## Re: Announcement on spam -- please, everyone, just stop this

Posted November 25, 1995

The following is a response to a delicate thread on ASB; relevant names have been snipped so I don't annoy them unnecessarily, but I spent too much effort on this reply to let it fade into obscurity. However, if the people involved in this thread prefer not to have this reminder of it here, let me know.

>A number of people no longer read this group because they are sick of
>wading thru the shit.

If I may be so bold, I would like to point out that, IMHO, the worst kind of sh*t on ASB is not the phone sex, or the binaries, or the ads, or the make-money-fast schemes, but is instead the ceaseless, pointless arguments generated by zoos themselves.

This thread in particular has degenerated into juvenile threats and insults which make [some people] look like a master of restraint. It, more than anything else, endangers the quality and popularity of this newsgroup. I for one don't worry about the spam and the binaries, because I don't have to read them. I look at the title and decide to skip that message. I also send messages to the sysadmin when I can.

Yes, I know not everyone has a system set up like that, but as we are so fond of pointing out to newbies, if your provider can't do it, find one who can: there's no monopoly on Internet providers.

>And to think anyone would actually defend the *rights* to post binaries

To accuse people of _defending_ people's "right" to post inappropriate material is in itself inappropriate, and wholly untrue. No one here wants ASB inundated with the posts you describe: just because we don't want someone physically deleting them doesn't mean we _want_ them to be posted. You're polarizing: deciding that if we don't _agree_ with you 100%, we must _disagree_ with you 100%. Nothing could be further from the truth.

>Now, if we dont enforce the faq then what the hell good is it

The misconception here is that FAQs are meant to be (or, indeed, _able_ to be) "enforced." FAQs and charters are guidelines only. If people choose to disobey them, we have no more "right" to delete their posts than they have to submit them. In a moderated group, that's a different story.

You are acting as a self-appointed moderator, and while I know you mean well by it, and I have no reason to believe you have deleted anything we should have seen, you must admit that to assume the role of moderator on an unmoderated newsgroup without first calling for a vote on the subject is ill-advised.

>Then rewrite [the FAQ] to say "binaries and commercial ads it is SUGGESTED not
>be posted here" instead of :"do NOT post binaries.."

On Usenet, there _is_ no NOT: it's always just a suggestion. That fact is not in dispute. Every FAQ which "forbids" certain posts winds up being violated. The sign at the local health club _suggests_ you not pee in the swimming pool, but short of clamping a chastity belt on everyone, there's no way to enforce it. A certain amount of trust is necessary to any free society. Yes, that trust will occasionally be betrayed, but it is not up to us to install chastity belts. On Usenet, the best that can be hoped for is a slap on the wrist. There's no safe way around it: that's why a moderated group is so important, and even those can be spammed by the technically savvy. No matter how good you are at cancelling posts, it's a never-ending job because the spammers are always one step ahead of you.

>The posts I cancelled were not cancelled because I or anyone else doesnt
>"like them", they were cancelled because the faq clearly states they are NOT
>to be posted here.

When I was young, I once said something to the effect that "he _made_ me do it!" No one makes anyone do anything: we make our own decisions. The FAQ didn't delete the posts in question, nor did it make you delete them. You deleted them because you took it upon yourself to "enforce" a guideline that is inherently unenforceable, and over which you have no more jurisdiction than any of the rest of us.

>However, the threat made to me was to arbitrarily cancel every one of MY
>posts on any and ALL newsgroups! Now thats a BIG difference!

Is it? Both statements, if true, sound equally juvenile to me. Shouldn't this debate be based on reason and maturity, rather than creating an excuse for yet another pointless vendetta? Don't we already have one too many of those?

>ANYONE with an ip/slip account and a newsreader can very easilyl cancel any
>posts they want to! there is no mystery about it, it doesn't even require any
>training. In fact I discovered how by just playing around with my newsreader.

Thank you for providing that information. Anyone who wants this newsgroup to disappear, and who didn't know how to do so before, now has a means by which to accomplish that end: simply establish a network of anti-zoos with newsreaders, and have them check this group every day and cancel any "signal" they find, leaving only the "noise."

In fact, if I may be permitted to don my paranoia hat for a moment, perhaps part of the lack of signal on ASB is due to just such a network. I know that not every post sent to anon.penet.fi makes it all the way around the world and back to my provider, even if I get an acknowledgement post from the daemon. Some no doubt may simply vanish due to one or more pathways being down at a given time, but my impression of Usenet is that if a post can't make it using a given pathway, it will keep trying others until it achieves 100% propagation. So, perhaps some of my posts are being cancelled deliberately by people who think it constitutes a benefit to zoos. Perhaps I should mispel mor offen an uze the f-werd alot, and maybe then they'd let it slip by. :)

I hereby relegate my paranoia hat to the attic, where it belongs. :)

>:>>Yes, [snip], I do think you have been practicing censorship and
>:>>you should stop doing it.

