FAQ: A Guide to Posting on rec.arts.comics.*
Andrew Black
Okay, to begin with, we *want* you to post here. We *want*
conversation. We *want* new people to feel welcome. The problem is
that we just got new carpet, and we're asking you to take your shoes
off. Well, not quite. We don't *own* the newsgroup. We can't *make*
you do anything. The thing is some of us have been reading and
posting to rec.arts.comics.* for a long time, and we have found that
there are certain little conventions that make life easier, not just
by excluding certain topics from certain groups, but by consolidating
those topics as well.
You want to sell your books? Well, rec.arts.comics.marketplace exists
*solely* to help you do that. It's there to get you together with
your customers. But the other groups aren't for that. Nobody who
isn't reading rec.arts.comics.marketplace cares. We know about
rac.mp, and if we want to buy a comic, we'll wander over there, but
please keep "for sale" posts off the other groups. It's like smoking
in a restaurant or a changing room for babies in church. Certain
areas are designated for certain things, and it impedes the enjoyment
of others if you post in the wrong areas.
Case in point: movie castings. The *main* reason rac.other-media was
proposed was to get rid of that stuff. You think it's neat to discuss
casting the X-Men movie? So did we, the first fifteen or so times.
The fifteenth time was back in 1991, however, and it's starting to
wear a bit thin. However, in rec.arts.comics.other-media you will
find people who *want* to discuss this type of thing.
The same general principle is true of every group in the hierarchy.
They have good reasons for existing, and we, as a community, would ask
you to respect that should you choose to participate. If you don't
have one of the groups listed below, then ask your system
administrator to create it. It's considered bad manners to post anyway
simply because you don't happen to get a particular group. These
groups are all valid, and they all passed votes. Your sysadmin would
probably be willing to add them.
Anyway, here's a brief summary of the groups in rec.arts.comics.* and
examples of the sorts of things that might go there. (Note: these
aren't the charters, these are actual examples.)
o rec.arts.comics.alternative: Non mainstream stuff. Posts on
Thieves & Kings, Cerebus, Electric Girl, American Splendour, Mini
comics. You would *not* post on Invisibles here because there's a
group devoted to Vertigo.
(Note that Marvel and DC are *NOT* the only mainstream comics
companies. Please exercise some judgement. Archie, schlock horror,
bad girl ninjas, and so-called "American manga" are not alternative.
There's actually a manga group: rec.arts.manga, but they don't
consider the American stuff to be real manga, and they're prepared
to be unpleasant about it. Just use rec.arts.comics.misc. :))
o rec.arts.comics.creative: Stories about characters which are created
by the posters of racc. Take note, you don't post fanfic using
trademarked characters (Spider-Man, Batman, Icon, whoever) here,
there's an alt.* group for that. (It's called
"alt.comics.fan-fiction," and if you don't get it at your site, ask
your system administrator to create it.)
This group became moderated in December 1996 in order to enforce
the charter. Russ Allberry is the head moderator.
o rec.arts.comics.dc.lsh: Posts on Legion of Super-Heroes go here and
nowhere else unless there's a reason to crosspost.
o rec.arts.comics.dc.universe: Batman, Superman, Green Lantern,
New Gods, Wonder Woman, Impulse. Anything that takes place in the
shared world of the DC publishing company goes here.
Wildstorm/ABC/Homage doesn't go here because that's not part of the
DC universe. (Pop over to rec.arts.comics.misc. They have a
multitude of interesting threads there). Also, LSH and Vertigo have
their own groups and don't go here.
o rec.arts.comics.dc.vertigo: Easy. If it has Vertigo written on it,
it goes here. This means, by the way, that stuff that has Paradox
on it *doesn't* go here (it goes in rac.misc).
o rec.arts.comics.elfquest: Posts about all the different titles
(past, present, and future; from the original quest to Jink, The
Rebels, and beyond) and characters under the Elfquest banner goes
here.
o rec.arts.comics.european: Posts about comics produced in Europe and
intended for the European market and by European creators. UK comics
are included, but not when they were produced for the American
market or by an American publisher.
o rec.arts.comics.info: Purely informational articles like news and
FAQs (Frequently Asked Questions lists) are the main posts to this
group. Everything posted to this group is subject to approval by the
moderator, Martin Wisse. You can send posts directly to him at
mpw...@ad-astra.demon.nl
o rec.arts.comics.marketplace: Any post offering to buy, sell or
auction anything comics related goes here, and *ONLY* here. This is
the big one. Please take this stricture seriously.
o rec.arts.comics.marvel.universe: Spiderman, Hulk, Dr Strange, etc.
