RFD: comp.object.moderated moderated

RFD: comp.object.moderated moderated

[Tim Ottinger]

                     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.

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.

In order to keep discussions centered on the issues of Object-oriented
theory and practice, encourage participation, and thereby better serve
the Object-oriented community in its entirety, a moderated discussion
group is required.

At the same time, there is also a demand for a continuing low-delay
unmoderated forum. Hence, this proposal is for the creation of a new
moderated group coupled with the existing unmoderated group comp.object.


This RFD favors this option because it interferes less with existing
practices and thus will more likely lead to manageable moderation
duties, and it parallels what was done with in the comp.lang.c and
comp.lang.C++, and thus is quite intuitive.


CHARTER: comp.object.moderated

Comp.object.moderated is a moderated news group for discussion of
issues directly related to Object-oriented theory and Object-oriented
practice, and of general interest to the Object-oriented community. Any
such articles are welcome, and are recommendations of alternative
approaches in response to questions directly related to Object-oriented
theory or practice.

Moderation Policy:

I PRINCIPLES

Moderation is desired to attract and maintain participation by old
posters, new posters, and especially expert posters. To do so,
comp.object.moderated provides a non-threatening forum for discussing
Object-oriented practice and theory. To attract and maintain a large
professional readership this policy ensures that the forum is as concise
and useful as it can possibly be.

Here is what this moderation policy is intended to achieve with
respect to each article:

1) ON TOPIC
2) NO FLAMES
3) NO SPAM
4) NO NONSENSE

These goals are characterized as follows:

1) ON TOPIC

(Discussions of) the following subjects are regarded as being on topic
in comp.object.moderated:

a) the syntax and semantics of various Object-oriented languages,
b) Object-oriented tricks and techniques,
c) case studies,
d) issues of software engineering related to Object-oriented,
e) issues of software management related to Object-oriented,
f) issue of design philosophy related to Object-oriented,
g) design patterns related to Object-oriented, etc.
h) Object-oriented analysis techniques.
i) Object-oriented process.
j) Object-oriented tools.
k) Object-oriented Modeling.
l) any and all other discussions relating or pertaining to Object-
oriented techniques.
m) management and policy of the newsgroup.

Articles may be rejected as being off-topic if there are
other, more specific newsgroups to which they belong.

If an article references products like tools, libraries or
platforms, it is still acceptable if the article just mentions
these products as illustrations or examples and abstains from
support questions.


WHEN IN DOUBT

An article shall be accepted, especially for short off-topic
digressions in a thread. In order to keep the noise level low, if such
an article has already been accepted in recent days, the moderator body
may decide to reject the newer one and refer the author to the earlier
one.

2) NO FLAMES

a) No threats or attempts at intimidation are tolerated.  Those drive
away audience. New posters are intimidated by it, and experts don't have
the time or energy to waste on it. Such things are personal, and not of
interest to the general Object-oriented audience.

b) No disrespect towards others is tolerated. When people are unkind,
new people will choose not to participate.  Personal feelings against
one or another are not of interest to the general Object-oriented
audience. People should read all ideas, and choose the ones that work
for them, and a poor idea should be shown to be poor by technical or
practical reasons.

c) No disdainful or belittling articles are tolerated, no matter
whether the contents of the article are otherwise correct or not.

d) Questioning of other people's motives and honesty is explicitly
considered both off-topic and extremely rude, no matter whether the
contents of the article are otherwise correct or not.

d) Any but the most light-hearted attempts at one-upmanship will be
disallowed. Participation in a comp.object.moderated thread is not a
contest with prizes for the winners.

In essence, all attempts to hijack comp.object.moderated to wage a
personal attack would not only be counter-productive, but also
off-topic. When people speak against each other, they've lost focus on
the issues at hand.

WHEN IN DOUBT

An article is rejected. Not a flame shall pass through.

3) NO NONSENSE

a) FAQs aren't nonsense, but the repeated posting and answering of
them is. Nobody wants to read the exact same questions and answers
over and over. It's a burden on the reader that gates his productive use
of the forum.

b) Verbatim or slightly rephrased reposts are nonsense.
c) Trolls are nonsense.
d) Binaries are considered inappropriate in this newsgroup.

In short, comp.object.moderated should be a forum you can read with the
same confidence you have reading a manual or technical journal. It is an
interactive professional forum, not a hobbyist board or a war board. It
belongs to the community of people whose work is the practice and theory
of Object-Orientation, and anything that turns the newsgroup away from
that community, or turns the community away from the newsgroup, is not
welcome.

WHEN IN DOUBT

An article is accepted, general noise level permitting.

4) NO SPAM

The war on SPAM is the war to maintain control of the professional
nature and the signal-to-noise ratio of a newsgroup.

The Jargon File (http://sagan.earthspace.net/jargon) describes
spam in the following terms:
"...To cause a newsgroup to be flooded with irrelevant or
inappropriate messages. [...] To send many identical
or nearly-identical messages separately to a large number
of Usenet newsgroups..."

Whatever a moderator has to do to stop SPAM without rejecting
legitimate posts is good. If stopping spam means blacklisting
spam-posters, then so be it. If it involves building complex filtering
rules, fine. If it is easily handled by rejecting posts, fine again.

WHEN IN DOUBT

An article is rejected.

II MEANS

These goals are to be achieved as follows:

1) Automated format checking

If the posted article is not properly formatted (i.e. the news headers
aren't right -- your news software should take care of this) or if the
article is larger than 50KB, then it will be automatically rejected. The
poster may or may not be notified of this kind of rejection, depending
upon just how bad the headers were. Articles without Date: or Subject:
headers are not properly formatted.

2) Moderator Notes

Moderators may add a note to an article only for the reasons and
according to the policies stated above or to correct incomplete or
incorrect references.

The form of those notes will always be the same. They will composed of
text in square brackets. The last four characters of the text in square
brackets will be -mod. Thus:

[text of the note. -mod].

Moderators will be extremely conservative with their use of notes.
Most articles should not have any notes. Those that do should have
only one, or at the most two. So be judicious.

3) Acceptance and Rejection Procedures

Accepted articles are to be posted immediately.  When an article is
rejected by a moderator, it will be emailed back to the poster. The
subject of the email message will be: "Rejected, violates: [reason
list]." where reason list is a comma separated list of the codes
specified in the acceptance criteria above. e.g.  "Rejected, violates:
[ON TOPIC, NO FLAMES c)]."

The moderator should include moderator notes in the body of the
article that explain why the article was rejected. The format of those
notes should be as specified above, but they can be as brief or wordy as
needed to get the point across. There also may be as many as needed.

4) Moderator Anonymity

Moderators act as a single body. Any rejection should be viewed as a
rejection by the moderators and not by any particular moderator.  As
such, the identity of the rejecting moderator will not be exposed to the
poster whose article was rejected (i.e. the moderator's signature will
be stripped). Any questions that the poster may have can be referred to
the moderator's hotline email address.

5) Appeal Policy

Any poster of a rejected message may appeal that rejection to the
moderators by emailing the article to the moderators' hotline. The
moderators will review the rejection and either post or reject the
article based upon their conclusion.

6) Moderator Posting Policy

Moderators are not allowed to moderate their own articles. No article
written by a moderator will be posted unless one of the other moderators
accepts it.

7) Moderator Body

The number of moderators shall not become less than five, so as to
preserve the integrity of the appeal process.

When there is a shortage of moderators, the remaining moderators
select willing volunteers who are participants in the newsgroup and
whose posting history shows understanding of and respect for the
moderation policy.

H) FAQ

There will be a collection of answers to comp.object.moderated FAQs
which is made publicly and freely available. The moderator body
maintains, extends and publishes this FAQ document and points the
comp.object.moderated readers to it as appropriate. The moderator body
may decide to delegate this work.

END CHARTER.

MODERATOR INFO: comp.object.moderated

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>

END MODERATOR INFO.

PROCEDURE:

This is a request for discussion, not a call for votes.  In this phase
of the process, any potential problems with the proposed newsgroups
should be raised and resolved.  The discussion period will continue for
a minimum of 21 days (starting from when the first RFD for this proposal
is posted to news.announce.newgroups), after which a Call For Votes
(CFV) may be posted by a neutral vote taker if the discussion warrants
it.  Please do not attempt to vote until this happens.

All discussion of this proposal should be posted to news.groups.

This RFD attempts to comply fully with the Usenet newsgroup creation
guidelines outlined in "How to Create a New Usenet Newsgroup" and "How
to Format and Submit a New Group Proposal".  Please refer to these
documents (available in news.announce.newgroups) if you have any
questions about the process.

DISTRIBUTION:

This RFD will be cross-posted to :
   news.announce.newgroups, news.groups,
   comp.lang.ada, comp.lang.c++, comp.lang.c++.moderated,
   comp.std.c++, comp.lang.clos, comp.lang.eiffel,
   comp.lang.java.programmer, comp.lang.python, comp.lang.smalltalk
   comp.object.corba, comp.object.logic, comp.object
   comp.software-eng, comp.lang.objective-c

Re: RFD: comp.object.moderated moderated

[Ell]

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.

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

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.  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 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.

:> 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. 

: 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...

:> I urge that the creation of comp.object.moderated be opposed, as it's
:> formation is more motivated by the above viewpoint avoiding intellectual
:> criticism more than for any other reason. 
:>
:> Especially when one considers that the present comp.object group has low
:> off-topic, and spam messages, while at the same time it has a high degree
:> of informative, robust, vigorous, and useful debate, discussion, and
:> content. 

Elliott
-- 
   :=***=:  Objective  *  Pre-code Modelling  *  Holistic  :=***=:
                 Hallmarks of the best SW Engineering
         "The domain object model is the foundation of OOD."
 Check out SW Modeller vs SW Craftite Central : www.access.digex.net/~ell
   Copyright 1998 Elliott. exclusive of others' writing. may be copied
     without permission only in the comp.* usenet and bitnet groups.

Re: RFD: comp.object.moderated moderated

[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-----

Re: RFD: comp.object.moderated moderated

[Robert Martin]

Rolf F. Katzenberger wrote in message <35f3da26.0@news2.ibm.net>...
>On Sun, 06 Sep 1998 19:29:56 GMT, in article
><UoBI1.1872$vl.771620959@newsreader.digex.net> Ell
><ell@access2.digex.net> wrote:

>> 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.

I have.  How about this one:

---------------------------------------------------------------

Author:   Ell
Email: ell@access.digex.net
Date: 1998/06/17
Forums: comp.object
Message-ID:   <358b04ea.1529278@news.erols.com>
Organization:   Universe
References:   <6m2abn$kef$1@news.interlog.com> <6m35i5$ca4$1@hirame.wwa.com>
<35870B95.925FFB22@palladion.com> <3588e518.14231523@news.erols.com>
<6m8f28$am9$1@hirame.wwa.com>
Reply-To:   ell@access.digex.net
X-Complaints-To:   abuse@erols.com
X-Trace:   winter.news.erols.com 898124862 10511 207.172.87.200 (17 Jun 1998
23:07:43 GMT)

"Robert Martin" <rmartin@oma.com> wrote:

>As for the rest of Elliott's article, well (Reaganesque chuckle),
>who really cares?  Readers are welcome to peruse the articles
>on my website to see if they draw the same conclusions that
>Elliott does.

The ones who care Ronny are the ones who will make you pay for your
backward, reactionary crimes against human progress.

Elliott
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

I saw enough of a personal threat in this particular post to make sure that
my lawyer had a copy.


Robert C. Martin    | Design Consulting   | Training courses offered:
Object Mentor       | rmartin@oma.com     |   Object Oriented Design
14619 N Somerset Cr | Tel: (800) 338-6716 |   C++
Green Oaks IL 60048 | Fax: (847) 918-1023 | http://www.oma.com

"One of the great commandments of science is:
    'Mistrust arguments from authority.'" -- Carl Sagan

Re: RFD: comp.object.moderated moderated

[Charles Hixson]

I haven't been following this proposal, but isn't a moderated group
normally formed in parallel with an unmoderated group?  Are articles
from the moderated group cross-posted to the un-moderated group?  This
is how I have more-or-less assumed that things were done (without, I
must admit, actually checking [where?]).

Re: RFD: comp.object.moderated moderated

[Rolf F. Katzenberger]

On Mon, 7 Sep 1998 09:33:05 -0500, in article
<6t0rgi$ms4$1@hirame.wwa.com> "Robert Martin" <rmartin@oma.com> wrote:

> 
> Rolf F. Katzenberger wrote in message <35f3da26.0@news2.ibm.net>...
> >On Sun, 06 Sep 1998 19:29:56 GMT, in article
> ><UoBI1.1872$vl.771620959@newsreader.digex.net> Ell
> ><ell@access2.digex.net> wrote:
> 
> >> Also Otttinger says above:
> >> :> >and in some cases fear of reprisal.
> >>
> >> The implication of physical threats is not absent from this.  And I think
> >> its purpose is to bogusly establish some nebulous possible physical
> >> threat in people's minds.  I have seen nothing of the sort.
> >
> >I haven't seen anything of the sort, too.
> 
> I have.  How about this one:
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Author:   Ell
> Email: ell@access.digex.net
> Date: 1998/06/17
> Forums: comp.object
> Message-ID:   <358b04ea.1529278@news.erols.com>
> Organization:   Universe
> References:   <6m2abn$kef$1@news.interlog.com> <6m35i5$ca4$1@hirame.wwa.com>
> <35870B95.925FFB22@palladion.com> <3588e518.14231523@news.erols.com>
> <6m8f28$am9$1@hirame.wwa.com>
> Reply-To:   ell@access.digex.net
> X-Complaints-To:   abuse@erols.com
> X-Trace:   winter.news.erols.com 898124862 10511 207.172.87.200 (17 Jun 1998
> 23:07:43 GMT)
> 
> "Robert Martin" <rmartin@oma.com> wrote:
> 
> >As for the rest of Elliott's article, well (Reaganesque chuckle),
> >who really cares?  Readers are welcome to peruse the articles
> >on my website to see if they draw the same conclusions that
> >Elliott does.
> 
> The ones who care Ronny are the ones who will make you pay for your
> backward, reactionary crimes against human progress.
> 
> Elliott
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> I saw enough of a personal threat in this particular post to make sure that
> my lawyer had a copy.

