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 14 Nov 2003 20:09:13 -0600, noah wrote:

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.

That has never been my experience.

There are many Usenet service providers, for example, that have essentially NO
Terms of Service. Altopia is a good example of this. Teranews is another.

By and large, what I have observed is that--especially in unmoderated
newsgroups--ISPs don't have the time or inclination to deal with their users who
might be chronically nasty, or who post off-topic (or who chronically post
off-topic in a nasty manner).

I'm sure my generalization is unfair to a handful of ISPs who *do* pull the plug
on those who abuse newsgroups by posting off-topic arguments, but I haven't run
across them over the last dozen years.

I decry these kinds of posts, as I know you and many others do; but ultimately,
there has to be some kind of "gentleman's agreement" between the main combatants
that the behavior is inappropriate--and that it is literally destroying the
newsgroup.

There is absolutely nothing to be gained by people's posting these provocative,
emotionally charged and polarizing articles. And since, for the most part, the
people posting them seem to have some modicum of intelligence, I have to believe
they know exactly what they're doing it--but choose to indulge their destructive
whims out of pure selfishness.

They certainly are not doing it with an eye toward convincing anyone of
anything.

Joe Parsons

Regards,
noah

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

Joe Parsons wrote:

On 14 Nov 2003 20:09:13 -0600, noah wrote:

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.

That has never been my experience.

There are many Usenet service providers, for example, that have essentially NO
Terms of Service. Altopia is a good example of this. Teranews is another.

By and large, what I have observed is that--especially in unmoderated
newsgroups--ISPs don't have the time or inclination to deal with their users who
might be chronically nasty, or who post off-topic (or who chronically post
off-topic in a nasty manner).

Besides, it's becomes subjective when trying to determine who is
"nasty", and at what point someone goes over the line. Trying to
determine this opens up all sorts of censorship cries, and 1st amendment
issues.


I'm sure my generalization is unfair to a handful of ISPs who *do* pull the plug
on those who abuse newsgroups by posting off-topic arguments, but I haven't run
across them over the last dozen years.

On an unmoderated newsgroup, there is generally little recourse. Even
idiots have a right to be idiots.


I decry these kinds of posts, as I know you and many others do; but ultimately,
there has to be some kind of "gentleman's agreement" between the main combatants
that the behavior is inappropriate--and that it is literally destroying the
newsgroup.

Maybe there can be no "gentleman's agreement" because the concept of
being a gentleman has escaped many people? The ideal of disagreeing
without being disagreeable?


There is absolutely nothing to be gained by people's posting these provocative,
emotionally charged and polarizing articles.

For some, it's "therapy". It soothes and re-enforces their overly
inflated idea of self-worth.


And since, for the most part, the
people posting them seem to have some modicum of intelligence, I have to believe
they know exactly what they're doing it--but choose to indulge their destructive
whims out of pure selfishness.

Now you're catching on.


They certainly are not doing it with an eye toward convincing anyone of
anything.

That much is true.

Dave

On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 15:35:13 GMT, Dave Hall wrote:

Joe Parsons wrote:

On 14 Nov 2003 20:09:13 -0600, noah wrote:

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.

That has never been my experience.

There are many Usenet service providers, for example, that have essentially NO
Terms of Service. Altopia is a good example of this. Teranews is another.

By and large, what I have observed is that--especially in unmoderated
newsgroups--ISPs don't have the time or inclination to deal with their users who
might be chronically nasty, or who post off-topic (or who chronically post
off-topic in a nasty manner).

Besides, it's becomes subjective when trying to determine who is
"nasty", and at what point someone goes over the line. Trying to
determine this opens up all sorts of censorship cries, and 1st amendment
issues.

Which part of "Congress shall make no law ...abridging the freedom of speech, or
of the press" do you believe applies to a privately-owned ISP's right to pull
the plug on a customer?

I'm sure my generalization is unfair to a handful of ISPs who *do* pull the plug
on those who abuse newsgroups by posting off-topic arguments, but I haven't run
across them over the last dozen years.

