CALL FOR DISCUSSION - rec.arts.sf-creative
Ryan D Mathews
user-written science fiction. An informal poll I have run for the past
week has indicated there is support for such a group (results and/or
questions abialable upon request).
(Article I is the important stuff :-)
I want to thank Ronald C. Rosul Jr.
(blowfish%carina....@ariel.unm.edu) for his help in writing this charter.
PRELIMINARY CHARTER : REC.ARTS.SF-CREATIVE
STATEMENT OF PURPOSE - The group rec.arts.sf-creative shall exist for
the posting of original, reader-created works of science fiction and
to provide fans of such works with free access to them.
TYPE OF GROUP : Moderated. The initial candidate for moderator is Mike
Shappe (msh...@heights.cit.cornell.edu).
ARTICLE I - CONTENTS OF THE GROUP
Section 1 - Appropriate material
1. This group shall exist for the posting of original works of
science fiction. "Original works of science fiction" includes, but is
not limited to, the following:
["SF" is used in place of "science-fiction" throughout the remainder of
this charter]
- Original SF stories
- Original parodies of works of SF or of SF television
programs.
- Original graphics of SF characters, ships, or technology
- Original reports on fictional technology, said reports to be
written as an essay. Random comments on such technology are not
allowed.
2. "Original" refers to the work ONLY. Any characters used in the
work need not be original. Such articles should include a statement to
the fact that the characters are being used without permission.
3. As the idea for this group was originally proposed in
rec.arts.startrek, it is hereby stated explicitly that all such
creative works relating to the television show Star Trek are welcome.
4. Likewise, any works regarding the following programs are also
welcome:
- Doctor Who
- Blake's 7
- Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
This list shall not be construed as exclusive.
5. Any and all comments on material posted to this group should
be sent either directly to the author or to the moderator, who will
post a weekly summary of letters received. As with any magazine, the
moderator has the right to edit any letters for clarity and
succinctness.
Section 2 - Restrictions on material
1. This group may be used to elicit comments on non-final drafts
of scripts. However, since such works tend to be large, revisions may
be posted only once a week.
2. In order for an article to be accepted, the work must be
original. To be original, the following two conditions must hold:
i - The work must be the creation of the poster or of someone
for whom s/he is posting.
ii - The work must not have been posted previously on this
group.
ARTICLE II - THE MODERATOR
Section 1 - Powers
The moderator has the final say on whether or not an article
is posted to the group. It is not the job of the moderator to be an
editor or a judge of quality, but rather merely to make certain that
the group will contain only creative works.
Section 2 - Duties
1. The moderator receives all articles for posting and posts
those articles that meet the qualifications.
2. The moderator must send a letter to anyone whose article is
refused, briefly explaining why.
3. The moderator must label all posts concerning Star Trek with
the label STAR TREK: in the header. Likewise, any post concerning a
television program should be given an appropriate header.
4. If a group exists for discussion of the specific topic of the
article, the moderator must set the followup to that group. An
exception to this is rec.arts.sf-lovers.
5. If the moderator deems an article to be offensive to a certain
portion of the population, he must include a warning at the top of the
article, and include whitespace or a ^L.
6. The moderator must collect all comments sent to him about
articles or about the group and post a summary of them in a weekly
"Letters to the Moderator" column.
7. Requests by readers for certain articles should be handled in
one of two ways:
i. The moderator should, if possible, archive each
article for one year.
ii. The moderator will save only the author of each
article, and forward the article request to the author.
ARTICLE III - THE CHARTER
Section 1 - Items not coverered
Any item not explicitly mentioned in this charter is left up
to the moderator.
Section 2 - Amending the charter
1. Amendments to the charter may be proposed at any time. To
propose an amendment, the proposal must be mailed to the moderator,
who will post it both to rec.arts.sf-creative and news.groups.
Discussion will take place in news.groups.
2. The deadline for proposing amendments is October 15. Any
amendments proposed after that date will not be voted in the current
year.
3. On November 1, the moderator will post a list of all proposed
charter amendments with voting instructions to rec.arts.sf-creative
*only*.
4. Voting will take place for the entire calendar month of
November. The moderator may tally the votes his/herself or name a
third party.
5. Upon December 1st, all amendments that receive 75% "yes" votes
pass and take effect immediately.
---------- Ryan Mathews
Internet : mat...@cs.buffalo.edu
Bitnet : mathews%cs.buffalo.edu@ubvm
UUCP :{apple,cornell,decwrl,harvard,rutgers,talcott,ucbvax,uunet}!
cs.buffalo.edu!mathews
msh...@heights.cit.cornell.edu
}TYPE OF GROUP : Moderated. The initial candidate for moderator is Mike
}Shappe (msh...@heights.cit.cornell.edu).
Just a note--this is my address, not necessarily the proposed moderation
address...
}ARTICLE I - CONTENTS OF THE GROUP
}Section 1 - Appropriate material
}1. This group shall exist for the posting of original works of
}science fiction. "Original works of science fiction" includes, but is
}not limited to, the following:
}["SF" is used in place of "science-fiction" throughout the remainder of
}this charter]
...
} - Original reports on fictional technology, said reports to be
}written as an essay. Random comments on such technology are not
}allowed.
As I understand this, an attempt at detailing how the Transporter worked
(like the one that appears in the Writers Technical Manual put out by
P'mount) would be legit, but simply saying "Gee, I wonder if you can
do this with a Transporter" would not be, yes?
}2. "Original" refers to the work ONLY. Any characters used in the
}work need not be original. Such articles should include a statement to
}the fact that the characters are being used without permission.
If I wind up moderating (no this isn't a campaign speech...just a
statement...), all articles will be posted with a disclaimer at the
top to this effect, where necessary. Note that articles will also
disclaim all copyright, unless you are absolutely certain that the
work contains NO other copyrighted characters or situations, or you
can show me proof of permission...
}Section 2 - Restrictions on material
}1. This group may be used to elicit comments on non-final drafts
}of scripts. However, since such works tend to be large, revisions may
}be posted only once a week.
There's a problem with this, as you may remember from when Neale was
posting his story. If you ever intend to copyright a work, DO NOT post
it to this newsgroup, unless, again, it is 100% original, in which
case the posting can be copyrighted. Otherwise, once posted, it's
Public Domain, and once Public Domain, it's Public Domain forever.
}2. In order for an article to be accepted, the work must be
}original. To be original, the following two conditions must hold:
} i - The work must be the creation of the poster or of someone
}for whom s/he is posting.
} ii - The work must not have been posted previously on this
}group.
Number ii is an important point--reposts waste bandwidth. Unless it
can be shown that an article failed to propagate for some reason,
there will likely be no reposts of articles (except, of course, the
monthly announcements).
But what about stories that HAVE been posted on OTHER groups. For
example (not to single him out, but...), could Tim Lynch submit "Aint
I A Stinker?" to RASFC now that it's been posted to RAS?
I'm not sure how I feel about this. On the one hand, it could give us
a ready-made starting point if we print some of the better works that
have been posted recently. On the other hand, do we really want to set
that precedent?
}ARTICLE II - THE MODERATOR
}Section 1 - Powers
} The moderator has the final say on whether or not an article
}is posted to the group. It is not the job of the moderator to be an
}editor or a judge of quality, but rather merely to make certain that
}the group will contain only creative works.
This is also important. There was talk before of having a panel of
judges, and I disliked it intensely. A moderator should be just that
-- someone who makes sure that the flow of articles remains "moderate"
and fits the charter of the group, not a drama critic.
}Section 2 - Duties
}3. The moderator must label all posts concerning Star Trek with
}the label STAR TREK: in the header. Likewise, any post concerning a
}television program should be given an appropriate header.
I don't know if this should be restricted to TV programs. After all,
what if someone writes a story about Pern? I think this should be
reworded to say "...any post concerning any other previously produced
work" or some such...
