What happened to Rec.photo.newsgroups???

[added groups]

"James E Kropp" wrote in message
...

Is it me, or has the rec.photo newsgroup gone to the toilet and
flushed itself! There used to be a time where this place, (and I
mean all of the newsgroups in rec.photo,) had informative,
PHOTOGRAPHIC information.
I used to spend a lot of time browsing and learning, and yes,
even sometimes contributing, to these newsgroups. Now it seems,
all is lost because of all this rambling and dribble and porn crap!

Cant people just stick to the subject? Any thoughts on how to do
this???

Wouldn't this violate free speech?
(where all groups essentially become one big clamor of noise?

In message ...
"Paul H." wrote:

"There are two groups of people currently ruining rec.photo.digital:

1) Trolls/spammers who post nonsense to deliberately disrupt the group.
2) Anal retentives who go on and on and on about using "killfiles"

I don't know which group is more annoying, but I'm leaning toward the
killfile crowd, most of whom want to blame and insult the victims of group
1. Sadly, the killfilers don't seem to understand the phrase, "it ain't
gonna happen", as evidenced by their seemingly endless, mindless, and
ineffectual parroting of "Use a killfile, stupid! AWK!" each time
someone complains about the trolls. I think it was Einstein who
described insanity as doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting a
different result each time.

People who might like to participate in the photo groups don't necessarily
want to learn about newsreaders which support killfiles nor do they want
to spend a single second creating a killfile--they want to plug in their
Windows boxes, fire up Outlook Express, and do something interesting or
fun online. There's nothing wrong with that, in the least: These folks
are not lazy OR stupid, just different. To many of them, computers are
tools letting them pursue their own interests which likely don't include
computers, per se. Many of these people are knowledgeable about
photography but when they are annoyed by the trolls, then insulted and
mocked by the killfilers, they just simply go away, taking their potential
contributions to the photo groups with them.

All the killfilers are doing is encouraging a Darwinian selection process
which, if successful, will result in photo newsgroups in which the
participants know all about killfiles. Of course, that doesn't mean
people in the selected population will that much about photography,
though--just killfiles.

Truth is, usenet needs a technical overhaul to bring it into the modern
age. The system wasn't designed to prevent deliberate abuse because in the
early days of the internet and Usenet there was no need to protect against
abuse. Not so today, obviously."

-----------

IMHO, Usenet needs to establish a user / group structure which can
transcend thru the hierarchy to resolution of any problem which
continually affects a news group. I think all players should be bound by a
set of ethics. The boundaries can be variable and depend on the different
groups and the intention of the poster/player. Think 'grass roots' and
folks aimed toward helping the whole by helping with the pieces parts,...
one at a time. Where every player has a part and seat to fill.

x

[added groups]

"James E Kropp" wrote in message
...

Is it me, or has the rec.photo newsgroup gone to the toilet and
flushed itself! There used to be a time where this place, (and I
mean all of the newsgroups in rec.photo,) had informative,
PHOTOGRAPHIC information.
I used to spend a lot of time browsing and learning, and yes,
even sometimes contributing, to these newsgroups. Now it seems,
all is lost because of all this rambling and dribble and porn crap!

Cant people just stick to the subject? Any thoughts on how to do
this???

Wouldn't this violate free speech?
(where all groups essentially become one big clamor of noise?

In message ...
"Paul H." wrote:

"There are two groups of people currently ruining rec.photo.digital:

1) Trolls/spammers who post nonsense to deliberately disrupt the group.
2) Anal retentives who go on and on and on about using "killfiles"

I don't know which group is more annoying, but I'm leaning toward the
killfile crowd, most of whom want to blame and insult the victims of group
1. Sadly, the killfilers don't seem to understand the phrase, "it ain't
gonna happen", as evidenced by their seemingly endless, mindless, and
ineffectual parroting of "Use a killfile, stupid! AWK!" each time
someone complains about the trolls. I think it was Einstein who
described insanity as doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting a
different result each time.

People who might like to participate in the photo groups don't necessarily
want to learn about newsreaders which support killfiles nor do they want
to spend a single second creating a killfile--they want to plug in their
Windows boxes, fire up Outlook Express, and do something interesting or
fun online. There's nothing wrong with that, in the least: These folks
are not lazy OR stupid, just different. To many of them, computers are
tools letting them pursue their own interests which likely don't include
computers, per se. Many of these people are knowledgeable about
photography but when they are annoyed by the trolls, then insulted and
mocked by the killfilers, they just simply go away, taking their potential
contributions to the photo groups with them.

