In response to increased efforts by spam merchants to post chain letters, X-rated web site advertisements, and similar items to the HBD, the HBD Steering Committee has recently reviewed and discussed the Digest policies.
We remain committed to an open forum for the discussion of brewing and beer related matters; however, to keep the HBD from being misused, we have adopted the following Guidelines for the HBD:
1. Our guiding principle is that the HBD should not censor or delete *any* message that deals with beer or brewing. The only exception is where the message *itself* is *clearly* against the law; for example, a post containing an illegal solicitation of investors for a microbrewery would be deleted, but posts discussing marijuana beer or home distilling -- while not encouraged -- would not.
2. The Digest Janitor will try to delete messages that are obvious, indisputable detrius (misplaced unsubscribe requests, chain letters, etc.) and commercial spam with no arguable connection to beer or brewing.
3. Posting blatant commercials to the HBD is *strongly* discouraged. While such messages will not be deleted if they have *any* connection with beer and brewing, the HBD Steering Committee will encourage the HBD readership not to patronize businesses who clearly are abusing the HBD.
4. Brief product or sale announcements, comments about or reviews of products or publications, and query responses that suggest a particular product or merchant (e.g., "In response to XXX's inquiry, my shop has a supply of corny kegs for $15 each") are appropriate HBD messages and *are* encouraged.
5. IF YOUR WISH TO BUY OR SELL SOME USED EQUIPMENT, do not post your desire to the HBD. The HBD is not the place for this. Instead, go to The Homebrew Flea Market and post a free ad there. This is, after all, why we provide that service.
6. HBD readers *are* the HBD. They and the marketplace of ideas -- not any person or committee -- are the ultimate arbitrators of what beer and brewing related posts are worthwhile and appropriate for the HBD. However, the Steering Committee requests that HBD contributors remember that this Digest, unlike a USENET newsgroup, has limited bandwidth; i.e., the digest is limited to a certain size each day. For this reason, the Steering Committee gently asks contributors to think carefully before posting messages that most readers consider inappropriate or of marginal utility, such as:
   1. Personal diatribes or insults;
   2. Complaints about a message being inappropriate for the HBD (if it really bothers you, send the "offending" party e-mail);
   3. Complete results of a local competition (preferred: put them on a web site and post a short message identifying and pointing to its URL);
   4. Lengthy competition announcements (you don't need to list every category);
   5. Lengthy quotes of earlier messages that add only a "me too" comment.
It is the hope that, through the mutual cooperation of the readership and Steering Committee of the HBD, no further actions need be taken to moderate the homebrew digest.

Concurred,
The Home Brew Digest Janitors
Pat Babcock
Karl Lutzen

A Note From Pat Babcock Regarding This Policy...

The moderation of the HBD has recently been, shall we say, "tested". An incredibly long (since June 1996) and heated debate arose on the Digest. Other participants began making statements that they could not post certain information there due to the "heat of battle". In the meantime, the debate had stalled; however the participants continued by calling each other names and nit-picking each others past posts - worsenning the situation.

We began negotiating with the participants for a "truce" on the Digest whilst experimentation could be conducted in order to prove or disprove the main "sticking point" in their arguments. The participants agreed to an enforced hiatus on the subject while that experimetnation was being conducted. Unfortunately, a poorly worded "press release" was sent to the Digest triggering fears of "censorship" which generated a new "champion" to speak at length about the now-imminent downward spiral of the Digest as an open forum.

Rest assured: we remain committed to providing the Home Brew Digest as an open a forum as possible upon which beer and brewing issues can be discussed or disputed (in a civilized fashion, please). However, we maintain that our actual "job" is to ensure the continuation of the HBD as the Number One beer and brewing-related discussion forum on the internet and to keep it accessible to all.

The intent was to prevent a single entity from doing irreparable harm to the Digest through poor, singular decisions (such as releasing an "undigested" version, for instance). The Janitors consult with the SC whenever implementing new mechanisms or policies having the potential of lasting effect on the Digest itself. An example of this was the implemetation of the moderation function itself. The SC weighs the proposed action against the expected quality impact on the Digest, and then we, the Janitors, act on their recommendations.

Many things have gone by the wayside, and many things have been implemented based on their recommendations. We, the Janitors, believe the process is working exactly as intended.

