Nan:2010-10-09-result-rec.sport.baseball.analysis

From Big-8.org

From: Big-8 Management Board <board@big-8.org>
Subject: RESULT: rec.sport.baseball.analysis will be removed
Date: Sat, 9 Oct 2010 15:26:54 EDT
Message-ID: <i8qfbg$cdh$1@news.albasani.net>

                                RESULT
              rec.sport.baseball.analysis will be removed

The Last Call for Comments (LCC) on 2010-10-02 initiated a five-day
period for final comments.  Following this comment period, the Big-8
Management Board has decided by consensus to remove moderated group
rec.sport.baseball.analysis.

RATIONALE:

According to Google's archive the last regular post was approved on
2003-10-29. A probe message resulted in a bounce.

  rsba@stathead.com
    (generated from rec-sport-baseball-analysis@moderators.isc.org)
    retry timeout exceeded

NEWSGROUPS LINE:

rec.sport.baseball.analysis	Analysis @TAGLINE@ discussion of baseball. (Moderated)

DISTRIBUTION:

news.announce.newgroups
news.groups.proposals
rec.sport.baseball.analysis
rec.sport.baseball

CHARTER OF REC.SPORT.BASEBALL.ANALYSIS

0  Group name and description
-----------------------------

rec.sport.baseball.analysis     Analysis and discussion of baseball (moderated)

Moderation status:   Moderated

Proposed moderators: Gary Huckabay [glhuckabay@ucdavis.edu]
                     Dorian Kim [dorian@cic.net]


1  Purpose of rec.sport.baseball.analysis (rsba)
------------------------------------------------

The purpose of rsba is to provide a forum for the intelligent,
reasonable discussion of baseball and baseball-related topics, with an
emphasis on analysis.

"Analysis" covers a wide range of thought and discussion.
It need not be statistical.  The guidelines for what is
appropriate for inclusion are defined below, but they boil
down to the following three conditions:
1. The post must contain an opinion;
2. The opinion must be accompanied by a reason or a justification; and
3. The post must meet at least basic standards for Usenet conduct.

For example, "Frank Thomas just hit a grand slam!" is a fact,
not an opinion.  "Frank Thomas should not have been MVP last year"
is an opinion, but with no explanation, and would not be accepted.
"Frank Thomas should not have been MVP because Olerud batted as
well and his defense was better" *would* be OK.

Posts without opinions, and opinions without justifications,
properly belong on rec.sport.baseball (rsb).  Posts that
don't meet basic standards for Usenet conduct probably belong
somewhere in the alt.* hierarchy.  Posts containing performance
statistics are considered to be either implicit analysis or supportive
of analysis, and are allowed.

The intent here is to create a group where ideas can be exchanged in a
mutually respectful environment.  It is not anticipated that everyone
will agree; in fact, they probably won't.  It *is* expected that 
all posters will explain why they feel the way they do, and will respect
others' right to have a differing opinion.  Of primary concern here
is the elimination of name calling, insults, and flame wars.


2  Moderation of rec.sport.baseball.analysis
--------------------------------------------

rsba will be a moderated newsgroup.  This is for two general
reasons.  The first is to ensure that postings comply with
the *content* guidelines for the group.  The second is to ensure
that they comply with the *conduct* guidelines for the group.

The moderator is the sole judge of the appropriateness of
any given posting for the group.  It is expected that the
moderator will act in accordance with the "Guidelines for
moderator conduct", as described later in this Charter.


3  Content guidelines for rec.sport.baseball.analysis
-----------------------------------------------------

Subjects that deal with baseball and include commentary that
could reasonably be termed "analysis" are appropriate for
inclusion in rsba.  Where analysis is only part of the posting,
the moderator will use his or her discretion in deciding
whether to accept, reject, or request modification.

