Alt.tv.southpark.moderated: details

All right, this group doesn't generate quite as much traffic as alt.gothic or alt.religion.$cientology, but it's a high-traffic group none the less. So, for the proposal to alt.config, we all need to be on the same page. As this will be a moderated group <obviously>, we need to decide on a moderator/moderators. This should ideally be someone with either a good bit of time to spend sorting through potential articles or the ability to write/set up software that will allow for auto moderation. Also helpful would be knowledge of Unix and/or how to mangle headers. If anyone knows how to mangle headers, send me some mail about it as I've had no luck finding out how to. A moderator should also be someone who won't reject someone's articles out of spite for the author, which unfourtunately eliminates most of the people on this group. We also need to set standards for what is and isn't acceptable to be posted, so the moderators have something to go by. First, we need nominations for moderators and standards for posts. Any troll opinions shall be discarded. You know who you are. Nominations will be open until Saturday, which should give people a chance to get back to normal after Christmas and ample time for discussion.

Bob the Soul Crusher wrote in message ...

<...recycle bin...>

Gee...how about an invitation-only mailing list?

You need to be recommended by at least one active member of the list to be eligible to join the list...thoughts?

--Ken

yeah but then there is always the question of how do you decide who is and isnt an active member

besides some of our active members are trolls

Ken Thompson wrote in article ...

...

be

On Tue, 23 Dec 1997 18:47:20 -0700, "Ken Thompson" offered this unto Shub-Internet:

Bad idea. Usenet is much more practical than a mailing list. A newsgroup can't flood your email with hundreds of messages a day. With a newsgroup, you can read what you want, likely before you download it, and skip over the rest while keeping that traffic seperate from your email. If you want a mailing list, Comedy Central runs on. Or start your own.

I know there are a lot of standards that we need to set, but I know for sure that in the newsgroup charter we need to specify that binaries are NOT allowed. I know that there have been a lot of people here who have posted them stating that the charter never said that we couldn't. I know that I've seen on some moderated mailing lists and newsgroups things in the standards that say something along the lines of off topic posting is kept to a minimum unless it is brought about by an ontopic discussion, but I don't know how this could be enforced or anything. As for a moderater, I have no idea who would be willing to take this task, but good luck to whomever chooses to do so. Anybody else have any suggestions for the moderated newsgroup?

George

In article , [email] (TheSnorks1) wrote:

Yeah, shit-can it and quit being so anally-retentive.

Bob the Soul Crusher presented the group a task:

	We need to go back and view past posts of the regulars (some I have
saved, but many I haven't - damn I hate research!) and come up with a
list of five posters who would be sensible enough to carry a moderated
group. Out of the five, we could see who has the time to do it and see
if they want to do it.
	What would be a good time line for this? A week? I could probably put
up a list of five by Saturday. What do you all think?

On Wed, 24 Dec 1997 01:10:26 -0500, AM offered this unto Shub-Internet:

Saturday was my proposed ending date for nominations and suggestions for content, including discussion, but we could push it back a few days if neccesary. A list sounds good. I feel kinda stupid that I hadn't thought of going through past posts.

Given the nature of the posters in this group, I'd suggest a panel of moderators, so that one persons personal vendetta against someone doesn't get them shut out of the group. A panel would also allow for less stringent requirements for moderators and give a faster turnaround time. There's a FAQ about moderated groups at http://www.swcp.com/~dmckeon/mod-faq.html that gives a better explanation than I will in a post. I'd recommend that everyone read it, as it might make you think differently about the idea.

Well, this whole idea has caused a bit of a stir, but I believe the idea still has merit. To adress some of the more common arguements against:

• Matt & Trey would hate a moderated group.

This may very well be true, but is this a group that has to conform to what Matt & Trey like? I think not. FWIW, I don't think either of them would oppose a moderated group. If they did, they'd also realize that some people would rather have a clean and easy to read group and they just wouldn't read it. So instead of getting your panties in a bunch, _don't_read_the_group_. I'm sure everyone here can change the channel when something comes on tv they don't want to watch, so do the same here.

• It's censorship, you goddamn pigfucking bastard<to quote SatireV>.

Yes, a moderated group is a censored group. When you get right down to it, that is what it is. Just because a group is censored, however, doesn't mean that it's a front for Nazi activity or something bad like that. With properly chosen moderators, there should be no problem with what isn't posted to the group. I want to emphasize that this would not be a group devoid of off topic posts. IMO, that's what gives a group it's flavour. What it _would_ be devoid of is spam, binaries, the same newbie questions asked over and over again and any obvious trolls. I realize this last bit may be a point of contention, but how many people really want to read 'Fuck all you, I'm the king of whatever'? If you enjoy those kinds of posts, read alt.flame.

