- "Killfiles are the nunchucks of Usenet. Like nunchucks, many users of
killfiles are so obsessed with the spectacle and ego-gratification of
brandishing them, that such users lose sight of the fact that they are
ineffective weapons. Even the most skilled nunchuck wielder can be
vulnerable to a simple farmer snatching them out of their hands with
the business end of a pruning hook, then flipping that pruning hook
over to the handle end to beat them over the head before they realize
what happened. Killfiles are vulnerable to being undermined by subject
and nym shifting, as well as natural human weakness and temper that
can be baited and provoked. Combatants on Usenet don't want to
'ignore' arguments, they want to actively engage them."
Newsreader killfiles, the "Nunchucks of Usenet"
- "
- The use of kill files as a silver-bullet solution (a technology
that has been undermined over the years from nym and subject shifting,
as well as unproductive public 'plonk' wars)
- Unwarranted conflation of worthwhile editorial goals with accusations of censorship or elitism
- Assumptions that everyone is a computer specialist running trn
or xnews from a Unix shell prompt, well-versed in complex and
ever-changing kill file configurations, or that the proper
solution is that everyone who participates on the newsgroups
should be (what happens when an ideal kill file kills 100% of the
article traffic?)
[...]
"
Common fallacious arguments against moderated newsgroups
- "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."
Examples of Abuse
- "I'm not impressed by the net.martyr archetype on-line. I saw it
many times on the Usenet newsgroups, and now it's starting to infect
blogs. People are entitled to their opinions, but the net.martyr raises
it to some kind of moral crusade, and an ill-considered, unproductive,
and egomaniacal one at that."
net.martyr
- "The discussion of scientific or technical topics on Usenet has
often wound up as a dichotomy between an advanced academic newsgroup and
one that is overwhelmed with kooky or naive laypeople with pet theories,
pie-in-the-sky proposals, and flawed proofs of long-standing challenges
in fields (Fermat's Theorem being most popular). Throw in some obviously
unbalanced individuals, personal attacks, repetitive agenda posting,
public meltdowns, and the inevitable detour into political arguments,
and these newsgroups became unusable for purpose."
Subject matter newsgroups: Threading the needle between arcanery and kookery
- "The above discussion thread on a moderated newsgroup is an
example of how an on-topic discussion can quickly go off the rails. It
starts with a technical discussion, then starts to wander into credulous
assertions that are rebutted, then those rebutted start to make
disingenuous arguments based on bad analogies, filibuster the debate,
and accuse others in the discussion of attacking and insulting
them. They start to take on the net.martyr mantle and wade into
controversial assertions that rules, laws, and customs are unjust or
poorly enforced, so why not just unilaterally disobey them, and what's
the harm? Usually when a thread gets this far, the flame torch is lit,
and the argument then moves to personal counterattacks and insults that
rapidly take leave of the discussion topic and any objective facts."
An
example of when threads go bad
- "This thread starts out innocently enough, with someone asking a
technical question, and seemingly in good faith. As the discussion
progressed, it becomes clear that they had an a-priori objective to
attack an activity as well as those that participate in it, and wanted
to start an argument (c.f. 'Concern Troll'). Rebuttals, both by regular
readers and moderators, that there is a lot more context to the subject
were ignored. A common tactic among conspiracy theorists when backed
into a corner with irrefutable facts is to turn the tables and say,
'Sure, that's what they want you think,' or even, 'Sure, but they let
you win.' Watch how inflammatory rhetoric, Humpty-Dumpty definitions,
condescending lecturing, non-falsifiable assertions, and unwarranted
speculation of motives get gradually introduced. This person posted
anonymously, and could not be reached by the moderation team via
email. A later request posted publicly in the newsgroup to contact the
moderation team for a friendly, private, two-way discussion towards the
shared positive goal of getting more of their article submissions
approved was disregarded."
Spotting a Concern Troll in the wild
- "When trying to recruit people to Usenet, I often get the following responses:
- Is that still around?
- Boy, that was one big 'Fight Club'
- Now it's just porn and piracy
"
Pushback on Usenet?
- "Often on news.groups or news.groups.proposals, especially during
a Request for Discussion (RFD) for a new newsgroup, the 'Standard' (or
'Usual') Advice is brought up. While not formally documented anywhere,
it is a form of oral history and lessons-learned about Usenet. Like folk
medicine, it has some value, but has also been at least partly overcome
by modern practices. It also represents an ongoing 'Great Debate'
between the 'originalists' or 'strict constructionists' vs. the 'living
document' or 'pie-in-the-sky' reformers that has been waged on Usenet
for years, if not decades. One side essentially wants a Williamsburg,
Virginia, the other a Williamsburg, Brooklyn. Both sides have some
merit, but also some blind spots, and the future value of Usenet, and
management of the newsgroup hierarchy, would reasonably appear to depend
on not re-litigating old settled arguments, nor refusing to acknowledge
that some early wisdom doesn't scale on a modern, general-access
Internet and might have to be reconsidered."
Limitations of the "Standard" or "Usual" Advice about Usenet
-
"
- Web interface to remotely configure the moderation tools, and approve/preapprove/reject/prereject articles, with restricted acscess based on host/IP authentication enforced by Apache web server .htaccess file, and username/password login. The .htaccess file may be updated by moderators remotely using a secure E-mail server and commands in the message body.
- Acknowledgments to submitters (submitter-configurable to turn on or off)
- Configurable rejection form letters sent in response to specific configured rejection categories (selected from web interface)
[...]
"
Sample requirements for Usenet newsgroup moderation software
- "Interesting dynamic on news.groups:
- Participants are uninterested in discussing ideas. They only
want to engage with articles that come from specific identified
people who are reading the newsgroup so that they can be
personally attacked, their motivations assailed, and be drawn into
extended unproductive argument.
- An unmoderated configging newsgroup can easily be destabilized
by a small amount of posting activity, even that which is
on-topic. Clearly, the Big-8 Management Board for Usenet made a good
choice to continue with a moderated configging newsgroup that can be
kept on-topic through editorial control of content, including
blocking personal attacks and insults, as well as rate-limiting of
repetition and flooding.
"
Three on-topic posts a week swamps and ruins a newsgroup
- "
- Google owns Usenet
- When Google Groups stops archiving Usenet articles later this month, Usenet will go away
- Existing active Usenet discussion newsgroups must move to another forum now, or be lost
[...]
"
Current top myths about Usenet
- "It seems that some people prefer to define Usenet by what it
isn't (or at least what they feel it should not be), rather than what it
should be. They also seem to lack self-awareness about this, resulting
in a low-quality information product akin to a written 'Fight Club.'"
Trying to define Usenet by what it isn't (or should not be)
- "With all due respect ...
... (and no undue disrespect)"
Have you ever noticed that when someone starts out a sentence with, 'Kindly,' the rest is usually anything but?
- "(aka, the self-righteous and self-justifying 'net.hypocrite')
One archetype of Usenet troll that emerged about 25-30 years ago,
shortly after Eternal September and often originating from
'non-traditional' or 'general-access' Usenet sites like AOL and
CompuServe, was the 'Selective Memory' troll. One red flag that
someone has selective memory is from a common limitation of normal
human memory, well-known to law enforcement during interrogations of
suspects, that people will clearly remember their honest statements,
but forget their lies.
For someone to be a true 'Selective Memory' troll, it has to go to a
repeated pattern of carelessness or willful falsehoods and holding
others to standards of evidence, honesty, consistency, and
good-faith motivations more stringent than they hold themselves."
The "Selective Memory" Troll