All the killfilers are doing is encouraging a Darwinian selection process
which, if successful, will result in photo newsgroups in which the
participants know all about killfiles. Of course, that doesn't mean
people in the selected population will that much about photography,
though--just killfiles.

Truth is, usenet needs a technical overhaul to bring it into the modern
age. The system wasn't designed to prevent deliberate abuse because in the
early days of the internet and Usenet there was no need to protect against
abuse. Not so today, obviously."

-----------

IMHO, Usenet needs to establish a user / group structure which can
transcend thru the hierarchy to resolution of any problem which
continually affects a news group. I think all players should be bound by a
set of ethics. The boundaries can be variable and depend on the different
groups and the intention of the poster/player. Think 'grass roots' and
folks aimed toward helping the whole by helping with the pieces parts,...
one at a time. Where every player has a part and seat to fill.

x

"Dogger the Filmgoblin" wrote in message
m...
"Paul H." wrote in message
...
Truth is, usenet needs a technical overhaul to bring it into the modern
age.
The system wasn't designed to prevent deliberate abuse because in the
early
days of the internet and usenet there was no need to protect against
abuse.
Not so today, obviously.

This is the last thing USENET needs, and it will never happen. There
are PLENTY of moderated online forums for those who don't like to
filter trolls (with software or just their brains -- and they should
be knocked for responding to crap so they don't do it again, who cares
how they filter trolls out, just that they do). USENET offers
something unique, a place where anything goes, and if you don't see
the value of that and see it ONLY as an opportunity for trolls to have
a picnic, then you just don't get it.

In fact, I would go so far as to say that with the flourishing world
of web-based forums, and comments/trackback sections on blogs, and
mailing lists, and all the myriad forms of online public discussion,
probably the ONLY thing keeping hoary old USENET alive is that it's
the only form of truly unrestrictable public discussion. Trolls are
the price we pay, along with discussions about killfiles and goading
newbies (politely or otherwise) into improving their signal-to-noise
participation.

I for one have no problem finding the information I need regardless of
the unholy amount of crap in r.p.d ... and if anyone does have a
problem, the alternatives are, uh ... every other type online forum
available.

If there's one thing USENET needs saving from, it's people who argue
that it needs to be changed to save it from itself. Then it will be
like every other forum only more difficult to find, it will die the
quiet death of the also-ran.

DB.

Well said!
This should be chapter 1, Paragraph 1 in EVERY FAQ.
Regards.
Ken.

"Dogger the Filmgoblin" wrote

"Paul H." wrote

Truth is, usenet needs a technical overhaul to bring it into the
modern age. The system wasn't designed to prevent deliberate
abuse because in the early days of the internet and usenet
there was no need to protect against abuse.
Not so today, obviously.

This is the last thing USENET needs, and it will never happen. There
are PLENTY of moderated online forums for those who don't like to
filter trolls (with software or just their brains -- and they should
be knocked for responding to crap so they don't do it again, who cares
how they filter trolls out, just that they do). USENET offers
something unique, a place where anything goes, and if you don't see
the value of that and see it ONLY as an opportunity for trolls to have
a picnic, then you just don't get it.

So it's blame the victim time?

In fact, I would go so far as to say that with the flourishing world
of web-based forums, and comments/trackback sections on blogs, and
mailing lists, and all the myriad forms of online public discussion,
probably the ONLY thing keeping hoary old USENET alive is that it's
the only form of truly unrestrictable public discussion.

TROLL *haven* TROLL *haven!*
Why not find a fertilizer to feed them, so we become even more unique?

Trolls are the price we pay, along with discussions
about killfiles and goading newbies (politely or otherwise)
into improving their signal-to-noise participation.

Huh, I hadn't realized the victim was the noise problem
Hell, let's kick em in the chins then.

I for one have no problem finding the information I need regardless of
the unholy amount of crap in r.p.d ... and if anyone does have a
problem, the alternatives are, uh ... every other type online forum
available.

Ah, but the quality of what we get is less because the really good talent
doesn't have interest in sorting the cesspool. The information becomes
second and third rate. Soon it may become only off-hand comments by a
troll headed for some fun.

If there's one thing USENET needs saving from, it's people who argue
that it needs to be changed to save it from itself. Then it will be
like every other forum only more difficult to find, it will die the
quiet death of the also-ran.

Being an 'also ran' is Usenet's own choice, by not addressing and solving
the problem. It's voices like yours that allow the unsavory to own and
rule Usenet. Make no mistake about it, this *IS* who owns Usenet. At the
end of the day, they control the influx of newbies And as much as some
dislike the newbies, we must continually gain them to retain even a shred
of topical interest.