Marvel mutant books have their own group, to wit:
o rec.arts.comics.marvel.xbooks: Marvel Mutant stuff goes here.
Wolverine, Gambit, Cable, X-men, etc.
o rec.arts.comics.misc: anything that doesn't go in another *comics*
group, goes here. Image, Wildstorm, Valiant, Disney, Acclaim, Topps,
Milestone, Bongo, Fawcett, Archie, what have you. Also, stuff about
creators and the industry goes here.
o rec.arts.comics.other-media: If something about a comic book has
been turned into something that isn't a comic book, such as an
action figure or a novel or a movie or a cartoon or a statue or a
line of clothing or... it gets posted here. Any speculations about
such stuff, like the next action figure you would like to see from
the Batman collection who should play Hulk or Sandman in the movies
goes here and only here too. Also, the Jason-like, can't be killed,
always resurrected discussion about superheroes in song (Sunshine
Superman was by Donovan, before you decide to ask :)) goes here
until it gets its own group :):)
o rec.arts.comics.reviews: Reviews of anything that's appropriate for
discussion in any other group in the hierarchy. Moderated by Peter
B. Juul. You can send posts directly to him at
racr-...@enzym.rnd.uni-c.dk
o rec.arts.comics.strips: Post something here if it deals with
short-form comic strips or panels of the sort found in newspapers
(editorial or funny pages) or other periodicals. Web comics of this
type are also on-topic.
That's a ton of groups. Figuring out what goes where can be kinda
tricky sometimes. Try thinking about it this way. There are
basically four types of groups.
The first type has complete precedence. If it could possibly belong
in these groups, it belongs in no other group at all, period, full
stop. That's because these groups hold threads which a lot of people
find *really* annoying. The three groups here are rac.creative,
rac.marketplace and rac.other-media.
The second type has high precedence. These are the specialist groups
like rac.elfquest, rac.dc.lsh, rac.dc.vertigo, and rac.marvel.xbooks.
Posts go here if they don't go in the first group and they are about
the specialist topic. Try not to do much crossposting into or out of
these groups.
The third type has middle precedence, so figuring out where an
ambiguous post goes can be ambiguous. These are the rac.dc.universe
and rac.marvel.universe groups. Posts go here if they're about DC or
Marvel comics or characters but they don't fit into the specialist
groups. rac.strips and rac.european are also middle precedence groups
because they're more specialized than rac.alternative or rac.misc but
their topics are still quite broad.
The fourth type has minimal precedence. Posts go here only if you're
certain that they don't go anywhere else. These groups are
rac.alternative and rac.misc, and rac.misc probably has precedence
over raca within this category.
(Rac.info and rac.reviews don't fit into this categorization, since
they're set up so that news and reviews from all the other groups fit
here in addition to wherever they fit in the rest of the hierarchy.)
For clarity's sake (and for those of you with nested newsreaders) here
is a map of the rac.* hierachy which was drawn by Paul O'Brien.
rec.arts.comics.*
|
|
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| rac.creative | rac.european | | rac.strips | | rac.info | |
| | | | | | | |
rac.misc rac.marvel.* | | rac.dc.* |
rac.alternative |
| | rac.elfquest | |
|
| | | rac.reviews
|
----------------- rac.marketplace |
rac.other-media
| | -----------------------------
racm.universe racm.xbooks | | |
racdc.universe racdc.lsh
racdc.vertigo
Crossposting:
Posting to more than one group is allowed fairly liberally if you have
a good reason. If you don't think it's self-evident, you might want
to provide an explanation. For example: when Mike Chary posted on
ICON 30, he crossposted to rec.arts.comics.misc and to the DC and
Marvel universe groups because it contained a parody of several
characters from those companies. His reasoning was that there would
inevitably be discussion of those characters. It didn't take place in
the universes, but it was *related* to those universes. If Icon
fights Hulk, you can crosspost to rac.marvel.u and rac.misc, for
example.
Subject headings:
When you post, make sure the subject header of the post says something
that will let your reading audience know what you are talking about in
the article. Also, try to be somewhat explicit to avoid confusion.
If you are *asking* what episodes of Batman Beyond are airing in
September, and you post to rec.arts.comics.other-media (which is of
course, the only place you would post on such a topic in the rac.*
hierarchy :)) Don't make your subject header "BATMAN BEYOND: The
September Episodes." Someone's going to think you are *telling* what
the episodes are. If they know already, they might not even read your
post. A simple "?" at the end of the subject heading can fix that.
Also, if you follow something up but to talk about something
tangential in the post, change the subject header. The use of
keywords is also suggested. However, I don't want to go into that
here, it's in the FAQ.
