No Subject
David Stodolsky
david at arch.ping.dk
Tue Sep 7 12:49:18 PDT 1999
According to rules recently adopted, Judges-L FAQ ver. 2.1,
one must register before being subscribed to the List. The
Registration Form is at the end of the Judges-L FAQ below.
Please read the Cancel Messages FAQ first, if you have not
already done so. It has been posted to news.admin.policy.
Judges-L Registrar,
dss
============================================================
Welcome to Judges-L
The following Frequently Asked Questions with answers are
designed to assist you in interacting with other subscribers
to the Judges' List and thereby assist users of the NetNews
system in dealing with certain types of abusive messages.
Please do not post to the List until you have been a
subscriber for a couple of weeks, so you can avoid the most
common mistakes made by new subscribers. Alternatively you
can review the activities of the List by retrieving archives
of recent discussions. You can retrieve the list of archives
by sending "INDEX Judge-L" (not including quotation marks)
to LISTSERV at UBVM.CC.BUFFALO.EDU (or LISTSERV at UBVM.BITNET).
You can then order these files with a "GET Judge-L
LOGxxxx". For example, to get the first month's archive, send
the command "GET JUDGES-L LOG9409" to retrieve the archive
for September of 1994.
You can unsubscribe by sending the command "UNSUB JUDGES-L"
in the body of a message to LISTSERV at UBVM.CC.BUFFALO.EDU (or
LISTSERV at UBVM.BITNET).
Please retain this message for future reference.
-------------------------------------------------
Judges-L: Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) ver. 2.1
What is the Judges-L?
The Judges' List (Judges-L at UBVM.cc.buffalo.edu or JUDGES-
L at UBVM.BITNET) is a LISTSERV mail distribution list. Messages
for distribution must be sent to one of these addresses.
Subscription and other LISTSERV commands must be sent to
LISTSERV at UBVM.cc.buffalo.edu or LISTSERV at UBVM.BITNET.
How does the Judges' List work?
The List distributes messages to a panel of Judges who cancel
multiple posts to NetNews immediately. The List is used to
help Judges organize themselves, finalize policy, and set
procedures to enforce rules. It is primarily directed to
those who issue cancels. Secondarily, to those who survey
cancels issued, in order to ensure that the cancel facility
is not being abused.
It is not the intention of the Judges to regulate the content
of articles posted. The protection of the NetNews system from
overload by posts to multiple newsgroups is the focus of the
activity. Widespread posting of off-topic material and
overloads of individual newsgroups is a secondary focus of
discussion.
Mechanisms for the control of automatic posting software or
automatic cancellation software is within the scope of
discussion. Security mechanisms to facilitate the
cancellation of abusive posts is also within the scope of the
List.
Certain activities, such as voting, are restricted to
registered Judges. A Judge registers by supplying verifiable
identity information to the Registrar. This information must
be traceable to a primary identification document, such as a
birth certificate. Supplied information is used only for the
registration of a Judge. A digital signature, signed by a
recognized certification authority can satisfy this
requirement. The Registrar will acknowledge that registration
has succeeded. Another option is transmission of a verifiable
name, address, and telephone number (including best times to
telephone). Any finger, X.500 directory, or Network
Information Center entries, should also be supplied, in order
to reduce the need for telephonic contact (use the form at
the end of this post). Random checks may be undertaken from
time to time to confirm the integrity of registration
information. The List Registrar is currently David S.
Stodolsky at address:
david at arch.ping.dk.
How are decisions made?
There are two types of messages distributed via the List. The
first type is an informational message. The second type is an
action message, which notifies readers that an official
response is requested or pending. A response to a previous
message must begin with the characters "Re: " (note the
trailing space). A message that starts a new discussion must
not start with these characters.
Action messages must be indicated by a message subject that
starts with all capital letters. Current message subject
precursors are:
:"COMPLAINT: " - a complaint about a message that someone
wants cancelled
:"CANCEL: " - a complaint about an inappropriate cancel
message
:"DRAFT: " - a request for preliminary input on a proposed
action
:"OPINION: " - a proposed action not directly related to a
complaint
:"ACCEPTED: " - an accepted action
Decisions are preferably reached by consensus. The consensus
is indicated by at least one week passing after an action
message, or the last comment on an action message, has been
distributed. Thus, if an OPINION message is posted and no
comments are made in response to it for a week, it is
considered to have achieved a consensus. The message will
then be redistributed in exactly the same form, but with the
ACCEPTED message precursor. If no objections are registered
within a week, then this opinion becomes valid. (Objections
at this stage can only be procedural, such as failure to
incorporate corrections or not allowing adequate time for
comments.) If comments are received, they must be answered or
incorporated into the accepted message. In the case of
extensive revision, the message should be distributed again
with an OPINION message precursor. Accepted messages are
transferred to the file area for permanent storage. Accepted
opinions are also posted to USENET with "Judges" as their
sender.
