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. )

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

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

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.

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.
Conversational topics usually remain away from charged topics and when it
inadvertently strays there the conversation shifts, seemingly without
effort, to safe waters. So I can't say that I see the OT stuff as being like
dockside chatter.

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.

"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