The following general subjects are appropriate for posting to
rec.sport.baseball.analysis.  This is not a comprehensive list;
it is provided for illustrative purposes:
 1. Analyses of particular players/teams; opinions on them with
    justifications.  Includes the minor leagues/farm systems/player
    development.  Can be either subjective or objective.  Includes
    evaluations of the past or projections for the future.
 2. Discussions of the relative value or merit of players/teams.  Can
    include historical assessments of players, as well as the compilation
    of best-of lists.
 3. Analyses of methods, techniques and tools for evaluating players/teams.
 4. Statistics, both original and conventional, that summarize player
    performance.  Accompanying explanatory materials and/or verbal
    analysis is preferred, but not mandatory.  A maximum of one post per
    week of any given statistic-type may be posted.
 5. Requests for information related to baseball analysis that cannot
    be easily answered by examining the rec.sport.baseball FAQ.
 6. Analyses of the game of baseball itself; rules, stadium changes,
    league changes, scoring, etc.
 7. Discussions of managerial strategy.
 8. Assessments of the worthiness of awards recipients.
 9. Discussions of baseball economics or politics.
10. Analyses of baseball media and reporting.
11. Discussions of the psychological factors in baseball and their effects.
12. Discussions of baseball ethics/morals/attitudes.
13. Discussions about fans, team rivalries, etc.
14. Analyses of scoring and rules where a clear-cut answer is
    not a matter of fact available in the MLB rule-book.

The following general subjects are NOT considered appropriate for
rsba.  Again, this is not a complete list:
 1. Opinions without justifications or reasoning.
 2. Purely informational postings that describe factual data other
    than player performance statistics.  This material belongs
    in either rec.sport.baseball or rec.sport.baseball.data.
 3. League standings and boxscores.
 4. Birthday lists.
 5. Quizzes and contests.
 6. Injury reports that are only factual and do not contain analysis
    (reports that analyze the effect on the team are fine).
 7. Fantasy baseball (rec.sport.baseball.fantasy).
 8. Computer game discussions.
 9. Baseball fiction (but discussion of or reviews of fiction would
    be fine.)  A newsgroup may be set up specifically for this in the
    future, perhaps called rec.sport.baseball.muse.
10. Updates on players or teams that are solely data or factual information.
11. Requests for information that are not related to baseball analysis
    and/or are covered in the FAQ.  Includes requests for player status.
12. Off-topic posts; empty posts; "this is a test" posts; binaries.
13. Commercial advertisements.
14. For-sale notices.
15. Discussions of the value of collectibles (analysis of the merit of
    the collectibles business and its impact on baseball would be fine).
16. Anecdotes from particular games that are only factual and contain
    no opinions.
17. Arguments over rules where the answer can be obtained by picking
    up and reading a rulebook (e.g., "what are the rules for a save?").

The moderator reserves the right to retain some flexibility in the
application of these guidelines.  For example, while in general
contests do not belong on rsba, the moderator may allow the posting
of a request for participation in one at the start of the season,
and a notification of the existence of results on rec.sport.baseball
or rec.sport.baseball.info at the end of the year.


4  Conduct guidelines for rec.sport.baseball.analysis
-----------------------------------------------------

Conduct guidelines exist to ensure the efficient and
civil exchange of ideas and opinions.  While it is
acknowledged that this is a *sport* discussion environment,
it is still expected that posters will make every effort
to address other readers in the same manner they would use
if they were speaking to them in person.  The moderator has
the right and responsibility to reject postings that are
excessively inflammatory in nature.

It is also expected that posters will adhere to basic posting
etiquette in order to reduce wasted bandwidth and confusion.

The following are some basic guidelines for posting
conduct on rsba.  Once again, they are not conclusive.
Judgment in this area is particularly difficult.
Benefit of the doubt must be given to the moderator,
who will act in the best interests of the group 
while adhereing to the "Guidelines for moderator
conduct":
 1. Blatant insults toward other posters or readers, or identifiable
    groups thereof, are considered unacceptable.  A good rule of
    thumb to use is: "criticize the posting, and not the poster".
    If you must attack, target the words, and not the writer.
 2. Insults directed toward players, managers or media figures
    are not considered unacceptable, provided that they are not
    represented as fact, and that the opinions are justified.
    That is, the post must still meet the basic criteria for
    being acceptable to an analysis group.
 3. Postings may be rejected if they have an unacceptably low
    ratio of new material to included material.  The author
    then has the option of editing out some of the quoted
    material and resubmitting the article.
 4. Postings that are considered incomprehensible due to language,
    posting software or transmission problems, may be rejected
    by the moderator.
 5. Postings that follow-up a previous article but do not add
    a new, explained opinion (whether in agreement or not) may
    be rejected.
 6. Postings written in all-caps or with excessive line lengths
    (>80 characters) are discouraged, and the moderator may
    request that such formatting not be used unless the poster
    has an unresolvable technical problem.
 7. Postings whose content differs significantly from the topic
    suggested by their "Subject" line may be returned by the
    moderator for editing.
 8. Postings that are partly compliant with the content guidelines
    may be returned to the writer for editing, depending on
    the proportion of acceptable content.


