Paul W. Schleck wrote:
In .com writes:
Paul W. Schleck wrote:
[...]
In .com writes:
I would disagree that Usenet newsgroups have to be complex. For one
thing, we would propose to use Secure, Team-Based Usenet Moderation
Program (STUMP):
http://www.algebra.com/~ichudov/stump/
Looks doable. It appears to me, however, that every posting which gets
through the basic robofilters is approved by a moderator before posting
- is that true?
There's several modes that STUMP can operate in. It can always pass
articles to a moderator for full review. It can also operate against a
white-list of approved users and pass their articles on directly to the
newsgroup without moderator intervention. STUMP has some sanity
checking against forgeries and other inappropriate content, and this can
be reinforced with other mail-filtering front-ends such as Procmail (not
white-listing posts from known open/rogue news sites would be the main
enhancement we would add).
OK so far - all ways that reduce the number of posts a moderator has to
read.
The misc.kids.moderated team figured that if a poster was able to submit
three unique, timely, and on-topic articles that would otherwise be
approved by the moderation team based on other factors like civil tone
and respect for others' opinions, then that person could be trusted to
be white-listed in the future. Of course, there is always the option to
yank that white-listing if there is future misbehavior. White-listed
users would have to identify with what we reasonably believe to be an
unforged "Last Name or Callsign."
Sounds like a lot of rules but OK.
Incorrigible users with demonstrated and ongoing records of simply not
being able to respect, or debate fairly with, others could easily be
locked out of the newsgroup. Their articles wouldn't even be considered
by the newsgroup, as they would be bounced back without being viewed by
a moderator. Such permanent blacklisting should only be done in
exceptionally grave cases. We're contemplating starting everyone out
with a "clean" record, then applying a sliding scale of warnings and
temporary bans up to that ultimate penalty based on future behavior.
Specifics will be in the RFD.
And of course, there would be the gray areas such as submitters who can
contribute positively but need every article scrutinized for lapses, new
submitters without an established three-article track record for
white-listing, articles coming through open news servers such as Google
Groups or aioe.org where the source cannot be reasonably authenticated
by automated means, as well as other things that may require moderator
review such as SPAM that got through other filters, off-topic
submissions, etc. These will be directed to a queue for prompt review
by a member of the moderation team. Over time, the gray area should get
smaller and smaller, and thus our workload should reduce.
Which is a working, stable solution used by many other newsgroups we
would like to emulate, such as misc.kids.moderated. As with
misc.kids.moderated, most of the initial configuration work would simply
be figuring out who the white-list, black-list, and manual review
submitters would be, and it will not be necessary to read every article
submitted on an ongoing basis. As a result, we anticipate that the
workload will drop over time.
All of this will be discussed in much more detail in the upcoming RFD.
It seems to me that such a complex system would be needed for groups
with lots of different contributors. Does rrap really have that many
people reading it?
Thanks for the info!
---
And I'll repeat my other question:
If the FCC simply drops the code test, or makes it optional like Canada
did, what *other* policy topics would be on the table?
Probably some of things I mentioned in a previous reply to Len that
rebutted his assertion that the "sole purpose" of the newsgroup was to
debate Morse code testing:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.r...5697020?lnk=st
Regardless of the original purpose of rrap, its charter has broadened
to meet the name "policy"
In addition to the examples I mentioned, probably also the following:
- Where to fold in wider-band digital modes.
- Ongoing FCC attempts at mode-agnostic bandplanning, such as that
put forward in RM 11306.
- How to do this without overruning the amateur radio bands with closed,
proprietary systems being used as telecommunications substitutes, such
as ocean sailors' use of WinLink 2000.
Seems the right direction to me.
It also seems to me that such a moderated group could exist in parallel
with rrap as we know it today. Let those who do not want moderation
have their unmoderated forum, and those who can live with the
moderation rules have theirs.
73 de Jim, N2EY