Katie wrote:

You can't be serious. Why not include you? Because your objectionable and
continually disruptive behaviour preceeds you, Mark. Your record with QRZ is
one indicator, but the other, and worst, is that you were summarily banned
from the very bottom-feeder of groups, the Nim Busters board.
Your vote and/or comments is just what a new, moderated group does NOT need.
YOU are exactly what a moderated group is, by design, intending to prohibit.

You are solely responsible for your bed of thorns, Mark. Now lay in, accept
it, and stop whining.

Robesin, why do you lie about not posting anonymously?

wrote:
On 10 Jan 2007 20:10:12 -0800, wrote:


Katie wrote:

You can't be serious. Why not include you? Because your objectionable and
continually disruptive behaviour preceeds you, Mark. Your record with QRZ is
one indicator, but the other, and worst, is that you were summarily banned
from the very bottom-feeder of groups, the Nim Busters board.

BTW I just noticed this lie I have not been banned from Nimbusters
indeed according to the admin nobody is currectly banned

Your vote and/or comments is just what a new, moderated group does NOT need.
YOU are exactly what a moderated group is, by design, intending to prohibit.

You are solely responsible for your bed of thorns, Mark. Now lay in, accept
it, and stop whining.

Robesin, why do you lie about not posting anonymously?

indeed it may well be Robeson

Sounds like him. Lots of CAPS, use of "summarily" and ordering you to
lay in you "bed of thorns." Sheesh. I think all he learned from the
USMC was the drama from the guys in the campaign hats. Or from
watching too "Stripes" once too often.

any coment of the propoasol for moderation BB?

We've gone from Paul talking about this stuff a year ago to "POOF!" a
whole list of moderators and consultants, many of whom I've never heard
of and the others posting very infrequently, complete with a
constitution, articles of incorporation, and rules of enagement.

So when did all this happen?

And wh6hz thinks he gets to vote! Hi, hi!

wrote:
On 10 Jan 2007 20:56:05 -0800, wrote:


wrote:
On 10 Jan 2007 20:10:12 -0800, wrote:


Katie wrote:

You can't be serious. Why not include you? Because your objectionable and
continually disruptive behaviour preceeds you, Mark. Your record with QRZ is
one indicator, but the other, and worst, is that you were summarily banned
from the very bottom-feeder of groups, the Nim Busters board.

BTW I just noticed this lie I have not been banned from Nimbusters
indeed according to the admin nobody is currectly banned

Your vote and/or comments is just what a new, moderated group does NOT need.
YOU are exactly what a moderated group is, by design, intending to prohibit.

You are solely responsible for your bed of thorns, Mark. Now lay in, accept
it, and stop whining.

Robesin, why do you lie about not posting anonymously?

indeed it may well be Robeson

Sounds like him. Lots of CAPS, use of "summarily" and ordering you to
lay in you "bed of thorns." Sheesh. I think all he learned from the
USMC was the drama from the guys in the campaign hats. Or from
watching too "Stripes" once too often.

yep or full metal jacket or green berets

any coment of the propoasol for moderation BB?

We've gone from Paul talking about this stuff a year ago to "POOF!" a
whole list of moderators and consultants, many of whom I've never heard
of and the others posting very infrequently, complete with a
constitution, articles of incorporation, and rules of enagement.

you have have not heard of most of these folks either?

Nope.

So when did all this happen?

not sure

And wh6hz thinks he gets to vote! Hi, hi!

alegedly even I get to vote but nobody is saying how that works

I see nothing about this being a demoracy.

KH6HZ wrote:
Great proposal.

Agreed!

Can't wait to cast my vote for the affirmative.

Me too.

The only dissenting opinion you'll find are those who wish to spew their
sewage into a forum like such, and will otherwise be shut out from doing so.

That pretty much sums it up. I have observed the online behavior of
several of
the folks on the moderation team, and to a person they would all make
good
moderators IMHO. Not a clunker in the bunch I know.

I read several moderated reflectors. They are very well behaved.

73 es KC de JIm, N2EY

Jonathan Kamens wrote:
"an old freind" writes:
is it going to realy permited to coment on this propasal

Yes.

no sir it isn't the the fact you a memeber of this are mistaing as I
have shown in rrap on my blog

kb9rqz.blogspot.com

shows that this a farce and fraud

I have made 4
posts so far none have either been posted nor has anything returned to
my email box saying that the post has been rejected

Rejection notices were sent to for the articles
that were rejected. I have confirmed from examining the server logs
that those notices were successfully delivered to hotmail's servers. I
of course can't comment on what happened to them after that.