Two years ago, back to as far as I was reading here, there was never this
kind of problem. Not even close. Why is it that now I must be a software
engineer to read Usenet and this news group in particular? Heaven forbid I
close my eyes to it, only to find I'm personally attacked, behind my back,
with no knowledge of it.

So why do groups even have charters? Shouldn't we
just be one big fun lovin group? This *is* fun, isn't it?

Any guesses as to why Lisa Horton isn't so thrilled with it?
(Though maybe she is and I'm just reading her wrong

Steve Young

--
He's right Mark. We don't like it. Stop the yapping and learn to use
your killfile. Then we can all have a *jolly good* *knee slappin* great
time! ))) Have fun watching Sesame Street and R0mper R00m!
- Organizer

"Paul H." wrote

"James E Kropp" wrote
[...]
I used to spend a lot of time browsing and learning, and yes, even
sometimes contributing, to these newsgroups. Now it seems, all is
lost because of all this rambling and dribble and porn crap!

Cant people just stick to the subject? Any thoughts on how to do
this???

There are two groups of people currently ruining rec.photo.digital:

1) Trolls/spammers who post nonsense to deliberately disrupt the group.

2) Anal retentives who go on and on and on about using "killfiles"

[...]

Many of these people are knowledgeable about photography
but when they are annoyed by the trolls, then insulted and mocked by the
killfilers, they just simply go away, taking their potential
contributions to the photo groups with them.

Usenet losing quality content providers

All the killfilers are doing is encouraging a Darwinian selection
process which, if successful, will result in photo newsgroups in
which the participants know all about killfiles. Of course, that
doesn't mean people in the selected population will that much
about photography, though--just killfiles.

Or any other subject which is of interest to the public, for that matter
This problem is not limited to the rec.photo.* groups. Anyone following
the roots will find dozens of popular groups affected.

Truth is, usenet needs a technical overhaul to bring it into the modern
age. The system wasn't designed to prevent deliberate abuse because
in the early days of the internet and usenet there was no need to
protect against abuse.
Not so today, obviously.

It needs an overhaul for sure, but my opinion is, with some co-operation
from the providers and Usenet's participants, so much could be
accomplished that it would look like a brand new Usenet. Ta hell with
Usenet II, Usenet XP gets the job done by empowering the people, groups
of people, a group at a time. I'm so tired of hearing: 'you can't do
anything about it, we gots what we got' love it or leave it'. (It has too
many warts to love). (unless warts is what you're in to ;(

x

--
He's right Mark. We don't like it. Stop the yapping and learn to use
your killfile. Then we can all have a *jolly good* *knee slappin* great
time! ))) Have fun watching Sesame Street and R0mper R00m!
- Organizer

"Steve Young" bowtieATbrightdslDOTnet wrote in message ...
"Dogger the Filmgoblin" wrote
In fact, I would go so far as to say that with the flourishing world
of web-based forums, and comments/trackback sections on blogs, and
mailing lists, and all the myriad forms of online public discussion,
probably the ONLY thing keeping hoary old USENET alive is that it's
the only form of truly unrestrictable public discussion.

TROLL *haven* TROLL *haven!*
Why not find a fertilizer to feed them, so we become even more unique?

Again, you just don't get it.

If there's one thing USENET needs saving from, it's people who argue
that it needs to be changed to save it from itself. Then it will be
like every other forum only more difficult to find, it will die the
quiet death of the also-ran.

Being an 'also ran' is Usenet's own choice, by not addressing and solving
the problem. It's voices like yours that allow the unsavory to own and
rule Usenet. Make no mistake about it, this *IS* who owns Usenet.

Nobody owns it. Not them to force people to play their game, and not
you to force people not to play it. THAT's the point. USENET is more
difficult to find than a web forum; the only thing it has going for it
is that it is impossible to subject it to anyone's whim of what is in
good taste or what kind of communication is prohibited. If you have
spent any time on web forum, then you have already seen how capricious
and dictatorial most web moderators a give a human being a little
bit of unaccountable power, and first they're deleting troll posts,
then language, and before long they're deleting their opponents in
various arguments. On most web forums the definition of "troll" has a
tendency to creep, until anyone who does not belong or pay homage to
the moderator's personal clique is a troll. These little fiefdoms
cannot exist here.

You seem to advocate taking the ONLY thing that USENET has to
differentiate in the 'discussion marketplace' and erasing it, and you
seem to think that this will save USENET rather than simply make it
into a web page with more complex connection procedures and/or a way
longer posting delay. A moderated USENET is doomed to death. With RSS
web pages being text-only browsable, USENET is now inferior to the web
in every technological way, except for the feature that you propose to
remove from it. Do you really think that the newbies you are afraid of
losing will flock to USENET when they find the same uncontroversial
super-polite form of discussion on here as they get everywhere else?
They come here because the ultra-restricted other spaces they have
available have rules that tend to prevent the kinds of discussions
(and flame wars, sure) that we get around here.

