From tale@uunet.uu.net Wed Apr 17 10:37:31 1996 Path: uunet!in1.uu.net!bounce-back From: tale@uunet.uu.net (David C Lawrence) Newsgroups: sci.archaeology.moderated Subject: cmsg newgroup sci.archaeology.moderated moderated Control: newgroup sci.archaeology.moderated moderated Approved: newgroups-request@uunet.uu.net Message-ID: <829751433.21965@uunet.uu.net> Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 14:30:33 GMT Lines: 170 X-Info: PGP auth is being tested; announcements will be made when it is ready. X-PGP-Sig: 2.7 Subject,Control,Message-ID,Date,From,Sender iQCVAgUBMXUAicJdOtO4janBAQHYJAQAl6NNyT2CzEWT1CVxASBS/ttNhGiMPFAB p45JRxrkgOMzUANrZ7dtoteI88jWLwxlcWHCRueMzvMFw96cDtPRMSieeXETPV2n QJA69Kofc6o8oih96PS+gcCI5Hv8moIWZdRHEbYYUYeTE/d1YSngg5MZcFOK4KWx QCu4Wl5yUdw= =9ZDh Xref: uunet control.newgroup:10235 sci.archaeology.moderated is a moderated newsgroup which passed its vote for creation by 481:44 as reported in news.announce.newgroups on 11 Apr 1996. Group submission address: sci-archaeology-moderated@mccomb.vip.best.com Moderator contact address: arch@ramtops.demon.co.uk (Doug Weller, Hope Anthony, Kathy Bartsch, Philip Blair, Ariane Burke, John Carr, John A. Giacobbe, Gerard Alan Latham, Vince Russett, Doug Rutherford, Nigel Strudwick, Adrian Tribe, Steve Whittet) For your newsgroups file: sci.archaeology.moderated All aspects of archaeology. (Moderated) The charter, culled from the vote result announcement: Sci.archaeology.moderated is to be a moderated newsgroup dedicated to the discussion of archaeology, the study of the past through its material culture. All viewpoints and levels of knowledge are welcome, subject to the moderation policy described below. Because archaeology is such a broad subject and because lively debate on archaeological issues is encouraged, this group is moderated by a panel of several people and prospective articles are assigned randomly to any moderator for approval. Moderators will represent both professional and amateur archaeologists. This method will hopefully lead to the fastest turn-around time and least intrusion possible. It is hoped that almost every poster's article will be approved as soon as is humanly possible. The text itself will either be accepted as is, or rejected -- however if only a minor aspect of an article is inappropriate, the moderator will usually suggest changes. Moderation Policy: Articles may be requests for information, announcements of relevance, etc. Lengthy quoting (more than 30 lines) of source material must be accompanied by commentary or by other text which ties it to on-going discussions. Articles which quote substantially the same source material repetitively will not be approved. Articles consisting of materials which are available on-line at ftp or WWW sites will not be approved, rather pointers to sites may be given. Moderators may waive this rule at their discretion. Articles which contain personal attacks of any sort, racist comments, ad hominem arguments, etc. will not be approved for posting. Disagreements are welcome (so long as they contain no flames), but if a thread looks as though it's never going to be resolved, the moderators reserve the right to terminate it/suspend it until new evidence is produced. Blank messages, test messages, MAKE.MONEY.FAST, binaries, uuencoded messages, and so forth, will not be approved for posting. Archaeology related advertisements for courses, jobs, new book notices, etc. will be accepted, but not advertisements for metal detectors or the sale of antiquities. While the principle purpose of a moderated archaeology group is clearly the exchange of useful archaeological information and postings generally should be scholarly and include verifiable citations of the hard evidence which supports them, discussions of alternative perspectives which meet these criteria are not prohibited. Although posts which reference works in which a consistent pattern of false and/or out of context claims have been demonstrated will not be considered appropriate for discussion in a moderated science group, alternatives to presently accepted views, when well researched and presented in a verifiable format, will not be denied a fair hearing. Racist and Ethnocentric remarks will not be tolerated in postings to the moderated group. Regardless of label the quideline shall simply be whether ethnocentrism and racism are involved. For example: In the case of assumptions like those once promulgated by "Hyperdiffusionists", that cultural evolution cannot explain observed phenomena because people X "obviously" could not have produced artifact Y without help, ethnocentrism and racism are clearly present and the post should be rejected. Moderators may, at their