Also, covered in the FAQ is the concept of "spoilers." Basically,
don't give away major plot points in a comic without some kind of
warning in the subject line: "SPOILERS," and blank space in your text
after a sentence saying "Spoilers below." As you might imagine, this
is a big issue. (Have you ever had someone tell you the end of a
movie you haven't seen?) Tempers are rather short in this area.
Anyway, the FAQ covers this in some detail.
Which brings me to the next thing. The point of *this* post is to
enable you to post without annoying anyone. However, if you have
*not* read the rec.arts.comics.* FAQs, please do. They're divided up
so that each part is easily digestible, so there's really no excuse
for not reading them. You can get the FAQs at these places, if it's
not on your site currently:
http://www.enteract.com/~katew/faqs/
http://www.bonner.rice.edu/morrow/faq/
http://www.idyllmtn.com/rac
http://members.tripod.com/~comics_faq/
Oh, also, if you are new to Usenet, please do yourself a favor and go
read news.announce.newusers. I don't have much faith that you
actually *will* do this, mind you. Nobody ever does. I have visons
of these posts sitting alone there like the Maytag repairman, waiting,
hoping that someday they too will be read. I go by and read n.a.n.
sometimes just to let the posts know they are loved :):):) Anyway, it
would be a good idea to read those posts, because we were new once
too, and we did *not* read them, and look how people are treating us
now? :) Learn from our mistakes. That group is your Usenet
birthright. Carpe diem. :^) And have fun here, that's what
rac.* is for: having fun.
[Followups to this post are directed to rec.arts.comics.misc.]
original by Jonathon S. Tuttle, tut...@alumni.berlin-polytechnic.de
as modified by Mike Chary
as maintained by the uberFAQ consortium
updated by Andrew Black
Last change: 31 Oct 99
--
Even complete darkness must come to an end somewhere...
There, you see. There's a miniscule glimmer of light...
It doesn't matter how small it is!...
Walking towards it you feel enlightened, uplifted in your soul...
'Daddy is so far away... We must find him.'
Andrew Black
abl...@mediawave.com.au
Quinn Biminy
> group, goes here. Image, Wildstorm, Valiant, Disney, Acclaim, Topps,
> Milestone, Bongo, Fawcett, Archie, what have you. Also, stuff about
> creators and the industry goes here.
So howcome PJ Gladnick is allowed to discuss POLITICS here and hype his
POLITICALLY-oriented non-paper-printed WEB cartoon strip ad naseum? Does he
even get a "please don't do that" from the moderator?
I really wouldn't object, but PJ suppliments the above with CONSTANT criticism
of the REAL comics medium, that most of us here know and love. I have found it
really damn annoying. There oughta be a law.
>
>o rec.arts.comics.reviews: Reviews of anything that's appropriate for
> discussion in any other group in the hierarchy. Moderated by Peter
> B. Juul. You can send posts directly to him at
> racr-...@enzym.rnd.uni-c.dk
>
Seems to me this is now an almost-dead ng.
>o rec.arts.comics.strips: Post something here if it deals with
> short-form comic strips or panels of the sort found in newspapers
> (editorial or funny pages) or other periodicals. Web comics of this
> type are also on-topic.
Tell PJ.
>Which brings me to the next thing. The point of *this* post is to
>enable you to post without annoying anyone.
Tell PJ.
>Even complete darkness must come to an end somewhere...
Tell PJ.
signed Bim master of the exploding cigar trick 8^-' (bang!) 8^*
". . .that story took me less than an hour to write. The best ones are the
flash
inspiration stories and I NEVER rewrite. The first time is the best time."
-Paul J Gladnick
Danny Sichel
>>o rec.arts.comics.misc: anything that doesn't go in another *comics*
>> group, goes here. Image, Wildstorm, Valiant, Disney, Acclaim, Topps,
>> Milestone, Bongo, Fawcett, Archie, what have you. Also, stuff about
>> creators and the industry goes here.
> POLITICALLY-oriented non-paper-printed WEB cartoon strip ad naseum? Does he
> even get a "please don't do that" from the moderator?
No, because there's no moderator.
The only moderated groups in the rac* hierarchy are rac.info,
rac.reviews, and rac.creative.
I thought you realized that.
> I really wouldn't object, but PJ suppliments the above with CONSTANT criticism
> of the REAL comics medium, that most of us here know and love. I have found it
> really damn annoying. There oughta be a law.
It *is* annoying. Unfortunately, criticism of the comics medium *is*
on-topic.
>>o rec.arts.comics.strips: Post something here if it deals with
>> short-form comic strips or panels of the sort found in newspapers
>> (editorial or funny pages) or other periodicals. Web comics of this
>> type are also on-topic.