At the
end of the day, they control the influx of newbies.

No they do not. Those who cannot take the heat will get out of the
kitchen. The rest will stay, even without a killfile. They'll just use
the killfile in their brains. They don't need to be computer software
experts to ignore bull**** subject headers and obviously inflammatory
trolls, all it takes is a few rough knocks to get your legs. Not all
newbies fall into your lamb-to-the-slaughter stereotype. If that were
so USENET would have been dead a very long time ago.

And as much as some
dislike the newbies, we must continually gain them to retain even a shred
of topical interest.

People who dislike newbies are inevitable. If you want to prevent
those people from giving those newbies a harsh reception, the correct
response is for you to step in and teach the new poster the ropes in a
polite way before some ******* just uses it as an opportunity to get
off a zinger. I have seen a wide variety of responses to any posting
ignorance or misbehaviour. That is the nature of a free discussion
environment. You can't dictate people's temperament or their
attitudes, you can only offer your own as a contrast. Sometimes all a
newbie needs is a single friendly voice, and they'll usually get one.

Two years ago, back to as far as I was reading here, there was never this
kind of problem. Not even close. Why is it that now I must be a software
engineer to read Usenet and this news group in particular? Heaven forbid I
close my eyes to it, only to find I'm personally attacked, behind my back,
with no knowledge of it.

Two years ago? Your view is distorted by R.P.D. There has been no
change in the overall ratio of trollish behaviour on USENET in the
last two years. There have always been a lot of trolls, but they tend
to aggregate in certain groups where they stake their turf (and they
will typically move on to some other killing ground in a few months to
a few years). RPD is pretty darn bad for signal-to-noise ratio right
now, but many of the other groups I post in are doing just fine.
You're just living in a bad neighbourhood right now. Historically,
these things do pass, or sometimes the community of good posters will
migrate to another group altogether (like alt.something). You can try
to get another USENET group started if you wish ... it will draw a
certain number of trolls with it, but not all of them. This is the way
of USENET. Learn it. Do it. Post it. Read it.

DB.

"Dogger the Filmgoblin" wrote

"Steve Young" bowtieATbrightdslDOTnet wrote

"Dogger the Filmgoblin" wrote

In fact, I would go so far as to say that with the flourishing world
of web-based forums, and comments/trackback sections on blogs, and
mailing lists, and all the myriad forms of online public discussion,
probably the ONLY thing keeping hoary old USENET alive is that it's
the only form of truly unrestrictable public discussion.

TROLL *haven* TROLL *haven!*
Why not find a fertilizer to feed them, so we become even more unique?

Again, you just don't get it.

Is disagreeing "you just don't get it" ?

For some reason, I can't get it through my thick skull that abusing
participants should be protected free speech. Outlawing it, in desiring
groups, shouldn't change this statement one iota: "truly unrestrictable
public discussion" (people shouldn't have a right to maim each other).

If there's one thing USENET needs saving from, it's people who argue
that it needs to be changed to save it from itself. Then it will be
like every other forum only more difficult to find, it will die the
quiet death of the also-ran.

Being an 'also ran' is Usenet's own choice, by not addressing and
solving the problem. It's voices like yours that allow the unsavory to
own and rule Usenet. Make no mistake about it, this *IS*
who owns Usenet.

Nobody owns it.

As in actually physically paying for it, you're right. But if you look at
it from the perspective of group content control and usefulness,
newsgroups can be 'owned' by a force other than those assembled by topic.

Not them to force people to play their game, and not
you to force people not to play it. THAT's the point.

A composite of all groups should "own" Usenet, rather than its current
"owner", & who's that? k00ks, trolls, news groupers / groupies, admins,
power elite, performance artists, dog packs, content providers /
participants, lurkers who /-lurk

How bout if each news group took charge of its self and developed its own
community? Fill in a few helpful blanks in the Usenet structure, to assist
users / individual groups. Take the sting out of users asking for
administrative help. [As a side note, I see NANAU trying harder these
days :]

Let's look at the most certain of this, a moderated group. (Usenet has a
few of these). There is no doubt from the discussions I've read, that the
moderator(s) are enshrined with group ownership. It's even been stated so.
Why is there such a thing in your free-for-all world?