discretion, change the Subject: lines for threads which have strayed from the initial subject. Cross-posting is discouraged and where they occur will obviously have to be clearly archaeologically relevant. Due to the nature of Usenet, rejected posts do not get crossposted. Rejected articles which would be acceptable after editing will be returned to the poster with an explanation and suggestions for change. Articles rejected for other reasons may be shared with the other moderators for group consideration if the poster wishes to appeal. Any article that contains more than fifty percent quoted material (and the author's signature shall not count as original material for purposes of determining the proportion) may be trimmed or rejected at the discretion of the moderator. In exercising this discretion, the moderator shall take readability considerations into account, such as the amount of quoted material at the beginning of the message, and the size of the blocks of quoted material. If the entire length of the article (excluding header and signature) is less than 24 lines of 80 characters, then the requirement of 50% original material _may_ be waived at the moderator's discretion. In keeping with Usenet netiquette conventions, signatures should be restricted to 4 or 5 lines. Moderators may, at their discretion, trim .sigs to four lines before posting articles. All articles should have an easily identified name and email address for the poster. Because of the variety of newsreaders, all submittals should be signed with the sender's name and email address. If this is missing, moderators may add one at their discretion. Moderators: Anyone may volunteer to join the moderation panel with the consent of a two-thirds supermajority of the current moderators. If the number of moderators fall below 8, volunteers will be solicited by a posting to the newsgroup. An automatic script will be used to share postings among the moderators. Moderators may at their discretion consult other moderators about posts or send a post to another moderator with that moderator's agreement. It is important to have a clear policy to cover the possibility that there is conflict in the affairs of the moderation panel itself. It is generally believed that moderators will come and go throughout the course of the group, and in all cases the goal will be a consensus amongst the panel regarding the addition of new moderators. A standard group decision process will be followed: a motion will be made to add a new moderator, and if there are no objections it will go ahead. Friendly relations are certainly expected. If there is an objection to a motion, and a group decision is not reached by discussion, a vote can be carried out in accordance with the statements below. In any of the following cases, a secret ballot may be requested -- and if a suitable (meaning: agreeably neutral) volunteer on the panel to collect the ballots cannot be found, will be carried out via point #5 below -- but voting will generally be public (within the confines of the moderation panel itself). 1. If it comes to a vote, new moderators must be approved by a two- thirds supermajority amongst the moderation panel. Abstentions will not affect the outcome of this vote, meaning that a supermajority among voting moderators must be obtained. In the case of only two voting moderators who disagree, the prospective moderator will not be added. 2. Moderators who will be on vacation for more than a day or two are expected to have their names removed from the active file for that period. This implies no permanent change in status, and they will be simply returned to active duty afterward. 3. Moderators can be removed by a supermajority (as above) vote amongst the moderation panel (including the moderator in question). Abstentions will count as votes against removal. 4. If there is controversy amongst the moderators concerning the application of these guidelines, the moderation panel agrees to submit to binding arbitration by moderators-advice at UUNET. This situation covers true interpretive controversy, as well as such technical scenarios as: only two moderators, one wanting to remove the other; so many moderators on extended leave or genuinely unresponsive that the active panel cannot remove them to get on with business, etc. 5. Any votes or motions may be called into question by moderators returning from leaves of absence. 