> Tell PJ.
We've tried. Believe me, we've tried.
--
Clara Ilson, grandmother, 1922-1999
Lisa Webster
> >o rec.arts.comics.reviews: Reviews of anything that's
> > appropriate for discussion in any other group in the hierarchy.
> > Moderated by Peter B. Juul. You can send posts directly to
> > him at racr-...@enzym.rnd.uni-c.dk
> >
>
> Seems to me this is now an almost-dead ng.
Thanks Quinn. This was actually something I wanted to discuss if at all
possible.
I'm curious about the rationale for the rac.reviews policy. It does seem
like it's been dying lately. I'd reason that that could be because many
reviewers are taking their reviews to the web rather than usenet (although
Randy and Don are still posting them to usenet as well...) I could be wrong
but it seems like Mr. Juul's policy is that only the text of a review is
welcome in rac.reviews I wanted to post a link to the reviews at Sequential
Tart for this month (9 people reviewing approximately 75 comic books) but my
post was rejected. It looked like this:
Comics reviews for this month at Sequential Tart
(http://www.sequentialtart.com):
Andrea Burgess--
Feeders; Heavy Liquid
Laura DePuy--
Sparks: An Urban Fairy Tale; Concave Up; Valentine; Garou: The Lone Wolf;
Pocket Book Heroes; Martin the Satanic Raccoon; Journeyman #1
Danielle Fletcher--
Astonishing X-Men #1-#3; Aria #2, #3
Melanie Johnson--
Jack's Luck Runs Out; Strangers In Paradise #27;
Katherine Keller--
Dignifying Science and Two Fisted Science; Rat Bastard; Hellblazer; The
Copy and Plot Devices
Barb Lien--
JLA 80 page #1; Akiko #35; Quantum and Woody #35; Superman Adventures #38;
Finals #4; Maison Ikkoku, Part 9, # 5; Batman: Shadow of The Bat # 88; The
Books Of Faerie: Molly's Story # 1; Evil And Malice # 2; Starman # 57; Siren
# 1; Chassis # 0-3; The Authority # 4; The Tick: Heroes of the City #2;
Jonny Double # 3; Muktuk Wolfsbreath: Hard-Boiled Shaman # 2 & 3; Gen13:
Magical Drama Queen Roxy # 3; Legends Of Camelot: Excalibur # 1; A Distant
Soil # 19, # 22, # 25; Love In Tights # 3; Whiteout # 1- 4; Lethargic Lad
#2; Concrete: Killer Smile # 1-3; Troublemakers: Issues 1, 3, 10, 11, 12,
14; The Brave And The Bold # 161; Deathstroke: The Terminator: 1992 Annual #
1; The Brave and the Bold # 86; Brother Power: The Geek # 1 & 2; Jimmy Olsen
# 113 80 page Giant; Action Comics: # 434; Green Arrow # 67; House Of
Mystery Presents I...Vampire # 313; Wasteland # 3; The Question # 27
Christy Trever--
Whiteout TPB; Lenore #6; I Feel Sick #1; The Big Book of Grimm
Lauren Vega-Rasner--
Aria; Planetary #6; Invisibles # 6; Preacher #56; 100 Bullets #5; Hellblazer
#142; Whiteout Melt; The Tick Big Halloween Special 3; Impulse #55; The
Tick - Heroes of the City #5; Crimson #13; Finals #4; Transmetropolitan #28
Lisa Webster--
Gloom Cookie #2; Oni Double Feature #13; Rising Stars #2; The Witchfinder #1
Reviews can be found from the main page or under Culture Vultures! Enjoy!
-----
But was rejected. This is a different post entirely than the HYPE post which
I sent to racm. It's not an ad... IMO. I figured this would be a valuable
thing for rac.reviews since there's such a range of material evidenced...
and no way can I paste all those reviews into one big message :)
So-- Thoughts? Todd, Chary, anyone out there in the know-- is this a bad
thing to want to post to rac.reviews?
TIA!
Lisa
--
Read Artesia! Visit Artesia Resources:
www.angelfire.com/ar2/artesia
Sequential Tart a webzine about comics-- not fanboys:
www.sequentialtart.com
Darren 'Gav' Bleuel
>
> o rec.arts.comics.strips: Post something here if it deals with
> short-form comic strips or panels of the sort found in newspapers
> (editorial or funny pages) or other periodicals. Web comics of this
> type are also on-topic.
Hey, whadyaknow? We've been updated! And here I thought no one was
listening...
--
Lates...
Darren "Gav" Bleuel
(Traveling)
Nukees: http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/gav/nukees/
"You like us! You really really like us!"
