OT: Read this only if you post on Google

For the record.

I used to agree with that site and even flew that URL in my signature for quite a while. I removed it many months ago having seen some well reasoned arguments by some very smart people to do so. At that time I also stopped kill filing Google Groups users based on where they post from.

I still don't like what Google is doing to Usenet however, but my issue is now and always has been with Google Groups, not its users.

It just shows that there are those who think of usenet for usenet's sake and that we should perhaps be more sensitive to that aspect because they are the ones that keep the wheels and cogs greased.

I asked Google about moderation. Let's see if they respond.

Part of your rationale to moderate in place is to preserve the history / tradition of comp.cad.solidworks. Usenet pre-dates the Internet. And the Internet far pre-dates Solidworks. Before TCP/IP was created network news was transferred using UUCP (Unix to Unix copy) over direct phone modem connections. Remember the acoustic couplers of days of yore? Anyway, if ccs history is important, so is Usenet history. You don't get to pick and choose which history and traditions are important while ignoring others.

As of this morning, three of the 9 Big 8 board members so far have said they wouldn't vote for moderation in place.

An extremely tough road is ahead of you if you continue. Best of luck to you if you do.

Paul, Thanks for the link. Ever since that free german newsreader became 'not so free', I have just used Google Groups because it was easy. I had no idea that I was a pariah/lamer for doing it via Google. Guilty as charged

I never felt especially cool posting here, but I felt I was helping so the act itself was cool from the standpoint of the golden rule. I had no idea that the source of my posts would tag me somehow as a lamer.

If you and I are from the same tribe in hoping to bring this newsgroup back to the great tool that it was (and I think you are), I think that it needs to embrace the google posters. There are folks who work in environments that will not allow them to download newsreader software but still have stuff to add to the conversation about SolidWorks. I think that the restrictions (logins, licensing info issues, etc) are the worst thing about the Solidworks hosted forums - it would be great if there was one place where we could go without restrictions (except for extremely minor moderation to take care of EXTREME violations and abuse)

-Ed 'lamer' Eaton

Content over container. If people won't read the message just because of the envelope it is in, then they are the lame ones.

Artful analogy. Thanks. Ed

Which is interesting because I haven't even started the process to present the moderation to them. It seems somebody prematurely cross posted this discussion to news.groups in order to derail. The procedure to get such changes starts with discussion on the forum in question and THEN moves to news.groups when there is consensus.

I am sure you will support the group when it comes down to it. But then, maybe not.

That may be how you perceive it but that's not the case. Knowing for certain a proposal to change any newsgroup from unmoderated to moderated wouldn't pass a vote by the B8MB (I've been reading news.groups for many many years now, unlike you and seemingly everyone who posts here I know how Usenet works and how things are done on it) I did you a BIG favor. Like Gary Burnore (owner and admin of nntp server news.databasix.com) said, "you should be thanking" me, not criticizing me.

It doesn't matter when/if your alleged proposal to moderate ccs in place was discussed in news.groups, the results would have undoubtedly been exactly the same.

Do not blame your own ignorance of how things are done on Usenet and in the Big 8 hierarchy on me.

Do consider yourself educated, however.

You're welcome.

I'll likely never support moderating an existing unmoderated newsgroup simply because it is impossible for it to be 100% successful. I can't even say I'd support a companion moderated group at this time. I'd have to see the rationale for creating the group in a formal RFD and the ensuing discussion in news.groups.proposals and news.groups before making up my mind.

And for what it's worth, if the rationale to create a new moderated newsgroup is merely to just get rid of the little bit of noise posted here, that is yet another up hill battle.

It needs to be known proposals for moderated groups to replace groups which are far far more troll infested than ccs is now have failed miserably. However, such proposals have been successful too. Suggest look up discussion in news.groups and news.groups.proposals about rec.ponds.moderated being created to supplant rec.ponds mainly because of an extremely vicious flame war between two people. Do keep in mind what you see here in ccs is barely a blip on the radar in comparison.

Of course, you said creating another moderated group isn't a viable alternative anyway, so what I just had to say is irrelevant because I'm here just to derail any proposals, eh?

BD,

Yes I'm not as Usenet savvy as you. But I am doing my homework and I did read the Big8 wiki before starting in on this and familiarized myself with their written procedures. I felt that part of my job is to educate those that would moderate as well as the group on just how these changes work and indeed how the Usenet is setup because most people who post here, and rightly so, concern themselves with SW much more than the intricacies of Usenet. That is not to disparage Usenet, it is just a fact of life. As it is I think that the majority of SW users on the thread in question were not even aware of the implications of the cross post so those who were most vociferous there were the against crowd. And the Big8 folks saw only those agree/disagree posts and discounted them all as the result of Matt's blog which I can assure you they weren't.

I'm not that dumb to not know that uucp and the usenet were in place prior to what we now know as the internet. Having done email on bitnet many years ago from an IBM main frame I have watched this history unfold. I have used uucp dialup connections many moons ago. And I used to use the venerable dialup bbs. In fact I still have my Sinclair 1000 around somewhere along with a Vic-20, C64 and Amiga. I even have a CPM Kaypro and a couple 8088 PCs and a Compaq luggable. But that is not the history I am talking about. When I speak of history in the context of ccsw the word refers to the archive of usenet postings that is kept, AFAIK, only on Google. This archive goes back to the first days of ccsw and is a SolidWorks history, not a history of networking or usenet in particular. Because it is only on Google it makes sense to use Google for a newsreader as well.

TOP

Cross posting to news.groups had nothing to do with it, Matt's blog had nothing to do with it. If you read what the board members said, even a 100% YES vote from this group wouldn't make a difference those board members who replied, they were all NO votes. The board is predisposed to vote NO and they were quite clear why, none of the real reasons for their NO vote have anything to do with what you posted in the above quote.

Tom

ya know,.. the more I read about usenet,.. the more I see the people involved to be conservative gate keepers of a dilapidated antiquated system,.. and,.. that is,.. the problem, issue,..

What they write is not what they mean or what they stand for,.. free speech? I see this charade as another form of broken control.

I feel like I read something from the GOP.

..

That's pretty perceptive. You must have kids. Fortunately this to will pass. Twenty years from now what we all know as Usenet, or the Internet for that matter, will appear to be either a bad joke or a good initial attempt that lead to something better.

There are some on the Big8 that see the usenet as staying like it is. There are some who accept it for what it is but sigh when doing so. And there are some that would like to change it. What is needed is an answer to how to do what we wanted to do without Redmond or Washington becoming involved. We are asking to tame the tongues of men, something no man can do.

The biggest problem is that while the usenet software is capable of doing what we want, it is highly configurable but many server admins just won't allow it to be configured as we would like. If we could somehow get google to allow us to moderate their feed only we would solve a lot. And if we formed a new group it would take time to propagate it to the thousands of servers. It is too bad that the RFD for usenet doesn't allow local moderation or maybe it does and I don't know.

Unfortunately we can't model it in SW and make the problem go away either :).

TOP