6. All prospective moderators must agree to abide by these guidelines in their entirety before consideration for moderator status. By acting as a moderator, this point is implied, regardless of written confirmation. Moderators will not be allowed to moderate their own postings. From tale@uunet.uu.net Wed Apr 24 10:36:36 1996 Path: uunet!in1.uu.net!bounce-back From: tale@uunet.uu.net (David C Lawrence) Newsgroups: sci.archaeology.moderated Subject: cmsg newgroup sci.archaeology.moderated moderated Control: newgroup sci.archaeology.moderated moderated Approved: newgroups-request@uunet.uu.net Message-ID: <830356321.28061@uunet.uu.net> Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1996 14:32:01 GMT Lines: 170 X-Info: ftp://ftp.uu.net/networking/news/misc/pgpcontrol/README.html ftp://ftp.uu.net/networking/news/misc/pgpcontrol/README X-PGP-Sig: 2.7 Subject,Control,Message-ID,Date,From,Sender iQCVAgUBMX47YsJdOtO4janBAQHGGwP/b2Nx6prctnKJZ/WizaT5nJatKy/ZILug zEw/zXgfqxAWGZUfiA0lmvBcnZJJESSRMZYC9+eXbg9rXUey1JCrJvUAeKeEPGNX +DaUC7/q+k09LcuqRKJBelZ2eQ9xajorU73yaFXfVZqVGAgo/TiiMRN4sIZ3B+5D 4Lh8ipnLxZs= =spHT Xref: uunet control.newgroup:11334 sci.archaeology.moderated is a moderated newsgroup which passed its vote for creation by 481:44 as reported in news.announce.newgroups on 11 Apr 1996. Group submission address: sci-archaeology-moderated@mccomb.vip.best.com Moderator contact address: arch@ramtops.demon.co.uk (Doug Weller, Hope Anthony, Kathy Bartsch, Philip Blair, Ariane Burke, John Carr, John A. Giacobbe, Gerard Alan Latham, Vince Russett, Doug Rutherford, Nigel Strudwick, Adrian Tribe, Steve Whittet) For your newsgroups file: sci.archaeology.moderated All aspects of archaeology. (Moderated) The charter, culled from the vote result announcement: Sci.archaeology.moderated is to be a moderated newsgroup dedicated to the discussion of archaeology, the study of the past through its material culture. All viewpoints and levels of knowledge are welcome, subject to the moderation policy described below. Because archaeology is such a broad subject and because lively debate on archaeological issues is encouraged, this group is moderated by a panel of several people and prospective articles are assigned randomly to any moderator for approval. Moderators will represent both professional and amateur archaeologists. This method will hopefully lead to the fastest turn-around time and least intrusion possible. It is hoped that almost every poster's article will be approved as soon as is humanly possible. The text itself will either be accepted as is, or rejected -- however if only a minor aspect of an article is inappropriate, the moderator will usually suggest changes. Moderation Policy: Articles may be requests for information, announcements of relevance, etc. Lengthy quoting (more than 30 lines) of source material must be accompanied by commentary or by other text which ties it to on-going discussions. Articles which quote substantially the same source material repetitively will not be approved. Articles consisting of materials which are available on-line at ftp or WWW sites will not be approved, rather pointers to sites may be given. Moderators may waive this rule at their discretion. Articles which contain personal attacks of any sort, racist comments, ad hominem arguments, etc. will not be approved for posting. Disagreements are welcome (so long as they contain no flames), but if a thread looks as though it's never going to be resolved, the moderators reserve the right to terminate it/suspend it until new evidence is produced. Blank messages, test messages, MAKE.MONEY.FAST, binaries, uuencoded messages, and so forth, will not be approved for posting. Archaeology related advertisements for courses, jobs, new book notices, etc. will be accepted, but not advertisements for metal detectors or the sale of antiquities. While the principle purpose of a moderated archaeology group is clearly the exchange of useful archaeological information and postings generally should be scholarly and include verifiable citations of the hard evidence which supports them, discussions of alternative perspectives which meet these criteria are not prohibited. Although posts which reference works in which a consistent pattern of false and/or out of context claims have been demonstrated will not be considered appropriate for discussion in a moderated science group, alternatives to presently accepted views, when well researched and presented in a verifiable format, will not be denied a fair hearing. Racist and Ethnocentric remarks will not be tolerated in postings to the moderated group. Regardless of label the quideline shall simply be whether ethnocentrism and racism are involved. For example: In the case of assumptions like those once promulgated by "Hyperdiffusionists", that cultural evolution cannot explain observed phenomena because people X "obviously" could not have produced artifact Y without help, ethnocentrism and racism are clearly present and the post should be