COMICA ONE
individual books,here, or projects? And just state general hype?? Or what?
Peter B. Juul
[racr]
> > Seems to me this is now an almost-dead ng.
>
> Thanks Quinn. This was actually something I wanted to discuss if at all
> possible.
Let me just mention before we really get started, that every single
actual review I receive is being approved. I have in my time as
moderator only willingly rejected one review-article, which was not
really a review, more like a Previews solicitation for a comic book I
never heard about (and the poster didn't reply to the mail I sent to
explain the rejection.) And then there was the X-Axis-situation, which
has been sorted out by now.
> I'm curious about the rationale for the rac.reviews policy.
The policy is whatever we can agree on here on
rec.arts.comics.misc. If you people want URLs on racr, you'll get
them. It's not like I have a hidden agenda.
It's open for discussion.
--
Peter B. Juul, o.-.o "Ten plagues of Egypt on both your houses!"
The RockBear. ((^)) -Andrew Rilstone reviewing 'The Mummy'
I speak only 0}._.{0
for myself. O/ \O
Johanna Draper Carlson
> It's open for discussion.
My opinion: I think URLs only are a bad idea. I think every article in
rac.reviews should be an actual review.
Johanna
List Owner, Legion-List
Discussion of all eras and incarnations of the Legion of Super-Heroes comic
book and characters from DC Comics. Friendly and welcoming to all LSH fans.
Todd VerBeek
>> > Seems to me this is now an almost-dead ng.
>"Lisa Webster" <tsw...@mindspring.com> writes:
>> Thanks Quinn. This was actually something I wanted to discuss if at all
>> possible.
I used to frequently post my reviews to r.a.c.reviews (I haven't lately
because I haven't been writing many), and it was almost always an
effortless process, even when my news server was felched up. Except for
one article that wasn't approved (and which in retrospect, I had to admit
shouldn't have been), it always went smoothly.
I suspect part of the problem was that we didn't have a smooth transition
of the moderation. The successor that Jeremy initially selected for
r.a.c.reviews went MIA and a new one had to be selected. I assume that
there was some interruption of r.a.c.r approvals at the time, causing
people to bypass it. Reviewers also don't like to wait for approvals, so
they bypass it. And there have been some distinct problems since Peter
took over, with the Followups-To issue and comments from him that fall
short of the level of service that Jeremy used to provide "back in my
day". The result of which seems to be that some reviewers don't bother
with r.a.c.reviews any more.
Cheers, Todd
--
Radix malorum est stupiditas.
Peter B. Juul
> Reviewers also don't like to wait for approvals, so
> they bypass it.
I think all the regulars are whitelisted by now.
> And there have been some distinct problems since Peter
> took over, with the Followups-To issue
You are still the only one who has complained about the
Followups-issue. Please note that I _did_:
a) ask those who forgot this header to include it
b) ask widely (on racm) if it was a major issue, and promise to take
care of it, in case it was. Seems it isn't.
c) add an extra rejection-reason, so that repliers do not get the
"offtopic"-message but rather a specific "reply"-message.[1]
furthermore, we're talking about two messages _a_ _week_ that are
replies to articles. Can't be that much of a problem...
> and comments from him that fall
> short of the level of service that Jeremy used to provide "back in my
> day".
Please elaborate on this one. I don't think I've heard it before.
[1] It looks like this:
Your message has been rejected because it is off topic of the
moderated group rec.arts.comics.reviews.
For a message to be on topic it has to be an actual review, whereas
your message was "just" a reply to a review.
Please repost your message to the proper group.
Please direct your queries to racr-...@enzym.rnd.uni-c.dk
Thank you,
- Peter B. Juul, moderator, rec.arts.comics.reviews
--
Peter B. Juul, o.-.o "Cogito ergo sum sum sum sum sum"
The RockBear. ((^))
Todd VerBeek
>> Reviewers also don't like to wait for approvals, so
>> they bypass it.
My pal Peter B. Juul said:
>I think all the regulars are whitelisted by now.
Glad to hear it. But I was talking mostly about why people might have
=stopped= posting to r.a.c.reviews. And clearly, some have.
>> And there have been some distinct problems since Peter
>> took over, with the Followups-To issue
>You are still the only one who has complained about the
>Followups-issue.
I know you don't normally read r.a.c.misc, but if you did, you would've
heard more about it.
>furthermore, we're talking about two messages _a_ _week_ that are
>replies to articles. Can't be that much of a problem...
Maybe not to you, but it's certainly a problem to the people whose replies
get hijacked by the moderation process and therefore never get posted
(unless they repost them several days later when they finally get your
rejection). The fact that your rejection form letter blames the victim
only makes it more annoying.
