OT: comp.cad.solidworks Charter changes

[TOP]

I would propose that we as a group consider making the following changes to the charter. To do this it must be discussed here and a consensus formed. To start the discussion I will make the following proposals. If there is support for these changes then they will be pursued. I'm trying to keep it simple, uniform, fair and balanced. If you like the idea, _agree_. If you have a better idea, post your input. If you don't like the idea, _disagree_.

The purpose of this proposal is to cut down on the noise on the group. In the last few years the number of spam, cross posters and endless off charter discussions has risen to the point that there have actually had to be howto discussions on kill lists, etc. This is the premier and oldest SolidWorks discussion forum and the most open and independent.

moderated group comp.cad.solidworks

7. Moderation of the group shall be by robot moderator. The robot moderator shall be set to reject posters deemed by the group to not be consistent with the charter. No pre-approval shall be required to join or post on the group.

8. Moderators of the group shall be approved by group consensus and shall each have equal control over the robot moderator. Moderators will share equally in the cost of maintaining the robot moderator.

The following is the original charter for this newsgroup posted by Greg Jankowski. Note that his URL and email have changed.

Regards;
Greg Jankowski

http://www.wauknet.com/cimco

REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
unmoderated group comp.cad.solidworks

This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the creation of a world-wide unmoderated Usenet newsgroup group.name. This is not a Call for Votes (CFV); you cannot vote at this time. Procedural details are below.

Newsgroup line:
comp.cad.solidworks Computer-aided design systems from SolidWorks Corp.

RATIONALE: comp.cad.solidworks

To provide a forum for the users of SolidWorks Corporation's SolidWorks computer-aided design program.

This forum will allow users to share ideas, network with their peers, and solict advice from other users.

The comp.cad.pro-engineer newsgroup has been used quite ofter to post messages conserning SolidWorks. Separating this into a new newsgroup will allow users to view and post messages which are meant for only SolidWorks or for ProEngineer.

CHARTER: comp.cad.solidworks

comp.cad.solidworks will be a newsgroup for anyone interested in SolidWorks Corp. SolidWorks computer-aided design program. The purpose of this newgroup will be:

1. To discuss designing, drafting, programming, and administration of SolidWorks CAD systems.

2. To share ideas, information, and specific experience regarding the use of SolidWorks.

3. To discuss third-party add-on products for SolidWorks.

4. To discuss enhancements concerning SolidWorks.

5. To educate and inform others about the strengths, weaknesses, and general usage of SolidWorks.

6. To allow announcements of products and events for SolidWorks, third-party products, and user groups.

Discussion on comparisons between SolidWorks and other CAD systems should be held in the most appropriate newsgroup. Messages should be posted in a professional, polite manner as to not purposely offend or insult another person.

The charter is a statement of what constitutes good manners in the newsgroup. It will be enforced through cooperation, mutual respect, and peer pressure when necessary. Anyone who willfully persists in violating the newsgroup's charter will in all likelihood eventually be asked, by the newsgroup's regular participants, to stop posting. If further sanctions are necessary, they will be discussed with the offender, or in news.admin.misc.

END CHARTER.

 

[kenneth]

agree

 

[Cliff]

On Tue, 2 Sep 2008 07:34:55 -0700 (PDT), TOP wrote:

moderated group comp.cad.solidworks

I'll second it.

 

[Wayne Tiffany]

Agree.

WT

 

[brewertr]

On Tue, 02 Sep 2008 11:09:21 -0400, Cliff wrote:

On Tue, 2 Sep 2008 07:34:55 -0700 (PDT), TOP wrote:

>moderated group comp.cad.solidworks

I'll second it.

Cliff

?????? HELLO POT ?????????

 

[gk]

Agree

Gary

 

[That70sTick]

Calling this the premier SW group doesn't hold water under testing. Far more people find substantial SW help on Eng-tips.com and the SW fora. More traffic and more questions answered. The only real advantage here is for those who are overhabituated to NG readers.

I do agree that moderation would help. I am against robot moderators. I doubt they will work well enough.

Trolls go where they are fed. Ignore them and they will go away, once they are done licking up their own vomit.

