| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 27 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 46:13:03 |
| Calls: | 632 |
| Calls today: | 3 |
| Files: | 1,187 |
| D/L today: |
24 files (29,813K bytes) |
| Messages: | 176,482 |
For groups in the latter category, I'm considering setting up some kind of >robo-moderation service for them. This would have a couple of benefits:
it would give time to try converting a group to unmoderated as a test
case, and would also permit seeing whether anyone is still attempting
to post to the groups. It could therefore serve as a temporary measure
if it's unclear what the best course of action would be.
A robo-moderation system could also be a starting point for a more
general moderation platform. Currently, a serious problem is that >prospective moderators can't simply start moderating a group: they need
to set up email addresses, install and configure software (most of which
is outdated and awkward to set up), and get their Usenet provider to
allow them to post approved messages (which not all providers will be >willing to do). If we're going to have a mass deletion of groups without >moderators, I think we also ought to make sure that moderating a group
is not an unreasonably difficult thing to start doing.
Thoughts?
R
On 3/13/25 8:42 AM, Paul W. Schleck wrote:
I expect that a reasonable person would shut off the robo-moderator in
- Ethical considerations
What if you just wind up automatically relaying off-topic material and
SPAM? What if some or all of the content is unlawful [...]
that event.
REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)snip
This is a formal Request for Discussion (RFD) to remove the following
99 moderated newsgroups.
RATIONALE:
Currently, these groups cannot be used for discussion because of the
lack of a moderator. Most of these groups haven't had a moderator for
a long time and have been unused for years. We consider it unlikely
that they will ever be revived with a new moderator. Nonetheless,
anyone interested in becoming a moderator for a group listed in this
RFD is invited to contact the Big-8 Management Board.
On 3/14/25 10:16 AM, Paul W. Schleck wrote:
Such a service would realistically have to employ monitoring/alerting,
SPAM filtering, keyword trapping, duplicate detection, rate limiting,
and manual review of any queued articles for false positives. This is
starting to resemble the duties of a human moderator, and a significant
workload for one volunteer long-term.
Are you volunteering to run the robo-moderator?
For groups in the latter category, I'm considering setting up some kind of >robo-moderation service for them. This would have a couple of benefits:
it would give time to try converting a group to unmoderated as a test
case, and would also permit seeing whether anyone is still attempting
to post to the groups. It could therefore serve as a temporary measure
if it's unclear what the best course of action would be.
A robo-moderation system could also be a starting point for a more
general moderation platform. Currently, a serious problem is that >prospective moderators can't simply start moderating a group: they need
to set up email addresses, install and configure software (most of which
is outdated and awkward to set up), and get their Usenet provider to
allow them to post approved messages (which not all providers will be >willing to do). If we're going to have a mass deletion of groups without >moderators, I think we also ought to make sure that moderating a group
is not an unreasonably difficult thing to start doing.
Thoughts?
R
Personally, I think this robo-moderation idea has the risk of being a
lot of effort for little reward.
On Fri, 14 Mar 2025 19:58:41 -0400, Paul W. Schleck wrote:
Personally, I think this robo-moderation idea has the risk of being a
lot of effort for little reward.
I agree with this statement.
[news.groups.proposals removed from the newsgroups list because my
previous post was refused because "you can't crosspost between
news.groups and news.groups.proposals"]
It's not like removing 100ish dead groups from the list is going to
affect anyone. There are vanishingly few people wandering around
Usenet looking for places to post. The folks who are here are using
the groups they know and it is excruciatingly rare that they find
themselves wanting to post outside of those groups.
New users . . . Wait. There are none.
On 15.03.2025 17:50 Uhr Steve Bonine wrote:
[news.groups.proposals removed from the newsgroups list because my
previous post was refused because "you can't crosspost between
news.groups and news.groups.proposals"]
This has been fixed. If it is still not working, please contact board@big-8.org.
It's not like removing 100ish dead groups from the list is going to
affect anyone. There are vanishingly few people wandering around
Usenet looking for places to post. The folks who are here are using
the groups they know and it is excruciatingly rare that they find
themselves wanting to post outside of those groups.
New users . . . Wait. There are none.
Some are there - I was one of them, even when 3 years ago.
In <vqtir0$2ukis$1@dont-email.me> Rayner Lucas ><usenet2025@magic-cookie.co.ukNOSPAMPLEASE> writes:
[snip suggestion of robo-moderating some groups]
Not necessarily saying that it applies here, but there have been
multiple past efforts to save or robo-moderate newsgroups by parties who >might have even had a direct subject-matter interest in the specific >newsgroups. They eventually gave up because the newsgroups were empty
or they wound up only relaying trash (abuse, off-topic, and SPAM).
You may even be criticized for doing the "wrong" things (whatever others >think "wrong" is).
Will your provider charge by the byte? Do you have the resources to
pay for long-term access to bulk Usenet? What happens if you go away
(other time commitments, health, death, etc.). Who will take over?
What if you just wind up automatically relaying off-topic material and
SPAM? What if some or all of the content is unlawful (offshore
gambling, marketing scams, drugs, human trafficking, etc.) or >denial-of-service flooding? Will others understand that even though you
are the poster, you are just automatically relaying it without review?
Do the laws in your jurisdiction protect you? Do you have the resources
to obtain legal advice and representation if you get into trouble?
Marco Moock wrote:
On 15.03.2025 17:50 Uhr Steve Bonine wrote:
[news.groups.proposals removed from the newsgroups list because my
previous post was refused because "you can't crosspost between
news.groups and news.groups.proposals"]
This has been fixed. If it is still not working, please contact board@big-8.org.
Since I see items crossposted now between the two newsgroups, I
assume it is working. I don't quite understand the "has been fixed" phrasing. When I was a moderator for several years, humans actually
read the submissions. This is apparently no longer true.
Also on news.groups, Steve Bonine warned that when groups are removed,
the history associated with the contents of the group will disappear,
which could hinder people doing (historical) research.-a He agreed that removing the unused groups in the RFD would prevent users from wasting
their time posting into the void, but said that at this time it's not
worth the effort to delete them.-a Winston shared Steve Bonine's
concern about the contents of deleted groups disappearing.-a Computer
Nerd Kev said that converting the groups to unmoderated ones may work
around this problem.