🚀 go-pugleaf

"tmorgen@nonewsguy.com" <Tom Morgengill> wrote in message
news:6drrkuk6popg0ioekkfnbvj8simrdvv142@4ax.com...
: 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?
<snip>

please read on , I will place it here, even though this has already been
answered.  The revised charter allows for such a committee to be formed just
as the original charter did...

see below:

This is the *old * charter, revisions will be obviously marked and begin
with -----

*many changes reflect the fact that there is no administration for the co*
groups and allow for any interested party to purpose changes through
consensus and/or vote.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
              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.

-----no changes to this point.

-----below was removed from the proposed-revised charter----
-----because no groups (that I am aware of) are--------------------
-----moderated anymore.-------------------------------------------------
-----there is also no administration in place-------------------------
-----and no such watch list----------------------------------------------

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.
----above was
removed-------------------------------------------------------------


----original below
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:

-----revised
Readers and posters are expected to give their full support to this charter
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
as well as some that have been added by the current users of the co.*
hierarchy. Here are some of the more important do's and don'ts:


---this paragraph remains unchanged.
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.

---original:
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.

-----revised:
2. Do not advertise in non ads groups.  If a group has "ads" as part of it's
name, it is ok to advertise in that group; likewise if a group does not have
"ads" in the title of the group, advertising is not permitted in that group.
Do not repost ads from others, allow the authors of an ad to decide on its
proper placement and do not post Make Money Fast get-rich-quick schemes or
chain letters.  Posting ads in non-ads groups will be considered a violation
of the co.* hierarchy charter and you will be reported to your ISP or
news-service and you will lose your account.

---this paragraph remains unchanged.
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.

---this paragraph remains unchanged.
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]

---this paragraph remains unchanged.
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.

---this paragraph remains unchanged.
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.

---this paragraph remains unchanged.
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.

---this paragraph remains unchanged.
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."

---this paragraph remains unchanged.
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.

-----this paragraph was added to the revised-proposed charter:
11. "Flood Attacks" or posting mass groups of messages pushes other posts
off of various news servers and amounts to a Denial of Service to other
messages in a group.  Violators will be reported to their ISP and/or
newsgroup/news-service provider.

----this paragraph was labeled 10, is now labeled 11 but is otherwise
unchanged.
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.

---this paragraph remains unchanged.
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.


-----original charter:
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.

---revised:
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 advertising in groups not designated for advertising
with ".ads" as part of its' name and "flooding".  The best way to avoid such
cancellations is to not post these types of articles and to not "spam" in
Usenet.


----original:
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.

-----revised due to lack of Admin for co.*:
Third-party cancels will be issued for blatant violations of the posting
guidelines found in the paragraph above

---this paragraph remains unchanged.
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.

-----removed due to lack of Admin for co.*:
Newsgroup Hosts should not attempt to cancel any articles
themselves unless authorized to do so by the co.* hierarchy
administration.

----removed due to lack of Admin for co.* spam, ads and floods could be
canceled by users.
Readers and posters to the co.* newsgroups should not attempt
to cancel any articles but their own.

---this paragraph remains unchanged.
Suspected forgeries will be reported directly to the originating site.

---this paragraph remains unchanged.
Unauthorized use of registered domains will be reported directly to
the domain whose name is apparently being misused.

----original:
For further information on cancels, see Tim Skirvin's Cancel FAQ
at:  http://www.math.uiuc.edu/~tskirvin/faqs/cancel.html.

----link removed, it no longer exists.


----original:
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.


-----revised due to lack of Admin for co.*:
Amendments:

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









---

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.381 / Virus Database: 214 - Release Date: 8/2/2002