Complain against Robert Jung
Robotech_Master
In article <336C2C...@ualr.edu>, Warpticon <cmp...@ualr.edu> wrote:
> Robotech_Master wrote:
>> Come _on_, folks, use the newsgroup that was created for what it was
>> created for. There's been plenty of time since the thing was created
>> for it to propagate and to be requested by people. There are systems
>> in place for people who don't have it to receive it or read it with
>> only a _little_ extra effort. There's no reason to be snippy for the
>> sake of a handful of people who can't be bothered to go to the
>> trouble.
>
> Congratulations, sir, you've just wone the I-completely-missed-the-point
> Award!
>
> What was the point, you say?
>
> I have ATTM. big whoop.
>
> The point is that there are people who don't have it, and we should not
> neglect those people.
And you completely missed _my_ point. Did you actually _read_ any of
my article except the last paragraph?
Anyone who doesn't have Marketplace who wants to read _or_ post to it
can easily do so via deja-news. I even posted the URL.
> The point is that it makes very little sense to post wants to a
> sales group, particularly when a) you're dealing with accessories or
> smallish items and b) there's a group that has a more receptive and
> logical audience, such at att is.
But wasn't that precisely what this sales group was created for?
> The point is that a single person posted an admittedly arbitrary date
> for a transition at which all sales-related posts would be limited,
> without the consent or desire of the masses verified.
Can you prove this? Not to say you're wrong, but...
> The point is that threats of "disciplinary action" have apparently
> surfaced in reference to people's unwillingness to submit to such
> arbitrary demands.
"Threats of 'disciplinary action'"? Hmm. I can see that I'm going to
need to do some more Deja-News surfing.
> The point is, this is not what a good number of us consider
> acceptable.
Personally, I consider making serious personal accusations against
someone on the basis of something so trivial as an alt. newsgroup
split rather less than acceptable. From what I've seen of Robert
Jung, both on this newsgroup and in person, he hardly seems like the
type to act so arbitrarily (not to mention rudely) as you describe.
I'm really not trying (and trying not) to be offensive here, but I'd
really like to see some proof of this, or, better yet, an end to
personal smears on both sides.
--
Chris Meadows aka | Author, Team M.E.C.H.A., Crapshoot & Co.
Robotech_Master | on the Superguy Listserv (bit.listserv.superguy)
robo...@jurai.net | With a World Wide Web homepage located at
robo...@eyrie.org | http://www.jurai.net/~robotech/index.html
Jacob Hurtado
jeru...@amp.com wrote:
>
> My complaint is that Robert Jung is now threatening me because of this.
> He want to tell my Sysop that I am violating the ATT charter. Sorry, but
> I never saw a vote on this transition date, and will not accept it. You,
> Robert, are not the owner of this newsgroup, and you have no right to
> make the rules.
>
> John Runski
Yes, where is the charter anyway? Is it available for public
inspection? Was this "charter" created when the group was or did
someone just make it up later to suit _their_ needs and not that of the
group?
Robotech_Master
What's the problem here? alt.toys.transformers.marketplace is an alt
group, just the same as a.t.tf is. Hence, if a site carries a.t.tf,
they must be willing to get alt groups. So, why not have the people
WRITE THEIR SYSADMINS and _request_ a.t.tf.m? Have they ever
considered that?
And even if their sysadmins don't want to get it for them, Deja News
carries it, and they've got a pretty good newsfeed, too. The URL to
read it is:
http://search.dejanews.com/rn.xp?newsgroups=alt.toys.transformers.marketplace
I just checked the last 3 days' worth of traffic on it and found 62
messages.
Come _on_, folks, use the newsgroup that was created for what it was
created for. There's been plenty of time since the thing was created
for it to propagate and to be requested by people. There are systems
in place for people who don't have it to receive it or read it with
only a _little_ extra effort. There's no reason to be snippy for the
sake of a handful of people who can't be bothered to go to the
trouble.
Lewis M. Brooks, III
In article <336A44...@amp.com>, jeru...@amp.com writes:
> I wish to take issue with Robert Jung's arbitrarily chosen May 1 ATTM
> deadline. Since we all are still seeing posts from people who so not yet
> receive ATTM, it is unacceptable to demand that I stop posting
> market-related posts to ATT. Just because I can get it does not mean
> that my potential customers can, too. I will not overlook such potential
> customers because of an arbitrarily chosen deadline.
>
> Thus I have, and will continue to cross-post my business until I am
> convinced everyone can have access to ATTM. However, I understand the
> reasoning and WILL cut down on the postings: once a week updates rather
> than daily. But I WON'T overlook those people who cannot get ATTM. It is
> not fair to either me or them.
>
> My complaint is that Robert Jung is now threatening me because of this.
> He want to tell my Sysop that I am violating the ATT charter. Sorry, but
> I never saw a vote on this transition date, and will not accept it. You,
> Robert, are not the owner of this newsgroup, and you have no right to
> make the rules.
>
> John Runski
Three cheers for John!!!!!!!
Iagree one hundred percent. Unfortunately, I agreed to use ATTM when AOL got
it, So I'm stuck, but everyone else should follow John's example.
Live Long and Prosper
Lewis
********************************************************************************
* Lewis M. Brooks, III - Fan and collector of Star Trek, Transformers, Star *
* Wars, Marvel Super Heroes, Aliens, Predator, Star Blazers, and other Sci-Fi. *
********************************************************************************
* brook...@bentley.edu * "Freedom is the right of all *
* users.aol.com/autobot999/tf/tf.htm * sentient beings." --Optimus Prime *
* G+++FRFWM+500+D+++AA++N+++W++B+++OQ++ ****************************************
* Transformers Fan Purity Test score: 434 - I AM OPTIMUS PRIME!!! *
********************************************************************************
* "Ours is not to reason why, but to blow this joint before we die." *
* --Rattrap, Beast Wars: Other Voices Part I *
********************************************************************************
* "...But one day an Autobot shall rise from our ranks, and use the power of *
* the Matrix to light our darkest hour. Until that day, till all are one." *
* --Optimus Prime, Transformers: The Movie *
********************************************************************************
* "Ship. Out of danger? Don't grieve Admiral. It is logical. The needs of *
* the many, outweigh, [the needs of the few,] or the one. I never took the *
* Kobayashi Maru test, until now. What do you think of my solution? I have *
* been, and always shall be your friend. Live long and prosper." *
* --Captain Spock , Star Trek II: The Wrath Of Khan *
********************************************************************************
* "We are assembled here today, to pay final respects to our honored dead. *
* And yet it should be noted that in the midst of our sorrow this death takes *
* place in the shadow of new life. The sunrise of a new world. A world that *
* our beloved comrade gave his life to protect and nourish. He did not feel *
* this sacrifice a vain or empty one, and we will not debate his profound *
* wisdom at these proceedings. Of my friend I can only say this. Of all the *
* souls I have encountered in my travels, his was the most.......human." *
* --Admiral James T. Kirk, Star Trek II: The Wrath Of Kahn *
********************************************************************************
* "Never. I'll never turn to the dark side. You've failed your highness. I *
* am a Jedi, like my father before me." --Luke Skywalker, Star Wars: ROTJ *
********************************************************************************
Waspinator
In article <336A44...@amp.com>, jeru...@amp.com wrote:
>My complaint is that Robert Jung is now threatening me because of this.
>He want to tell my Sysop that I am violating the ATT charter. Sorry, but
>I never saw a vote on this transition date, and will not accept it. You,
>Robert, are not the owner of this newsgroup, and you have no right to
>make the rules.
I agree. 100%. Forgetting for the moment the fact that I lost all respect I
might have had for RJ when I heard how he was verbally bashing others'
projects at one of the BotCon art contests in order to make his repaints or
somesuch look better...
Am I wrong, or was it brought out back when the whole ATTM mess began that ATT
didn't even have a charter? Even if it does, I know I haven't seen any posts
since then regarding its amendment to include ATTM and forbid sales/auctions
on ATT. If it was amended, by what committee, and on what date? Where can we
go to read this charter? And for that matter, what committee wrote ATTM's
charter? And why didn't the general populas of ATT have any say in it?
The ATTM transition date of May 1, as far as I can tell, was chosen
arbitrarily by RJ alone (well, perhaps with some of his sycophants). As with
any other discussion on here, I see no reason to abide by the decision that
one person has made. In fact, I haven't seen RJ (or most others on here,
including myself, just to clarify) say anything that would give him any more
credibility than somebody who posted a "Beast Wars sucks rocks" message. RJ
is just more persistent. But in my mind, persistent nonsense is still
nonsense.
To agree with a net friend of mine who has been threatened by RJ for posting
an occasional "wanted" message, the idea of "wanted" posts being restricted to
ATTM is absurd. People read ATTM because they want to buy something, and post
because they want to sell something. Just how many people read ATTM with the
mindset, "I've got an extra doomaflitchy for whatshishame and I'll check to
see if anybody posted something about wanting that part"? It's much more
likely that somebody with the extra part will stumble upon the post while
reading ATT.
I was against the creation of ATTM to begin with. But, now that it's here, I
can see it being used as a one-stop shopping place for somebody who's just
looking for a certain thing to buy, not wanting to read general discussion
posts. For that purpose, I think it's fine. But I still see ATT as being a
place for posts about all things related to Transformers. That includes
sales, auctions, etc. They have every bit as much right to be in there as any
other topic.
It seems that RJ is giving himself way too much credit. I don't know why, but
he seems to think that everybody should do his bidding, just because he says
so. I, for one, don't buy it.
ADY
====================================================================
EFFNet IRC: MousePad #MSU || DALNet IRC: Waspinator #Transformers
--------------------------------------------------------------------
In search of a new quote...
====================================================================
L.M.P.
robo...@eyrie.org (Robotech_Master) wrote:
>Anyone who doesn't have Marketplace who wants to read _or_ post to it
>can easily do so via deja-news. I even posted the URL.
However, Deja-news can be anywhere from several hours to almost a day
behind in its updates, and since many of the sales posts are for a
"first come, first serve" product, using Deja-news to find out about
this type of sale is worse than useless in that it simply tells you
about the really great deal you -just- missed out on.
This can be -extremely- frustrating.
>> The point is that a single person posted an admittedly arbitrary date
>> for a transition at which all sales-related posts would be limited,
>> without the consent or desire of the masses verified.
>Can you prove this? Not to say you're wrong, but...
I know that -I- wasn't consulted, nor did I see any posts to this
newsgroup regarding any such decsion being made or decsion-making
commitee being formed (and I have been lurking here for several weeks
now).
>> The point is that threats of "disciplinary action" have apparently
>> surfaced in reference to people's unwillingness to submit to such
>> arbitrary demands.
>"Threats of 'disciplinary action'"? Hmm. I can see that I'm going to
>need to do some more Deja-News surfing.
Several folks have said these "disiplinary action" messages have been
sent to individuals from Jung via private email, if these have been
sent this way, it is unlikely you will find any of them on Deja-news.
I now have access to ATTM so for me this is a dead issue, however as
recently as a the second week of April, I did not have access to the
newsgroup and I found Deja-news to be a -very- poor substitute for a
server with immediate access. As such I can agree that until all of
the folks who are intrested in buying and selling transformers have
access to ATTM, it is unreasonable to expect these people to not post
here.
L.M.P.
Robotech_Master
(Sorry for the bandwidth here...)
In article <5kgfkd$46h$1...@NNTP.MsState.Edu>,
Waspinator <ad...@ra.msstate.edu> wrote:
> Am I wrong, or was it brought out back when the whole ATTM mess
> began that ATT didn't even have a charter?
Right from the ftp.isc.com archives, here's the original control
message to create alt.toys.transformers, which includes the closest
thing alt.toys.transformers _has_ to a charter, although it doesn't
come right out and _say_ "Charter:" as such. (Subsequent booster
newgroup msgs snipped.)
# From bcan...@nyx.cs.du.edu Sat Sep 11 22:15:07 1993
# Control: newgroup alt.toys.transformers
# Newsgroups: alt.config,alt.toys.transformers
# Path: uunet!mnemosyne.cs.du.edu!nyx!bcantric
# From: bcan...@nyx.cs.du.edu (Macky Stingray)
# Subject: New newsgroup: alt.toys.transformers
# Message-ID: <1993Sep12....@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>
# Sender: use...@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu (netnews admin account)
# Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
# Date: Sun, 12 Sep 93 02:03:24 GMT
# Approved: cant...@ucsu.colorado.edu
# Lines: 16
# Xref: uunet control:715903
#
# The Transformers mailing list is getting huge and hard to manage. So,
# after some thought about what to name the newly created newsgroup, the
# name ALT.TOYS.TRANSFORMERS was settled upon and is now being created.
#
# This group will cover the Transformers toys, the Transformers comic
# books, and even the Transformers animated television series. It will fit
# best in the alt.toys heirarchy, however, because all of the above are
# about the toys named "Transformers."
#
# our newsgroups files:
#
# alt.toys.transformers For the discussion of the Transformers
# toys and related materials.
#
# -Ben
For "compare and contrast" purposes, here is the newgroup message for
alt.toys.transformers.marketplace, which _does_ have a Charter
specified.
# From rj...@netcom.com Fri Dec 20 12:03:13 1996
# Control: newgroup alt.toys.transformers.marketplace
# Newsgroups: alt.toys.transformers,alt.config
# Path: uunet!in1.uu.net!205.252.116.190!feed1.news.erols.com!howland.erols.net!netcom.com!rjung
# From: rj...@netcom.com (Robert A. Jung)
# Subject: cmsg newgroup alt.toys.transformers.marketplace
# Message-ID: <rjungE2...@netcom.com>
# Followup-To: alt.toys.transformers
# Organization: Southern California Lynx Enthusiasts
# Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1996 16:41:41 GMT
# Approved: rj...@netcom.com
# Lines: 106
# Sender: rj...@netcom2.netcom.com
# Xref: uunet control.newgroup:20062
#
# This message is a newgroup control message for the creation of
# alt.toys.transformers.marketplace. The group was first proposed in alt.config
# around 12/5/1996, and a discussion of the proposal has garnered sizable
# support from the readers of alt.toys.transformers
#
# This newgroup message was written by Robert A. Jung (rj...@netcom.com), with
# assistance and support from Joshua Kramer (jkra...@swarthmore.edu). Please
# send comments or questions to rj...@netcom.com.
#
# Newgroup information follows--
#
#
# For your newsgroups file:
# alt.toys.transformers.marketplace Buy/sell/trade/ads for Transformers toys
#
#
# Charter:
# ========
# alt.toys.transformers.marketplace is for the advertisement and discussion of
# auctions, sales, want-ads, trades, and other exchanges regarding toys and
# merchandise pertaining to Hasbro/Kenner/Takara's line of TRANSFORMERS-related
# toys (Transformers, Beast Wars, Machine Wars, etc.).
#
#
# Demonstration of interest:
# ==========================
# Currently, there is one single group for the discussion of matters related
# to Hasbro/Kenner/Takara's TRANSFORMERS toy line (and related mythologies),
# alt.toys.transformers. It is the opinion of many participants and readers of
# the group that the level of articles related to sales and trades is reaching
# peak levels, where they comprise as much as 35% of the posts in the group.
# Some of these messages can be quite long (over 200 lines), and the propagation
# of "sales update" messages merely compound the problem. This is especially
# difficult for users of batch newsreaders and users with time limits.
#
# To make the discussions in the main group more managable, then, it is
# proposed that an alt.toys.transformers.marketplace group be created, to
# separate the trade-related articles from the others. This will allow people
# who do not wish to read about trades to omit them easily, and will also help
# alleviate the bandwidth situation. If alt.toys.transformers.marketplace
# reaches the same propagation depth as the parent group,
# alt.toys.transformers, then it should enable those people who do want to read
# and participate in sales/trades to continue to do so, without any disrpution.
#
# A list of supporters (as of 12/19/96) follows:
# 1. Robert A. Jung (rj...@netcom.com)
# 2. Norman G. Sippel (ngsi...@infinet.com)
# 3. Neale Davidson (nea...@erols.com)
# 4. Jessica Bamford (red...@mindspring.com)
# 5. Darren Murphy (dn...@freenet.carleton.ca)
# 6. Ben Howard/Drogn (merr...@sover.net)
# 7. Flashback {tif...@uit.net or Str...@juno.com}
# 8. Joel Kuester (sir-...@execpc.com)
# 9. Cable (jhu...@norfolk.infi.net)
# 10. Misha Chitharanjan (inv...@ibm.net)
# 11. Richard Batson/Devastator (aqui...@epix.net)
# 12. Patricia Wright/Vulcana <pawr...@mycle.resnet.ubc.ca>
# 13. Burt Ward (Bea...@cris.com)
# 14. Phil Poole (po...@ncifcrf.gov)
# 15. Andrew Crane (Spi...@aol.com)
# 16. Optimus^1 (no e-mail)
# 17. Ryan Ottley (ad...@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca)
# 18. Kyle Williamson (qu...@tiac.net)
# 19. Diana Calder <dca...@MNSi.Net>
# 20. Ivy Bonnlein (bohn...@acmelabs.uhc.asu.edu)
# 21. Robert Edward Powers (repo...@artsci.wustl.edu)
# 22. Quang Lai <qv...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca>
# 23. C.J. Stankiewicz (cjs6...@pegasus.cc.ucf.edu)
# 24. RatTrap (rat...@nebula.ispace.com)
# 25. drb...@aol.com
# 26. Astracius (u01...@abdn.ac.uk)
# 27. Sanjay Rana (ran...@wharton.upenn.edu)
# 28. Jon Hartman (jhar...@noblecan.org)
# 29. Sean Shannon (Asha...@aol.com)
# 30. Agent 43 (age...@macatawa.org)
# 31. Daniel J Stevans (dste...@csugrad.cs.vt.edu)
# 32. py...@aol.com
# 33. Sean Holshu (sp...@cannet.com)
# 34. Steve R. Stonebraker (bc...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA)
# 35. Suzanne Ferree (sfe...@s-cwis.unomaha.edu)
# 36. Dave Dash (cycl...@ftmax.com)
# 37. Peter Rofner (pro...@mulberry.com)
# 38. HooksX (hoo...@aol.com)
# 39. Iggy Drougge (opt...@canit.se)
# 40. Penny/megatron (mega...@ma.ultranet.com)
# 41. Anthony Evans (Anthon...@cdc.com)
# 42. Chris Wolfe(chris...@nt.com)
# 43. Ben Yee (ye...@is2.nyu.edu)
# 44. Dave Edwards (Zobov...@aol.com)
# 45. Raksha (jk...@postbox.acs.ohio-state.edu)
# 46. Anton Max (mad...@CMU.EDU)
# 47. Gary Williams (gray...@pcpros.net)
# 48. D.T./Napalm Rabbit (dtng...@force.stwing.upenn.edu)
# 49. Erin Sperry/evilerin (er...@bitstream.net)
# 50. Kurfter (rsc...@worldnet.att.net)
# 51. SilverWolf (ne...@netzone.com)
# 52. Joshua Benson (jbe...@aol.com)
# 53. Saudade (pho...@caribe.net)
#
# --R.J.
# B-)
#
# ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
# "I write because I am personally amused by what I do, and if other people are
# amused by it, then it's fine. If they're not, then that's also fine."
# Send mail to rj...@netcom.com --Frank Zappa
So, as you can see, there are the original charters for both groups.
