🚀 go-pugleaf

On Sun, 04 Aug 2002 16:00:31 GMT, "Kingfish"
<spam_trap_void@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>"Tom Morgengill" <tmorgen@nonewsguy.com> wrote in message
>news:57cqku0a7qp7ucbq9r2epcrfpdobt13kqk@4ax.com...
>: The Kingfish's suggestion (RFD) is improper.  Anything broken can be
>: repaired.   Here is an example of this:
>:
>: Kingfish wrote:
>:
>: >>These rules may not be amended without full RFD discussion in co.config.
>: >>Any person may post an RFD suggesting amendments to these rules.  The
>: >>procedure to be followed will be the same as for a newsgroup proposal --
>two
>: >>weeks minimum discussion, possibly extended twice, and then (hopefully)
>a
>: >>decision will be made by consensus without the need for conducting any
>: >>votes. Once a hierarchy committee is formed, the committee is free to
>: >>propose and adopt its own posting rules.
>: >>
>: >>Approved by consensus in co.config on   ?????????
>: >>
>: >>---
>: >>
>: >>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>: >>Version: 6.0.381 / Virus Database: 214 - Release Date: 8/2/2002
>: >
>: And Harlan Bettencourt decided to vote anyway....
>:
>: >Yes vote.
>:
>: On Sun, 04 Aug 2002 04:04:13 GMT, "Kingfish"
>: <spam_trap_void@yahoo.com> wrote:
>:
>: >
>: >"Maraya" <maraya@dimensional.com> wrote in message
>: >news:3D4C55A2.7262AB32@dimensional.com...
>: >: [snipped]
>: >:
>: >: 1.  What if no one responds to your proposal?  How many people read
>this
>: >group?
>: >: How do you propose to ascertain that you've reached consensus?
>: >:
>: >
>: >feel free to anounce it anywhere.  I have mentioned several times to
>watch
>: >co.config to all ngs in co.*
>: >
>: This is not usenet protocol. We can't simply make up the rules to suit
>: our own individual needs.  If the usenet community does not accept a
>: charter as being reasonable, then to create it is a waste of time.
>: The proper protocol in itself is important.  Should a complaint be
>: lodged and this be brought to the attention of the usenet
>: administrator, you will have little support from that administrator in
>: enforcing it.
>
>Please point us to the protocol then.  Without documentation as to *why*
>this is improper, your point is invalid.  The origonal charter for the co.*
>heirarchy provided for it to be changed, in co.config through an RFD. The
>admion for co.* is AWOL and has been for at least 2 years.  Therefore there
>is no admin to issue cancels, to create new newsgroups; and the current
>charter is insufficent to handle to problems that have arisen recently in
>co.general without revision.  Now is a proper time for the charter to be
>brought up to speed - if you dissagree with a particular part of the charter
>as it is proposed, you are welcome to make suggestions or to make additions
>where you see fit - but what I have proposed is in accordance with the co.*
>heirarchy charter as it was written and accepted.  (see the bottom of this
>message for the old charter)
>
Your RFD posted in co.config is attempting to create a charter for all
co. newsgroups.  This is not proper.  You need to write a new charter
for each group, specifically to that group.  If the problem is with
co.general then co.general needs the charter change. 
>
>
>: >
>: >: 2.  Who gets to be on your proposed committee?  How many people make a
>: >: committee?  How do we know that all of the people who volunteer aren't
>: >actually
>: >: *you?*  We don't even know who you are.
>: >:
>: >I purpose no comittee.  That was part of the origonal charter, if such a
>: >comittee is desired then by consensus here it could be formed.
>: >
>: You need to collect your thoughts more accurately. In your original
>: post (suggestion/RFD) you said:
>:
>: >Once a hierarchy committee is formed, the committee is free to
>: >propose and adopt its own posting rules.
>:
>: Now you state that you are proposing no committee?
>: This is why there is specific protocol for creating/changing charters.