5  Guidelines for moderator conduct
-----------------------------------

While the moderator has final say on what is acceptable for
inclusion in the group, the desire is not that he or she employ
personal whim in making these decisions.  The intent here is
government by rules, and the moderator is expected to adhere to 
both the Charter in general, and the following moderator
guidelines in particular:
1. The moderator will conduct himself or herself in a
   fair, unbiased and professional manner.
2. In making decisions based on adherence to conduct 
   standards, the moderator will act in a conservative
   manner.  The intent is not to make those guidelines
   overly restrictive, but rather to eliminate egregious
   behavior.
3. Where possible, the moderator shall explain to submitters
   why an article was rejected, if it is.  This is not a
   duty upon the moderator, however, particularly in the
   event of obviously unacceptable postings.  The submitter
   may request an appeal with explanation to the same
   moderator that refused the posting, and that moderator
   is obligated to consider any counter-arguments to the
   rejection made by the submitter, provided that they
   are not merely repititions of past, rejected arguments.
4. The moderator will not remove any material from an
   accepted post.
5. The moderator may *add* material to the top of an
   accepted post, in order to convey information to the
   group about it.  This should be done sparingly, and
   the words of the moderator should be clearly indicated
   as such. This may be done in the event described in
   item #6 below.  It may also be done to warn a thread's
   participants that tempers are beginning to flare.
   The moderator should not use this method to give opinions
   on the content of the discussion, or take a side in
   any debate.
6. For threads that are dragging on with few new points
   being added, the moderator may suggest that a wrap-up
   or summary of positions be posted by each party, and
   the thread concluded.  If the parties refuse, the
   moderator may choose to discontinue the thread.  The
   moderator will inform the group when this is done.
7. The moderator will post this Charter regularly to both
   rsba and rec.sport.baseball.


6  Guidelines for the administration of rec.sport.baseball.analysis
-------------------------------------------------------------------

[Based on guidelines from the misc.legal.moderated charter.]

The following general guidelines will be employed to manage
the moderation and administration of rsba:
1. The moderator serves until he or she resigns or is replaced.
   A moderator may resign at any time, but is requested to
   give the group adequate notice in order to ensure an
   orderly transition.
2. A moderator may be replaced through the same mechanism that
   a newsgroup is created or modified.  It requires a 2/3
   majority of valid votes and at least 100 more yes votes
   than no votes.
3. The moderator may designate a substitute moderator to serve
   for periods of not more than eight consecutive weeks.
4. A sole moderator may appoint a co-moderator.  Co-moderators
   may appoint additional co-moderators, if all serving
   moderators consent, so long as no more than five moderators
   are active at any one time.  Moderators may share their
   duties in any manner mutually acceptable. In the event that
   the group has multiple moderators, all references to a sole
   moderator in the above paragraphs shall apply to all the
   moderators, collectively if the context permits.
5. A resigning moderator, whether or not she/he is a sole
   moderator, selects his/her successor.  Replacement moderators
   are subject to a ratification vote of the rsba readership,
   with approval by simple majority.  A resigning co-moderator
   may, with the unanimous consent of the other moderators,
   choose not to appoint a successor.
6. This Charter can be amended at any time, by following the
   procedures then in effect for newsgroup creation.

HISTORY OF THE GROUP:

rec.sport.baseball.analysis is a moderated newsgroup which passed its vote for
creation by 205:36 as reported in news.announce.newgroups on 22 Jul 1994.

PROPONENT:

Alexander Bartolich <alexander.bartolich@gmx.at>

CHANGE HISTORY:

2010-05-20	Probe post
2010-08-09	Moderator Vacancy Investigation
2010-08-23	1st RFD
2010-09-06	2nd RFD
2010-10-02	LCC
2010-10-09	RESULT
Toolbox
LANGUAGES