[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: Tale and the SRH-reorg (Was: Re: Charter changes?)

[adding sci to news groups line]
[being sent separately to srh]

In article <qum20iysz27.thoron@cyclone.Stanford.EDU>,
Russ Allbery  <rra@cs.stanford.edu> wrote:
>This message was posted to news.groups, and a copy was mailed to Mr. Rao.
>Please read the ENTIRE MESSAGE before even considering responding.
>
>I marked Mr. Rao's last message right after I read it the first time and
>walked away for a few days and try to calm down.  I came back and it
>didn't help.  I walked across Stanford and back trying to get some, *any*,
>grasp on why Mr. Rao is acting the way he is and why the incredibly abrupt
>transformation in the way he is writing.  No luck.  I'm still just as
>baffled and just as furious.

i sympathise with you for  your utter helplessness in reading, 
writing, re-reading and re-writing. it is not uncommon on a 
forum like news group. however, i  hope you remember that on
this particular thread, the tone and tenor of the write up was
dictated by *your* post. i am inserting  a small excertp from
your prv post

-----------inclusion------------------------
>From:         Russ Allbery <rra@cs.stanford.edu>
>Date:         1996/06/22
>Message-Id:   <qum20j8gfvx.fsf@cyclone.Stanford.EDU>


[....]

Let me make something else clear as well.  Those of you on news.groups are
only seeing a miniscule part of this issue.  I have followed the entire
debate on group-advice and elsewhere, and I personally am infuriated at
the way the proponents of the soc.religion.hindu reorg have conducted
themselves both publically and privately, from unjustified and unsupported
attacks on Tale to attempts to turn any reasonable conversation into
multi-hundred line exercises in nit-picking and doublespeak.

[...]
-----------------------------end inclusion -------------

when you said the proponents have infuriated you through their
*unjustified* and unsupported attacks on tale, i expected that 
you will list what  these accusations are and why they are 
*unsupported*

>I wrote an extensive, line-by-line response to this entire message, went
>back and looked at it, and deleted it unsent because it wouldn't have done
>any good.  It was just a flame, in response to Mr. Rao's flame, and that
>accomplishes nothing.
>
>And then I looked up and noticed this message is crossposted to
>soc.culture.indian, which means that a thread has been introduced to sci
>with a message that contains, in my opinion, at least four outright lies
>and multiple character assassinations by Mr. Rao.  And I'm back to
>furious.

I am curious to know  what are those four lies.

>I apologize to everyone else on this newsgroup; I simply don't know how to
>respond to this.  It's a horrible idea to post while one is angry, but I'm
>just as angry now as I was five days ago and it doesn't look like I'm
>going to get over it.  And this post deserves -- *needs* -- a response.

why should one be angry, if one is answering point-by point?
especially, when your  own post provoked a reply from Shrisha Rao?


[....]

>Mr. Rao, I do not know what to tell you.  You apparently think I, and
>Tale, are some sort of dictators who are trying to distort the truth to
>keep you from having your proposal.  Or that I'm utterly ignorant about
>what's going on.  Or that I'm not listening to you.  Or that I'm involved
>in some conspiracy with the current soc.religion.hindu moderator.  Or
>maybe you think I hate Indians.  At this point, I have no clue *what* you
>think.

This looks funny, since i dont remember seeing any of the accusations 
from Shrisha Rao. [to be honest, i have not ben regular on the net,
i am basing my views from dejanews archieves].


>Here's what I think.  I think that your proposal is designed to change the
>moderation status of soc.religion.hindu and the way the newsgroup is
>treated, and that the entire rest of it is pretty much incidental.  I
>don't think there's anything wrong with that, and I think you've presented
>your case fairly well for why soc.religion.hindu should be reorganized.

this complement does not go well with the intial accusations. if the
proposal is good, what we are asking for is a  Call for Votes.

>However, the current moderator has refused to go along with your
>proposal.  I do not know why that is.  Perhaps he doesn't trust you.
>Perhaps he's a sadistic dictator who wants sole and absolute control over
>everything Hindu on the Net.  Perhaps he doesn't think your proposal is an
>improvement.  Perhaps he thinks that you're attempting to destroy his
>newsgroup.  Perhaps he doesn't like the first letter of your last name.
>By tradition, by common previous agreement, and as previously enforced, IT
>DOES NOT MATTER WHY HE WILL NOT GO ALONG WITH THE PROPOSAL.

Now, we are not talking about rationale, logic. now we  talk
about *tradition*! what is this tradition? who decides what is
a tradition to use  usenet resources? does it not sound utterly
silly to say "perhaps he does like first letter of your last name"
and yet allow him to dictate the terms for a news groups, while
dozens are discussing on news.groups and private emails on the
logic and rationale??



>Moderators own their groups.  

if my understanding is correct, this sacred statement is coming
from Group advice!!

>They are essentially mini-dictators.  And
>historically nothing can be done to a moderated group without the
>permission of the moderator, including reorganize it.  This is because
>moderators traditionally cannot be removed against their will, so all they
>have to do is state that they will not go along with the proposal and the
>proposal then has the effect of removing the moderator if it passes.