}4. If a group exists for discussion of the specific topic of the
}article, the moderator must set the followup to that group. An
}exception to this is rec.arts.sf-lovers.
I'm not sure about the exception...we're going to need someplace to
discuss the stories that don't relate to things there are groups
for...
}6. The moderator must collect all comments sent to him about
}articles or about the group and post a summary of them in a weekly
}"Letters to the Moderator" column.
ALL letters? What if you have 5 letters saying the same thing?
}7. Requests by readers for certain articles should be handled in
}one of two ways:
} ii. The moderator will save only the author of each
} article, and forward the article request to the author.
I prefer this alternative, simply because I know what Cornell's going
to say if I try to archive all the articles to disk. On the other
hand, I do have tape space, at least for the next year, so we'll
see...
Other than these comments (none of which are terribly strong
objections), it seems like a fine charter to me....
--
Mike Shappe (Uncle Mikey)
Cornell Office of Information Technologies
msh...@heights.cit.cornell.edu
"...A chain of circumstances that fragments the law that holds the universe
Robert W. Spiker
> In <25...@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU> mat...@cs.Buffalo.EDU (Ryan D
Mathews) writes:
>
>
> }2. In order for an article to be accepted, the work must be
> }original. To be original, the following two conditions must hold:
> } i - The work must be the creation of the poster or of someone
> }for whom s/he is posting.
> } ii - The work must not have been posted previously on this
> }group.
>
> Number ii is an important point--reposts waste bandwidth. Unless it
> can be shown that an article failed to propagate for some reason,
> there will likely be no reposts of articles (except, of course, the
> monthly announcements).
> But what about stories that HAVE been posted on OTHER groups. For
> example (not to single him out, but...), could Tim Lynch submit "Aint
> I A Stinker?" to RASFC now that it's been posted to RAS?
> I'm not sure how I feel about this. On the one hand, it could give us
> a ready-made starting point if we print some of the better works that
> have been posted recently. On the other hand, do we really want to set
> that precedent?
>
things off with material that has already been posted in order to get the ball
rolling. Once these have been (re)posted to r.a.sf-c they would then NOT be
reposted. Note the wording-- 'previously posted on this group.' I
take that to
mean r.a.sf-c, not r.a.s or alt.s.c or whatever.
But of course the moderator would have the final say.
> --
> Mike Shappe (Uncle Mikey)
> Cornell Office of Information Technologies
> msh...@heights.cit.cornell.edu
> "...A chain of circumstances that fragments the law that holds the universe
Robert W. Spiker, UVa Dept. of Astronomy
-------------------------------+ It is truly written that a man has five
rw...@astsun.astro.virginia.edu| times as many fingers as ears, but only
or @bessel.acc.virginia.edu | twice as many ears as noses.
Ryan D Mathews
Mathews) writes:
|> } - Original reports on fictional technology, said reports to be
|> }written as an essay. Random comments on such technology are not
|> }allowed.
|>
|> As I understand this, an attempt at detailing how the Transporter worked
|> do this with a Transporter" would not be, yes?
That's it exactly. A few people wrote to me hoping that fictional
technology reports would be included in the group. So for those people I
included that clause. But no bull-sessions.
|> } ii - The work must not have been posted previously on this
|> }group.
|>
|> Number ii is an important point--reposts waste bandwidth. Unless it
|> can be shown that an article failed to propagate for some reason,
|> there will likely be no reposts of articles (except, of course, the
|> monthly announcements).
|> But what about stories that HAVE been posted on OTHER groups. For
|> example (not to single him out, but...), could Tim Lynch submit "Aint
|> I A Stinker?" to RASFC now that it's been posted to RAS?
I myself have no problem with that. If we convince people to post only
to us and not to r.a.s, we're going to piss off a lot of r.a.s readers.
R.a.s-c is for fans of fan-fiction just as rec.arts.startrek.info is for
fans of pure Star Trek information. Articles are cross-posted between
r.a.s and r.a.s.i, why not here?
This is one of the reasons I had the "purpose" quetion in the poll. I
wanted to see if people voting for the group were doing so because they
wanted to read the works, or just because they wanted to clean up r.a.s.
I found that for the most part, it was the former, although some said both.
|> }4. If a group exists for discussion of the specific topic of the
|> }article, the moderator must set the followup to that group. An
|> }exception to this is rec.arts.sf-lovers.
|>
|> I'm not sure about the exception...we're going to need someplace to
|> discuss the stories that don't relate to things there are groups
|> for...
I just anticipate a "What is this shit" reaction from the folks at
sf-lovers and I'd like to avoid that. Still, this is open to debate. The
whole damn charter's open for debate! :-)
|> }6. The moderator must collect all comments sent to him about
|> }articles or about the group and post a summary of them in a weekly
|> }"Letters to the Moderator" column.
|>
|> ALL letters? What if you have 5 letters saying the same thing?
|> Mike Shappe (Uncle Mikey)
Oops! Good point. Perhaps that should be reworded to a "representative
sampling". So if you receive 50 positive letters on a work and 20
negative, you should print 5 of the former and 2 of the latter.
I was also going to put in a thing about the right reserved for you to
edit the letters for clarity and brevity (like the newspaper says). I forgot.
John W Connelly
>
>PRELIMINARY CHARTER : REC.ARTS.SF-CREATIVE
>
>4. Likewise, any works regarding the following programs are also
>welcome:
> - Doctor Who
> - Blake's 7
> - Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
> This list shall not be construed as exclusive.
Is this necessary? Since the list is not inclusive, why not just drop it?
>3. The moderator must label all posts concerning Star Trek with
>the label STAR TREK: in the header. Likewise, any post concerning a
>television program should be given an appropriate header.
Would Galactica vs Enterprise vs Jupiter II vs Death Star have a header like
"BATTLLESTAR GALACTICA/STAR TREK/LOST IN SPACE/STAR WARS" reflecting all of
the shows? How would such "cross-listing" be handled?
--JC
:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:
| John Connelly, 511 LRDC | jwc...@unix.cis.pitt.edu |"Klingon sons, you've |
| University of Pgh |=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+| killed my bastard!" |
| Pittsburgh, PA 15260 | CONN...@Pittvms.BITNET | --STIII (almost) |
:-:_:-:_:-:_:-:_:-:_:-:_:-:_:-:_:-:_:-:_:-:_:-:_:-:_:-:_:-:_:-:_:-:_:-:_:-:_:-:
Ryan D Mathews
Connelly) writes:
|> In article <25...@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU> mat...@cs.Buffalo.EDU
(Ryan D Mathews) writes:
|> >4. Likewise, any works regarding the following programs are also
|> >welcome:
|> > - Doctor Who
|> > - Blake's 7
|> > - Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
|> > This list shall not be construed as exclusive.
|>
|> Is this necessary? Since the list is not inclusive, why not just drop it?
The same argument was made about the Bill of Rights. :-) :-) :-)
It's not really necessary (the clause, I mean) and I wouldn't miss it,
but I wanted to let people know that stuff from TV shows other than Star
Trek was welcome.
|> Would Galactica vs Enterprise vs Jupiter II vs Death Star have a header like
|> "BATTLLESTAR GALACTICA/STAR TREK/LOST IN SPACE/STAR WARS" reflecting all of
|> the shows? How would such "cross-listing" be handled?
|>
|> --JC
I guess so. It seems the only right way. Very few such "royal rumble"
works are written, though. For a Dr. Who/Enterprise crossover a header
of DOCTOR WHO/STAR TREK: would not be a problem. My point is that most
of these things only have two.
rON. (blowfish@carina.unm.edu)
>In article <25...@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU> mat...@cs.Buffalo.EDU (Ryan D Mathews) writes:
>>3. The moderator must label all posts concerning Star Trek with
>>the label STAR TREK: in the header. Likewise, any post concerning a
>>television program should be given an appropriate header.