> Even if it does, I know I haven't seen any posts since then
> regarding its amendment to include ATTM and forbid sales/auctions on
> ATT. If it was amended, by what committee, and on what date?
Well, first of all, when alt.toys.transformers was created, there was
literally no place to discuss Transformers at all on Usenet. No
discussion meant no posts. No posts meant no buy/sell/want posts.
There was, at the time, no reason _to_ forbid sales stuff on
alt.toys.transformers, because they quite simply didn't know they'd
need to.
However, since then, more and more people have started posting
buy/sell/want posts to a.t.tf, and it got to where some people felt
swamped by all the traffic. Hence, a.t.tf.marketplace. You'll note
from the newgroup post for marketplace that it _was_ intended that
buy/sell/want posts be made there instead of alt.toys.transformers.
Oh, and one more thing. As I've learned from my current reading of
news.groups (and I will admit, I could be in error here, as I haven't
been there as long as some people, but I _think_ I'm right), there is
no way to change charters after group creation. In fact, the charter
is fairly unimportant anyway. Save for in moderated groups, the
charter is largely unenforceable. It might be helpful to newbie
readers, except that more often than not, new users won't be able to
_find_ the thing. (_I_ only found them by asking a news.groupie where
to look.)
What's more important is the group FAQ, which _can_ be amended, and is
usually posted regularly enough to be seen by newbies. And the latest
revision of the FAQ, v4.1, predates the creation of Marketplace and
rather needs to be amended.
> Where can we go to read this charter? And for that matter, what
> committee wrote ATTM's charter? And why didn't the general populas
> of ATT have any say in it?
I couldn't tell you who wrote the charter...however, I don't have the
time to go into Deja News to check on this, but I seem to recall
seeing discussion about it on a.t.tf at the time, and there _were_
thirty-three names signed to that newgroup for it. That must be at
least a pretty good fraction of the regular readership.
<personal attacks on Robert Jung snipped>
I will admit, I can see your point of view regarding "Wanted:"
messages. However, I think that I would rather post a "Wanted:"
message on the Marketplace group anyway, because that way, it would
reach the people who are more likely to have the thing I'm looking
for. I mean, dealers as well as sellers will read the group, to look
for follow-ups to their sales posts if nothing else. And it's
possible that one of those dealers might have one of the wanted item
for sale, or that they might be willing to part with.
Anyway, it's your choice, as a.t.tf isn't moderated and likely never
will be. But I would personally prefer marketplace posts to go into
marketplace, as, I'm sure, would at least _some_ other people. They
couldn't have gotten the thing _signed_ by that many if there hadn't
been some other support.
If nothing else, .marketplace means you can be sure that your sales
posts won't get lost among other peoples' discussion threads. :)
Ivy Bohnlein
This is exactly the kind of hostility we don't need. Someone posts
an accusation, and a bunch of others jump on the bandwagon with
some other poorly substantiated claims about bashing other people's
art projects or some such.
Robert created the newsgroup with a lot of support, and so far most
of the objections (nobody will carry it, etc) have turned out not
to be problems. Very few servers have actually refused requests to
carry the group. If it doesn't have as many subscribers, it's because
there are simply quite a lot of people on a.t.tf who don't want to
deal with auction posts. It's as simple as that - and by using
a.t.t.m, you're showing them the respect and common decency to keep
auction posts where they belong.
Yes, I can understand that a very small minority of people aren't
able to get access to a.t.t.m even when they ask. So far, it seems
to be 3 people. And yes, I can fully identify with the frustration
of those without web access. :) So if you want to run an auction
and can't get access to a.t.t.m, and you have tried to do so, go
ahead and hold it here - label it well and post updates as followups
to the same thread, so we can killfile the whole thread if we don't
want to have to fish through it.
Personally, I think the compromise of daily updates to a.t.t.m and
weekly ones here is a decent one, though I have another suggestion.
Post an initial announcement here on a.t.t. Tell what you have
for sale, and give your email address. Those who don't read the
marketplace group will be able to get in on updates via email, and
those who do will know which post on a.t.t.m to look for. Sound
like a deal? Everyone can have a chance to get in on it, and it
still cuts down on bandwidth, because the updates are going to the
marketplace group.
We CAN all get along without hurling accusations at the target of
the day. It's called compromise and mutual respect. Let's give
it a try, okay?
Ivy -- who is one person who appreciates what Rob is trying to do.
--
===================== bohn...@acmelabs.uhc.asu.edu =====================
"If you want beautiful, pitiful, have me in a picture
and if you want, make me dance, throw me round, spin upon your finger
blind belabors the blind, and I am unwilling to uncover my eyes"
The Verve Pipe - "Photograph"
=========================================================================
Warpticon
Robotech_Master wrote:
>
> In article <336C2C...@ualr.edu>, Warpticon <cmp...@ualr.edu> wrote:
> > Robotech_Master wrote:
>
> >> created for. There's been plenty of time since the thing was created
> >> for it to propagate and to be requested by people. There are systems
> >> in place for people who don't have it to receive it or read it with
> >> only a _little_ extra effort. There's no reason to be snippy for the
> >> sake of a handful of people who can't be bothered to go to the
> >> trouble.
> >
> > Award!
> >
> > What was the point, you say?
> >
> > I have ATTM. big whoop.
> >
> > The point is that there are people who don't have it, and we should not
> > neglect those people.
>
> And you completely missed _my_ point. Did you actually _read_ any of
> my article except the last paragraph?
>
> can easily do so via deja-news. I even posted the URL.
Yes, I know. That's rather beside my point. I dislike reading groups
from Deja because it's a) very inconsisent and b) rather slow. I agree
that this option is available, and it's nice to have, but it's not
exactly reliable. I was forced to use Deja for over a month, and I got
a) no posts for as long as 5 days; b) scattered and poorly arranged
articles, and c) lots and lots of repeated articles, which slowed my
reading. the inconvenience was such that after a few weeks, I quit
reading groups altogether until my ISP got fixed.
>
> > The point is that it makes very little sense to post wants to a
> > sales group, particularly when a) you're dealing with accessories or
> > smallish items and b) there's a group that has a more receptive and
> > logical audience, such at att is.
>
> But wasn't that precisely what this sales group was created for?
I thought the group was for the posting of sales material so that it
wouldn't all be there. as I've said, I have a problem with attm in
general in that there's too much grey area, and no real effort, to my
knowledge, has been made to procure the opinions of the masses in
general; it was just ignored, passively whined about.
>
> > The point is that a single person posted an admittedly arbitrary date
> > for a transition at which all sales-related posts would be limited,
> > without the consent or desire of the masses verified.
>
> Can you prove this? Not to say you're wrong, but...
>
Um, yes, I can prove it. reread my statement again. one person (Robert
Jung) posted an admittedly arbitrary date for a transition at which all
sales-related posts would be limited (he posted it every day, you can't
miss it; go back and check without the concent or desire of the masses
*verified*. I saw no reference in the post that "hey, everybody thinks
we should cut att off from sales posts on this day." I know *I* never
voted, and nobody I've spoken to has, either. Maybe there was a vote;
there was no verification of it or it's results, if there was one.
> > The point is that threats of "disciplinary action" have apparently
> > surfaced in reference to people's unwillingness to submit to such
> > arbitrary demands.
>
> "Threats of 'disciplinary action'"? Hmm. I can see that I'm going to
> need to do some more Deja-News surfing.
don't bother. Note my use of the word "apparently" here. I'm referring
specifically to the initial post in this thread (which, incidentally, I
find misnamed, but oh, well) in which J. Runski said that Robert was
threatening to have him disciplined somehow (I don't recall exactly how)
for breaking the ATT charter, or sometihng to that effect. this is what
I'm referring to.
>
> > The point is, this is not what a good number of us consider
> > acceptable.
>
> Personally, I consider making serious personal accusations against
> someone on the basis of something so trivial as an alt. newsgroup
> split rather less than acceptable.
I do too. That's why I didn't do it.
From what I've seen of Robert
> Jung, both on this newsgroup and in person, he hardly seems like the
> type to act so arbitrarily (not to mention rudely) as you describe.
> I'm really not trying (and trying not) to be offensive here, but I'd
> really like to see some proof of this, or, better yet, an end to
> personal smears on both sides.
see above. I'm not making any personal attacks. my post was just to
point out the most significant points, which you seem to have neglected
in your post. I tend to think you may have confused some comments made
by others with mine.
Warpticon, feeling like he's repeating himself :)
Song Currently Stuck in Head (SCSiH): the Tick theme song
Waspinator
>This is exactly the kind of hostility we don't need. Someone posts
>an accusation, and a bunch of others jump on the bandwagon with
>some other poorly substantiated claims about bashing other people's
>art projects or some such.
See previous apology.
>Personally, I think the compromise of daily updates to a.t.t.m and
>weekly ones here is a decent one, though I have another suggestion.
>
>Post an initial announcement here on a.t.t. Tell what you have
>for sale, and give your email address. Those who don't read the
>marketplace group will be able to get in on updates via email, and
>those who do will know which post on a.t.t.m to look for. Sound
>like a deal? Everyone can have a chance to get in on it, and it
>still cuts down on bandwidth, because the updates are going to the
>marketplace group.
Either compromise sounds great.
>Ivy -- who is one person who appreciates what Rob is trying to do.
I can appreciate trying to reduce sales traffic on ATT. It's the methods that
bother me. All I ask is that RJ back off a bit. No need to e-mail every
person who posts a sale/auction to ATT every time they do it. Cut it down to
a brief explanation of ATTM's purpose and a request that such posts be put
there whenever possible, on the poster's first "offense." That would achieve
the same purpose, save a lot of resentment against RJ, and save RJ a lot of
work. That sounds reasonable, doesn't it?
And, I'll admit that my first post in this thread was done when I was rather
angry, and some of the things I said were out of line. I sincerely apologize
for that.
ADY, who wonders what these little bug are that are flying around here
suddenly..
Waspinator
>However, since then, more and more people have started posting
>buy/sell/want posts to a.t.tf, and it got to where some people felt
>swamped by all the traffic. Hence, a.t.tf.marketplace. You'll note
>from the newgroup post for marketplace that it _was_ intended that
>buy/sell/want posts be made there instead of alt.toys.transformers.
Logically, the charter of one newsgroup has no bearing on another, despite any
parent-child relationship. Besides, the ATTM charter didn't say anything
about forbidding auction/sales on ATT. My reading of it is, it's a place for
auctions/sales/etc. That doesn't say ATT is *not*.
>I couldn't tell you who wrote the charter...however, I don't have the
>time to go into Deja News to check on this, but I seem to recall
>seeing discussion about it on a.t.tf at the time, and there _were_
>thirty-three names signed to that newgroup for it. That must be at
>least a pretty good fraction of the regular readership.
I went to Deja News and looked it up, it was posted by RJ, and the names were
listed as support for the new group. No indication that it was written by any
other than RJ, or that those whose names were listed had any say in what the
charter said.
>If nothing else, .marketplace means you can be sure that your sales
>posts won't get lost among other peoples' discussion threads. :)
That I agree with.
I'm not attacking the existence of ATTM. It's here, fine. What I object to
is a small group or individual -- any one -- trying to boss the rest of us
around without having been given any authority to do so.
Now, here's the meat of it. J Runski said in his original post that RJ was
threatening to contact his ISP for breaking ATT's charter. ATT has no
charter. So, assuming Runski wasn't mistaken in his choice of words, RJ is
making empty threats. I cannot respect that.
ADY
Robert A. Jung
In article <336A44...@amp.com> jeru...@amp.com writes:
>I wish to take issue with Robert Jung's arbitrarily chosen May 1 ATTM
>deadline.
By Usenet procedures, NO "transition date" was needed at all -- it would
have been perfectly acceptable to say "remove all sales messages from ATT" one
day after the new group was created. The fact that several months was taken
to propagate the group and help folks adjust was a luxury.
>Since we all are still seeing posts from people who so not yet
>receive ATTM, it is unacceptable to demand that I stop posting
>market-related posts to ATT.
It is against the charter of this group.
>Thus I have, and will continue to cross-post my business until I am
>convinced everyone can have access to ATTM. However, I understand the
>reasoning and WILL cut down on the postings: once a week updates rather
>than daily. But I WON'T overlook those people who cannot get ATTM. It is
>not fair to either me or them.
It's nice of you to help reduce the bandwidth, but again, the bottom line is
that you're going against the group's charter.
>My complaint is that Robert Jung is now threatening me because of this.
>He want to tell my Sysop that I am violating the ATT charter.
Well, you are.
>Sorry, but
>I never saw a vote on this transition date, and will not accept it.
See the first paragraph.
>You,
>Robert, are not the owner of this newsgroup, and you have no right to
>make the rules.
The readers of this group make the rules. They voted for the .marketplace
group, remember? I'm just the one standing up for the rules.
--R.J.
B-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I write because I am personally amused by what I do, and if other people are
amused by it, then it's fine. If they're not, then that's also fine."
Send mail to rj...@netcom.com --Frank Zappa
------- Visit Rob on the web! ------ http://www.digiserve.com/eescape/ -------
Robert A. Jung
In article <336B82...@worldnet.att.net> Jac...@worldnet.att.net writes:
>Yes, where is the charter anyway? Is it available for public
>inspection?
It's part and parcel of the alt.toys.transformers FAQ, which Steve
Stonebreaker posts every two weeks or thereabouts.
Robert A. Jung
In article <5kg74r$3...@mtinsc04.worldnet.att.net> Don93 <Do...@postoffice.woldnet.att.net> writes:
>If one can use ATTM; then good, do so. If one can't then use ATT.
I agree completely. Problem is, John *does* have access to ATTM, and he's
deliberately crossposting anyway.
Robert A. Jung
To recap very quickly:
(1) Some folks suggested a .marketplace group.
(2) A vote was taken (okay, a petition). Lots of folks liked the idea.
(3) The .marketplace group was created.
All we need now is (4) People post sales messages in .marketplace, and the
story's over.
Unfortunately, some folks have been dragging their heels on this last part.
Usually because the protesters want maximum exposure for their sales messages,
and are afraid that posting sales stuff in a separate group won't give them
that audience. Which, IMO, is analogous to posting "Make Money Fast" messages
to every newsgroup in existence -- "I want to make sure everyone sees my ad!"
Is it that much to ask everyone to be responsible net.citizens and post
messages to the appropriate groups?
Remember that the .marketplace group was created because the readers of this
group asked for it. All I'm doing is trying to keep some sense of order into
this thing -- I'm certainly not getting paid for the job. B-)
Robert A. Jung
In article <336C1E...@amp.com> jeru...@amp.com writes:
>If people wanted a
>discussion forum, they should have made ATTD, and maybe they still
>should.
How is "create a Transformers discussion group and move all discussion
messages there" any more humane than "create a Transformers sales group and
move all sales messages there"?
Raksha
On Sat, 03 May 97 22:50:08 GMT, ad...@ra.msstate.edu (Waspinator)
wrote:
>I agree. 100%. Forgetting for the moment the fact that I lost all respect I
>might have had for RJ when I heard how he was verbally bashing others'
>projects at one of the BotCon art contests in order to make his repaints or
>somesuch look better...
Where did you get this idea? That's absolute nonsense. I spent a
good deal of my time in the BotCon '96 art room (seeing as I was in
charge of the contest) and a good deal of the rest of my time with Rob
and other net.friends, and I can guarantee you that he did no such
thing.
As for the whole Marketplace furor, this *was* voted on, quite some
time back, and the majority prevailed and wanted the existence of
ATTM. It's hardly the project of a single person, or even of a small
minority. The point behind it was to help each newsgroup reach its
target audience -- those who are most interested in buying and
selling, don't have to slog through all the discussion posts, and
those who aren't interested in auctions, don't have to weave their way
around them. Keeping everything mixed together is inconvenient for
both sides.
I understand that there are a few people who don't get ATTM no
matter how they've tried -- but this will always be the case. There
are surely TransFans who don't get ATT, even though they know of its
existence and have pestered their providers repeatedly. It's
unfortunate, but there's sometimes no way to include every single
person, much as we may want to. In this case, the majority of the
voters felt the Marketplace group would be a benefit. Again, it's not
the campaign of one single person.
