Backyard Renegade wrote:

"Paul" wrote in message .rogers.com...
A FAQ is nice but there is no policing to enforce it.
The only way to enforce is by reporting people to
their ISP. The ISPs don't act unless it's an obvious
and continuous problem. But even then, the person
can so easily get a different email or news-service
and be right back here.

This should be researched I guess.

My understanding is that ISPs take abuse seriously, they can't really afford
not to and it's easy enough for them to do. The research would be provided
by the charter holder and simply double-checked by the ISP staff. The ISP
deals in volume so cutting off one customer is too small a number to have an
impact on revenue. The poster would then have to get an entirely new account
with a different ISP. I would think this would be good motivation for not
screwing around.

In fact I would be inclined to think that it would be resolved in the formal
warning phase.

Your understanding is wrong. As someone who spends a good amount of
time professionally blocking spammers I can tell you that the ISP's
don't give a crap at all.

Oh. I thought you built rowboats for a living. But now you tell us you
are a professional spam blocker...

Is there much money in it?

I'm not talking about spam. Sorry if I wasn't clear.

Your understanding is wrong. As someone who spends a good amount of
time professionally blocking spammers I can tell you that the ISP's
don't give a crap at all. If you actually find a spammer on their
network, and he happens to have a dedicated server there, they will
tell you "go call a cop or something", trust me, I know.
Spam is big business, costs all of you a lot of money, too!
Scotty

On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 13:05:59 GMT, bb wrote:

On 7 Nov 2003 02:57:06 -0600, noah
wrote:

There has been some additional discussion lately about the amount of
off-topic posting in this group.

When I first approached this issue, I received about 12 emails from
"lurkers", 4 from names I recognized, and 1 from a person I considered
a "Regular". All these emails supported some control in rec.boats.

I'll try another suggestion here. How about a group, within the
group, that agree to abide by some rules of decency? OT posts are not
the problem, but the behavior that follows. Obviously, most here
enjoy talking about things other than boats, but most don't enjoy the
venom in those posts.

Kin I git a AMEN! PREACH it, brother!

If there was a group within the group that agreed to abide by some
code of conduct, and agreed to ignore the fringe group that's only
here to stir things up, it might at least reduce the noise to ideas
ratio.

You are indeed a wise man.

Joe Parsons


Just a few simple rules, like no personal attacks, refrain from
blanket condemnation of "the other side", minimize profanity. I don't
know for sure, but it seems like just a few changes in the conduct of
debates would help a whole lot.

Certainly there are many intelligent, thoughtful people on the group
who can rationally debate without the need for the petty bickering.
The few who like to do nothing more than flame away will die off if
they are ignored.

Anyway, just a thought. You never know, it might have some value.
I've seen it work in another venue.

If it goes any farther, I'll leave it up to noah to police.

bb

On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 14:14:57 GMT, "Paul" wrote:

I think an FAQ or charter is a good idea. Here is a google link to the
can.rec.boating newsgroup charter.

http://www.google.ca/groups?q=group:...0ncf.ca&rnum=2

There are hundreds or possibly thousands of politics newsgroups both
moderated and unmoderated for these guys to move to so I don't see the need
for the creation of something new. If you feel like doing it and have the
time/energy then fill your boots although they're probably perfectly capable
of doing that if they want it.

Policing the group then becomes easy because with a charter a serial OT
poster can get reported to his ISP's abuse@ address and have his connection
yanked.

Hate to burst your bubble, but ISPs are in general quite uninterested in Usenet
abuse--for that matter, they are quite uninterested in Usenet in general. And
in the unlikely some miscreant *did* get TOSed off by his ISP, there's always
Teranews and Altopia, who really don't give a rat's ass about newsgroup
charters, FAQs, topicality or appropriateness.

Hear me now, believe me later. It's true. I've been through it.

As for the thought that this OT stuff is like dockside chatter I have to
admit that I haven't seen any bickering or name calling in my marina.

Gee. Why do you suppose that is?

Conversational topics usually remain away from charged topics and when it
inadvertently strays there the conversation shifts, seemingly without
effort, to safe waters.

Amazing, isn't it?

Joe Parsons

So I can't say that I see the OT stuff as being like
dockside chatter.

On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 15:13:55 GMT, "Paul" wrote:

A FAQ is nice but there is no policing to enforce it.
The only way to enforce is by reporting people to
their ISP. The ISPs don't act unless it's an obvious
and continuous problem. But even then, the person
can so easily get a different email or news-service
and be right back here.