Having read through a few of the newer posts, it's been suggested that we wait and see what effect a FAQ will have on the group. I think it will be minimal, but I guess we'll see.

On Mon, 29 Dec 1997 08:24:53 -0800, "Henry Jackson Browne" offered this unto Shub-Internet:

<snip>

That is exactly what I'm trying to avoid. There have been enough accusations of a moderated group being a dictatorship. This is not my intention, nor has it ever been. I just want a group that's a bit easier to read, not control of a group. I'm not proposing a moderated group that will have moderators controling the group, I'm proposing a group that will have moderators enforcing what the group wants. I don't intend for the group to be a place where a select few controls what goes on in the group, as some think. I just want a group that won't be filled with 50 postings of the same 'Kyle's mom is a bitch' lyics. Is that such an unreasonable request?

Bob the Soul Crusher wrote in message ...

Ok, before I start, please do me a favor and dont flame me before you read what I have to say.....

I am a posting member of a few other NGs out there, and I have noticed that when a group becomes moderated, it dwindles in membership. This is not to say that this will be the case with this one, but it may well be.

I have also noticed that a NG generally is a nicer place if it is run by all th members, and that no messages are squelched. If you have a problem with a particular user, killfile them. this is not censorship, except on a personal basis. In other words, I may not like what someone has to say, but I can tune them in and out when I want. This is a much less discriminatory (for the whole NG) way to handle problem users.

Another way that I have seen to handle the whole "I dont want to read off-topic posts" problem is to institute thread markers. When posting to the NG, you simply add a thread marker to the subject line of the message. Anyone who doesn't follow this rule gets yelled at by all the other member of the NG till they follow the rule. Quite effective if everyone follows the idea.....

Thanks,

Chuck Ball

Probably true but as southpark grows there goes the nation.

What is one mans off topic is anothers pleasent diversion. I'm missing the reason for the debate. If a moderated group is created that doesn't delete the current group. alt.tv.southpark alt.tv.soupark.moderated

Pick your poison. Rough and tumble no holds bared or coffee table book.

Those with a need to organize or delve into the psychological deepness of southpark can go mod. Those wanting to talk about the resident clueless newbie go unmod.

It's no skin off anybodys ass either way.

Now soc.singles.mod has an automated mod that requires you to recieve the FAQ and bounces your first post. When you read the FAQ you discover the magic cookie/keywword that will get your first post through. All others fly right through. Totally cuts down on the spam and noone has the excuse they can't find the FAQ explaining whats appropriate. ie: no personals its for discussion. No penpals. Spammers don't read the return therefore never enter cookie. Therefore always bounce. No crossposts etc. It's been an unbelievable success.

-Jeem, but whatta I know.

the

member

the

yeah but that is where the problems set in

whenever people in here are asked to do something as "a group" all of a sudden you have some people who immediately see that as the group trying to attack them or control them (trust me its happened to me hundreds of times in this NG alone)

when it comes down to the community getting involved it usually gets ugly and you dont want to be around when it happens trust me

On Tue, 30 Dec 1997 12:58:13 -0500, "Chuck Ball" offered this unto Shub-Internet:

Flaming is kinda hard if you don't have anything to attack, but I get your point.

I'm sure it will be. There are many people in this group who firmly believe that any moderated group is a Bad Thing and therefore won't participate.

That would work if you had some way to catch all the newbie posts and the first day of troll activity. Not that all newbie posts are bad, but when they post a 'Where can I find x' message after x has been discussed ad nauseum for the past month, and still being discussed when said newbie posted, it makes you want to smack all the clueless folks out there.

Not sure what a thread marker is, but I've seen examples of whole group bitchouts. They're quite effective, but I doubt they'd work here.

What you really need is a NUMBER of moderators. If you just have a single moderator than he can get overburdedn by the work, or have to leave on vacation, or loose his Internet connection, etc..etc..etc..

It would be much better to have 4-5 moderators, any of which can DENY or ACCEPT a post to the news group.

Also, a nice piece of Unix code is needed to manage this thing, I could do that for whoever ends up being the moderator ... I write CGI code for a living.

Bob the Soul Crusher ([email]) wrote: BSC>As this will be a moderated group <obviously>, we need to decide BSC>on a moderator/moderators...

BSC>We also need to set standards for what is and isn't acceptable to BSC>be posted, so the moderators have something to go by.