>
>Would Galactica vs Enterprise vs Jupiter II vs Death Star have a header like
>"BATTLLESTAR GALACTICA/STAR TREK/LOST IN SPACE/STAR WARS" reflecting all of
>the shows? How would such "cross-listing" be handled?
One of the purposes of the group was to have a place for Star Trek related
material (creative) to be placed, as to seperate it from the chaff generated
in rac.arts.startrek. The purpose for putting 'STAR TREK:' in an artice heading
is for people to easily find ST related material.
Personally, I am against the idea of including ALL SF related material in
the group- but this is a matter for much discussion...
rON. (blow...@carina.unm.edu!ariel.unm.edu)
"I've got compassion running out of my nose, pal. I'm the Sultan of Sentiment."
Gregory M. Paris
Judging by the amount of discussion that various ST:TNG parodies and scripts
have generated, I'm sure that there will be much desire to discuss creative
works posted on r.a.sf-c. Where will that take place? rec.arts.startrek?
rec.arts.sf-lovers? Personally, I don't welcome such discussion in either
group. I'm pretty sure that many readers of r.a.s would love to get all
discussions of parodies, scripts, and graphics *out* of that newsgroup and
I doubt that most readers of r.a.sf-lovers will appreciate a flood of new
postings about the creative works posted to r.a.sf-c. So where should such
discussion go?
My personal opinion is that the discussion should be held in the new group
itself. The charter should be modified to accept discussion of creative works.
If the final charter does not explicitly state that discussion articles are
welcome, I urge all rec.arts.startrek and rec.arts.sf-lovers readers to vote
against the creation of the new group rec.arts.sf-creative.
--
Greg Paris <g...@quahog.ssd.ray.com>
{uiucdcs,uunet}!rayssd!gmp
Wanna be the captain of the Enterprise
Wanna be the king of the Zulus
Kevin Rushforth
>the posting of original, reader-created works of science fiction and
>to provide fans of such works with free access to them.
Sounds like a great idea. It would be the perfect place for fanzines,
at least one of which has cropped up here, to be posted. Perhaps it
will also encourage the posting of individual short stories.
>TYPE OF GROUP : Moderated. The initial candidate for moderator is Mike
>Shappe (msh...@heights.cit.cornell.edu).
I think moderation is essential BUT the moderator should serve only to
filter out non-creative works (esp. flames), collect and summarize
requests for past stories, discussions of stories, etc (or filter them
out entirely), and assign appropriate keywords to each article.
>Section 1 - Appropriate material
[...]
> - Original graphics of SF characters, ships, or technology
> - Original reports on fictional technology, said reports to be
>written as an essay. Random comments on such technology are not
>allowed.
With such a wide variety of material, a coherent scheme for assigning
Keywords is a must. Some obvious ones are:
fiction - original fictional story
parody - a parody of some existing work
technology - Discussion of technology
star_trek - ANYTHING relating to Star Trek in ANY form
letter - Letters to the editor
administrivia - Meta-comments from the moderator
monthly - Monthly (possibly automated) administrivia
All keywords which apply should be listed in the "Keywords:" field of
the article header (much in the same way they are used in rec.humor.funny).
>3. As the idea for this group was originally proposed in
>rec.arts.startrek, it is hereby stated explicitly that all such
>creative works relating to the television show Star Trek are welcome.
As long as the appropriate keyword identifies all Star Trek postings as
such, I see no problem. Since the proposal calls for a moderated
group, this should be easy.
>4. Likewise, any works regarding the following programs are also
>welcome:
> - Doctor Who
[...]
Again, each show should have a unique keyword associated with it.
>post a weekly summary of letters received. As with any magazine, the
>moderator has the right to edit any letters for clarity and
>succinctness.
This seems acceptable as long as this "right to edit" does not extend
to ANY original material -- especially stories, parodies and essays.
>Section 2 - Duties
>3. The moderator must label all posts concerning Star Trek with
>the label STAR TREK: in the header. Likewise, any post concerning a
>television program should be given an appropriate header.
The "keywords" field is ideal for this (see my above comments).
>5. If the moderator deems an article to be offensive to a certain
>portion of the population, he must include a warning at the top of the
>article, and include whitespace or a ^L.
I would once again suggest the use of the keywords field. rec.humor.funny
uses the following form:
offense=GROUP
Where "GROUP" is replaced by the segment of the population likely to be
offended. Additionally, I think the policy concerning obscene (*)
material should be decided upon. Such material should either (a) be
specifically excluded from this group, (b) be included, but contain
the keyword "obscene", or (c) be ROT-13ed in addition to containing the
keyword "obscene".
(*) I realize that "obscene" is in the eye of the beholder. This is
one case where the moderator must put himself in the position to
judge.
--
Kevin C. Rushforth | "If winning is not important,
Sun Microsystems | then commander, why keep score?"
| - Lt. Worf
INET: k...@Sun.COM |
UUCP: <the-backbone>!sun!kcr |
Chris Wayne SCONS
>In article <24...@unix.cis.pitt.edu>, jwc...@unix.cis.pitt.edu (John W
>Connelly) writes:
>|> In article <25...@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU> mat...@cs.Buffalo.EDU
>(Ryan D Mathews) writes:
>|> Would Galactica vs Enterprise vs Jupiter II vs Death Star have a headerlike
>|> "BATTLLESTAR GALACTICA/STAR TREK/LOST IN SPACE/STAR WARS" reflecting all of
>|> the shows? How would such "cross-listing" be handled?
>works are written, though. For a Dr. Who/Enterprise crossover a header
>of DOCTOR WHO/STAR TREK: would not be a problem. My point is that most
>of these things only have two.
>
Well, wait a minute here! Should that be Dr Who/ST or ST/Dr Who?
:-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)
Chris Wayne @ UNM | "THE CAST AND CREW OF STAR TREK WISH TO DEDICATE
cwa...@hydra.unm.edu | THIS FILM TO THE MEN AND WOMEN OF THE SPACESHIP
--------aka--------------+ CHALLENGER. THEIR COURAGEOUS SPIRIT SHALL LIVE
Don Quixote of RAS \ ON TO THE 23RD CENTURY AND BEYOND."
Vos G P
>My question about rec.arts.sf-creative is, where does all the discussion go?
Why not create a group rec.arts.sf-creative.d for the discussions, with all
followups redirected to it?
I don't understand why that proposal got so little support in the informal
poll. Of course, a charter for that group should be made (or a charter
covering both groups).
P.S. Sorry if i missed anything, i only just joined the discussion.
--
--- Gerben Vos - Aconet: {BBCBBS,LALUNA}!Gerben Vos - UUCP : gp...@cs.vu.nl
---- Who's afraid of the big bad .signature ea... (burp)
msh...@heights.cit.cornell.edu
}In article <1990May14.1...@heights.cit.cornell.edu>,
}msh...@heights.cit.cornell.edu writes:
}|> In <25...@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU> mat...@cs.Buffalo.EDU (Ryan D
}Mathews) writes:
}|> } - Original reports on fictional technology, said reports to be
}|> }written as an essay. Random comments on such technology are not
}|> }allowed.
}|>
}|> As I understand this, an attempt at detailing how the Transporter worked
}|> would be legit, but simply saying "Gee, I wonder if you can
}|> do this with a Transporter" would not be, yes?
}That's it exactly. A few people wrote to me hoping that fictional
}technology reports would be included in the group. So for those people I
}included that clause. But no bull-sessions.
It's nice to be right some of the time :-)
}I myself have no problem with that. If we convince people to post only
}to us and not to r.a.s, we're going to piss off a lot of r.a.s readers.
}R.a.s-c is for fans of fan-fiction just as rec.arts.startrek.info is for
}fans of pure Star Trek information. Articles are cross-posted between
}r.a.s and r.a.s.i, why not here?