And has it occurred to you that the reason you're not getting more replies
posted to r.a.c.reviews is that there aren't that many =articles= getting
posted to r.a.c.reviews? The reviews that are posted only to the
discussion groups "solve" this problem pretty nicely, eh?
>> and comments from him that fall
>> short of the level of service that Jeremy used to provide "back in my
>> day".
>Please elaborate on this one. I don't think I've heard it before.
Sure you have; I explained it in my prior e-mail exchange with you, and
just alluded to it in my previous message. Every review I submitted to
Jeremy got posted properly, crossposted to the appropriate newsgroups and
with followups set correctly. Even though I e-mailed them, which doesn't
support Newsgroups and Followups-To lines in the headers (I included that
info for him in the body). Apparently he did a good enough job fixing
messages that weren't submitted properly, that it's suddenly become a
problem in his absence. He didn't say (as you did to me) "I am not going
to add Followups-to lines to the messages. That would be far too much
work." It was obvious that he cared about making r.a.c.reviews work as
well as practical; frankly, I don't get that impression from you. You
seem to want to get by with the least possible effort, addressing problems
only if you get overwhelmed by more complaints than you can easily brush
off.
>[1] It looks like this:
>
>Your message has been rejected because it is off topic of the
>moderated group rec.arts.comics.reviews.
....
And as I said when I got the earlier draft of this message:
'No, my message was rejected because followups were not set correctly on
the message to which I was replying. Messages posted to r.a.c.r should
have a "Followups-to" line that redirects them to the appropriate
discussion group, so that people (such as I) won't accidentally try to
post replies to r.a.c.r. If the folks who submit the original article
don't include a "Followups-to" line, the moderator should add one.'
I stand by that.
Peter B. Juul
> >You are still the only one who has complained about the
> >Followups-issue.
>
> I know you don't normally read r.a.c.misc, but if you did, you would've
> heard more about it.
I've been reading it daily ever since you sent me that notice, but it
_is_ a high volume group, so I may have missed it. I do try to catch
whatever racr-related pops up here, however.
(Note to all: If you write about racr, you are very welcome to email
me to make certain I'm aware of it. I _do_ care :-) )
> Maybe not to you, but it's certainly a problem to the people whose replies
> get hijacked by the moderation process and therefore never get posted
> (unless they repost them several days later when they finally get your
> rejection).
Since the mails end up in my regular mailbox, I typically react within
half an hour on weekdays in european daytime. In weekends up to 36
hours _may_ pass, yes, but several days sounds mildly exaggerated.
> The fact that your rejection form letter blames the victim
> only makes it more annoying.
"Victim"... You don't think you are blowing this just a tad out of
proportion?
> And has it occurred to you that the reason you're not getting more replies
> posted to r.a.c.reviews is that there aren't that many =articles= getting
> posted to r.a.c.reviews? The reviews that are posted only to the
> discussion groups "solve" this problem pretty nicely, eh?
Sure. And if we disbanded the rac-hierarchy and let everyone post in
rec.arts.comics just like long ago, we would have no problems with
crossposts or people posting to dcu, when they should post to dcv.
> with followups set correctly. Even though I e-mailed them, which doesn't
> support Newsgroups and Followups-To lines in the headers (I included that
> info for him in the body).
And a great big thank you to Jeremy for doing all that work. He
doesn't anymore. If someone wants to, he's welcome.
> work." It was obvious that he cared about making r.a.c.reviews work as
> well as practical; frankly, I don't get that impression from you. You
> seem to want to get by with the least possible effort, addressing problems
> only if you get overwhelmed by more complaints than you can easily brush
> off.
You're absolutely right. And I remind you once again: I took up the
mantle because no one else would. Anyone who wants to take over is
welcome. Meanwhile I want to keep racr running smoothly, and by
smoothly I mean that I want the following things to be true:
1) People get whitelisted quickly.
2) The group is spamfree.
3) What gets posted is what people on racm can agree on as being
ontopic.
4) I have as little manual work to do as possible.
Oh, and let me just note: The demand for whitelisting (which seems
rather widespread) and the demand for manual editing (which seems
quite localized) are contradictory.
--
Peter B. Juul, o.-.o "'You've been a great pal' says Anakin, to C3P0,
The RockBear. ((^)) speaking for action figure collectors everywhere."
I speak only 0}._.{0 -Andrew Rilstone reviewing 'The Phantom Menace'
for myself. O/ \O
Todd VerBeek
>> Maybe not to you, but it's certainly a problem to the people whose replies
>> get hijacked by the moderation process and therefore never get posted
>> (unless they repost them several days later when they finally get your
>> rejection).