My personal opinion, not as a candidate moderator but simply as a c.o.
reader: I considered the above posting extremely rude and at the same
time extremely infantile when I came across it. In my impression it
was void of any reasonable thinking, but if its author would have
taken action, I would rather have expected a smear campaign than a
physical assault. In any case, the intention of the phrase is
intimidation.

I did not trace the message back, so I don't know where exactly the
flaming started in that thread and where exactly the moderators would
have taken action in a supposed c.o.m., so that probably the article
quoted above would never have been written.

However, neither the article above nor the one it quotes would have
passed moderation seen *in isolation*.

"As for the rest of Elliott's article, well (Reaganesque chuckle), who
really cares?" would have been rejected because it violates NO FLAMES
c) (No disdainful or belittling articles are tolerated).

"The ones who care Ronny are the ones who will make you pay for your
backward, reactionary crimes against human progress." would have been
rejected because "will make you pay" violates NO FLAMES a) (No threats
or attempts at intimidation are tolerated) and "your backward,
reactionary crimes against human progress" violates NO FLAMES d)
(Questioning of other people's motives and honesty).

Just to make one point clear: any regular on Usenet will lose his or
her innocence with respect to netiquette at some point in time. E.g.
the most recent (just the most recent, not the only one!) example by
me would be my classification of Jacobson's view on reality as
"old-fashioned"; my fellow moderators would surely have rejected that
as a violation of NO FLAMES c), or d) or both.

So the moderation policy must never be concerned with people, but with
postings.

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-----

Re: RFD: comp.object.moderated moderated

[Tim Ottinger]

Charles Hixson wrote:
> 
> I haven't been following this proposal, but isn't a moderated group
> normally formed in parallel with an unmoderated group?  Are articles
> from the moderated group cross-posted to the un-moderated group?  This
> is how I have more-or-less assumed that things were done (without, I
> must admit, actually checking [where?]).

That is the intent this time. Messages may be cross-posted to this
group. Messages that are inappropriate will not be allowed in 
c.o.m, but will still appear here from time to time. So nobody
is prevented from writing a senseless and tasteless post, but
you won't see any of them if you read c.o.m exclusively.

tim

Re: RFD: comp.object.moderated moderated

[Tim Ottinger]

Charles Hixson wrote:
> 
> I haven't been following this proposal, but isn't a moderated group
> normally formed in parallel with an unmoderated group?  Are articles
> from the moderated group cross-posted to the un-moderated group?  This
> is how I have more-or-less assumed that things were done (without, I
> must admit, actually checking [where?]).

This one is just so.

RFD: comp.object.moderated moderated

[Tim Ottinger]

                     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.

CHANGES from previous RFD:

Proponent Tim Ottinger listed, with notes as to who owns the mod.
equipment.

Addition of allowance for moderation comments to suggest that Subject
lines are changed.

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.

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.

In order to keep discussions centered on the issues of Object-oriented
theory and practice, encourage participation, and thereby better serve
the Object-oriented community in its entirety, a moderated discussion
group is required.

At the same time, there is also a demand for a continuing low-delay
unmoderated forum. Hence, this proposal is for the creation of a new
moderated group coupled with the existing unmoderated group
comp.object.

This RFD favors this option because it interferes less with existing
practices and thus will more likely lead to manageable moderation
duties, and it parallels what was done with in the comp.lang.c and
comp.lang.C++, and thus is quite intuitive.


CHARTER: comp.object.moderated

Comp.object.moderated is a moderated news group for discussion of
issues directly related to Object-oriented theory and Object-oriented
practice, and of general interest to the Object-oriented community.
Any such articles are welcome, and are recommendations of alternative
approaches in response to questions directly related to
Object-oriented theory or practice.

Moderation Policy:

I PRINCIPLES

Moderation is desired to attract and maintain participation by old
posters, new posters, and especially expert posters. To do so,
comp.object.moderated provides a non-threatening forum for discussing
Object-oriented practice and theory. To attract and maintain a large
professional readership this policy ensures that the forum is as
concise and useful as it can possibly be.

Here is what this moderation policy is intended to achieve with
respect to each article:

1) ON TOPIC
2) NO FLAMES
3) NO SPAM
4) NO NONSENSE

These goals are characterized as follows:

1) ON TOPIC

(Discussions of) the following subjects are regarded as being on topic
in comp.object.moderated:

a) the syntax and semantics of various Object-oriented languages,
b) Object-oriented tricks and techniques,
c) case studies,
d) issues of software engineering related to Object-oriented,
e) issues of software management related to Object-oriented,
f) issue of design philosophy related to Object-oriented,
g) design patterns related to Object-oriented, etc.
h) Object-oriented analysis techniques.
i) Object-oriented process.
j) Object-oriented tools.
k) Object-oriented Modeling.
l) any and all other discussions relating or pertaining to Object-
oriented techniques.
m) management and policy of the newsgroup.

Articles may be rejected as being off-topic if there are
other, more specific newsgroups to which they belong.

If an article references products like tools, libraries or
platforms, it is still acceptable if the article just mentions
these products as illustrations or examples and abstains from
support questions.


When In Doubt:

An article shall be accepted, especially for short off-topic
digressions in a thread. In order to keep the noise level low, if such
an article has already been accepted in recent days, the moderator
body may decide to reject the newer one and refer the author to the
earlier one.

2) NO FLAMES

a) No threats or attempts at intimidation are tolerated.  Those drive
away audience. New posters are intimidated by it, and experts don't
have the time or energy to waste on it. Such things are personal, and
not of interest to the general Object-oriented audience.

b) No disrespect towards others is tolerated. When people are unkind,
new people will choose not to participate.  Personal feelings against
one or another are not of interest to the general Object-oriented
audience. People should read all ideas, and choose the ones that work
for them, and a poor idea should be shown to be poor by technical or
practical reasons.

c) No disdainful or belittling articles are tolerated, no matter
whether the contents of the article are otherwise correct or not.

d) Questioning of other people's motives and honesty is explicitly
considered both off-topic and extremely rude, no matter whether the
contents of the article are otherwise correct or not.

d) Any but the most light-hearted attempts at one-upmanship will be
disallowed. Participation in a comp.object.moderated thread is not a
contest with prizes for the winners.

In essence, all attempts to hijack comp.object.moderated to wage a
personal attack would not only be counter-productive, but also
off-topic. When people speak against each other, they've lost focus on
the issues at hand.

When In Doubt:

An article is rejected. Not a flame shall pass through.

3) NO NONSENSE

a) FAQs aren't nonsense, but the repeated posting and answering of
them is. Nobody wants to read the exact same questions and answers
over and over. It's a burden on the reader that gates his productive
use of the forum.

b) Verbatim or slightly rephrased reposts are nonsense.
c) Trolls are nonsense.
d) Binaries are considered inappropriate in this newsgroup.

In short, comp.object.moderated should be a forum you can read with
the same confidence you have reading a manual or technical journal.
It is an interactive professional forum, not a hobbyist board or a war
board. It belongs to the community of people whose work is the
practice and theory of Object-Orientation, and anything that turns the
newsgroup away from that community, or turns the community away from
the newsgroup, is not welcome.

When In Doubt:

An article is accepted, general noise level permitting.

4) NO SPAM

The war on SPAM is the war to maintain control of the professional
nature and the signal-to-noise ratio of a newsgroup.

The Jargon File (http://sagan.earthspace.net/jargon) describes
spam in the following terms:
"...To cause a newsgroup to be flooded with irrelevant or
inappropriate messages. [...] To send many identical
or nearly-identical messages separately to a large number
of Usenet newsgroups..."

Whatever a moderator has to do to stop SPAM without rejecting
legitimate posts is good. If stopping spam means blacklisting
spam-posters, then so be it. If it involves building complex filtering
rules, fine. If it is easily handled by rejecting posts, fine again.

When In Doubt:

An article is rejected.

II MEANS

These goals are to be achieved as follows:

1) Automated format checking

If the posted article is not properly formatted (i.e. the news headers
aren't right -- your news software should take care of this) or if the
article is larger than 50KB, then it will be automatically rejected.
The poster may or may not be notified of this kind of rejection,
depending upon just how bad the headers were. Articles without Date:
or Subject: headers are not properly formatted.

2) Moderator Notes

Moderators may add a note to an article only for the reasons and
according to the policies stated above, to correct incomplete or
incorrect references, or to recommend changing thread titles when
topics drift from their original focus.

The form of those notes will always be the same. They will composed of
text in square brackets. The last four characters of the text in
square brackets will be -mod. Thus:

[text of the note. -mod].

Moderators will be extremely conservative with their use of notes.
Most articles should not have any notes. Those that do should have
only one, or at the most two. So be judicious.

3) Acceptance and Rejection Procedures

Accepted articles are to be posted immediately.  When an article is
rejected by a moderator, it will be emailed back to the poster. The
subject of the email message will be: "Rejected, violates: [reason
list]." where reason list is a comma separated list of the codes
specified in the acceptance criteria above. e.g.  "Rejected, violates:
[ON TOPIC, NO FLAMES c)]."

The moderator should include moderator notes in the body of the
article that explain why the article was rejected. The format of those
notes should be as specified above, but they can be as brief or wordy
as needed to get the point across. There also may be as many as
needed.

4) Moderator Anonymity

Moderators act as a single body. Any rejection should be viewed as a
rejection by the moderators and not by any particular moderator.  As
such, the identity of the rejecting moderator will not be exposed to
the poster whose article was rejected (i.e. the moderator's signature
will be stripped). Any questions that the poster may have can be
referred to the moderator's hotline email address.

5) Appeal Policy

Any poster of a rejected message may appeal that rejection to the
moderators by emailing the article to the moderators' hotline. The
moderators will review the rejection and either post or reject the
article based upon their conclusion.

6) Moderator Posting Policy

Moderators are not allowed to moderate their own articles. No article
written by a moderator will be posted unless one of the other
moderators accepts it.

7) Moderator Body

The number of moderators shall not become less than five, so as to
preserve the integrity of the appeal process.

When there is a shortage of moderators, the remaining moderators
select willing volunteers who are participants in the newsgroup and
whose posting history shows understanding of and respect for the
moderation policy.

H) FAQ

There will be a collection of answers to comp.object.moderated FAQs
which is made publicly and freely available. The moderator body
maintains, extends and publishes this FAQ document and points the
comp.object.moderated readers to it as appropriate. The moderator body
may decide to delegate this work.


END CHARTER.

MODERATOR INFO: comp.object.moderated

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>

END MODERATOR INFO.

PROCEDURE:

This is a request for discussion, not a call for votes.  In this phase
of the process, any potential problems with the proposed newsgroups
should be raised and resolved.  The discussion period will continue
for a minimum of 21 days (starting from when the first RFD for this
proposal is posted to news.announce.newgroups), after which a Call For
Votes (CFV) may be posted by a neutral vote taker if the discussion
warrants it.  Please do not attempt to vote until this happens.

All discussion of this proposal should be posted to news.groups.

This RFD attempts to comply fully with the Usenet newsgroup creation
guidelines outlined in "How to Create a New Usenet Newsgroup" and "How
to Format and Submit a New Group Proposal".  Please refer to these
documents (available in news.announce.newgroups) if you have any
questions about the process.

DISTRIBUTION:

This RFD will be cross-posted to:
        news.announce.newgroups
        news.groups
        comp.object
        comp.lang.eiffel
        comp.lang.smalltalk
        comp.lang.java.programmer
        comp.lang.ada
        comp.object.corba
        comp.software-eng

Proponent: Tim Ottinger <ottinger@oma.com>
Tim will be managing the moderation software on
equipment owned by Object Mentor, though this is
subject to change.

Re: RFD: comp.object.moderated moderated

[Phlip]

Bertrand Meyer wrote in message <36210B47.6A5FE581@eiffel.com>...

>`comp.object.moderated' is a blatant attempt at censoring
>any non-conforming view on object technology.

>Bzzzt<

"The first few lines must 'hook' the readers, and make them 'care' about
the story."

I can't read the rest of this. You could even have started nice before
going sour. Nobody's voting to shut down every other group in USENET,
and the moderators will be forbidden to bounce a post on because of
opinions it contains. Did you have, like, a bad day recently?

  --  Phlip at politizen dot com                  (address munged)
======= http://users.deltanet.com/~tegan/home.html =======
  --  And I'm still waiting to see Eiffel driving a Web site...  --

Re: RFD: comp.object.moderated moderated

[Joachim Durchholz]

Bertrand Meyer wrote:
> 
> The censorship
> has already begun with the redirection of replies to a single
> newsgroup that no one reads.