As a number of others have pointed out, there's the DejaNews
option as a last resort -- and there's no problem with auction-holders
posting a quick message here, saying they're starting an auction on
ATTM. Then those people who really can't get the group, can e-mail
them and ask to be put on the mailing list. As I've also said before,
most auction-holders will gladly send updates by e-mail upon request.
>The ATTM transition date of May 1, as far as I can tell, was chosen
>arbitrarily by RJ alone
Seeing as there wasn't any movement toward shifting the auctions over
to the Marketplace group where they belong, *someone* had to choose
*some* date that would be the dividing line. And there was plenty of
advance warning and plenty of notice. Now that the date is here and
past, suddenly people want to be surprised and offended? Seems like
they haven't been paying attention......
> In fact, I haven't seen RJ (or most others on here,
>including myself, just to clarify) say anything that would give him any more
>credibility than somebody who posted a "Beast Wars sucks rocks" message.
So you mean to tell me that someone who's been here for many years and
has always posted well-thought-out discussions and answers, refrained
from personal mud-slinging, compiled a highly detailed and informative
Toy List, and contributed a good deal of fanfic and episode reviews,
has no more credibility than a troll who crawls out of the woodwork to
post "Beast Wars Sux!"? Somehow I think you might want to re-evaluate
your criteria......
>It seems that RJ is giving himself way too much credit. I don't know why, but
>he seems to think that everybody should do his bidding, just because he says
>so. I, for one, don't buy it.
It's not that he says so. It's something that was voted into
existence by the whole group. Not everyone voted *for* it, that's
true, and there are people here now who weren't around then -- but the
group exists, and it's about time that it be used for its intended
purpose. Leaving this one to its intended purpose also.
--Raksha
--------------------------------------------------------
"I am the Plumed Serpent, I strike and I soar!"
--------------------------------------------------------
All-time favorite Transformer: Soundwave ("The secrets
of the Universe reveal themselves to those who listen.")
--------------------------------------------------------
jk...@postbox.acs.ohio-state.edu | Dept. of Zoology
jeru...@amp.com
> The true point is....
>
> People with axes to grind with Rob, whether over real or imagined events
> (note: Rob did not walk around badmouthing other exhibits at BotCon last
> year, that was someone else, but I forget who), are splitting hairs and using
> this issue to bash him.
Actually, no. I started this, and I have a legitamate beef with him
threatening me. And I have never had any dealings with him before.
> Simple as that. They're not going to be convinced that his requests are
> reasonable, because they're not really interested in the issue, they just
> want an excuse to attack.
Again, no. I have legitamate arguements as to why this request in not
reasonable, and I have stated them.
>
> Dave Van Domelen, killfiling this thread as of now...PLONK!
That is your perogative.
MANZOOR ALI & FAMILY
jeru...@amp.com wrote in article <336A44...@amp.com>...
> I wish to take issue with Robert Jung's arbitrarily chosen May 1 ATTM
> deadline. Since we all are still seeing posts from people who so not yet
> receive ATTM, it is unacceptable to demand that I stop posting
> market-related posts to ATT. Just because I can get it does not mean
> that my potential customers can, too. I will not overlook such potential
> customers because of an arbitrarily chosen deadline.
>
> Thus I have, and will continue to cross-post my business until I am
> convinced everyone can have access to ATTM. However, I understand the
> reasoning and WILL cut down on the postings: once a week updates rather
> than daily. But I WON'T overlook those people who cannot get ATTM. It is
> not fair to either me or them.
>
> My complaint is that Robert Jung is now threatening me because of this.
> He want to tell my Sysop that I am violating the ATT charter. Sorry, but
> I never saw a vote on this transition date, and will not accept it. You,
> Robert, are not the owner of this newsgroup, and you have no right to
> make the rules.
>
> John Runski
>
Boo hoo hoo. Geeeeeeezzzzzzzz, you people act like a bunch of babies.
THIS IS A PLACE TO DISCUSS TF!
Robotech_Master
In article <rjungE9...@netcom.com>,
Robert A. Jung <rj...@netcom.com> wrote:
> It is against the charter of this group.
Um, Rob? Hate to have to side against you on this, but technically,
no, it isn't. The charter of the group, as contained in the original
newgroup message, which I posted elsewhere in this thread (in a
message marked [LONG]), doesn't say word one about marketplace posts,
yay or nay. And a search of the FAQ turns up no mention of the _word_
"charter".
(I will grant that v4.2 of the FAQ _does_ address marketplace posts,
but I was only just now able to find it; prior searches turned up v4.1
as the latest copy I could find, which didn't. But the FAQ is not the
same thing as the group's charter.)
Lewis M. Brooks, III
In article <5kir99$4...@eyrie.org>, robo...@eyrie.org (Robotech_Master) writes:
> In article <rjungE9...@netcom.com>,
> Robert A. Jung <rj...@netcom.com> wrote:
>
>> It is against the charter of this group.
>
> Um, Rob? Hate to have to side against you on this, but technically,
> no, it isn't. The charter of the group, as contained in the original
> newgroup message, which I posted elsewhere in this thread (in a
> message marked [LONG]), doesn't say word one about marketplace posts,
> yay or nay. And a search of the FAQ turns up no mention of the _word_
> "charter".
>
> (I will grant that v4.2 of the FAQ _does_ address marketplace posts,
> but I was only just now able to find it; prior searches turned up v4.1
> as the latest copy I could find, which didn't. But the FAQ is not the
> same thing as the group's charter.)
So, this brings backl the origial question. Where is the ATT charter? The
real charter, not one made up with ATTM, since the charter has never been
changed to include it.
Lewis
Lewis M. Brooks, III
In article <rjungE9...@netcom.com>, rj...@netcom.com (Robert A. Jung) writes:
> In article <1997May...@rhea.bentley.edu> BROO...@rhea.bentley.edu (Lewis M. Brooks, III) writes:
>>In article <rjungE9...@netcom.com>, rj...@netcom.com (Robert A. Jung) writes:
>>> In article <336C1E...@amp.com> jeru...@amp.com writes:
>>>>If people wanted a
>>>>discussion forum, they should have made ATTD, and maybe they still
>>>>should.
>>>
>>> How is "create a Transformers discussion group and move all discussion
>>> messages there" any more humane than "create a Transformers sales group and
>>> move all sales messages there"?
>>
>>for discussions, would you?
>
> That was my *point,* Lewis -- John's cool if the discussions moved out, but
> complains when asked to move the sales messages out. E.g., he's happy with
> things as long as he's not disturbed.
Problem is, it was a solution for the people who had a problem. It would not
have effected thoes who did not have a problem with ATT as it was before.
Basically, some people had a problem, so they went and created a problem for
some people who didn't.
Lewis
Waspinator
In article <rjungE9...@netcom.com>, rj...@netcom.com (Robert A. Jung) wrote:
>In article <5kh1jl$bpj$1...@NNTP.MsState.Edu> ad...@ra.msstate.edu (Waspinator)
> writes:
>>I can appreciate trying to reduce sales traffic on ATT. It's the methods that
>>bother me. All I ask is that RJ back off a bit. No need to e-mail every
>>person who posts a sale/auction to ATT every time they do it.
>
Maybe not to that extent, but I've talked to certain people who have received
messages from you more than once for sale/auction/wanted posts even if they're
only a single post, not to be updated, done once a month.
> I'm certainly open to that (anything that gets me less work to do is
>okay with me B-). Though in return, I'd like to ask the readers of ATT and
>ATTM to collectively help me out in this effort -- if someone posts a sales
>message to the wrong group, then let's ALL work together and *politely* direct
>the person to the appropriate course of action.
There is no problem with people responding politely to certain topics that
they find objectional. But what one person finds objectional, another might
find perfectly fine.
> It's certainly possible that my well-intentioned messages have been
>misinterpreted as being harsher than my intent. After all, I'm the only one
>AFAIK actively working on this, and some folks might think I'm trying to play
>digital dictator or something, which I'm not. If the net.transfan community
>works as a whole to keep both groups orderly, I think that'll make everyone
>happy (and save me from a migrane B-).
>
> So, whaddaya say, folks?
A voluntary group effort would be more effective, and would probably be met
with less resistance. When an individual does such things alone, he tends to
come off as power-hungry, or perhaps as just a raving lunatic with no backing.
If a person can see that there is more than one person of the opinion in
question, he's more likely to comply. And the one person doesn't have to
resort to threats.
Waspinator
In article <336cf713...@news-stand.acs.ohio-state.edu>, jk...@postbox.acs.ohio-state.edu (Raksha) wrote:
>Where did you get this idea? That's absolute nonsense. I spent a
>good deal of my time in the BotCon '96 art room (seeing as I was in
>charge of the contest) and a good deal of the rest of my time with Rob
>and other net.friends, and I can guarantee you that he did no such
>thing.
As I've admitted, it was out of line for me to bring this up. But if you
really like, I can tell you my source, through email. No sense in wasting
bandwidth on further personal attacks.
<much snipped>
>Seeing as there wasn't any movement toward shifting the auctions over
>to the Marketplace group where they belong, *someone* had to choose
>*some* date that would be the dividing line. And there was plenty of
>advance warning and plenty of notice. Now that the date is here and
>past, suddenly people want to be surprised and offended? Seems like
>they haven't been paying attention......
All the posts in the world aren't going to stop somebody who doesn't read the
newsgroup, just pops in with an auction.
>So you mean to tell me that someone who's been here for many years and
>has always posted well-thought-out discussions and answers, refrained
>from personal mud-slinging, compiled a highly detailed and informative
>Toy List, and contributed a good deal of fanfic and episode reviews,
>has no more credibility than a troll who crawls out of the woodwork to
>post "Beast Wars Sux!"? Somehow I think you might want to re-evaluate
>your criteria......
A person can say things which, in my mind, takes them down several notches, no
matter how high they are. In fact, going back and rereading my own initial
post in this thread, I'm rather ashamed of how it all came out. The personal
attacks on RJ were uncalled for, and I do apologize. I will, in the future,
try my best to avoid personal attacks.
>It's not that he says so. It's something that was voted into
>existence by the whole group. Not everyone voted *for* it, that's
>true, and there are people here now who weren't around then -- but the
>group exists, and it's about time that it be used for its intended
>purpose. Leaving this one to its intended purpose also.
This all comes down to the intended purpose of ATT. That is what's really in
dispute. ATT was created for the purpose of bringing together TransFans, for
discussion, helping each other out with needs, etc. ATTM was created as a
place to put sales/auctions/etc. As I see it, ATT has not changed. Just
because there is now a *better* place for marketplace posts, does not mean
that this has become a worse place for them. If ATTM cuts down on the
marketplace posts in ATT, that's fine. If not, it won't bother me any. It's
not a hard thing to skip threads, and I have my own types of threads that I
skip, which plenty of others do not.
But let's face it, you can't make everybody happy. Sales posters are unhappy
about being herded to a little area that not many see. Others are unhappy
when those stick around. I think about the only way to keep everybody
satisfied is to let ATTM be whatever it settles down to be, with occasoinal
pleasant reminders of its existence and purpose.
ADY, who should really be studying for finals. :/
Robert A. Jung
In article <5kir99$4...@eyrie.org> robo...@eyrie.org (Robotech_Master) writes:
>In article <rjungE9...@netcom.com>,
>> It is against the charter of this group.
>
>Um, Rob? Hate to have to side against you on this, but technically,
>no, it isn't.
Yeah, I know. B-) I was being lazy there, using "charter" to refer to
"the aspects of the alt.toys.transformers FAQ that pertained to netiquette
and related matters." Gotta admit, it's easier to write...
>(I will grant that v4.2 of the FAQ _does_ address marketplace posts,
>but I was only just now able to find it; prior searches turned up v4.1
>as the latest copy I could find, which didn't. But the FAQ is not the
>same thing as the group's charter.)
Sure, but it's the only document we have that comes close (I hadn't even
seen the official ATT charter until you dug it up from the mysts of time).
And given that the ATT charter was written long before anyone knew how
populous this group would get, I don't think adopting the FAQ's guidelines
(which reflects current events versus way-back-when assumptions) is out of
order.
Robert A. Jung
In article <1997May...@rhea.bentley.edu> BROO...@rhea.bentley.edu (Lewis M. Brooks, III) writes:
>In article <rjungE9...@netcom.com>, rj...@netcom.com (Robert A. Jung) writes:
>>4. I wrote back and said that, if that was his attitude, then I would write
>> to the system administrator at his site, inform them of the situation,
>> and let them take care of it.
>
>What are they going to take care of? He did nothing wrong.
He cross-posted a sales message in ATT and ATTM, which defeats the purpose
of ATTM and goes against the guidelines-for-posting-messages-in-ATT that's
covered in the FAQ. And since ATTM was approved by a majority of readers in
this group, that means he's going against the rules.
Robert A. Jung
In article <5kj4oj$ene$1...@NNTP.MsState.Edu> ad...@ra.msstate.edu (Waspinator) writes:
>I think about the only way to keep everybody
>satisfied is to let ATTM be whatever it settles down to be, with occasoinal
>pleasant reminders of its existence and purpose.
The problem is that, if there's not some effort made to keep things
organized, you can easily get newsgroup degeneration and cross-posting (which
defeats the whole point of a dedicated marketplace group). It's too easy to
say, "I'll also post sales messages here because I don't want to lose any
potential customers." Unfortunately, that's also how we get all those sales
spam messages that most people dislike.
For a perfect example of newsgroup degeneration, check out the entire
rec.games.video.* hierarchy. Despite dedicated newsgroups for individual
systems, sales, and even advocacy (X vs. Y), you still get spam,
cross-posting, and flame wars all over the place. There is next to no
sembalance to order there any more, because everyone tolerated a "just let
people post wherever they want" attitude.
Robert A. Jung
In article <5kj2ja$dpe$1...@NNTP.MsState.Edu> ad...@ra.msstate.edu (Waspinator) writes:
>A voluntary group effort would be more effective, and would probably be met
>with less resistance. When an individual does such things alone, he tends to
>come off as power-hungry, or perhaps as just a raving lunatic with no backing.
Hey, nothing would make me happier than to see the rest of the net.transfan
community help support the .marketplace effort. Believe me, I'll gladly go
back to babbling about less somber stuff if we can get a collective "keep our
newsgroups tidy" mentality here. The *ONLY* reason I've been playing such a
high-profile role is because nobody else is.
(As for the other points -- backing, yes. Raving, no, but I ramble a lot.
Lunatic? Most definitely! And I just had lunch, so my hunger's under
control, thanks. B-)
>And the one person doesn't have to resort to threats.
I don't threaten -- I merely "strongly suggest"... B-)
Lewis M. Brooks, III
In article <rjungE9...@netcom.com>, rj...@netcom.com (Robert A. Jung) writes:
> In article <1997May...@rhea.bentley.edu> BROO...@rhea.bentley.edu (Lewis M. Brooks, III) writes:
>>In article <rjungE9...@netcom.com>, rj...@netcom.com (Robert A. Jung) writes:
>>>4. I wrote back and said that, if that was his attitude, then I would write
>>> to the system administrator at his site, inform them of the situation,
>>> and let them take care of it.
>>
>>What are they going to take care of? He did nothing wrong.
>
> He cross-posted a sales message in ATT and ATTM, which defeats the purpose
> of ATTM
You mean it has a purpose? WHY WASN'T I NOTIFIED!! (Sarcasm - Look it up.)
> and goes against the guidelines-for-posting-messages-in-ATT that's
> covered in the FAQ.
Since when did the FAQ contain the groups charter?
> And since ATTM was approved by a majority of readers in
> this group, that means he's going against the rules.
Who says the charter allows a person to arbitrarily call for a vote on
something?
Lewis
Wolfang
or at least a close facsimile
MANZOOR ALI & FAMILY wrote:
>
> > My complaint is that Robert Jung is now threatening me because of this.
> > He want to tell my Sysop that I am violating the ATT charter. Sorry, but
> > I never saw a vote on this transition date, and will not accept it. You,
> > Robert, are not the owner of this newsgroup, and you have no right to
> > make the rules.
> >
> > John Runski
> >
>
> Boo hoo hoo. Geeeeeeezzzzzzzz, you people act like a bunch of babies.
> THIS IS A PLACE TO DISCUSS TF!
In the brief time Mr. Ali has graced us with his presence on the group,
he has
posted Beast Wars Sux messages (until the finale, of course) overreacted
to
fans of Mech style combat games, asked for help asking a girl out, and
ever so
much more.
I have to say that whereas I generally automatically ignore posts like
his,
I have taken to searching the NG for Mr. Ali's posts as they prove fun
and amusing.
I hereby declare that I am starting the Sami (I hope that's his name)
Ali fanclub and
as its founder, I am nominating myself as president.
Thus I set forth in my task:
I will compile a list of what I consider to be the most fun bits of Mr.
Ali's
correspondence on this NG, and, what the hell, all the other stuff
I find interesting. (I already save virtually all of Doug Dlin's posts
already).
All those wishing to join the unofficial Sami Ali fanclub, just email
me!
We won't have a web site!
We won't have a mailing list!
We won't have group benefits, contests, or anything like that!
Why?
Because I'm far too lazy to do any of that. But, of course, if
someone out there WOULD like to do that in the name of the
Unofficial Sami Ali fanclub, please go ahead!!
(Also, anyone who wants to send monetary donations or gifts of TFs
or just about anything else, are perfectly welcome).
As long as I am interested, though, I will send appreciation letters
to Mr. Ali and I'll send copies to anyone who wants one!
Coming soon: the shocking expose
Sami Ali IS Shingo!!!
-Wolfang
dl...@erols.com
(must to be stopping drinking. . .)