Peter B. Juul said:
>Since the mails end up in my regular mailbox, I typically react within
>half an hour on weekdays in european daytime. In weekends up to 36
>hours _may_ pass, yes, but several days sounds mildly exaggerated.
Yes, my recollection of the delay was exaggerated. I misposted a reply to
r.a.c.reviews on a Friday and got a reply back Sunday morning. That was a
matter of "days" in my mind, but you're right: it was closer to 36 hours.
>> The fact that your rejection form letter blames the victim
>> only makes it more annoying.
>"Victim"... You don't think you are blowing this just a tad out of
>proportion?
Perhaps. Are you willing to admit you're being just a tad apathetic about
it? Having a message I thought I could trust to be spooled to the public
newsfeed instead bounced back to me with a rude explanation that blames me
for it, sure felt like I'd been screwed (albeit gently). Then there was
your reply to my response, which was downright cold and indifferent to me.
>> And has it occurred to you that the reason you're not getting more replies
>> posted to r.a.c.reviews is that there aren't that many =articles= getting
>> posted to r.a.c.reviews? The reviews that are posted only to the
>> discussion groups "solve" this problem pretty nicely, eh?
>Sure. And if we disbanded the rac-hierarchy and let everyone post in
>rec.arts.comics just like long ago, we would have no problems with
>crossposts or people posting to dcu, when they should post to dcv.
I was being sarcastic, Peter.
Obviously it's =not= a solution, but you seemed to be crowing about the
lack of a problems with r.a.c.r, when part of the reason is that people
aren't =using= it.
>> with followups set correctly. Even though I e-mailed them, which doesn't
>> support Newsgroups and Followups-To lines in the headers (I included that
>> info for him in the body).
>
>And a great big thank you to Jeremy for doing all that work. He
>doesn't anymore. If someone wants to, he's welcome.
The only reason I didn't volunteer to do so myself when Jeremy announced
his impending resignation is the technical hurdle: I don't have access to
a system that could run the robomoderator. (I'm trying to figure out how
to get a dedicated net connection to my home, which would allow me to run
my own Linux box and solve this problem in the process, but that's gonna
take some creative budgeting.)
>> work." It was obvious that he cared about making r.a.c.reviews work as
>> well as practical; frankly, I don't get that impression from you. You
>> seem to want to get by with the least possible effort, addressing problems
>> only if you get overwhelmed by more complaints than you can easily brush
>> off.
>You're absolutely right.
Thanks for admitting it.
>Oh, and let me just note: The demand for whitelisting (which seems
>rather widespread) and the demand for manual editing (which seems
>quite localized) are contradictory.
No, they're not. A reasonable moderator would only "whitelist" those
contributors who've been told the rules and demonstrated that they'll
follow them. Those rules include: only posting real reviews, labeling
their messages correctly, crossposting appropriately, and including a
valid Followups-To line. Anybody else would have their messages screened
manually, and either rejected or (preferably) fixed, with a polite,
helpful explanation of what the problem was.
I think you'd find that by investing a little more of your time at the
front end, you'd end up spending less time down the line. And maybe even
those trivial, unimportant, who-cares-about-them accidental replies to
r.a.c.reviews would diminish from a couple a week to =none=.
Peter B. Juul
> Perhaps. Are you willing to admit you're being just a tad apathetic about
> it?
Of course. I've been saying that all the time: I want this to take as
little time of mine as possible.
> Having a message I thought I could trust to be spooled to the public
> newsfeed instead bounced back to me with a rude explanation that blames me
> for it, sure felt like I'd been screwed (albeit gently).
BTW: Those messages are exact copies of those I received from Jeremy
when I took over. Only the name and the URL has been changed.
> Then there was
> your reply to my response, which was downright cold and indifferent to me.
you sent me a mail that said, that if there was no FUT-header, then
the moderator should insert one. I replied that I would not do that
extra checking and editing, when the number of "mislaid replies" was
no higher than it was. And is.
I think it was quite a neutral reply. And I still think a poster
should always double-check where he is posting.
> >Sure. And if we disbanded the rac-hierarchy and let everyone post in
> >rec.arts.comics just like long ago, we would have no problems with
> >crossposts or people posting to dcu, when they should post to dcv.
> I was being sarcastic, Peter.
so was I, Todd.
--
Peter B. Juul, o.-.o "A number of religions in Ankh-Morpork still
The RockBear. ((^)) practiced human sacrifice, except that they
I speak only 0}._.{0 didn't really need to practice any more because
for myself. O/ \O they had got so good at it."