>: When creating a charter for a non-moderating newsgroup it is important
>: to realize that enforcing it is simply not possible.  For that reason,
>: most non-moderated group charters are written very loosely and the
>: kill file was created.
>
>This was in the origonal charter, that was posted here in this group.  This
>leaves the option open for such a comittee.
>
Your post first indicated there would be a committee. Your follow up
to Maraya indicated you did not suggest a committee.  Now you are
saying that the charter is open for such a committee. Without further
confusion then could you perhaps answer Maraya's question? 
>
>: >: 3.  Get a life.
>: >:
>: >: Maraya
>: >:
>: >
>: >read the original charter and do some comparison.  It has been posted
>here
>: >recently.
>: >
>: >
>: >---
>: >
>: >Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>: >Version: 6.0.381 / Virus Database: 214 - Release Date: 8/2/2002
>:
>
>
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------
>-------old but still in effect charter follows--------
>--------------------------------------------------------------
>
>              Posting Rules for the co.* hierarchy
>
>These newsgroup posting guidelines apply only to the co.*
>hierarchy, and will remain in force until such time as a committee
>is formed to assume responsibility for the day-to-day affairs of
>the hierarchy.
>
>Introduction:
>
>In Usenet tradition, there are generally only two kinds of
>newsgroups - moderated and unmoderated.  The difference
>between the two is that anyone can post just about anything they
>want to an unmoderated group, whereas nobody can post
>anything to a moderated group without the approval of the
>moderator.
>
>In the co.* hierarchy, commercial groups will generally be
>moderated, but discussion groups will not.  Instead, they will
>be _monitored_ by Newsgroup Hosts whose job it is to keep the
>groups running smoothly and on topic.  Newsgroup Hosts have
>authority to reprimand posters who violate the charter of a
>newsgroup or the co.* hierarchy rules, and to place repeat
>offenders on the co.* hierarchy Watch List.  But, until
>further notice, all 3rd party cancellations will be handled by
>the co.* hierarchy administration.
>
>Readers and posters are expected to give their full support to
>the Newsgroup Hosts so that the co.* newsgroups don't turn into
>cesspools of inappropriate crossposts and flamewars.  But first,
>they need to know some of the rules that have been handed
>down by the original creators of the Usenet newsgroups. Here
>are some of the more important do's and don'ts:
>
>1. Do not post binaries, HTML, vcards, or other non-standard
>stuff in the co.* hierarchy.  Usenet is a plain text medium which
>was never intended to be an extension of the World Wide Web.
>Instead of posting stuff from your website to a newsgroup, post
>a pointer telling people where to find your website, and what
>they can expect to see.
>
>2. Do not advertise for the sake of advertising, and do not post
>Make Money Fast get-rich-quick schemes or chain letters.  It's
>OK to tell people about your newsletter or your new website
>where that is permitted by a newsgroup's charter, but be careful
>not to overdo.  If you want to advertise your business or your
>website on a regular basis, you should put that information in
>a signature file and attach it to your posts.  A signature file
>should be brief, no more than 4-6 lines.
>
>3. Do not crosspost to more than 5 groups, including the co.*
>group from which you are posting, and be careful when
>crossposting to newsgroups in other hierarchies.  Different
>hierarchies have different rules and, when you crosspost to
>another hierarchy, your article is subject to those other rules.
>
>4. Check the newsgroups line before responding to an article.
>If more than five groups are listed, delete the least appropriate
>group(s) until there are only five left.  Adjust follow-ups as well,
>if that appears to be necessary.  Then, at the top of your article,
>insert something like the following note in brackets:
>
>[newsgroups trimmed -- the co.* hierarchy has a 5G crosspost limit]
>
>5. Do not post or crosspost to moderated groups unless you have
>read the charter and understand the moderation rules.  An article
>sent to a moderated group will not be posted anywhere until and
>unless it is approved by the moderator of the moderated group.
>
>6.  Do not quote an entire message just to respond to one point.
>It is better to quote only the part you are responding to, and to cut
>everything else from your response.  Also, be careful when
>making attributions as to who made the statement you are
>responding to.  Most software will insert the attribution lines for
>you, but you should always check to be sure they are correct.