The announcement was crossposted to all newsgroups that may be
interrelated with OO. However, as not everybody in these groups is
likely to have an interest in the discussion, it makes sense to trim
down the follow-up groups. It might have been a good idea to include
comp.object itself in the list, but I don't think this was a conscious
attempt at censorship.

Reply to the other points in news.groups and comp.object, to keep the
noise down.

Regards,
Joachim
-- 
Please don't send unsolicited ads.

Re: RFD: comp.object.moderated moderated

[Patrick May]

In article <36210B47.6A5FE581@eiffel.com> Bertrand Meyer <Bertrand.Meyer@eiffel.com> writes:
 > `comp.object.moderated' is a blatant attempt at censoring
 > any non-conforming view on object technology.

     The creation of comp.object.moderated is an attempt to maintain a
minimum level of civility in the discussion of OO technology.  The
charter does not allow censorship based on content.  This group has
been requested solely due to the pollution of comp.object by a single
prolific poster who makes some interesting points but wraps them in
flames, insults, and off-topic material.

     Certainly there is the risk that the determination of what
constitutes an "on topic" thread could be used to silence minority
views that are otherwise acceptably expressed.  This would require the
collusion of every moderator.  In this unlikely event, the 'net
provides a number of mechanisms to expose the problem and to replace
the offending moderators.  In practice, the moderated groups that I
read do not have this problem.  In fact, the moderators seem to err
towards approving questionable posts rather than being too
restrictive.

     As a frequent lurker and occasional poster to comp.object, I
appreciate the effort being volunteered by the proposed moderators and
look forward to the creation of comp.object.moderated.

Regards,

Patrick May

Re: RFD: comp.object.moderated moderated

[David Franklin Reynolds]

Patrick May wrote in message ...
>In article <36210B47.6A5FE581@eiffel.com> Bertrand Meyer
<Bertrand.Meyer@eiffel.com> writes:
> > `comp.object.moderated' is a blatant attempt at censoring
> > any non-conforming view on object technology.
>
>     The creation of comp.object.moderated is an attempt to maintain a
>minimum level of civility in the discussion of OO technology.  The
>charter does not allow censorship based on content.  This group has
>been requested solely due to the pollution of comp.object by a single
>prolific poster who makes some interesting points but wraps them in
>flames, insults, and off-topic material.
...
Moderate a group because of one person? I'll vote NO. Either just skip the
posts, or learn how to use a filter to make them disappear automagically.

--david

Re: RFD: comp.object.moderated moderated

[Avner Ben]

Patrick May wrote in message ...
>...This group has
>been requested solely due to the pollution of comp.object by a single
>prolific poster who makes some interesting points but wraps them in
>flames, insults, and off-topic material.

    This sounds like a pretty shaky foundation. The alleged behaviour of one
individual is not a sufficient excuse for making life difficult for the rest
of the people.
    Since you do not mention who that peoson is, all I may suggest is that
*YOU* attempt to ignore *HIM* in the future.

    Avner.

Re: RFD: comp.object.moderated moderated

[Jason Stokes]

In article <w1rk926jkch.fsf@falcon>, Patrick May <mayp@falcon> wrote:
>In article <36210B47.6A5FE581@eiffel.com> Bertrand Meyer <Bertrand.Meyer@eiffel.com> writes:

> > `comp.object.moderated' is a blatant attempt at censoring
> > any non-conforming view on object technology.
>
>     The creation of comp.object.moderated is an attempt to maintain a
>minimum level of civility in the discussion of OO technology.  The
>charter does not allow censorship based on content.  This group has
>been requested solely due to the pollution of comp.object by a single
>prolific poster who makes some interesting points but wraps them in
>flames, insults, and off-topic material.

A single prolific poster can be killfiled quite easily.  Any self
respecting news reader software will have a feature to score and reject
articles from particular people automatically.

If it was more than one, it might be a problem.  But I doubt it has
reached a 'tradgedy of the commons' situation just yet.

-- 
Jason Stokes: jstok@bluedog.apana.org.au

Re: RFD: comp.object.moderated moderated

[Phlip]

David Franklin Reynolds wrote:
>
>Patrick May wrote:
>>Bertrand Meyer writes:

>> > `comp.object.moderated' is a blatant attempt at censoring
>> > any non-conforming view on object technology.


I was right. Nobody else on this thread replied to anything but the
first line. Irony: The first line was by a published author of books
considered seminal!

>>     The creation of comp.object.moderated is an attempt to maintain a
>>minimum level of civility in the discussion of OO technology.  The
>>charter does not allow censorship based on content.  This group has
>>been requested solely due to the pollution of comp.object by a single
>>prolific poster who makes some interesting points but wraps them in
>>flames, insults, and off-topic material.
>...
>Moderate a group because of one person? I'll vote NO. Either just skip
the
>posts, or learn how to use a filter to make them disappear
automagically.


They've tried.

Discussion fora work - much better than verbal discussion for some
topics - because after someone posts a good idea or a bad one, everyone
else elaborates on it. One post can set off a cascade of replies
containing valid and useful data. A "thread" is really a "tree".

Trolling works by exploiting this cascade effect to fill a group up with
crap. Kill-files work against unsuccessful trolls, but even if any
"critical mass" of forum subscribers kill-file a troll the group still
fills up with a cascade of useless crap. This "pollutes" a forum by
making lurkers avoid reading good posts - you never know which ones they
could be in a trolled thread.

comp.lang.c++ was moderated to provide respite endless holy wars,
repeated neophyte questions and off-topic info about hardware, libraries
and platforms. comp.object is about philosophy - the P in Ph.D. It
already does not have the problems comp.lang.c++ did. But it has
problems.

  --  Phlip at politizen dot com                  (address munged)
======= http://users.deltanet.com/~tegan/home.html =======
  --  "These days I find myself worrying about the
        International Conspiracy Against Me.

       "How can I _increase_ it??" - Phlip  --

Re: RFD: comp.object.moderated moderated

[Robert C. Martin]

Jason Stokes wrote in message
<6vsuhb$grp$1@reader1.reader.news.ozemail.net>...
>In article <w1rk926jkch.fsf@falcon>, Patrick May <mayp@falcon> wrote:
>>
>>     The creation of comp.object.moderated is an attempt to maintain a
>>minimum level of civility in the discussion of OO technology.  The
>>charter does not allow censorship based on content.  This group has
>>been requested solely due to the pollution of comp.object by a single
>>prolific poster who makes some interesting points but wraps them in
>>flames, insults, and off-topic material.
>
>A single prolific poster can be killfiled quite easily.  Any self
>respecting news reader software will have a feature to score and reject
>articles from particular people automatically.


The problem goes far beyond one person.  Whether due to one person or to
many, the end result is that comp.object has turned into a place dominated
by noise, name calling, off topic philosophical discussions, and personal
insults.  The long term exposure of many of the regular posters to this
barrage of insults and denegrations has let to some posters becoming trigger
happy, blasting off a premptive strike at the first indication of trouble.
The noisy off-topic philosophical arguments have also attracted certain
posters who like to continue these off topic threads.  The result has been
chaos, and a marked attenuation of real content from the group.

The informal vote to moderate was overwhelmingly in favor.  (By well over a
factor of ten).  This, I think, indicates that the noise level has gotten to
the point where moderators must intervene and put the discussions back on a
technical foundation rather than a personal one.


Robert C. Martin    | Design Consulting   | Training courses offered:
Object Mentor       | rmartin@oma.com     |   Object Oriented Design
14619 N Somerset Cr | Tel: (800) 338-6716 |   C++
Green Oaks IL 60048 | Fax: (847) 918-1023 | http://www.oma.com

Re: RFD: comp.object.moderated moderated

[Reality is a point of view]

 +---- new_email@see.web.page wrote (12 Oct 1998 07:18:06 PDT):
 | comp.lang.c++ was moderated to provide respite endless holy wars,
 | repeated neophyte questions and off-topic info about hardware, libraries
 | and platforms. comp.object is about philosophy - the P in Ph.D. It
 | already does not have the problems comp.lang.c++ did. But it has
 | problems.
 +----

No, I believe even the volume of comp.lang.c++ wasn't enough to
encourage moderation.  It was, as in this case, one person
successfully throwing tomatoes at the status quo.

Meanwhile, I keep seeing conflicting sweeping statements by
certain fans of c.o.m., though the 'we need Eiffel presence on
the Moderation team' was, considering the timing, too funny.

-- 
Gary Johnson     gjohnson@season.com
Privacy on the net is still illegal.

Re: RFD: comp.object.moderated moderated

[Robert C. Martin]

Reality is a point of view wrote in message <6vtft0$smm$1@supernews.com>...
> +---- new_email@see.web.page wrote (12 Oct 1998 07:18:06 PDT):
> | comp.lang.c++ was moderated to provide respite endless holy wars,
> | repeated neophyte questions and off-topic info about hardware, libraries
> | and platforms. comp.object is about philosophy - the P in Ph.D. It
> | already does not have the problems comp.lang.c++ did. But it has
> | problems.
> +----
>
>No, I believe even the volume of comp.lang.c++ wasn't enough to
>encourage moderation.  It was, as in this case, one person
>successfully throwing tomatoes at the status quo.
>
>Meanwhile, I keep seeing conflicting sweeping statements by
>certain fans of c.o.m., though the 'we need Eiffel presence on
>the Moderation team' was, considering the timing, too funny.


I still haven't gotten Meyer's article on my news server, so all I've seen
so far is the tag line.  And I saw that well after I posted my support of
Patrick Doyle.


Robert C. Martin    | Design Consulting   | Training courses offered:
Object Mentor       | rmartin@oma.com     |   Object Oriented Design
14619 N Somerset Cr | Tel: (800) 338-6716 |   C++
Green Oaks IL 60048 | Fax: (847) 918-1023 | http://www.oma.com

Re: RFD: comp.object.moderated moderated

[Tim Ottinger]

Bertrand Meyer wrote:
> 
> `comp.object.moderated' is a blatant attempt at censoring
> any non-conforming view on object technology. (The censorship
> has already begun with the redirection of replies to a single
> newsgroup that no one reads. Please refuse this and reply to the
> newsgroups where the original was posted, as I am doing -- with
> some difficulty -- here. I can't believe the arrogance of posting
> on a newsgroup and trying to bar others from replying on the same forum!)

Dr. Meyer:

This is the standard, well-published Usenet standard. As a courtesy
to the newsgroups who received the (2nd) RfD, followups are posted to
news.groups, for exactly the reason that it's not used for anything
else. 

It is not a malicious invention of the group who propose and
support comp.object.moderated. It is required, in fact, by the
usenet mentors in their documents on how to create a newsgroup.
As such, it was considered common knowledge among netizens, but
here we see that maybe the procedure is not so well-known.

I suggest that you and all others who are concerned about this
practice take a look at the FAQs at 
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/by-newsgroup/news/news.groups.html
particularly:
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/creating-newsgroups/part1/

Where there are links to find the information about how to
format and post newsgroup RFDs. 

There are rules. By adhering to these rules, we are not 
performing any dispicable personal acts. You are free to
dislike the rules, and to post against them. But you should
attribute the rules to the usenet ruling bodies for whatever
purposes they have, not to the adherents of the rules who
are just trying to get a newsgroup created.

Please also consider:
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/mod/manifesto/


> To the authors of this proposal: if you really want to have an O-O
> group tailored to your own view, you are entitled to creating it
> but you are NOT entitled to the name comp.object. Start your own
> Web-archived mailing list, or a newsgroup with a less portentous name.

Consider the FAQ on newsgroup names. We're within the rules of
the Usenet ruling body.

Creating a newsgroup is a bureaucratic process with reasonable 
rules, and not an effort by some upstart to usurp whatever 
standards of courtesy you feel should instead apply.

I respect your work. I'm sorry you weren't aware of the 
standard process for moderation, and that you've misinterpreted
it to be a vicious and personal and sneak operation.

I still respect your work. 

tim

Re: RFD: comp.object.moderated moderated

[Phlip]

Loryn Jenkins wrote:

>> Trolling works by exploiting this cascade effect to fill a group up with
>> crap. Kill-files work against unsuccessful trolls, but even if any
>> "critical mass" of forum subscribers kill-file a troll the group still
>> fills up with a cascade of useless crap. This "pollutes" a forum by
>> making lurkers avoid reading good posts - you never know which ones they
>> could be in a trolled thread.
>
>Haven't you ever explored the functionality netscape messenger gives to:
>to "ignore thread", at any point in the thread tree?

Messenger, Outlook, Gravity, ns; they all have no feature called "Add all
the posts that lurkers were going to write to add value to the thread but
did not because a Troll destroyed it."

_That_ is the feature that the comp.object.moderated push tries to provide.

  --  Phlip at politizen dot com                  (address munged)
======= http://users.deltanet.com/~tegan/home.html =======

Re: RFD: comp.object.moderated moderated

[Tim Ottinger]

The problem tends to be that perfectly interesting and valid discussions
break out in the midst of a flame war, and are in the tree of the
killed thread.

I tried it and missed out on a lot. Now, it would work if everyone
would create a new posting (without references to the troll thread)
when they change topics, but they often don't. 

I hate killfiles because I miss the authors' more lucid postings.
I use them because I finally decided it was worth missing the good
stuff to miss the bad stuff, too, and I'm not sure that is true.
Moderation would work better.

