On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 18:24:13 -0500, Vorian_ Atreides
arrakim.org>
wrote:
>Removal of NGP and NAN, Both are moderated forums and they have admitted
>in the past to censor any discussion they do not agree upon, this would
>inhibit free and open discussion of all rec.pond regulars and related
>news.group affected by rec.pond current crisis.
>I would encourage regulars to snip out NGP and NAN from the discussion,
>since they have already decided on the moderated news group and the
>proposed RFD is matter of formality.
>
>Rec.ponds is in Crisis and the RFD does not deal with the root cause of
>the crisis.
>It is an Aspirin to alleviate the headache, but not knowing what cause
>the pain, means that eventually when the aspirin effect diminish, the
>pain will return. A good Dr. looks for the root cause, and deal with the
>problem there. Let examine the RFD to point out where the root cause is,
> and how this aspirin eventually may lose it pain numbing effect.
>
>Ron Schompert wrote:
>> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>> moderated group rec.ponds.moderated
>>
>> This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the creation of the
>> moderated Usenet newsgroup, rec.ponds.moderated.
>>
>> RATIONALE: rec.ponds.moderated
>>
>> Rec.ponds was founded in 1994 for backyard pond enthusiasts to share
>> experiences and information. For most of its existence rec.ponds was
>> an active and thriving Internet community of long-term ponders as well
>> as newcomers to the hobby.
>>
>> Around two years ago rec.ponds became inundated with trolls, flames,
>> forgeries and destructive crossposts.
>
>What is the root cause of describe problem?
I don't know, nor do I think it important.
>Who are the trolls? It is various trolls or one troll?
Lots. Various.
>Why two years ago? not three years ago or ten?
I think it had been building for some time. Two years ago marked a big
increase, and that is when I think most folks became aware. But there
probably isn't a single type of nonsense that was new to the group before
two years ago, that is just when it became most noticeable.
>To what groups are the crossposts being made?
It's really varied.
>is there a pattern?
I suppose. Someone could probably write a thesis on it. I'll bet folks
could find all kinds of patterns.
>What measure were taken against the trolls?
It's really hard to take any concrete measures against "trolls." I know I
can diddle with all kinds of stuff in my headers, make fake IP numbers,
that kind of stuff. If it is that easy for me I imagine any "troll" worth
his or her salt would disguise their identity, or perhaps fake someone
else's.
>Was their ISP's or NSP's notified of breach of their TOS?
>If so, what was the response?
Like I say, it's really hard to take any kind of effective action.
I sure didn't. Someone else may have.
>>Most of the rec.pond regulars
>> fled to mailing lists or forums where they could discuss their hobby
>> in relative peace.
>
>Are these private forum still active?
>
>>A few remained to answer questions from newcomers
>> and to attempt to rebuild the community that previously existed.
>>
>> However, the signal became mired intractably in noise. Other outlets
>> were not a useful alternative for many former rec.ponders. Many of the
>> boards, lists and forums that permit pond discussion seem to be geared
>> to Koi owners and the high end hobbyist. Many rec.ponders, by contrast,
>> are content with a few fish such as common goldfish and minnows, some
>> plants, and relatively small ponds that might or might not be
>> mechanically filtered, and who do not want to spend $10,000 on a pond.
>
>Why did the rec.ponders then create a forum either goolge or yahoo that
>would fit their needs?
It wouldn't have been a USENET group then, would it?
>> Pond newcomers who continue to find rec.ponds are often driven away by
>> unwarranted personal attacks despite the efforts of the few remaining
>> rec.ponds regulars to make them feel welcome. Equally as harmful have
>> been several instances of flooding where literally thousands of off-topic
>> posts were dumped into rec.ponds, driving away all but the most determined
>> rec.ponders.
See above.
>> If rec.ponds.moderated is approved, rec.ponds would continue to be
>> monitored by regular rec.ponders and any newcomers who want to post in
>> a troll-, flood-, flame-, and forge-free newsgroup would be directed to
>> rec.ponds.moderated.
>>
>
>Could not a private forum be created for this purpose and a daily notice
>posted to direct people to the new forum be useful?
Sure, but again, it wouldn't be a USENET group.
>> CHARTER:
>>
>> Rec.ponds.moderated is a moderated newsgroup to provide a friendly,
>> respectful forum for the discussion of all aspects of ponds or water
>> gardens.
>>
>Could not a private forum be created for this purpose and a daily notice
>posted to direct people to the new forum be useful?
>
>Also please tell us why alt.garden.pond.chat and free.uk.nature.ponds
>would not serve the interest of rec.ponder regulars?
They serve only a small niche. For example, neither of those groups would
be suitable in my case.
>> The rec.ponds.moderated newsgroup will appeal to a wide range of
>> people involved in both the recreational and professional aspects of
>> establishing and maintaining a pond or water garden. We will have
>> novices to water gardening as well as experts, the hobbyist as well as
>> genuine botanists and ichthyologists. Even students wishing to find
>> help with science projects may decide to read rec.ponds.moderated.
>> All of these people will be welcomed to share ideas, ask questions, or
>> simply lurk and learn.
>
>please tell us why alt.garden.pond.chat and free.uk.nature.ponds would
>not serve the interest of rec.ponder regulars?