RULE NUMBER ONE: NO BINARIES Binary posts of any kind (sound, graphic, etc.) are expressly forbidden in alt.tv.southpark.moderated. There are several newsgroups where such posts would be appropriate (alt.binaries.southpark being the most obvious). However, it would be acceptable to post a single message in alt.tv.southpark.moderated to inform people of files made available in binaries groups, and provide them with information to find them. Likewise, a single message providing URLs to pages/files on the web or FTP sites would be acceptable. Some discussion/review of binaries or South Park-related pages would be allowed.

RULE NUMBER TWO: NO POOFTAS^H^H^H^H^H^H^HTROLLS Off-topic posts certainly oughtn't to be rejected out of hand, but obvious trolls and flames (or threads that degenerate into such) *may* be rejected. Other posts that may warrant rejection are advertisements (even if they're advertising SP-related products?) and repetitive posts (how many different people posted the lyrics to "Cartman's Mom is a Stupid Bitch in D Minor"?)

Ken Thompson ([email]) suggested: KT>Gee...how about an invitation-only mailing list?

Newsgroups aren't as convenient as mailing lists. I'd prefer to keep it to UseNET m'self.

KT>You need to be recommended by at least one active member of the list KT>to be eligible to join the list...thoughts?

So how exactly does a suitable person (1) find out about the list, and (2) convince someone on the list that he is worthy?

what exactly is meant by some discussion/review of binaries?

Arthur Levesque wrote in article ...

in

posts

FTP

obvious

(even

keep

im all for it

as for who will be the moderator i have no idea where to even start with that (maybe i can be moderator ROTFL)

but this is definetly something that has to be thought over carefully

Bob the Soul Crusher wrote:

Not to be a smartass or anything, but do I fall into that group?

On Wed, 24 Dec 1997 01:37:33 -0500, Pegasus offered this unto Shub-Internet:

By trolls I meant He Who Shall Not Be Named and Edwina. Those types.

i kinda doubt it

i think he is mainly talking about YOU KNOW WHO

Pegasus wrote in article ...

to

unindicted

Hell"

To avoid any further confusion/suggestions, binaries will not be allowed in the new group. I thought that would be self evident, as there is now alt.binaries.southpark, but it's been mentioned a few times so I thought I'd clear things up.

I don't think it's a censored newsgroup, just one where people can discuss the show without being flamed by total idiots, and it will be a newsgroup where 99% of the posts are ontopic. I just checked this newsgroup and about 1/3 of the new posts since I last checked the group were COMPLETELY offtopic.

George

more like 1/100 of the posts are on topic (on a bad day its alot worse)

TheSnorks1 wrote in article ...

discuss the

where 99%

the

It's obvious that you don't think if you believe you wouldn't be creating a censored newsgroup.

Censorship is a wolf in sheeps clothing. Starts out sounding so good and ever so slowly, it closes in on you, until finally you have nothing left. I really can't believe you people are for this - If the government decided to moderate this group according to their values, you would be up in arms and fighting it...and here you are wanting to do the same thing.

Censorship, in any form, is a bad, bad thing. I have no respect for those of you that support this idea - you must have loved 'Animal Farm.'

Gary M.

My thoughts on moderation are as follows:

TOTALLY, LAME-ASSED, RIDICULOUS IDEA

Get a life, get a kill file, and get over it.

'nuf said!

-- Derek Cashman ([email]) -- Editor; Wrecked Humor Collection -- http://www.concentric.net/~dcashman/humor

Bill Bell wrote in message ...

to

*NOBODY* wants to moderate "this group". If this ever goes through (I'm surprised someone hasn't just newgroup'd the damn thing already), everyone is more than welcome to continue posting to atsp as well as to atspm.

I'd probably stay in both groups.

I'd probably have a much smaller killfile in atspm than in here.

I could understand everyone's bitching if this was an attempt to retromod alt.tv.southpark -- I'd complain too.

I suppose you also think spamcancels are censorship, eh?

Would you consider news.announce.newgroups to be a censored newsgroup? Anyone can try to post there, tale isn't going to approve it. That's not censorship, it's putting your post in the right place.

You pigfuckers are starting to sound like Gruboursy throwing around the word "censorship" so much. It's downplaying how much of a terrible thing *TRUE* censorship is.

TRUE censorship is when South Park isn't on the air.

TRUE censorship is when books are burned. (Yes, I'm invoking Godwin's Law.)

TRUE censorship is when you aren't allowed to post your grievances in the proper forum.

-bri, hoping someone mentions atspm on alt.config before newgrouping it

On 29 Dec 1997 05:06:23 GMT, [email] (posterkid) offered this unto Shub-Internet:

<snip>

I think that most people would. I'd like a place where I can get info on South Park without having to wade through 200+ '[CENSORED]'s account on AOL has been canceled!' posts.

I wonder how many people think that is what is being discussed.1

<snip>

No Grubour quite yet. No one's been called a pedophile, after all.