A certain clique of owner is a troll group, hell bent on destroying a
newsgroup. They enter a group and completely swamp it with their off
topics and lewd postings. They disrupt and distract the participants and
the next thing you know, there is a new topic of focus, i.e. trolls. Say
all you want about ignoring them, in large groups, filled with newbies, it
ain't gonna happen. Especially as things get personal. Even seasoned
veterans get pulled from the woodwork when their name happens to come up


USENET is more
difficult to find than a web forum; the only thing it has going for it
is that it is impossible to subject it to anyone's whim of what is in
good taste or what kind of communication is prohibited.

Moderated groups can. Too, why then are there group charters? Isn't this
in expectation that a particular group is to discuss a particular topic?

If you have
spent any time on web forum, then you have already seen how capricious
and dictatorial most web moderators a give a human being a little
bit of unaccountable power, and first they're deleting troll posts,
then language, and before long they're deleting their opponents in
various arguments.

Usenet has moderated groups. Would this not also be the case there?
I have never once advocated moderation as a cure, I simply don't believe
its a right cure. It's not what Usenet needs, Usenet needs not to need
them, (except for special purposes). Certainly not as troll / spam
filters.

On most web forums the definition of "troll" has a
tendency to creep, until anyone who does not belong or pay homage to
the moderator's personal clique is a troll.

You keep mixing one-by-one web forums with the whole of Usenet.
Web forums are *always* one-by-one. Only moderated newsgroups could be
considered one-by-one. ALL other groups are open season for anything a
band of rogues want to dish out. Most group participants aren't even a
fair match for this.

These little fiefdoms cannot exist here.

Sure they can, they're called "dog packs" There are quite a few groups run
by dog packs. Dog packs can either be a concentration of bullies or the
nucleus of a public club. There are dozens (probably hundreds) of
examples to demonstrate either/both scenarios of something working outside
of the same-o-same-o party line and typical dissention.

You seem to advocate taking the ONLY thing that USENET has to
differentiate in the 'discussion marketplace' and erasing it, and you
seem to think that this will save USENET rather than simply make it
into a web page with more complex connection procedures and/or a way
longer posting delay.

I don't think the personal attacks and smut we've witnessed in the
rec.photo groups make very good selling points to the public, which is who
we're trying to reach / lure, (in competition with the Web forums). If
this is the prize of the differentiation, I'd say some people have their
heads screwed on backwards Too though, maybe I haven't been clear
enough about my suggestions.

A moderated USENET is doomed to death. With RSS
web pages being text-only browsable, USENET is now inferior to the web
in every technological way,

Absolutely agree on both counts

except for the feature that you propose to
remove from it.

"feature"? A chance to get your head chewed off, handed to you on a
platter, with all of your personal information made public? Whipped,
insulted and pitched into the street to rot in the hot sun? "feature"?
huh? phew!, what's this world coming to?

Do you really think that the newbies you are afraid of
losing will flock to USENET when they find the same uncontroversial
super-polite form of discussion on here as they get everywhere else?

*Afraid* of losing? I KNOW in fact we've lost even seasoned veterans to
it It's been sad that Al Jacobson was a casualty to it. He was a
*wonderful* spirit to have in the photo groups. I also suspect Todd Walker
was taken under by it. Anyone seen Mr. Blobby lately? How bout listing
some of the favorites we don't see anymore... spose they're all in jail?

I think you're missing my point. I'm not looking for, or expecting
"uncontroversial super-polite". I'm hoping to better settle newsgroups
within their chartered interests, with reduced outside abuses /
disruptions Ask group participants if they would like this?

They come here because the ultra-restricted other spaces they have
available have rules that tend to prevent the kinds of discussions
(and flame wars, sure) that we get around here.

I wouldn't expect to change this a bit. Only take the head thump off the
abuse and then only in groups that would desire it.

At the
end of the day, they control the influx of newbies.

No they do not. Those who cannot take the heat will get out of the
kitchen.

hahaha reread what you just said

The rest will stay, even without a killfile.

Oh, so some have gone?
even after *they* pick their choice of groups to read?
Maybe a photo group or 2, a craft group, religion of a sort, maybe a
technical group or 2, a couple just for fun. Why would this well rounded
reader leave?

They'll just use the killfile in their brains.

Till they can't resist and jump on the band wagon, for some knee slappin
fun. Why would anyone ever complain if I didn't post about photography in
a photo group? Aren't they way off base?

So already you've taken the resource away from 'all' the public. "Those
who cannot take the heat will get out of the kitchen." In real life, why
don't we see in the streets, people fornicating, public beatings for those
a person might disagree with? Even nowadays, when you walk into a saloon,
you're expected to holster your gun. Some places ask you to check them.

