"There are more common understandings of what is abuse of Usenet
(flooding, denial of service, forgery) and abuse on Usenet (ad-hominem
attacks, threats, trolling, off-topic material, SPAM, etc.). This
article also suggests other more subtle examples of participation that
can send unmoderated newsgroups off the rails, and create editorial
challenges for moderated newsgroups."

https://www.reddit.com/r/ClassicUsenet/comments/ue7jji/examples_of_abuse/

In news.groups Paul W. Schleck <pschleck@panix.com> wrote:
> "There are more common understandings of what is abuse of Usenet
> (flooding, denial of service, forgery) and abuse on Usenet (ad-hominem
> attacks, threats, trolling, off-topic material, SPAM, etc.). This
> article also suggests other more subtle examples of participation that
> can send unmoderated newsgroups off the rails, and create editorial
> challenges for moderated newsgroups."
>
> https://www.reddit.com/r/ClassicUsenet/comments/ue7jji/examples_of_abuse/

What is the purpose of posting these things over at Reddit then
copying them here? It's not clear whether the author is the same
person posting here, but I'm inclined to think that if they're
currently more willing to use Reddit than Usenet to post at least
the full text, that suggests they're mainly interested in turning
Usenet into something more similar to Reddit, which is a platform
I've never particularly liked or used.

So I'm inclined to disregard their views as coming from someone
with opposing motives to those of existing Usenet participants.

Also if the author isn't the person posting here, what do they
expect to achieve by talking on another platform where many
active Usenet users are entirely absent? Do they intend some sort
of invasion of Usenet to drive out the existing users and make it
into their own free Reddit replacement?

--
__ __
#_ < |\| |< _#

Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote:

> In news.groups Paul W. Schleck <pschleck@panix.com> wrote:
> > "There are more common understandings of what is abuse of Usenet
> > (flooding, denial of service, forgery) and abuse on Usenet (ad-hominem
> > attacks, threats, trolling, off-topic material, SPAM, etc.). This
> > article also suggests other more subtle examples of participation that
> > can send unmoderated newsgroups off the rails, and create editorial
> > challenges for moderated newsgroups."
> >
> > https://www.reddit.com/r/ClassicUsenet/comments/ue7jji/examples_of_abuse/
>
> What is the purpose of posting these things over at Reddit then
> copying them here? It's not clear whether the author is the same
> person posting here, but I'm inclined to think that if they're
> currently more willing to use Reddit than Usenet to post at least
> the full text, that suggests they're mainly interested in turning
> Usenet into something more similar to Reddit, which is a platform
> I've never particularly liked or used.
>
> So I'm inclined to disregard their views as coming from someone
> with opposing motives to those of existing Usenet participants.
>
> Also if the author isn't the person posting here, what do they
> expect to achieve by talking on another platform where many
> active Usenet users are entirely absent? Do they intend some sort
> of invasion of Usenet to drive out the existing users and make it
> into their own free Reddit replacement?
>

I note that rec.radio.* has largely been swamped by blog reposting to
the detriment of genuine discussion. This seems to me to be similar.

--
^Ï^. Sn!pe <https://youtu.be/_kqytf31a8E>

My pet rock Gordon just is.

In <6523329a@news.ausics.net> not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) writes:

> Do they intend some sort of invasion of Usenet to drive out the
> existing users and make it into their own free Reddit replacement?

Where else should we recruit new, quality participants for Usenet?
Gentrification is one strategy to clean up a slum, though admittedly an
imperfect one. It would at least improve real-estate values and reduce
crime. One way to resist gentrification would be to organize existing
residents that want to improve their neighborhoods and for them to take
responsibility to do so.

--
Paul W. Schleck
pschleck@panix.com

Paul W. Schleck <pschleck@panix.com> wrote:
>
>Where else should we recruit new, quality participants for Usenet?
>Gentrification is one strategy to clean up a slum, though admittedly an
>imperfect one. It would at least improve real-estate values and reduce
>crime. One way to resist gentrification would be to organize existing
>residents that want to improve their neighborhoods and for them to take
>responsibility to do so.

