Newsgroup Charter for alt.health.herpes.moderated     update  2001/01/05

----------------------------
I. INTRODUCTION

alt.health.herpes.moderated (ahhm) serves as a relatively open discussion 
forum for topics related to herpes (HSV1&2).  The moderated environment 
effectively reduces off topic and inflamatory posts encouraging a pleasant, 
participatory, newsgroup experience.

Topics typically revolve around health related issues, treatment, dealing 
with outbreaks, research, pyschology, how to tell a partner, I just found out 
what do I do, to name a few.  

------------------------------
II. MODERATION PRINCIPLES

Utilizing robomoderation tools, off topic crossposts, spam, and personal 
flames are virtually eliminated from the group.

Any individual who makes disruptive or offensive posts, such as making 
unfounded personal attacks, will find their postings placed under review or 
possibly suspended at the discretion of the moderator(s).

Participants enjoyment of the group will not be sacrificed to enable the b
ullying of one poster by another.

Moderator(s) will be the final judge of acceptable posts, standards of 
judgement  are principally the concepts of traditional logic and rhetoric, 
see ahhmFAQ below.  A publicly accessable rejected message archive provides 
for a check on moderating performance.

------------------------------
III. POSTING GUIDELINES

Posts to ahhm should be in the English language, utilizing plain text,
lite use of HTML for links is okay.  Scripts or binaries are unacceptable.

The occasional off topic post from regulars is expected and acceptable.

Messages of a commercial nature are restricted to usenet guidelines, see the 
ahhmFAQ below and <a 
href="http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/advertising/how-to/part1/">Advertising 
on Usenet FAQ</a>

Discussions regarding the moderation process or censorship issues involved
are off-topic in ahhm. Such discussions should be held in 
news.admin.censorship, news.admin.net-abuse.misc, alt.censorship, or via 
E-mail.

Personal ads may be forwarded to the moderator(haap@immediate.net) for 
PPP(Periodic Personals Posting) or posted in the alt.personals.herpes 
newsgroup, they should NOT be posted directly to ahhm.

Crossposted messages will be rejected. Binaries will be rejected.

------------------------------
IV. E-mail Addresses

Send questions or comments to: haap@immediate.net

The address below allows you to submit a post to the newsgroup via E-mail,
in the event that your news server is not operational:
ahhm@stump.algebra.com
Any mail sent to this address will be submitted to the newsgroup for posting.

****************************
ahhmFAQ     Facts and references regarding this newsgroup

For those new to herpes please consider the following FAQ's and Manuals:

• From AOL, Herpes Support America Manual, circa mid '90's, <a 
href="http://www.altherpes.com/hsa.html">http://www.altherpes.com/hsa.html</a>

• University of Washington Questions and Answers, <a 
href="http://depts.washington.edu/herpes/QAmain.htm>http://depts.washington.ed

u/herpes/QAmain.htm</a>

• ASHA's The Truth About HSV1 and HSV2, <a 
href="http://www.herpes.com/hsv1-2.html">http://www.herpes.com/hsv1-2.html</a>

(Taking suggestions for a few more)
-----------------------------------
History

Alt.Support.Herpes, ASH, was created in the Summer of 1995 by Denise N and 
her significant other to serve the online community as a general discussion 
group for herpes related topics, Alt.config discussion placed it in the 
support group hierarchy, a common misconception is that because the group was 
placed in the support hierarchy it is a support only group. 

Here is one of the first notices of its creation and charter.
  
>Author:    Denise N                                            
 >Email:    denisen227@aol.com
 >Date:    1995/08/15                                              
 >Forums:    la.personals
 
 >The alt.support.herpes newsgroup is to promote the discussion of 
 >herpes, including the latest medical information and social implications 
 >of the virus. Please participate by sharing with us your experiences and 
 >knowledge.
 
 Final approval for Alt.Support.Herpes was posted on Alt.Config:
  
 >Author: D. Naugle
 >Email: dnaugle@indirect.com
 >Date: 1995/10/17
 >Forums: alt.config 
  
 >After discussion on alt.config, which came to a general supporting
 >consensus, alt.support.herpes is created for the purpose of discussing
 >herpes affliction and treatment. It is not sufficiently covered by any
 >existing newsgroups, nor does it duplicate the purpose of any properly
 >created existing newsgroup.
  
 >For your newsgroups file:
 >alt.support.herpes  Discussing herpes

The first years saw a pleasant group with people sharing their knowledge and 
experience. As usegroup crossposted and obnoxious advertising grew it became 
commonplace to see posts titled something like 'F___ my insatiable gay ass 
till it bleeds', hardly appropriate or conducive to those experiencing 
genital herpes and looking for help.  There was also seen a rise in personal 
attacks and flames, people with an opinion or book or some other reason that 
they could not be content to let others share without levying a barrage of 
fabrications and false arguments against them.  Such content actually 
consuming a third of the groups traffic or more.  So the concept of a 
moderated herpes group was proposed in September of y2k for the alt.health 
hierarchy.  Negative responses came not surprisingly from guyonphone@aol.com 
and elflet@my-deja.com the worst flamers from alt.support.herpes. Pro 
responses from the proponent xdcrlab@aol.com and from yoshi2me@aol.com. In 
January 2001 the group is expected to be created, moderation software has 
been readied for that event.

