Seeking volunteers for a special project

Discussion in 'General Announcements' started by K3FU, Sep 12, 2020.

ad: L-HROutlet
ad: l-rl
ad: Left-3
ad: Subscribe
ad: Left-2
ad: abrind-2
ad: L-MFJ
  1. K3FU

    K3FU Ham Member QRZ Page

    I have been working for over a decade with a special volunteer team of national scope and influence devoted to ensuring the long-term survival of amateur radio. We have been attempting to accomplish this through public service as moderators/mentors/discussion leaders in the amateur radio community in the following areas of expertise:

    - Staying informed
    - Practicing good reading comprehension
    - Forming logical arguments
    - Persuasion through influencing

    We work in several spaces, including social media, blogs, seminars, and in-person guest speakerships.

    About every few years, an opening comes up on our team, and we seek one or more talented and motivated individuals to augment our efforts. We are seeking candidates who hold an amateur radio license in good standing, and have at least a high school diploma or equivalent (GED or military service considered in lieu). If this might interest you, please contact me at your earliest convenience, and we can talk further about our requirements to see if this would be an appropriate fit for your talents, temperament, and time.

    TNX ES 73,

    Paul, K3FU
  2. AJ4GQ

    AJ4GQ Ham Member QRZ Page

  3. ND6M

    ND6M Ham Member QRZ Page

  4. AC0GT

    AC0GT Ham Member QRZ Page

  5. K3FU

    K3FU Ham Member QRZ Page

    Well, at least my name. Message me and I'll tell you more.
  6. KD0CAC

    KD0CAC Ham Member QRZ Page

    Why not inform us here ?
    N6HCM and AC0GT like this.
  7. K3FU

    K3FU Ham Member QRZ Page

  8. K3FU

    K3FU Ham Member QRZ Page

    It's intentional that one of the suitability/screening tests here is to see who can take the initiative to do some on-line research of public information based on both my name and callsign, via both QRZ and Google searches, and is willing to express interest to me directly based on that information.
  9. KD0CAC

    KD0CAC Ham Member QRZ Page

    Sounds ok , thanks .
    K3FU likes this.
  10. K3XR

    K3XR Ham Member QRZ Page

    "Might you be referring to this type of information from your post on 27 Apr 06?"

    "Thanks for everyone's comments, both here, and on eHam. I admit that my
    article was intended to initiate preliminary discussion to start a
    formal proposal to moderate some of the amateur radio newsgroups on
    Usenet. Already, I have two other interested volunteers. I would
    welcome additional interested people to E-mail me before I contact the
    Usenet Group Mentors. These mentors would assist with any Request For
    Discussion (RFD), and possible Call For Votes (CFV), on news.groups and Again, this is all preliminary. I
    welcome good feedback from experienced Usenetters, particularly the
    Usenet Group Mentors, in the development of any proposal.

    When I say "meltdown," I don't just mean that problem users exist, or
    that people post opinions that are on-topic to amateur radio with which
    I or others disagree. I mean that probably less than a dozen problem
    users have nearly 100% taken over the misc and policy newsgroups with
    their postings. Whatever "immune system" the user community had
    previously - that was able to overcome, or just ignore, these problem
    users - has completely broken down. What I mean by "problem users" is
    that their posts are almost entirely short, sniping, and
    profanity-laden, personal attacks against each other, with no topic
    discussion. Nearly all of the posters are anonymous. Many of which are
    likely "sock-puppets" (i.e., various alter-egos of the same individual),
    posting from a small number of anonymous posting sites like Google
    Groups. A situation exists where virtually all constructive users have
    been run off and the misc and policy newsgroups have become a total
    write-off, serving as nothing but bad public relations for our hobby
    (service, whatever).

    My reading of Usenet newsgroup creation rules, and newsgroup threads
    discussing those rules, indicates to me that an existing, unmoderated
    newsgroup *can* be converted to moderated status. In fact, I believe
    that comp.infosystems.www.authoring.cgi is an example of a formerly
    unmoderated newsgroup that became moderated (though "moderated" only in
    the technical, implementation, sense; see more below). I believe most
    people agree that with the distributed nature of Usenet newsgroups and
    independent news servers, it is nearly impossible to have a newsgroup
    deleted. Even if it were possible, might even be seen as a cure worse
    than the disease. Moderating the existing newsgroups in place, rather
    than new newsgroups, is justified in the face of the existing,
    unmoderated, misc and policy newsgroups becoming totally damaged
    write-offs at this point. I've been in touch with the Usenet Group
    Mentors already, and one of them tells me that they wouldn't refuse
    outright a proposal to convert the existing newsgroups, but they would
    prefer instead to have a proposal that makes one or more new newsgroups
    with the *.moderated suffix (e.g.,

