management Board wrote:
                  REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)

    This is a formal Request for Discussion (RFD) to remove the
    following 101 moderated newsgroups.

    On 08.01.2025 10:28 Uhr Steve Bonine responded:
    When these groups are removed, the history associated with the
    contents of the group will disappear. I do not know how much this
    matters. There are cases where someone doing research could use the
    information, but it is rare. But when it's gone, it's gone.

    Marco Moock <mm+usenet-es@dorfdsl.de> replied:
    Those groups were mostly unused more than 10 years, most servers won't
    carry any articles anymore.

    I think the concern is a bit different: there are some hosts that try to archive the entire history of their chosen set of newsgroups (e.g.,
    non-binary groups) and that have articles from, say, 21 years ago or
    more. If removing a newsgroup makes that history unavailable, that's a concern. ISTM that deleting a newsgroup, and the archive host honoring
    that delete control message, would make articles in that group
    unavailable via NNTP, so the archiver would have to set up an alternate
    way of accessing the old articles, even assuming they were careful
    enough to preserve the articles when the group is deleted.

    The group's history itself can still be found at the ISC ftp server,
    all control messages, including descriptions, can be found there.

    I'm assuming ISC's history is the management history of the group, not
    all the articles ever posted to the group. I don't think that's the
    history Steve is concerned about.
    -WBE

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Steve Bonine@21:1/5 to Winston on Wed Jan 8 19:01:36 2025
    Winston wrote:
    Big-8 Management Board wrote:
                  REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)

    This is a formal Request for Discussion (RFD) to remove the
    following 101 moderated newsgroups.

    On 08.01.2025 10:28 Uhr Steve Bonine responded:
    When these groups are removed, the history associated with the
    contents of the group will disappear. I do not know how much this
    matters. There are cases where someone doing research could use the
    information, but it is rare. But when it's gone, it's gone.

    Marco Moock <mm+usenet-es@dorfdsl.de> replied:
    Those groups were mostly unused more than 10 years, most servers won't
    carry any articles anymore.

    I think the concern is a bit different: there are some hosts that try to archive the entire history of their chosen set of newsgroups (e.g., non-binary groups) and that have articles from, say, 21 years ago or
    more. If removing a newsgroup makes that history unavailable, that's a concern. ISTM that deleting a newsgroup, and the archive host honoring
    that delete control message, would make articles in that group
    unavailable via NNTP, so the archiver would have to set up an alternate
    way of accessing the old articles, even assuming they were careful
    enough to preserve the articles when the group is deleted.

    If the server processes the rmgroup in the standard way, you are correct
    that the group will no longer exist on that server, and any history that
    it contains will be lost. I cannot speak for the actions of the server
    owner, but I suspect that someone who has invested the time to
    accumulate 21 years of history in a newsgroup might intercept the
    control message and set the group to read-only if that is an option for
    the news server they are using.

    The group's history itself can still be found at the ISC ftp server,
    all control messages, including descriptions, can be found there.

    I'm assuming ISC's history is the management history of the group, not
    all the articles ever posted to the group. I don't think that's the
    history Steve is concerned about.

    You're right, it's the contents of the group that may be the only place
    that some of the history of the Internet is documented.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Tristan Miller@21:1/5 to Adam H. Kerman on Sun Feb 2 09:44:13 2025
    Greetings.

    On 2025-01-04 09:30, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
    Big-8 Management Board <board@big-8.org> wrote:
    REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)

    This is a formal Request for Discussion (RFD) to remove the following
    101 moderated newsgroups.

    The audience for potential moderators of these specific newsgroups is
    not to be found here in news.groups.

    DISTRIBUTION:

    news.announce.newgroups
    news.groups.proposals
    news.groups

    [...]

    Brilliant stuff there, Way to literally go behind everybody's back.

    Where do you suggest we post the RFD, then?

    Should we cross-post the RFD to all of the affected groups? I doubt our
    own news server would accept such an article, and others might also
    reject it for excessive cross-posting. But maybe I am wrong.

