From: robert.mcclenon@verizon.net 
  
 What I don't understand is why anyone cares about the process to amend 
 the charter of an unmoderated Big Eight newsgroup.  What is the 
 purpose of trying to amend the charter of an unmoderated newsgroup? 
  
 The charter in concept determines what is technically on-topic and 
 what is technically off-topic.  However, it is not clear to me why it 
 makes a difference as to what is technically on-topic and technically 
 off-topic.  Is there anything in an unmoderated newsgroup that can be 
 done about off-topic posts other than to ignore them, to flame them, 
 or to advise the poster to try another group? 
  
 The charter of a newsgroup also typically forbids spam, flame wars, 
 and binaries.  However, the prohibition of spam in a newsgroup charter 
 is simply a restatement of an existing principle that spam (Excessive 
 Multiple Posting) is prohibited anyway.  Responsible ISPs will nuke 
 spammers posting to any newsgroup, regardless of whether its charter 
 forbids spam, because the ISPs Terms of Service (TOS) or Acceptable 
 Use Policy (AUP) forbid spam, both Usenet EMP spam and email UBE spam. 
 News administrators will cancel binaries in a non-binary newsgroup 
 regardless of whether the charter forbids binaries, because binaries 
 take up too much disk space, and may also warn or nuke posters of 
 inappropriate binaries.  This is not a matter of the charter, but of 
 the common sense of the news administrator.  Flame wars cannot really 
 be defined except by Judge Stewart's test for pornography, and news 
 administrators and abuse desks, regardless of what a charter say, are 
 unlikely to take action about flame wars except in the most extreme 
 cases, such as deliberate multi-wave invasions by meowers, and then 
 only in response to a disciplined defense such as that of Gothic 
 Special Forces. 
  
 One of the most vociferous demands for changes to the rpd charters 
 appears to be coming from a troll, who is also said to be the 
 originator of the forged threats to publish names and addresses, 
 behavior that really is as bad as that of the alt.syntax.tactical 
 squad.  (I do not know who is posting the forgeries.  Some of the 
 statements identifying the forger are themselves forgeries.) 
  
 Is there any real reason why it is particularly important what is 
 on-topic and what is off-topic?  There are always a lot of off-topic 
 posts in any newsgroup, both because they were off-topic in the first 
 place, and because threads wander.  Trying to say that threads may not 
 wander would defeat one of the purposes of the Usenet, which is to 
 provide electronic communities.  Wandering threads permit participants 
 to learn something about who the other members of the community are. 
 Off-topic initial posts are usually simply ignored. 
  
 The Big Eight culture as it has evolved more or less knows what is 
 network abuse and what is not network abuse.  Spam is well-understood. 
 A few sorts of behavior should be clearly recognized by Judge Stewart 
 as network abuse, even if there is no statement in a charter that you 
 can't do that.  This includes threats to post lists of names.  Flame 
 wars are generally recognized (in the Big Eight) as a nuisance about 
 which relatively little can be done other than to ignore them and let 
 them flame out if they are one-on-one, or to tell everyone to chill if 
 they have become big wars. 
  
 I recognize that what is considered on-topic for a group may change in 
 an incremental way, perhaps due to technology evolving.  However, is 
 there any reason why that should be decided by a formal process? 
 Since the only real remedies for off-topic posts are ignoring, 
 flaming, or reasoning, that can go on regardless of whether the 
 charter is changed. 
  
 Serious network abuse does not involve issues of what is in the 
 charter, but are more serious than that.  Minor complaints are not 
 dealt with by abuse desks and news administrators, but by flaming or 
 reasoning. 
  
 Why is it important whether the charter of an unmoderated newsgroup 
 can be changed? 
  
      - -     Bob McClenon 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)