 

[brewertr]

On Tue, 2 Sep 2008 07:34:55 -0700 (PDT), TOP wrote:

I would propose that we as a group consider making the following changes to the charter. To do this it must be discussed here and a consensus formed. To start the discussion I will make the following proposals. If there is support for these changes then they will be pursued. I'm trying to keep it simple, uniform, fair and balanced. If you like the idea, _agree_. If you have a better idea, post your input. If you don't like the idea, _disagree_.

I believe in free which means I also believe in allowing people the same right to free speech even if what they have to say makes my blood boil.

The purpose of this proposal is to cut down on the noise on the group. In the last few years the number of spam, cross posters and endless off charter discussions has risen to the point that there have actually had to be howto discussions on kill lists, etc. This is the premier and oldest SolidWorks discussion forum and the most open and independent.

This is the oldest, most open and independent where you are now proposing to close and make it dependent.

moderated group comp.cad.solidworks

7. Moderation of the group shall be by robot moderator. The robot moderator shall be set to reject posters deemed by the group to not be consistent with the charter. No pre-approval shall be required to join or post on the group.

8. Moderators of the group shall be approved by group consensus and shall each have equal control over the robot moderator. Moderators will share equally in the cost of maintaining the robot moderator.

We already have moderated SolidWorks groups/forums. If you don't like the wild west (freedom of sp each) unmoderated comp.cad.solidworks then move to the city (moderated solidworks group). Better yet just set up your own personal newsgroup filters set to YOUR preferences not someone else's consensus, it's not that hard.

Most of the people/posts you try to moderate here will just create fake names and email addresses, spoof, etc. to get around the "pre-approved group consensus moderated filters" and keep it up anyway (not me).

Out of curiosity you must have some thought on how to set up the filters now. How exactly are you thinking of filtering (moderating)
this group?

By number of cross posts?
No cross posting?
Posters?
Keywords?
In other words how do you propose to keep it simple, fair, balanced?

I believe in the charter however abiding by it at this point is voluntary. Point it out to the offender when you feel they are violating the charter, that's fine. If you wish to bring a little peer pressure to get people to abide by it that's OK as well. However I am reluctant to agree to taking the only free speech zone left and making it an approved speech only group.

Tom

 

[FrankW]

I agree with Tom
Just learn to use a kill file and leave the group open.

wrote:

On Tue, 2 Sep 2008 07:34:55 -0700 (PDT), TOP wrote:

>I would propose that we as a group consider making the following
>changes to the charter. To do this it must be discussed here and a
>consensus formed. To start the discussion I will make the following
>proposals. If there is support for these changes then they will be
>pursued. I'm trying to keep it simple, uniform, fair and balanced. If
>you like the idea, _agree_. If you have a better idea, post your
>input. If you don't like the idea, _disagree_.

...

 

[Cliff]

On Tue, 02 Sep 2008 09:32:09 -0700, wrote:

Most of the people/posts you try to moderate here will just create fake names and email addresses, spoof, etc. to get around the "pre-approved group consensus moderated filters" and keep it up anyway (not me).

Nor me.
And I just (mostly) kick idiot banquers (for the sheer fun & sport of it). Anything else is sort of on the topic of CAD/CAM systems in general (which should apply mostly to SW as well in some way at some time) or a friendly reply.

 

[Cliff]

On Tue, 02 Sep 2008 08:45:23 -0700, wrote:

On Tue, 02 Sep 2008 11:09:21 -0400, Cliff wrote:

>On Tue, 2 Sep 2008 07:34:55 -0700 (PDT), TOP wrote:
>
>>moderated group comp.cad.solidworks
>
> I'll second it.
>
>Cliff

?????? HELLO POT ?????????

<G>
You should talk. About banquers ....

 

[That70sTick]

I wish this were MORE like the WIld West. Guns and gallows and lynch mobs to deal with offenders appropriately. Freedom of speech regulated by "regulator".

 

[zxys]

Agree.

..

On Sep 2, 7:34 am, TOP wrote:

I would propose that we as a group consider making the following changes to the charter. To do this it must be discussed here and a consensus formed. To start the discussion I will make the following proposals. If there is support for these changes then they will be pursued. I'm trying to keep it simple, uniform, fair and balanced. If you like the idea, _agree_. If you have a better idea, post your input. If you don't like the idea, _disagree_.

The purpose of this proposal is to cut down on the noise on the group. In the last few years the number of spam, cross posters and endless off charter discussions has risen to the point that there have actually had to be howto discussions on kill lists, etc. This is the ...