Yep. One group to read for actual info and discussion on the show, one group to read when you feel like observing perverse displays of stupidity.

A lot like reading *.advocacy groups.

At least 1...

True.

On 30 Dec 1997 18:10:33 GMT, [email] (posterkid) offered this unto Shub-Internet:

I'm sure there'd be acutal info in the non-mod group, in fact I'd probably crosspost to both groups. That's not a bad idea, actually. Have all articles in the mod group be crossposted to the non-mod group so everyone could read the non-mod group until they got sick and then go to the mod group for info and sane discussion.

Oof, I can imagine.

There've been a few sane people who argue against a mod group, so I wonder if they don't have the wrong impression....

posterkid responded:

Well...kick _my_ fat ass!  That's exactly what I did think.
     Returning here after several days absence, I was greeted with
     about 1500 unread messages. After reading about 100 (mostly crap
     repeats), I just marked them all as read and started fresh.
      (heh heh, talk about censorship!!!)
     I did read several of the posts about this and they all gave me
     the same mistaken impression.

Yes, I do!

TRUE censorship starts out small, sounds like a great idea, and slowly grows as you get used to each step. What you have listed above are the end results of small ideas.

Gary M. :^O

NETCOP CENSOR!!!

Well that sucks. Clarity is a GOOD thing. Clarity is our friend. I wonder how many other people got that impression...

Do you think a newsadmin has an obligation to carry any posts? It's HIS (yeah, I'm being sexist. shoot me.) news server, his bandwidth, his disk space. A site has no obligation to carry any particular newsgroup -- this is why many sites refuse to carry alt.binaries.* and alt.sex.*. Some sites, I would call that censorship -- like when CompuServe (or was it AOL?) dropped all of the kiddieporn groups. For other sites, it's a bandwidth decision, or a decision based on lack of drive space.

If you don't have ROOM for a full feed, it's not worth it to try.

Spam is something that doesn't belong on Usenet, and is a HUGE drain on resources. If there are ways to get rid of it (and I don't think spamcancels are the best way to deal with spam -- NoCeM is a much better solution), I'm all for them.

You have to be a pretty pathetic son of a bitch to think it sounds like a 'great idea', IMAO.

It is not censorship to say "don't post this *HERE*, go post it somewhere else where it's VERY welcome".

In article , [email] says...

i'm afraid i tend to agree..it's high time people learned to create kill files, rules, etc, instead of just going off about how we need to have moderated groups...

the traffic ISN'T high enough to be a bother..and anything not related I don't read..i've been lurking in this group from its inception..and I have no problems with it..besides..it's only a flame if you take it as one..it's YOU that chooses to decide whether you're going to get all pissy about some ignorant fool who spouts crap..believe it or not..it's your choice..if you don't like it..DON'T READ IT!!

my $0.02

slim

How, precisely, does a moderated group, seperate from this one, affect you in any way? You feel you'll be stifled by the iron hand of oppression in alt.tv.southpark.moderated? Fine. Stay here. Chat all you want with Edwina. Those of us who have half a brain, however, will be sitting back, sipping margaritas, and actually engaging in a conversation that is enjoyable. Imagine the concept, eh?

In article , [email] (MisinYou) wrote:

Those of us that have a COMPLETE brain will be happy to see you half-brains leave. Is this truly a life and death situation, worth wasting all the bandwidth and hatred on? No. Is it worth trying to pass yourself off as some great keeper of Internet and morality standards, making yourself look like stupid childish morons that take their balls and go home when people won't play the way they want people to play? No.

It's only a cartoon, dildoes. Try some Cheezy Poofs instead of margaritas and maybe you'll be able to think more clearly. Threads of discussion about making another newsgroup are OFF TOPIC when the topic is South Park. You're just as guilty of net abuse as those you whine about.

if we are such big morons we are you mad that we are planning on leaving

if i was in your shoes id be the first one to help people like us pack

i just dont get it

Hapnagudtime Vishnuverhere wrote in article ...

sipping

Imagine

half-brains

look

about

You're

And yet you are too lazy to mark this thread offtopic. Here, I've done it for you.

it will probably seem weird at first

but dont worry im sure youll get used to it

MisinYou wrote in article ...

you in

Edwina.

Imagine

if you are here to post about SP why exactly does a moderated group offend you

im sure that anything that cant be said in alt.southpark.moderated (or whatever the hell the name will be) will definetly be posted in here

[email] wrote in article ...

I love the idiocy that becomes prevalent when a group of people have the audacity to disagree with the internet herds. :) To those crying 'censorship' at the concept of alt.tv.southpark.moderated: you have no idea what you're talking about. If you don't know what censorship is, you have no right to say the word. To the charmer who claims we're like Kyle's Mom: (Ohhhh. A southpark analogy. Your lit teachers must be truly proud of you...)

