[Meta] POLL: Who here would support a moderated version of rec.photo.digital?

"Lionel" wrote in message
...


Just don't do it with cross-posted content provided by others from
another group. I'll read/post wherever I want. That's my call, not
yours. If you can't do it with your own content then you probably
shouldn't be doing it.

Mm. I can see that this is a topic that needs further discussion.

Thanks. That's what I've been trying to get across.


You know that that post was from our resident troll, & that he's edited
what I actually said in order to scare people? Read the whole thread, &
you'll see what I *actually* said. If you want to argue the *facts* with
me, (instead of what the porno-troll says I said), I'll be happy to do
so.

Bad Orville. Sorry about that, Lionel.

Anyway, his edits were mostly a matter of "have now" vs "will have." Do you
indeed have a filtered version of this group up and running? Can we all get
a look at it?

WebKatz wrote :
Do you
indeed have a filtered version of this group up and running? Can we all get
a look at it?

I'll vote yes for the moderated group. Navigation has been getting
rather troublesome in here. :-(

--
ME!

Kibo informs me that "WebKatz" stated that:

"Lionel" wrote in message
.. .
[...]
Just don't do it with cross-posted content provided by others from
another group. I'll read/post wherever I want. That's my call, not
yours. If you can't do it with your own content then you probably
shouldn't be doing it.

Mm. I can see that this is a topic that needs further discussion.

Thanks. That's what I've been trying to get across.

Okay, this raises complex issues that have come up in the past, so I
think it's time for Usenet History Class.
I don't know if you were reading Usenet back when Dejanews (since
bought out by Google) came along, but quite a few people objected to
Deja/Google pulling articles from Usenet & archiving them for much the
same reasons that you're objecting to the idea of your posts being
snarfed into another newsgroup. There was much debate on this amongst
users & newsadmins (the people who run the various news servers that
collectively comprise Usenet), & the consensus was that because Usenet
works on a store & forward mechanism, once a person sent a post to a
news server, they had no further control over it, & that Deja/Google had
just as much right to store & display peoples' posts as any other news
server does. Legally speaking, the analogy is of people sticking notes
up on a public noticeboard in a town square - once you do that, you've
*given away* your right to control the dissemination of your words. For
example, (still following the noticeboard analogy), you have no right to
prevent someone walking up & taking photographing your note on the
noticeboard, & sticking that photo up on a noticeboard in another town.
The principle behind this decision has been followed consistantly ever
since, & is generally applicable to any other mechanism like it. How
does that apply to this situation? - Well, you're probably not going to
like this, but what it means is that it's considered perfectly okay both
ethically & legally for anyone who runs a news server to echo someone's
posts into a private newsgroup, if they so desire. This also applies to
reposting aticle from one newsgroup to another, as long as such
reposting is permitted by the charter of the *second* newsgroup. The
charter of the *first* newsgroup, or the wishes of the users in that
group has no say in the issue.
Now, this is nothing new at all, & there are several newsgroups that
consist of nothing but articles reposted from other newsgroups. One of
the best known such groups is alt.humor.best-of-usenet, a group
specifically created for people to repost posts from other parts of
Usenet that they found funny:
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/best-of-usenet-humor/
(Sidenote: You might be amused to note that the AHBOU FAQ has two
entries that are a direct result of a huge fight certain troublemakers
*cough* had with the AHBOU moderators a while back, in which w^Hthey
strenously objected to AHBOU reposting stuff from a particular newsgroup
in which they were regulars, just as you're objecting to your article
being reposted out of RPD. The AHBOU mod's pointed out, quite correctly,
that it was perfectly okay for them to do so, & that if anyone had a
problem with it, that was just Too Bad. Discussion continued for some
time, & the AHBOU mod-team eventually compromised by agreeing not to
repost any article with an 'x-no-archive: yes' or 'x-no-ahbou: yes'
header or tag. You can see the entries I'm referring to at the above
link, look for Q12, & Q15/7.)

You know that that post was from our resident troll, & that he's edited
what I actually said in order to scare people? Read the whole thread, &
you'll see what I *actually* said. If you want to argue the *facts* with
me, (instead of what the porno-troll says I said), I'll be happy to do
so.

Bad Orville. Sorry about that, Lionel.

Anyway, his edits were mostly a matter of "have now" vs "will have." Do you
indeed have a filtered version of this group up and running?

Not yet, no. Maybe in a few weeks, depending on how busy I am.

Can we all get
a look at it?

When I've got it working, & I'm happy that the security on the server is
good enough, sure, no problem. I expect to be able to hand out read-only
access to as many people as want it, & eventually start offering full
(read & post) access to RPD regulars. How many full accounts I will hand
out will depend on what sort of impact it has on my bandwidth use &
server-load, but I'd expect to be able to handle at least a hundred
users without a problem.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

Kibo informs me that Adam stated that:

I'll vote yes for the moderated group. Navigation has been getting
rather troublesome in here. :-(

Noted as "In favour, as proposed". Thanks Adam.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

Lionel wrote in message . ..

...Well, you're probably not going to
like this, but what it means is that it's considered perfectly okay both
ethically & legally for anyone who runs a news server to echo someone's
posts into a private newsgroup, if they so desire. This also applies to
reposting aticle from one newsgroup to another, as long as such
reposting is permitted by the charter of the *second* newsgroup. The
charter of the *first* newsgroup, or the wishes of the users in that
group has no say in the issue.


No, I don't like it.

But since you have your precedent and your server, there doesn't seem
to be a whole lot anyone can do about it, is there?

So why to go to the whole show of polling and asking if this is just
what you were going to do anyway?