>Have you read about this in the Moderator's Handbook?  It's as official of
>a source as you can get on this issue -- it's an RFC draft.  Here's the
>appropriate exerpt:
>
>A.3. Usenet moderator replacement concerns
>
>   In the past, it has generally been decided (though not quite
>   unanimously) that a moderator may not be removed by the group's
>   readership.  This topic is a recurring one on the moderators
>   mailing list where there are those who feel Usenet needs a way
>   to remove moderators who have quit supplying their services to
>   a newsgroup or who are otherwise not fulfilling their duties in
>   a satisfactory manner.  To date there is no accepted process for
>   removing a moderator.
>
>   When a moderator has not been posting for a very long time the
>   readership can get angry at the moderator and their inactivity.
>   Members of the readership have also become vocal when the moderator
>   failed to follow the charter of their group when selecting articles
>   to post to it.  Whatever the reason, when this happens members of
>   the group's readership have flooded associated groups with "Off with
>   their head!" or "The moderator of 'your.group' is a worthless ... !"
>   messages.  Things start to get ugly at this point.
>
>   Most moderators when confronted with this situation will try to
>   find a peaceful way out.  It may be that a polite message posted to
>   your group explaining the reason such as "real work has gotten in
>   the way and it is temporary situation" will calm the troubled
>   savages.  The solution may entail finding a co-moderator/backup
>   to assist with the workload or find a permanent replacement.
>   Some moderators just ignore these types of problems and continue
>   as if the complainers do not exist.
>
>   The later approach does have problems that you should be fully aware
>   of.  A rabid readership can't really knock you out of the moderator
>   position but they can damage your net.reputation with barrages of
>   constant complaints in unmoderated discussion groups relevant to
>   the one you moderate.  You may end up spending time responding to
>   messages when you could be using that time to post to your group.
>   In any case, be prepared for a nasty situation if you chose to
>   ignore the problem.
>
>   In the end, you must make your own decision on how to deal with
>   the problem.  But please remember that your group is a net.resource
>   to many people and when it is not functioning smoothly, it is not
>   useful.
>
>Please read this carefully.  Perhaps it will help.  Perhaps it will
>explain where I'm coming from.  At this point, I have no hope.  I've seen
>this go around so many times that I'm about to throw up my hands in utter
>despair.  But for some reason I'm still trying to get through to you how I
>feel.  I agree with the entire text above, including the last paragraph.

"moderators  own their groups"
"moderators are mini-dictators"
"moderators can refuse to agree to a reorg proposal, if they dont
like first letter of your last name"
"readers of a moderated group *can NOT* unseat a moderator"
and finally
"i agree with the above"
 
all this coming from a news groups regular!

if moderators are  to be *made* such dictators through usenet vote,
then why is a  negative vote on sck -- a  proposal for a moderated
group with all the *potential* to  become one-sided propaganda forum
-- considered wrong?? why the NO voters have been called  bigots to
supress the voice of minority? if usenet admin can not ensure some
solution to moderator dictatorship, what is wrong in voters deciding
about it?

>Please read the sentence "A rabid readership can't really knock you out of
>the moderator position" again.  It's important.  That is the current
>accepted policy.  *THAT* is what you are running into.  Mr. Shah has
>refused to join the moderation team of the new newsgroup.  In doing so, he
>has escalated your proposal.  Because he is not on the new moderator list,
>your proposal, by definition, removes him.  And because of that, it pulls
>in *all* of this baggage.  And there is absolutely nothing that we can do
>about it.
>
>Under the current system, Mr. Shah has the ability, as the sitting
>moderator of the group, to turn any proposal which modifies his group in
>any way into a proposal to remove him as moderator, and then appeal his
>case under the above provision.
>
>He undoubtably considers this justified.  I don't know why.  I would be
>much happier if he would accept a compromise and a position on your
>moderation team.  So would Tale.  Tale asked him to.  He refused.  At this
>stage, WE DO NOT HAVE A CHOICE.  By tradition and historical precedent,
>this proposal, regardless of its merits, regardless of the reasoning of
>the moderator, has to be treated by the newsgroup creation system as a
>forcible removal of a moderator.  It has to be because that is exactly the
>precedent it will set.  If this goes forward, then people will be able to
>bring forward proposals for reorganizations of moderated groups and simply
>make the new requirements for moderators for the new group too stringent
>for the old moderator to accept.
>
>I am not claiming that you are doing that.  I am saying that there is no
>way that any fixed, objective standard can distinguish between your
>proposal and a proposal which *does* do that.
>
>You may consider this broken.  You may consider these traditions wrong.
>And you know what?  I think you may be right.  But the implications are
>really frightening to me, because I look around and see Boursy and Grubor
>and Jai and I picture them exploiting mass mailing and massively
>crossposted lies to launch endless attacks on moderated newsgroups.  And I
>*know* that they, or someone like them, would do exactly that given any
>precedent at all to work with.  And once one proposal like that is
>allowed, there isn't any way that an objective rule can be applied to weed
>them out.  We're then in the situation of either having to allow *all* of
>those endless proposals to go forward, putting even more strain on the UVV
>(the quantity is not the issue -- the incredible controversy, vote
>forging, campaigning, and the like that would come out of those proposals
>is the strain), or having to make subjective determinations of which
>proposals are worthy and which aren't.  And I *know* that you have enough
>experience with the various terrorists (kook is far too friendly and
>forgiving of a word) to understand the kind of ammunition that that would
>give them.
>
>If your proposal were openly stated as a request for a change in this
>procedure, a request that the newsgroup creation system be opened up to
>replacing moderators, this would be far more straightforward, easier to
>argue, and less confusing and annoying for both everyone involved.  But
>that isn't your proposal.  You don't agree that it replaces a moderator,


because, umpteen *open* offers have been made to the current moderator
to be on the panel. if he refuses, it simply means -- *he* does not
want to be a moderator if the proposal is accepted by readers through
a vote. it does not mean that the offer is not made. so,  even if one
repeats hundred times, the proposal is not for  unseating the moderator.
simple test is this: if the current moderator *wants* to become a 
member of the panel will the proponents agree. and the repeated answer
to this  has always been: YES.
[........]

gopal
Advertise with us!
This site is part of Dharma Universe LLC websites.
Copyrighted 2009-2015, Dharma Universe.