They don't need to be computer software experts to ignore bull****
subject headers and obviously inflammatory trolls, all it takes
is a few rough knocks to get your legs. Not all newbies fall
into your lamb-to-the-slaughter stereotype.

Just bull**** headers?
Then try 'Johnnie jump ups' or personal data outing posts
Would these fall into your 'enjoy' category, kind of a "get your legs"?

If that were
so USENET would have been dead a very long time ago.

Even if you cut the new influx to only the fun lovin trolls and various
other trouble makers, you'd still have a viable Usenet for quite some
time. It would have to reach the point where the only people to troll are
other seasoned trolls, who aren't falling for the act. Then it would
either be the Internet's biggest troll club, or it would dissipate from
boredom, by those remaining, unable to get a rise. Maybe it would end as
those who pay the hard cost, realize they are buying the den of iniquity
and cut off any new money.

And as much as some dislike the newbies,
we must continually gain them to retain even a
shred of topical interest.

People who dislike newbies are inevitable.

Sure they are, but it makes a 'real' straw dog for arguments sake

If you want to prevent
those people from giving those newbies a harsh reception, the correct
response is for you to step in and teach the new poster the ropes in a
polite way before some ******* just uses it as an opportunity to get
off a zinger.

Every newsgroup, serious about being a chartered topic group, should do
this. This is a newsgroup by newsgroup denizen thing. We here in photo
have no business with what someone in a 'soc' does or think. Unless of
course a person belongs to that group by reading or participating in the
discussions of the group and spawns the thought as maybe a good idea.

I have seen a wide variety of responses to any posting
ignorance or misbehaviour. That is the nature of a free discussion
environment. You can't dictate people's temperament or their
attitudes, you can only offer your own as a contrast. Sometimes all a
newbie needs is a single friendly voice, and they'll usually get one.

I'm not expecting anything I recommend to change this at all.

Two years ago, back to as far as I was reading here, there was
never this kind of problem. Not even close. Why is it that now I
must be a software engineer to read Usenet and this news group
in particular? Heaven forbid I close my eyes to it, only to find I'm
personally attacked, behind my back, having no knowledge of it.

Two years ago? Your view is distorted by R.P.D. There has been no
change in the overall ratio of trollish behaviour on USENET in the
last two years.

I'd need proof of this, cite please. Some people claim it's night and
day.

There have always been a lot of trolls, but they tend
to aggregate in certain groups where they stake their turf (and they
will typically move on to some other killing ground in a few months to
a few years).

Could you imagine someone buying a new digital camera isn't interested in
hanging around a few years, see if the storm passes, the dust clears?

RPD is pretty darn bad for signal-to-noise ratio right
now, but many of the other groups I post in are doing just fine.

I guess it's just my tough luck,... oh well

You're just living in a bad neighbourhood right now. Historically,
these things do pass, or sometimes the community of good
posters will migrate to another group altogether (like alt.something).

So it's us who expect chartered discussion who must kiss off?

You can try
to get another USENET group started if you wish ... it will draw a
certain number of trolls with it, but not all of them.

Makes me of the guy who bought two hats.
one to **** in and one to cover it up with.

This is the way of USENET. Learn it. Do it. Post it. Read it.
lose you're virginity, dignity and possibly your life by it.

decadent, self indulging arrogance comes to mind

Steve Young

--
One thing you can guarantee, though: if you don't try,
you'll never have to find out it might have succeeded,
and you can be very smug about your species' extinction
as it is happening: "I _told_ them there was no way to bring
peace to this planet!"
- xanthian

"Dogger the Filmgoblin" wrote

"Steve Young" bowtieATbrightdslDOTnet wrote

"Dogger the Filmgoblin" wrote

In fact, I would go so far as to say that with the flourishing world
of web-based forums, and comments/trackback sections on blogs, and
mailing lists, and all the myriad forms of online public discussion,
probably the ONLY thing keeping hoary old USENET alive is that it's
the only form of truly unrestrictable public discussion.

TROLL *haven* TROLL *haven!*
Why not find a fertilizer to feed them, so we become even more unique?

Again, you just don't get it.

Is disagreeing "you just don't get it" ?

For some reason, I can't get it through my thick skull that abusing
participants should be protected free speech. Outlawing it, in desiring
groups, shouldn't change this statement one iota: "truly unrestrictable
public discussion" (people shouldn't have a right to maim each other).

If there's one thing USENET needs saving from, it's people who argue
that it needs to be changed to save it from itself. Then it will be
like every other forum only more difficult to find, it will die the
quiet death of the also-ran.

Being an 'also ran' is Usenet's own choice, by not addressing and
solving the problem. It's voices like yours that allow the unsavory to
own and rule Usenet. Make no mistake about it, this *IS*
who owns Usenet.

