Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!rutgers!mailrus!ames!killer!loci From: loci@killer.DALLAS.TX.US (loci!clb) Newsgroups: news.admin Subject: Why is net noise tolerated? Summary: moderation needed Message-ID: <5651@killer.DALLAS.TX.US> Date: 27 Sep 88 23:52:27 GMT References: <285@sulaco.UUCP> Organization: The Unix(R) Connection, Dallas, Texas Lines: 93 In article <285@sulaco.UUCP>, allen@sulaco.UUCP (Allen Gwinn) writes: > > As most Usenetters realize, there has been a 'disgusting slime throwing The relationship of Guinn's posting to net.admin is rather vague, but it does touch on several subjects which have been recently raised in this group which deserve comment. It also represents an example of the kind of personal attacks which serve no purpose but are all too frequently posted to the net. >Message-Id: <8809261657.AA06031@sulaco.UUCP> >From: allen@sulaco.UUCP (Allen Gwinn) > >Since you've decided to be a pain in the ass, deal with this :-) When >you want to shape up and act civil, I will reciprocate. Until then, get >used to being flame-thrower fodder... and by the way, I can keep going >at this just as long as you can. Several people have mentioned that they receive flames by e-mail on a regular basis and it appears that this problem is more widespread than I previously realized. Does anyone have advice on dealing with this kind of thing? I know that simply ignoring them doesn't do any good and even seems to inflame the sender more, causing them to resort to public flames. While it seems that the correct answer is better education for these people, that is impractical to do via the net. It appears that what is required is some monetary deterent, perhaps a "stamp" charge similar to sending a letter: if it cost $1 for each frivolous flame, I suspect these people would lose interest in a hurry. >Ok... I've been archiving too, Chucky. Lets have a go at it. Keep in >mind that NONE of this is EMAIL, these are things that Chucky has posted Another problem which comes up is the practice of quoting postings out of context with the intent of mis-representing the ideas originally expressed. While is is obviously a good policy to reduce the amount of duplication, the reader is not served when a poster slants or "spins" the words of another because the readers are not able to analyze and decide on the ideas for themselves. If the arguments won't hold water then everyone will know it and mis-quoting only serves to hide the fact that the flamer's position won't stand up to scutiny. The only solution that I can see for this problem is moderation of all groups. If the intent is to get votes or to sell products, "spin" may serve a purpose, but if efficient use of bandwidth is desired, spin only serves to create controversy and increase the noise level. For example, in the referenced article, an attempt is made to paint the act of writing ones congressman as somehow subversive. Readers of rec.ham-radio know that they were encouraged to write to their elected representatives in the case of UPS and the FCC. In sci.space readers are being asked to write of their concerns about SDI. This is obviously a basic right and a responsibility of good citizens. To make a claim or insinuation that this is wrong is flagging the critic's point of view as weak and indefensible and a waste of net space. The net isn't the best medium for discussions of controversial subjects, partially because of the delay time involved in the dialog and partly because of the factionalization which tends to occur. Moderation of the groups seems to be the best solution to keep this kind of abuse under control. Another benefit of moderation is to give the group a memory: in the referenced posting there is mention of "yacc" being distributed without permission. However just a couple of months before this issue was raised, the subject of "yacc" was thoroughly hashed out and the vast majority of net readers were fully aware of the problem. A moderator would recognize this kind of situation and could thereby reduce repetition. There has also been a certain amount of talk about legal implications of various practices seen on Usenet. Moderation would serve to filter those postings which might tend to involve individuals and companies that support the net. Given the number of infractions it's not likely that a judge or jury would consider the weak disclaimer in .newusers would be adequate to insulate the major sites from some responsibility. It would be much better to head off the problems before they cause serious trouble. Note that calling for moderation of groups is a change in my position as I previously felt that it would tend to isolate groups and restrict access for posters. However it has become increasingly clear that abusers benefit more than responsible posters from free access. From my experience the greatest reader interest is in software, discussions generating some interest but free programs being much more popular. Moderation of these groups has worked well and serves as a prototype. -- CLBrunow - KA5SOF Loci Products, POB 833846-131, Richardson, Texas 75083 clb@loci.uucp, loci@killer.uucp, loci@csccat.uucp