rejected. Moderators may, at their discretion, change the Subject: lines for threads which have strayed from the initial subject. Cross-posting is discouraged and where they occur will obviously have to be clearly archaeologically relevant. Due to the nature of Usenet, rejected posts do not get crossposted. Rejected articles which would be acceptable after editing will be returned to the poster with an explanation and suggestions for change. Articles rejected for other reasons may be shared with the other moderators for group consideration if the poster wishes to appeal. Any article that contains more than fifty percent quoted material (and the author's signature shall not count as original material for purposes of determining the proportion) may be trimmed or rejected at the discretion of the moderator. In exercising this discretion, the moderator shall take readability considerations into account, such as the amount of quoted material at the beginning of the message, and the size of the blocks of quoted material. If the entire length of the article (excluding header and signature) is less than 24 lines of 80 characters, then the requirement of 50% original material _may_ be waived at the moderator's discretion. In keeping with Usenet netiquette conventions, signatures should be restricted to 4 or 5 lines. Moderators may, at their discretion, trim .sigs to four lines before posting articles. All articles should have an easily identified name and email address for the poster. Because of the variety of newsreaders, all submittals should be signed with the sender's name and email address. If this is missing, moderators may add one at their discretion. Moderators: Anyone may volunteer to join the moderation panel with the consent of a two-thirds supermajority of the current moderators. If the number of moderators fall below 8, volunteers will be solicited by a posting to the newsgroup. An automatic script will be used to share postings among the moderators. Moderators may at their discretion consult other moderators about posts or send a post to another moderator with that moderator's agreement. It is important to have a clear policy to cover the possibility that there is conflict in the affairs of the moderation panel itself. It is generally believed that moderators will come and go throughout the course of the group, and in all cases the goal will be a consensus amongst the panel regarding the addition of new moderators. A standard group decision process will be followed: a motion will be made to add a new moderator, and if there are no objections it will go ahead. Friendly relations are certainly expected. If there is an objection to a motion, and a group decision is not reached by discussion, a vote can be carried out in accordance with the statements below. In any of the following cases, a secret ballot may be requested -- and if a suitable (meaning: agreeably neutral) volunteer on the panel to collect the ballots cannot be found, will be carried out via point #5 below -- but voting will generally be public (within the confines of the moderation panel itself). 1. If it comes to a vote, new moderators must be approved by a two- thirds supermajority amongst the moderation panel. Abstentions will not affect the outcome of this vote, meaning that a supermajority among voting moderators must be obtained. In the case of only two voting moderators who disagree, the prospective moderator will not be added. 2. Moderators who will be on vacation for more than a day or two are expected to have their names removed from the active file for that period. This implies no permanent change in status, and they will be simply returned to active duty afterward. 3. Moderators can be removed by a supermajority (as above) vote amongst the moderation panel (including the moderator in question). Abstentions will count as votes against removal. 4. If there is controversy amongst the moderators concerning the application of these guidelines, the moderation panel agrees to submit to binding arbitration by moderators-advice at UUNET. This situation covers true interpretive controversy, as well as such technical scenarios as: only two moderators, one wanting to remove the other; so many moderators on extended leave or genuinely unresponsive that the active panel cannot remove them to get on with business, etc. 5. Any votes or motions may be called into question by moderators returning from leaves of absence. 