While the efforts and sugggestions are laudable, I
don't believe any of them will have much effect.

REC.BOATS.LOUNGE would only work if
the offenders abided by posting only there...but
they WANT the audience, so that's unlikly.

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.

AGREED TO CODE OF CONDUCT is a nice
idea too, but this could easily degenerate into even
MORE useless bickering about "Hey, that's a
personal attck." Answered by, "Well if that is than
what you said yesterday is too." Bla...bla..bla.


But mostly, who cares? It it SO easy to skip the
posts that aren't about boating. Even without
blocking anyone, you can just not read OT posts
or posts that have topic titles that aren't about
boats. It really is easy to skim them and not
read. It's also very easy to notice when the
posters step off the road of debate and into
the battlefield. Then stop reading that thread.

This group is great. It's a wonderful source of
boating knowledge, it's entertaining, and in
politics it can even be informing. It's very
interesting to see how both sides think of
issues - whether that be depth finders or
deficits.

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.

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.


I'm missing a couple of pages from this chapter. Notice that the most
outrageous
flamers, and some of the most prolific pot stirrers, hide behind phony screen
names, phony (not just munged) e-mail addresses, etc. How do you report
to anybody?

Requiring that everybody post with a real name and a real e-mail address would
go a long way toward curing the underlying problem. Not because they would be
reportable, but because a good number of these people would think twice about
some of the statements they make if they were actually identifiable with their
posts.

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.

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

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.


I'm missing a couple of pages from this chapter. Notice that the most
outrageous
flamers, and some of the most prolific pot stirrers, hide behind phony screen
names, phony (not just munged) e-mail addresses, etc. How do you report
to anybody?

Requiring that everybody post with a real name and a real e-mail address would
go a long way toward curing the underlying problem. Not because they would be
reportable, but because a good number of these people would think twice about
some of the statements they make if they were actually identifiable with their
posts.

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.

There are programs which do a good job of searching for email address for spam
purposes. I definitely don't need more of that, and can understand why some may
be reluctant to post same. However, I'll try again, as you can see.

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

Well I never really looked into how many of the posters are using anonymous
proxies, if many of the OT posters are doing that then yes, it would be a
problem.

I had assumed (without checking) that only the recent extremely abusive
posts were done by anonymous proxies. These abusive posts are clearly a
result of OT petulance spilling out -- remove the OT and those abusive posts
would disappear as they would have no trigger. If that initial premise is
correct then the proxies are a non-issue.

Other than that, the fake e-mail address is no problem, all the info
required to track down a poster is included in the message header. Nobody
would be required to give their real name or email address, there's more
than enough info in your header already.

ISPs getting multiple complaints from whiners is something the ISP will have
to handle themselves, it's not my problem. I'm pretty confident they can
figure it out -- buncha smart people there.

I'm guessing that the policing would only have to happen at the beginning.
I'm also guessing that regardless of the language they use to express
themselves, the people behind those posts are actually decent people. I
would be surprised if one of them were to refuse to take their posts to
another newsgroup.






"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
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.


I'm missing a couple of pages from this chapter. Notice that the most
outrageous
flamers, and some of the most prolific pot stirrers, hide behind phony
screen
names, phony (not just munged) e-mail addresses, etc. How do you report
to anybody?

Requiring that everybody post with a real name and a real e-mail address
would
go a long way toward curing the underlying problem. Not because they would
be
reportable, but because a good number of these people would think twice
about
some of the statements they make if they were actually identifiable with
their
posts.

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.

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

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

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

Yes they do, Joe.
Regards,
noah

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

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

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.


I'm missing a couple of pages from this chapter. Notice that the most
outrageous
flamers, and some of the most prolific pot stirrers, hide behind phony screen
names, phony (not just munged) e-mail addresses, etc. How do you report
to anybody?

Requiring that everybody post with a real name and a real e-mail address would
go a long way toward curing the underlying problem. Not because they would be
reportable, but because a good number of these people would think twice about
some of the statements they make if they were actually identifiable with their
posts.

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.

Chuck, do you enjoy the level of OT posting found here?
Do you enjoy the personal attacks that outnumber the boating-related
posts?

I am guessing that you don't, but I have been wrong before.
Regards,
noah

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

Chuck, do you enjoy the level of OT posting found here?

I don't mind it. If I go to a marine trade event or a yacht club meeting,
everybody is discussing a wide variety of subjects that certainly include
boats. It has been my practice to avoid being among the leaders in initiating
OT posts, but I'm not shy about contributing an opinion to the pot once it's
boiling.

Do you enjoy the personal attacks that outnumber the boating-related
posts?

No, of course not. That's a separate issue from the OT posts. In most cases,
the people who resort to personal attack are either not particularly adept in
social discourse, or (more often) become frustrated with a lack of mental or
verbal ability to discuss a subject on an issues basis. That frustration is
often manifest by name-calling and flaming. Such behavior is more commonly
encountered in emotionally charged topics like politics and religion- but it is
also a regular element in on-topic posts.
(Bayliner, anyone?)

It's the tone of so many of the posts that is disturbing, more so than the
subject matter. Too many times the group forgets how to disagree without
becoming disagreeable. I'm sure we have all been guilty at times.

"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. 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