Robotech_Master
In article <1997May...@rhea.bentley.edu>,
Lewis M. Brooks, III <BROO...@rhea.bentley.edu> wrote:
> I'll admit to not being an expert on Newsgroup creation/chareters,
> but it would seem to me that the charter must contain guidlines for
> changing/amending the charter. Or, there is a governing list of
> rules for all newsgroups about changing/amending charters. So,
> where is the charter? If it's in the FAQ, I didn't see it. I'm not
> talking about a description of what ATT is, but the actual charter.
> Where is it?
I'm not sure whether this is the same for alt.* groups, but at least
for Big 8 groups, there is _no way_ to change the charter after group
creation. And many news.groupies consider charters to be fairly
unimportant anyway, save in moderated groups. After all, FAQs are far
more likely to be seen by interested group-newbies...
As for where the charter is, it (or the closest thing we have to it)
is in the original alt.toys.transformers newgroup msg, which I quoted
elsewhere in this thread (look for the message with [LONG] in the
subject line).
As for the FAQ, version 4.2 of it can be found via AltaVista easily
enough. I don't know who wrote it, or what authority they had. As
Robert Jung admits elsewhere in this thread, it doesn't _really_ have
the "charter" in it, though. Just a group description, which is
"close enough".
jeru...@amp.com
>> This is exactly the kind of hostility we don't need. Someone posts
>> an accusation, and a bunch of others jump on the bandwagon with
>> some other poorly substantiated claims about bashing other people's
>> art projects or some such.
As far as I'm concerned, the hostility began with threats made against
me. These threat have since turned out to be empty, but they are still
unacceptable.
>
> Robert created the newsgroup with a lot of support, and so far most
> of the objections (nobody will carry it, etc) have turned out not
> to be problems. Very few servers have actually refused requests to
> carry the group. If it doesn't have as many subscribers, it's because
> there are simply quite a lot of people on a.t.tf who don't want to
> deal with auction posts. It's as simple as that - and by using
> a.t.t.m, you're showing them the respect and common decency to keep
> auction posts where they belong.
The support was far from unanimous, so don't pretend everyone agrees
with this. Looking back, this is starting to more and more like an
attempt to throw anyone doing business out of ATT. If people wanted a
discussion forum, they should have made ATTD, and maybe they still
should. I predict ATT will ALWAYS have market related posts in it. There
is nothing that can be done to stop it. I would suggest that you
consider creating yet another ng if you feel the need for a discussion
sanctuary. Right or wrong, this is the real word and you cannot forcilby
eliminte businees transactions from a general collectables newsgroup.
Anyone with any ng experience knows this.
> Yes, I can understand that a very small minority of people aren't
> able to get access to a.t.t.m even when they ask. So far, it seems
> to be 3 people. And yes, I can fully identify with the frustration
> of those without web access. :) So if you want to run an auction
> and can't get access to a.t.t.m, and you have tried to do so, go
> ahead and hold it here - label it well and post updates as followups
> to the same thread, so we can killfile the whole thread if we don't
> want to have to fish through it.
Three people you KNOW of. Well, when I do business, those are theee
potential customers, and I will not lose access to them.
> Personally, I think the compromise of daily updates to a.t.t.m and
> weekly ones here is a decent one, though I have another suggestion.
>
> Post an initial announcement here on a.t.t. Tell what you have
> for sale, and give your email address. Those who don't read the
> marketplace group will be able to get in on updates via email, and
> those who do will know which post on a.t.t.m to look for. Sound
> like a deal? Everyone can have a chance to get in on it, and it
> still cuts down on bandwidth, because the updates are going to the
> marketplace group.
I don't think "allowing" weekly updates is too much to ask for. But, as
it is coming to light, it is looking like no one has the authority to
dis-allow it.
Soundwave
Okay what's this I hear about us Transfans voting for the marketplace
group? Yes some people did vote for it and I stress some. I was not in
favor of the newsgroup and still am not. I know that there are a large
amount of people here that did not want the marketplace group, most
likely a lot more than those who wanted it.
In any case the group is here and I can finally get it. Yes some people
cannot get it and it may take a while for them to do so. Dejanews is an
alternative but is extremely slow and in my eyes is a pain in the ass.
The point is that we all have lives to live that are outside of this
newsgroup. We must stop this crap. Both sides have vluable points but
nobody can win. People will post sales messages to both and that is
that. Not everybody even reads ATTM anyway. Contacting system
administrators is going over the edge and proves once and for all that
you have no life if you do such things. Talk about tattle tale! Geez man
I am tired of this. I don't really have a problem with people that want
to post to ATT with their sales messages. I think that only a handful of
people actually do have a problem with it.
We all need to get a grip on things here. Some of us need to remove
sticks out of appropriate orafices that seem to be stuck.
Just get over it. Get laid, get drunk, get a new TF, play with your
TF's, commit suicide, join a cult, kill Barney, masturbate, whatever
floats your boat. Just try to think about something else everybody!
--
A Message Brought To You By
ROB SMITH
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
| | | | | | | _ _|
|_ _ _ _| | |__| | | |_ _
| | | __ | | _ _|
| | | | | | | |_ _
|__| |_| |_| |_ _ _|
_ _ _ _ _ __ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
/ _ _ _ _| | | | | | | | \ /\
/ / | | | | | _ _ | | _ \ / \
| | | |_ _| | | | | | | | | | / /\ \
| | | _ _ | | | | | | | | | / __ \
| | | | | | | |_ _| | | |_| | / / \ \
\ \_ _ _ _ | | | | | | | / / / \ \
\_ _ _ _ _| |__| |__| |_ _ _ _ _| |_ _ _/ /__/ \__\
"Dude...I Just Don't Know"
"Hey Man, Nice Choda!"
Diana Calder
le...@swbell.net (L.M.P.) wrote:
>robo...@eyrie.org (Robotech_Master) wrote:
>
>
>>Anyone who doesn't have Marketplace who wants to read _or_ post to it
>>can easily do so via deja-news. I even posted the URL.
>
>However, Deja-news can be anywhere from several hours to almost a day
>behind in its updates, and since many of the sales posts are for a
>"first come, first serve" product, using Deja-news to find out about
>this type of sale is worse than useless in that it simply tells you
>about the really great deal you -just- missed out on.
>
>This can be -extremely- frustrating.
Note that you can ALSO access a.t.t.m. posts through Alta Vista at
<http://www.altavista.com>. Search Usenet instead of the Web and
search for alt.toys.transformers.marketplace and use an Advanced
Search in order to specify the dates you wish to check. This will
give "extra" results in that auction cross-posts to other groups will
also contain a.t.t.m. and will be therefore be listed once for each
cross-posting. As of 1:00 PM on May 4, there were 36 posts listed for
May 3 and 4 alone - including ALL posts available from Zippo's server
(my newsfeed) for that time period. In other words, completely
up-to-date. Alta Vista is also EXTREMELY fast and you can add more
parameters to your search so that you only get, for example, posts
about Fort Max.
>>> The point is that a single person posted an admittedly arbitrary date
>>> for a transition at which all sales-related posts would be limited,
>>> without the consent or desire of the masses verified.
>
>>Can you prove this? Not to say you're wrong, but...
>
>I know that -I- wasn't consulted, nor did I see any posts to this
>newsgroup regarding any such decsion being made or decsion-making
>commitee being formed (and I have been lurking here for several weeks
>now).
Several weeks now, huh? Real long time to base a decision on... But
regardless, sooner or later, a cut-off date has to be set or this was
all pointless.
>>> The point is that threats of "disciplinary action" have apparently
>>> surfaced in reference to people's unwillingness to submit to such
>>> arbitrary demands.
>
>>"Threats of 'disciplinary action'"? Hmm. I can see that I'm going to
>>need to do some more Deja-News surfing.
>
>Several folks have said these "disiplinary action" messages have been
>sent to individuals from Jung via private email, if these have been
>sent this way, it is unlikely you will find any of them on Deja-news.
I haven't specifically discussed this with Rob at the moment, but I'm
GUESSING that what these probably were were simply something along the
lines of an FAQ on proper netiquette in general as applied to a.t.t.
and a.t.t.m. in particular. Of course a lot of people pay no
attention to proper netiquette under any circumstances, so they
probably wouldn't recognize netiquette guidelines.
>I now have access to ATTM so for me this is a dead issue, however as
>recently as a the second week of April, I did not have access to the
>newsgroup and I found Deja-news to be a -very- poor substitute for a
>server with immediate access. As such I can agree that until all of
>the folks who are intrested in buying and selling transformers have
>access to ATTM, it is unreasonable to expect these people to not post
>here.
I'm in favour of the "post once to a.t.t. to inform of the
auction/sale, then use e-mail & a.t.t.m. with *maybe* a
weekly/bi-weekly reminder to a.t.t." solution proposed by....Ivy, I
think?
Diana (who's beginning to understand why some newsgroups choose to
become moderated)
Lewis M. Brooks, III
> seen the official ATT charter until you dug it up from the mysts of time).
> And given that the ATT charter was written long before anyone knew how
> populous this group would get, I don't think adopting the FAQ's guidelines
> (which reflects current events versus way-back-when assumptions) is out of
> order.
The problem is that it really is out of order. The charter is the charter. If
it does not say how it can be changed or ammended, then we need to look for
some official rules by which charters are to be changed/ammended. If there is
not one, then you can't change it, and can't require the use of ATTM. Rob,
aren't you the one who keeps talking about rules? Accepting what is in the FAQ
as a charter simply because it is more convenient is not following the rules,
is it?
Lewis
Robert A. Jung
In article <5kh1jl$bpj$1...@NNTP.MsState.Edu> ad...@ra.msstate.edu (Waspinator) writes:
>I can appreciate trying to reduce sales traffic on ATT. It's the methods that
>bother me. All I ask is that RJ back off a bit. No need to e-mail every
>person who posts a sale/auction to ATT every time they do it.
I haven't been doing that.
>Cut it down to
>a brief explanation of ATTM's purpose and a request that such posts be put
>there whenever possible, on the poster's first "offense." That would achieve
>the same purpose, save a lot of resentment against RJ, and save RJ a lot of
>work. That sounds reasonable, doesn't it?
I'm certainly open to that (anything that gets me less work to do is
okay with me B-). Though in return, I'd like to ask the readers of ATT and
ATTM to collectively help me out in this effort -- if someone posts a sales
message to the wrong group, then let's ALL work together and *politely* direct
the person to the appropriate course of action.
It's certainly possible that my well-intentioned messages have been
misinterpreted as being harsher than my intent. After all, I'm the only one
AFAIK actively working on this, and some folks might think I'm trying to play
digital dictator or something, which I'm not. If the net.transfan community
works as a whole to keep both groups orderly, I think that'll make everyone
happy (and save me from a migrane B-).
So, whaddaya say, folks?
--R.J.
Robert A. Jung
"Threats of disciplinary action" is overexpressing things a tad. To sum up,
the exchange between me and John went something like--
1. John cross-posted a sales message to ATT and ATTM
2. I wrote him a two-sentence letter asking him not to crosspost sales
messages to both groups, and (since he has access to ATTM) to post the
sales stuff there.
3. John wrote back with "Not everyone gets ATTM so I'm going to crosspost
and you can't stop me" (paraphrased). Some other stuff about self-
righteous attitudes, too.
4. I wrote back and said that, if that was his attitude, then I would write to
the system administrator at his site, inform them of the situation, and
let them take care of it.
Personally, I don't want to write letters to anyone. I'd be perfectly happy
if everyone would just voluntarily went along with the marketplace group and
used it as it was intended. But if some people are going to intentionally
disregard the basic rules of netiquette, I can't work up any sympathy for
them.
(Oh, and I don't have a copy of the letter I sent John, but he's welcome to
post it here if he likes. I don't think I wrote anything that would be
considered nasty, profane, or threatening. Granted, it was a bit dry, but
that's just because I wasn't tossing jokes about... B-)
Lewis M. Brooks, III
>>discussion forum, they should have made ATTD, and maybe they still
>>should.
>
> messages there" any more humane than "create a Transformers sales group and
> move all sales messages there"?
Shoes on the other foot now. You wouldn't like to have to use another group
for discussions, would you?
Lewis
Lewis M. Brooks, III
In article <rjungE9...@netcom.com>, rj...@netcom.com (Robert A. Jung) writes:
> "Threats of disciplinary action" is overexpressing things a tad. To sum up,
> the exchange between me and John went something like--
>
> 1. John cross-posted a sales message to ATT and ATTM
> 2. I wrote him a two-sentence letter asking him not to crosspost sales
> messages to both groups, and (since he has access to ATTM) to post the
> sales stuff there.
> 3. John wrote back with "Not everyone gets ATTM so I'm going to crosspost
> and you can't stop me" (paraphrased). Some other stuff about self-
> righteous attitudes, too.
> 4. I wrote back and said that, if that was his attitude, then I would write to
> the system administrator at his site, inform them of the situation, and
> let them take care of it.
What are they going to take care of? He did nothing wrong.
> Personally, I don't want to write letters to anyone. I'd be perfectly happy
> if everyone would just voluntarily went along with the marketplace group and
Instead of being forced into it?
Live Long and Prosper
Lewis
********************************************************************************
* Lewis M. Brooks, III - Fan and collector of Star Trek, Transformers, Star *
* Wars, Marvel Super Heroes, Aliens, Predator, Star Blazers, and other Sci-Fi. *
********************************************************************************
* brook...@bentley.edu * "Freedom is the right of all *
* users.aol.com/autobot999/tf/tf.htm * sentient beings." --Optimus Prime *
* G+++FRFWM+500+D+++AA++N+++W++B+++OQ++ ****************************************
* Transformers Fan Purity Test score: 434 - I AM OPTIMUS PRIME!!! *
********************************************************************************
* "Ours is not to reason why, but to blow this joint before we die." *
* --Rattrap, Beast Wars: Other Voices Part I *
********************************************************************************
* "...But one day an Autobot shall rise from our ranks, and use the power of *
* the Matrix to light our darkest hour. Until that day, till all are one." *
* --Optimus Prime, Transformers: The Movie *
********************************************************************************
* "Ship. Out of danger? Don't grieve Admiral. It is logical. The needs of *
* the many, outweigh, [the needs of the few,] or the one. I never took the *
* Kobayashi Maru test, until now. What do you think of my solution? I have *
* been, and always shall be your friend. Live long and prosper." *
* --Captain Spock , Star Trek II: The Wrath Of Khan *
********************************************************************************
* "We are assembled here today, to pay final respects to our honored dead. *
* And yet it should be noted that in the midst of our sorrow this death takes *
* place in the shadow of new life. The sunrise of a new world. A world that *
* our beloved comrade gave his life to protect and nourish. He did not feel *
* this sacrifice a vain or empty one, and we will not debate his profound *
* wisdom at these proceedings. Of my friend I can only say this. Of all the *
* souls I have encountered in my travels, his was the most.......human." *
* --Admiral James T. Kirk, Star Trek II: The Wrath Of Kahn *
********************************************************************************
* "Never. I'll never turn to the dark side. You've failed your highness. I *
* am a Jedi, like my father before me." --Luke Skywalker, Star Wars: ROTJ *
********************************************************************************
Lewis M. Brooks, III
>
> (1) Some folks suggested a .marketplace group.
> (2) A vote was taken (okay, a petition). Lots of folks liked the idea.
> (3) The .marketplace group was created.
A petition was collected to create a Marketplace newsgroup. A vote to change
the charter, requiring buy/sale/trade posts in attm is somthing that was never
done.
> All we need now is (4) People post sales messages in .marketplace, and the
> story's over.
>
> Unfortunately, some folks have been dragging their heels on this last part.
> Usually because the protesters want maximum exposure for their sales messages,
> and are afraid that posting sales stuff in a separate group won't give them
> that audience. Which, IMO, is analogous to posting "Make Money Fast" messages
> to every newsgroup in existence -- "I want to make sure everyone sees my ad!"
That is an easy excuse. The people who want to see buy/sell/trade posts, but
can't, are entitled to be ablke to get them. The fact that someone stands to
benefit from it is not relevant.
> Is it that much to ask everyone to be responsible net.citizens and post
> messages to the appropriate groups?
Another excuse to avoid the issue that at no time has there ever been a vote to
change att's charter.
Lewis M. Brooks, III
>>It seems that RJ is giving himself way too much credit. I don't know why, but
>>he seems to think that everybody should do his bidding, just because he says
>>so. I, for one, don't buy it.
>
> existence by the whole group. Not everyone voted *for* it, that's
> true, and there are people here now who weren't around then -- but the
> group exists, and it's about time that it be used for its intended
> purpose. Leaving this one to its intended purpose also.
I'll admit to not being an expert on Newsgroup creation/chareters, but it would
seem to me that the charter must contain guidlines for changing/amending the
charter. Or, there is a governing list of rules for all newsgroups about
changing/amending charters. So, where is the charter? If it's in the FAQ, I
didn't se it. I'm not talking about a description of what ATT is, but the
actual charter. Where is it?
Lewis
Robert A. Jung
In article <1997May...@rhea.bentley.edu> BROO...@rhea.bentley.edu (Lewis M. Brooks, III) writes:
>In article <rjungE9...@netcom.com>, rj...@netcom.com (Robert A. Jung) writes:
>> In article <336C1E...@amp.com> jeru...@amp.com writes:
>>>If people wanted a
>>>discussion forum, they should have made ATTD, and maybe they still
>>>should.
>>
>> How is "create a Transformers discussion group and move all discussion
>> messages there" any more humane than "create a Transformers sales group and
>> move all sales messages there"?
>
>Shoes on the other foot now. You wouldn't like to have to use another group
>for discussions, would you?