I suppose it makes sense. I, for one, would just as soon centralize the fiction
(although it means more work for the moderator), but I suppose then we'd have
a lot of angry RASers whose sites, for one reason or another, don't get
RASFC yet.
}|> I'm not sure about the exception...we're going to need someplace to
}|> discuss the stories that don't relate to things there are groups
}|> for...
}I just anticipate a "What is this shit" reaction from the folks at
}sf-lovers and I'd like to avoid that. Still, this is open to debate. The
}whole damn charter's open for debate! :-)
I suppose there is a chance of that happening... Maybe we SHOULD add an
unmoderated .d group to the proposal... I'm just not sure how the USENET will
take the creation of TWO new SF groups...
}|> ALL letters? What if you have 5 letters saying the same thing?
}|> Mike Shappe (Uncle Mikey)
}Oops! Good point. Perhaps that should be reworded to a "representative
}sampling". So if you receive 50 positive letters on a work and 20
}negative, you should print 5 of the former and 2 of the latter.
Thank you...much better :-) A moderator's job shouldn't be too easy, but it
shouldn't be insane, either :-)
}I was also going to put in a thing about the right reserved for you to
}edit the letters for clarity and brevity (like the newspaper says). I forgot.
I think, actually, that you did put it in, and I cut it for my reply, but I
don't remember now, and I don't have it in front of me...
Elizabeth Lear
jwc...@unix.cis.pitt.edu (John W Connelly) writes:
>|> Would Galactica vs Enterprise vs Jupiter II vs Death Star have a
>|>header like "BATTLLESTAR GALACTICA/STAR TREK/LOST IN SPACE/STAR WARS"
>|>reflecting all of the shows? How would such "cross-listing" be
>|>handled?
mat...@cs.Buffalo.EDU (Ryan D Mathews) writes:
>I guess so. It seems the only right way. Very few such "royal rumble"
>works are written, though. For a Dr. Who/Enterprise crossover a header
>of DOCTOR WHO/STAR TREK: would not be a problem. My point is that most
>of these things only have two.
The fanzine term for such efforts is "cross-universe". As Ryan said,
it's easy enough to fit on the subject line if there are only two
involved, but for more why not use CROSS-UNIVERSE or MULTI-UNIVERSE in
the title and list the shows involved in the keywords line? That way
kill files that look at the whole header could still knock out
anything that people don't want to see, while telling everyone else
that the story/whatever is not set strictly in one universe.
...eliz
--
*Yes, there is a mailing list for those interested in musical theatre!*
Send signups or info requests to musicals...@world.std.com
"To love the theatre is to prefer seeing a poor play badly acted than
not to go to the theatre at all." G.B. Mortlock
Kevin Rushforth
>My question about rec.arts.sf-creative is, where does all the discussion go?
The initial proposal should go to all possibly interested groups, and
to news.groups (as it did). All follow-up discussion should take place
in news.groups, since this is an official call for discussion. I have
re-directed follow-ups to this article to news.groups and I urge all
others to do the same. Thanks.
Kyle Jones
> PRELIMINARY CHARTER : REC.ARTS.SF-CREATIVE [...]
> Section 2 - Restrictions on material
>
> 1. This group may be used to elicit comments on non-final drafts
> of scripts. However, since such works tend to be large, revisions may
> be posted only once a week.
I don't like this. Besides the fact that posting salable scripts
to a worldwide network seems unwise, we are still left seeing the
same creative works repeatedly, which defeats the purpose of
section 2.2.ii of the charter which says:
2. In order for an article to be accepted, the work must
be original. To be original, the following two
conditions must hold:
[...]
Ryan D Mathews
Paris) writes:
|> My question about rec.arts.sf-creative is, where does all the discussion go?
It goes to the groups that already exist for it, or it goes through the
moderator to the letters column.
|> I doubt that most readers of r.a.sf-lovers will appreciate a flood of new
|> postings about the creative works posted to r.a.sf-c.
The readers of r.a.sf-c won't want such a flood either. The results of
the poll specifically state this. The "letters column" idea won by a
substantial margin.
|> My personal opinion is that the discussion should be held in the new group
|> itself. The charter should be modified to accept discussion of
creative works.
If we allow this, there is danger of the "rec.humor" syndrome, i.e.
discussion becoming more prevalent than creative works. One of the
reasons for this group (as stated in the Statement of Purpose) is to
provide fans of such fiction with easy access. This is not facilitated
by allowing free discussion.
One alternative that has been suggested is the creation of an
unmoderated r.a.sf-c.d group for discussion. I would have no problem with this.
|> If the final charter does not explicitly state that discussion articles are
|> welcome, I urge all rec.arts.startrek and rec.arts.sf-lovers readers to vote
|> against the creation of the new group rec.arts.sf-creative.
|> Greg Paris
If the charter is so modified, the new group will likely fail. That is
not what the readers want.
Ryan D Mathews
Rushforth) writes:
|> In article <25...@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU> mat...@cs.Buffalo.EDU
(Ryan D Mathews) writes:
|> With such a wide variety of material, a coherent scheme for assigning
|> Keywords is a must. Some obvious ones are:
[...]
This is really quite obvious and I'm surprised I didn't think of it
myself. One problem: can searches be done on keywords? The reason for
the different headers is so kills and searches can be done on specific topics.
|> >post a weekly summary of letters received. As with any magazine, the
|> >moderator has the right to edit any letters for clarity and
|> >succinctness.
|>
|> This seems acceptable as long as this "right to edit" does not extend
|> to ANY original material -- especially stories, parodies and essays.
No. Letters only. The moderator has no power over creative freedom.
|> Additionally, I think the policy concerning obscene
|> material should be decided upon.
|> Kevin C. Rushforth
I'm not sure. I'm an anti-censorship freak, and I hate the word
"obscene" because it's so vague. Are you sure we can't just lump it in
with offensive?
Ryan D Mathews
|> Why not create a group rec.arts.sf-creative.d for the discussions, with all
|> followups redirected to it?
|> I don't understand why that proposal got so little support in the informal
|> poll.
It's my fault that it received so little support. It didn't occur to me
as an alternative, and so it wasn't one of the listed choices.
I personally think a .d group is a great idea, if there's support for
it. (And it would make the moderator's job that much easier.)
Ryan D Mathews
(Kyle Jones) writes:
|> > 1. This group may be used to elicit comments on non-final drafts
|> > of scripts. However, since such works tend to be large, revisions may
|> > be posted only once a week.
|>
|> I don't like this. Besides the fact that posting salable scripts
|> to a worldwide network seems unwise, we are still left seeing the
|> same creative works repeatedly, which defeats the purpose of
|>
|> 2. In order for an article to be accepted, the work must
|> be original. To be original, the following two
|> conditions must hold:
|> [...]
|> ii - The work must not have been posted previously on this group.
Damn. You're right.
I suppose, upon hindsight, that the first paragraph (I.2.1) was a bad
idea. Let the guys do it through mail like they've always done.
John W Connelly
>
>rec.arts.sf-lovers? Personally, I don't welcome such discussion in either
>group. I'm pretty sure that many readers of r.a.s would love to get all
>discussions of parodies, scripts, and graphics *out* of that newsgroup and
Agreed. Keep parody discussion out of r.a.s.
>My personal opinion is that the discussion should be held in the new group
>itself. The charter should be modified to accept discussion of creative works.
Again, agreed. Seems the most logical place.
Ryan D Mathews
Connelly) writes:
|> >My personal opinion is that the discussion should be held in the new group
|> >itself. The charter should be modified to accept discussion of
creative works.
|>
|> Again, agreed. Seems the most logical place.
|>
|> --JC
Allowing free discussion of works in r.a.sf-c would defeat the purpose
of the group.