"Your submission has been rejected because it is off-topic in the
newsgroup news.groups.proposals. This newsgroup is for the
announcement, discussion, and development of active proposals for
changes to the Big 8 hierarchies, as documented at
http://www.big-8.org/. Discussion begins in news.groups.proposals
when the Request for Discussion (RFD) is posted in
news.announce.newgroups and continues until a decision is announced."

nothing about civl and the response was long this an obviosu farce sir
something I will where the posts are not moderated


Your previous two submissions (two, not four) were rejected both
because you quoted the entire RFD in your response and because you were
uncivil.

--
Member of the Big-8 Management Board, www.big-8.org
(Speaking for myself, not for the Board)

wrote:
which works how given the moderation has not cleared a single post of
mine that I am aware to the proposal gruop where it bleong I am
frankly dubious of the concet proposed if I am excluded from that
process My posts have neither apeared nor has anything been the email
account they were tagged with indiacted they have
been rejected

If you are talking about posts to news.groups.proposals being rejected,
I'd like to point out that nobody on the proposed moderation team has
any control over that group. If your posts are not reaching the
moderators for some reason, who's falut is that? Or if the rejection
messages are being lost after they are sent, who needs to look into
that?

This has nothing to do with the proposed group or it's moderation
team..

-= bob =-

wrote:
On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 08:45:08 -0600, "Paul W. Schleck, K3FU"
wrote:

REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
moderated group rec.radio.amateur.moderated


this whole thing is a farce any dicussion not aprved of aboutt his
proposal is rejected by the offical gruop as off topic



Ahhhh.. So you are getting rejection messages from them... Then the
system is working correctly.

Again, I have no control over the Big8 moderation decisions, but I
think I understand why this last post was rejected... Seems you where
trying to engage the moderator in a debate about why he rejected your
posts and they think that is off topic.

-= bob =-

"KC4UAI" ) writes:
wrote:
which works how given the moderation has not cleared a single post of
mine that I am aware to the proposal gruop where it bleong I am
frankly dubious of the concet proposed if I am excluded from that
process My posts have neither apeared nor has anything been the email
account they were tagged with indiacted they have
been rejected

If you are talking about posts to news.groups.proposals being rejected,
I'd like to point out that nobody on the proposed moderation team has
any control over that group. If your posts are not reaching the
moderators for some reason, who's falut is that? Or if the rejection
messages are being lost after they are sent, who needs to look into
that?

This has nothing to do with the proposed group or it's moderation
team..

And of course, early on news.groups.proposals was dropped from the
crossposted by one of the repliers, so most of the posts in these
two newsgroups aren't even being seen by the moderators in
news.groups.proposals

I don't know whether that was deliberate, or just cluelessness.

ANd if they are getting over there but being rejected, one immediate
reason I can see as a possible reason is the quoting of the full
message being replied to, which often includes the full text of
previous messages, with only a line or two of "new material". That
makes it really hard to grasp what is being added, or even that
is being added.

But that isn't really a surprise, since that is some of the problem
we are seeing in the rec.radio.amateur.* hierarchy.

I gather news.groups.proposals has gone to moderated status (I don't
remember it being so the last time I looked, years back) in order to
keep existing feuds out of that newsgroup. But a lot of the replies
here are that existing feud.

FInally, of course if people aren't posting with legit email addresses,
and I don't know if that's the case, then the moderators can't reach
the posters to acknowledge receipt of the post, or acknowledge acceptance
or rejection of those posts.

Michael VE2BVW

wrote:

That pretty much sums it up. I have observed the online behavior of
several of the folks on the moderation team, and to a person they
would all make good moderators IMHO.

I've probably exchanged "words" with several members of the moderation team
over the years.

I certainly have no problems with any of them.

I believe the only ones who will are those who have issues with
self-restraint, which is exactly why this newsgroup has become a cesspool.
Best to stay above the fray and ignore the anklebiters.

73
KH6HZ

wrote:
On 10 Jan 2007 19:17:47 -0800, "KC4UAI" wrote:



I would not expect that any of this would be "in play" in a new group.
Read the proposed criteria and decide for yourself. I for one don't
intend to be heavy handed in the moderation. Stay on topic and be
respectful to others and I'm not going to reject your posts.

I do expect it play it has too ingrained in this gruop to expect it is
going away anytime soon

but somebody else can and indeed how will I even know it was done?

again I ask and have received no answer how does the process of
rejection occour and how will I know about it has happend given the
time between anything being sient to me about the offical comment gruop
and time they were sent I hav e to wonder how timely such a response
will be

snip Nowhere does the proposed policy list "disagreement with the
moderator's personal views" as grounds for rejection of posts.

so what? your moderator are indeed stil human

Thus the appeals process. I don't expect that we will always get it
100% right the first time, but I hope we can keep things in the center
of the road most of the time by getting a number of folks all looking
at it objectively.

which work HOW? I certainly see nothing that tells how I will know a
post has been rejected or why or anything on how this apeals process
is suposed to work

again how is this suposed to work how can anyone be assured it will
occour in a timely manner