That was my *point,* Lewis -- John's cool if the discussions moved out, but
complains when asked to move the sales messages out. E.g., he's happy with
things as long as he's not disturbed.
(Now, if we had voted for an ATTD way-back-when, and it got approved and
created, *AND* I refused to post discussion messages there for whatever
reason, then you would have every right to tar me as a hypocrite. But none of
that has happened, so it's a moot point)
Robotech_Master
In article <rjungE9...@netcom.com>,
Robert A. Jung <rj...@netcom.com> wrote:
> On the other hand, if you agree that whoever wrote the original
> ATT charter is not psychically gifted, then I don't think it's being
> too unreasonable to say that the FAQ's guidelines -- being more
> flexible with changing circumstances -- is a workable set of rules
> to live with.
I agree with you that the FAQ's guidelines aren't unreasonable to
follow...but I still don't see how you can reasonably claim that
posting marketplace posts to a.t.tf is "against charter". You _have_
claimed it, at least twice in the past, while in fact the _charter_
doesn't say anything at all in regard to marketplace posts. (You
_can_ claim it goes counter to the procedures described in the FAQ, of
course, but that's not as great an "offense" as posting against
charter, and that also gets into the thorny issue of just who _wrote_
the FAQ and under what authority.)
The Lorax
On Fri, 2 May 1997 jeru...@amp.com wrote:
> I wish to take issue with Robert Jung's arbitrarily chosen May 1 ATTM
> deadline. Since we all are still seeing posts from people who so not yet
> receive ATTM, it is unacceptable to demand that I stop posting
> market-related posts to ATT. Just because I can get it does not mean
> that my potential customers can, too. I will not overlook such potential
> customers because of an arbitrarily chosen deadline.
>
> Thus I have, and will continue to cross-post my business until I am
> convinced everyone can have access to ATTM. However, I understand the
> reasoning and WILL cut down on the postings: once a week updates rather
> than daily. But I WON'T overlook those people who cannot get ATTM. It is
> not fair to either me or them.
I made this same argument well over a month ago, that even if the
person selling could get marketplace it would cut down on their customer
base to not cross post since there are those who can not get it. When I
put items up for sale or auction I will cross post the original ad to both
this group and marketplace as well. I think that making weekly updates to
this group would be fine.
Robert Jung does seem to have some kind of a delusion that he is the
supreme authority in this group. It also bothers me that he posts things
that he has been repeatedly reminded are not true.
<Lo...@pconline.com>
St. Paul, Minnesota
"Innovation and invention
are what happen when someone
makes a conscious effort
to ignore accepted limits."
-- Homesteader --
Renaud T. Lefebvre ¤ http://pages.infinit.net/renaud/
If you cannot access A.T.T.M., politely ask your Internet provider'
system administrator, to add it to the list of newsgroups, that's what
I did ;)
Cheers.
. . , , Renaud Thierry Lefebvre
|\ |\_/| /| http://pages.infinit.net/renaud/
| `-._| |_,-' | rtle...@videotron.ca
| -._| V |_,- |
\ -._ \ / _,- / Your bargaining posture is highly
| .__ ` __, | dubious, but very well, I will provide
|`.`.`-.-',','| you with a new body and new troops
| \ `/ \' / | to command.
`. `. ,' ,'
`. \ / ,' *G++/FR/M-/#145/D++/AA+/N++/W++
`.V,' B+++/OQP/BC97--/MU-/OM--/P244
`
jeru...@amp.com
Lewis M. Brooks, III wrote:
>
> In article <rjungE9...@netcom.com>, rj...@netcom.com (Robert A. Jung) writes:
> > In article <1997May...@rhea.bentley.edu> BROO...@rhea.bentley.edu (Lewis M. Brooks, III) writes:
> >>In article <rjungE9...@netcom.com>, rj...@netcom.com (Robert A. Jung) writes:
> >>> In article <336C1E...@amp.com> jeru...@amp.com writes:
> >>>>If people wanted a
> >>>>discussion forum, they should have made ATTD, and maybe they still
> >>>>should.
> >>>
> >>> How is "create a Transformers discussion group and move all discussion
> >>> messages there" any more humane than "create a Transformers sales group and
> >>> move all sales messages there"?
Ah, so you see my point?
Why was it OK to try to segregate the collector-oriented posts, yet if I
even suggest a discussion group, it becomes inhumane? It's the same
thing. Well guess what you guys just did. Something inhumane.
And why is it that the collector's posts get shuttled off to a secondary
newsgroup? It always seems to me that it's the discussion-oriented
posters who were irritated by these posts. I can't remember any auctions
posters complaining that their post was lost in a sea of "who's
stronger" posts.
But, just so you don't get me wrong: I am NOT a dealer. I am a collector
who trades (a LOT) and posted a few auctions for a friend. I often enjoy
and partake in the discussions. I am not here to bash them or their
writers. I am taking up the mantle of the collector's side only becuase
it needs to be done.
> >>Shoes on the other foot now. You wouldn't like to have to use another group
> >>for discussions, would you?
> >
> > That was my *point,* Lewis -- John's cool if the discussions moved out, but
> > complains when asked to move the sales messages out. E.g., he's happy with
> > things as long as he's not disturbed.
Wrong. I am not happy with anyone being thrown out of an existing
newsgroup. If someone CHOOSES to go elsewhere, that is fine. But no one
asked me if I wanted to quit posting here on May 1. Obviously I, and
MANY other people, don't.
> Problem is, it was a solution for the people who had a problem. It would not
> have effected those who did not have a problem with ATT as it was before.
> Basically, some people had a problem, so they went and created a problem for
> some people who didn't.
>
> Lewis
Well put.
We (the collectors) didn't have a problem with discussion posts, so why
are we the ones being restricted to a secondary/segregated newsgroup. If
your goal is a discussion-only newsgroup, that's what you should have
created.
John
Tengu
In article <Pine.LNX.3.95.97050...@newton.pconline.com>,
lo...@pconline.com says...
>
> Robert Jung does seem to have some kind of a delusion that he is the
> supreme authority in this group. It also bothers me that he posts things
> that he has been repeatedly reminded are not true.
>
I was going to stay out of this, but it's getting kind of unfair.
I don't believe that Mr. Jung has ever assumed to be the supreme
authority in this group. Quite truthfully though, he *has* gone through
a lot of work to get ATTM up and running, with a goal of better serving
the TF fan community on the 'Net. Have I used ATTM yet to post a sale?
No, though I do read it daily. (Go figure, I mailed Netcom and put in a
request for them to carry it- and there it is, simple huh?)
Taking issue with ATTM is one thing, but starting a thread to
intentionally malign someone is petty, mean-spirited and above all
unnecessary. How would it feel to work really hard on something to help
the rest of ATT and then see *your* name on the bullseye? Is it so hard
to believe that Rob pushed for ATTM because he had the group's interests
in mind? ATTM was voted for and it went through- why cry about it now?
Just _try_ using it...
Tengu:<>
Sky Lynx
Hey guys,
Since bandwidth is such a big issue and is somewhat the reason
for the creation of ATTM, why not take this debate to email? Hmm?
Lynxy
jeru...@amp.com
Robert A. Jung wrote:
>
> In article <336A44...@amp.com> jeru...@amp.com writes:
> >I wish to take issue with Robert Jung's arbitrarily chosen May 1 ATTM
> >deadline.
>
> have been perfectly acceptable to say "remove all sales messages from ATT" one
> day after the new group was created. The fact that several months was taken
> to propagate the group and help folks adjust was a luxury.
By Usenet procedures, you can never restrict me from posting any
Transformer related material here. That's what this group is for, and as
I understand it, the creation of later ng's does not change the original
ng.
> >Since we all are still seeing posts from people who so not yet
> >receive ATTM, it is unacceptable to demand that I stop posting
> >market-related posts to ATT.
>
> It is against the charter of this group.
There is no charter for this group.
<< Big chunk deleted because it assumes the existance of a charter and
there is none.>>
> >You,
> >Robert, are not the owner of this newsgroup, and you have no right to
> >make the rules.
Alright. You have no right to CHANGE the rules. I am playing by the
rules as they have been all along. Those rules allow me to post TF
related posts to ATT.
> The readers of this group make the rules. They voted for the .marketplace
> group, remember? I'm just the one standing up for the rules.
>
> --R.J.
> B-)
Fine, but that's not in question. The question is if you (or anyone) can
restrict what type of post get's posted to ATT. As I understand it, you
can't. But an net.lawyer may be needed to answer that question.
John
The Lorax
On 3 May 1997, Robotech_Master wrote:
> What's the problem here? alt.toys.transformers.marketplace is an alt
> group, just the same as a.t.tf is. Hence, if a site carries a.t.tf,
> they must be willing to get alt groups. So, why not have the people
> WRITE THEIR SYSADMINS and _request_ a.t.tf.m? Have they ever
> considered that?
You must have slept through the last couple of months of discussions
on this. There are people here who *have* asked their system
administrators to get marketplace and have been told for variouse reasons
that they won't, can't, or the system administrators have entirely failed
to acknowledge the requests.
jeru...@amp.com
Robert A. Jung wrote:
>
> In article <336C1E...@amp.com> jeru...@amp.com writes:
> >If people wanted a
> >discussion forum, they should have made ATTD, and maybe they still
> >should.
>
> How is "create a Transformers discussion group and move all discussion
> messages there" any more humane than "create a Transformers sales group and
> move all sales messages there"?
>
> B-)
Simple. I never said "and move all discussion messages there." I AM
AGAINST FORCING ANYONE TO GO ANYWHERE THEY DO NOT WANT TO GO. Don't put
words in my mouth. ATT is a general TF newsgroup and should remain as
such. In fact, it may not be possible to officially change according to
Usenet rules. But, you can ALWAYS create a new ng and do whatever you
want there.
I am not argueing with the fact that ATTM exists. It has it's merits.
But it's existance does not preclude the use of ATT for the same thing.
That's like saying you can't use rec.toys.misc for transformers stuff
because ATT exists. (And I submit that this is a much more valid analagy
than your SPAM comparison.) What limits TF posts there is that ATT is a
BETTER place to post. But TF posts still appear there and they are
allowed there. If ATTM was a BETTER (or at least equal) place to post,
we wouldn't have this problem. But that is not, and may never be the
case.
John
L.M.P.
dca...@mnsi.net (Diana Calder) wrote:
>>I know that -I- wasn't consulted, nor did I see any posts to this
>>newsgroup regarding any such decsion being made or decsion-making
>>commitee being formed (and I have been lurking here for several weeks
>>now).
>Several weeks now, huh? Real long time to base a decision on...
..I was here when Robert made his initial post regarding the
transition date and at that time there was no thread about or
announcement of a discussion on the -proposed- transition date.
While I agree that there should at some point be a transition date, I
cannot agree that any one person, acting alone, has the right to make
such a decsion on what is an unmoderated usenet group.
I would have had no problem if a thread had been started to discuss
this and on such a thread it were shown that a majority of the
contributors to this group favored the transition date. As it stands,
the only reason that date exists is that one person, acting alone,
decided that this was how things were to be, and since this is an
open, unmoderated group, Robert's opinions regarding such matters have
no more validity than those of any other user.
It has been made evident by other posts in this thread, that this
group's Charter (The only document with -any- binding weight as to how
posts in this group are to be conducted ) says nothing about
sales/trade posts, and as this gruop is alt.TOYS.transformers, it
seems unlikely that any real action could ever be taken against soeone
who does not wish to stop posting sales information here.
I see only two options...Either discuss this issue and establish a
date that a clear majority of the users can agree upon for the
transition, or set up yet -another- group
"alt.toys.transformers.discussion" in which it is established in the
group's charter from the very beginning that sales posts are unwelcome
there.
I honestly don't see the first option being so difficult as to
necessitate the second...do you?
>I'm in favour of the "post once to a.t.t. to inform of the
>auction/sale, then use e-mail & a.t.t.m. with *maybe* a
>weekly/bi-weekly reminder to a.t.t." solution proposed by....Ivy, I
>think?
Until a valid transition date can be agreed upon by the contributors
of this group, this may be an acceptable compomise...Anyone else
agree?
L.M.P.
jeru...@amp.com
Raksha wrote:
> .....But when the TFs suddenly
> became big news again and the prices on the collectors markets started
> soaring, we got this huge jump in sale/auction posts. As someone else
> has pointed out, some of those sale posts are by people who don't even
> read the group, and want nothing else but to sell their toys. Which
> is fine, but there's a more specialized group for them now.
Here you present a practical problem with this. How is someone who
doesn't read the group going to know that ATTM exists? And even if they
find it, you and I know darn well that everything will STILL be
cross-posted. What you want is to reserve ATT for discussion-only, and
that simply isn't practical. Look at other, similar ng's around the net.
I'd be awfully surprised to find a case where creating a marketplace
subgroup successfully eliminated the collector's posts.
> There may have been nothing against sales and auctions in the
> original ATT charter, but remember the time it was written in. A time
> when there simply *weren't* very many sales posts. The situation is
> very different now. It's as though we were to stick to the letter to
> old laws, instead of modifying them to adapt to changing needs.
> I'll also address the idea that maybe those who wanted to get
> away from the sales posts should have split off a discussion group
> instead. Well, I guarantee you that the uproar over that would have
> been even worse than the current nonsense over the Marketplace group.
> You know why? Because, as much as sales have taken over a large
> percentage of the posts here, the *majority* of stuff that goes on
> here, is still discussion. And that's what this group was originally
> based on.
This is all true, but it doesn't change the fact that the current
solution is unworkable. Maybe their should have been a ATTD in addition
to ATTM. Maybe we have all outgrown ATT. I don't know the perfect
solution, but I do know that ATT will NEVER be a discussion-only forum.
It wan't created that way and you can't change that after the fact.
> A few years from now when the current BW/TF craze dies down,
> all those sales and auction posts are going to dwindle away and die
> out. But the rest of us will still be here......
>
> --Raksha
Not if Has/Ken has it's way! Just imagine what G4 (the 25th incarnation
of Prime!) will look like 10 years from now....
John
bw_ratbat
In article <MPG.dd80af97...@news.ml.com>, te...@ix.netcom.com says...
>
>
>In article <Pine.LNX.3.95.97050...@newton.pconline.com>,
>lo...@pconline.com says...
>>
>> Robert Jung does seem to have some kind of a delusion that he is the
>> supreme authority in this group. It also bothers me that he posts things
>> that he has been repeatedly reminded are not true.
>>
>
> I was going to stay out of this, but it's getting kind of unfair.
Is it so hard
>to believe that Rob pushed for ATTM because he had the group's interests
>in mind? ATTM was voted for and it went through- why cry about it now?
>Just _try_ using it...
>
>
> Tengu:<>
I too was going to stay out of this BUT
While I have no doubt that he created ATTM with the best intentions, and while
I have no problem using it, my problem is being told that I(Or anyone alse)
CANNOT use ATT.
Someone else in this thread posted something to the effect that ATTM can be
used by those who are only interested in sales related posts, while ATT
the _GENERAL_ TF group can contain both discussion and sales posts.
IF there was a A.T.T.Diccussion group as well as ATT and ATTM then it
would be more than reasonable to say no sales posts in ATTD and
no discussion posts in ATTD. But as the original charterish thing stated
ATT was for ALL TF related discussion (I'm not counting the FAQ that can
be changed on a whim and was likely amended by those who strongly supported
ATTM, I'm not shouting conspiracy or anything, but I doubt the 100% Pro-ATTM
lines weren't composed by someone who has a problem with all of this.) so
therfore it is unreasonable to proclaim that ATT go on a no-sales policy
If over time that's the way it works out fine.
If over time ATTM dies fine.
If an ATTD group gets created fine.
Just let it work itself out, and no try to impose anyones will on the group
Beast Warrior RatBat *Who figures they WOULD vote on this thing's creation
during the brief period when he was away*
HEY! come to think of it as this whole "voting" process took place over the
holiday season, dosen't it stand to reason that hordes of ATT'rs who only
get to access the group while at school might very well have missed out
on the the voting process???? A significant chunk was probably away. NOT
FAIR!
And from what I gathered ATTM was created with a petition of 30 sigs, not
a REAL vote. Was there any NO ATTM petition started?
HMMM
Beast Warrior RatBat *Who's never signed a post twice before and is liking
this whole situation less and less all the time*
Jim H. Lee
Robert A. Jung (rj...@netcom.com) wrote:
: covered in the FAQ. And since ATTM was approved by a majority of readers in
: this group, that means he's going against the rules.
As the big bone of contention seems to be one side claiming it is against
the rules, and the other claiming that these rules don't exist, and both
saying that the majority of people support them, why not take a new vote
right now? Then we'll know for sure.
Jim
--
--------------------------- --------------------------------
| Princeton University | JIM H. LEE | "Do it with style, |
| Chemical Engineering | | or don't bother doing it."|
| Ph.D. - May 2001? | jim...@princeton.edu | -- Autobot Jazz |
| B.S.Ch.E. - Rice '96 | (609) 258-7704 | of the Transformers |
-- -------------------------- --
Robert A. Jung
>I agree with you that the FAQ's guidelines aren't unreasonable to
>follow...but I still don't see how you can reasonably claim that
>posting marketplace posts to a.t.tf is "against charter".
As I wrote before, it was a lazy shortcut I used, particularly since (at the
time) I didn't know of anyone who had access to the genuine charter. E.g., in
lieu of an official charter, the FAQ's guidelines were the closest thing we
had on hand.
In any case, I think it's safe to assume that when the entire question of
whether or not to create a .marketplace group first came around, everyone was
thinking in terms of moving the sales messages there. I don't recall anyone
being confused if crossposts were acceptable or not, for instance.
Robert A. Jung
Lewis, I know you're rather desperate to get ATTM nullified (your continued
arguments over charters and semantics is glorified hair-splitting), but anyone
with some experience in newsgroup creation and modification knows you don't
have a leg to stand on.
