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.

