On 9/28/23 07:15, Usenet Big-8 Management Board wrote:

This is a formal Moderator Vacancy Investigation (MVI), begun because
the moderated newsgroup soc.history.war.world-war-ii is not functioning,
and may have been abandoned by its moderator. This investigation will
attempt to verify the reasons for non-function, and may result in the
removal of the group or the selection and installation of a new
moderator. In practice, the Big-8 Management Board considers the third alternative--changing the status of the group from moderated to unmoderated--as likely to cause more harm than good.

Good luck with your future decisions on this.
I was an active member of that group.
I miss that group.
I was unhappy that Steven Graham refused to suggest another newsgroup
where the small 'group' of us still participating could have gone
to to keep together.
I am sorry to hear he died (we worked long time at the same
big institution).
I'll keep reading.

The Big-8 Management Board has been approached by "Bixby"
<bixby@sctb.ch>, who has informed us that the moderation for soc.history.war.world-war-ii is not functioning. They have also informed
us that they used to be a participant in the group, posting at the time
under their earlier alias of "Comrade Yum Yum". Bixby has volunteered to
take over moderation duties for the group, if no reason exists for them
not to do so.

Bixby has also communicated the following about their choice of alias:
-----
It is an alias, and the fact it is an alias should be known.

Each major on-line project I am involved in has its own alias, as a
way to maintain my personal privacy on-line.

My identity is not a secret, and will be disclosed on request to any
group member or the board, but when posting to systems which can be
automatically scanned, an alias is prudent for privacy.

(The origin is "Horace E. Bixby", the Mississippi boat pilot who
taught Samuel Clemens.)
-----

Followups to this post have been set to news.groups.proposals, to ensure
that any resulting discussion can be followed in one place.

RATIONALE:

Attempts to post to the group currently result in a bounce message from
the ISC moderation relay.

The most recent moderator, Stephen Graham, posted to the group on 7th
June 2017 to report that the group's moderation platform, robomod.net,
had suffered a catastrophic failure (Message-ID: <epqo2qFak6qU1 @mid.individual.net>). Robomod.net was never restored to service, and it appears that no alternative moderation system was ever put in place.
Stephen Graham posted a followup on 26th October 2017 (Message-ID: <f5ee8gForl2U2@mid.individual.net>) to say "As you can tell, robomod.net
has not been restored to service. At this point, I expect most former
readers have found alternative fora."

The group has been dormant since then, apart from a single post in 2019
that may not have been officially approved.

It therefore appears that no alternative moderation system was ever set
up, and that the moderator abandoned the group at this point without appointing a successor.

Sadly, we have discovered that Stephen Graham died soon afterwards, in
2019. All of us thank Mr. Graham for generously volunteering his time as
a group moderator, and extend our condolences to all who knew him.

https://www.ece.uw.edu/spotlight/remembering-steve-graham/ https://web.archive.org/web/20190704082457/https://people.ece.uw.edu/gra ham_stephen/

Because of this unfortunate news, it seems clear that a vacancy exists
and that a new moderator could be appointed.

The Big-8 Management Board is particularly keen to solicit input from
former participants in soc.history.war.world-war-ii, as the Board
members are unfamiliar with the community and are not well placed to
judge whether a prospective moderator would be a good fit. To this end,
this MVI has been crossposted to soc.history.war.misc and alt.war.world- war-two. These groups have recently been used by some of the people who previously posted in soc.history.war.world-war-ii, which will allow the remaining community to give their views on the appointment of a new moderator.

NEWSGROUPS LINE:

soc.history.war.world-war-ii History & events of World War Two
(Moderated)

HISTORY OF THE GROUP:

soc.history.war.world-war-ii was proposed by Joel Furr
<jfurr@acpub.duke.edu> in early 1994, along with soc.history.war.misc.

soc.history.war.world-war-ii passed its vote 181:17 on 19 April 1994.

CHARTER AND MODERATION POLICY OF SOC.HISTORY.WAR.WORLD-WAR-II:

The charter of soc.history.war.world-war-ii: Discussion of the
era 1939-1945 in particular, but ranging as far back as 1918 and
as far forward as the 1950's for discussion of events leading to
the War and post-war events such as the occupation of Japan and
Germany. The discussion will be limited to social, political,
military, economic, technological, demographic, and historial
aspects of World War II, including discussion of:

* Arms limitations treaties in the 1920's, intended to head
off any future war
* the Weimar Republic
* the rise of the Italian Fascists
* the Japanese war with China
* the rise of the Nazi Party
* American isolationism
* Franco-British appeasement
* Italian misadventures in Africa
* German occupation of the Sudentenland and Austria
* the war proper, 1939-1945
* the Manhattan Project
* the Holocaust
* Post-war occupation of Japan and Germany
* Post-war governments of Europe
* and so on.