Newsgroups have expanded, reorganized, and evolved before, after all,
WITHOUT a "toss-out-the-old-group-with-the-old-charter-and-create-a-new-
group-with-a-slightly-modified-charter" roundabout procedure as you're
(*ahem*) suggesting. If anything, given all the hassles that are involved in
creating any new group, it's always easier to modify/expand on an existing
group than to do a total purge-and-rebuild.
(It's also a bit humorous how you choose to be a stickler for the details
all of a sudden. Weren't you the same guy complaining at Hasbro when they
were sticking to the details about enforcing their copyrights at BC'97?)
Robert A. Jung
In article <336D98...@amp.com> jeru...@amp.com writes:
>That is an invalid arguement. Up until now, the posts in question have
>been welcome here. Spam never has. These are not the same thing and it
>is not valid to compare them.
It's the same excuse -- "Oh, I want to increase my sales, I have a right
to make money."
>The problem you have is that there is no authority to allow you to
>forbid these posts. ATT was set up as a general forum for TF-related
>posts and the creation of ATTM does not change that fact.
Sorry, but no. The people who were in favor of creating ATTM supported it
with the expectation that sales messages would migrate there. The will of
the group's readership is the authority, and your actions are merely a form
of saying, "I don't care what the majority wants."
Robert A. Jung
In article <336E5A...@amp.com> jeru...@amp.com writes:
>This is a place to POST ABOUT TF's. If you want a place to ONLY discuss
>them, you will have to create one. Funny, but I don't see what so bad
>about that. It's only what you would have the other side do.
You keep forgetting one thing, John: the readers have already decided which
way they want things to go.
Robert A. Jung
In article <5kmfvs$e...@eyrie.org> robo...@eyrie.org (Robotech_Master) writes:
>Um, Rob? Much as I hate to side against you, you kind of missed
>jerunski's point.
Oops! B-) That's what I get for trying to post after ten hours at the
office, plus trying to get some stuff reviewed, plus posting on a topic that
I'd rather not need to be brought up at all. Fatigue and distraction and
grumpiness don't mix...
>If someone doesn't read the group (just posting sales posts to it
>instead), it's not likely they'll read the FAQ, either, is it?
>
>(The obvious rejoinder is, of course, "They'll find about it the same
>way they found out about alt.toys.transformers in the first
>place--in the list of newsgroups, right after alt.toys.transformers.
>And if not, someone will gently correct them after they post their
>marketplace ad here.")
Right. People (those who don't mega-spam across groups, anyway) found
ATT by reading newsgroup names, after all. And maybe it's the optimist in
me, but I'd like to think that someone who saw "alt.toys.transformers" and
"alt.toys.transformers.marketplace" listed could figure out where sales-
related messages ought to go.
To get absolutely no sales messages in ATT is impossible (just as it's
impossible to get ATT *or* ATTM to every single site in existence). But
putting most sales-related posts in ATTM is certainly possible, especially
if the folks here collectively support proper group usage. Which is what
I'm trying to encourage, more than anything else.
>>Offhand, I wouldn't mind an alt.toys.transformers.fanfic group,
>>myself -- use ATTM for sales, ATTF for stories, and ATT for
>>everything else. But that's another matter...
>
>Sounds good to me. But follow the precedent set in other areas (the
>rec.arts.anime & rec.arts.comics hierarchies, for two) and call it
>alt.toys.transformers.creative. :)
As long as someone else plays Point-of-Contact for that one... B-)
Robert A. Jung
In article <336E8E...@amp.com> jeru...@amp.com writes:
>Raksha wrote:
>>As someone else
>>has pointed out, some of those sale posts are by people who don't even
>>read the group, and want nothing else but to sell their toys. Which
>>is fine, but there's a more specialized group for them now.
>
>Here you present a practical problem with this. How is someone who
>doesn't read the group going to know that ATTM exists?
The FAQ would be a good place to mention it. Heck, it wouldn't take too
much to turn the ATT FAQ into the ATT/ATTM FAQ. And as Waspinator suggested,
friendly reminders from *everyone* about proper message posting would only
help.
>And even if they
>find it, you and I know darn well that everything will STILL be
>cross-posted.
Only by rude people, IMO (to deliberately crosspost when you know you
shouldn't is rude). And if we as a community stand together and say no to
such behavior, it won't last.
>>Because, as much as sales have taken over a large
>>percentage of the posts here, the *majority* of stuff that goes on
>>here, is still discussion. And that's what this group was originally
>>based on.
>
>This is all true, but it doesn't change the fact that the current
>solution is unworkable.
I think it's working rather well. Aside from a few vocal dissenters, most
people have had no problem (1) getting their providers to carry ATTM,
(2) holding sales on ATTM, and (3) selling their stuff on ATTM.
>Maybe their should have been a ATTD in addition
>to ATTM.
Let's get ONE new group settled before we tackle another one. B-) Offhand,
I wouldn't mind an alt.toys.transformers.fanfic group, myself -- use ATTM for
sales, ATTF for stories, and ATT for everything else.
But that's another matter...
--R.J.
Steve R. Stonebraker
Robotech_Master (robo...@eyrie.org) writes:
> doesn't say anything at all in regard to marketplace posts. (You
> _can_ claim it goes counter to the procedures described in the FAQ, of
> course, but that's not as great an "offense" as posting against
> charter, and that also gets into the thorny issue of just who _wrote_
> the FAQ and under what authority.)
*I* write the FAQ. That should be plainly obvious from simply looking at
a copy of the thing. It is a job I originally assumed 2+ years ago in
the abscence of a FAQ Keeper. From that, you could say that I have no
authority. On the other hand, a newsgroup FAQ should be representative of
the feelings of the newsgroup readers. Despite tension and disagreements
between "factions" on ATT, particularly between newbies and regulars, I
feel that the FAQ remains largely impartial and fair. I have received no
input to make me believe it is viewed otherwise. From that, you could say
that I have the authority of the people.
The FAQ is a voice for the users of Usenet. It is impossible to avoid
putting some of myself into it -- I am a supporter of ATTM, and if I
weren't, I could conceivably not advertise its use in the FAQ. If I did
this, however, and staunchly refused to change it, the FAQ would cease to
be representative, and hopefully I would be, I dunno... "impeached". That
is, someone else would write a better FAQ and I would sink into obscurity.
It's like Optimus Prime how explained his leadership early in the comics
(to Jetfire, maybe?). I only have this role because I said I would do it.
If I ever stop doing it effectively, or someone else can do it better,
then I should no longer do it. Hopefully somebody wouldn't just surprise
me with a new FAQ meant to replace mine, but rather we would come to some
understanding I would sort of pass the mantle on, but that's only because
of a mildly selfish, yet hopefully understandable, defensiveness about "my
turf". Just like the initial uproar when the Nixtr came out with a tech
spec list to compete with Hex's.
So anyway... If it will make people happier, why don't we have some sort
of a discussion about whether the FAQ should represent a sort of living
charter? I have included guidelines for a long time, and labelling them
as a charter won't make any real difference, but if it will help to settle
these semantic debates, it would be worth it. Any objections? Remember,
if I write guidelines that anyone disagrees with, I'm open to suggestions
and willing to make modifications and compromises. Most of the guidelines
I have now are already compromises.
--
--Steve
-- Steve Stonebraker -- http://cc.owu.edu/~srstoneb/ --
-- alt.toys.transformers FAQ Keeper --
Lewis M. Brooks, III
In article <MPG.dd80af97...@news.ml.com>, te...@ix.netcom.com (Tengu) writes:
> In article <Pine.LNX.3.95.97050...@newton.pconline.com>,
> lo...@pconline.com says...
>>
>> Robert Jung does seem to have some kind of a delusion that he is the
>> supreme authority in this group. It also bothers me that he posts things
>> that he has been repeatedly reminded are not true.
>>
>
> I was going to stay out of this, but it's getting kind of unfair.
> I don't believe that Mr. Jung has ever assumed to be the supreme
> authority in this group.
I think supreme authority is to strong a term. What would you call it when you
force other into something that is not mandated by the charter.
> Quite truthfully though, he *has* gone through
> a lot of work to get ATTM up and running, with a goal of better serving
> the TF fan community on the 'Net.
Trust me on this, the effect ATTM will have on the TF fan community on the Net
has obviously not been to better serve.
> Taking issue with ATTM is one thing, but starting a thread to
> intentionally malign someone is petty, mean-spirited and above all
> unnecessary.
When that one person is single handedly forcing people to follow a set of rules
he created, and ignore the charter, then it is appropriat. John's first post
on this thread was absolutely correct.
> How would it feel to work really hard on something to help
> the rest of ATT and then see *your* name on the bullseye?
Not everyone wants/wanted ATTM. The people who didn't don't owe it to Robert
to be nice to him. It is they who were inconvenienced by.
> Is it so hard
> to believe that Rob pushed for ATTM because he had the group's interests
> in mind?
I'm sure he did. But lets look at some of the problems with this action.
Robert keeps talking about rules. There has never been a change to the charter
of ATT. If the charter can't be changed, then that's it. ATTM can not be made
mandatory. If the charter (or excepted documents usenet rules) state how a
charter can be changed, then we should follow thoes rules. Robert says, "Oh,
we'll just accept what's in the FAQ as a charter since it is more convenient.
> ATTM was voted for and it went through- why cry about it now?
> Just _try_ using it...
There are not the same procedures to creating an Alt group. No vote was
needed. If someone wants to create a group called
Alt.Toys.Transformers.RobertJung, then they can do it. That does not change
the fact that the ATT charter says nothign about forbidding buy/sell/trade
posts.
Lewis M. Brooks, III
> From: Robert A. Jung[SMTP:rj...@netcom.com]
> Sent: Saturday, May 03, 1997 11:50 AM
> To: Runski, John E
> Subject: RE: Auction for a friend 3: Update 1
>
>>I will cease posting to ATT when I feel that there is 100% complete
>>coverage with ATTM and no sooner.
>
> Then I'll have to inform your system administrators that you are
> deliberately violating the charters of alt.toys.transformers and
> alt.toys.transformers.marketplace, and to take disciplinary action as
> needed.
So Rob, you've taken to outright lying to support ATTM? You know very well
there is nothing in the charter being violated. No System administrator can do
a thing about it.
Lewis
Lewis M. Brooks, III
>>follow...but I still don't see how you can reasonably claim that
>>posting marketplace posts to a.t.tf is "against charter".
>
> As I wrote before, it was a lazy shortcut I used, particularly since (at the
> time) I didn't know of anyone who had access to the genuine charter. E.g., in
> lieu of an official charter, the FAQ's guidelines were the closest thing we
> had on hand.
So, since you didn't have access to the real charter, you just made one up, and
decided it was close enough? ROb, I've never felt you were really trying to
control things in this. I always felt that you really thought you were doing
something good. After this though, I think it's pretty apparent you are
willing to do whatever it takes to force buy/sell/trade posts off ATT. There
is nothing in the ATT charter forbidiong buy/sell/trade posts. End of story.
> In any case, I think it's safe to assume that when the entire question of
> whether or not to create a .marketplace group first came around, everyone was
> thinking in terms of moving the sales messages there. I don't recall anyone
> being confused if crossposts were acceptable or not, for instance.
That's not the point. The charter is the only document with any power over
this group. If it can not be changed, then you can't restrict ATT.
Lewis
Lewis M. Brooks, III
In article <336e7883...@news-stand.acs.ohio-state.edu>, jk...@postbox.acs.ohio-state.edu (Raksha) writes:
> On Mon, 05 May 1997 04:20:35 -0400, jeru...@amp.com wrote:
>>The problem you have is that there is no authority to allow you to
>>forbid these posts. ATT was set up as a general forum for TF-related
>>posts and the creation of ATTM does not change that fact.
>
> years. When I first stumbled into it, there were perhaps 20 posts a
> day, with a readership of maybe twice that number. Most of them were
> discussion posts, or "remember this?" posts, or requests for
> identification, with the occasional fanfic or very occasional sale or
> auction thrown in. As the group got bigger, both in terms of readers
> and posts, it took longer and longer to keep up with -- not that this
> is necessarily a bad thing, since more fans mean more diversity of
> opinion and more interesting discussions. But when the TFs suddenly
> became big news again and the prices on the collectors markets started
> has pointed out, some of those sale posts are by people who don't even
> read the group, and want nothing else but to sell their toys. Which
> is fine, but there's a more specialized group for them now.
Even though the nature of the group may have changed, it doe not give ANYONE
the right to change the charter. If usenet cahrter's can not be changed, then
ATTM is a dead issue.
> There may have been nothing against sales and auctions in the
> original ATT charter, but remember the time it was written in.
Do usenet charter's have an expiration date? They should have certain
procedures to change them. I am told that they can not be changed, so I'm
afraid the ATTM supporters are out of luck.
> A time
> when there simply *weren't* very many sales posts. The situation is
> very different now. It's as though we were to stick to the letter to
> old laws, instead of modifying them to adapt to changing needs.
Then procedures for changing them should have been set down in the charter.
> I'll also address the idea that maybe those who wanted to get
> away from the sales posts should have split off a discussion group
> instead.
This would have been what to do. It was thoes who did not want to read
buy/sell/trade posts who were the main supporters of ATTM. They wanted
something, so they kicked other people's posts out. They would have been
better off to move there own posts.
> Well, I guarantee you that the uproar over that would have
> been even worse than the current nonsense over the Marketplace group.
You mean the ATTM supporters can dish it out, they just can't take it.
> You know why? Because, as much as sales have taken over a large
> percentage of the posts here, the *majority* of stuff that goes on
> here, is still discussion. And that's what this group was originally
> based on.
The group was originally based on anything related to Transformers. That
includes sales.
> A few years from now when the current BW/TF craze dies down,
> all those sales and auction posts are going to dwindle away and die
> out. But the rest of us will still be here......
We will, but so will buy/sell/trade posts on ATT.
Lewis
Lewis M. Brooks, III
>>The problem you have is that there is no authority to allow you to
>>forbid these posts. ATT was set up as a general forum for TF-related
>>posts and the creation of ATTM does not change that fact.
>
> with the expectation that sales messages would migrate there. The will of
> the group's readership is the authority, and your actions are merely a form
> of saying, "I don't care what the majority wants."
But they had no right to expect it if the charte can not be changed. Now, the
charter is not your backing anymore. Now, you use the "will of the groups's
readership", as your backing. Sorry, but that loses too.
Lewis
Lewis M. Brooks, III
Desperate? I have ATTM access, and only occasionally do I sell anything.
> Newsgroups have expanded, reorganized, and evolved before, after all,
> WITHOUT a "toss-out-the-old-group-with-the-old-charter-and-create-a-new-
> group-with-a-slightly-modified-charter" roundabout procedure as you're
> (*ahem*) suggesting. If anything, given all the hassles that are involved in
> creating any new group, it's always easier to modify/expand on an existing
> group than to do a total purge-and-rebuild.
Then do it correctly. Someone write up a new charter. Then, we can vote. It
will probably take months to vote on each element of it, reword it, add items
to it, create a system where it can be ammended, etc, etc. Create a document
not unlike the Constitution of the United States. Perhaps it might even be
done by Botcon 98, if we're lucky. It would take a while. but it would be the
proper thing to do. The original charter was obviously lacking in most
eveyrthing. NOW, we do it right. You just can't say, "we'll just accept the
FAQ since it is convenient.
> (It's also a bit humorous how you choose to be a stickler for the details
> all of a sudden. Weren't you the same guy complaining at Hasbro when they
> were sticking to the details about enforcing their copyrights at BC'97?)
Hmmm, and you were the same person who keeps saying it's against the charter
to post buy/sell/trade to ATT. Oh course you were lying. You knew full well
the charter did not forbid it. Yet you continued to mislead people. You used
thoes lies to try and intimidate people into following your view of how the
group should be.
I am not always such a stickler for the rules. It is YOU who have been saying
follow the rules. Problem is YOU didn't. There is nothing funny about that.
It's just plain sad.
Lewis
Lewis M. Brooks, III
In article <rjungE9...@netcom.com>, rj...@netcom.com (Robert A. Jung) writes:
> In article <336E57...@amp.com> jeru...@amp.com writes:
>>Fine, but that's not in question. The question is if you (or anyone) can
>>restrict what type of post get's posted to ATT. As I understand it, you
>>can't.
>
> Well, I could send a letter to the system administrator at amp.com, include
> the portions of the ATT FAQ that deal with sales messages (especially Steve's
> freshly-updated sections), point out that you have access to both groups, and
> are deliberately ignoring the FAQ's guidelines for your own arbitrary reasons.
> I think he'd be able to do some restricting...
John could go and say, the groups charter does not forbid my postings... The
sysadmin won't be able to do a damn thing.
> (Note that this isn't a threat of any sort. As I wrote before, I'd rather
> not write any sort of letters. But don't think you're completely free to
> do whatever you want -- Usenet is a privilege, not a right.)
Of course it's not a threat. Well, maybe it is, but if it is, it's an empty
one.
Leweis
Lewis M. Brooks, III
> HEY! come to think of it as this whole "voting" process took place over the
> holiday season, dosen't it stand to reason that hordes of ATT'rs who only
> get to access the group while at school might very well have missed out
> on the the voting process???? A significant chunk was probably away. NOT
> FAIR!
>
> And from what I gathered ATTM was created with a petition of 30 sigs, not
> a REAL vote. Was there any NO ATTM petition started?
>
There was, and if not for the holiday season, I'm sure it would have outweighed
the pro ATTM'ers petition.