Nobody owns it.

As in actually physically paying for it, you're right. But if you look at
it from the perspective of group content control and usefulness,
newsgroups can be 'owned' by a force other than those assembled by topic.

Not them to force people to play their game, and not
you to force people not to play it. THAT's the point.

A composite of all groups should "own" Usenet, rather than its current
"owner", & who's that? k00ks, trolls, news groupers / groupies, admins,
power elite, performance artists, dog packs, content providers /
participants, lurkers who /-lurk

How bout if each news group took charge of its self and developed its own
community? Fill in a few helpful blanks in the Usenet structure, to assist
users / individual groups. Take the sting out of users asking for
administrative help. [As a side note, I see NANAU trying harder these
days :]

Let's look at the most certain of this, a moderated group. (Usenet has a
few of these). There is no doubt from the discussions I've read, that the
moderator(s) are enshrined with group ownership. It's even been stated so.
Why is there such a thing in your free-for-all world?

A certain clique of owner is a troll group, hell bent on destroying a
newsgroup. They enter a group and completely swamp it with their off
topics and lewd postings. They disrupt and distract the participants and
the next thing you know, there is a new topic of focus, i.e. trolls. Say
all you want about ignoring them, in large groups, filled with newbies, it
ain't gonna happen. Especially as things get personal. Even seasoned
veterans get pulled from the woodwork when their name happens to come up


USENET is more
difficult to find than a web forum; the only thing it has going for it
is that it is impossible to subject it to anyone's whim of what is in
good taste or what kind of communication is prohibited.

Moderated groups can. Too, why then are there group charters? Isn't this
in expectation that a particular group is to discuss a particular topic?

If you have
spent any time on web forum, then you have already seen how capricious
and dictatorial most web moderators a give a human being a little
bit of unaccountable power, and first they're deleting troll posts,
then language, and before long they're deleting their opponents in
various arguments.

Usenet has moderated groups. Would this not also be the case there?
I have never once advocated moderation as a cure, I simply don't believe
its a right cure. It's not what Usenet needs, Usenet needs not to need
them, (except for special purposes). Certainly not as troll / spam
filters.

On most web forums the definition of "troll" has a
tendency to creep, until anyone who does not belong or pay homage to
the moderator's personal clique is a troll.

You keep mixing one-by-one web forums with the whole of Usenet.
Web forums are *always* one-by-one. Only moderated newsgroups could be
considered one-by-one. ALL other groups are open season for anything a
band of rogues want to dish out. Most group participants aren't even a
fair match for this.

These little fiefdoms cannot exist here.

Sure they can, they're called "dog packs" There are quite a few groups run
by dog packs. Dog packs can either be a concentration of bullies or the
nucleus of a public club. There are dozens (probably hundreds) of
examples to demonstrate either/both scenarios of something working outside
of the same-o-same-o party line and typical dissention.

You seem to advocate taking the ONLY thing that USENET has to
differentiate in the 'discussion marketplace' and erasing it, and you
seem to think that this will save USENET rather than simply make it
into a web page with more complex connection procedures and/or a way
longer posting delay.

I don't think the personal attacks and smut we've witnessed in the
rec.photo groups make very good selling points to the public, which is who
we're trying to reach / lure, (in competition with the Web forums). If
this is the prize of the differentiation, I'd say some people have their
heads screwed on backwards Too though, maybe I haven't been clear
enough about my suggestions.

A moderated USENET is doomed to death. With RSS
web pages being text-only browsable, USENET is now inferior to the web
in every technological way,

Absolutely agree on both counts

except for the feature that you propose to
remove from it.

"feature"? A chance to get your head chewed off, handed to you on a
platter, with all of your personal information made public? Whipped,
insulted and pitched into the street to rot in the hot sun? "feature"?
huh? phew!, what's this world coming to?

Do you really think that the newbies you are afraid of
losing will flock to USENET when they find the same uncontroversial
super-polite form of discussion on here as they get everywhere else?

*Afraid* of losing? I KNOW in fact we've lost even seasoned veterans to
it It's been sad that Al Jacobson was a casualty to it. He was a
*wonderful* spirit to have in the photo groups. I also suspect Todd Walker
was taken under by it. Anyone seen Mr. Blobby lately? How bout listing
some of the favorites we don't see anymore... spose they're all in jail?

I think you're missing my point. I'm not looking for, or expecting
"uncontroversial super-polite". I'm hoping to better settle newsgroups
within their chartered interests, with reduced outside abuses /
disruptions Ask group participants if they would like this?