This should be researched I guess.

My understanding is that ISPs take abuse seriously,

By and large, other than clear instances of spam, they really don't care.

they can't really afford
not to and it's easy enough for them to do. The

They still would have to devote time to it. Most ISPs just don't have those
resources--and really don't care if they did.

research would be provided
by the charter holder and simply double-checked by the ISP staff.

Your idealism is appealing--but it just doesn't work like that. Sorry.

The ISP
deals in volume so cutting off one customer is too small a number to have an
impact on revenue. The poster would then have to get an entirely new account
with a different ISP. I would think this would be good motivation for not
screwing around.

In fact I would be inclined to think that it would be resolved in the formal
warning phase.

News flash: we live in an imperfect world--and ISPs really don't care about
squabbles on Usenet. I did manage, after several months, to get one guy TOSed
for violating my copyright--but it cost me legal fees to do it. And that was a
*very* clear cut case.

Joe Parsons

On 07 Nov 2003 16:00:59 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

But such a requirement involves rules, rules demand a judge, etc. If anybody
can report anybody else to an ISP for posts they aren't pleased with, I'd hate
to say it but the ISP's will be busy for weeks listening to people from
rec.boats whine about one another.

ISP's don't bother with Usenet squabbles. They really don't.

Joe Parsons

Harry Krause wrote in message ...
Backyard Renegade wrote:

"Paul" wrote in message .rogers.com...
A FAQ is nice but there is no policing to enforce it.
The only way to enforce is by reporting people to
their ISP. The ISPs don't act unless it's an obvious
and continuous problem. But even then, the person
can so easily get a different email or news-service
and be right back here.

This should be researched I guess.

My understanding is that ISPs take abuse seriously, they can't really afford
not to and it's easy enough for them to do. The research would be provided
by the charter holder and simply double-checked by the ISP staff. The ISP
deals in volume so cutting off one customer is too small a number to have an
impact on revenue. The poster would then have to get an entirely new account
with a different ISP. I would think this would be good motivation for not
screwing around.

In fact I would be inclined to think that it would be resolved in the formal
warning phase.

Your understanding is wrong. As someone who spends a good amount of
time professionally blocking spammers I can tell you that the ISP's
don't give a crap at all.

Oh. I thought you built rowboats for a living. But now you tell us you
are a professional spam blocker...

Is there much money in it?

Thanks to the Clinton recession, I have to keep two jobs now!

On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 13:05:59 GMT, bb wrote:

On 7 Nov 2003 02:57:06 -0600, noah
wrote:

There has been some additional discussion lately about the amount of
off-topic posting in this group.

When I first approached this issue, I received about 12 emails from
"lurkers", 4 from names I recognized, and 1 from a person I considered
a "Regular". All these emails supported some control in rec.boats.

I'll try another suggestion here. How about a group, within the
group, that agree to abide by some rules of decency? OT posts are not
the problem, but the behavior that follows. Obviously, most here
enjoy talking about things other than boats, but most don't enjoy the
venom in those posts.

If there was a group within the group that agreed to abide by some
code of conduct, and agreed to ignore the fringe group that's only
here to stir things up, it might at least reduce the noise to ideas
ratio.

Just a few simple rules, like no personal attacks, refrain from
blanket condemnation of "the other side", minimize profanity. I don't
know for sure, but it seems like just a few changes in the conduct of
debates would help a whole lot.

Certainly there are many intelligent, thoughtful people on the group
who can rationally debate without the need for the petty bickering.
The few who like to do nothing more than flame away will die off if
they are ignored.

Anyway, just a thought. You never know, it might have some value.
I've seen it work in another venue.

If it goes any farther, I'll leave it up to noah to police.

bb

bb,

What you descscribe can be accomplished through a "new", officially
adopted, FAQ.

It does require a submission to the "powers that be", and a vote.

I do love this group, but I do not want to be "police". My opinion is
no better than anyone else's. It would be good, in my opinion, if the
group controlled itself.

Regards,
noah

To email me, remove the "OT-" from wrecked.ot-boats.noah.
....as you were. )

On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 06:25:07 GMT, Joe Parsons
wrote:

On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 13:05:59 GMT, bb wrote:

On 7 Nov 2003 02:57:06 -0600, noah
wrote:

There has been some additional discussion lately about the amount of
off-topic posting in this group.

When I first approached this issue, I received about 12 emails from
"lurkers", 4 from names I recognized, and 1 from a person I considered
a "Regular". All these emails supported some control in rec.boats.