I am in favor of creating a .d group, if it come to that. I realize that
some readers of r.a.startrek would prefer that parody discussions be
left out, but cluttering up a r.a.sf-c with such discussions, a group
that is designed specifically *not* to be cluttered, is not an alternative.
John W Connelly
>of the group.
>
>I am in favor of creating a .d group, if it come to that. I realize that
>some readers of r.a.startrek would prefer that parody discussions be
>left out, but cluttering up a r.a.sf-c with such discussions, a group
>that is designed specifically *not* to be cluttered, is not an alternative.
Ah, I see your point. Well, if we r.a.s. readers don't want them (and I, for
one, certainly do not), and if the r.a.sf-lovers don't want 'em either, and if
they don't belong in r.a.s.i. or the proposed r.a.sf-c, then perhaps the
creation of r.a.sf-c.d would be a good move. It would separate discussion of
the contents of r.a.sf-c from the traffic in r.a.s and r.a.sf-lovers.
What do y'all think?
Gregory G. Woodbury
>
>Judging by the amount of discussion that various ST:TNG parodies and scripts
>have generated, I'm sure that there will be much desire to discuss creative
>works posted on r.a.sf-c. Where will that take place? rec.arts.startrek?
>rec.arts.sf-lovers? Personally, I don't welcome such discussion in either
>group. I'm pretty sure that many readers of r.a.s would love to get all
>discussions of parodies, scripts, and graphics *out* of that newsgroup and
>I doubt that most readers of r.a.sf-lovers will appreciate a flood of new
>postings about the creative works posted to r.a.sf-c. So where should such
>discussion go?
If we are going to try for one new group, why not try for two
and set up rec.arts.sf-creative.d as the unmoderated discussion area
with the moderator putting a Followup-To: header for the newsreaders
that can to use.
Wolfe
--
Gregory G. Woodbury @ The Wolves Den UNIX, Durham NC
UUCP: ...dukcds!wolves!ggw ...mcnc!wolves!ggw [use the maps!]
Domain: g...@cds.duke.edu ggw%wol...@mcnc.mcnc.org
[The line eater is a boojum snark! ] <standard disclaimers apply>
Kevin Rushforth
>In article <2...@rayssd.ssd.ray.com> g...@quahog.ssd.ray.com (Greg Paris) writes:
>>My question about rec.arts.sf-creative is, where does all the discussion go?
>
>The initial proposal should go to all possibly interested groups, and
>to news.groups (as it did). All follow-up discussion should take place
>in news.groups, since this is an official call for discussion.
Oops. I misread Greg's question when I posted my reply last night. I
thought that he was asking where the discussion regarding the group's
creation should take place. The discussion we are having now should
indeed be held here in news.groups. However, it seems that a different
(and ultimately more important) question is being asked. Where does
one carry on a discussion of the creative works posted to
rec.arts.sf-creative after the group is formed?
As I understand the current proposal, followups would be directed to an
"appropriate" newsgroup (where "appropriate" is rec.arts.startrek,
rec.arts.sf-lovers, rec.arts.tv.dr-who, etc). While this will probably
work in the group's infancy, I think it is a bad idea in the long run.
If the group takes off (and it certainly has the potential), we should
be prepared to consider a rec.arts.sf-creative.d group.
Kevin Rushforth
>This is really quite obvious and I'm surprised I didn't think of it
>myself. One problem: can searches be done on keywords? The reason for
>the different headers is so kills and searches can be done on specific topics.
In rn, kills can be done on anyhere within an article header as follows:
/blakes7/h:j
/star_trek/h:j
/offense=humans/h:j
Or, to be sure the phrase you are killing is actually in the keywords
line (and not just anywhere in the header):
/keywords:.*blakes7/h:j
/keywords:.*star_trek/h:j
/keywords:.*offense=humans/h:j
No offense intended to Blake's 7 fans, Star Trek fans, or humans. :-)
>|> Additionally, I think the policy concerning obscene
>|> material should be decided upon.
>|> Kevin C. Rushforth
>
>I'm not sure. I'm an anti-censorship freak, and I hate the word
>"obscene" because it's so vague. Are you sure we can't just lump it in
>with offensive?
> Ryan Mathews
I, too, take a dim view of censorship and would happily see it either
lumped in with offense=XXX keywords, or changed to a less controversial
keyword (like "sexual"?). Perhaps Mike Shappe could express his views
on this, since he seems the most likely candidate for moderator.
msh...@heights.cit.cornell.edu
}This is really quite obvious and I'm surprised I didn't think of it
}myself. One problem: can searches be done on keywords? The reason for
}the different headers is so kills and searches can be done on specific topics.
As far as I can remember, yes, both NN and RN can search article bodies, and
I believe at least RN can search specifically for the Keywords line (NN may
be able to, but I've never tried, to be honest.
}|> This seems acceptable as long as this "right to edit" does not extend
}|> to ANY original material -- especially stories, parodies and essays.
}No. Letters only. The moderator has no power over creative freedom.
What he said. I already edit a 'zine and a newsletter. I have no desire to
become an editor THREE times over :-)
}|> Additionally, I think the policy concerning obscene
}|> material should be decided upon.
}|> Kevin C. Rushforth
}I'm not sure. I'm an anti-censorship freak, and I hate the word
}"obscene" because it's so vague. Are you sure we can't just lump it in
}with offensive?
Sorry, Ryan, but the safest way is to keep the word Obscene separate. Offens-
ive language is protected. Obscenity is not, sadly (which is not to say that
I'm pro-obscenity so much as anti-censorship). I would prefer not to have to
deal with this at all, but anything that offends MY sensibilities (takes a lot,
let me tell you) is probably asking for trouble.
Not that the FCC reads Usenet that often :-)
MSS
Moderator Wannabe
Andy C (aka Riker)
(Ryan D Mathews) writes:
> PRELIMINARY CHARTER : REC.ARTS.SF-CREATIVE
>
> STATEMENT OF PURPOSE - The group rec.arts.sf-creative shall exist for
> the posting of original, reader-created works of science fiction and
> to provide fans of such works with free access to them.
>
> TYPE OF GROUP : Moderated. The initial candidate for moderator is Mike
> Shappe (msh...@heights.cit.cornell.edu).
^^^^^^
Oh God! Aren't there other candidates, pleassssse! :>) We
will never get anything posted if they have to live up to Mikey's
standards!
Just kidding Mike :>)! Seriously, I think you would be an
excellent candidate. The overall idea for the group, above, also sounds
good, except, I still believe Star Trek alone could generate enough
traffic for it's own group.
> ARTICLE I - CONTENTS OF THE GROUP
>
> Section 1 - Appropriate material
>
> 1. This group shall exist for the posting of original works of
> science fiction. "Original works of science fiction" includes, but is
> not limited to, the following:
> - Original SF stories
> - Original parodies of works of SF or of SF television
> programs.
I think you should also mention SF movies if you are going
to make special references to television shows. Aliens, Star Wars, BTTF,
etc. have generated alot of crossover stories lately and in the
past.
> - Original graphics of SF characters, ships, or technology
> - Original reports on fictional technology, said reports to be
> written as an essay. Random comments on such technology are not
> allowed.
>
> 2. "Original" refers to the work ONLY. Any characters used in the
> work need not be original. Such articles should include a statement to
> the fact that the characters are being used without permission.
>
> 3. As the idea for this group was originally proposed in
> rec.arts.startrek, it is hereby stated explicitly that all such
> creative works relating to the television show Star Trek are welcome.
GREAT! I love it! I think we will have lots of Star Trek
stuff anyway, but putting this in the charter is a nice touch!
> 4. Likewise, any works regarding the following programs are also
> welcome:
> - Doctor Who
> - Blake's 7
> - Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
- Battlestar Galactica
- Lost in Space
- Space: 1999
- UFO
- Quantum Leap
Where will it all end, list them all? How about movies (see comments
above).
> This list shall not be construed as exclusive.