I hate killthreads because I miss any worthwhile discussions which
rise pheonix-like from the midst of the flames. Moderation would
work better.

We need really intelligent filters that can see the difference
between an interesting bit and a bunch of noise. So we elected
about six of them.

Loryn Jenkins wrote:
> 
> Haven't you ever explored the functionality netscape messenger gives to:
> to "ignore thread", at any point in the thread tree?

Re: RFD: comp.object.moderated moderated

[Jay Denebeim]

In article <6vsva6$db6$1@news.netvision.net.il>,
Avner Ben <avnerben@netvision.net.il> wrote:

>    This sounds like a pretty shaky foundation. The alleged behaviour of one
>individual is not a sufficient excuse for making life difficult for the rest
>of the people.

First off, nope, it's perfectly possible for *a* person to destroy a
newsgroup.  All you have to do is post a troll, then reply to each and
every flame you get being even nastier, then continue on
geometrically.  It's not that tough.  I've seen it done too many
times.  As big as usenet has gotten the 'killfile the troll' technique
doesn't work anymore.

As far as being difficult goes, not really.  A well moderated group is
so fast as to be unnoticable.

Jay
-- 
* Jay Denebeim  Moderator       rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated *
* newsgroup submission address: b5mod@deepthot.ml.org             *
* moderator contact address:    b5mod-request@deepthot.ml.org     *
* personal contact address:     denebeim@deepthot.ml.org          *

Re: RFD: comp.object.moderated moderated

[Loryn Jenkins]

> Meanwhile, I keep seeing conflicting sweeping statements by
> certain fans of c.o.m., though the 'we need Eiffel presence on
> the Moderation team' was, considering the timing, too funny.

What's the joke? Hasn't anyone noticed Patrick Doyle posting in c.l.e as
well as c.o?

Loryn Jenkins

Re: RFD: comp.object.moderated moderated

[Loryn Jenkins]

> Trolling works by exploiting this cascade effect to fill a group up with
> crap. Kill-files work against unsuccessful trolls, but even if any
> "critical mass" of forum subscribers kill-file a troll the group still
> fills up with a cascade of useless crap. This "pollutes" a forum by
> making lurkers avoid reading good posts - you never know which ones they
> could be in a trolled thread.

Haven't you ever explored the functionality netscape messenger gives to:
to "ignore thread", at any point in the thread tree?

Loryn Jenkins

Re: RFD: comp.object.moderated moderated

[Robert C. Martin]

Mark Bennison wrote in message <36234afd.80326813@news.geccs.gecm.com>...

>I've been reading this thread in comp.lang.ada and not all posts make
>it there so I may have missed something but... isn't the proposal for
>the creation of a /new/ group that is moderated? Surely the old group
>comp.object will still exist so I don't see how this can be construed
>as censorship since a forum for posting 'non-conforming' views still
>exists.


Yes, that is correct.  comp.object will remain.


Robert C. Martin    | Design Consulting   | Training courses offered:
Object Mentor       | rmartin@oma.com     |   Object Oriented Design
14619 N Somerset Cr | Tel: (800) 338-6716 |   C++
Green Oaks IL 60048 | Fax: (847) 918-1023 | http://www.oma.com

Re: RFD: comp.object.moderated moderated

[James Robertson]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 685 bytes --]

Then feel free to keep posting in the unmoderated comp.object.  I for one
would welcome a moderated group as an accessory to the unmoderated one.





Ell wrote:

> "Tim Ottinger" <ottinger@oma.com> wrote:
>
> I make these comments to point out the fallacies, unjustness and
> anti-democratic nature of the motivation behind moderation.  After
> reading this RFD, I'm even more convinced that the motivation for
> moderation is to place discussion control in the hands of a small
> group and to deflect criticism away from them.  There is every reason
> still to:  VOTE NO!



--
Talk Small and Carry a Big Class Library

<Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of ObjectShare>


[-- Attachment #2: Card for James Robertson --]
[-- Type: text/x-vcard, Size: 447 bytes --]

begin:          vcard
fn:             James Robertson
n:              Robertson;James
org:            ObjectShare, Inc.
adr:            10440 Little Patuxent Parkway;;Suite 900;Columbia;MD;21045;USA
email;internet: jamesr@objectshare.com
title:          Senior Sales Engineer
tel;work:       410 884-4042
tel;fax:        410 884-4016
tel;home:       410 730-6579
x-mozilla-cpt:  ;0
x-mozilla-html: FALSE
version:        2.1
end:            vcard

Re: RFD: comp.object.moderated moderated

[Ell]

James Robertson wrote:

>Ell wrote:
>>
>> I make these comments to point out the fallacies, unjustness and
>> anti-democratic nature of the motivation behind moderation.  After
>> reading this RFD, I'm even more convinced that the motivation for
>> moderation is to place discussion control in the hands of a small
>> group and to deflect criticism away from them.  There is every reason
>> still to:  VOTE NO!

: Then feel free to keep posting in the unmoderated comp.object.  I for one
: would welcome a moderated group as an accessory to the unmoderated one.

It should be more than a matter of simply having a moderated group.  The
thing is under what conditions?

Did you read really the heinous rules for the group.  Did you fail to see
the way that moderators can operate in way such that subjective desires
and wishes can predominate?  They can do this by allowing "short" (what's
short?) one-upsmanship posts! They can also do it by posting personal
remarks in posts.  Did you fail to see that there is no provision for
electing new moderators?!  Not to mention that moderators are elected for
life!

Why should they use Usenet to advance one view?  Why should they be
allowed to wrap themselves in the flag of comp. to shield themselves from
criticism?

Elliott
-- 
:=***=:  VOTE NO TO MODERATION!  ALL IDEAS SHOULD BE CRITICIZABLE! :=***=:
             MODERATORS SHOULD NOT HAVE LIFETIME TERMS!
   :=***=:  Objective  *  Pre-code Modelling  *  Holistic  :=***=:
                 Hallmarks of the best SW Engineering
 Check out SW Modeller vs SW Craftite Central : www.access.digex.net/~ell
   Copyright 1998 Elliott. exclusive of others' writing. may be copied
     without permission only in the comp.* usenet and bitnet groups.

Re: RFD: comp.object.moderated moderated

[James Robertson]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1700 bytes --]



Ell wrote:

> James Robertson wrote:
>
> >Ell wrote:
> >>
> Did you read really the heinous rules for the group.  Did you fail to see
> the way that moderators can operate in way such that subjective desires
> and wishes can predominate?  They can do this by allowing "short" (what's
> short?) one-upsmanship posts! They can also do it by posting personal
> remarks in posts.  Did you fail to see that there is no provision for
> electing new moderators?!  Not to mention that moderators are elected for
> life!

So what ?  If they end up doing a poor job, no one will post and the group will
die - all the traffic would saty in the unmoderated forum.  If they do a good
job, then intelligent discussion will tend to migrate towards the moderated
forum.

No one is holding a gun to anyone's head - we can all read whatever we like,
and post to any group we want.  The addition of a group (moderated or not)
<expands> choices.

>
>
> Why should they use Usenet to advance one view?  Why should they be
> allowed to wrap themselves in the flag of comp. to shield themselves from
> criticism?
>
> Elliott
> --
> :=***=:  VOTE NO TO MODERATION!  ALL IDEAS SHOULD BE CRITICIZABLE! :=***=:
>              MODERATORS SHOULD NOT HAVE LIFETIME TERMS!
>    :=***=:  Objective  *  Pre-code Modelling  *  Holistic  :=***=:
>                  Hallmarks of the best SW Engineering
>  Check out SW Modeller vs SW Craftite Central : www.access.digex.net/~ell
>    Copyright 1998 Elliott. exclusive of others' writing. may be copied
>      without permission only in the comp.* usenet and bitnet groups.



--
Talk Small and Carry a Big Class Library

<Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of ObjectShare>


[-- Attachment #2: Card for James Robertson --]
[-- Type: text/x-vcard, Size: 447 bytes --]

begin:          vcard
fn:             James Robertson
n:              Robertson;James
org:            ObjectShare, Inc.
adr:            10440 Little Patuxent Parkway;;Suite 900;Columbia;MD;21045;USA
email;internet: jamesr@objectshare.com
title:          Senior Sales Engineer
tel;work:       410 884-4042
tel;fax:        410 884-4016
tel;home:       410 730-6579
x-mozilla-cpt:  ;0
x-mozilla-html: FALSE
version:        2.1
end:            vcard

Re: RFD: comp.object.moderated moderated

[Patrick Logan]

In comp.object Michi Henning <michi@dstc.edu.au> wrote:

: When it comes to technology, a benevolent dictatorship often works a lot
: better than a democracy...

It's just a stupid newsgroup. We're just going to try to keep the
noise out of it. We are not going to save the world. We are not going
to get paid or take bribes. We are not going to promote any views. We
just want to keep the noise out of a stupid Usenet discussion group
about programming for cryin' out loud.

This has nothing to do with "benevolent dictatorships"!!!

-- 
Patrick Logan    (H) mailto:plogan@teleport.com 
                 (W) mailto:patrickl@gemstone.com 
                 http://www.gemstone.com

"I am not a Church numeral; I am a free variable!"

Re: RFD: comp.object.moderated moderated

[Ell]

In comp.object Michi Henning <michi@dstc.edu.au> wrote:
: On Tue, 13 Oct 1998, Ell wrote:

:> I make these comments to point out the fallacies, unjustness and
:> anti-democratic nature of the motivation behind moderation.  After
:> reading this RFD, I'm even more convinced that the motivation for
:> moderation is to place discussion control in the hands of a small
:> group and to deflect criticism away from them.  There is every reason
:> still to:  VOTE NO!

: Hmmm... The RFD sounded like the stock-standard set of rules used by
: many moderated groups.

I'd like to know for sure, but that doesn't really make it any better.

This RFD's judgement rules are subjective and moderation tenure and future
selection are downright dictatorship. 

Elliott
-- 
:=***=:  VOTE NO TO MODERATION!  ALL IDEAS SHOULD BE CRITICIZABLE! :=***=:
             MODERATORS SHOULD NOT HAVE LIFETIME TERMS!
   :=***=:  Objective  *  Pre-code Modelling  *  Holistic  :=***=:
                 Hallmarks of the best SW Engineering
 Check out SW Modeller vs SW Craftite Central : www.access.digex.net/~ell
   Copyright 1998 Elliott. exclusive of others' writing. may be copied
     without permission only in the comp.* usenet and bitnet groups.

Re: RFD: comp.object.moderated moderated

[Patrick Logan]

In comp.object Ell <ell@access.digex.net> wrote:

: The point is the corralling of precious Usenet resources - mainly
: bandwidth on Usenet servers - to promote the interests of a single
: group and to undemocratically shield that group from criticism.

: There is also the aspect that it becomes a Usenet "comp." group and
: the above narrow motivation of the proposed moderated group does not
: make it worthy of such designation.

Elliott, I have more than once requested two pieces of information
from you to help with these concerns... so far I have not seen a
reply.

(1) The moderators are bound by the RFD. What is specifically wrong
    about the RFD? How could it be improved?

(2) Since you feel I am one of the moderators who will be promoting
    interests you are opposed to, I have offered to help find a way to
    resign and be replaced by you. Are you willing? You will then have
    as much "power" (ha!) as you feel I would as moderator.

Are you willing?

-- 
Patrick Logan    (H) mailto:plogan@teleport.com 
                 (W) mailto:patrickl@gemstone.com 
                 http://www.gemstone.com

"I am not a Church numeral; I am a free variable!"

Re: RFD: comp.object.moderated moderated

[Reality is a point of view]

 +---- plogan@user1.teleport.com wrote (Tue, 13 Oct 1998 21:04:55 GMT):
 | (1) The moderators are bound by the RFD. What is specifically wrong
 |     about the RFD? How could it be improved?
 +----

That is a common misunderstanding of RFD's and Charters.

The Moderators are not bound by the RFD or Charter, though some
may attepmt to hold them to it in public (which is usually good
enough).

-- 
Gary Johnson     gjohnson@season.com
Privacy on the net is still illegal.

Re: RFD: comp.object.moderated moderated

[Ell]

In comp.object Michi Henning <michi@dstc.edu.au> wrote:
: On Tue, 13 Oct 1998, Ell wrote:

:> Did you read really the heinous rules for the group.  Did you fail to see
:> the way that moderators can operate in way such that subjective desires
:> and wishes can predominate?

: That is the nature of editorial control. No amount of rules will fix this.

You elided the part where I quoted from the RFD that one-upsmanship will
be allowed.

:> Did you fail to see that there is no provision for
:> electing new moderators?!  Not to mention that moderators are elected for
:> life!

: Good thing too. Moderators are typically highly-dedicated individuals who
: are experts in the topic of the group. I am personally much more happy
: with one moderator appointing another one than I am with a democracy
: where half the people who vote don't have the wherewithal to make an
: informed decision about a moderator's competency and then end up voting
: for the moderator who can make the most noise and runs the best advertising
: campaign.

There's no excuse for dictatorship!

: When it comes to technology, a benevolent dictatorship often works a lot
: better than a democracy...

I totally disagree!

VOTE NO AGAINST BENEVOLENT DICTATORSHIP!