I'll try another suggestion here. How about a group, within the
group, that agree to abide by some rules of decency? OT posts are not
the problem, but the behavior that follows. Obviously, most here
enjoy talking about things other than boats, but most don't enjoy the
venom in those posts.

Kin I git a AMEN! PREACH it, brother!

If there was a group within the group that agreed to abide by some
code of conduct, and agreed to ignore the fringe group that's only
here to stir things up, it might at least reduce the noise to ideas
ratio.

You are indeed a wise man.

Joe Parsons


Just a few simple rules, like no personal attacks, refrain from
blanket condemnation of "the other side", minimize profanity. I don't
know for sure, but it seems like just a few changes in the conduct of
debates would help a whole lot.

Certainly there are many intelligent, thoughtful people on the group
who can rationally debate without the need for the petty bickering.
The few who like to do nothing more than flame away will die off if
they are ignored.

Anyway, just a thought. You never know, it might have some value.
I've seen it work in another venue.

If it goes any farther, I'll leave it up to noah to police.

bb


Joe,

I *think* by now that you know that I listen to your opinion. The
problem comes in when some people take the postings and topics way off
from "rec.boats", and way off from civil discussion.

I have no desire to "police" rec.boats, and I admit enjoying
discussions that waver from "boating" from time to time, but there is
a lot of political nonsense and bashing here.

I submit to you that it does not belong here.

Regards,
noah

To email me, remove the "OT-" from wrecked.ot-boats.noah.
....as you were. )

On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 00:17:16 +1100, K Smith wrote:

noah wrote:
There has been some additional discussion lately about the amount of
off-topic posting in this group.

When I first approached this issue, I received about 12 emails from
"lurkers", 4 from names I recognized, and 1 from a person I considered
a "Regular". All these emails supported some control in rec.boats.

The problem for me was that any change to the Usenet hierarchy,
outside of "alt", requires a lengthy proposal, debate, and voting
process. A lot of work.

rec.boats is one of the oldest "living" groups in Usenet. The
unofficial FAQ is probably one of the best collections of sailing
information to be found online.

The problem enters in because the founders of this group had no idea
that Usenet (newsgroups) could, and would, become battlegrounds. From
reading years of the original posts, I can tell you that there was
little controversy (check it yourself, with Google) about the focus of
the group. I can also say, with confidence, that there was no
intention to incorporate political or offensive posts into this group.

I view the founders of this group with respect, but they made a
mistake. There is no "newgroup" message, and no "official" FAQ. That
far back, I'm sure that they didn't see this as "necessary".

Today, an FAQ is "necessary', and IMO, some basic ground rules will
help this group survive as a "boating" group. What those rules are,
and what the FAQ says, are entirely up to you, and "us".. More
importantly, they will not exist without you, and "us".

I invite every person who visits this group to express their opinion.
If you disagree with me, tell me.
If you are trolling, go away for a while. I'll be happy to butt heads
later.
If you agree, or disagree, then please say so.
An FAQ will not exist without user support.
rec.boats.lounge (or "community", yuck) will not exist without
support. And you can't dump the OT without an FAQ.

Had fish for dinner, deep fried, with corn meal and spices, )
Regards,
noah

To email me, remove the "OT-" from wrecked.ot-boats.noah.
...as you were. )

If it's a vote thing Noah?? can you mark me down as a nay.

I agree the OT stuff is a pain & I've been as guilty as anyone at
times, same with the abuse I'm a bit ashamed to admit.

Trouble is most of us have looked at other groups, the so called
moderated groups & they're just not acceptable. I'm sure the players
would argue, but for me anyway they're just commercial sites, of course
if people disagree they can always go join them as some have. However
they mostly come back, unless they were just spammers here anyway (which
a few were).

Nothing is for nothing & if putting up with a few total dipsticks, OT
posts & a nasty liar or two is the price I pay for rec.boats it's cheap
enough, particularly when I know they have to pay their price in
putting up with the likes of me:-)


K

K, thanks for the reply.

I have no interest in "moderation". The posters to this group should
feel free to speak their minds, and suffer the consequences of their
ignorance. ) (just kidding, people).

What concerns me is the volume of political posting which has nothing
to do with boating. I do enjoy an intelligent argument, and there are
appropriate groups for any argument conceivable.

Why tear his group up with vehemence, egos, and bad manners when there
are other places to do this?
Regards,
noah

To email me, remove the "OT-" from wrecked.ot-boats.noah.
....as you were. )