>
> 5. Any and all comments on material posted to this group should
> be sent either directly to the author or to the moderator, who will
> post a weekly summary of letters received. As with any magazine, the
> moderator has the right to edit any letters for clarity and
> succinctness.
Good touch, but I think Mike will be a busy guy.
>
> Section 2 - Restrictions on material
>
> 1. This group may be used to elicit comments on non-final drafts
> of scripts. However, since such works tend to be large, revisions may
> be posted only once a week.
As a potential user of this group I don't like this rule. Drafts
should not be posted to this group. Messages asking for people to
comment on drafts may be a good idea. The author should then email the
drafts to the reviewers and finalize the work before taking up space
on the net.
>
> 2. In order for an article to be accepted, the work must be
> original. To be original, the following two conditions must hold:
> i - The work must be the creation of the poster or of someone
> for whom s/he is posting.
> ii - The work must not have been posted previously on this
> group.
You talk about "original"-ity here and above, keep it all
together. Why is a re-post no longer original. I have not kept copies
of everything ever posted, and have missed some along the way. Not
to mention new users who may not have seen the works before.
Perhaps we can limit the number of re-posts of old stuff on a weekly
basis, like two "golden oldies" per week until everything that is a
re-post has been re-posted.
>
> ARTICLE II - THE MODERATOR
>
> Section 1 - Powers
>
> The moderator has the final say on whether or not an article
> is posted to the group. It is not the job of the moderator to be an
> editor or a judge of quality, but rather merely to make certain that
> the group will contain only creative works.
Good, we don't want the power going to Mikey's head :>).
Perhaps this section should be "Limits on Power".
>
> Section 2 - Duties
>
> 1. The moderator receives all articles for posting and posts
> those articles that meet the qualifications.
>
> 2. The moderator must send a letter to anyone whose article is
> refused, briefly explaining why.
>
> 3. The moderator must label all posts concerning Star Trek with
> the label STAR TREK: in the header. Likewise, any post concerning a
> television program should be given an appropriate header.
Or movie, or book series (Foundation, Thieves World, Wild
Cards...etc. Why limit it to television show (see similar comments
above).
> 4. If a group exists for discussion of the specific topic of the
> article, the moderator must set the followup to that group. An
> exception to this is rec.arts.sf-lovers.
>
> 5. If the moderator deems an article to be offensive to a certain
> portion of the population, he must include a warning at the top of the
> article, and include whitespace or a ^L.
Offensive in what way? Trully offensive stuff shouldn't be
posted at all. However, I am not in a position to define "trully
offensive" (or even spell it :>)
> 6. The moderator must collect all comments sent to him about
> articles or about the group and post a summary of them in a weekly
> "Letters to the Moderator" column.
>
> 7. Requests by readers for certain articles should be handled in
> one of two ways:
> i. The moderator should, if possible, archive each
> article for one year.
I vote for this method, we should pick one and not be
wishy-washy about it.
> ii. The moderator will save only the author of each
> article, and forward the article request to the author.
>
> ARTICLE III - THE CHARTER
>
Stuff in this section sounded just fine.
Now let's DO IT!
AndyC
att!lzss!andyc
Chris Wayne SCONS
On the subject of salable <whatever>, just about anything that will
appear in this newsgroup will be in that category. As for I.2.2.ii, it's
obvious a modification will have to be made to the proposed charter. Now,
since scripts aren't or won't be the only things to undergo modifications
and changes, therefore 'ii' should be broken into:
ii - Final Drafts of said work, must not have been posted
previously on this group, except for:
a - Enough requests to the moderator warrent a repost.
(see II.2.7)
b - Person requesting work cannot get it by usual means.
(i.e. ftp, Email, or even USmail/Fax)
c - Special occassion or situation merits a repost.
iii - If non-final drafts are being produced at a faster
rate than once a week, (see I.2.1) then the moderator
shall post a request for interested persons to Email
the author of said work to be put on a mailling list.
Does this help or hinder?
Chris Wayne SCONS
>In article <2...@rayssd.ssd.ray.com> g...@quahog.ssd.ray.com (Greg Paris)writes:
>>My question about rec.arts.sf-creative is, where does all the discussion go?
>>
>>works posted on r.a.sf-c. Where will that take place? rec.arts.startrek?
>>rec.arts.sf-lovers? Personally, I don't welcome such discussion in either
>>group. I'm pretty sure that many readers of r.a.s would love to get all
>>discussions of parodies, scripts, and graphics *out* of that newsgroup and
>
>Agreed. Keep parody discussion out of r.a.s.
>
>>My personal opinion is that the discussion should be held in the new group
>>itself. The charter should be modified to accept discussion of creativeworks.
>
>Again, agreed. Seems the most logical place.
In my opinion, any comments and/or discussions from the shows, movies,
novels, comics, books, ST related items in RAsfc and RASI should be done in
RAS. That is what the group is for! I don't place any kind of hierarchy on
any one medium over the other. To do so is stupid and goes against the
greatest most profound ideal of Star Trek; the one single concept that all
true Trekkies, Trekkers, Trekologist cling to -- and that is IDIC!!
Raymond Chen
In article <1990May15.1...@talos.pm.com> kjo...@talos.pm.com (Kyle Jones) writes:
>Ryan D Mathews writes:
> > PRELIMINARY CHARTER : REC.ARTS.SF-CREATIVE [...]
> > Section 2 - Restrictions on material
> >
> > 1. This group may be used to elicit comments on non-final drafts of
> > scripts ... revisions may be posted only once a week.
>
>I don't like this. ... we are still left seeing the same creative works
>repeatedly, which defeats the purpose of section 2.2.ii...
I agree with Kyle on this one. I can just see it now... Every Monday,
we get ANOTHER copy of the episode "InTrektable Differences", with
the only alteration being the correction of spelling and grammar errors...
If somebody wants to solicit comments on an evolving work, have him
write a letter to the moderator saying "I'm working on ``InTrektable
Differences'' and would like some readers' comments. Please announce
this in rec.arts.sf-creative and have all interested parties email
me. I will start a mailing list."
Then when he's finished, he can post the finished work.
By analogy, do you see people posting unfinished software
to comp.sources.unix? ``And since I'm still working on this
program, I'll send out the latest version every Monday morning
until I'm finished.''...
Scott Mcgee
>|> "BATTLLESTAR GALACTICA/STAR TREK/LOST IN SPACE/STAR WARS" reflecting all of
>|> the shows? How would such "cross-listing" be handled?
>|>
>
>works are written, though. For a Dr. Who/Enterprise crossover a header
>of DOCTOR WHO/STAR TREK: would not be a problem. My point is that most
>of these things only have two.
>
catagory like "Kitchen Sink!"
Scott
Buttered bread always lands * Scott McGee
butter side down! (Unless * email : smcgee%alb...@cs.utah.edu
it sticks to the ceiling!) *
Would YOU mistake these opinions as anyone's but my own?
Scott Mcgee
>g...@rayssd.ssd.ray.com (Gregory M. Paris) writes:
>
>>My question about rec.arts.sf-creative is, where does all the discussion go?
>
>Why not create a group rec.arts.sf-creative.d for the discussions, with all
>followups redirected to it?
>I don't understand why that proposal got so little support in the informal
>poll. Of course, a charter for that group should be made (or a charter
>covering both groups).
>
cuts down on their bandwidth overload. It gives a specific forum for
questions or discussion concerning things that may not have any logical
group otherwise. Best of all, it provides direct feedback about anything
in rasc all in one place.
Ryan D Mathews
[...]
2. I don't think we should eliminate articles for poor spelling.
a) this can be part of a creative style (eg Flowers for Algernon
or Of Woman Born --both in Science Fiction Hall of Fame)
b) some folks just can't spell and spelling programs are awful.
I feel strongly that people should not be censored for poor grammar
or spelling if they are not censored for story quality or content.