In the case that a consensus is not reached within three
weeks after the final posting of an action message, the
author of the message can call for a vote. After the call,
the List Registrar will post the email addresses of
registered voters. A voter is registered if s/he supplied
registration information to the Registrar prior to the first
presentation of the action item. Votes are directed to the
author, or other designated vote counter, and may include a
statement. After a week, all votes and comments are posted.
If a complaint achieves majority support, it can be reposted
as ACCEPTED. Contributed statements must be included.
Opinions require two-thirds support to achieve acceptance.
If you reply to a message, but change the subject or address
a side issue, change the subject line of the post using the
"was" construction [i. e., New subject (was: Old subject)].
This is particularly important with action items, which can
be delayed otherwise.
Do I have to wait a week before acting on a complaint?
No. Any Judge can act on a complaint at any time. The List
and the person who submitted the complaint must be notified
immediately. If a complaint receives no response, it is
assumed to be invalid. A week after the final comment on a
complaint, it may be reposted, including all comments, with
an "ACCEPTED: " subject precursor. This is normally done by
the Judge who initially responded to the complaint. Unless
there are objections, it is transferred to the file area one
week later. A Judge must not be the first respondent to a
complaint submitted on her/his behalf.
A Judge should only respond to a complaint if confident that
the response is appropriate. New Judges can develop their
reputations by closely monitoring the List. This permits
routine abuse to handled promptly by new Judges. More
experienced Judges can then concentrate on handling
complicated complaints or on incorrect responses made by
novices.
What is the correct style for a message?
Messages to the List must follow USENET guidelines. See
"Guidelines for posting on Usenet" and "Hints on writing
style for Usenet" in the newsgroup "news.announce.newusers".
Specifically, spell check your message and review it for
accuracy. If you are irritated or upset, put it aside for a
day, and then read both the message you are replying to and
your response again. All messages to the List are archived
and permanently available to subscribers.
What should I do about inappropriate messages?
Faulty or inappropriate messages should be ignored. You may
notify the sender directly by email that there is a problem
with such a message.
Since action items cannot be ignored, inappropriate messages
of this type may result in censure of the sender. When in
doubt as to the type of a message you are sending, do not use
an action precursor. If it definitely is an action message,
post it using the "DRAFT: " message precursor first, and
allow at least a week for feedback. Draft messages should be
used in all cases except where time is of the essence.
Posting of a draft message immediately fixes the registered
voters on the item, but reduces the risk of repeated updates
while in the "OPINION: " phase. Since opinion messages
require responses within a week, it is more likely that the
feedback to them will be negative and will be less complete
than feedback to a draft.
Can a message that has appeared on the Judges-L be reposted?
Only your own words can be reposted and only by you. Authors
retain a non-exclusive non-transferable copyright on their
own writing sent to the List. "Fair use" is limited to single
words.
The non-exclusive transfer of copyright to the List Registrar
ensures that the author can continue to use the words they
have sent to the List, while at the same time those words can
be used in a well controlled manner, for example, in an
opinion issued by Judges-L. This is essential to the function
of the List, since a participant in a dispute might try to
block publication of an opinion by asserting copyright over
crucial writing, if not pleased with the decision.
The non-transferability of the copyright retained by the
author makes it impossible for List policy to be circumvented
by a (legal) person who collects copyrights from various
authors. It also ensures that only persons bound by the List
policy can use material sent to the List in other contexts.
This could also be crucial in stopping misuse of writing sent
to the List.
"Fair use" is limited to single words. Copying of more than a
single word violates fair use, since repeatedly copying pairs
of words would permit the transfer of collective works from
the List. That is, if pairs of words from a message were
transferred repeatedly under "fair use", the original message
could easily be assembled from the machine readable
fragments:
"Copying shall not be used to create or to replace or
substitute for anthologies, compilations, or collective
works..."