In other words, the mandate for soc.history.war.world-war-ii is
intended to be broad, rather than narrow, with moderation in
place less to limit discussion than to keep out Gannon and the
Holocaust Revisionists and other malicious posters. Should Dan
Gannon or Serdar Argic submit articles which actually discuss
World War Two rather than spreading their brand of conspiracy
theory, their articles will be approved for submission as well.

Moderation policy:
------------------

Soc.history.war.world-war-ii will have a very relaxed moderation
policy. The main purpose, as noted above, for moderation of this
group is to prevent it from turning into a revisionist flamefest
akin to misc.headlines or soc.history. As such, any message
which actually discusses World War II will be approved for
posting, provided that it does not attempt to claim that events
such as the Holocaust never happened. There are other groups for
discussion of that question, most notably, alt.revisionism.

Moderation rules:

* Articles which discuss World War Two and its events will be
approved for posting.

* Articles arguing that the Holocaust never happened will not
be approved for posting.

* Articles must contain original thought. Lengthy quoting of
source material with a couple of lines of comment at the end
will not be approved for posting.

* Blank messages, test messages, advertisements,
MAKE.MONEY.FAST, and so forth, will not be approved for
posting.

* Articles which include excessive quoting (e.g. an article
which quotes an entire other article in order to add a few
comments at the end) will be trimmed down by the moderator in
question.

* An article MUST have a valid reply-to address or it will
not be approved for posting.

* Rejected articles will be shared with the other moderators
for group consideration.

As noted below, the group will be group-moderated, to minimize
delay between submission and posting and to keep the group
running when the traffic becomes heavy.

Moderators will be added by majority vote of the existing
moderators and moderators will be removed by 2/3 vote in the
event that a moderator is shown to be failing to do the job (i.e.
not posting anything).

DISTRIBUTION:

news.announce.newgroups
news.groups.proposals
soc.history.war.world-war-ii
soc.history.war.misc
alt.war.world-war-two

PROPONENT:

Bixby <bixby@sctb.ch>

PROCEDURE:

Those who wish to comment on this moderator vacancy investigation should subscribe to news.groups.proposals and participate in the relevant
threads in that newsgroup.

To this end, the followup header of this MVI has been set to news.groups.proposals.

For more information on the MVI process, please see

http://www.big-8.org/wiki/Moderator_Vacancy_Investigations

CHANGE HISTORY:

2023-09-28 Moderator Vacancy Investigation

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

In article <MPG.3f7f9aa2aab7cb969896c9@news.eternal-september.org>, board@big-8.org (Usenet Big-8 Management Board) wrote:

PROPONENT: Bixby <bixby@sctb.ch>

Thanks to Bixby, and to the Management Board.

John

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thu, 28 Sep 2023 10:15:17 EDT, Usenet Big-8 Management Board wrote:

The Big-8 Management Board has been approached by "Bixby"
<bixby@sctb.ch>, who has informed us that the moderation for soc.history.war.world-war-ii is not functioning. They have also informed
us that they used to be a participant in the group, posting at the time
under their earlier alias of "Comrade Yum Yum".

And other aliases, before and after, long forgotten.

Bixby has volunteered to
take over moderation duties for the group, if no reason exists for them
not to do so.

Yes.

Sadly, we have discovered that Stephen Graham died soon afterwards, in
2019. All of us thank Mr. Graham for generously volunteering his time as
a group moderator, and extend our condolences to all who knew him.

It is always a shock to find someone you knew of, has passed away, and it
may even have been years ago.

Moving on from that shock and its sadness, regarding the charter and
moderation policy, the text embodies my experience of the group, and my
thought and intent with regard to future moderation.

I would think to propose one superficial modification to moderation
policy, namely;

* An article MUST have a valid reply-to address or it will not be
approved for posting.

Automated email harvesting occurs, so I would look for this particular
clause to change to;

* An article MUST have a valid reply-to address, or an obfuscated reply-to address from which a valid reply-to address can be discerned, or it will
not be approved for posting.

This allows for "bixby at sctb-remove-panzeriv dot net" and the like.

* Rejected articles will be shared with the other moderators for
group consideration.