Don't worry about recruiting new participants. First let us get our own
house in order and THEN once the trash has gone away, THEN we can say that
Usenet actually has something to offer new participants.

But as long as most people think Usenet is about trading bootleg software,
and as long as most of the available Usenet applications are centered around
trading bootleg software instead of using discussion groups, and as long as
discussion groups are filled with advertisements for drugs and bootleg
software, recruiting new quality participants is futile. Because they
won't stick around.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

In news.groups Paul W. Schleck <pschleck@panix.com> wrote:
> In <6523329a@news.ausics.net> not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) writes:
>
>> Do they intend some sort of invasion of Usenet to drive out the
>> existing users and make it into their own free Reddit replacement?
>
> Where else should we recruit new, quality participants for Usenet?

I'd be glad for people to come to Usenet from Reddit or the Web in
general, but not with a pre-formed adjenda to turn it into
something else. If you/they want to discuss changing things in
Usenet, do it where existing Usenet users can participate in the
discussion. You probably won't get support on a lot of proposals,
but maybe some things that Reddit users propose are actually some
reasons why people like me never did use Reddit in the first place.

> Gentrification is one strategy to clean up a slum, though admittedly an
> imperfect one. It would at least improve real-estate values and reduce
> crime. One way to resist gentrification would be to organize existing
> residents that want to improve their neighborhoods and for them to take
> responsibility to do so.

An interesting, albeit slightly threatening, metaphore. But I still
don't see why you/they think the discussion should happen at Reddit
instead of on Usenet.

> --
> Paul W. Schleck
> pschleck@panix.com

So are you Parker51MKII, the author of these posts at Reddit, or
not? I can't keep up this double-talk trying to cover either
possibility forever!

--
__ __
#_ < |\| |< _# | Note: I won't see posts made from Google Groups |

In <652b2480@news.ausics.net> not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) writes:

>In news.groups Paul W. Schleck <pschleck@panix.com> wrote:
>> In <6523329a@news.ausics.net> not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) writes:
>>
>>> Do they intend some sort of invasion of Usenet to drive out the
>>> existing users and make it into their own free Reddit replacement?
>>
>> Where else should we recruit new, quality participants for Usenet?

>I'd be glad for people to come to Usenet from Reddit or the Web in
>general, but not with a pre-formed adjenda to turn it into
>something else. If you/they want to discuss changing things in
>Usenet, do it where existing Usenet users can participate in the
>discussion. You probably won't get support on a lot of proposals,
>but maybe some things that Reddit users propose are actually some
>reasons why people like me never did use Reddit in the first place.

I just found the idea amusing that there was a contingent of coordinated
Reddit-sourced insurgents ready to Juggernaut March onto Usenet and mold
it into their image. Neither Reddit nor Usenet is that organized, nor
important.

It's somewhat similar to a previously expressed fear (or ridicule) that
a group of ham radio operators were poised to "take over" Usenet, and by
extension, subject it to greater jurisdiction of the FCC. I previously
defended the idea of such people helping to support Usenet for several
reasons:

- The requirements of initial and ongoing qualification for federal
licensing means that they are at least nominally sane and
law-abiding.

- They are able to work towards projects and goals that require
long-term, organized effort.

- They are experts with technology, self-training, and volunteer
service.

- They are passionate enough about their pursuits, and the history and
legacy of their century-old avocation, to think that something like
Usenet is actually important.

>> Gentrification is one strategy to clean up a slum, though admittedly an
>> imperfect one. It would at least improve real-estate values and reduce
>> crime. One way to resist gentrification would be to organize existing
>> residents that want to improve their neighborhoods and for them to take
>> responsibility to do so.

>An interesting, albeit slightly threatening, metaphore. But I still
>don't see why you/they think the discussion should happen at Reddit
>instead of on Usenet.