Elliott
-- 
:=***=:  VOTE NO TO MODERATION!  ALL IDEAS SHOULD BE CRITICIZABLE! :=***=:
             MODERATORS SHOULD NOT HAVE LIFETIME TERMS!
   :=***=:  Objective  *  Pre-code Modelling  *  Holistic  :=***=:
                 Hallmarks of the best SW Engineering
 Check out SW Modeller vs SW Craftite Central : www.access.digex.net/~ell
   Copyright 1998 Elliott. exclusive of others' writing. may be copied
     without permission only in the comp.* usenet and bitnet groups.

Re: RFD: comp.object.moderated moderated

[Patrick Logan]

In comp.object Ell <ell@access2.digex.net> wrote:

: You elided the part where I quoted from the RFD that one-upsmanship will
: be allowed.

A moderator that bends the mentioned rules for "one upmanship" would
be in violation of the rules and would receive more than a little
wrath from the others.

Also each moderator has stated a reluctance to use these specific
rules even to the fullest extent expressed in the rules, per se. These
rules are from other moderated groups, they seem to work, and yet the
moderators for this RFD have expressed reluctance to employ them to
any great extent.

-- 
Patrick Logan    (H) mailto:plogan@teleport.com 
                 (W) mailto:patrickl@gemstone.com 
                 http://www.gemstone.com

"I am not a Church numeral; I am a free variable!"

Re: RFD: comp.object.moderated moderated

[Charles Hixson]

Even though this is about the organization of newsgroups, and how they
should be run, this thread is one of the stronger agruments in favor of
moderation that I have seen.  There seems to be no commonly agreeable
upon method of halting the discussion.

Patrick Logan wrote:
> 
> In comp.object Ell <ell@access2.digex.net> wrote:
> 
> : You elided the part where I quoted from the RFD that one-upsmanship will
...
> 
> --
> Patrick Logan    (H) mailto:plogan@teleport.com
>                  (W) mailto:patrickl@gemstone.com
>                  http://www.gemstone.com
> 
> "I am not a Church numeral; I am a free variable!"

Re: RFD: comp.object.moderated moderated

[Boris Schaefer]

ell@access.digex.net (Ell) writes:

| There is also the aspect that it becomes a Usenet "comp." group and
| the above narrow motivation of the proposed moderated group does not
| make it worthy of such designation.

Nothing, except good namespace, makes a group "worthy" of a name.
comp.object.moderated is good namespace.

-- 
Boris Schaefer -- sbo@psy.med.uni-muenchen.de

Unnamed Law:
	If it happens, it must be possible.

Re: RFD: comp.object.moderated moderated

[Joachim Durchholz]

Loryn Jenkins wrote:
> 
> Haven't you ever explored the functionality netscape messenger gives
> to: to "ignore thread", at any point in the thread tree?

When I do that I kill the entire tree, which is usually not what I want.
(No I'm not fully satisfied, but I'm neither with any alternative that I
checked.)

Regards,
Joachim
-- 
Please don't send unsolicited ads.

Re: RFD: comp.object.moderated moderated

[Mark Bennison]

mayp@falcon (Patrick May) thought long and hard and wrote:

>In article <36210B47.6A5FE581@eiffel.com> Bertrand Meyer <Bertrand.Meyer@eiffel.com> writes:
> > `comp.object.moderated' is a blatant attempt at censoring
> > any non-conforming view on object technology.
>
>     The creation of comp.object.moderated is an attempt to maintain a
>minimum level of civility in the discussion of OO technology.  The
>charter does not allow censorship based on content.  This group has
>been requested solely due to the pollution of comp.object by a single
>prolific poster who makes some interesting points but wraps them in
>flames, insults, and off-topic material.
>
<snip>

I've been reading this thread in comp.lang.ada and not all posts make
it there so I may have missed something but... isn't the proposal for
the creation of a /new/ group that is moderated? Surely the old group
comp.object will still exist so I don't see how this can be construed
as censorship since a forum for posting 'non-conforming' views still
exists.

Just my UKP0.02.

Mark.

>Regards,
>
>Patrick May

Re: RFD: comp.object.moderated moderated

[Ell]

"Tim Ottinger" <ottinger@oma.com> wrote:

I make these comments to point out the fallacies, unjustness and
anti-democratic nature of the motivation behind moderation.  After
reading this RFD, I'm even more convinced that the motivation for
moderation is to place discussion control in the hands of a small
group and to deflect criticism away from them.  There is every reason
still to:  VOTE NO!

Section 1)

>When In Doubt:
>
>An article shall be accepted, especially for short off-topic
>digressions in a thread.

Why?  An alleged motivation for moderation is to stop off-topic posts.
This is subjective and allows the moderators to OK anything they
favor.

Bad.  Subjective 

Section 2)

>d) Questioning of other people's motives and honesty is explicitly
>considered both off-topic and extremely rude, no matter whether the
>contents of the article are otherwise correct or not.

Why, if it can be *substantiated*?  That is if there is evidence to
back up such questioning.

>d) Any but the most light-hearted attempts at one-upmanship will be
>disallowed.

Bad.  Should no be allowed at.  This makes it subjective.  Moderators
can allow a stream of what they consider to "light-hearted"
one-upsmanships.  These may reflect a bias of the moderators.

>When In Doubt:
>
>An article is rejected. Not a flame shall pass through.

The contradicts the immediately above.  The immediately above should
be dropped period.

>It belongs to the community of people whose work is the
>practice and theory of Object-Orientation,

This is subjective.  We have fundamental difference now on what is OO,
and even what is an object.

>When In Doubt:

>An article is rejected. Not a flame shall pass through.

>When In Doubt:

>An article is accepted, general noise level permitting.

??  2 opposite policies for "When In Doubt"

>2) Moderator Notes
>
>Moderators may add a note to an article only for the reasons and
>according to the policies stated above, to correct incomplete or
>incorrect references, or to recommend changing thread titles when
>topics drift from their original focus.

>Most articles should not have any notes. Those that do should have
>only one, or at the most two. So be judicious.

Terrible!  There should be *no* moderator notes.  This can too easily
be abused and made source and stream of biased opinions.  If a
moderator passes an article and wants to correct something they should
repost.

Section 7)

>7) Moderator Body

>When there is a shortage of moderators, the remaining moderators
>select willing volunteers who are participants in the newsgroup and
>whose posting history shows understanding of and respect for the
>moderation policy.

Horrible!  Not only life terms, but moderators then get to select new
moderators.  Totally undemocratic, and oligarchic.

So the supposed joke between proposed moderators about inheriting
moderator positions wasn't so much of a joke.

Nothing could be clearer that moderation is about one group taking
control of discussion and shielding its ideology and practice from
criticism.

Elliott Coates
--
                :=***=:   VOTE  NO  TO  MODERATION!   :=***=: 
CRAFTISM SHOULD NOT USE USENET RESOURCES TO AVOID CRITICISM!
              MODERATORS SHOULD NOT HAVE LIFETIME TERMS!
        :=***=:  Objective  *  Pre-code Modelling  *  Holistic  :=***=:
                      Hallmarks of the best SW Engineering
  Study Phony Crafite OO vs. Genuine OO: http://www.access.digex.net/~ell
    Copyright 1998 Elliott. exclusive of others' writing. may be copied
      without permission only in the comp.* usenet and bitnet groups.

Re: RFD: comp.object.moderated moderated

[Ell]

mark.bennison@gecm.com (Mark Bennison) wrote:

>mayp@falcon (Patrick May) thought long and hard and wrote:
>
>>In article <36210B47.6A5FE581@eiffel.com> Bertrand Meyer <Bertrand.Meyer@eiffel.com> writes:
>> > `comp.object.moderated' is a blatant attempt at censoring
>> > any non-conforming view on object technology.
>>
>>     The creation of comp.object.moderated is an attempt to maintain a
>>minimum level of civility in the discussion of OO technology.  The
>>charter does not allow censorship based on content.  This group has
>>been requested solely due to the pollution of comp.object by a single
>>prolific poster who makes some interesting points but wraps them in
>>flames, insults, and off-topic material.
>>
><snip>
>
>I've been reading this thread in comp.lang.ada and not all posts make
>it there so I may have missed something but... isn't the proposal for
>the creation of a /new/ group that is moderated? Surely the old group
>comp.object will still exist so I don't see how this can be construed
>as censorship since a forum for posting 'non-conforming' views still
>exists.
>
>Just my UKP0.02.

The point is the corralling of precious Usenet resources - mainly
bandwidth on Usenet servers - to promote the interests of a single
group and to undemocratically shield that group from criticism.

There is also the aspect that it becomes a Usenet "comp." group and
the above narrow motivation of the proposed moderated group does not
make it worthy of such designation.

Elliott

>
>Mark.
>
>>Regards,
>>
>>Patrick May

--
                :=***=:   VOTE  NO  TO  MODERATION!   :=***=: 
CRAFTISM SHOULD NOT USE USENET RESOURCES TO AVOID CRITICISM!
              MODERATORS SHOULD NOT HAVE LIFETIME TERMS!
        :=***=:  Objective  *  Pre-code Modelling  *  Holistic  :=***=:
                      Hallmarks of the best SW Engineering
  Study Phony Crafite OO vs. Genuine OO: http://www.access.digex.net/~ell
    Copyright 1998 Elliott. exclusive of others' writing. may be copied
      without permission only in the comp.* usenet and bitnet groups.

Re: RFD: comp.object.moderated moderated

[Juergen Schlegelmilch]

On 14 Oct 1998 09:46:31 GMT, Kevin Szabo <kszabo@nortel.ca> wrote:
>The article never reached my server, but lots of follow ups did.  Could
>it have been a forgery that was cancelled by the perpetrator?

I checked with dejanews, and the original article is _not_ at
dejanews, so I cannot check its message ID. From the replies 
(References: header as well as message bodies) I conclude that 
it had message ID <36210B47.6A5FE581@eiffel.com> --- which 
Bertrand Meyer did indeed cancel (message ID <6vr2gt$mcs$1@news.rain.org>). 
Whether it was a forgery, or Dr. Meyer realized that it may not be up 
to his usual standards, cannot be determined from dejanews. Personally, 
I believe that message was forged by a troll.

Regards,
  J�rgen
-- 
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------------\
 Juergen Schlegelmilch          http://www.informatik.uni-rostock.de/~schlegel
 Database Research Group             mailto:schlegel@Informatik.Uni-Rostock.de
 University of Rostock,  Computer Science Department,  18051 Rostock,  Germany

Re: RFD: comp.object.moderated moderated

[Michi Henning]

On Wed, 14 Oct 1998, Ell wrote:

> If only for the fact that they intend on filling vacancies only
> through selection by moderators - though there is more - I would
> reject the proposal out of hand.  I mean, I never thought that I would
> hear of people *willingly* accepting that.  It boggles my mind that
> some people accept this.  Both the notion and its acceptance are
> terrible are reprehensible, as I see it.

Why so? Have a look at comp.lang.c++.moderated, to pick one example. That's
a group that is moderated according to the same rules. The group is
extremely high quality, choc-a-block full of useful information, and not at
all stifled. (If I was a moderator, I would probably be less lenient than
the current moderators.) In addition, the signal-to-noise ratio is excellent,
and I can read the group without having to wade through job advertisements,
flames, ads for personal loans or pornographic sites, or thinly-disguised
attempts by students to get someone else do do their homework for them.

I don't care about principles of freedom or democracy in this case. Instead,
I care about having an information source that is useful, informative,
and free of irrelevant material. Moderation achieves that in an effective
way, so I get what I want.

By your argument, magazines, newspapers, radio stations, and TV stations
shouldn't have editors either, who, after all, also exercise editorial
control and have influence over content.

The simple reality is that if you don't want a moderated newsgroup, don't
read it. Meanwhile, the rest of us can go and be happy with that group.
Democracy is freedom of choice, among other things.

								Michi.
--
Michi Henning              +61 7 33654310
DSTC Pty Ltd               +61 7 33654311 (fax)
University of Qld 4072     michi@dstc.edu.au
AUSTRALIA                  http://www.dstc.edu.au/BDU/staff/michi-henning.html

Re: RFD: comp.object.moderated moderated

[Gerhard Menzl]

Patrick Logan wrote:

> Elliott, [...]
>
> (2) Since you feel I am one of the moderators who will be promoting
>     interests you are opposed to, I have offered to help find a way to
>     resign and be replaced by you. Are you willing? You will then have
>     as much "power" (ha!) as you feel I would as moderator.

But certainly not without election? In that case, I vote NO for Elliott Coates
as a moderator because

1. I do not trust his impartiality.
2. Electing him would be tantamount to electing a parliamentary representative
who is against parliament.

Gerhard Menzl

Re: RFD: comp.object.moderated moderated

[Phlip]

Bob Hutchison wrote:

>Pardon me for saying this, but every response to Meyer's article that
>has reached my news service is off topic.


The RFD is on-topic because all the RFCs told Tim Ottinger to post it to
a "set of related groups, and news.groups". FORTRAN - no. Haskell - no.
microsoft.public.* - no. Ada - yes.

What group are you reading?

>Is anyone actually going to respond to what he said?

No. Like I pointed out in the first reply, his (or his spoofer's)
opening sentence was so caustic almost nobody ever read further.

Further, his (or his spoofer's) opening sentence reminded us of the kind
of rhetoric from a particular poster that started the moderation process
in the first place. Irony, huh?