Lewis
Suzanne M. Ferree
In a previous article, le...@swbell.net (L.M.P.) says:
>robo...@eyrie.org (Robotech_Master) wrote:
>>Anyone who doesn't have Marketplace who wants to read _or_ post to it
>>can easily do so via deja-news. I even posted the URL.
>
>However, Deja-news can be anywhere from several hours to almost a day
>behind in its updates, and since many of the sales posts are for a
|sf>I'll tell you--in comparison to the servers I use, "several hours to
almost a day" is getting really good. For example, on a.t.t. sometimes
certain parts of Fanfics never reach either one of my accounts. Part of
the reason is because a.t.t. like a huge workhorse--there's a lot of
traffic on here and for some reason, certain posts are sometimes delayed or
never make it. The marketplace group has less traffic, so there's less for
the server to have to pick up.
>"first come, first serve" product, using Deja-news to find out about
>this type of sale is worse than useless in that it simply tells you
>about the really great deal you -just- missed out on.
>
>This can be -extremely- frustrating.
It's faster than my EDU account or my Freenet account. Maybe
you've just been spoiled by your fast newsreader. :)
>>> The point is that a single person posted an admittedly arbitrary date
>>> for a transition at which all sales-related posts would be limited,
>>> without the consent or desire of the masses verified.
>
>>Can you prove this? Not to say you're wrong, but...
>
>I know that -I- wasn't consulted, nor did I see any posts to this
>newsgroup regarding any such decsion being made or decsion-making
>commitee being formed (and I have been lurking here for several weeks
>now).
A cut off date has to be reached eventually.
>>> The point is that threats of "disciplinary action" have apparently
>>> surfaced in reference to people's unwillingness to submit to such
>>> arbitrary demands.
>
>>"Threats of 'disciplinary action'"? Hmm. I can see that I'm going to
>>need to do some more Deja-News surfing.
>
>Several folks have said these "disiplinary action" messages have been
>sent to individuals from Jung via private email, if these have been
>sent this way, it is unlikely you will find any of them on Deja-news.
"Disciplinary action" You mean the suggestion that if the person
#1 doesn't mention that he can't get a.t.t.m., and #2, posts (or worse,
crossposts) to a.t.t., that a person will reply and politely ask the poster
if they will use a.t.t. if they have it? That's "disciplinary action"???
Uh, ok, whatever...
--
Suzanne Ferree | "Swinging Safari" & "Eternal Flame"
E-mail: ev...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu | aka: Safari@TF1 &
or: s...@grex.cyberspace.org | aka: ex-Flamethrower@2005
or: sfe...@s-cwis.unomaha.edu | http://www.cyberspace.org/~suz/beta.html
Suzanne M. Ferree
In a previous article, bohn...@acmelabs.uhc.asu.edu (Ivy Bohnlein) says:
>Yes, I can understand that a very small minority of people aren't
>able to get access to a.t.t.m even when they ask. So far, it seems
>to be 3 people. And yes, I can fully identify with the frustration
|sf>I wonder if UNomaha is included in that (thank goodness for
more than 1 account).
>of those without web access. :) So if you want to run an auction
>and can't get access to a.t.t.m, and you have tried to do so, go
>ahead and hold it here - label it well and post updates as followups
>to the same thread, so we can killfile the whole thread if we don't
>want to have to fish through it.
Great idea! As someone who (on Cleveland) has to go through all
these posts separately (or press s for "next in the thread") that would
really help out. Thanks for the suggestion.
>We CAN all get along without hurling accusations at the target of
>the day. It's called compromise and mutual respect. Let's give
>it a try, okay?
>
Agreed
>
>Ivy -- who is one person who appreciates what Rob is trying to do.
Same here.
jeru...@amp.com
Robert A. Jung wrote:
>
> In article <336E57...@amp.com> jeru...@amp.com writes:
> >Fine, but that's not in question. The question is if you (or anyone) can
> >restrict what type of post get's posted to ATT. As I understand it, you
> >can't.
>
> Well, I could send a letter to the system administrator at amp.com, include
> the portions of the ATT FAQ that deal with sales messages (especially Steve's
> freshly-updated sections), point out that you have access to both groups, and
> are deliberately ignoring the FAQ's guidelines for your own arbitrary reasons.
> I think he'd be able to do some restricting...
I guess you choose to ignore the majority of this arguement. The FAQ
gives you no authority to do this. It is a suggested guideline, at best,
but certainly not the law. You can write a letter to whoever you want.
It doesn't make you right.
> (Note that this isn't a threat of any sort. As I wrote before, I'd rather
> not write any sort of letters. But don't think you're completely free to
> do whatever you want -- Usenet is a privilege, not a right.)
You are playing with somantics. Now I could claim you are making
"implied threats". And actually, per the original creation of ATT, I AM
free to post anything TF related.
John
Jason Boss
Robert A. Jung wrote:
BROO...@rhea.bentley.edu (Lewis M. Brooks, III) writes:
> >Rob, aren't you
> >the one who keeps talking about rules? Accepting what is in the
> FAQ
> >as a charter simply because it is more convenient is not following
> the rules,
> >is it?
>
> If I'm not mistaken, once a group is created, its charter cannot
> be changed
> even if everyone wants it to be. So if you wish to split semantic
> hairs and
> say that the original group charter for ATT should be used, that's
> assuming a
> fair amount of fortune-telling on whoever wrote the original thing.
> --R.J.,
> who thought Lewis
> would LOVE
> a
> democratically-created
> group like ATTM...
> B-)
I think that this discussion is going absolutely nowhere. It seems
that those who are in favor of ATTM are satisfied with the turnout of
voters during the original petition, and believe that "majority" (I
don't have numbers, I am not making any claims) rules in this case.
Those who disagree with making ATTM the exclusive place for auctions and
sales contest cite the fact that not everyone agreed. Also, there is the
matter of the "rules." What are they? Does anyone actually _know_? Can
we find out?
Basically, I don't see this getting resolved. I personally lean
towards Robert's side, because we can't realistically expect a unanimous
decision, but we can't just fight about it forever, either. If this
argument must continue, perhaps it would be more useful for people to
propose some sort of solutions to the ATT/ATTM divide. I must admit,
however, that I don't have one.
Something that I consider an interesting sidenote is the whole
question of Robert's "authority." The way the thread has been going, it
seems that, if Robert were invested from on high with some sort of
authority (whatever that is), most everyone would listen to him and this
argument would be moot. I think that says something about us, myself
included. Perhaps Robert's best hope of success in this debate is to
start a campaign to become "ATT/ATTM Official Authority Figure."
Apparently, the title would make his statements more meaningful and
sound than if he makes them as mild-mannered Robert Jung. :)
][ason
R. Jason Boss
va...@eden.rutgers.edu
--- Too ashamed to use TF Code! >|^}
jeru...@amp.com
Robert A. Jung wrote:
>
> In article <5kn277$q85$1...@oravannahka.Helsinki.FI> Joona I Palaste <pal...@cc.helsinki.fi> writes:
> >Because of this, although I _do_ use ATTM
> >to post auctions, etc., I still post them on ATT itself as well. I am,
> >and will be, using ATTM for posting my trade messages, but I will not
> >stop sending the same messages to ATT itself, at least for a while yet.
> >How do you people like this? Do you have any suggestions for me?
>
> Just one: when do YOU propose that everyone uses ATTM exclusively for sales
> messages, then?
>
> (Here's an idea, folks -- let Joona pick a transition cutoff date, and then
> everyone abide by it. He doesn't seem to have a vested interest one way or
> the other, so if we all agree to abide by whatever he picks, that ought to be
> a sembalance of fairness. How's that?)
>
Not that there is anthing wrong with Joona, but that is still one person
picking an arbitrary date. Maybe we should take monthly surveys to see
if there are still people who don't have ATTM access and evaluate those
results. That would be at least SOMEWHAT objective.
But there is still the second point raised in this discussion. If the
ATT charter can not be changed, those of us who post collector's posts
have to decide if we CHOOSE to completely leave ATT. I have already
stated that I would prefer to continue posting announcements of auctions
in ATT, and then continue it in ATTM. BTW, that amounts to about one
post every two months at my current run rate (3 auctions in 6 months).
IMHO, not a huge concession to ask... especially considering that until
we see proof otherwise, it looks like we have the right to continue to
post whenever we wish.
You might want to start considering a compromise that can make everyone
happy.
John
jeru...@amp.com
Robert A. Jung wrote:
>
> In article <336E5A...@amp.com> jeru...@amp.com writes:
> >This is a place to POST ABOUT TF's. If you want a place to ONLY discuss
> >them, you will have to create one. Funny, but I don't see what so bad
> >about that. It's only what you would have the other side do.
>
> You keep forgetting one thing, John: the readers have already decided which
> way they want things to go.
>
You are forgetting the simple fact that that may not matter. If the
charter can not be changed, it could be unanimus and it wouldn't matter.
Alt. groups were specially set up with special protection so that people
can not be scilenced. That may be "back-firing" in your opinion, but
this probably should have been a rec. group to begin with.
John
Trent Troop
Jason Boss wrote:
>
> start a campaign to become "ATT/ATTM Official Authority Figure."
> Apparently, the title would make his statements more meaningful and
> sound than if he makes them as mild-mannered Robert Jung. :)
>
Not only that... he wouldn't have to change his tone in the slightest!
Seriously though... Both sides need to calm down. Rob's side needs to
acknowlege that despite the fact they got a narrow majority, others are
entitled to their opinions, and their right to state them. The other side
needs to either calmly suggest a recount, or sit back and watch as the
whole thing progresses. Personally... I'm just sitting back, watching
this whole fiasco. Considering the parties involved, tact and comprimise
seem... well, about as likely as Carl Mesec releasing Macross Subtitled
and 4 episodes to a tape.
-Trent
--
===================================================================
-------------------------------------------------------------------
"You'd better not touch me, 'cuz I'm burning with RAGE!"
- Prince Vejita, Dragonball Z Movie 13: Goku's Dragonfist
"Hey! Keep it on the road, We're in the tubes back here!"
- MST3K The Movie
"Explody Look! Its Peg Pelvis Pete Come to kill us!"
- Stimpy's Cartoon
===================================================================
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert A. Jung
In article <336ECE...@amp.com> jeru...@amp.com writes:
>I guess you choose to ignore the majority of this arguement. The FAQ
>gives you no authority to do this. It is a suggested guideline, at best,
>but certainly not the law. You can write a letter to whoever you want.
>It doesn't make you right.
As Chris Meadows has pointed out before, most administrators do recognize
that charters -- being nigh-impossible to change -- aren't always the best
guidelines as to what's the right place to post messages. They are allowed
to use their judgement, after all; that's part of their job.
Robert A. Jung
In article <5kn277$q85$1...@oravannahka.Helsinki.FI> Joona I Palaste <pal...@cc.helsinki.fi> writes:
>Because of this, although I _do_ use ATTM
>to post auctions, etc., I still post them on ATT itself as well. I am,
>and will be, using ATTM for posting my trade messages, but I will not
>stop sending the same messages to ATT itself, at least for a while yet.
>How do you people like this? Do you have any suggestions for me?
Just one: when do YOU propose that everyone uses ATTM exclusively for sales
messages, then?
(Here's an idea, folks -- let Joona pick a transition cutoff date, and then
everyone abide by it. He doesn't seem to have a vested interest one way or
the other, so if we all agree to abide by whatever he picks, that ought to be
a sembalance of fairness. How's that?)
--R.J.
Lewis M. Brooks, III
>>I guess you choose to ignore the majority of this arguement. The FAQ
>>gives you no authority to do this. It is a suggested guideline, at best,
>>but certainly not the law. You can write a letter to whoever you want.
>>It doesn't make you right.
>
> As Chris Meadows has pointed out before, most administrators do recognize
> that charters -- being nigh-impossible to change -- aren't always the best
> guidelines as to what's the right place to post messages. They are allowed
> to use their judgement, after all; that's part of their job.
That's exactly what you are trying to do. Ignore the charter becasue it suits
you. A Sys Admin might try to speak to someone about posting buy/sell/trade to
ATTM, but they have no authority to do anything about it.
Lewis
Robert A. Jung
In article <1997May...@rhea.bentley.edu> BROO...@rhea.bentley.edu (Lewis M. Brooks, III) writes:
>In article <rjungE9...@netcom.com>, rj...@netcom.com (Robert A. Jung) writes:
>>Dole in the last US Presidental election don't have to pay income taxes,
>>since they're being spent by the candidate that they didn't elect...
>
>Huh? Not even a close comparison. I'm not even sure what point you are
>tryinh to make.
The point is, the majority made a choice (Clinton, ATTM). Even if you
disagree with the choice, you're obligated (by tax law, by netiquette rules)
to follow that choice (paying taxes, posting sales messages in ATTM).
>> I frankly don't care if people are nice to me or not. All I ask is that
>>they respect the will of the majority -- to have a group devoted to TF sales
>>messages -- and put sales messages there without crossposing, as intended.
>
>I think the biggest problem is that according to the charter, no vote can do
>this. Coupled with the fact that you have been claiming otherwise for some
>time now, and I think you can see that we have a right to be uset about it.
As I've written before (a point which you've continued to ignore in your
zest), I used "charter" previously as a shorthand for "portions of the ATT
FAQ dealing with sales messages and newsgroup usage."
I admit it was a mistake on my part, but it's a minor one of semantics. The
fundamental theme of this entire point -- that a majority of the readers have
said that they want to move TF sales messages into a dedicated group --
remains unchanged. All the hair-splitting doesn't alter the fact that the
people have said, "Yes, we want ATTM." (Heck, Rob "The Choda" Smith's thread
on whether or not people actually want ATTM have gotten primarily positive
responses, ffrom what I've read)
IMO, debating over the use of ATTM is a pointless exercise. The people have
spoken, the group exists, 98.6% of the sites carrying ATT have it already, why
whine over the matter? Just use the group as intended, and then we can go on
to more important things -- like whether or not Ironhide was loyal or just a
suck-up... B-)
Robert A. Jung
>>everyone abide by it. He doesn't seem to have a vested interest one way or
>>the other, so if we all agree to abide by whatever he picks, that ought to be
>>a sembalance of fairness. How's that?)
>
>there should even be a date.
Of course -- because the alternative is to do nothing, which is not a
solution of any sort.
--R.J.,
Captain Obvious
Coins1913
Why do I get the feeling that a few people want us to believe that they
are bigger or more important than everyone else. By trying to control
something that they cannot.
Coins
Lewis M. Brooks, III
>>> By that logic, Lewis, you may as well argue that people who voted for Bob
>>>Dole in the last US Presidental election don't have to pay income taxes,
>>>since they're being spent by the candidate that they didn't elect...
>>
>>Huh? Not even a close comparison. I'm not even sure what point you are
>>tryinh to make.
>
> The point is, the majority made a choice (Clinton, ATTM). Even if you
> disagree with the choice, you're obligated (by tax law, by netiquette rules)
> to follow that choice (paying taxes, posting sales messages in ATTM).
But you are assuming that there is a binding vote. The Constitution of The
United States make the vote for President binding under law. The ATT charter
has no such rules.
>>> I frankly don't care if people are nice to me or not. All I ask is that
>>>they respect the will of the majority -- to have a group devoted to TF sales
>>>messages -- and put sales messages there without crossposing, as intended.
>>
>>I think the biggest problem is that according to the charter, no vote can do
>>this. Coupled with the fact that you have been claiming otherwise for some
>>time now, and I think you can see that we have a right to be uset about it.
> As I've written before (a point which you've continued to ignore in your
> zest), I used "charter" previously as a shorthand for "portions of the ATT
> FAQ dealing with sales messages and newsgroup usage."
But it is not a charter. It is not binding. It is an FAQ.
> I admit it was a mistake on my part, but it's a minor one of semantics. The
> fundamental theme of this entire point -- that a majority of the readers have
> said that they want to move TF sales messages into a dedicated group --
> remains unchanged. All the hair-splitting doesn't alter the fact that the
> people have said, "Yes, we want ATTM." (Heck, Rob "The Choda" Smith's thread
> on whether or not people actually want ATTM have gotten primarily positive
> responses, ffrom what I've read)
I guess you just don't see the point.
Lewis M. Brooks, III
Aak Robert Jung why he feels the need to control things. It's not a question I
can answer.
Lewis
Lewis M. Brooks, III
> included. Perhaps Robert's best hope of success in this debate is to
You would rather we debate Robert as our all high master. Now there's a
debater Megatron would run from in terror.
Lewis
Lewis M. Brooks, III
>>No better than your picking it Rob. You still proceed from the premise that
>>there should even be a date.
>
> Of course -- because the alternative is to do nothing, which is not a
> solution of any sort.
Here is the one and only solution. The great majority of thoes who wanted ATTM
wanted it so taht ATT could remain for discussion. Instead of doing the
obvious thing, and create an ATTDiscussion, they inconvenienced everyone who
did not have a problem by throwing them out of the newsgroup. The only
solution will be to create an ATTD that specifically forbids buy/sell/trade
posts, but allows cross-posting of discuss/fanfic/etc from ATT to ATTD. This
would solve the problem, withought entering into any problems with the ATT
charter. ATT would reamin for anyting TF. ATTM would reamin for
buy/sell/trade, but they could be crossposted to ATT, and ATTD would be for non
buy/sell/trade TF posts, and could be crossposted to ATT.
That is the only solution. It really annoys me that the poeple who wanted to
get rid of the buy/sell/trade posts were just fine with throwing them off of
ATT, but are completely opposed to an ATTD.
Lewis
Lewis M. Brooks, III
> --R.J.,
> who thought Lewis
> would LOVE
> a
> democratically-created
> group like ATTM...
Yes, I would go right along with the results of a democratic vote. Problem is,
the charter does not allow a democratic vote like the Constitution does.
Let's look back on what happened.
First, ATTM was proposed.