{From the guidelines developed by the Ad Hoc Committee on
Copyright Revision, the Author-Publisher Group, and the
Association of American Publishers. COPYRIGHT LAW AND
MULTIMEDIA DEVELOPMENT IN EDUCATION [DRAFT VERSION] in a
document assembled by the Academic Computing Technologies
Group, Johnson County Community College, Overland Park, KS
66210 (in Mich Kabay <75300.3232 at compuserve.com>. [27
December 1994]. RISKS of guessing at Fair Use. RISKS DIGEST
16.68. [URL: http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/16.68.html]}
Any subscriber posting messages to the Judges-L is bound by
this copyright policy. Material posted by others falls under
a Judge-L compilation copyright. Writing by persons not
posting to the List themselves is covered by a compilation
copyright held by the sender and the List, and subject to the
same restrictions, where ever applicable, as original
writing. The terms "writing" and "words" are construed to
include all forms of expression subject copyright, such as
drawings, recorded sounds, and so on.
External archives of Judges-L messages and opinions can only
be maintained if explicit written permission is given.
Subscribers may, however, maintain archives of messages they
have received while subscribed to the List, but only for
their own private use and only as long as they remain
subscribers.
Can I disclose information received from the List to third
parties (persons not on the List)?
No. Privacy of messages sent to the List is crucial for the
List to be able to perform its conflict resolution functions.
Privacy makes uninhibited expression more likely, thus aiding
in fact finding and resolution of disputes. It also protects
authors from having their words used out of context. Finally,
it inhibits persons not satisfied with a List decision from
taking their complaints to another forum. The ability to
achieve a final resolution of conflict is one of the major
advantages of a judicial ruling.
What if I do not follow these guidelines?
Any person who provides false registration information will
be prohibited from any use of the List for a period of five
years and their postmaster, employer, or service provider
will be notified thereof. At the end of that period a new
registration form may be submitted. The document must be
signed under penalty of perjury and notarized.
Any person misusing information from the List is subject to
immediate unsubscription for a period of one year. A censure
opinion must be submitted to the List immediately thereafter
and copied to the person affected. All messages concerning
the case must be copied to the concerned person, who may
reply directly to the List. If the List has been set to
automatically reject messages from the person as a result of
abuse of the List, the person may select a representative to
forward their replies. If the censure fails, the person will
immediately be resubscribed.
In any case of involuntary unsubscription or of censure that
casts doubt upon the honesty of a Judge, resubmission of
registration information signed under penalty of perjury and
notarized is required.
If you abuse the List by sending messages, you may be asked
to stop sending for a period of six months, by issuance of an
opinion. If you fail to honor this request, then your
messages will be automatically rejected for a period of one
year. An abuser may reapply after that time by sending a
request to Dimitri Vulis (dlv at dm.com). In extreme cases,
abusers will be unsubscribed from the List for a one-year
period. Further problems will result in an abuser's
postmaster being notified, or if the abuser is a postmaster,
the notification will go to an employer or service provider.
The Judges reserve the right to counter any continuing abuse
of the List without further notice.
Severe abuse can result in immediate action by a List Owner
or Site Administrator. The Judges' List must be notified when
any such action is taken.
How do I request censure of a Judge?
A Judge can submit an OPINION message to the List requesting
that an abusive Judge cease, for example, sending to the
List. Alternatively, the message can be directed to the
Registrar, who will post it to the List, confirming that the
message was submitted by a Judge, who wishes to remain
anonymous. Other comments on the case may be directed to the
Registrar, if authors wish to remain anonymous. In the case
that a vote becomes necessary, the Registrar will randomly
select nine Judges, if that many are available. They will be
privately requested to deliver their votes to a designated
Vote Counter. If three-fourths of the votes support the
request, it will be posted as an ACCEPTED opinion by the Vote
Counter. Dimitri Vulis (dlv at dm.com) receives such votes.
How is conflict of interest avoided in censure cases?
Any selected Judge directly involved in the dispute must
notify the Registrar that they are not available to vote. In
the case this withdrawal could affect the vote outcome, a new
Judge will be randomly selected. The accused may advise the
Registrar that certain Judges are directly involved and
should not be selected. No more than one-third of Judges may
be designated as unsuitable. Neither the Registrar nor the
Vote Counter may serve as voters in censure cases.
Why should I use this List instead of a newsgroup?
Discussions of abusive practices also occur in the
newsgroups, for example, news.admin.policy. That newsgroup
has over 50,000 readers and over 50% of articles are
crossposted. Each post, therefore, uses a minimum of 20 man-
hours of readers' time, even if each reader spends only a
second reading the subject line of an article. Examination of
the post itself can lead to ten times that amount of time
being used, or even more. It is suggested, therefore, that
posts to newsgroups be limited to novel incidents, with the
potential for generating a new policy consensus. Routine
abuse can be handled in a much more economical manner, if it
is referred to this List.