Sometimes something can only be objectively evaluated from a distance,
and Reddit provides a reasonably civil and accessible forum to do that.
Seems that every time someone tries to discuss the present or future
state of Usenet, or even try to make plans, on Usenet, that some want to
turn every such discussion into a public Battle Royale, where everything
is fought to the proverbial death. As the founder of Wikipedia noted:

"I strongly disapprove of _arguing_ as a mode of moving forward. That's
so.... Usenet." - Jimbo Wales

Somewhat related example: Rational discussion about jazz was impossible
in the U.S. for many years because it was widely viewed as evil, full of
junkies, sex fiends, and (even worse) racially integrated groups
collaborating artistically. It really wasn't until the French
independently observed U.S. jazz as a valid art form that it gained
wider acceptance and respect.

>> --
>> Paul W. Schleck
>> pschleck@panix.com

>So are you Parker51MKII, the author of these posts at Reddit, or
>not? I can't keep up this double-talk trying to cover either
>possibility forever!

I hear that he is related to Larsen E. Rapp III.

--
Paul W. Schleck
pschleck@panix.com

In news.groups Paul W. Schleck <pschleck@panix.com> wrote:
> In <652b2480@news.ausics.net> not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) writes:
>>An interesting, albeit slightly threatening, metaphore. But I still
>>don't see why you/they think the discussion should happen at Reddit
>>instead of on Usenet.
>
> Sometimes something can only be objectively evaluated from a distance,
> and Reddit provides a reasonably civil and accessible forum to do that.
> Seems that every time someone tries to discuss the present or future
> state of Usenet, or even try to make plans, on Usenet, that some want to
> turn every such discussion into a public Battle Royale, where everything
> is fought to the proverbial death.

I see. It's basically the same as people who would post their long
rants about the wrongs of Usenet on personal web pages then.
Venting frustration about what can't be changed, more than anything
useful.

> As the founder of Wikipedia noted:
>
> "I strongly disapprove of _arguing_ as a mode of moving forward. That's
> so.... Usenet." - Jimbo Wales

That explains the culture of superiority on Wikipedia that turns me
right off participating there.

> Somewhat related example: Rational discussion about jazz was impossible
> in the U.S. for many years because it was widely viewed as evil, full of
> junkies, sex fiends, and (even worse) racially integrated groups
> collaborating artistically. It really wasn't until the French
> independently observed U.S. jazz as a valid art form that it gained
> wider acceptance and respect.

Posting about perceived problems on Usenet in a place where it
can't bring about any change seems unlikely to gain it wider
acceptance and respect. Still, maybe any publicity is good
publicity.

--
__ __
#_ < |\| |< _# | Note: I won't see posts made from Google Groups |

In <652c5674@news.ausics.net> not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) writes:

>I see. It's basically the same as people who would post their long
>rants about the wrongs of Usenet on personal web pages then.
>Venting frustration about what can't be changed, more than anything
>useful.

and:

>Posting about perceived problems on Usenet in a place where it
>can't bring about any change seems unlikely to gain it wider
>acceptance and respect. Still, maybe any publicity is good
>publicity.

Discussing Usenet on a separate forum isn't about rants, nor is it a
futile effort that can't bring any change. The r/ClassicUsenet
subreddit has nearly 420 subscribers, active thread activity including
followup discussion, and represents not just reminiscing about the past,
but also ideation and outreach for the future. Already, there is
cross-pollination of information and discussion, versus flaming
arguments, between it and Usenet newsgroups like news.groups and
alt.fan.usenet. The reconstituted Big-8 Board is pursuing positive
projects, with little apparent public criticism, such as maintaining and
improving an existing moderation software package (STUMP), creating new
newsgroups, recruiting/training replacement moderators, and overall
encouraging the use of Usenet, including their remit of managing the
Big-8 hierarchy.

--
Paul W. Schleck
pschleck@panix.com