 |
Newsgroups: rec.gambling.blackjack, news.groups, alt.religion.scientology, alt.slack
From: Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine <d...@xemu.demon.co.uk>
Date: 1997/10/21
Subject: Re: What kind of anarchy is this, anyway?
In article <62cs3h$...@junkie.gnofn.org>, Roger P Williams writes: You've come across Dixne Rxchardsxn, then? Seriously, ARS does suffer >I just read another article crowing about how the Internet is such a >wonderful example of a functional anarchy, and I'm about ready to puke. >What we have here in rec.gambling.blackjack is probably the second most from being opposed to a bunch of maniacs who launch armed raids and veaxtious lawsuits against contributors and drown the judge's dog if they're losing. You may regard the contributors as even somewhat maniacal but they do not do those actions against what they're opposing. >Briefly, rec.gambling.blackjack has always been the de facto home of That is not exactly the situation of alt.religion.scientology, if that >information on casino advantage play, including some topics not directly >related to blackjack such as casino tournaments and some exploitable >promotions. Because our pet Troll does not believe casinos will allow >anybody to sustain an advantage in any way, he shouts down any discussion >disseminating such information, and if the participants insist on >continuing the discussion, he accuses them of being con men, of working >for the casinos as shills to sucker in the unsuspecting masses, and other >vague crimes. He responds to *every on-topic post* with the same >word-for-word rant, and if anyone persists in arguing with him they are >eventually threatened with lawsuits and issued ridiculous challenges to >"prove" that the sky is blue, that 2+2=4, and so on. The situation is >exactly the same as a group devoted to discussion a partricular religious >system which is spammed by unbelievers. is what you are hinting, by any even mildly sane evaluation. The "Church" of $cientology is a bunch of killers and extortionists whose own founder admits taking up the guise of religion merely for accounting purposes. Nor was it founded by the clams then invaded by critics who tried to destroy their discussions, but founded by people critical of their actions and -- while both sides are wellcome -- the clams have at various times tried to wipe it out with spam barrages and RMGROUPs. We also suffer from a malicious [non-Scn] troll like that you describe. >It isn't enough for our pet Troll Question: why don't you use a killfile? And a mass killfile >to simply not discuss the advantage play he doesn't think is possible; he >wants to make it impossible for anyone else to discuss it, either. reccomendation?? Presumably there must be a combination of the troll (a) having active supporters, (b) people who ought to know better saying "you mustn't shout at the troll", and (c) rubbernecks who can't help being attracted to watch a trainwreck. Preaching moderation doesn't work. One or two people who would rather avoid this crap deliberately confronting the troll hard may be a better way to persuade others to killfile him/her than mild reccomendation. >So what has our virtual community been able to do to defend itself in this Well, you're invited to drop me an email to drift in on the side of >wonderful functional anarchy? In order to get ourselves a moderated forum >-- the equivalent of a wall to keep out the off-topic invader -- we have >had to get on bended knee and beg the "powers that be" to put their stamp >of approval on our little request. In answer, we have been told that we >must muster enough interest to overcome the objections of 50 or so >curmudgeons who, in total violation of the technical rules of the vote, >are known to vote against every new newsgroup creation whether they have >any direct interest in the topic or not. the good guys, then. All you can do is publicise the situation externally and hope to gather sympathetic supporters. >Meanwhile, we must put up with the occasional self-righteous essay posted I'm not against moderation generally. It fits where the subject matter >by someone who has no idea what is going on in rec.gambling.blackjack >about how terrible the proliferation of moderated groups is and how it >should be resisted because it is the creeping edge of censorship. Well, >it's true that a village pays for its wall, but if the alternative is >watching your village get burned to the ground, you build the damn wall >anyway. has onvius boundaries and is IN ITSELF noncontentious, so there is a consensus what reasonably belongs and what doesn't (I think it's a very bad idea for extreme religious or political controversies). I think you should consider what your [?robo-]moderation setup would look like. Considering the other debate at the moment, perhaps it should be by lists of persons, who provide a real address or unposted X-Real-Address which is writen to codesigned and must return that codesigned message on first posting. And "Persons who are persistently disruptive or repeat the same text to a disruptive extent may, in the last resort and by consensus of the moderators be removed from the list." It could allow crossposts among a whitelist of about twenty relevant-- >It seems to me that if villagers had to vote on whether to build What's missing from your evaluation is an "alt" newsgroup. Anybody >walls, and people from outside the village could vote, and there were >dozens of people who hated walls who travelled from village to village >voting down wall proposals, the result would be a field day for pirates, >and nobody with any brains would bother trying to build anything >worthwhile since it would eventually be destroyed anyway. In any case >this is exactly what has happened to rec.gambling.blackjack; in order to >get worthwhile discussion, I have to go to http://www.bj21.com and pay >$25 per year to defray the costs of the webserver. can found one and, de facto, people go round RMGROUPing obsolete ones on the basis of inactivity. Yes, not everybody takes every alt group--- you might jhave to actively request it where you want it---but any reasonable person can see that is the obvious outcome of the free creation on demand and deletion when inactive of newsgroups. It exists. It is called "alt". Why not use it. The "we've been censored" mob would also have a place to put "banned" articles -- they could put them in the old unmoderated group, which could co-exist for those who wanted it. There is thus rrom to live & let live for all viewpoints willing to do so, and the only behaviour stopped is the ability to coerce others. >It seems to me that there is a problem here which cannot be solved simply >In any case, if we are going to depend on centralized structures like the |~/ |~/ You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
| |||||||||||||