    Yes, it is possible to reach problem users, even in unmoderated
    newsgroups. Most ethical ISP's have rules against using their services
    to "stalk," "threaten," or "harass" someone. Some even prohibit
    "off-topic" or "disruptive" postings to newsgroups, even unmoderated
    ones. Google Groups actually had conditions like these as part of their
    user policies in the past, but quietly dropped them. Google apparently
    doesn't care anymore, and thus serves as the source for most of the
    trash. Recently, I was able to get a problem user shut down, or at
    least got him to stop posting to and, but only because his ISP had ethical user policies and a
    willingness to enforce them. (Hint to the shut down user: It doesn't
    help your case to go on record in traceable Usenet postings that you
    don't feel obligated to follow any rules, including FCC regulations and
    your ISP's user agreement, even bragging publicly about the specifics of
    how you violated them on a willful and ongoing basis.).

    Such enforcement efforts are time-consuming and can only catch the
    grossest violators posting from the most ethical sites. At the end of
    the day, such efforts are more work than just implementing moderation in
    the first place. Moderation serves as much as a deterrence as a filter.
    Users know better than to step too far beyond the pale on eHam and QRZ,
    so the workload of their moderators is minimal. Moderation shouldn't be
    an ongoing battle beyond the initial implementation and fine-tuning.

    Moderation would consist of a very light hand, and simply to deal with
    the small number of abusive, beyond-the-pale, posters and their
    anonymous sock-puppets. If it's not obscene, not illegal, not an
    ad-hominem attack, not a threat, it is on-topic for amateur radio, and
    not part of a stale thread that has already been beaten to death over a
    reasonable period (say, two weeks), it should be posted. It might be
    necessary for the moderators to start the thread on the right newsgroups
    (policy vs. misc vs. vs., but that should
    be about it. One issue that would certainly be open for discussion
    would be that of anonymity. The "last name or callsign" rule from QST
    classified ads would be ideal. The use of a real E-mail address would
    be encouraged (and would be helpful to send moderator's replies). But,
    I suppose that some consistent use of a unique, well-known nickname
    and/or obfuscated E-mail address, used without intent to deceive, could
    be accommodated. With a team of moderators, and some automation
    techniques, moderation should not be an overwhelming workload.

    There are several newsgroup examples to choose from, not all of which
    require ongoing, close, manual review of hundreds of articles per day by
    a single moderator. One, sci.physics.research, has submissions sent to
    a central E-mail address, that then forwards each submission randomly to
    one of their team of moderators. The recipient decides whether it's
    appropriate to post, based on agreed-upon objective criteria, and posts
    the article to the newsgroup. Another newsgroup,
    comp.infosystems.www.authoring.cgi, is fully automated. Moderation in
    that case is simply to deflect first-time posters with an autoreply
    containing references, including an FAQ list. The second (and
    subsequent) posts would go right through. Even some traditional,
    single-moderator newsgroups like comp.dcom.telecom have moderators that
    will simply shut down a thread after everyone has reasonably had a say,
    but before it degrades into personal attacks or off-topic discussion.

    Some hybrid of all of these techniques could work for and Heavy use of
    automated E-mail filter tools such as Spamassassin and Procmail would
    weed out from the moderator submission queue nearly all SPAM, problem
    posters (checking the harder-to-forge headers like NNTP-Posting-Host),
    and obvious profanity/obscenity. This would leave a much smaller batch
    of articles to be manually reviewed in a "service" queue by a team of
    moderators. Turnaround on articles should be less than 24 hours. This
    would be quick enough to keep discussion lively, but not so fast that
    impulsive, cascaded flame wars full of ad-hominem attacks are allowed to
    grow. I believe that filtering of rogue sites and problem users can be
    done surgically enough such that constructive users won't be shut out,
    or unfairly delayed, just because they are posting from Google Groups,
    for example. It should also be possible to "white-list" verified
    posters with good conduct, either placing them in a priority queue for
    cursory review, or even posting their articles immediately (this concept
    is similar to how "Karma" is implemented on, for example).
    This would further reduce the moderation workload, and serve as an
    incentive for good behavior.

    Whatever filtering, and submission queue management, schemes are used
    can be adapted in the face of new or changing threats. In terms of any
    automated "black-listing," it should even be possible to deal with
    violators on a flexible basis (warnings, suspension, only using
    permanent expulsion as a last resort in the face of gross, repeated, and
    willful violations). The existing first-time poster welcome message
    service for*, in use since 1996, can also serve as an
    ongoing monitor and cross-check. Specifically, it would measure the
    amount of "sock-puppeting" that might be occurring to try to game any
    automation, and get around moderation restrictions. Large numbers of
    new, throwaway, anonymous addresses would result in a
    statistically-significant surge in "new" posters being sent the welcome
    message, for example. After a while, the problem users will just give
    up and go elsewhere, preferably off of Usenet entirely.

    K3FU, Apr 27, 2006 Report
    #9 Like"
    K3FU likes this.

Share This Page

ad: w5yi