Well. If you had any idea what you were saying, I'm sure you'd make sense. <g> Someone wanting their enjoyment in a way that they enjoy? Heavens forfend! I have no problems saying that I want my 'enjoyment' -southpark newsgroup, in this case, the 'way that I want it'- without having to sort through the same things over again: seven or eight threads about Charles Ray, a nice fat trolling post from the ever-lovely Edwina, a binary posted and then eighteen responses to it saying 'FUCKHEAD!!! DONT POST BINARIES HERE!!!!!!!!!!' Now, does this make those who are interested in a moderated group like Kyles Mom? Nope. It isn't about her enjoyment, it's about everyone elses. She gets irritated by something, she sets out to eradicate it. We get irritated by this newsgroup, we just set out to make a different one. If you are into the trademarks of this newsgroup,(see above paragraph and the Charles Ray, Edwina, and Fuckheads comment) fine. Enjoy. Nobody's trying to take that away from you. We're just taking our ball and going to play in a different playground. :) By the way, everyone seemed to fail to address my question: how does our talk about seeting up a second, moderated, newsgroup affect your enjoyment of this one in any way?

Unless, of course, you realize that if we leave you'll be missing our witty and effervescent posts on a daily basis. I agree, it is terrible to take ourselves away from you. I cry myself to night thinking about it, and what a bad person I've become. <g> But I'll live.

woah down boy

i see where you are coming from (trying to govern an anarchy an all) but relating this to dictators like hitler is definetly going to far

first off consider this so far this is simply a discussion about a moderated group (nothing really has happened yet although many people are pushing it myself included)

secondly as much as we all appreciatte the freedom of the internet many people believe in some sort of order (in this case a moderator)

thirdly i feel this will seriously affect the traffic to alt.tv.southpark not only is there plenty of traffic coming in here and there are plenty of newbies posting all the time but it seems like the supporters and opposers of the moderated group are fairly split down the middle (this is not fact simply my opinion)

im sure all of us are tired of trolls and for many of us this is the best way of dealing with them

[email] wrote in article ...

oops i meant this will NOT seriously affect traffic

my bad

I have to agree..if one prefers to express his opinion on SP by saying things that are deemed inflammatory, trolling, etc, then the intelligent members of the group should recognize it as such...but dont put a chill on the free expression of the group.

Succinctly, FUCK MODERATION, ANF FUCK CENSORSHIP.

Later,

Steve -- The Bluesman

"Dont Blame the Moth for Eating Your Socks"

i read the FAQ (quite informative) and stumbled upon a possible problem

what kind of delay (if anyone knows) can be expected with over 100 posts a day in here (on days of new episodes and the following days id say that can get up around 300 easy)

granted many posts are fairly short but what about the occasional book someone posts (you know those 200+ liners) the delay time is surely going to be a factor

On 26 Dec 1997 04:16:46 GMT, "Frank Rizzo" offered this unto Shub-Internet:

It's around 300 on a normal day anyway. As for turnaround time, that depends on how many moderators there are and how often they check their mail or if they have an auto-mod bot. If they are using a bot, it'll be faster, but less efficent I'd think. Hand moderation is exactly the opposite.

I don't think it will be very long, especially if there are a few moderators.

Talk about discussion! OK - the newbies are against it (darn, they
won't get those wav files they wanted), and the vets are for it (while I
smoke my pipe, Kenny was very humorous tonight).
	I have thought about and a panel does sound like the best route. Sounds
like we need to decide how many. I'm still posting my five nominees on
Saturday for moderator(s).
	Research is hell. Oh yeah, Bob - you have the most posts - not to rag
on you but, do you see daylight other than your window? :)

On Fri, 26 Dec 1997 02:37:59 -0500, AM offered this unto Shub-Internet:

I don't see much light through the windows, all the shades are pulled. You have to keep in mind that this is my hobby. This is what I do when I'm bored or have free time. I still do other stuff, like read a lot, play hockey & D&D, watch tv and tons of movies. But this is what I do most of the time.

It strikes me as interesting that a person who so fundamentally MISSES the point of Usenet as to use an X-No-Archive: header would cry censorship.

No, I take that back. It strikes me as pathetic.

FREE CLUE--->>>
    Usenet used to be "transmitted" via tape (still is? I don't know). You
    *are* being archived. That is the inherent nature of Usenet. Deal with
    it.

Moderation is not censorship. Moderation is moderation. Preventing spam from being posted is not censorship. If you believe otherwise, you are a kook. Plain and simple.

