Yes, it will. And then it will sit there, occupying name space until the end of time, collecting nothing but spam posts. It's *very* difficult to get rid of a group once it's created.
Generally accepted as a win, IMO, but (again IMO) that was because it added some variety to the existing fare. The proposed new newsgroup will add nothing. And hence it's useless. Worse than useless, actually, for the reasons I noted previously.
-- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com You must use your REAL email address to get a response.
snipped-for-privacy@webtv.net (J T) wrote in news:19640-415F7C97-191@storefull-
3152.bay.webtv.net:
Actually, remember when we had the Dizum.com invasion? IIRC, you were a victim of those attacks, JOAT. Dizum said that they were willing to block any newsgroup with a ban on remailers in their charter, but since the wreck has no charter, they wouldn't block us. I noticed that the soft wreck has a clear ban on remailer posts in the proposed charter, so Dizum would probably block that group if it were to be created. Charters also matter to Ebay auctions too. Ebay does act on Usenet charter violations.
I agree that most ISPs will not act on charter violations, but there are a few examples above of entities that will act, and who knows what the future will bring.
For the record, I abstained on the soft wreck vote.
Was it ever established that the message making that claim actually came from Dizum? Around the same time, there was at least one other similar post, purporting to be from Dizum, which was demonstrated to be bogus. It's worth noting that neither their published abuse policy nor their mail-to-news gateway page makes any mention of this supposed policy.
In any event, Dizum is only one of a host of anonymous remailers. If a troll finds his access through Dizum to be shut down, so what? He'll just find another group.
And Google might as well be an anonymous remailer. Anybody can open a hotmail or yahoo account, use that ID to sign up with Google, and post any trash he pleases. Google will respond, eventually, to complaints of abuse, but all they do [in fact, all they *can* do] is shut off the Google Groups account involved. They don't/won't/can't prevent the culprit from immediately opening up another Google Groups account using a different email address from hotmail or yahoo.
.. If, in fact, that is actually Dizum's policy, a proposition that is not supported by Dizum's published "standards", such as they are.
But as noted above, Dizum is only one way, of many, by which trolls gain access to newsgroups. Even if Dizum shuts him/them off, that won't keep him/it/them out.
Thus, this argument in favor of the proposed new group holds no water.
Yep, and IMO that alone is sufficient reason to vote NO. What's the problem with occasional posts such as "FA: 3HP 10-inch blurfl" with a link to the eBay auction page?
Some will, I imagine. And the charter of the proposed new group would outlaw
*any* postings offering *anything* for sale or trade. That's a very, very bad idea IMO.
And for the record, I voted NO.
-- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com You must use your REAL email address to get a response.
snipped-for-privacy@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote in news:AKf8d.13748$m%. snipped-for-privacy@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com:
I was not arguing in favor of the new group. I did not vote "yes". I was pointing out to JOAT that there are some instances where a charter can matter.
snipped-for-privacy@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote in news:AKf8d.13748$m%. snipped-for-privacy@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com:
I don't have a problem with Ebay posts here, but you just clarified that charters can have some bearing. That was my point. I never told you to vote "yes" on the soft wreck. I did not vote "yes" either.
And my point was that this is not one of them; at least not one in which the charter can make a *beneficial* difference.
Even granting the somewhat dubious assumption that the charter would cause Dizum to block access through *their* mail-to-news gateway,
1) many other similar gateways exist, and\
2) it's still wide-open through Google.
And the proposed charter, if enforced, would shut off *all* commercial posts, no matter how limited in frequency, including posts which many of us find to be of benefit.
-- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com You must use your REAL email address to get a response.
I never said that charters didn't have any bearing, just that in this case at least, the only discernible effects the charter would have are negative.
-- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com You must use your REAL email address to get a response.
snipped-for-privacy@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote in news:nDh8d.13918$ snipped-for-privacy@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com:
They would not be perceived as negative by those in favor of the inclusions. Again. my point was just to demonstrate to JOAT that charters can have some bearing..I agree not much, but *some*. Whether or not you like the specific aspects of the charter have no bearing on that.
The point being that creation of the new group has numerous negative aspects (which have been cited ad nauseum in earlier posts, by myself and many others) and I'm arguing that the charter does not, in fact, provide any discernible positive aspects which would counterbalance the negatives. Thus the creation of the new group has an overall negative effect.
-- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com You must use your REAL email address to get a response.
If by "some" you mean "only infinitesimally greater than zero" I guess I'd have to agree.
In the only aspect that is likely to make much difference to JOAT, that would have to be *none*, not "some". As I pointed out, closing off one mail-to-news gateway of the hundreds that exist not only won't stop the troll(s), it won't even slow them down very much.
-- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com You must use your REAL email address to get a response.
On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 16:07:38 GMT, patrick conroy calmly ranted:
Someone doesn't like the OT chatter so they want to start a new group and that's "ill-advised"? (NOTE: Buzzword used.)
RIGHT! Instead, these guys want to stop it from happening even though they won't be participating. I'm amazed at the answers some of these folks are giving in an attempt to justify their closed-mindedness. I view it as an additional "channel". Why can't they? Feh! Children.
C - Both of the above. The second WB and Fox came online, I went to watch some of the new shows that the other networks didn't have. Occasionally, it made me choose between an existing show and the new one. Usually, though, it was an addition since the crap on the other networks wasn't worth watching anyway.
Prometheus wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:
Crossposting to the wreck is explicitly banned by the charter of the soft wreck, IIRC.
Lemme check the proposal.....
Yep.
Message-ID:
"In general, crossposting is not encouraged. If you feel the need to crosspost between rec.woodworking.all-ages and another newsgroup, please only do it if the post is on-topic to all groups in the crosspost. Please limit crossposts to a maximum of two or three groups, and set follow-ups to a single group if you must crosspost. Posts should never be crossposted between rec.woodworking.all-ages and rec.woodworking under any circumstances."
Not just a new group. An IDENTICAL group, save for the name. There's no mechanism to and no explanation as to how the new group would prevent OT chatter. Ill-advised is exactly the right word.
Unfortunately, once the new newsgroup is determined to suck and the traffic withers and dies the mechanism stays forever and irretrievably in place, taking up cyberspace for no good reason.
Why wouldn't you want to prevent that from happening?
Because it's not. It's essentially a mirror of the wreck. What purpose does it serve? What function can it perform but to confuse and then eventually just take up space.
Ah, now we're down to ad hominem attacks. That's your "attempt to justify [your] closed-mindedness." Why not just invoke the feuhrer's name and get it over with?
And continues to confuse new people, who will have none of the history as to why the whithered group was created in the first place.
If the proponents had had the balls to stick to their moderated group proposal and address the concerns raised about the abilities and stability of the moderation team and mechanisms I probably would have voted yes.
I told one of the proponents that in an email that never got a reply.
Why are they afraid to confront criticism and address it?
The proposal doesn't deserve a yes vote, IMO, for just those reasons.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.