Re: RFD: comp.object.moderated moderated

[rfkat@ibm.net (Rolf F. Katzenberger)]

On Sun, 06 Sep 1998 19:29:56 GMT, in article
<UoBI1.1872$vl.771620959@newsreader.digex.net> Ell
<ell@access2.digex.net> wrote:

> 
> In comp.object Rolf F. Katzenberger <rfkat@ibm.net> wrote:
> 
> : <ell@access5.digex.net> wrote:
> :>
> :> In comp.object Tim Ottinger <ottinger@oma.com> wrote:
> :> 
> :> >                      REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
> :> >                 moderated group comp.object.moderated
> :> 
> :> > comp.object.moderated    A moderated forum for Object-oriented issues.
> :> 
> :> > This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the creation of a
> :> > world-wide moderated Usenet newsgroup comp.object.moderated.  This is
> :> > not a Call for Votes (CFV); you cannot vote at this time.  Procedural
> :> > details are below.
> :> 
> :> > RATIONALE: comp.object.moderated
> :> 
> :> >Object-oriented programming has long ago graduated from a niche study to
> :> >an industry force, so the discussion of things object-oriented has
> :> >likewise increased in general interest and audience. This surge has
> :> >increased the participation in comp.object so that it is difficult for
> :> >participants to keep up with the volume.
> :> >
> :> >In addition, the comp.object newsgroup now receives a substantial
> :> >number of inappropriate posts, much of which are of little value or
> :> >interest to the community at large. The inappropriate postings have
> :> >caused many to cease participation due to the decreased signal-to-noise
> :> >ratio, and in some cases fear of reprisal.
> 
> :> [Overall] The signal-to-noise ratio on comp.object seems very good.
> 
> Also Otttinger says above:
> :> >and in some cases fear of reprisal.
> 
> The implication of physical threats is not absent from this.  And I think
> its purpose is to bogusly establish some nebulous possible physical
> threat in people's minds.  I have seen nothing of the sort.

I haven't seen anything of the sort, too. However, I did not interpret
"reprisal" as pertaining to physical action at all; after all, that
would be quite strange because newsgroups have participants from a
variety of continents, and e.g. I definitely don't expect anybody to
come to Germany and beat me up just like that ;-)

If I can trust my dictionaries, reprisal means "sanction with a
harmful intent". Of course, this could be a physical threat, too, but
with respect to newsgroup traffic, I exclusively associate it with all
kinds of insults that I found posted in response to even the most
defensive articles, so as to keep even a defensive poster from posting
anything on a topic again. IMHO reprisal is the perfect term for that,
but maybe you know of a better term?

> : Personally, I find there are too much name calling, aggressive off
> : topic postings and trolls here. The percentage varies over time, but
> : I'd definitely prefer an additional group for the joy of exclusively
> : debating OO topics. The RfD does not propose to replace comp.object
> : but to create an additional comp.object.moderated.
> 
> My problem is that Usenet and other common resources are being used to
> blunt criticism of an ideological position.

It seems there is considerable disagreement with respect to what is
"criticism of an ideological position", as well as to what a newsgroup
community may or may not ban.

Since this thread is in response to a concrete RfD, I presume that you
regard some behaviors listed in the NO FLAMES, NO SPAM and NO NONSENSE
sections of the RfD as such criticism that should be allowed. Please
correct me should that assumption be incorrect.

IMHO the RfD list corresponds exactly to all relevant netiquette
documents I have ever read. Furthermore, there are definitely
thousands of moderated Usenet groups. From that I conclude that there
is a wide-spread consensus that

a) flames, spam, and nonsense are unwanted content for most newsgroups
(notwithstanding things like alt.flame* and alt.job* etc., of course).

b) moderation is regarded as a legitimate means to exclude flames,
spam and nonsense from a newsgroup. (from all moderation policies I
know I draw the conclusion that most of them are concerned with
filtering out flames, spam and nonsense; in fact, most of them list
exactly the same things as unwanted that the current RfD lists).

I'm not sure whether you really oppose the netiquette documents or
moderated newsgroups *in principle*. If you don't, I need your help to
understand where the RfD deviates from standard netiquette principles
or why especially comp.object.moderated should *not* be allowed to ban
flames, spam and nonsense, as other moderated groups do.

> Kill files work wonders for
> eliminating real noise, but nothing can recover the suppression of the
> expression of significant, on-topic comments.

IMHO killfiles are clearly inferior to moderation. I only use them for
eliminating spam, but I have never used it to filter out articles by
certain authors (to be correct, I'm using them in the satirical group
de.talk.bizarre, but that is just part the fun going on there).

There is hardly anybody who exclusively posts flames, so in
interesting threads, when I come across articles posted by people who
have flamed others in the past, I nevertheless read those articles.
Like most regulars of moderated newsgroups, I'm glad some moderators
devote some of their time to filter out flames, spam and nonsense for
me.

> Ottinger in the RFD wrote:
> :> >There is therefore a need to provide a forum for which people with
> :> >interest in object-oriented theory and practice can freely and openly
> :> >discuss their problems and solutions, keep abreast of developments in
> :> >Object-oriented practice, and interact with their peers around the world
> :> >in a non-threatening manner without being harrassed by SPAM or articles
> :> >of otherwise inappropriate content.
> 
> : ... Any kind of harassments is annoying, and I'd highly welcome an
> : additional newsgroup where I would not have to face them.
> 
> But to me the moderators and others opposition to the use of labels not
> pertaining to federal civil rights categories is improper suppression of
> freedom expression.  While I sympathize with your desire, the baby is
> being thrown out with the bath water.
> 
> I have concretely and very specifically demonstrated how the labels they
> oppose - craftitism craftite, pragmatism, pragmatists, empircicism,
> empiricist - are thoroughly related to objects and the other issues of
> software engineering.

