This is a cautionary tale which shows how good intentions can be subverted by net nannies.

The story begins with a Usenet newsgroup that was being overrun by trolls. A couple of people volunteered to set up a moderated version of the group and I was one of the people who promised to do a bit of moderating. For those of you unfamiliar with this, all it means is that posts to the newsgroup have to be approved by someone trusted before it appears in public. In this way the off-topic and obnoxiously provocative posters are denied an opportunity to make a nuisance of themselves; leaving the rest of us to discuss matters and ask questions without being abused, shouted at and interrupted by obnoxious people who’s only enjoyment in life seems to be being a pain in the arse for others.

Anyone can set up a newsgroup in the usenet hierarchy provided they say what the subject discussion should be focussed on and other ground rules.1 Typically a self-appointed group cobble together some fine words that attempts to be a watertight definition of what is and isn’t allowed. This is called a charter.

Lesson one was that even though the hoards were at the gates there was still room for an enormous amount of dispute over the exact form of words. The basics were understood but then somebody would point out a potential loophole or disagreed with a particular nuance of a particular word. Strewth! Why don’t you guys (and they were all men) just get on with it. I was paxed.2 Whatever happened to “the ends justify the means”.

There was now a hiatus as the rusty and decayed Usenet machinery creaked into action. This was beyond our control. The moderation software turned out to be buggy and not very well presented. I could fix some of those things so I found out how to do it and passed on my detailed suggested fixes to the bods in charge of the engine room. It turned out that the bod I passed this on to was using a text-based web browser – something that is completely inappropriate to modern use of the web by 99.9999% of the rest of us. So that didn’t get too far – A bit like taking your car to a blacksmith to get it serviced. On the other hand when we started running the system for real we were able to adapt various aspects quickly.The open source software paradigm is brilliant in that it allows fast fixes and multiple strands of development.

Lesson two was that although the Internet is pretty good at evolving, improving and adapting, sometimes this is at the price of bumbling amateurism.

At last we had a live working newsgroup and the fun really started. At the charter definition stage people had been suggesting all sorts of scenarios so they were well fired-up to pounce on malefactors. Once again there has been a huge amount of missing the point going on. The object is to keep out the mischief makers not to sanitize and suffocate debate. What amazes me is that some moderators are so sure of their right to reject posts on trivial grounds yet show the greatest nervousness when there might be the very slightest whiff of impropriety on their behalf. One post was rejected on the grounds of misuse of punctuation and I’ve researched this poster on Google and they are provocative! Really that’s true and was meant seriously.

Lesson three is that there are some people that shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near a censorship role as they have a passion for the job that exceeds their discriminatory abilities many times over.

Lesson four is that just because people appear to be ‘good eggs’ doesn’t mean they can be trusted to exercise judgement.

I wonder if there is some personality test that could be applied here to get the right combination of abilities to see the wood for the trees?

1. And they have to show some level of support.
2. See blog entry for 16 Oct 2009.

---