Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/3/84; site sesame.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!mhuxn!mhuxr!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!think!harvard!talcott!sesame!stuart
From: stuart@sesame.UUCP (Stuart Freedman)
Newsgroups: net.news.group
Subject: Re: A modest proposal (added to/twisted -- long, I'm afraid)
Message-ID: <329@sesame.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 8-Sep-85 02:55:44 EDT
Article-I.D.: sesame.329
Posted: Sun Sep  8 02:55:44 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 10-Sep-85 05:21:30 EDT
References: <3261@pur-ee.UUCP>
Organization: Data General-Westboro, MA
Lines: 58

> My proposal:
> 
> 		A monitor for each group.
> 
> Now, don't close your minds just yet. I will admit, up front, that I am 
> avdocating censorship, a concept I normally dislike. However, if it is a
> choice between that or no USENET... I hope you get the picture. 
 
I get the picture and agree that some form of censorship is necessary.
How about if the NEWS ADMINISTRATOR at every site (rather than just one
appointed monitor):

> 	1) Read ALL the articles posted. (In net.flame, a BIG job)
> 	2) Mail warnings to inappropriate posters. 
> 	3) If a poster repeatedly ignores warnings (3 or more?),
> 	   mail a note to their system site administrator, requesting
> 	   action.

actually did all of the above (taking direct action)?  But he/she would only
have to take responsibility for the postings from his/her site.  This might
leave a better feeling in the hearts of the anti-censorship people.
 
> (By inappropriate postings, I mean: obscene, abusive, wrong group, or 
> the articles that are 99% quotes with a 1 line statement following)
> Obviously, most people will see sense after a warning or two. There will
> hopefully be very few notes to SA's. 
> 
> 
> 					Thomas Ruschak
> 					pur-ee!mazina

It would be much nicer if the administrators got more involved in the human
factors, i.e., policing and informing users, or perhaps (if they have their
hands full) they could appoint someone else who is up to the task.  My point
is that I believe that a lot of net traffic results from ignorance (because
the poster has not been properly educated about using the net) and/or lack of
proper policing by news administrators.  When I was the news adm. for a
public access system, I felt an obligation to read every posting that went
out from our site (it would be pretty trivial to set this up to be done auto-
matically, BTW); we also had a somewhat fascist (but, I believe, reasonable)
policy of restricting posting rights until a new user was familiar enough
with Usenet (and had it banged in his/her head that most questions could
probably be answered LOCALLY, so why clutter up the net?!).  I think that
posting should not be a right, but a privilege that can be taken away by
a news adm. who is paying attention.  I note here that I have not addressed
the case of the person who IS the administrator (e.g., a PC), but this is
trivial:  It is up to the person who allowed him to connect to his/her site
to monitor the connecting site's input to the net.  It is also up to the
conscientious news reader to inform the appropriate people if he/she believes
that a certain user is abusing his/her privilege.  Perhaps there should be a
'News Administrator' line in the uucp maps...

My apologies for rambling on so long, but it is late (I'm semi-conscious, but
very concerned for the future of this amorphous blob).
-- 
Stuart Freedman		        {genrad|ihnp4|ima}!wjh12!talcott!sesame!stuart
Data General Corp.  (Mail Stop E-219)   {cbosgd|harvard}!talcott!sesame!stuart
Westboro, MA 01580   +1(617)870-9659           stuart%sesame.uucp@harvard.arpa