Second, I was very much against it.
Third, it won, and I went with that.
Fourth, AOL still did not have ATTM, and I thought this was very unfair since
one of the points that all the pro-ATTMers had made was that AOL would get the
group.
Fifth, I said I would not use ATTM until AOL received ATTM.
Sixth, AOL got ATTM, and I posted that I would follow ATTM as I had said. If
you will recall, I posted my support for May 1 as the date to got to ATTM.
Seventh, John posted his opposition to ATTM, which I supported, but I did state
that I had said I would go along with it once AOL had ATTM, and that I would,
even though I did support John.
Up to this point, I have done nothing to undermine the supposedly democratic
process.
Eigth, it came to light, that the Newsgroup charter does not allow for
changes. It is not democratic, it sets down the law and is final. The vote
was invalid. The charter that you have used for so long is really just a
portion of the FAQ with no authority. This makes the ruling document of ATT
NOT a democracy, and thus no votes are valid.
Lewis
Wonko the Sane
BWRatBat wrote:
: I too was going to stay out of this BUT
:
: While I have no doubt that he created ATTM with the best intentions, and while
: I have no problem using it, my problem is being told that I(Or anyone alse)
: CANNOT use ATT.
You *can* use a.t.t. Did Rob every threaten anyone's life if you
put a post up here on a.t.t. to sell something? Is there some odd CGI
program being installed in comuters all around the world to block a.t.t.
from people who put sales posts here? No. People have been asked to post
sales/auctions etc. posts on a.t.t.m. That's all. No lives have been
threatened, no hard drives have been melted down.
: HEY! come to think of it as this whole "voting" process took place over the
: holiday season, dosen't it stand to reason that hordes of ATT'rs who only
: get to access the group while at school might very well have missed out
: on the the voting process???? A significant chunk was probably away. NOT
: FAIR!
As I recall, at the time the vote took place, there were at
*least* 100 posts on a.t.t. a day (if not more). I hardly call that a
"lull"
: And from what I gathered ATTM was created with a petition of 30 sigs, not
: a REAL vote. Was there any NO ATTM petition started?
Yes there was. The results are obvious.
**********************************************
*Name: Benson "Ironfire" Yee *
*a.k.a. Wonko the Sane *
*e-mail: ye...@is2.nyu.edu *
******************************************
*Check out Wonko's World, it's neat! *
*http://acweb.com/ben/ *
***************************************
"...what sheer ruthlessness, what disregard for
sentient life! I rather like these aliens."
-Megatron "Other Voices"
Robotech_Master
Would both of you PLEASE STOP IT???
Frankly, both sides of this debate are beginning to annoy me. Look.
We've _got_ a marketplace group now. Nobody is _forcing_ you to use
it. Of course, now that we have it, more people are going to be
reading/posting to it looking specifically for sellers or buyers, and
not paying as careful attention to a.t.t. Which means that
sales/wanted posts on a.t.t. are likelier to be missed by those people
who _do_ have a.t.t.m.
As for those few people who don't have it, or want to be sure that
those few people who don't have it won't miss their sales, who says
you flat-out _can't_ post to a.t.t.? Just keep it under control, so
those people who don't want to read them have less to ignore.
Robert Jung's behavior was regrettable, albeit understandable. But at
this point, _he_ should no longer be an issue regarding why you should
or should not use alt.toys.transformers.marketplace.
--
Chris Meadows aka | Author, Team M.E.C.H.A., Crapshoot & Co.
Robotech_Master | on the Superguy Listserv (bit.listserv.superguy)
robo...@jurai.net | With a World Wide Web homepage located at
robo...@eyrie.org | http://www.jurai.net/~robotech/index.html
Robotech_Master
In article <1997May...@rhea.bentley.edu>,
Lewis M. Brooks, III <BROO...@rhea.bentley.edu> wrote:
> Yes, I would go right along with the results of a democratic vote.
> Problem is, the charter does not allow a democratic vote like the
> Constitution does.
Um...I don't see anything in the charter that says "no democratic
votes". It just says this is a place for discussing Transformers.
> Eigth, it came to light, that the Newsgroup charter does not allow
> for changes. It is not democratic, it sets down the law and is
> final. The vote was invalid. The charter that you have used for so
> long is really just a portion of the FAQ with no authority. This
> makes the ruling document of ATT NOT a democracy, and thus no votes
> are valid.
Um, no. If newsgroup charters didn't allow for changes, how come
there were no problems when rec.arts.anime split off
r.a.a.marketplace? There was no big hassle there. But if the charter
"didn't allow changes" then the whole thing shouldn't even have
happened.
Look, alt.* groups are not Big Eight groups. "Charters" aren't
binding here. The only real purpose an alt.* charter serves is as a
loose rationale for the group. While the _charter itself_ can't be
altered down the line, it doesn't mean the group can't be. The group
will, and has been seen to, grow and change over the period of its
existance. Hence, there will need to be changes to the structure of
the group. The charter no longer means a heck of a lot. I mean,
before I dug it up, nobody here even really knew what it _said_
anymore.
Now, mind, I don't approve of Robert claiming market posts here are
"against charter". In one sense, it's wrong, but in the more
important sense, where alt groups are concerned, it's unclear and
inappropriate language. At this stage, I frankly see the charter as
largely irrelevant to either side.
As to the marketplace people: most of you seem to be posting largely
in a.t.t.m, now, and I appreciate it. I think a lot of the readers
here appreciate it too. After all, it _is_ the most appropriate
newsgroup now. (Not to say that a.t.t. is entirely _in_appropriate.
It's just _less_ appropriate.) Frankly, I don't see any problems with
the occasional marketplace post to a.t.t.; if you're really that
concerned that you would miss a sale, go ahead and post. But _please_
try to limit it to once a week on a.t.t., with more frequent posts on
a.t.t.m. if you want. Anyone who is _looking_ for auctions will
surely see it, and it gives those people who aren't looking less to
ignore.
Frankly, I think this is too much contention over such a simple
issue. Please, let's stop sniping at each other over this and just
try to get along.
Lewis M. Brooks, III
> (Here's an idea, folks -- let Joona pick a transition cutoff date, and then
> everyone abide by it. He doesn't seem to have a vested interest one way or
> the other, so if we all agree to abide by whatever he picks, that ought to be
> a sembalance of fairness. How's that?)
No better than your picking it Rob. You still proceed from the premise that
there should even be a date.
Lewis
Vulcana
Well it seems like a reasonable way to take things.
Vulcana
Dave
Lewis M. Brooks, III wrote:
> Here is the one and only solution. The great majority of thoes who wanted ATTM
> wanted it so taht ATT could remain for discussion. Instead of doing the
> obvious thing, and create an ATTDiscussion, they inconvenienced everyone who
> did not have a problem by throwing them out of the newsgroup. The only
> solution will be to create an ATTD that specifically forbids buy/sell/trade
> posts, but allows cross-posting of discuss/fanfic/etc from ATT to ATTD. This
> would solve the problem, withought entering into any problems with the ATT
> charter. ATT would reamin for anyting TF. ATTM would reamin for
> buy/sell/trade, but they could be crossposted to ATT, and ATTD would be for non
> buy/sell/trade TF posts, and could be crossposted to ATT.
>
> That is the only solution. It really annoys me that the poeple who wanted to
> get rid of the buy/sell/trade posts were just fine with throwing them off of
> ATT, but are completely opposed to an ATTD.
Why is it inherently obvious to create a newsgroup for discussion, as
opposed
to creating a newsgroup for trades? It's pointless to debate about the
"charter",
as it has already been stated that the charters are nigh impossible to
change. So,
in light of that, using the FAQ (which to my knowledge, has never been a
subject
of great dispute) as a guideline (not charter) for ATT and ATTM doesn't
seem
all that unreasonable.
From a personal perspective, I like ATTM. It lets me rifle through a
bunch of
articles that I feel fairly confident are all going to be about buying,
selling,
or trading Transformers and Transformer-related merchandise, read the
ones
that look to contain information about things I want, and mark the
newsgroup
read. I don't read auction posts in ATT. Not because I have this
militraristic
attitude about it, but when I come in after about 3 days and have 700
some
odd articles to sort through, I save the auction/sell/trade posts for
ATTM. I'd
much rather read the posts in ATT that relate to the non-economic points
of
the mythos.
This seems to largely be an economic issue. When the "vote" was taken,
the majority (which was not a landslide, but a simple majority) it was
decided
to create ATTM. I keep seeing these complaints that people who are
selling
or trading won't reach the largest target audience. People, that's just
tacky.
When I sell or trade my extra TF's, I get a fair price to make back some
of
the money I spent, and the buying party gets the TF they want. I
realize
TF's are collectibles, and therefore economically viable, but if all you
see are
giant dollar signs, keep it in ATTM. I don't want to see that.
I'm glad somebody (Robert) had the guts to take a stance that was
obviously
controversial in establishing a deadline for the auction posts to move.
He's not
imposing his rule over either group, he just put himself in the
unfortunate position
of target. In my opinion, he has handled this whole series of posts
with remarkable
poise and grace, and little anger or vice. Better than I could have
done
in the same position.
Or, in short, I'm taking Rob's side.
Dave
Robert Edward Powers
BWRatBat wrote:
:Someone else in this thread posted something to the effect that ATTM can be
: used by those who are only interested in sales related posts, while ATT
: the _GENERAL_ TF group can contain both discussion and sales posts.
Two things...
One, ATTM was meant to impose some order on the increasingly chaoic
world of ATT. Does "impose order" sound like something a dictator would
do? Perhaps, but that's the price of living in civilized society. The
more of us there are, the more we need rules to prevent chaos from ruling.
That was sort of what was happening with all the sales posts on the
newsgroup -- all the other topics of discussion were getting smothered.
Two, auction, sale, and WTB posts are inherently different from just
about any other thread on the newsgroup, in that they *aren't* discussion.
They're simply lists of items for sale, and the terms of those sales. If
you need to segregate one type of post in order to reduce bandwith on the
newsgroup, sales posts are the obvious candidate. A person looking to
discuss the metaphoric implications of Megatron transforming into a big
horkin' gun aren't going to look in sales posts to find such discussion;
likewise, those who are looking to score a MIB G1 Megatron aren't going to
be digging through the above discussion on their quest.
(Oh, sure, you could say that auctioners "discuss" the condition of the
toys they're selling. But how often does that actually lead into any
further discussion, ie, follow-up posts by other people?)
: IF there was a A.T.T.Diccussion group as well as ATT and ATTM then it
: would be more than reasonable to say no sales posts in ATTD and
: no discussion posts in ATTD.
ATT *is* the discussion group. That's what it's about -- discussion of
TFs. When sales and auctions were rare (like, about two years ago, for
example), it was no problem; while these weren't "discussion", there was
no other place more appropriate to post them than in the only TF-related
newsgroup. With all the sales going on these days, though, true discussion
was being hampered, and the time had come for sales posts to have a home
of their own.
: If an ATTD group gets created fine.
But that would be silly! :P
: HEY! come to think of it as this whole "voting" process took place over the
: holiday season, dosen't it stand to reason that hordes of ATT'rs who only
: get to access the group while at school might very well have missed out
: on the the voting process???? A significant chunk was probably away. NOT
: FAIR!
Bah. This discussion dragged on for months (still is, in fact.)
Anyone who keeps up with the group on a semi-regular basis couldn't have
missed it.
: And from what I gathered ATTM was created with a petition of 30 sigs, not
: a REAL vote. Was there any NO ATTM petition started?
Yes, and both sides got upwards of fifty names, if I recall correctly.
--
Robert Powers of the Ever-Changing .sig
repowers@artsci.wustl.edu__http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~repowers___
| Sacred cows make the | I wandered out in the world for years; |
| best hamburger. | you just stayed in your room... |
|_______--- Mark Twain___|____________________--- the Waterboys____|
Robert A. Jung
In article <336FC8AB...@eden.rutgers.edu> va...@eden.rtugers.edu writes:
> Basically, I don't see this getting resolved. I personally lean
>towards Robert's side, because we can't realistically expect a unanimous
>decision, but we can't just fight about it forever, either.
I agree. This thread seems to be going in circles now, more than anything
else.
>If this
>argument must continue, perhaps it would be more useful for people to
>propose some sort of solutions to the ATT/ATTM divide. I must admit,
>however, that I don't have one.
In an ideal universe, folks would follow the FAQ and post messages to the
appropriate groups (when possible -- obviously, the few people who don't have
access to ATTM will post their stuff to ATT instead). The "transition date"
idea was my attempt at a realistic solution; most people haven't had any
problems with it, AFAIK.
>Perhaps Robert's best hope of success in this debate is to
>start a campaign to become "ATT/ATTM Official Authority Figure."
>Apparently, the title would make his statements more meaningful and
>sound than if he makes them as mild-mannered Robert Jung. :)
But I don't *want* the job! You know how much time this stuff takes? B-)
What I'd like to see would just be a general group effort for directing
messages. If someone posts to the wrong group, send them a friendly note
about the procedure -- maybe post a copy, too, just in case. If a decent-
sized group does this, then it really is a representative of the group's
desire, and not just one person's effort.
Of course, this would be strictly voluntary, which is probably why it
hasn't happened... B-)
--R.J.
Robert A. Jung
In article <336F87...@amp.com> jeru...@amp.com writes:
>Not that there is anthing wrong with Joona, but that is still one person
>picking an arbitrary date. Maybe we should take monthly surveys to see
>if there are still people who don't have ATTM access and evaluate those
>results. That would be at least SOMEWHAT objective.
The problem is that, with Usenet, *NO* alt.* group will get full
distribution. There are lots of places out there that don't carry the entire
alt.* hierarchy, for instance, or will carry one group but not another.
I agree that "wait until everyone gets ATTM" is the fairest solution, but
it's not a workable one -- the realistic goal is "wait until most people get
ATTM," which I think is a point we've reached.
>But there is still the second point raised in this discussion. If the
>ATT charter can not be changed, those of us who post collector's posts
>have to decide if we CHOOSE to completely leave ATT. I have already
>stated that I would prefer to continue posting announcements of auctions
>in ATT, and then continue it in ATTM. BTW, that amounts to about one
>post every two months at my current run rate (3 auctions in 6 months).
>IMHO, not a huge concession to ask... especially considering that until
>we see proof otherwise, it looks like we have the right to continue to
>post whenever we wish.
>
>You might want to start considering a compromise that can make everyone
>happy.
I like your idea. In fact, tell ya what I'm gonna propose...
PROPOSED POLICY FOR TRANSFORMERS SALES MESSAGE POSTS:
1. Users who have access *only* to alt.toys.transformers can post
sales messages to that group. Though, out of common courtesy,
try to keep the number of posts to a reasonable number (no
"hourly auction updates", for instance).
2. Users who have access to both alt.toys.transformers and
alt.toys.transformers.marketplace should post sales messages in
ATTM most of the time. Sales announcements and sales results
can be posted in ATT, with instructions to e-mail the seller
directly for bids. Updates will be posted in ATTM only, as
often as the seller wants.
3. Users who violate the afformentioned rules will be asked to
follow them. Users who INTENTIONALLY violate the rules are
subject to disciplinary action following standard Usenet
netiquette procedures.
I think this is a fair and amiable solution; what do others think? If we
can get a consensus on this, then let's call it official, put it in the FAQ,
work together on it, and move on to something else.
Robert A. Jung
In article <1997May...@rhea.bentley.edu> BROO...@rhea.bentley.edu (Lewis M. Brooks, III) writes:
>But you are assuming that there is a binding vote. The Constitution of The
>United States make the vote for President binding under law. The ATT charter
>has no such rules.
No, but Usenet procedures do. Go read groups like alt.config or news.admin
sometime. The net only *looks* like anarchy...
Dan
Robert A. Jung wrote:
]
] BROO...@rhea.bentley.edu (Lewis M. Brooks, III) writes:
] >>(Here's an idea, folks -- let Joona pick a transition cutoff date,
]
] >No better than your picking it Rob. You still proceed from the
] >there should even be a date.
] Of course -- because the alternative is to do nothing, which is not
Sure it is. If the current situation, with buy/sell posts being
cross-posted in ATT and ATTM, is "correct," then doing nothing is
a perfectly acceptable solution.
Note that I'm arguing for or against ATTM. I really don't think it's
that important. But certain arguments that both sides have been
using in this "discussion" are really starting to grate on me.
-D
jeru...@amp.com
Robert A. Jung wrote:
>
> In article <337074...@email.sjsu.edu> ufs0...@email.sjsu.edu writes:
> >Why not let the sellers and traders post to both attm and att?
> >
> >Just for your consideration. I'm new so maybe this has been covered
> >before.
>
> The marketplace group wasn't created because people wanted to ghettoize
> sales messages(*). The problem is that many readers have limits to how much
> time they have to read Usenet, whether by real-life demands, offline readers,
> or busy phone signals. When these people do get access, they spend so much
> time sifting through the sales messages that they often don't get to read
> the news/discussion stuff in detail. Since sales messages often take up a
> good chunk of the group's bandwidth, a marketplace group seemed like the
> easiest way to alleviate the problem a bit.(**)
>
If someone's newsserver is so archaic that they can not easily list the
headers, this should be the least of their concerns. Maybe if we were
limited to the browsers from 6 or 7 years ago, this could be a problem,
but even with Netscape 1, I could breeze through the list pretty
quickly. And upgrades are freely available. Honestly, coming from
someone who touted Dejanews as a solution for not getting ATTM, this is
a pretty weak arguement. Dejanews would be a legitamate "handicap" to
efficient reading.
Now with Netcsape 3, I can scan the list of over 100 headers in a minute
or two. And this prograqm is available for free. Sales posts are usually
pretty obvious from the headers, so if time is an issue, don't read
them.
John