Like I say, it doesn't apply in my case, and I'm sure there are others in a
similar situation.
>> Examples of discussion topics might include:
>>
>> * Building a pond/water garden:
>> Details will be shared regarding the best materials to use, procedures
>> for making the pond secure, and appropriate placement of the pond.
>> Or, in the case of a naturally occurring pond, what can be done to
>> make it more "user friendly"? We will have tips on building a
>> waterfall, installing a fountain, whether to use a filter, and how to
>> install a biological filter. Also, we may give information on
>> lighting and how to safely run electrical lines to the pond area.
>>
>
>please tell us why alt.garden.pond.chat and free.uk.nature.ponds would
>not serve the interest of rec.ponder regulars?
Same reasons as before.
>> * Establishing an ecosystem:
>> Where else can you create your own ecosystem and watch it evolve?
>> We will have discussions on water quality; the ratio of plant life to
>> animal life; plant/animal interactions, etc.
>>
>
>please tell us why alt.garden.pond.chat and free.uk.nature.ponds would
>not serve the interest of rec.ponder regulars?
Same as before.
>> * Plant life:
>> We will discuss which plants are best suited for our water gardens.
>> Which plants need a lot of sunlight, which will survive in the pond
>> over winter, which need to be taken indoors, etc. The
>> rec.ponds.moderated newsgroup will serve as a forum for discussing
>> plant diseases and cures, when to divide, and how to propagate our
>> plants. We will also share information on establishing an area for
>> bog plants.
>>
>
>please tell us why alt.garden.pond.chat and free.uk.nature.ponds would
>not serve the interest of rec.ponder regulars?
I'll bet you can guess the reason by now.
>> * Fish:
>> We will share information on fish behavior, biology, and health. For
>> example: Which fish are compatible? What is the maximum number of
>> fish for the size of a pond? What conditions should exist in the
>> pond so the fish will breed? How do we protect the fry from danger
>> and see that they grow into healthy adults? Which diseases are
>> likely to affect pond fish? How much should we feed the fish, and
>> how often?
>
>How would the moderators deal with false information?
We've talked about this specifically. The inclination seems to be that
most of us would (perhaps reluctantly) approve the post. If the
information were to be very harmful, then perhaps it would be held back.
It's a thorny question, which will have to be answered on a case by case
basis time and time again.
>> * Amphibians and reptiles:
>> We will discuss the biology, health, and behavior of frogs, newts,
>> snakes, salamanders, turtles, etc. that either come naturally to the
>> pond or are placed there by us. Which ones get along?
>
>For this you have sci.bio.herp
That group tends to get a little more scientific than we do.
>> * Other environmental concerns:
>> In rec.ponds.moderated, we will discuss how to make certain the pond
>> is not a safety hazard for small children or pets. How can we
>> attract butterflies? Should we attract snails? Also, how do we
>> guard against unwanted visitors (raccoons, cats, snakes, herons) that
>> may prey on the fish and/or plants in a pond? What about the use of
>> fertilizers or insecticides near the pond? Rec.ponds.moderated can
>> be a place to exchange information on (non-political) conservation
>> issues.
>
>please tell us why alt.garden.pond.chat and free.uk.nature.ponds would
>not serve the interest of rec.ponder regulars?
Pretty much the same reasons apply as I've pointed out before.
>> * Miscellaneous:
>> Students can use rec.ponds.moderated as a place for learning more
>> about plant and animal life in and around water. We may exchange
>> information regarding suppliers of equipment, literature regarding
>> water garden techniques, location of other electronic resources, etc.
>> (However, rec.ponds.moderated is *not* intended as a forum for
>> commercial transactions with respect to sale of plants, fish, or pond
>> equipment.)
>>
>
>please tell us why alt.garden.pond.chat and free.uk.nature.ponds would
>not serve the interest of rec.ponder regulars?
Guess.
>> MODERATION POLICY: rec.ponds.moderated
>>
>> 1. Content - on-topic discussions about ponding or reasonable off
>> topic posts will be allowed; but flames, troll attempts, and personal
>> attacks will not be allowed. Nor will:
>
>
>Define reasonable Off topic discussion.
Hey, this is a request for discussion. We're open to suggestions.
>> 2. Author - anyone will be allowed to post on-topic or reasonable off
>> topic posts as long as they are not forging another poster's name.
>> Anonymous posting will be allowed.
>>
>
>Define reasonable Off topic discussion.
Hey, this is a request for discussion. We're open to suggestions.
>> 3. Crossposting - Minimal crossposting to related groups based on
>> content (e.g., fish hobby, gardening, wildlife management) will be
>> allowed. No crossposting to irrelevant groups will be permitted.
>
>Define irrelevant groups.
Hey, this is a request for discussion. We're open to suggestions.
>Conclusion, It seem the purpose of creating RPM is to establish an elite
>and exclusionary group. Other unmoderated groups exist on Usenet to
>satisfy Ponder desires and no troll attack are occurring over in those
>groups. One of the propose moderators is a regular in those group and
>can verify this statement her name is Jan.
>
>Comments?
>Observations?
I disagree with your conclusion and believe it to be because it is based in
part on flawed premises.
--
Galen Hekhuis NpD, JFR, GWA ghekhuis@
earthlink.net
Illiterate? Write for FREE help