I'm not sure who wrote this [...] but I must echo the sentiment.

>I have PERMISSION from my administration to cancel these posts

I'm afraid I have some bad news for you: _we_ are your administration, and we do not recall being asked to vote you moderator. Your administration cannot authorize you to clean up any newsgroup for which you have not been voted official moderator, because no administration anywhere has jurisdiction over any part of Usenet.

>I can see I am up against a group of ungratefull binary/ad/pedophile
>protectors who really DONT want asb to be cleaned up back into a discussion
>group because they want social support zoophile to pass, that is the REAL
>motivation for letting asb deteriorate into another sex ad and binary group.

Now _that_ is totally uncalled for. We realize you mean well, so calling us ungrateful is illogical. I thanked you before and I'll thank you again now for sending e-mail to all those sysadmins earlier; we're all grateful for anyone who works _within appropriate channels_ to improve the s/n ratio here.

We aren't protecting binaries, ads, or pedos, and are deeply insulted by the insinuation that we are. If you truly wish to determine what percentage of us are actually protecting pedophiles, perhaps you should post a survey (wink wink). Until then, this is a spurious and juvenile allegation, made in the heat of anger, not in the coolness of reason, and as such, I forgive it.

While I speak for many zoos who do very much want some sort of moderated zoophilia group to pass, whatever it winds up being called, we also believe there is a place for ASB. Not every site will carry SSZ, so we must protect ASB for their benefit. Also, since most regular contributors to SSZ will probably crosspost to ASB (anything on-topic in SSZ will be on-topic here), the creation of SSZ should _strengthen_ ASB, and not eliminate it.

ASB is, for now, all that we have, and we aren't about to dirty our own bed. After all, if we lose ASB, and SSZ also fails, we'll be homeless, won't we? That's too big a risk for us to take. A mountain climber sinks in a piton before he makes a long ascent: ASB is our piton, and SSZ is the summit. Grab your chalk bags, everyone: the view is worth the climb. :)

>I seriously doubt ssz will pass, not now!

"Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but soon, and for the rest of your life." SSZ will pass if we want it badly enough, which we do. Besides: if everyone who is tired of seeing this thread on ASB (a thread which would not, by the way, be allowed even to get started on SSZ) voted yes, SSZ would pass in a heartbeat. :)

>remus' graphic detailed post from August depicting intercourse with a bitch
>on a country road [was forwarded to rec.pets.dogs.*]

Really? I must have missed that one. :) Remus, would you be so kind as to e-mail me a copy? Ah'd be much obliged. :)

>You might not know who reads rec*, let me fill you in;
>
>[snip]
>
>They are undoubtedly watching for the next call for discussion and would
>probably, more likely than not... now turn out en masse with no votes.

So? That doesn't mean we give up, does it? Instead of moping because "everyone's out to get us," we should be campaining for support among those who _aren't_: our fellow zoos. Besides, all is not lost. If you subscribe to SSZ-TAC, you will learn that we have numerous options, and some very knowledgeable people are on the list. The future of SSZ (or whatever) has never looked brighter.

>if you want to see [ASB] deteriorate into another pictrue group and
>commercial phone sex group fine, I really don't care at this point

I think you underestimate yourself: I don't doubt for a moment that you care about the future of ASB, or SSZ for that matter; you're just disappointed that deciding to act as moderator was not well-received. I had a very similar thing happen to me on SSZ-TAC. One person made up a list of sample posts to see how the candidates for moderator would vote on them. My failing was in saying I would consider changing an all-caps entry to upper & lower-case, because the content of the message was on-topic and deserved to be read.

My suggestion was quite correctly chastized by no fewer than three other readers. I was trying to act as "editor." I meant well, but it is not the position of the moderator to "edit" anything: a post should be accepted as-is or rejected as-is: no exceptions. They were right and I was wrong.

>I decided "to hell with it" as far as trying to make a difference [snip]
>Hope you enjoy the spam, Im not going to even get involved.

I strongly recommend that you not abandon your efforts. I have no objections to your continuing to notify sysadmins of inappropriate postings by their users, and I don't think anyone else here minds, either, except for the wankers who posted the crap in the first place...and their opinions don't count. :) Deletion of posts, however, is the responsibility of the aforementioned sysadmins, not us.

>I have better things to waste an hour a night of my ip/slip connection
>on than trying to help folks here maintain a readable newsgroup!

I know the feeling. I've now spent almost two hours composing this reply: time I'd much rather spend with that German Shepherd I've been writing about :) than try to talk people down from a virtual rooftop and restore some sense of order and reason to a place which I have come to think of as a second home: a home for that part of myself which has no other place to go.

visits since 8/9/97

Essays -- Updated Saturday, March 15, 1997 -- E-mail Actaeon