I don't think the people pushing for moderation[1] have a problem with flaming. The idea is to provide a CLEANER (ie, less spam, off-topic crap, what have you -- not 'clean' as in G-rated) forum for those who wish to discuss a topic without as much noise.

Personally, the only reason I support a moderated group is to get rid of a couple things:

A) Binaries. They belong in *.binaries.* groups. Sorry, newbies, that's JUST HOW IT IS. Deal with it.

B) Spam. ECP/EMP is useless to all involved, and a waste of resources.

C) (And this is the toughest call to make) Useless posts. I do *not* mean
   trolls. Trolls can be killfiled and dealt with in other ways. By
   "useless", I basically mean questions answered in FAQs (the relative
   usefulness of the various FAQs posted here is another topic entirely).

Robomoderation is also much better than human moderation, IMAO. Then there is *no* possibility of a moderator refusing posts due to a grudge of any type.

MEE TO!

[1]: Creation of a new moderated group. NOT the moderation of an existing group, which is nigh-unto-damn-well-impossible[2].

[2]: It's been done[3].

[3]: Kinda.

E already said it, so INGSI.

Yeah. Right. Enlighten me.

Mmmhmm.

The pathos is in bitching about the creation of a new newsgroup which won't even touch the existing newsgroup, in which you can feel free to wallow away with the likes of Edwina and the "No, this is what Kenny really says!" threads.

I'm sure they probably could. They have a clue and a sense of humor. You, however, don't, and your attempt falls short.

That's it.

<snicker>

"Hi, I'm SatireV and I use a proportional-width font for Usenet!"

Nope. I happen to rather enjoy personal attacks. That's why the other group I spend most of my time in (well, not lately) is alt.aol-sucks. I also have absolutely nothing against trolling. Personal attacks aren't trolls or spam. They're personal attacks. <shrug>

Spam is ECP/EMP. "BUSTY BABEZ WANT YOU NOW!" posts. I thought at least THAT would be obvious.

Trolling can be an art form. The trolls we get here are pathetic, and are fed way too much.

Where did I say that? Feel free to quote me on anything I've actually said.

And none of us are saying anything about ridding the net of anyone.

I killfile idiots, people who quote 75 line posts and then add one or two lines of text, to the effect of "MEE TOO!"...

I don't killfile people I find "offensive", or people who disagree with me. People who can cluefully disagree are much more interesting to read than the crap that pervades this group already.

I *heart* slrn's scorefile.

Then enlighten me. Spam, velveeta, whatever you want to call it. Go read nan-a.* and then come back with YOUR opinion of what spam is.

I'd like to hear it. I need a good laugh.

On 29 Dec 1997 08:40:03 -0700, [email] (E.) offered this unto Shub-Internet:

<snip>

Hey! I liked Herman's Head.

<snip>

No no no. The correct response is 'ME THREE!!!'

<snip>

You wouldn't be refering to my geocities address, now would you? I'd use my Erols address, but I want to keep my mail seperat from my family's mail. Works much better this way.

On 29 Dec 1997 14:44:00 -0700, [email] (E.) offered this unto Shub-Internet:

I feel rather specail. Why do you killfile people who use Netscape? It's certainly better than IE.

I _could_ find out, but...

Exactly. This way works fine, so I don't mess with it.

I was wondering where all these non-alt.tv.southpark references were coming from. Only now do I look to see where my message is going. And after all the harping I do about reading headers. So now the question begs to be asked: what's a jpd? And why are they/it stealing your kOdez?

On 29 Dec 1997 21:56:01 -0700, [email] (E.) offered this unto Shub-Internet:

<snip>

Ah, I see.

Oof. This isn't being crossposted to a 3LEET group, is it?

On 30 Dec 1997 09:33:02 -0700, [email] (E.) offered this unto Shub-Internet:

No, I mean is it a group for Wa3rZ dOOdZ and the 2600 crowd?

On 30 Dec 1997 21:40:00 -0700, [email] (E.) offered this unto Shub-Internet:

Ah. I figured those other groups were more for the wannabe dOOdZ out there. Then again, I guess alt.give.me.aol.passwords sin't a real group.

Really? I feel like I should read a group that I'm a regular in. But my ISP doesn't carry it, but I guess I could ask my newsadmin to carry it. That and carry alt.cthulhu.beunosdias.coffeehouse.slam. I think that's the name. Not a bad idea....

On 30 Dec 1997 23:01:00 -0700, [email] (E.) offered this unto Shub-Internet:

That can be easily remedied with alt.jpd.is.gonna.get.beat.if.I.don't.get.back.my.damn.kODez and/or alt.jpd.I'm.coming.for.you. You just have to be creative.