The SC also receives a copy of any article submitted to the Digest that is refused by the janitors for any reason. This prevents the Janitors from simply refusing posts we find unpallatable (and trust me: there has been much temptation to overuse the refusal mechanism...) by providing a "sanity check". Never has a post remained "refused" when the SC has pointed out that such refusal is counter to the moderation policy.

Due to the nature of this forum and the internet itself, the moderation policy itself is "selectively" enforced, at best:

• Spam is ALWAYS killed when caught by the Janitors
  (note: there are times when neither Janitor can access our mail, and the moderation system is set up to allow anything we don't explicitly stop to get through. Spam can happen...).
• Posts containing encrypted information or duplicating themselves via HTML are usually refused 100% of the time as well.
• Certain posts having bits of HTML in them are allowed to go through. The criteria for this is whether or not
  (a) there is a backlog
  (b) the Janitors notice the HTML
  (c) the HTML is not due to quoting a web page URL
  (d) refusing the post will adversely affect the "timeliness" of the information.
• Posts along the lines of "I like beer! Does anyone on this list like beer?!?", though specifically related to the appreciation of beer, are refused with a polite note to the contributor explaining how this makes them appear to have the intelligence of a goat's pancreas but, should they choose to send it again, we will let it publish. With their e-mail address.
• Posts answering a post that has already been answered and that provide no new information are usually turned back to the respondent with a note stating thanks, but someone else got there before you.
  Note the operative term USUALLY. We cannot always read posts in their entirity. Also, if the answer does not constitute the entirity of a post's content, we will not refuse it even though seventy others may have already submitted that information.
• Posts that can in no way be construed as beer or brewing related.
  Note: Some non-beer-and-brewing posts are allowed in, too. Examples of these are:
  • posts dealing with legal issues related to drinking
  • posts related to other fermentables/fermented beverages
  • posts related to humorous items (though we'll usually only let the first one through...)
  • posts related to HBD policies
  • posts correcting, chastising, maligning or countering the Janitors or any SC member in answer to something they've PUBLICLY posted
  • etcetera

Though some may claim otherwise, we have NEVER refused a post simply because we found the subject matter unpalatable or counter to our egoes. Never. We have, however, enforced the policy "to the letter" when some prolific writer has chosen to continuously thrash a non-specifically-beer-or-brewing subject ad nauseum.

The point to all this is that the HBD is a hobby-run forum for a group of hobbyists. We are not a government entity with legislators. We are not a newspaper with editors. We are not a commercial entity with a board of directors. We are not part of any other organization. Therefor, we have no real or legal responsibility to run the HBD at all or in any particular manner - frankly, we could run the Digest any way we choose. And we do just that.

To quell the collective gasp, let me point out that we choose to run it as we have been for the last few years. For those who haven't been paying attention:

• We choose to run it in such a way that the volume and S/N ratio of the HBD is higher than any other mainstream internet beer and brewing discussion forum.
• We choose to run it in such a way that anyone requesting information regarding any facet of this hobby can do so without being afraid for their self esteem.
• We choose to run it in such a way that no one contributor is assigned any more value than any other.
• We choose to run it in such a way that no person or group dominate the Digest to the exclusion of others having similar information.

For whatever reasons, the concept of moderation policy Item 5 has failed in this instance. (Probably due to the reputaion of the posters involved, but the reason is immaterial.) Due to this failure and the hoopla resulting from the SC's attempt to quell the situation, the moderation policy is ammended as follows:

6. To preserve the Digest S/N ratio and utility, we reserve the right to negotiate with any contributor(s) to end discussions which have become "stuck" on a singular point with no apparent effort to discover new or necessary information to move the discussion forward; or have become unwarrantedly personal in nature. Upon acceptance of terms of any such negotiation by those involved, the parties in agreement shall be bound to the terms of that agreement with regard to continuing the discussion on the Digest. Further, the Janitors shall have the authority to enforce the terms of any such agreement to the extent of refusing posts in violation at the queue. The terms of the negotiated agreement shall not apply to any other contributors not directly involved. (ie, if we negotiate an agreement with Contributors A & B, Contributor C is not bound by the terms of that agreement.)

It is the hope that, through the mutual cooperation of the readership and Steering Committee of the HBD, no further actions need be taken to moderate the homebrew digest.