You either are an editor or you're not an editor.
I don't think censorship would happen. Remember, the moderator is supposed to
explain why the article was rejected. So this is what would happen:
The moderator: "I can't accept your story due to the large number of
spelling errors"
The writer replies: "It's supposed to be that way, you ninny!"
The moderator: "Oh. Well, ok then."
msh...@heights.cit.cornell.edu
}Letter from da...@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu (Dana Goldblatt):
}[...]
}2. I don't think we should eliminate articles for poor spelling.
} a) this can be part of a creative style (eg Flowers for Algernon
} or Of Woman Born --both in Science Fiction Hall of Fame)
} b) some folks just can't spell and spelling programs are awful.
} I feel strongly that people should not be censored for poor grammar
} or spelling if they are not censored for story quality or content.
} You either are an editor or you're not an editor.
}I don't think censorship would happen. Remember, the moderator is supposed to
}explain why the article was rejected. So this is what would happen:
}The moderator: "I can't accept your story due to the large number of
} spelling errors"
}The writer replies: "It's supposed to be that way, you ninny!"
}The moderator: "Oh. Well, ok then."
Yes, what he said.
There are two problems with NOT bouncing submissions for excessive (and note,
only EXCESSIVE) mechanical problems.
1) It will be emotionally damaging to the Moderator :-)
2) It is a 100% guarantee, based on the way USENET tends to work,
that SOMEONE will flame them for it, and then flame ME
for allowing it go be posted. SURE, I could turn to the
charter and say "But I HAD to," but that's not going to make
the complainers happy, now, is it?
Ryan's right. Since I will be sending personalized rejection letters for
bounced posts, all they need do is tell me, "It was SUPPOSED to be that way,"
and I'll let it through. I think I'll be able to tell (I'm a reasonably sharp
guy) whether it was intentional or not. I mean, with Flowers..., I don't think
ANYONE (particularly not someone who edits as a hobby and may one day for
a living) could have missed that it was intentional.
All I know is, if *I* were the writer, and I turned something in with massive
mechanical errors, I'd *WANT* it returned for fixing.
And note: anything bounced for mechanical errors will be given another chance.
All the author has to do is fix it.
MSS
Dave Ratcliffe
> One of the purposes of the group was to have a place for Star Trek related
> material (creative) to be placed, as to seperate it from the chaff generated
> in rac.arts.startrek. The purpose for putting 'STAR TREK:' in an artice heading
> is for people to easily find ST related material.
>
> Personally, I am against the idea of including ALL SF related material in
> the group- but this is a matter for much discussion...
When the origonal pre-'official' discussion started on this group in r.a.s.,
it was as a creative outlet for all of the Trek-related material that many
objected to as cluttering up r.a.s. During, and before, that
pre-'official' discussion, NO mention was made in sf-lovers of a need
for such a new group. I saw no massive influx of scripts, artwork or any
other material in sf-lovers that would indicate a need for a creative
group.
On the other hand, there have been numerous Postscript art postings,
MANY parodies, short stories and pieces of ascii art ALL STAR TREK
RELATED and usually drawing fire from the usual purists who believe such
traffic belongs ANYwhere but r.a.s. (or even r.a.s.i.).
Granted, I have seen book review postings in sf-lovers, but NO bitching
about them being there.
I stand by the original discussion about rec.arts.startrek.creative and
NOT a generic SF catch-all. I would like to suggest that the proposed
charter should be modified to specify a creative sub-group under r.a.s.
*>> Dave <<*
[------: Dave Ratcliffe :--------:-: 2832 Croyden Rd. Harrisburg Pa. 17104 :-]
: da...@compnect.uucp -or- : The Data Factory BBS :
: uunet!wa3wbu!compnect!dave : Data: (717)657-4997 - (717)657-4992 :
[................................:...........................................]
Dave Ratcliffe
> My question about rec.arts.sf-creative is, where does all the discussion go?
> discussions of parodies, scripts, and graphics *out* of that newsgroup and
> postings about the creative works posted to r.a.sf-c. So where should such
> discussion go?
>
> welcome, I urge all rec.arts.startrek and rec.arts.sf-lovers readers to vote
> against the creation of the new group rec.arts.sf-creative.
My original posting (lost when our 'net connection failed for a week)
suggested the following:
Name: rec.arts.startrek.creative
Purpose: Disemination of Trek-related artwork (GIF's, Postscript,
Ascii, etc.) and requests for them or advisories of ftp
sites and/or mail server sites. Should also include
discussions DIRECTLY relating to material covered in the
charter.
Disemination of Trek-related printed matter (stories,
story outlines, parodies, poems, reviews, etc), requests
for them or advisories of ftpsites and/or mail server
sites. Should also include discussions DIRECTLY relating
to material covered in the charter.
Note: I do not believe a general Sci-Fi creative group is needed, nor
has it been asked for. This original idea grew from disatisfaction with
the proliferation of artwork, stories and parodies that have been posted
in r.a.s.
Gregory M. Paris
>In article <2...@rayssd.ssd.ray.com>, g...@rayssd.ssd.ray.com (Gregory M. Paris)
>|> welcome, I urge all rec.arts.startrek and rec.arts.sf-lovers readers to vote
>
> not what the readers want.
Even if one were to accept that the poll represented the wishes of the
readers of rec.arts.startrek (even though less than a hundred people
responded) and of rec.arts.sf-lovers and rec.arts.drwho (who weren't
even polled), the statement above is still not justified. A
significant number of people responded that they wanted the new group
for the purpose of getting discussions of parodies, scripts and
graphics out of the rec.arts.startrek group. Not a single person
responded that they would vote against the new group if discussions
were allowed in it. Applying simple logic, it's easy to see that
*more* people will vote for the group if discussion is allowed.
Please modify the rec.arts.sf-creative charter to allow discussion
of the creative works posted there.
--
Greg Paris <g...@quahog.ssd.ray.com>
{uiucdcs,uunet}!rayssd!gmp
Wanna be the captain of the Enterprise
Wanna be the king of the Zulus
Gregory M. Paris
> some readers of r.a.startrek would prefer that parody discussions be
> left out, but cluttering up a r.a.sf-c with such discussions, a group
> that is designed specifically *not* to be cluttered, is not an alternative.
I see. And rec.arts.startrek is designed to be cluttered, I suppose?
Sorry, but I and many others don't subscribe to the idea that
rec.arts.startrek is meant to be a the trash dump for all narrowly
defined groups that exist now or may be created in the future.
The fact is that creative works posted to rec.arts.sf-creative will
generate discussion. That discussion is not welcome in any existing
group. Why not create the new group with discussion allowed? If it
turns out to be unmanageable, then you can call for the creation of the
sf-c.d group (or whatever) and modify the sf-c charter appropriately.
It seems to me that such a two-step approach will satisfy the maximum
number of net citizens, providing the group with the best chances of
passing.
Robert A. Levene
>> some readers of r.a.startrek would prefer that parody discussions be
>> left out, but cluttering up a r.a.sf-c with such discussions, a group
>> that is designed specifically *not* to be cluttered, is not an alternative.
>I see. And rec.arts.startrek is designed to be cluttered, I suppose?
In a sense, it *is*. All unmoderated groups have that provision built in.
That's why rec.humor.funny was created, to provide a haven from the
>>>> This is almost as funny as the purity test - ge...@andrew.cmu.edu
>>> please send me the 400-question Purity Test - dw...@psuvm.bitnet
>> Please send me one too! - ne...@cup.portal.com
> Another one to me too, please - lo...@phoenix.princeton.edu
messages which cluttered up rec.humor. For R.A.S., just substitute
"Big E vs. Galactica" or "I prefer Kirk/Picard to Picard/Kirk"
for Purity Test and you get the picture.
>Sorry, but I and many others don't subscribe to the idea that
>rec.arts.startrek is meant to be a the trash dump for all narrowly
>defined groups [...]