Another advantage of using the List for cancel notifications
is the almost immediate delivery of email. Newsgroup
propagation is significantly slower, meaning that duplicate
cancels may be issued. This can create problems and certainly
means unnecessary work for administrators.
Consensus rarely occurs in newsgroups, if there is even the
slightest disagreement on an issue. In order to create an
alternative to arbitrary cancellation, cancellation wars
between posters and administrators, and so on, it is
important to reach a consensus through a process that is open
and fair. A list makes it more likely that every person sees
the same material, which cannot be assured with people
browsing newsgroups. Also, lists are less "public", so there
is less incentive for people to defend positions, merely
because they have taken them. This is a well know problem in
international negotiations. These factors, when combined with
the procedures suggested here, make reaching a consensus on
the List much more likely than in a newsgroup.
Another advantage of List operation is the privacy of the
List archives. This makes it less likely that disputants
seize upon details of statements made by Judges as indicating
support for their position. The transfer of completed
decisions to the publicly assessable file area, on the other
hand, make them more likely to be used as guidance in dispute
resolution. These completed decisions can also be used as a
database of known offenders, in order to facilitate dealing
with repeated abuse. This effect is even stronger in the case
of accepted opinions, which are posted to USENET.
Finally, there are some people who cannot understand that it
is not OK to do anything that is not explicitly against some
"law." These people need some "legal" decisions to abide by,
because they will not stop abusive activities otherwise. They
may also view cancellation of their articles as abridging
their "free speech" or "restraining their trade" and take
their complaint to a court. The Judges-L can be the court of
first instance, thereby reducing the risk of interference by
governmental authorities with activities on the Net.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Judges-L Registration Form
This form serves as a copyright agreement, non-disclosure
agreement, and oath:
I have read and understood the Cancel Messages Frequently
Asked Questions (FAQ) list and the Judges-L FAQ. I understand
why archive privacy is required and the role confidentiality
plays in dispute resolution.
I agree to:
a) respect the Judge-L copyright and report any violations
thereof.
b) avoid disclosing information received from the List to
third parties (persons not on the List) and report any
violations of this policy.
c) store messages received from the List in a manner that
prevents disclosure to third parties (at minimum, password
protection on a publicly accessible system, or residential
level physical security for unprotected files or messages
that have been printed ).
d) destroy all copies of messages from the List within 14
days of unsubscribing (this does not apply to setting an
address to "no mail", which stops transmission of messages).
e) follow the procedures accepted by the Judges (subscribers
to Judges-L).
f) tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the
truth, in messages sent to the List or directly to persons
subscribed to the List. That is, I agree that deception is to
be avoided, either through incorrect statements or omission
of relevant facts. If statements made in good faith are later
found to be incorrect, the correct information will be
supplied without delay. Not withstanding the above, if
another subscriber is mislead by my statement and makes an
incorrect statement on the List as a result, I will correct
that person in a message to the List.
g) base any decision I make as a Judge only on messages to
the List. If I receive communications concerning a matter
under deliberation on Judges-L by other means (i. e., private
mail, news, etc.), I will send a notice to the List. If I do
not disclose the information, I will state why. Further, I
will state whether I feel receipt of the information
disqualifies me from further participation in the
deliberation and why.
h) attempt to influence a Judges-L decisions only through
messages posted to the List under my registered name.
I understand that if I violate this agreement I may be
subject to censure and that an accepted censure opinion may
be posted to the Judges-L public file area and published in
appropriate USENET newsgroups. I agree to accept any such
ruling as final.
Replace underlines "____" completely (in relevant items) with
your information and return to:
david at arch.ping.dk
Last name __________________________
Other names, initials, titles, etc. ________________________
Address __________________________
City, State, Country, ZIP, etc. __________________________
Telephone number (include country code) ____________________
Best times to Phone From _____ to _____ and _____ to _____
Work or other address __________________________
City, State, Country, ZIP, etc. __________________________
Telephone number (include country code) ____________________
Best times to Phone From _____ to _____ and _____ to _____
Finger entry _________________________
X.500 directory listing _________________________
Network information center entries _________________________
_________________________
Other directory entries _________________________
_________________________
_________________________
_________________________
-----------------------------------------------------------
===========================================================
David S. Stodolsky, PhD * Social * Internet: david at arch.ping.dk
Tornskadestien 2, st. th. * Research * Tel.: + 45 38 33 03 30
DK-2400 Copenhagen NV, Denmark * Methods * Fax: + 45 38 33 88 80
More information about the cypherpunks-legacy
mailing list