    Should we post a separate copy of the RFD to each of the affected
    groups? Again, I'm worried this might trigger some automated
    spam/flooding filters. But again, maybe I am wrong about this.

    Besides the affected groups, is there a better place to reach an
    audience of potential moderators?

    I look forward to your next trick, mass rmgrouping of unmoderated Big 8 newsgroups.

    This has been done several times in the past, as documented on our
    website at <https://www.big-8.org/wiki/The_Great_Downsizing_2011/1> and <https://www.big-8.org/wiki/The_Great_Downsizing_2011/2>.

    If you have any objections, please make them heard in moderated group
    news.groups.proposals. The "Followup-To:" header is set on this message,
    so simply replying to this post should do the right thing.

    You MUST NOT instruct me where to post my followup, It's my decision,
    not yours.

    No one is instructing you to do anything. Our message *requests* you to
    reply on news.groups.proposals as this is the only place the Board is guaranteed to be monitoring the discussion.

    In 2022 we initiated an RFD on whether to continue using
    news.groups.proposals in this way, or to switch to the unmoderated
    news.groups. It doesn't appear as though we received any comments from
    you. The community's reaction to the RFD was mixed and so the Board
    voted to preserve the status quo. That said, you (or anyone else) is
    welcome to start another RFD of your own.

    Regards,
    Tristan

    --
    Usenet Big-8 Management Board
    https://www.big-8.org/
    board@big-8.org

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Adam H. Kerman@21:1/5 to Tristan Miller on Sun Feb 2 16:57:15 2025
    Tristan Miller <tmiller@big-8.org> wrote:
    2025-01-04 09:30, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

    Big-8 Management Board <board@big-8.org> wrote:
    REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)

    This is a formal Request for Discussion (RFD) to remove the following
    101 moderated newsgroups.

    The audience for potential moderators of these specific newsgroups is
    not to be found here in news.groups.

    DISTRIBUTION:

    news.announce.newgroups
    news.groups.proposals
    news.groups

    [...]

    Brilliant stuff there, Way to literally go behind everybody's back.

    Where do you suggest we post the RFD, then?

    In newsgroups in which the topic is being discussed or in which related
    topics are being discussed.

    The vast majority of Usenet users do not read configging groups, so this
    isn't notice.

    Yes, if you insist upon this massive tale-like purge of checkgroups,
    it's an incredible amount of work, so break it up into reasonable-sized
    chunks.

    You're skipping the part of the process that requires effort because you
    are psyched to wield the axe.

    Should we cross-post the RFD to all of the affected groups?

    Crossposting is bad behavior. Start a thread in a newsgroup in which
    similar topics are discussed and participate in the discussion.

    You're the proponent here, not the hierarchy administrator. It behooves
    you to take the steps that a decent proponent is supposed to take.

    I know you are impatient. I know you've convinced yourself that this
    will somehow save Usenet. It won't.

    Do it the right way.

    Should we post a separate copy of the RFD to each of the affected
    groups? Again, I'm worried this might trigger some automated
    spam/flooding filters. But again, maybe I am wrong about this.

    Oh for gawd's sake. Why has the Big 8 hierarchy administration always
    been so in love with boilerplate? It's meaningless.

    Just write an article that someone might be interested in reading.

    Besides the affected groups, is there a better place to reach an
    audience of potential moderators?

    If someone both discusses the topic and believes there is some problem
    that moderation might solve, he'll volunteer. You find people intrested
    in the topic in newsgroups in which the topic is discussed. That leaves
    out configging newsgroups.

    I look forward to your next trick, mass rmgrouping of unmoderated Big 8 >>newsgroups.

    This has been done several times in the past, as documented on our
    website at <https://www.big-8.org/wiki/The_Great_Downsizing_2011/1> and ><https://www.big-8.org/wiki/The_Great_Downsizing_2011/2>.

    Yes. I am familiar with Usenet history from the period before my
    participation.

    If you have any objections, please make them heard in moderated group >>>news.groups.proposals. The "Followup-To:" header is set on this message, >>>so simply replying to this post should do the right thing.