>Other people will be upset if you make a mistake and put words
>in their mouth.
>
>7.  Set your line width at no more than 75 characters.  This allows
>an additional five spaces for the quote marks in follow-ups so that
>other posters don't have to reformat your articles in order to send
>a readable reply.
>
>8. Do not SHOUT at people by posting in ALL CAPS, even if you
>are really angry.  Use asterisks (*) or underlines (_) instead to
>emphasize words or phrases. It is easier to read "I am really
>angry with you" than it is to read "I AM REALLY ANGRY WITH
>YOU."
>
>9. Do not post articles in other people's names, not even in jest.
>Forgery is taken quite seriously in Usenet, and you could lose
>your account.
>
>10. If you insist on munging or faking your email address, be
>careful not to create problems for other people.  One poster
>thought he had a real cute address to give the address harvesters
>- no@spam.com - until he was informed that the domain
>"spam.com" belongs to Hormel Foods, and that any mail for "no"
>was probably being sent to Hormel's servers.
>
>11.  Do not post private email in the newsgroups without permission
>from your correspondent.  When people see their email spread
>around, they tend to quickly lose faith in the person who spread it.
>If by chance you _do_  accidentally post email to a newsgroup, be
>sure to apologize right away.
>
>12. Beware of heated conversations.  Sometimes they turn into
>flamewars, which are often very hard to stop.  If you see a flamewar
>brewing, try not to get involved.  If you find yourself in strong
>disagreement with another poster, ask yourself if it is worth it to
>respond.  If your response is likely to start or continue a flamewar,
>it might be best to _not_ respond rather than add fuel to the fire.
>There is no rule that says you must respond to every article.
>
>Cancellation Policy:
>
>Certain articles may be subject to cancellation, including but not
>limited to: Make Money Fast chain letters and pyramid schemes;
>binaries in non-binary groups; and obvious "spam" with a
>Breidbart Index equal to or greater than 20.  The best way to
>avoid such cancellations is to not post these types of articles and
>to not "spam" in Usenet.
>
>Except in emergency situations, third-party cancels will be issued
>by the co.* hierarchy administration only after obtaining permission
>from the original poster and/or his/her site administrator.  In an
>emergency situation, as when a newsgroup is flooded with "spew,"
>prior consent will not be sought.  In both cases, copies of the cancel
>message will be sent to the poster and his site administrator so that
>they will know the message was canceled by the co.* hierarchy.
>
>If a poster or service provider feels a cancel was unfair, an appeal
>may be posted for discussion in co.config.  The decision will be
>made by consensus of the group in co.config, and apologies will be
>made to anyone who can show that a cancel was unfair.
>
>Newsgroup Hosts should not attempt to cancel any articles
>themselves unless authorized to do so by the co.* hierarchy
>administration.
>
>Readers and posters to the co.* newsgroups should not attempt
>to cancel any articles but their own.
>
>Suspected forgeries will be reported directly to the originating site.
>
>Unauthorized use of registered domains will be reported directly to
>the domain whose name is apparently being misused.
>
>For further information on cancels, see Tim Skirvin's Cancel FAQ
>at:  http://www.math.uiuc.edu/~tskirvin/faqs/cancel.html.
>
>Amendments:
>
>These rules may not be amended by the co.* hierarchy maintainer
>without full RFD discussion in co.config.  Any person directly
>connected with the co.* hierarchy may post an RFD suggesting
>amendments to these rules.  The procedure to be followed will be
>the same as for a newsgroup proposal -- two weeks minimum
>discussion, possibly extended twice, and then (hopefully) a
>decision will be made by consensus without the need for conducting
>any votes. Once a hierarchy committee is formed, the committee is
>free to propose and adopt its own posting rules.
>
>Approved by consensus in co.config on Friday, May 28, 1999.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>---
>
>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>Version: 6.0.381 / Virus Database: 214 - Release Date: 8/3/2002