From Newsgroup: alt.culture.usenet

"A natural response to the examples of detailed correspondence
provided to problem users that have a history of rejected submissions
to moderated newsgroups (examples that were just posted to this
subreddit), is why go to all of this trouble? Why not just ban them,
or even pre-emptively ban them, and without detailed explanation? Most
of the time, these users won't take feedback, even constructive
feedback provided privately, and may choose to argue in public about
it."

https://www.reddit.com/r/ClassicUsenet/comments/1tn9a2m/why_do_newsgroup_moderators_go_to_so_much_trouble/

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.culture.usenet

On Mon, 25 May 2026 15:05:10 -0000 (UTC)
pschleck@panix.com (Paul W. Schleck) wrote:

"A natural response to the examples of detailed correspondence
provided to problem users that have a history of rejected submissions
to moderated newsgroups (examples that were just posted to this
subreddit), is why go to all of this trouble? Why not just ban them,
or even pre-emptively ban them, and without detailed explanation? Most
of the time, these users won't take feedback, even constructive
feedback provided privately, and may choose to argue in public about
it."

https://www.reddit.com/r/ClassicUsenet/comments/1tn9a2m/why_do_newsgroup_moderators_go_to_so_much_trouble/

ffi see the junk that gets into unnm from rejects on ulm.

xposted to unnm, news.groups dropped due to max 3 xposts limit.
--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.culture.usenet

In article <10v1of6$okq$1@reader1.panix.com>, pschleck@panix.com (Paul W. Schleck) wrote:

"A natural response to the examples of detailed correspondence
provided to problem users that have a history of rejected submissions
to moderated newsgroups (examples that were just posted to this
subreddit), is why go to all of this trouble? Why not just ban them,
or even pre-emptively ban them, and without detailed explanation? Most
of the time, these users won't take feedback, even constructive
feedback provided privately, and may choose to argue in public about
it."

https://www.reddit.com/r/ClassicUsenet/comments/1tn9a2m/why_do_newsgroup_moderators_go_to_so_much_trouble/

Well, I think it's always been obvious to me, at least, that the game
isn't to post to the moderated group, it's to get a post rejected from the moderated group and then draw the moderator into an endless flame war
about it elsewhere; uk.net.news.moderation has a couple of decades of
evidence supporting this theory.

Trolls are gonna troll, that's a fact of life. The only answer is to block
and move on.

Do not feed the trolls, the truest piece of internet wisdom ever uttered,
and I say that as someone who has enjoyed my fair share of trolling.
Ignore us and we lose interest, and move on to the next mark and try to
get a bite. That's the game, my friend. People are arseholes, that'll
never change.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.culture.usenet

On 25 May 2026 at 17:48:26 BST, ""Kerr-Mudd, John"" <admin@127.0.0.1> wrote:

On Mon, 25 May 2026 15:05:10 -0000 (UTC)
pschleck@panix.com (Paul W. Schleck) wrote:

"A natural response to the examples of detailed correspondence
provided to problem users that have a history of rejected submissions
to moderated newsgroups (examples that were just posted to this
subreddit), is why go to all of this trouble? Why not just ban them,
or even pre-emptively ban them, and without detailed explanation? Most
of the time, these users won't take feedback, even constructive
feedback provided privately, and may choose to argue in public about
it."

https://www.reddit.com/r/ClassicUsenet/comments/1tn9a2m/why_do_newsgroup_moderators_go_to_so_much_trouble/

ffi see the junk that gets into unnm from rejects on ulm.

xposted to unnm, news.groups dropped due to max 3 xposts limit.

It is indeed good to know that at least one person takes the Office of usenet moderator with the utmost seriousness; and gravity.

(FU set to unnm)
--

Roger Hayter
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.culture.usenet

In <vintageapplemac-2505261855100001@pmg3> vintageapplemac@gmail.com (scole) writes:

[...]

Do not feed the trolls, the truest piece of internet wisdom ever uttered,
and I say that as someone who has enjoyed my fair share of trolling.
Ignore us and we lose interest, and move on to the next mark and try to
get a bite. That's the game, my friend. People are arseholes, that'll
never change.

But isn't a solution that requires the perfect cooperation of
everyone, everywhere, now, and in the future, hopelessly brittle, and
therefore impractical? Doesn't it just serve as a excuse to transfer
blame to the victim? Has this strategy ever worked long-term on an
unmoderated newsgroup in the modern era of general public-access
Internet (post-Eternal September)? Furthermore, what stops ignored
trolls from going on the offensive with stalking, harassment, threats,
doxxing, etc.? Or even prevents the trolls from turning on each
other, which we have also seen in the past? How useful is a newsgroup
that is all trolls, because everyone with something useful to say is
ignoring them, and not contributing?

What do you think of the following advice?:


(Disable JavaScript in your browser to read the linked article at theverge.com)

The conventional wisdom about not feeding trolls makes online abuse worse - The Verge
https://www.reddit.com/r/ClassicUsenet/comments/uiaxyk/the_conventional_wisdom_about_not_feeding_trolls/


"Do not feed the trolls" also seems to be arguments #4 and 6 in the
following list:


Common fallacious arguments against moderated newsgroups https://www.reddit.com/r/ClassicUsenet/comments/udu379/common_fallacious_arguments_against_moderated/

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2