Really? You'd think it'd have a .mod in the name somewhere.

Just how many groups are there in alt.cthulhu.*? More <or possible less> importantly, do they actually discuss Cthulhu?

How about a south park fanfiction group

quinn Kai ([email]) asked: qK>How about a south park fanfiction group

Is there enough fanfiction to justify it? I only see one or two posts a week that are stories or song parodies...

On 31 Dec 1997 19:04:11 GMT, Back*[email] (Arthur Levesque) offered this unto Shub-Internet:

I've only seen 6-7 since I came to this group. 2 of those were those awful ones with Cartman eating endless pot pies and watching T&P. Ugh, I'm sick just thining about it.

On 31 Dec 1997 09:39:01 -0700, [email] (E.) offered this unto Shub-Internet:

<snip>

What a pity. Some of the joke groups aren't half bad, when there's acutally people in them.

Ah. I heard about the group in alt.horror.shub-internet I do believe, a semi-serious Lovecraft group. The name was a bit much to swallow, but it could have had _some_ discussion.

[chompa!]

Time for an ajsmk0dez FAQ repost:

I told jpd to kick your ass......BUT HE STOLE YOUR K0DEZ INSTEAD!

There are no frequently asked questions.

There is no charter.

CONSIDER YOURSELF WELCOME!

alt.jpd.stole.my.k0dez -- The Buddha went to bless you, but you OFFERED HIM A TWINKIE INSTEAD!

As Bustah Rhymes said, "WHICH MUTHAFUCKA STOLE MY K0DEZ?"

Est-ce que vous avez les k0dez de jpd? Non! �Tiene usted los k0dez de jpd? �No! Hast du der jpd's k0den? Nein! U vas yest k0dii jpdi? Nyet! Besne k0dae jpdi? Minime!

Who knows? I'm afraid to ask.

It may not be worth it.

alt.aol-sucks.moderated failed miserably.

Various other new moderated groups have done well. We'll see. <shrug>

YOUR NOT FLUFFY U CANT MEOW.

I really don't think you are capable of understand--

oh fuckit.

And when practiced WELL, it's damn fun.

Unfortunately. <sigh>

NO, E! YOU CAN'T HAVE ANY! THIS IS MY NYM!

sorry.

Me estan!

I do bleev you're right. Off the net with ye.

<bow>

MEEE TO!

If they can do it in a clueful manner, they usually don't eat the scorefile.

Compare the Jeff Carpenter troll from a.a-s.

True. <sigh>

As well as clueless types with munged email addresses.

(which I commented out a while ago, and can't seem to remember why...)

U do not know what leet is.

I wish you were a beer.

I still think the technical side was great. Robo-moderation watched over by clueful people? Rad.

NO THIS IS ALT.TV.SOUTH.PARK NOT ALT.NIAO YOU SPAMER

My bad. Moo.

Ah! True.

Lucky.

I wish I remembered. And now I've seen 2 people worth reading who use spamblocks. Feh.

Appropriate.

Even *more* appropriate, though I don't expect Mere Mortals to grok why.

Hee. I finally said "screwit" and unsubscribed. And damn, slrn reads that active file MUCH faster now...

FLUFFY GAV ME THIS CHAT GROUP IT IS MINE WHAT I SAY GOZE. BUTTHEAD.

An idiot, who posted (from Compu$pend, no less) about how great AOL was, mainly because AOL had some of way of interacting with Quicken, or some such monkeyboy babble. He also got off on EasySaabre and the rest of the travel stuff, which is all on the web now.

Yep. :)

My uncle says--

nah.

I WILL COMPLANE TO YOUR OPERATOR. YOUR AXESS WIL BE REVOKE.

<nod>

NETCOP CENSOR FUKHEAD!

O MY GOD THEY KILL KnY U BastDFrtfe! fLUFFY iS mY kITY Good flufy im not gona let ne1 hurt u ��� �hr�B

"Engelbert Humperdink was the first man on the moon who was the second?" -- Mr. Hat

���th ��rk R�Lɧ because it does!

www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/1479 Pip's Pipperific Page!

G�T �H�ʧ� ��؃�������

On 29 Dec 1997 02:34:34 GMT, [email] (posterkid) offered this unto Shub-Internet:

This is a very good point. I've seen many superb trolls and have loved them all, but have yet to see any decent ones in this group. Trolling, to me, isn't posting crap that is intended to piss people off, although a good troll often annoys people. A good troll is something that is almost believeable, believeable enough that most people will believe it, which allows the troller and anyone who can find the clue that it is a troll, which a good troll should always have, to laugh at the foolish people who believe the troll. A good troll is a thing of beauty. We could use a few here.

X-Troll: headers are our friends.