6. All prospective moderators must agree to abide by these guidelines in their entirety before consideration for moderator status. By acting as a moderator, this point is implied, regardless of written confirmation. Moderators will not be allowed to moderate their own postings. From tale@uunet.uu.net Fri May 17 10:35:08 1996 Path: uunet!in2.uu.net!bounce-back From: tale@uunet.uu.net (David C Lawrence) Newsgroups: sci.archaeology.moderated Subject: cmsg newgroup sci.archaeology.moderated moderated Control: newgroup sci.archaeology.moderated moderated Approved: newgroups-request@uunet.uu.net Message-ID: <832343522.650@uunet.uu.net> Date: Fri, 17 May 1996 14:32:02 GMT Lines: 170 X-Info: ftp://ftp.uu.net/networking/news/misc/pgpcontrol/README.html ftp://ftp.uu.net/networking/news/misc/pgpcontrol/README X-PGP-Sig: 2.7 Subject,Control,Message-ID,Date,From,Sender iQCVAgUBMZyN48JdOtO4janBAQHpcAQAhaj5NXeJMdFF3ovMXJu71wizL5fMMb6U 6adH3YK5mYSDokyUV4QBaJQT0IM+gaRwnsjcpyJQzQ+P0IhTDNewK8G179tDHgT+ keL4cWqJn4No01aP52PtrkD/Ya1m6yk3AAsnRlooOmR8X+uNfg03q4s3qILR1U8z swebOK/S+iI= =AFeE Xref: uunet control.newgroup:12946 sci.archaeology.moderated is a moderated newsgroup which passed its vote for creation by 481:44 as reported in news.announce.newgroups on 11 Apr 1996. Group submission address: sci-archaeology-moderated@mccomb.vip.best.com Moderator contact address: arch@lists.colorado.edu (Doug Weller, Hope Anthony, Kathy Bartsch, Philip Blair, Ariane Burke, John Carr, John A. Giacobbe, Gerard Alan Latham, Vince Russett, Doug Rutherford, Nigel Strudwick, Adrian Tribe, Steve Whittet) For your newsgroups file: sci.archaeology.moderated All aspects of archaeology. (Moderated) The charter, culled from the vote result announcement: Sci.archaeology.moderated is to be a moderated newsgroup dedicated to the discussion of archaeology, the study of the past through its material culture. All viewpoints and levels of knowledge are welcome, subject to the moderation policy described below. Because archaeology is such a broad subject and because lively debate on archaeological issues is encouraged, this group is moderated by a panel of several people and prospective articles are assigned randomly to any moderator for approval. Moderators will represent both professional and amateur archaeologists. This method will hopefully lead to the fastest turn-around time and least intrusion possible. It is hoped that almost every poster's article will be approved as soon as is humanly possible. The text itself will either be accepted as is, or rejected -- however if only a minor aspect of an article is inappropriate, the moderator will usually suggest changes. Moderation Policy: Articles may be requests for information, announcements of relevance, etc. Lengthy quoting (more than 30 lines) of source material must be accompanied by commentary or by other text which ties it to on-going discussions. Articles which quote substantially the same source material repetitively will not be approved. Articles consisting of materials which are available on-line at ftp or WWW sites will not be approved, rather pointers to sites may be given. Moderators may waive this rule at their discretion. Articles which contain personal attacks of any sort, racist comments, ad hominem arguments, etc. will not be approved for posting. Disagreements are welcome (so long as they contain no flames), but if a thread looks as though it's never going to be resolved, the moderators reserve the right to terminate it/suspend it until new evidence is produced. Blank messages, test messages, MAKE.MONEY.FAST, binaries, uuencoded messages, and so forth, will not be approved for posting. Archaeology related advertisements for courses, jobs, new book notices, etc. will be accepted, but not advertisements for metal detectors or the sale of antiquities. While the principle purpose of a moderated archaeology group is clearly the exchange of useful archaeological information and postings generally should be scholarly and include verifiable citations of the hard evidence which supports them, discussions of alternative perspectives which meet these criteria are not prohibited. Although posts which reference works in which a consistent pattern of false and/or out of context claims have been demonstrated will not be considered appropriate for discussion in a moderated science group, alternatives to presently accepted views, when well researched and presented in a verifiable format, will not be denied a fair hearing. Racist and Ethnocentric remarks will not be tolerated in postings to the moderated group. Regardless of label the quideline shall simply be whether ethnocentrism and racism are involved. For example: In the case of assumptions like those once promulgated by "Hyperdiffusionists", that cultural evolution cannot explain observed phenomena because people X "obviously" could not have produced artifact Y without help, ethnocentrism and racism are clearly present and the post should be rejected. Moderators