    You MUST NOT instruct me where to post my followup, It's my decision,
    not yours.

    No one is instructing you to do anything. Our message *requests* you to >reply on news.groups.proposals as this is the only place the Board is >guaranteed to be monitoring the discussion.

    Followup-To is an instruction from the author of the precursor article.
    As the author of the followup article, it's my decision where to post
    and whether to crosspost. However, Followup-To is a mean-spirited trick
    as authors of followups don't always realize that they've been
    redirected. I've made this error plenty of times.

    In 2022 we initiated an RFD on whether to continue using >news.groups.proposals in this way, or to switch to the unmoderated >news.groups. It doesn't appear as though we received any comments from
    you. The community's reaction to the RFD was mixed and so the Board
    voted to preserve the status quo. That said, you (or anyone else) is
    welcome to start another RFD of your own.

    My opinion of moderated configging discussion was well-known to the
    hierarchy administrators. Life may have gotten in the way of paying
    attention to that particular RFD, but since you already knew my opinion,
    it hardly mattered that I didn't repeat my opinion during RFD.

    Other people are choosing to participate in the moderated group. That's
    their choice, not mine. My choice is to avoid moderated configging
    discussion.

    Same as it's not your place to redirect discussion with Followup-To,
    it's not my place to prevent anyone from posting to a moderated
    newsgroup.

    You are still failing to appreciate the irony of attempting to limit
    this discussion to a moderated newsgroup whilst arguing for the
    widespread failure of moderated Usenet as a concept.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Paul W. Schleck@21:1/5 to Tristan Miller on Sat Feb 8 08:11:40 2025
    XPost: news.groups.proposals

    In <vno3se$ch7$1@reader2.panix.com> Tristan Miller <tmiller@big-8.org> writes:

    Greetings.

    On 2025-01-04 09:30, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
    Big-8 Management Board <board@big-8.org> wrote:
    REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)

    This is a formal Request for Discussion (RFD) to remove the following
    101 moderated newsgroups.

    The audience for potential moderators of these specific newsgroups is
    not to be found here in news.groups.

    DISTRIBUTION:

    news.announce.newgroups
    news.groups.proposals
    news.groups

    [...]

    Brilliant stuff there, Way to literally go behind everybody's back.

    Where do you suggest we post the RFD, then?

    Should we cross-post the RFD to all of the affected groups? I doubt our
    own news server would accept such an article, and others might also
    reject it for excessive cross-posting. But maybe I am wrong.

    Should we post a separate copy of the RFD to each of the affected
    groups? Again, I'm worried this might trigger some automated
    spam/flooding filters. But again, maybe I am wrong about this.

    Besides the affected groups, is there a better place to reach an
    audience of potential moderators?

    One technique that was used for another mass-removal RFD in 2011 was to
    make a short pointer post crossposted to small groups of the affected newsgroups, usually four newsgroups at a time (Panix will allow
    simultaneous crossposting to up to 8 different newsgroups), with body
    text customized to each group of newsgroups, to avoid news server
    filtering on large numbers of exact duplicate articles. This is well
    within Breidbart Index limits followed by most news servers. Usually
    the newsgroups were combined by subhierarchy (e.g., rec.arts.*,
    rec.games.*, rec.games.computer.quake.*, etc.). An example of such a
    short, crossposted pointer message may be found at:

    https://groups.google.com/g/rec.games.trading-cards.startrek/c/00vYFmLltv0/m/o88IiT3WmEwJ

    The current RFD encompasses about 100 newsgroups. Sending pointer
    messages with different sublists of the affected newsgroups, crossposted
    to about 4 to 8 newsgroups each, would be about 15 to 25 messages. A
    lot, but not unmanageable, especially if the messages were templated,
    possibly generated by a script. Since this latest RFD affects moderated newsgroups, an Approved: header would have to be added, of course.
    There is ample precedent for the Board to post directly to inactive
    moderated newsgroups, most recently with rec.radio.broadcasting.

    --
    Paul W. Schleck
    pschleck@panix.com

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