It is not correct to claim that the moderators in general opposed the
use of labels. E.g. I don't do that. Let me quote from a response
(<35aa7358.0@news1.ibm.net> on 1998-07-13) to one of your articles:

  IMHO "craftism", "empiricism" and "pragmatism" ("craftite",
  "empricist", "pragmatist") should pass moderation, since according
  to popular dictionaries in general none of them carries a negative
  connotation and they are not commonly used as pejorative terms.

  This might not hold true for the words used in your definitions of
  the above terms.

Same day, same thread (<35aa856d.0@news1.ibm.net> on 1998-07-13):

  to me it seems there is positively no need for labeling;
  but as long as a label isn't used as an ad hominem/ad personam
  attack, the moderators IMHO should let it pass (moderators don't
  have to like what they read...).

So should you e.g. ever call Grady Booch a "craftite", I'd let that
pass. Should you state that "Booch is slimy, craftite himself"  (I'm
afraid you did that), I'd reject that because of "slimy", but
certainly not because of "craftite".

I stand by that.

> These get to issues like epistemology - theories of
> knowledge (how we gain knowledge) which Meyer mentions in OOSC, Booch
> mentions in OOA&D, and RCM recently raised directly in reference to
> Meyer's OOSC.  Epistemology is critically related to every aspect of OO
> and software engineering.  Even very basic and fundamental questions of
> like what is an object, and how should developers relate to users and
> analysis are essential and key issues that epistemology and labels used
> within it have a vital bearing upon.

I'd really love to see your epistemological comments on the details of
articles in comp.object.moderated. I'd be a fool to reject them.

> I see the suppression of those labels as a clear attempt to blunt
> criticism of one viewpoint within OO and software engineering.  They are
> are attempting to stomp on freedom of expression *within* a the OO
> and related software engineering areas.

That would be the case, should there be more rejected than just the
flames. In the example cited above, I fail to see how pejorative
adjectives like "slimy" could ever contribute to the discussion of OO
matters.

> :> Next, in no way should labelling people and positions be considered
> :> threatening, or spam.  That is a legitimate and appropriate aspect of
> :> discussion and debate. 
> 
> : The RfD list the contents that are regarded as flames, spam and
> : nonsense. It does not mention labelling at all, so all kinds of
> : labelling that are not flames, spam or nonsense will be ok.
> 
> Given that nearly all proposed moderators opposed such labels in
> discussion, I see no basis for thinking that they won't act ideas.
>
> :> >Moderator: Patrick Logan <plogan@teleport.com>
> :> >Moderator: Patrick Doyle <doylep@ecf.utoronto.ca>
> :> >Moderator: Martijn Meijering <mmeijeri@wi.leidenuniv.nl>
> :> >Moderator: John Goodsen <jgoodsen@saguarosoft.com>
> :> >Moderator: Rolf Katzenberger <rfkat@ibm.net>
> :> >Moderator: Yonat Sharon <yonat@usa.net>
>  
> :> At least 5 of these 6 hold the same overall software engineering,
> :> object-oriented, and philosophical ideas. They will be biased toward
> :> supporting and protecting a specific conservative, pragmatic, empiricist
> :> software engineering viewpoint and opposing its opposite. 
> 
> : It does not matter what OO theories these people, including me,
> : support in their postings. It is common for most Usenet moderated
> : newsgroups that moderators as moderators do not comment on articles.
> : In fact, the 6 people listed above have argued against arbitrary
> : notes, as you did.
> 
> But their real power is to post or not post.  I have no reason not to
> think that they will not post articles because they use the above labels.
> Also it must be considered that the terms will probably occur in
> posts in discussions where their own positions are being challenged.  In
> such an environment, given their stance against the labels, I really think
> that the mere presence of labels will cause them to reject it.  *Even as
> a group in majority*.
> 
> : The current RfD acknowledges your earlier critique with respect to
> : moderator notes and restricts the only allowed OO content
> : of such notes to the completion of fragmentary or incorrect book/article
> : references.
> 
> I really don't understand why they shouldn't just post a supposed
> corrections like everyone else must.  There is often much more to
> purported correction issues than simple correction. 

Frankly, I don't see how e.g. changing "p. 456" to "p. 457" affects
the referenced thing. Correction does not mean things like

  [the original poster's link was inappropriate; you should
  visit www.mycompany.com/myhomepage.html instead -mod]

In fact, I think I'd add the correction after the corrected reference,
to make that clear.

> : Besides that, the only allowed content of such notes are
> : references to the moderation policy itself. Period.
> 
> Fine.  And of course they hold the power to post or not post.
> Nevertheless...

That is what moderators are for.

Maybe this discussion ends up with you stating that you simply will
never trust the/these moderators. I can't think of any way to convince
you, then. If, on the other hand, there is a possibility to make you
confident they will enforce the moderation policy as it is stated,
then please give me a hint how to do that.

Regards,
  Rolf


-- 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

______________________________________________________________________
Rolf F. Katzenberger | Software Developer | Trainer         1998-04-28
Home: http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Park/9557
PGP : http://wwwkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x3B39491F
      (Fingerprint F1C0 3116 F6D4 DA33 E61D  D2E4 2FB8 D6B6 3B39 491F)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 5.5.3i for non-commercial use

iQA/AwUBNUX84C+41rY7OUkfEQLV8wCfb/IQACmn+qvT+EIftYMx36ivdRoAoNdF
ugze6Ry3oCiwMtGLSKXHOnqs
=+QML
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----