may, at their discretion, change the Subject: lines for threads which have strayed from the initial subject. Cross-posting is discouraged and where they occur will obviously have to be clearly archaeologically relevant. Due to the nature of Usenet, rejected posts do not get crossposted. Rejected articles which would be acceptable after editing will be returned to the poster with an explanation and suggestions for change. Articles rejected for other reasons may be shared with the other moderators for group consideration if the poster wishes to appeal. Any article that contains more than fifty percent quoted material (and the author's signature shall not count as original material for purposes of determining the proportion) may be trimmed or rejected at the discretion of the moderator. In exercising this discretion, the moderator shall take readability considerations into account, such as the amount of quoted material at the beginning of the message, and the size of the blocks of quoted material. If the entire length of the article (excluding header and signature) is less than 24 lines of 80 characters, then the requirement of 50% original material _may_ be waived at the moderator's discretion. In keeping with Usenet netiquette conventions, signatures should be restricted to 4 or 5 lines. Moderators may, at their discretion, trim .sigs to four lines before posting articles. All articles should have an easily identified name and email address for the poster. Because of the variety of newsreaders, all submittals should be signed with the sender's name and email address. If this is missing, moderators may add one at their discretion. Moderators: Anyone may volunteer to join the moderation panel with the consent of a two-thirds supermajority of the current moderators. If the number of moderators fall below 8, volunteers will be solicited by a posting to the newsgroup. An automatic script will be used to share postings among the moderators. Moderators may at their discretion consult other moderators about posts or send a post to another moderator with that moderator's agreement. It is important to have a clear policy to cover the possibility that there is conflict in the affairs of the moderation panel itself. It is generally believed that moderators will come and go throughout the course of the group, and in all cases the goal will be a consensus amongst the panel regarding the addition of new moderators. A standard group decision process will be followed: a motion will be made to add a new moderator, and if there are no objections it will go ahead. Friendly relations are certainly expected. If there is an objection to a motion, and a group decision is not reached by discussion, a vote can be carried out in accordance with the statements below. In any of the following cases, a secret ballot may be requested -- and if a suitable (meaning: agreeably neutral) volunteer on the panel to collect the ballots cannot be found, will be carried out via point #5 below -- but voting will generally be public (within the confines of the moderation panel itself). 1. If it comes to a vote, new moderators must be approved by a two- thirds supermajority amongst the moderation panel. Abstentions will not affect the outcome of this vote, meaning that a supermajority among voting moderators must be obtained. In the case of only two voting moderators who disagree, the prospective moderator will not be added. 2. Moderators who will be on vacation for more than a day or two are expected to have their names removed from the active file for that period. This implies no permanent change in status, and they will be simply returned to active duty afterward. 3. Moderators can be removed by a supermajority (as above) vote amongst the moderation panel (including the moderator in question). Abstentions will count as votes against removal. 4. If there is controversy amongst the moderators concerning the application of these guidelines, the moderation panel agrees to submit to binding arbitration by moderators-advice at UUNET. This situation covers true interpretive controversy, as well as such technical scenarios as: only two moderators, one wanting to remove the other; so many moderators on extended leave or genuinely unresponsive that the active panel cannot remove them to get on with business, etc. 5. Any votes or motions may be called into question by moderators returning from leaves of absence. 6. All prospective moderators must agree to abide by these guidelines in their entirety before consideration for moderator status. By acting as a moderator, this point is implied, regardless of written confirmation. Moderators will not be allowed to moderate their own postings.