Kate the Short --- Spamblocked!
que...@aol.com (Quinn Biminy) sat on the sofa and said:
>>o rec.arts.comics.misc: anything that doesn't go in another *comics*
>> group, goes here. Image, Wildstorm, Valiant, Disney, Acclaim, Topps,
>> Milestone, Bongo, Fawcett, Archie, what have you. Also, stuff about
>> creators and the industry goes here.
>
>So howcome PJ Gladnick is allowed to discuss POLITICS here and hype his
>POLITICALLY-oriented non-paper-printed WEB cartoon strip ad naseum? Does he
>even get a "please don't do that" from the moderator?
Note that a moderator isn't listed for most of the newsgroups in the
rac.* hierarchy. In fact, the only moderated ones are rac.info,
rac.reviews, and rac.creative.
>I really wouldn't object, but PJ suppliments the above with CONSTANT criticism
>of the REAL comics medium, that most of us here know and love. I have found it
>really damn annoying. There oughta be a law.
In that case, killfile anything posted by him, and killfile any threads
about him or his works or his views. It's that simple. With my
newsreader, I see headers first, and it's *really* obvious which ones
he's involved in.
Other than that, email his ISP.
>>o rec.arts.comics.reviews: Reviews of anything that's appropriate for
>> discussion in any other group in the hierarchy. Moderated by Peter
>> B. Juul. You can send posts directly to him at
>> racr-...@enzym.rnd.uni-c.dk
>
>Seems to me this is now an almost-dead ng.
In which case, why not start posting your own reviews?
kate.
| Kate the Short - Patron Saint - http://www.enteract.com/~katew/ |
| Help for new users of news: http://www.enteract.com/~katew/nnq/ |
| rg.frp.dnd FAQ: http://www.enteract.com/~aardy/faq/rgfdfaq.html |
| xbooks FAQ: http://www.enteract.com/~katew/faqs/ - ICQ# 8375030 |
_____________________________________________________________________
All that's left for me now is to figure out a way into Tom Galloway's
rotating sigfile of doom, assuming there's any room left in there after
Tom's excerpted every Dave Barry piece known to man. -- David Henry
Kate the Short --- Spamblocked!
"Lisa Webster" <tsw...@mindspring.com> sat on the sofa and said:
>But was rejected. This is a different post entirely than the HYPE post which
>I sent to racm. It's not an ad... IMO. I figured this would be a valuable
>thing for rac.reviews since there's such a range of material evidenced...
>and no way can I paste all those reviews into one big message :)
IMHO, it's a bad thing to post to rac.* reviews. If I'm reading
rac.reviews, I want to see the reviews! I don't want to have to fire up
my copy of Netscape and wait for a page elsewhere to load-- I want the
text right in front of me.
The policy of the former moderator, who also moderated rac.info, was
that ads for web pages would be rejected in toto. Even Aardy's ad for
the Comic Book Awards Almanac was rejected, because it was a *pointer*
to content, and not actual *content* itself.
See what I mean?
I would like to get back into reviewing, but I don't have the time.
Between teaching, and a night class, etc, I'm swamped and stressed.
It's to the point where Aardy (who used to be 3 months behind in
reading), has now passed me, and now I'm reading books a week late!
But I do appreciate the reviews others have on the board, and wish that
more were here on Usenet and not only on the web...
kate.
who just added Todd VerBeek's "How to Make RAC work for you" and Andrew
Black's "Guide to posting on rac.*" to her rac-faq website.
| Kate the Short - Patron Saint - http://www.enteract.com/~katew/ |
| Help for new users of news: http://www.enteract.com/~katew/nnq/ |
| rg.frp.dnd FAQ: http://www.enteract.com/~aardy/faq/rgfdfaq.html |
| xbooks FAQ: http://www.enteract.com/~katew/faqs/ - ICQ# 8375030 |
_____________________________________________________________________
Happiness is loving what you do and getting someone else to pay
you to do it. -- Unknown
Andrew Black
<g...@nuc.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>Andrew Black wrote:
>>
>> o rec.arts.comics.strips: Post something here if it deals with
>> short-form comic strips or panels of the sort found in newspapers
>> (editorial or funny pages) or other periodicals. Web comics of this
>> type are also on-topic.
>
>Hey, whadyaknow? We've been updated! And here I thought no one was
>listening...
As I only rarely visit r.a.c.strips I wasn't aware of the need for an
update until it was kindly pointed out to me by Mark Jackson.
I'm happy to explore any suggestions I'm given, and (provided they
seem to make sense to me) incorporate them into the FAQ.
Cheers,
Andrew
(FAQkeeper hat on)
--