As noted below, the group will be group-moderated, to minimize delay between submission and posting and to keep the group running when
the traffic becomes heavy.

Moderators will be added by majority vote of the existing
moderators and moderators will be removed by 2/3 vote in the event
that a moderator is shown to be failing to do the job (i.e.
not posting anything).

The clauses regarding group moderation appear to assume a minimum of three moderators.

Group moderation in and of itself seems desirable, as it ideally allows
for moderators across a range of time-zones, provides a mechanism for
second opinions, and reduces the risk of poor moderation from an inept
single moderator by providing mechanism by which other moderators can
assess conduct and if necessary, remove a moderator.

Majority voting and 2/3 voting function only once there are three or more moderators.

Stephan Graham, the previous moderator, looks prior to the end of
moderation to have been the single and only moderator for some years, so
being run, at least to begin with, by a single moderator is not now out of
the ordinary.

The obvious thought then seems to be that to begin with the risk of a
single moderator is run, where there is a particular goal to recruit
additional moderators, and once three or more moderators are in play, the charters group moderation mechanisms come back into play.

PROPONENT:

Bixby <bixby@sctb.ch>

Some words about myself.

I am a 50 year old British male. I am a digital nomad, and have been for
about ten years. When I work, I work as an IT contractor. I run one of
two significant projects on-line, each of which as with Usenet are
conducted through a persona, to maintain my individual privacy. The Board
has been made aware of these projects, and considerably more detail than I
have written here of myself.

I began posting to Usenet in 1994, in my first year at University; I
remember well the halcyon days of Usenet's hey-day.

I have been reading military history, particularly relating to WW2, but
also in later years history in general, since I was nine years old, when I
read my first military history, a book for children describing the 1942
Malta convey within which the SS Ohio sailed. A few years ago, living in
Malta at the time, I saw the Grand Harbour, and the ship's wheel and bell,
in the military museum.

Regarding WW2, I should outline my general view of the history, to assure
the Board and the group that my views are well-informed and reasonable.

I regard WW1 as being the genesis of WW2; Foch was correct. It was not possible for Germany to develop political and economic stability, which
led to the opportunity for dictatorship.

German success in Europe came from being about ten years ahead of everyone
else in armoured tactics; a window of military opportunity combined with
an expansionist dictator.

The Holocaust occurred. I have lived in Germany for about two or three
years, in total. I have never visited a camp, because I know fully what happened there, so I do not need to go to learn, and I know how profoundly
I would be affected by it. I have no wish for so terrible an experience.

Regarding the German campaign in the East, I am of the view Germany could
have won, but they messed it up - the fatal mistake was the early
deviation from the thrust on Moscow in 1941, which ended up leading the
Germans into fighting too far from their own borders.

One significant question I do not know the answer to is whether or not the Sovet Union would have survived 41/42 without Allied aid. I suspect
probably yes. I'm not sufficiently clear about the extent of that aid - obviously, numerous convoys, and critical material, but I need more information, both of the convoys and also Soviet military production
during that period.

After the Soviet Union weathered the storm, they would in the end have
defeated Germany without the need for the Allied landings in 44, and
Europe would indeed have been taken, as the Warsaw Pact countries were.

I've written now quite a bit.

Are there any questions, or observations?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

In article <uf9pue$12mjp$1@dont-email.me>, bixby@sctb.ch says...

I would think to propose one superficial modification to moderation
policy, namely;

* An article MUST have a valid reply-to address or it will not be
approved for posting.

Automated email harvesting occurs, so I would look for this particular
clause to change to;

* An article MUST have a valid reply-to address, or an obfuscated reply-to address from which a valid reply-to address can be discerned, or it will
not be approved for posting.

This seems entirely reasonable.

The clauses regarding group moderation appear to assume a minimum of three moderators.

[snip]

Having more than one moderator is always desirable, for exactly the
reasons stated (and, as we've seen, to avoid having the group become
unusable if its moderator disappears for whatever reason). However, one moderator is infinitely better than none at all, and a moderator can
always appoint additional moderators if they see fit to do so. I don't
see any problem with handing over moderation to one person given that
the group is currently non-functional.

Some words about myself.

[snip]

Thank you for a thoughtful and thorough introduction, and for kindly volunteering to take on the responsibilities of moderation.

We'll post an announcement from the Board account once people have had
the chance to ask any questions, and once a new moderation address is
ready to receive submissions.

Regards,
Rayner

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)