 

[Anna Wood]

Agree

 

[brewertr]

On Tue, 02 Sep 2008 13:16:58 -0400, Cliff wrote:

On Tue, 02 Sep 2008 08:45:23 -0700, wrote:

>On Tue, 02 Sep 2008 11:09:21 -0400, Cliff wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 2 Sep 2008 07:34:55 -0700 (PDT), TOP wrote:
>>
>>>moderated group comp.cad.solidworks
>>
>> I'll second it.
>>
>>Cliff
>
...

In the 10 years I have been in this group (lurking for the first 6 or 7 years) I started 1 thread IIRC and it was on topic about a pleasant surprise with SolidWorks & CamWorks 2007 right out of the box. All my other posts have been in response to others.

The reason I said HELLO POT is because unlike you Cliff I have NEVER added a cross post. I have never cross posted to your Kook, Political & Extremist groups as you constantly do. Your practice that brings the nut cases and spamers back to us here in comp.cad.solidworks and in alt.machines.cnc.

When responding to posts I try to remember to look up and see what groups the original message I am responding to was posted and remove the cross posted kook, political & off topic groups before I send my response. I said try, I am not as vigilant I could be.

And yes I am guilty of responding to the banquer CAD/CAM eggspurt.

Tom

 

[lmar]

I agree.

 

[Dom]

I agree.

 

[John R. Carroll jcarroll]

Dom wrote:

I agree.

Me to.

 

[matt]

I agree.

We only need moderation for one purpose, and everybody is clear what that one purpose is. I don't think ignoring "him" will make him go away, 10 years of this proves that approach will not work. All of this is just to make one person act like an adult.

c.c.sw IS the premier forum. If you count the years of service this news group has educated us, let us debate, rant, brought us together, disseminated information, and who knows what else, the newer forums don't have the depth of experience. I've learned more from fellow posters on c.c.sw than from any other source.

I left here last year for the very reason that Paul wants to address. I prefer unmoderated, but that only works if everyone can control themselves. I fully support Paul and this effort to reclaim a little territory.

Matt Lombard

 

[TOP]

Tom,

This is an age old topic. I believe in freedom of speech also. So for example when I start a thread on a topic like _cross posting_ on the group something is taken from our freedom of speech when a game of verbal ping pong ensues on the subject of, dare it be mentioned, SyncTech. Surely many would have liked to respond to the original topic but did not, short changing us of a discussion on cross posting. There were many other threads on SyncTech. This is a charter driven NG. And there is a thing called netiquette. And one thing that should be borne in mind is that a NG is not for any one person's gratification, but rather the pursuit of an idea and the benefit of all. That is why there are so many different news groups.

The type of moderation that is being envisioned is to make free speech possible. Most moderated groups require some sort of entry approvals or even payments (Eng-Tips, SWCad, SW fora, blogs, etc.) And they will bounce members that stray even a little bit from their path. That is not what is being envisioned here. Rather what is envisioned is the control of noise with noise being defined as that speech which is outside the charter and outside the bounds of netiquette so that a discussion of SW can ensue.

There was the wild west in which men/women were free to roam and seek their fortunes. Then there are dude ranches in which men/women go to ride down the same trails week after week in search of the feeling that they are in the wild west. I never understood dude ranches. In the wild west part of this NG people explore SW (the software and the company) and get it to go where it has never gone before in pursuit of their fortunes.

As for the how to moderate, I suppose that would be based on consensus within the scope of the charter as far as individuals go. We already had the discussion on cross posting and the consensus there was that there shouldn't be any (or at least it should be very limited). I think you were part of that thread.

And yes I have given the mechanics of it some thought. I will give an example using a hypothetical name of a non-existent person. For the sake of discussion only let's say the name is bob zee. For some reason bob zee has been moderated out (I don't think this would really happen, it is just an example). So bob zee starts posting as george why. He would probably get one post before a moderator would notice the unmistakable way bob zee writes. Bingo, george why is blacklisted too. What you should take away from this is that moderation would be directed at behavior, not persons so faking an identity will not solve anything if the behavior continues.

Sorry bob zee, even hypothetical non-existent people have feelings. I hope you take this in the spirit it was intended.

TOP