The entire alleged Bertrand Meyer post appears below my signature, to
submit to server path and handwriting analysis. Notice the message ID is
on the 'eiffel.com' server - a spoofer would need to tap into that
server, exploit a rebounder on it, briefly name their own server that
(and get the 'net to accept it), sneak into the ISC building, or work
there.

In summary, if one of our industry leaders wrote it, he has been
criticized from all sides for it. It erodes everyones respect for him.

I want to repeat I find the work deeply offensive, and I hope whoever
wrote it wises up. And nobody should forget that when the moderated
newsgroup starts up, this post would have passed moderation and been
accepted.

  --  Phlip at politizen dot com                  (address munged)
======= http://users.deltanet.com/~tegan/home.html =======

Path:
news!global-news-master!newsfeed.concentric.net!newshub.northeast.verio.
net!chippy.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!news.rain.org!not-for-mail
From: Bertrand Meyer <Bertrand.Meyer@eiffel.com>
Newsgroups:
news.groups,comp.object,comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.smallta
lk,comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: RFD: comp.object.moderated moderated
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1998 12:47:19 -0700
Organization: Interactive Software Engineering
Lines: 58
Message-ID: <36210B47.6A5FE581@eiffel.com>
References: <907918039.22235@isc.org>
Reply-To: Bertrand.Meyer@eiffel.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: outback.eiffel.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I)
Xref: news comp.lang.ada:77012 comp.lang.smalltalk:75209
comp.lang.c++:372631 comp.lang.eiffel:33161 comp.object:93830
news.groups:11075


`comp.object.moderated' is a blatant attempt at censoring
any non-conforming view on object technology. (The censorship
has already begun with the redirection of replies to a single
newsgroup that no one reads. Please refuse this and reply to the
newsgroups where the original was posted, as I am doing -- with
some difficulty -- here. I can't believe the arrogance of posting
on a newsgroup and trying to bar others from replying on the same
forum!)

`comp.object.moderated' is a bad solution to a non-existent problem.
The level of noise and off-topic discussions on comp.object is
quite reasonable. Many of the group discussions are informative and
useful. It provides an excellent forum for discussions of O-O issues.
It's a great opportunity for novices to meet experts. I personally
learned a lot from it over the years, including from postings that
wouldn't have stood a chance under the proposed censorship rules.

For unknown reasons a group of self-appointed guardians of
object morality have decided that they alone know what is acceptable
and what is not. They should be encouraged to create their own
mailing list, but have no right to take over the comp.object name.
(I know, the unmoderated comp.object group would theoretically remain,
but newcomers will naturally assume that the "serious stuff" is on
the newsgroup that has the same name with the added suffix "moderated".)

This is a serious matter (that's why I am taking the time to write
this message). By suppressing the more forward-looking views and
always bowing to the "safe" majority choices even when everyone knew
they were plainly wrong, we software people as a community have
pathetically betrayed our duty to society, as witnessed by the
shameful Year 2000 mess and other looming disasters. We badly need,
for the honor of our profession and the well-being of society,
to let alternative views express themselves freely. Today, because
of the power of hype and marketing and the irresponsibiliy of some
of the very organizations that should support serious technical debate,
there are precious few avenues of expression left for non-majority views
in software technology.  comp.object is one of the best.
Do not let anyone take it away from you.

To the authors of this proposal: if you really want to have an O-O
group tailored to your own view, you are entitled to creating it
but you are NOT entitled to the name comp.object. Start your own
Web-archived mailing list, or a newsgroup with a less portentous name.

To all others: don't let this proposal be passed sneakily
on `news.groups' why you read the interesting stuff on comp.object.
Kill it before it kills you.

--
Bertrand Meyer, Interactive Software Engineering
ISE Building, 2nd Floor, 270 Storke Road Goleta, CA 93117 USA
805-685-1006, Fax 805-685-6869,
<Bertrand.Meyer@eiffel.com>, http://eiffel.com

--
Bertrand Meyer, Interactive Software Engineering
ISE Building, 2nd Floor, 270 Storke Road Goleta, CA 93117 USA
805-685-1006, Fax 805-685-6869,
<Bertrand.Meyer@eiffel.com>, http://eiffel.com

Re: RFD: comp.object.moderated moderated

[Robert Oliver]

Ell wrote:

> I think that any organization of people should be moving the bar
> toward greater freedom and liberation, not away from it.

Greater freedom requires greater responsibility.

comp.object.moderated is being created for two reasons:

1. To provide participants the freedom to use a service (moderation)
   provided voluntarily to anyone who wants it.

2. This service (moderation) ensures that participants must conform
   to minimal standards of responsibility in their postings.

Anyone who wishes to post below the minimum standard of
responsibility as defined by the moderated group should post to
comp.object.

Should comp.object.moderated come to pass, anyone who subscribes
to both comp.object and comp.object.moderated should get *all*
postings, just as if the moderated group had not formed.

To assert that the formation of a moderated group restricts your
freedom to post is simply dishonest.  You are afraid of loosing
your audience, nothing more.

Regards,

Bob Oliver

Re: RFD: comp.object.moderated moderated

[Boris Schaefer]

"Phlip" <new_email@see.web.page> writes:

| The entire alleged Bertrand Meyer post appears below my signature, to
| submit to server path and handwriting analysis. Notice the message ID is
| on the 'eiffel.com' server - a spoofer would need to tap into that
| server, exploit a rebounder on it, briefly name their own server that
| (and get the 'net to accept it), sneak into the ISC building, or work
| there.

Ummm, no.  The Message-Id can easily be forged.

-- 
Boris Schaefer -- sbo@psy.med.uni-muenchen.de

The biggest problem with communication is the illusion that it has occurred.

Re: RFD: comp.object.moderated moderated

[Michi Henning]

On Tue, 13 Oct 1998, Ell wrote:

> I make these comments to point out the fallacies, unjustness and
> anti-democratic nature of the motivation behind moderation.  After
> reading this RFD, I'm even more convinced that the motivation for
> moderation is to place discussion control in the hands of a small
> group and to deflect criticism away from them.  There is every reason
> still to:  VOTE NO!

Hmmm... The RFD sounded like the stock-standard set of rules used by
many moderated groups.

> 
> Section 1)
> 

[ Lots of objections and comments deleted ]

Personally, I like moderated groups. They make it possible to have
discussions about things that relate to the topic of the group without
having to read through abuse, spam, or job ads (which are spam too, really).
My experience has been that articles are rejected very rarely by moderators,
and I think concerns about censorship or some such are not an issue in
practice.

I'm all for a group where I don't have to delete another ten job ads whenever
I go to read it. And I don't find it all that enlightening to read articles
where people throw the worst kind of abuse at each other...

I certainly will be voting yes for a moderated group. If you don't like
the moderated group, you can still use the unmoderated one. That's freedom
of choice...

							Cheers,

								Michi.
Copyright 1998 Michi Henning. All rights reserved.
--
Michi Henning              +61 7 33654310
DSTC Pty Ltd               +61 7 33654311 (fax)
University of Qld 4072     michi@dstc.edu.au
AUSTRALIA                  http://www.dstc.edu.au/BDU/staff/michi-henning.html

Re: RFD: comp.object.moderated moderated

[Michi Henning]

On Tue, 13 Oct 1998, Ell wrote:

> Did you read really the heinous rules for the group.  Did you fail to see
> the way that moderators can operate in way such that subjective desires
> and wishes can predominate?

That is the nature of editorial control. No amount of rules will fix this.

> Did you fail to see that there is no provision for
> electing new moderators?!  Not to mention that moderators are elected for
> life!

Good thing too. Moderators are typically highly-dedicated individuals who
are experts in the topic of the group. I am personally much more happy
with one moderator appointing another one than I am with a democracy
where half the people who vote don't have the wherewithal to make an
informed decision about a moderator's competency and then end up voting
for the moderator who can make the most noise and runs the best advertising
campaign.

When it comes to technology, a benevolent dictatorship often works a lot
better than a democracy...

							Cheers,

								Michi.
Copyright 1998 Michi Henning. All rights reserved.
--
Michi Henning              +61 7 33654310
DSTC Pty Ltd               +61 7 33654311 (fax)
University of Qld 4072     michi@dstc.edu.au
AUSTRALIA                  http://www.dstc.edu.au/BDU/staff/michi-henning.html

Re: RFD: comp.object.moderated moderated

[Reality is a point of view]

 +---- crawley@dstc.edu.au wrote (14 Oct 1998 02:25:10 GMT):
 | Seriously, the problem with USENET news is that there is currently no
 | technology to allow the readership of a group implement policies to
 | ensure that the group suit their collective needs.
 +----

That is also a common misconception.

<a href="http://www.cs.umn.edu/Research/GroupLens">
Moderation where it belongs.</a>

-- 
Gary Johnson     gjohnson@season.com
Privacy on the net is still illegal.

Re: RFD: comp.object.moderated moderated

[Sven Sass]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 753 bytes --]

Hello there,

Patrick Logan wrote:
> It's just a stupid newsgroup. We're just going to try to keep the
> noise out of it. We are not going to save the world. We are not going
> to get paid or take bribes. We are not going to promote any views. We
> just want to keep the noise out of a stupid Usenet discussion group
> about programming for cryin' out loud.

Absolutely right, the point is:
1.) no one wants spam/job adds
2.) many newbies make noise, before reading the answer to the
    same question 100 other newbies have asked
3.) no one would really censor a good mail (I assume we all want
    to have a good working newsgroup)
    

> "I am not a Church numeral; I am a free variable!"
why not a pointer to a free variable ;)

Best regards,

sven

[-- Attachment #2: Card for Sven Sass --]
[-- Type: text/x-vcard, Size: 124 bytes --]

begin:vcard
n:Sass;Sven
x-mozilla-html:TRUE
adr:version:2.1
version:2.1
email;internet:Sven@Sass.de
fn:Sven Sass
end:vcard

Re: RFD: comp.object.moderated moderated

[Patrick Doyle]

In article <o4jU1.27802$K02.16718724@news.teleport.com>,
David Franklin Reynolds <daver@teleport.com> wrote:
>
>Moderate a group because of one person? I'll vote NO. Either just skip the
>posts, or learn how to use a filter to make them disappear automagically.

If you don't mind my asking, have you considered abstaining?  Do you
have a solid reason to actively block the new group?  If you think
it's just unnecessary, I think a "no" vote is a bit harsh.

 -PD

-- 
--
Patrick Doyle
doylep@ecf.toronto.edu

Re: RFD: comp.object.moderated moderated

[Kevin Szabo]

In article <363314e1.131092310@enews.newsguy.com>,
Bob Hutchison <hutch@RedRock.com> wrote:
>Pardon me for saying this, but every response to Meyer's article that
>has reached my news service is off topic.
>
>Is anyone actually going to respond to what he said?

The article never reached my server, but lots of follow ups did.  Could
it have been a forgery that was cancelled by the perpetrator?  The
snippets of the original posting that I have seen did not seem like the
writings of a well-respected industry leader ... they were more like
the rantings of an adolescent.  I found the charter for
comp.object.moderated  was very well written and I applaud the attempt
to bring a noise-free forum for object-oriented discussions back to
life.

Re: RFD: comp.object.moderated moderated

[Stephen Crawley]

In article <8zPU1.660$zi4.293929060@newsreader.digex.net>,
Ell  <ell@access2.digex.net> wrote:
>There's no excuse for dictatorship!

It is my democratic right to vote for a "dictatorship" if I think
this is the best solution.

>: When it comes to technology, a benevolent dictatorship often works a lot
>: better than a democracy...
>
>I totally disagree!

Your opinion has been noted.  [We'll send the thought police around 
later to re-educate you :-)]

Seriously, the problem with USENET news is that there is currently no
technology to allow the readership of a group implement policies to
ensure that the group suit their collective needs.  Until such
technology is available, we have to rely on primitive (labor
intensive) mechanisms like human moderation, with all the risks that
this won't work very well.  

Meanwhile, I'm happy with a "dictator" moderator, not least because I
see examples where the model works VERY WELL (IMO); e.g. comp.risks.
If the dictator does a bad job, and is unwilling to move aside ... we
can always go back to comp.object and start again.

-- Steve

Re: RFD: comp.object.moderated moderated

[Ell]

crawley@dstc.edu.au (Stephen Crawley) wrote:

>In article <8zPU1.660$zi4.293929060@newsreader.digex.net>,
>Ell  <ell@access2.digex.net> wrote:
>>There's no excuse for dictatorship!
>
>It is my democratic right to vote for a "dictatorship" if I think
>this is the best solution.
>
>>: When it comes to technology, a benevolent dictatorship often works a lot
>>: better than a democracy...
>>
>>I totally disagree!
>
>Your opinion has been noted.  [We'll send the thought police around 
>later to re-educate you :-)]
>
>Seriously, the problem with USENET news is that there is currently no
>technology to allow the readership of a group implement policies to
>ensure that the group suit their collective needs.  Until such
>technology is available, we have to rely on primitive (labor
>intensive) mechanisms like human moderation, with all the risks that
>this won't work very well.  
>
>Meanwhile, I'm happy with a "dictator" moderator, not least because I
>see examples where the model works VERY WELL (IMO); e.g. comp.risks.
>If the dictator does a bad job, and is unwilling to move aside ... we
>can always go back to comp.object and start again.

If only for the fact that they intend on filling vacancies only
through selection by moderators - though there is more - I would
reject the proposal out of hand.  I mean, I never thought that I would
hear of people *willingly* accepting that.  It boggles my mind that
some people accept this.  Both the notion and its acceptance are
terrible are reprehensible, as I see it.

