OT - UK Usenet - the downward path

OT - UK Usenet - the downward path

Post by Paul Giveri » Mon, 08 Apr 2013 02:18:19


In message


Quote:
>Secondly, the rules were written and maintained by the forum owners,
>and their attitude was quite clear. They liked freedom of speech,
>didn't hold with censorship but they did ban certain kinds of
>conversation ON THEIR TURF.

Some years ago I was a member of a large AV forum in the UK. It had a
subsection on DSLR camera's, which is a hobby of mine. One day I posted
an article entitled "Serious problem with Canon 5D Mk2". Later I noticed
that the word "Serious" was missing and when I queried this, the mod
told me that in *his* opinion, the problem wasn't serious so he had
altered the content of my post. I was furious at this opinion based
censorship and in the ensuing heated debate, I compared his actions to
certain book burning incidents in the 1930's.

I was banned for life :)

Long live uncensored Usenet.

--
Paul Giverin

My Photos:- www.giverin.co.uk

 
 
 

OT - UK Usenet - the downward path

Post by Bobste » Mon, 08 Apr 2013 03:04:29


Quote:
> In message


> >Secondly, the rules were written and maintained by the forum owners,
> >and their attitude was quite clear. They liked freedom of speech,
> >didn't hold with censorship but they did ban certain kinds of
> >conversation ON THEIR TURF.

> Some years ago I was a member of a large AV forum in the UK. It had a
> subsection on DSLR camera's, which is a hobby of mine. One day I posted
> an article entitled "Serious problem with Canon 5D Mk2". Later I noticed
> that the word "Serious" was missing and when I queried this, the mod
> told me that in *his* opinion, the problem wasn't serious so he had
> altered the content of my post. I was furious at this opinion based
> censorship and in the ensuing heated debate, I compared his actions to
> certain book burning incidents in the 1930's.

> I was banned for life :)

Well, I think I can safely say that on the forum I'm referring to that
wouldn't have happened. We had the actual power to change the titles,
but we didn't do it (users could change the topic themselves for,
IIRC, 2 hours after posting). We ended up with rules that meant that
the moderators pretty much could not apply their own personal likes,
dislikes, beliefs etc. Which made moderation easier. The question
wasn't "do I approve of/agree with that?" The question was "does this
contravene the rules".

The problems I see usually occur because the moderator has too vague a
brief. My brief was to apply the rules as published.

 
 
 

OT - UK Usenet - the downward path

Post by Noj » Mon, 08 Apr 2013 03:48:43

Paul Giverin wrote ...

Quote:

> In message


> >Secondly, the rules were written and maintained by the forum owners,
> >and their attitude was quite clear. They liked freedom of speech,
> >didn't hold with censorship but they did ban certain kinds of
> >conversation ON THEIR TURF.

> Some years ago I was a member of a large AV forum in the UK. It had a
> subsection on DSLR camera's, which is a hobby of mine. One day I posted
> an article entitled "Serious problem with Canon 5D Mk2". Later I noticed
> that the word "Serious" was missing and when I queried this, the mod
> told me that in *his* opinion, the problem wasn't serious so he had
> altered the content of my post. I was furious at this opinion based
> censorship and in the ensuing heated debate, I compared his actions to
> certain book burning incidents in the 1930's.

> I was banned for life :)

> Long live uncensored Usenet.

There's a fishing forum that bans the posting of complete URL's.  They
will edit www.bbc.co.uk to ww.bbc.co.uk.  

Threads disappear and reappear with no explanation from the mods as to
WTF they've up to.  I asked for explanations - repeatedly - got banned
for life a couple of weeks ago.

Like so many forums, the mods never contributed to threads or when they
did, they wouldn't argue the point with anyone - just delete posts or
ban the posters.  A right load of sad bastards.

 
 
 

OT - UK Usenet - the downward path

Post by Bigbir » Thu, 11 Apr 2013 19:32:57

Quote:

> http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/spoolstats/

Interesting that bytes per article has declined...despite Bobs best
efforts.
 
 
 

OT - UK Usenet - the downward path

Post by Bigbir » Thu, 11 Apr 2013 22:58:30

Quote:

> texasgate wrote ...


> > > I've lost count of the forums I've left

> > There in an invention called a pencil and paper.

> You still measuring men's***s ?

He has 3 measurements pharynx, larynx and trachea. Only sign of a gag
reflex is on this forum.
 
 
 

OT - UK Usenet - the downward path

Post by Bobste » Fri, 12 Apr 2013 12:11:57


Quote:
> http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/spoolstats/

When you say "UK usenet" do you mean that these stats are only for
posts made from UK IP addresses?

That said, I think that in the long run usenet will wither - though
maybe not die. Increasingly people don't know that there's a thing
called usenet and head directly for Facebook or Twitter. Smartphones
come with interfaces for Twitter and FB pre loaded.

Don't know about where you live, but here in SA a lot of ISPs don't
run a usenet server anymore. These are usually the newer services, or
those that run over cell or wireless networks.

 
 
 

OT - UK Usenet - the downward path

Post by Mike Flemin » Sat, 13 Apr 2013 04:10:31

In article

Quote:


> > http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/spoolstats/

> When you say "UK usenet" do you mean that these stats are only for
> posts made from UK IP addresses?

I think it would be posts to newsgroups in the uk.* hierarchy.

--
Mike Fleming

 
 
 

OT - UK Usenet - the downward path

Post by John Brigg » Sat, 13 Apr 2013 05:08:59


Quote:
> In article



>>> http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/spoolstats/

>> When you say "UK usenet" do you mean that these stats are only for
>> posts made from UK IP addresses?

> I think it would be posts to newsgroups in the uk.* hierarchy.

Which he has probably never heard of...
--
John Briggs
 
 
 

OT - UK Usenet - the downward path

Post by Bobste » Sat, 13 Apr 2013 14:49:34


Quote:
> In article



> > >http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/spoolstats/

> > When you say "UK usenet" do you mean that these stats are only for
> > posts made from UK IP addresses?

> I think it would be posts to newsgroups in the uk.* hierarchy.

I don't think so. There's a table that lists posts by  top level
hierarchies. One of which is uk.* but the table also includes comp.*,
rec.* etc though not alt.*
 
 
 

OT - UK Usenet - the downward path

Post by Bigbir » Sat, 13 Apr 2013 15:33:14

Quote:


> > In article



> > > > http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/spoolstats/

> > > When you say "UK usenet" do you mean that these stats are only for
> > > posts made from UK IP addresses?

> > I think it would be posts to newsgroups in the uk.* hierarchy.

> I don't think so. There's a table that lists posts by  top level
> hierarchies. One of which is uk.* but the table also includes comp.*,
> rec.* etc though not alt.*

Perhaps they are looking at text only hierarchies.
 
 
 

OT - UK Usenet - the downward path

Post by Bigbir » Sat, 13 Apr 2013 15:33:53

Quote:



> > > In article

> > > >,



> > > > > http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/spoolstats/

> > > > When you say "UK usenet" do you mean that these stats are only
> > > > for posts made from UK IP addresses?

> > > I think it would be posts to newsgroups in the uk.* hierarchy.

> > I don't think so. There's a table that lists posts by  top level
> > hierarchies. One of which is uk.* but the table also includes
> > comp.*, rec.* etc though not alt.*

> Perhaps they are looking at text only hierarchies.

ps you think wrong.
 
 
 

OT - UK Usenet - the downward path

Post by Mike Flemin » Thu, 18 Apr 2013 15:40:46


Quote:

> ps you think wrong.

Indeed I did, should have had another look at the page before saying
that.

--
Mike Fleming