From: de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
Subject: Re: No more short stories from rauser@sfu.ca
Date: 31 Jul 92 12:26:39 GMT
Organization: Oak Ridge National Laboratory

In article <l7i011INNg5j@nunki.usc.edu>, rone@nunki.usc.edu (Ron Echeverri) writes:
>
>This one's going to alt.censorship to see what the people here think of your
tricks.

Ooh... Siccing the net.anticops on me, eh?

>>I'm ORNL's new admin, so I'm responsible for ensuring that the groups we carry
>>are appropriate.  Several of Rauser's stories contained material that was
>>definitely not acceptable, e.g., the recent rape scene in "Danielle".  So I
>>was faced with either ceasing to carry the group, removing the unacceptable
>>material, or stopping the material from being posted in the first place.
>
>Ooooo.  So you chose having a 'good news' group free of stories, rather than
>eliminate the group totally?

Right, since it's alt.good.news, not alt.good.news.and.bad.stories.

>EXCUSE ME.  Is this thing on? *taps Dave's forehead*  This is USENET.

Yeah, I was aware of that.

>WHat's more, it's an alt group.

I caught that, too.  But "alt" doesn't mean anarchy...it means new group
creation is relatively uncontrolled; not that one can post anything anywhere.

>It is NOT your group.

No more than it's your group.  Why do you support Rauser's right to post his
stories, but deny me the right to complain about it?

>It may carry itself in a loose democracy.  If the a.g.n people think 
>that Rich's stories are ruining their days (yeah, like people ONLY read a.g.n
>to brighten their days), then you have a legitimate reason.

I have as much right as any other USENET participant to try to guide the
discussion in a newsgroup in the way it was intended.  It's clear to all but the
braindead that alt.good.news *is* for posting announcements of good news.  I can
tolerate the occasional infraction, but I draw the line at chronic, flagrant
abuse.  In my 6+ years of USENET participation as a reader, active poster, news
admin at two sites, and creator of two successful non-alt groups, I have
complained perhaps thrice to another admin about their user's inappropriate
postings, and the other times were for such perennial net banes as chain letters
and Craig Shergold postcard requests.  This is not something I do frivolously.

>Otherwise, just
>because you believe ORNL is too sensitive to stand such things as teenage rape
>you have absolutely no grounds to mail SFU's administrators.

You're wrong.  Stories about teenage rape *aren't* good news, no matter how you
look at it.  That's all the grounds I need.

>BTW does your site carry the alt.sex hierarchy? alt.binaries.pictures.erotica?
>If you do, you're a hypocrite.

We don't.

>If you don't, that's your privilege, but you can't "protect" ORNL from reading
>whatever groups they want.

It's my duty to ensure that the groups we carry are appropriate for our site.  I
don't have the final authority, and have changed my decision on appeal from
users, but I do make the first cut.

>>I felt we had as much right to carry the group as the next site, that the
>>material was clearly inappropriate for the group, and, since there was only
>>one "offender", I decided to try to get him to stop.  I pointed out to him
>>that his stories were not "good news", being works of fiction, and that there
>>were other newsgroups where they would be appropriate.  He refused to stop, so
>>I appealed to the news/mail admins at his site.  They forward my complaint to
>>him, and he then volunteered to cease posting stories here.
>
>He 'volunteered'?  You slime.

Yes, he volunteered.  He wasn't told by his administrators that he must cease.
The fact that he consented is evidence that he knew they were inappropriate in
the first place.  Or he's too spineless to stand up for what he believes in...

>>Yes, I could have used my "k" key.  But the point is that I and the readers
>>of alt.good.news shouldn't have to do that.  The reason we have different
>>newsgroups on different topics is so we don't have to weed through stuff we
>>aren't interested in.
>
>The POINT of 'k', 'K', and '' are that if there's something on the group
>that you don't want to see, you can eliminate.

Thanks for that little lesson, Ron, but I use xrn, and have various "kill"
buttons at my disposal.

>How did you get to be admin of ORNL and not know how to handle USENET?

I didn't.

>>I really have no problem with his stories, per se.  They simply don't belong
>>here, though.
>
>Who are YOU to decide this?

A concerned net.citizen who felt his right to a worthwile alt.good.news was
being denied by a single disrespectful poster.

>Let me repeat: there is a loose democracy in deciding what belongs here and
>what doesn't. 

And I've made my position clear, haven't I?

>>It disturbs me that you're so eager to label them pinheads, especially
>>considering they were only doing their jobs, not cracking down on him.
>
>They only did their jobs like any other admins would because they always do
>that when they receive 'distressing' email from censors like you.  Sysadmins
>are easily scared.  Examples: my own, you, SFU's.

Speak for your own sysadmins.  I'm not easily scared.  SFU's might or might not
be, but I've seen no evidence of it.

>>Is a story about a girl getting raped by two drunk guys, poisoning
>>one of them, and being killed by cops good news?  Is a story about a prisoner
>>being tortured and executed good news?
>
>I think so.

That's your problem.  I'd suggest counseling.

>It's good news that society is out there, and someone cares enough
>to write good literature on it.

I disagree with the label "good" applied to Rauser's little stories.  And I
disagree that posting a story is an announcement of the "good news" that society
is "out there".

>And i think the rest of the readers agree.  At least, they haven't disagreed.

Then you're as guilty as I am of assuming what the group wants.  Let's wait and
see what the poll says.  If the readership of alt.good.news says Rauser's junk
belongs there, I'll bow out, stop carrying it at ORNL, and create
alt.announcements.of.real.good.news for those who really just want a place to
read or post good news.

>>>Don't like it, don't read it.  Kill files were made for a reason.
>>If everyone followed this silly line of reasoning, we'd have a mess of
>>ill-defined, incoherent newsgroups.  
>
>We HAVE a mess of ill-defined, incoherent newsgroups (eg, alt.butt-keg.marma-
>lade)  What's your point?

My point is that you're wrong.  We have a large set of rather well-defined
newsgroups.  Sure, people post things incorrectly now and then...that comes with
the territory.  But people don't and shouldn't post questions about COBOL to
alt.lang.basic.  It's just common sense.

>What planet did YOU come from, anyways?  alt.good.news is an "alt" group. if
>you don't want to carry it, don't.  Don't enforce your censorship on us.

What planet did *you* come from?  On my planet, it's not censorship to complain
about something you don't think is right.  It's called freedom of speech.

>Enforce it on ORNL, that's your jurisdiction.

I will.

>I'd mail your sysadmin, but since you ARE the sysadmin, i hope that
>somehow your employers catch wind of this.

Call me at 615-576-4761 and I'll give you my boss's number and/or e-mail
address.  I'm fully prepared to defend my actions.

-- 
Dave Sill (de5@ornl.gov)           For every Bill Joy there is a Kirk McKusick.
Martin Marietta Energy Systems     For every Bill Gates there is a Richard
Workstation Support                Stallman.                     --Paul Graham
Xref: sparky alt.censorship:6149 soc.culture.british:10527