On an unmoderated newsgroup, there is generally little recourse. Even
idiots have a right to be idiots.

Res ipsa loquitur.

I decry these kinds of posts, as I know you and many others do; but ultimately,
there has to be some kind of "gentleman's agreement" between the main combatants
that the behavior is inappropriate--and that it is literally destroying the
newsgroup.

Maybe there can be no "gentleman's agreement" because the concept of
being a gentleman has escaped many people? The ideal of disagreeing
without being disagreeable?

While there are clearly people here whose conduct is (to put it charitably)
ungentlemanly, if a few were to help create a sort of group ethos, that could
leaven the rest. Peer pressure is a powerful force.

There is absolutely nothing to be gained by people's posting these provocative,
emotionally charged and polarizing articles.

For some, it's "therapy". It soothes and re-enforces their overly
inflated idea of self-worth.

You may be right.

And since, for the most part, the
people posting them seem to have some modicum of intelligence, I have to believe
they know exactly what they're doing it--but choose to indulge their destructive
whims out of pure selfishness.

Now you're catching on.

What gives you the idea that I am only now "catching on?"

Joe Parsons

They certainly are not doing it with an eye toward convincing anyone of
anything.

That much is true.

Dave

Joe Parsons wrote:

On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 15:35:13 GMT, Dave Hall wrote:

Joe Parsons wrote:

On 14 Nov 2003 20:09:13 -0600, noah wrote:

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.

That has never been my experience.

There are many Usenet service providers, for example, that have essentially NO
Terms of Service. Altopia is a good example of this. Teranews is another.

By and large, what I have observed is that--especially in unmoderated
newsgroups--ISPs don't have the time or inclination to deal with their users who
might be chronically nasty, or who post off-topic (or who chronically post
off-topic in a nasty manner).

Besides, it's becomes subjective when trying to determine who is
"nasty", and at what point someone goes over the line. Trying to
determine this opens up all sorts of censorship cries, and 1st amendment
issues.

Which part of "Congress shall make no law ...abridging the freedom of speech, or
of the press" do you believe applies to a privately-owned ISP's right to pull
the plug on a customer?

The rights of people to express themselves in public (within limts) is
guaranteed. However a private company can set rules to restrict certain
behaviors. Thus begins the tug of war between the right to express an
opinion in a public place (a newgroup forum), and the private company
who provides the access right to set limitations. That doesn't stop the
endless debates on the subjectivity used in determining when someone
"crosses the line".



I'm sure my generalization is unfair to a handful of ISPs who *do* pull the plug
on those who abuse newsgroups by posting off-topic arguments, but I haven't run
across them over the last dozen years.

On an unmoderated newsgroup, there is generally little recourse. Even
idiots have a right to be idiots.

Res ipsa loquitur.

I decry these kinds of posts, as I know you and many others do; but ultimately,
there has to be some kind of "gentleman's agreement" between the main combatants
that the behavior is inappropriate--and that it is literally destroying the
newsgroup.

Maybe there can be no "gentleman's agreement" because the concept of
being a gentleman has escaped many people? The ideal of disagreeing
without being disagreeable?

While there are clearly people here whose conduct is (to put it charitably)
ungentlemanly, if a few were to help create a sort of group ethos, that could
leaven the rest. Peer pressure is a powerful force.

Like I've always said, it takes two to tango. If someone put up an
inflammatory OT post, and no one responded to it, it would wither and
die. We need to collectively exersise more self control when we respond
to, and unwittingly perpetuate these OT posts, which usually degenerate
into name-calling sessions.



There is absolutely nothing to be gained by people's posting these provocative,
emotionally charged and polarizing articles.

For some, it's "therapy". It soothes and re-enforces their overly
inflated idea of self-worth.

You may be right.

And since, for the most part, the
people posting them seem to have some modicum of intelligence, I have to believe
they know exactly what they're doing it--but choose to indulge their destructive
whims out of pure selfishness.

Now you're catching on.

What gives you the idea that I am only now "catching on?"


Based on the position where the thought came forth in your post.

Dave

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. )