They come here because the ultra-restricted other spaces they have
available have rules that tend to prevent the kinds of discussions
(and flame wars, sure) that we get around here.

I wouldn't expect to change this a bit. Only take the head thump off the
abuse and then only in groups that would desire it.

At the
end of the day, they control the influx of newbies.

No they do not. Those who cannot take the heat will get out of the
kitchen.

hahaha reread what you just said

The rest will stay, even without a killfile.

Oh, so some have gone?
even after *they* pick their choice of groups to read?
Maybe a photo group or 2, a craft group, religion of a sort, maybe a
technical group or 2, a couple just for fun. Why would this well rounded
reader leave?

They'll just use the killfile in their brains.

Till they can't resist and jump on the band wagon, for some knee slappin
fun. Why would anyone ever complain if I didn't post about photography in
a photo group? Aren't they way off base?

So already you've taken the resource away from 'all' the public. "Those
who cannot take the heat will get out of the kitchen." In real life, why
don't we see in the streets, people fornicating, public beatings for those
a person might disagree with? Even nowadays, when you walk into a saloon,
you're expected to holster your gun. Some places ask you to check them.

They don't need to be computer software experts to ignore bull****
subject headers and obviously inflammatory trolls, all it takes
is a few rough knocks to get your legs. Not all newbies fall
into your lamb-to-the-slaughter stereotype.

Just bull**** headers?
Then try 'Johnnie jump ups' or personal data outing posts
Would these fall into your 'enjoy' category, kind of a "get your legs"?

If that were
so USENET would have been dead a very long time ago.

Even if you cut the new influx to only the fun lovin trolls and various
other trouble makers, you'd still have a viable Usenet for quite some
time. It would have to reach the point where the only people to troll are
other seasoned trolls, who aren't falling for the act. Then it would
either be the Internet's biggest troll club, or it would dissipate from
boredom, by those remaining, unable to get a rise. Maybe it would end as
those who pay the hard cost, realize they are buying the den of iniquity
and cut off any new money.

And as much as some dislike the newbies,
we must continually gain them to retain even a
shred of topical interest.

People who dislike newbies are inevitable.

Sure they are, but it makes a 'real' straw dog for arguments sake

If you want to prevent
those people from giving those newbies a harsh reception, the correct
response is for you to step in and teach the new poster the ropes in a
polite way before some ******* just uses it as an opportunity to get
off a zinger.

Every newsgroup, serious about being a chartered topic group, should do
this. This is a newsgroup by newsgroup denizen thing. We here in photo
have no business with what someone in a 'soc' does or think. Unless of
course a person belongs to that group by reading or participating in the
discussions of the group and spawns the thought as maybe a good idea.

I have seen a wide variety of responses to any posting
ignorance or misbehaviour. That is the nature of a free discussion
environment. You can't dictate people's temperament or their
attitudes, you can only offer your own as a contrast. Sometimes all a
newbie needs is a single friendly voice, and they'll usually get one.

I'm not expecting anything I recommend to change this at all.

Two years ago, back to as far as I was reading here, there was
never this kind of problem. Not even close. Why is it that now I
must be a software engineer to read Usenet and this news group
in particular? Heaven forbid I close my eyes to it, only to find I'm
personally attacked, behind my back, having no knowledge of it.

Two years ago? Your view is distorted by R.P.D. There has been no
change in the overall ratio of trollish behaviour on USENET in the
last two years.

I'd need proof of this, cite please. Some people claim it's night and
day.

There have always been a lot of trolls, but they tend
to aggregate in certain groups where they stake their turf (and they
will typically move on to some other killing ground in a few months to
a few years).

Could you imagine someone buying a new digital camera isn't interested in
hanging around a few years, see if the storm passes, the dust clears?

RPD is pretty darn bad for signal-to-noise ratio right
now, but many of the other groups I post in are doing just fine.

I guess it's just my tough luck,... oh well

You're just living in a bad neighbourhood right now. Historically,
these things do pass, or sometimes the community of good
posters will migrate to another group altogether (like alt.something).

So it's us who expect chartered discussion who must kiss off?

You can try
to get another USENET group started if you wish ... it will draw a
certain number of trolls with it, but not all of them.

Makes me of the guy who bought two hats.
one to **** in and one to cover it up with.

This is the way of USENET. Learn it. Do it. Post it. Read it.
lose you're virginity, dignity and possibly your life by it.

decadent, self indulging arrogance comes to mind

Steve Young

--
One thing you can guarantee, though: if you don't try,
you'll never have to find out it might have succeeded,
and you can be very smug about your species' extinction
as it is happening: "I _told_ them there was no way to bring
peace to this planet!"
- xanthian