I think that any organization of people should be moving the bar
toward greater freedom and liberation, not away from it.  Certainly
you can have moderators regulate discussion even while voting for them
annually, and having votes to fill vacancies (unless the vacancy is
say within 60 days of the annual vote.)

Elliott
--
                :=***=:   VOTE  NO  TO  MODERATION!   :=***=: 
CRAFTISM SHOULD NOT USE USENET RESOURCES TO AVOID CRITICISM!
              MODERATORS SHOULD NOT HAVE LIFETIME TERMS!
        :=***=:  Objective  *  Pre-code Modelling  *  Holistic  :=***=:
                      Hallmarks of the best SW Engineering
  Study Phony Crafite OO vs. Genuine OO: http://www.access.digex.net/~ell
    Copyright 1998 Elliott. exclusive of others' writing. may be copied
      without permission only in the comp.* usenet and bitnet groups.

Re: RFD: comp.object.moderated moderated

[Ell]

Charles Hixson <charleshixsn@earthlink.net> wrote:

> In comp.object Ell <ell@access2.digex.net> wrote:
>> 
>> You elided the part where I quoted from the RFD that one-upsmanship will

>Even though this is about the organization of newsgroups, and how they
>should be run, this thread is one of the stronger agruments in favor of
>moderation that I have seen.  There seems to be no commonly agreeable
>upon method of halting the discussion.

I guess you feel that no one should be opposing the RFD?  Sorry to
upset your world, but not everyone agrees there should be a moderated
group.

Elliott
--
                :=***=:   VOTE  NO  TO  MODERATION!   :=***=: 
CRAFTISM SHOULD NOT USE USENET RESOURCES TO AVOID CRITICISM!
              MODERATORS SHOULD NOT HAVE LIFETIME TERMS!
        :=***=:  Objective  *  Pre-code Modelling  *  Holistic  :=***=:
                      Hallmarks of the best SW Engineering
  Study Phony Crafite OO vs. Genuine OO: http://www.access.digex.net/~ell
    Copyright 1998 Elliott. exclusive of others' writing. may be copied
      without permission only in the comp.* usenet and bitnet groups.

Re: RFD: comp.object.moderated moderated

[Ell]

Patrick Logan <plogan@user1.teleport.com> wrote:

>In comp.object Ell <ell@access2.digex.net> wrote:
>:
>: You elided the part where I quoted from the RFD that one-upsmanship will
>: be allowed.

>A moderator that bends the mentioned rules for "one upmanship" would
>be in violation of the rules and would receive more than a little
>wrath from the others.
>
>Also each moderator has stated a reluctance to use these specific
>rules even to the fullest extent expressed in the rules, per se. These
>rules are from other moderated groups, they seem to work, and yet the
>moderators for this RFD have expressed reluctance to employ them to
>any great extent.

What's intended should be exactly what's in the RFD.  Also what's
wrong with doing better than the past?  Some of the rules from the
past are terrible and should be modified.  The framers of the US
Constitution were correct not to just accept the traditional
monarchical ideas on the state.  They could have, but they did better.

That is if there is, or should be, a group at all, which still has to
be decided.

Elliott
--
                :=***=:   VOTE  NO  TO  MODERATION!   :=***=: 
CRAFTISM SHOULD NOT USE USENET RESOURCES TO AVOID CRITICISM!
              MODERATORS SHOULD NOT HAVE LIFETIME TERMS!
        :=***=:  Objective  *  Pre-code Modelling  *  Holistic  :=***=:
                      Hallmarks of the best SW Engineering
  Study Phony Crafite OO vs. Genuine OO: http://www.access.digex.net/~ell
    Copyright 1998 Elliott. exclusive of others' writing. may be copied
      without permission only in the comp.* usenet and bitnet groups.

Re: RFD: comp.object.moderated moderated

[Patrick Doyle]

In article <362269AC.B3AE3D3F@s054.aone.net.au>,
Loryn Jenkins  <loryn@acm.org> wrote:
>> Meanwhile, I keep seeing conflicting sweeping statements by
>> certain fans of c.o.m., though the 'we need Eiffel presence on
>> the Moderation team' was, considering the timing, too funny.
>
>What's the joke? 

Unless I'm mistaken, the irony is that Robert's explicit support
of an Eiffel presence on the mod panel coincided with Eiffel's
creator speaking so openly against the mod effort.

 -PD

-- 
--
Patrick Doyle
doylep@ecf.toronto.edu

Re: RFD: comp.object.moderated moderated

[Patrick Doyle]

In article <3626743b.1281352@news.erols.com>, Ell <ell@access.digex.net> wrote:
>
>The point is the corralling of precious Usenet resources - mainly
>bandwidth on Usenet servers - to promote the interests of a single
>group and to undemocratically shield that group from criticism.

How many "groups" do you need to form a new newsgroup?  Why isn't
one sufficient, if it's large enough?

And, if it's an attempt to shield people from criticism, it's going
to be woefully inadequate.  We're not allowed to reject posts
on the basis of content, so we won't be able to prevent criticism
from being posted.

>There is also the aspect that it becomes a Usenet "comp." group and
>the above narrow motivation of the proposed moderated group does not
>make it worthy of such designation.

No, of course it doesn't.  That's because that's not the reason the
group is being formed.  Do you have any evidence that you've read
the RFD?

 -PD
-- 
--
Patrick Doyle
doylep@ecf.toronto.edu

Re: RFD: comp.object.moderated moderated

[Ell]

"Tim Ottinger" <ottinger@oma.com> wrote:

I make these comments to point out the fallacies, unjustness and
anti-democratic nature of the motivation behind moderation.  After
reading this RFD, I'm even more convinced that the motivation for
moderation is to place discussion control in the hands of a small
group and to deflect criticism away from them.  There is every reason
still to:  VOTE NO!

Section 1)

>When In Doubt:
>
>An article shall be accepted, especially for short off-topic
>digressions in a thread.

Why?  An alleged motivation for moderation is to stop off-topic posts.
This is subjective and allows the moderators to OK anything they
favor.

Bad.  Subjective 

Section 2)

>d) Questioning of other people's motives and honesty is explicitly
>considered both off-topic and extremely rude, no matter whether the
>contents of the article are otherwise correct or not.

Why, if it can be *substantiated*?  That is if there is evidence to
back up such questioning.

>d) Any but the most light-hearted attempts at one-upmanship will be
>disallowed.

Bad.  Should no be allowed at.  This makes it subjective.  Moderators
can allow a stream of what they consider to "light-hearted"
one-upsmanships.  These may reflect a bias of the moderators.

>When In Doubt:
>
>An article is rejected. Not a flame shall pass through.

The contradicts the immediately above.  The immediately above should
be dropped period.

>It belongs to the community of people whose work is the
>practice and theory of Object-Orientation,

This is subjective.  We have fundamental difference now on what is OO,
and even what is an object.

>When In Doubt:

>An article is rejected. Not a flame shall pass through.

>When In Doubt:

>An article is accepted, general noise level permitting.

??  2 opposite policies for "When In Doubt"

>2) Moderator Notes
>
>Moderators may add a note to an article only for the reasons and
>according to the policies stated above, to correct incomplete or
>incorrect references, or to recommend changing thread titles when
>topics drift from their original focus.

>Most articles should not have any notes. Those that do should have
>only one, or at the most two. So be judicious.

Terrible!  There should be *no* moderator notes.  This can too easily
be abused and made source and stream of biased opinions.  If a
moderator passes an article and wants to correct something they should
repost.

Section 7)

>7) Moderator Body

>When there is a shortage of moderators, the remaining moderators
>select willing volunteers who are participants in the newsgroup and
>whose posting history shows understanding of and respect for the
>moderation policy.

Horrible!  Not only life terms, but moderators then get to select new
moderators.  Totally undemocratic, and oligarchic.

So the supposed joke between proposed moderators about inheriting
moderator positions wasn't so much of a joke.

Nothing could be clearer that moderation is about one group taking
control of discussion and shielding its ideology and practice from
criticism.

Elliott Coates
--
                :=***=:   VOTE  NO  TO  MODERATION!   :=***=: 
CRAFTISM SHOULD NOT USE USENET RESOURCES TO AVOID CRITICISM!
              MODERATORS SHOULD NOT HAVE LIFETIME TERMS!
        :=***=:  Objective  *  Pre-code Modelling  *  Holistic  :=***=:
                      Hallmarks of the best SW Engineering
  Study Phony Crafite OO vs. Genuine OO: http://www.access.digex.net/~ell
    Copyright 1998 Elliott. exclusive of others' writing. may be copied
      without permission only in the comp.* usenet and bitnet groups.

Re: RFD: comp.object.moderated moderated

[David Mescher]

Patrick Doyle wrote:
> In article <o4jU1.27802$K02.16718724@news.teleport.com>,
> David Franklin Reynolds <daver@teleport.com> wrote:
> >
> >Moderate a group because of one person? I'll vote NO. Either just skip the
> >posts, or learn how to use a filter to make them disappear automagically.
> If you don't mind my asking, have you considered abstaining?  Do you
> have a solid reason to actively block the new group?  If you think
> it's just unnecessary, I think a "no" vote is a bit harsh.
> 
>  -PD
If a group, in the opinion of the voter, is unncessary, 'no' is a
perfectly
valid vote.  (See John Stanley's FAQ on news.groups, "Why people vote
NO")

REPOST ATTACK (Was: RFD: comp.object.moderated moderated)

[Jon Bell]

 Bertrand Meyer  <Bertrand.Meyer@eiffel.com> wrote:
>`comp.object.moderated' is a blatant attempt at censoring
>any non-conforming view on object technology.
[snip]

Before anybody gets sucked in, this posting and all the followups that
have appeared on my server so far, in a single flood, appear to be
reposted from the debate on comp.object moderated that took place some
time ago.  All the postings were injected within a minute or two of each
other, into the same server (nnrp1.tor.metronet.ca, unless that was
forged).

-- 
Jon Bell <jtbell@presby.edu>                        Presbyterian College
Dept. of Physics and Computer Science        Clinton, South Carolina USA
        [     Information about newsgroups for beginners:     ]            
        [ http://www.geocities.com/ResearchTriangle/Lab/6882/ ]

Reposts of old news (was Re: RFD: comp.object.moderated moderated)

[Kathy Pascoe]

Jay Denebeim wrote:
> 
> *yawn*  Nobody is holding a gun to your head, you're more than welcome
> to post on the old newsgroup.

It's old stuff being reinjected, at metronet.ca.  Either ignoring and/or
complaining to Metronet would work (I've seen 23 of them, between
14:26:21 and 14:26:51 US EDT).
-- 
Kathy Pascoe ~ kpascoe@ford.com (work) ~ kathy@scconsult.com (home)

Re: RFD: comp.object.moderated moderated

[Jeff J. Wilson]

David Mescher wrote:
> 
> Patrick Doyle wrote:
> > In article <o4jU1.27802$K02.16718724@news.teleport.com>,
> > David Franklin Reynolds <daver@teleport.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >Moderate a group because of one person? I'll vote NO. Either just skip the
> > >posts, or learn how to use a filter to make them disappear automagically.
> > If you don't mind my asking, have you considered abstaining?  Do you
> > have a solid reason to actively block the new group?  If you think
> > it's just unnecessary, I think a "no" vote is a bit harsh.
> >
> >  -PD
> If a group, in the opinion of the voter, is unncessary, 'no' is a
> perfectly valid vote.  (See John Stanley's FAQ on news.groups, "Why people vote
> NO")

It is "perfectly valid" to vote NO for any reason that pops into your
head, whether or not it appears in John's FAQ.  However, that doesn't
make it wrong to ask someone else not to vote NO for a particular
reason or even to call it a "bit harsh."

--
Jeff J. Wilson                    [ jeff.wilson@unisys.com ]   
...speaking only for myself                                         
                                                                    
Vanguard of the 13er generation.

Re: RFD: comp.object.moderated moderated

[J Durbin]

David Mescher <dmescher@nortelnetworks.com> wrote:

>Patrick Doyle wrote:
>> In article <o4jU1.27802$K02.16718724@news.teleport.com>,
>> David Franklin Reynolds <daver@teleport.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >Moderate a group because of one person? I'll vote NO. Either just skip the
>> >posts, or learn how to use a filter to make them disappear automagically.
>> If you don't mind my asking, have you considered abstaining?  Do you
>> have a solid reason to actively block the new group?  If you think
>> it's just unnecessary, I think a "no" vote is a bit harsh.
>> 
>>  -PD
>If a group, in the opinion of the voter, is unncessary, 'no' is a
>perfectly
>valid vote.  (See John Stanley's FAQ on news.groups, "Why people vote
>NO")

Just out of curiousity, why are you following up now to an article
that was posted in mid-October 1998?

jd
--
jason durbin
stop reading here <---

Re: RFD: comp.object.moderated moderated

[Bertrand Meyer]

`comp.object.moderated' is a blatant attempt at censoring
any non-conforming view on object technology. (The censorship
has already begun with the redirection of replies to a single
newsgroup that no one reads. Please refuse this and reply to the
newsgroups where the original was posted, as I am doing -- with 
some difficulty -- here. I can't believe the arrogance of posting
on a newsgroup and trying to bar others from replying on the same forum!)