The "Outraged Christian" troll is old. The "<foo> has just been cancelled!" troll throughout alt.tv.* is old. Just about anything in alt.music.* is old.

Trolling definitely isn't just posting to piss people off. That lacks STYLE. Anyone can go into a group and post a "you all suck"...

-bri, preparing for the deluge of wannabe trolls

Bob the Soul Crusher wrote in article ...

you should be careful of what you ask for bob you never know when a wish might come true

Who's Mr. Hand? Do you mean Mr. Hat? Or is Mr. Hand Mr. Hat's friend on Mr. Garrison's other hand? ��� �hr�B

"Engelbert Humperdink was the first man on the moon who was the second?" -- Mr. Hat

���th ��rk R�Lɧ because it does!

www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/1479 Pip's Pipperific Page!

G�T �H�ʧ� ��؃�������

On 26 Dec 1997 21:46:03 GMT, [email] (posterkid) offered this unto Shub-Internet:

<snip>

I couldn't have said it better. I think a lot of people are getting the wrong impression about moderation. Moderation _is_ censorship, not matter how you look at it. That doesn't mean that the group will become a police state because of moderation, but that we will have a cleaner, easier to read group. Maybe all of you like the endless threads about He Who Shall Not Be Named, but I don't. I don't like _him_ either, but that's not really the point. The point is that a moderated group won't have all the binaries and 'What does Cartman say in the opening?' posts.

I don't know that I'd say robomoderation is better, but it does eliminate the vengenace element.

On Sun, 28 Dec 1997 00:10:37 -0800, "Henry Jackson Browne" offered this unto Shub-Internet:

If you insist on using a no archive header, at least do it right.

Damn, how'd you guess? It was originally 'big ole buttload', but then I decided to change it to 'big ole bitch'.

No we can't. That's my sole purpose in proposing a moderated group: to censor the world. That's right, my only goal in life to to make sure that nothind I don't like gets said. I'll start with that horrible show South Park. I can't believe the way they portray Jews on that show. And having that horrible little boy dress up like Hitler! I;ve never been so offended in my life!

What what what?!? Clone! I'm the real deal, Mr. Man! Don't make me slingshot people against your house!

Believe it.

in that case id like to be the first to go bob should you bring the slingshot or should i

On 29 Dec 1997 20:46:31 GMT, "Frank Rizzo" offered this unto Shub-Internet:

Mine's in the shop, we'd better use yours.

Any reason you're advertising Yeahbuddy4's site?

On 26 Dec 1997 21:46:03 GMT, [email] (posterkid) wrote:

{...}

Usenet was first transmitted via UUCP, and that was the only mode for acquiring newsfeeds for many years. I have never heard of a Usenet tape "transmission," nor do I know anyone else who has. Where did you come by this piece of information? It is almost certainly incorrect.

On Sat, 27 Dec 1997 18:02:22 GMT, [email] (Richard G. Bennett) offered this unto Shub-Internet:

Perhaps posterkid is thinking of a news spool?

<URL:http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/ch106.x03>

On Thu, 25 Dec 1997 23:37:46 GMT, [email] wrote:

Ergo, all of us South Park fans who are sick of reading shit excreted from shitheads like yourself.

Pissing idiots like you off, natch.

Nobody. We assumed the mantles and roles of power as is our right by birth. You're obviously not of the elite born. If you have a problem with this, I suggest you blame your parents. After all, *we* blame them for you already.

We do. Deal with it.

Actually, you're top of the list, moron.

This is true. Then again, people of your ilk aren't like the Jews in Nazi Germany. You *have* committed transgressions worthy of punishment and ostracism, not to mention exile to killfile concentration camps.

Remember, the difference between oppression and punishment is whether or not the target of either deserves what's being administered.

In your case, I'm recommending building at least one real-life oven...

(I'm not quoting to be kind)

I have to say that i'm against the whole Moderation thing (I have never been known to take things in moderation)

Most posts are on topic... We just have to ask users to take the off topic chatter to e-mail. I have had some raucous debates sparked from posts, but we had the TACT to take it off forum. (and that includes silly things like correcting spelling errors and grammar... if you insist on doing that in forum, than you should be shot.)

If someone gets flamey... Ted Kazinski his ass. The free flow of opinion is what makes this great.

I still hope i can get access to alt.binaries.southpark... my server has yet to add it.

Jake

On Tue, 30 Dec 1997 23:39:02 -0500, Jake Blues offered this unto Shub-Internet:

Off topic posts are what makes a group, especially one like this. There's not a whole lot of South Park material out there, and what there is has been covered many times.

YM thEn you should be shot, right?

Keep firing off messages to your newsadmin.