-------------------------------------------------
Commercial Content Posting Standards:

Allowing restricted commercial posting has shown certain benefits, on other 
herpes groups it has been of informational value or has lead to revealing 
things about the particular business or product, such as exorbitant prices. 
alt.health.herpes. moderated restricts commercial posts as follows:  See also 
Usenet convention <a 
href="http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/advertising/how-to/part1/">Advertising 
on Usenet FAQ</a> 
 
  1. the On Topic Notice. - This is a very simple short note saying that
      an item/service is available and where to find out more about it.
      Respect group participants and avoid marketing hype. (This also 
      applies to users of products who want to pass along the info)  Regular
      or routine posting (i.e. daily/weekly) is considered excessive.
 
    example: Notice: Availability of Herpedoodles
                    Herpedoodles are now available at www.herpedoodle.com
 
 2. the Signature(sig file). - A few lines following the authors sign off 
     is considered acceptable; making posts which add nothing to a thread
     and appear to be made to repeat the Sig are not acceptable.
      
    example: www.HerpeDoodle.com
                   Home of the HerpeDoodle

-----------------------------------------------------------
To assist participants in tempering their own posts and/or spotting the 
faulty posts of others, and to serve as a basis for moderation decisions, a 
brief discussion of faulty argumentation, formal and informal points of 
logic, is included here.

The goal of logic, reasoning and debate is to arrive at valid conclusions 
from the evidence at hand. It is not about winning the argument, argument for 
the sake of argument, or seeing who knows more, or who can make the cutest 
retort. There are ways to hinder this process and ways to advance it.  The 
evidence is embodied in the message.

 ...And so we come to these points of logic to consider. 
  
 Assembled from sources on the web, mostly from Matthew:
  
 "It is simpler and probably more useful to summarize the major pitfalls to 
be avoided when constructing an argument. These pitfalls are known as 
fallacies. 
  
 In everyday English the term "fallacy" is used to refer to mistaken beliefs 
as well as to the faulty reasoning that leads to those beliefs. This is fair 
enough, but in logic the term is generally used to refer to a form of 
technically incorrect argument, especially if the argument appears valid or 
convincing.
  
 So for the purposes of this discussion, we define a fallacy as a logical 
argument which appears to be correct, but which can be seen to be incorrect 
when examined more closely. By studying fallacies we aim to avoid being 
misled by them."
  
 Below is a list of some commonly used fallacies. The list is not complete, 
see 'Constructing a Logical
 Argument' or 'Logical Fallacies', you may find them by doing a web search.
  
*****
Begging the Question Fallacy

Perhaps the most common, the conclusion is assumed to be true thus begging 
the question, where's your proof, your evidence. This may take the form of a 
simple declarative:

  "You are deceptive"

Or may take a more wordy form which serves to hide the fallacy:

  "You post anonymously so you are deceptive"

Or as an opinion even more elaborate:

  "I consider anyone who posts anonymously to be deceptive, you have done so 
so you are deceptive"

Problem: there is nothing inherently deceptive about posting anonymously, 
thus begging the question of where is your evidence of deception.

*****
The Straw Man
  
 The straw man fallacy is to misrepresent someone else's position so that it 
can be attacked more easily, then to knock down that misrepresented position, 
then to conclude that the original position has been demolished. It is a 
fallacy because it fails to deal with the actual arguments that have been 
made. 
  
 *****
 The Red Herring
  
 This fallacy is committed when irrelevant material is introduced to the 
issue being discussed, so that everyone's attention is diverted away from the 
points being made, towards a different conclusion.

*****
 Exclusion Fallacy - Relevancy
  
Leaving out important(but troublesome) evidence that you know about that 
would undermine your case.
  
Problem:  There is a basic requirement that all relevant information be 
included in your argument, otherwise you undermine the process of finding 
truth; i.e., you have an agenda.
 
For this fallacy to apply, the missing evidence must change the conclusion. 
Which leads to another aspect of exclusion falacy, which is that irrelevant 
evidence does not make an argument.
  
*****
Argumentum ad novitatem
  
 This is the opposite of the Argumentum ad Antiquitatem; it is the fallacy of 
asserting that something is more correct simply because it is new or newer 
than something else.
  
 ***** 
 Argumentum ad verecundiam
  
 The Appeal to Authority uses the association of the famous or knowledgable 
to try and win support for an assertion. 
  
 This line of argument is not always completely bogus; for example, reference 
to an admitted authority in a particular field may be relevant to a 
discussion of that subject.
  
 Problem: While sometimes it may be appropriate to cite an authority to 
support a point, there's no guarantee they will be current. As knowledge 
evolves, todays experts often become tomorrow's know nots. 
  
 *****
 Argumentum ad hominem
  
 Argumentum ad Hominem is literally "argument directed at the man". 
  
 The Abusive variety of Argumentum ad Hominem occurs when, instead of trying 
to disprove the truth of an assertion, the arguer attacks the person or 
people making the assertion. This is invalid because the truth of an 
assertion does not depend upon the goodness of those asserting it.
  
 *****
 Argumentum ad baculum / Appeal to force
  
 The Appeal to Force is committed when the arguer resorts to force or the 
threat of force in order to try and push the acceptance of a conclusion. It 
is often used by politicians, and can be summarized as "might makes right". 
The force threatened need not be a direct threat from the arguer.
  
 *****
 Plurium interrogationum / Many questions
  
 This fallacy occurs when a questioner demands a simple answer to a complex 
question.