`comp.object.moderated' is a bad solution to a non-existent problem.
The level of noise and off-topic discussions on comp.object is
quite reasonable. Many of the group discussions are informative and
useful. It provides an excellent forum for discussions of O-O issues.
It's a great opportunity for novices to meet experts. I personally
learned a lot from it over the years, including from postings that
wouldn't have stood a chance under the proposed censorship rules.

For unknown reasons a group of self-appointed guardians of
object morality have decided that they alone know what is acceptable
and what is not. They should be encouraged to create their own
mailing list, but have no right to take over the comp.object name.
(I know, the unmoderated comp.object group would theoretically remain,
but newcomers will naturally assume that the "serious stuff" is on
the newsgroup that has the same name with the added suffix "moderated".)

This is a serious matter (that's why I am taking the time to write
this message). By suppressing the more forward-looking views and
always bowing to the "safe" majority choices even when everyone knew
they were plainly wrong, we software people as a community have
pathetically betrayed our duty to society, as witnessed by the
shameful Year 2000 mess and other looming disasters. We badly need,
for the honor of our profession and the well-being of society,
to let alternative views express themselves freely. Today, because
of the power of hype and marketing and the irresponsibiliy of some
of the very organizations that should support serious technical debate,
there are precious few avenues of expression left for non-majority views
in software technology.  comp.object is one of the best.
Do not let anyone take it away from you.

To the authors of this proposal: if you really want to have an O-O
group tailored to your own view, you are entitled to creating it
but you are NOT entitled to the name comp.object. Start your own
Web-archived mailing list, or a newsgroup with a less portentous name.

To all others: don't let this proposal be passed sneakily
on `news.groups' why you read the interesting stuff on comp.object.
Kill it before it kills you.

-- 
Bertrand Meyer, Interactive Software Engineering
ISE Building, 2nd Floor, 270 Storke Road Goleta, CA 93117 USA
805-685-1006, Fax 805-685-6869,
<Bertrand.Meyer@eiffel.com>, http://eiffel.com

-- 
Bertrand Meyer, Interactive Software Engineering
ISE Building, 2nd Floor, 270 Storke Road Goleta, CA 93117 USA
805-685-1006, Fax 805-685-6869,
<Bertrand.Meyer@eiffel.com>, http://eiffel.com

Re: RFD: comp.object.moderated moderated

[Jay Denebeim]

In article <36210B47.6A5FE581@eiffel.com>,
Bertrand Meyer  <Bertrand.Meyer@eiffel.com> wrote:
>`comp.object.moderated' is a blatant attempt at censoring
>any non-conforming view on object technology.

*yawn*  Nobody is holding a gun to your head, you're more than welcome
to post on the old newsgroup.

(obviously or else they would probably have pulled the trigger)
Jay
-- 
* Jay Denebeim  Moderator       rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated   *
* newsgroup submission address: b5mod@deepthot.aurora.co.us         *
* moderator contact address:    b5mod-request@deepthot.aurora.co.us *
* personal contact address:     denebeim@deepthot.aurora.co.us      *

Re: RFD: comp.object.moderated moderated

[Jay Denebeim]

In article <36234afd.80326813@news.geccs.gecm.com>,
Mark Bennison <mark.bennison@gecm.com> wrote:

>I've been reading this thread in comp.lang.ada and not all posts make
>it there so I may have missed something but... isn't the proposal for
>the creation of a /new/ group that is moderated?

Um, there isn't a proposal.  The group has existed for the better part
of a year.

Jay
-- 
* Jay Denebeim  Moderator       rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated   *
* newsgroup submission address: b5mod@deepthot.aurora.co.us         *
* moderator contact address:    b5mod-request@deepthot.aurora.co.us *
* personal contact address:     denebeim@deepthot.aurora.co.us      *

Re: Reposts of old news (was Re: RFD: comp.object.moderated moderated)

[Ell]

Kathy Pascoe <kpascoe@ford.com> wrote:

#Jay Denebeim wrote:
#> 
#> *yawn*  Nobody is holding a gun to your head, you're more than welcome
#> to post on the old newsgroup.

#It's old stuff being reinjected, at metronet.ca.  Either ignoring and/or
#complaining to Metronet would work (I've seen 23 of them, between
#14:26:21 and 14:26:51 US EDT).

You know Metronet is the ISP of one Patrick Doyle who is a moderator of
como,object.moderated (c.o.m.).  I'm not sure, but he would have a vested
interest in attacking comp.object in order to bolster c.o.m..  But as Bertrand
Meyer, creator of Eiffel and author of the book OO SW Construction, said in
one of the old posts that were reposted, the creation of the c.o.m. group is a
blatant attempt to muzzle those who differ in thinking from the archaic sw
engineering mindset of those who pushed for c.o.m..

Elliott
--
   :=***=:  Objective  *  Holistic  *  Overall pre-code Modelling  :=***=:
                      Hallmarks of the best SW Engineering
   study Craftite vs. Full Blown OO:  http://www.access.digex.net/~ell
copyright 1999 Elliott. exclusive of others' writing. may be copied freely
                 only in comp., phil., sci. usenet & bitnet & otug.

Re: Reposts of old news (was Re: RFD: comp.object.moderated moderated)

[Jason Stokes]

On Fri, 30 Jul 1999 09:16:38 GMT, Ell <universe@radix.net> wrote:

>Kathy Pascoe <kpascoe@ford.com> wrote:
>
>#It's old stuff being reinjected, at metronet.ca.  Either ignoring and/or
>#complaining to Metronet would work (I've seen 23 of them, between
>#14:26:21 and 14:26:51 US EDT).
>
>You know Metronet is the ISP of one Patrick Doyle who is a moderator of
>como,object.moderated (c.o.m.).  I'm not sure, but he would have a vested
>interest in attacking comp.object in order to bolster c.o.m..  

Never ascribe to conspiracy what can easily be explained by computer system
failure.

-- 
Jason Stokes: jstok@bluedog.apana.org.au

Re: Reposts of old news (was Re: RFD: comp.object.moderated moderated)

[Jason Stokes]

On Fri, 30 Jul 1999 09:16:38 GMT, Ell <universe@radix.net> wrote:

>Kathy Pascoe <kpascoe@ford.com> wrote:
>
>#It's old stuff being reinjected, at metronet.ca.  Either ignoring and/or
>#complaining to Metronet would work (I've seen 23 of them, between
>#14:26:21 and 14:26:51 US EDT).
>
>You know Metronet is the ISP of one Patrick Doyle who is a moderator of
>como,object.moderated (c.o.m.).  I'm not sure, but he would have a vested
>interest in attacking comp.object in order to bolster c.o.m..  

Never ascribe to malevolence what can easily be explained by computer system
failure.

-- 
Jason Stokes: jstok@bluedog.apana.org.au

Re: Reposts of old news (was Re: RFD: comp.object.moderated moderated)

[Ell]

jstok@bluedog.apana.org.au (Jason Stokes) wrote:

#On Fri, 30 Jul 1999 09:16:38 GMT, Ell <universe@radix.net> wrote:

#>Kathy Pascoe <kpascoe@ford.com> wrote:
#>#It's old stuff being reinjected, at metronet.ca.  Either ignoring and/or
#>#complaining to Metronet would work (I've seen 23 of them, between
#>#14:26:21 and 14:26:51 US EDT).

#>You know Metronet is the ISP of one Patrick Doyle who is a moderator of
#>como,object.moderated (c.o.m.).  I'm not sure, but he would have a vested
#>interest in attacking comp.object in order to bolster c.o.m..  

#Never ascribe to conspiracy what can easily be explained by computer system
#failure.

Why is it being reinjected at his ISP?

Elliott
--
   :=***=:  Objective  *  Holistic  *  Overall pre-code Modelling  :=***=:
                      Hallmarks of the best SW Engineering
   study Craftite vs. Full Blown OO:  http://www.access.digex.net/~ell
copyright 1999 Elliott. exclusive of others' writing. may be copied freely
                 only in comp., phil., sci. usenet & bitnet & otug.

Re: Reposts of old news (was Re: RFD: comp.object.moderated moderated)

[Jay Denebeim]

In article <37aa9a8f.47714499@news1.radix.net>, Ell <universe@radix.net> wrote:

>Why is it being reinjected at his ISP?

Probably a stupid technical mistake.  Why one of the moderator's ISPs?
They'd probably be one of the few sites to still have an archive of
the debate.

Jay
-- 
* Jay Denebeim  Moderator       rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated   *
* newsgroup submission address: b5mod@deepthot.aurora.co.us         *
* moderator contact address:    b5mod-request@deepthot.aurora.co.us *
* personal contact address:     denebeim@deepthot.aurora.co.us      *

Re: Reposts of old news

[Eric Clayberg]

Ken Foskey <waratah@zip.com.au> wrote in message
news:37A1B26F.86E1088B@zip.com.au...
> > In article <37aa9a8f.47714499@news1.radix.net>, Ell <universe@radix.net>
wrote:
> >
> > >Why is it being reinjected at his ISP?
>
> Why are these messages appearing in other totally unrelated news
> groups.
>
> Conspiracy I think not.

No kidding. We had several *thousand* show up in comp.lang.smalltalk going
back over several years. c.l.s may have been the actual target and the other
groups got any messages that were originally cross posted to c.l.s.

-Eric

Re: Reposts of old news (was Re: RFD: comp.object.moderated moderated)

[Ken Foskey]

> In article <37aa9a8f.47714499@news1.radix.net>, Ell <universe@radix.net> wrote:
> 
> >Why is it being reinjected at his ISP?
> 

Why are these messages appearing in other totally unrelated news
groups.

Conspiracy I think not.

Re: Reposts of old news (was Re: RFD: comp.object.moderated moderated)

[Ell]

Ken Foskey <waratah@zip.com.au> wrote:

#> In article <37aa9a8f.47714499@news1.radix.net>, Ell <universe@radix.net> wrote:
#> 
#> >Why is it being reinjected at his ISP?
 
#Why are these messages appearing in other totally unrelated news
#groups.
#
#Conspiracy I think not.

Also a conspiracy is any joint action by people.  The creation of c.o.modeated
was a conspiracy by right wing software engineers to create a forum that
censors criticism of their right wing, conservative software engineering
ideas.

Elliott
--
   :=***=:  Objective  *  Holistic  *  Overall pre-code Modelling  :=***=:
                      Hallmarks of the best SW Engineering
   study Craftite vs. Full Blown OO:  http://www.access.digex.net/~ell
copyright 1999 Elliott. exclusive of others' writing. may be copied freely
                 only in comp., phil., sci. usenet & bitnet & otug.

Re: Reposts of old news (was Re: RFD: comp.object.moderated moderated)

[universe]

In comp.object Nic <remove_this_nidoyle@nortelnetworks.com> wrote:

> I have been reading Elliot's posts for the last few years, never making a comment up
> until now.

> Elliot you tend to allienate many people by your attempts to put people into
> categories defined by yourself.  I do believe you are quite intelligent and
> knowledgeable about OO and programming, but I have to admit that your articles rarely
> add value to a discussion and usual just prokoke a flame war.

Ni, how can I show intelligence, but my articles add little value.  You
can't have it both ways.  And sometimes a flame war is necessary.

> Please do everyone a favour and evaluate why myself and many otherssee you this way.

> By the way I am not part of the conspiracy, just a person interested in OO that is
> saddened to see one person wasting his possible valueable efforts posting the same
> responses they did when I first begun reading this newsgroup many years ago.

Do you realize that the post below was the result of someone
spamming comp.object with old messages?  That was the whole point of the
Subject of this thread.

Please try to be more alert.

Elliott


> Ell wrote:

>> Ken Foskey <waratah@zip.com.au> wrote:
>>
>> #> In article <37aa9a8f.47714499@news1.radix.net>, Ell <universe@radix.net> wrote:
>> #>
>> #> >Why is it being reinjected at his ISP?
>>
>> #Why are these messages appearing in other totally unrelated news
>> #groups.
>> #
>> #Conspiracy I think not.
>>
>> Also a conspiracy is any joint action by people.  The creation of c.o.modeated
>> was a conspiracy by right wing software engineers to create a forum that
>> censors criticism of their right wing, conservative software engineering
>> ideas.
>>
>> Elliott
>>

Re: Reposts of old news (was Re: RFD: comp.object.moderated moderated)

[Nic]

I have been reading Elliot's posts for the last few years, never making a comment up
until now.

Elliot you tend to allienate many people by your attempts to put people into
categories defined by yourself.  I do believe you are quite intelligent and
knowledgeable about OO and programming, but I have to admit that your articles rarely
add value to a discussion and usual just prokoke a flame war.

Please do everyone a favour and evaluate why myself and many otherssee you this way.

By the way I am not part of the conspiracy, just a person interested in OO that is
saddened to see one person wasting his possible valueable efforts posting the same
responses they did when I first begun reading this newsgroup many years ago.

Nic


Ell wrote:

> Ken Foskey <waratah@zip.com.au> wrote:
>
> #> In article <37aa9a8f.47714499@news1.radix.net>, Ell <universe@radix.net> wrote:
> #>
> #> >Why is it being reinjected at his ISP?
>
> #Why are these messages appearing in other totally unrelated news
> #groups.
> #
> #Conspiracy I think not.
>
> Also a conspiracy is any joint action by people.  The creation of c.o.modeated
> was a conspiracy by right wing software engineers to create a forum that
> censors criticism of their right wing, conservative software engineering
> ideas.
>
> Elliott
>