By the same token, the Soviet economy and rec.humor were meant to be roaring
successes, but that isn't the way things turned out.
>The fact is that creative works posted to rec.arts.sf-creative will
>generate discussion. That discussion is not welcome in any existing
>group. Why not create the new group with discussion allowed? If it
>turns out to be unmanageable, then you can call for the creation of the
>sf-c.d group (or whatever) and modify the sf-c charter appropriately.
I prefer either a letters column or sf-c.d group, and I think another
poll to r.a.s, r.a.sf-lovers, and ...dr-who would be a good idea.
(But having a letters column is contingent upon finding a moderator
who is willing to edit such a column or select "appropriate"
postings which discuss the works in question.)
-- Rob
--
--
Robert A. Levene/ The Johns Hopkins U. \Internet: lev...@aplcomm.jhuapl.edu
# ## # # /Applied Physics Laboratory\ BITNET: RXL1@APLVM
Disclaimer: "If I am not for myself, who will be for me?" - Hillel _Avot_1:14
Ian James Hawthorn
>significant number of people responded that they wanted the new group
>for the purpose of getting discussions of parodies, scripts and
>graphics out of the rec.arts.startrek group. Not a single person
>responded that they would vote against the new group if discussions
>were allowed in it. Applying simple logic, it's easy to see that
>*more* people will vote for the group if discussion is allowed.
>
I will vote against the new group if it is unmoderated - and I certainly did
respond that I would vote against the new group if discussions were allowed
in it. The problem seems to be that there are two groups of people here with
two ideas of what the new group should be. People like Greg Paris want a
rubbish tin to dump stuff that they are not interested in reading into. People
like me actually plan to read the new group once it is created, and don't want
all of the trash that he is trying to push in there. This proposal may have
started as a way of getting rid of trash, but there is now a significant group
of people who see possibilities in this idea, and want the new group to
work.
msh...@heights.cit.cornell.edu
If you will read Charter revision Three, you will see that all mention of
discussion, including the creation of a .d group, has been removed.
The charter will not include anything about discussion until I have a clear
idea of what the PUBLIC wants, not what Mr. Paris wants
(My apologies if it seems I'm singling you out, Greg, but you ARE the ONLY
loud proponent of a moderated discussion, so far).
Therefore, the following informal poll is hereby begun:
Please rank the following alternatives on the following scale:
5 THIS ONE! Yes! Please!
4 Could survive with it
3 If we must
2 Preferably not
1 No way, Jose
0 Will definitely vote no if this occurs
The winner will be the alternative which, at the end of one week, has received
the most points (Friday, 25 May, 15h15m).
The candidates are:
* Letters Column by moderator
* RASFC.D group
* No discussion at all (Followup-To: /dev/null)
* Shunt to respective newsgroups
* No moderation, free discussion.
* Moderated discussion
I hereby affirm that I will abide by the decision of the poll.
Please MAIL your votes to: msh...@biar.uucp, or if that bounces,
msh...@heights.cit.cornell.edu
A daily tally will be posted if possible (that is, if I have time)
Please note that this vote is ONLY on the above issue, and NOT on the grand
proposal for RASFC itself.
On Saturday, 26 May, the final charter will be posted, along with the Call
For Votes, unless there is clear dissent over the other terms of the charter,
or this poll is indecisive.
Michael Scott Shappe
Moderator Wannabe
Custodian: RASFC Preliminary Charter
Chris Wayne
>responded that they would vote against the new group if discussions
>were allowed in it. Applying simple logic, it's easy to see that
>*more* people will vote for the group if discussion is allowed.
Then count me as the first! Discussions, letters, whatever do not
belong in the new group! they belong in the appropriate 'general' group.
The purpose of RAsfc is to put creative works in a producer/consumer
atmosphere. If you go to a bookstore looking for a novel to read, you'd
be more interested in getting the novel, rather than the critique and
everybody that reads the novel will have an opinion, so who's critique do you
buy? This is where [RAS,RAsfl,RADW] comes into play. As I have posted before,
in RAS, people discuss the shows, movies and novels so why not RAsfc, eh?
What makes RAsfc a medium that makes it more different than the others?
BTW, I was oppossed to the Idea of RAsfc, because for years people
from RAsfl would always yell at the RAS'ers to take 'their' discussions to
RAS and/or don't crosspost, even when the article was appropriate. To that I
say 'fine!' But, to be fair, we should include all three groups into this.
Include into the charter that if the need arises (it might be a good idea to
list some of the possible 'needs'), RAsfc can split up into RASC, RAsf(l)c and
RAdwc and back again if needed.
Chris Wayne
>> left out, but cluttering up a r.a.sf-c with such discussions, a group
>> that is designed specifically *not* to be cluttered, is not an alternative.
>
>rec.arts.startrek is meant to be a the trash dump for all narrowly
Are the TV shows or the novels or even the movies 'narrowly defined'
enough for you?
>The fact is that creative works posted to rec.arts.sf-creative will
>generate discussion. That discussion is not welcome in any existing
>group. Why not create the new group with discussion allowed? If it
>turns out to be unmanageable, then you can call for the creation of the
>sf-c.d group (or whatever) and modify the sf-c charter appropriately.
The fact is that creative works aired on tv (in the form of TOS & TNG)
or published in any ST novel (etc.) will generate discussion. That discussion
is not welcome in any existing group. <OH?> Continuing your analogy, what
would be left in RAS?
No .d group what so ever!!!!!!!!
Kent P Stiegler
This is a fascinating discussion.
(he said sarcastically).
How about a new area called "rec.arts.sf-creative.argue" to beat it back and
forth a few months first?
awrite, (CLIK) sarcasim OFF.
Just a few things I want to try to clear up, my apologies if you have seen this
before...
Gene said he didn't want the Starfleet Academy story to be used for STVI,
Koenig's was turned down, and Bennet might not be directing after all:
basicly no one knows what it will be about for certain.
But Paramount has the final decision, so it could still be the SA after all.
True?
Due to the ambiguities of the ending of Most Toys, we are fairly certain
that Data DID fire and that he DID lie about it, but don't know for sure,
right? I have repeatedly watched the ending and it looks like Data stiffens
up at least twice to administer a point-blank shot, NOT to bluff Fajo. He
also "looked" a bit dramatic, in a neo-emotional kind of way, just as he
started being turned into glitter spinning in water. Is there any evidence
to the contrary?
Broccoli saved 9, which is probably the farewell-scene. But it is
also conceivable that the whole thing was a holodeck program, maybe. Yes?
After watching Sins of the Fathers again, I realized Worf still wears
Klingon decorations, despite discommodation. It is interesting that he
remains as strict to the Klingon code of honor after that episode. Then
again, only a small group of people (Picard, the Klingon commander & the
son of the real traitor) know the truth, so he doesn't deserve it any less.
Incidently, was the old fat Klingon in that episode the same one in Final
Frontier? Very close similarity, but I think not, unless, maybe...
No more Q episodes this season, eh? I wonder what will happen with him
the next time, being that they are a little more friendly now.
Data becoming human for one episode would be good. They seem to be
working towards it, doncha think?
How can Wesley go to Starfleet Academy and still be in the series?
(or is that the whole point, to ditch him???) I hope he can stay
aboard: they have really improved his character. He doesn't annoy the
hell out of me anymore. BTW: When I saw Stand by Me again last week, and
really saw how small Wheaton was only 5 or 6 years ago, the health
problems (collapsed lung etc) was easier to understand. That kid
grew FAST! Anyone know if that schizoid dude in Jersey stopped sending
him death threats?
The Gread Bird himself has never been in any Trek production of any kind,
right?
Aw well, on to the nite's festivities...
Ryan D Mathews
|> Even if one were to accept that the poll represented the wishes of the
|> readers of rec.arts.startrek (even though less than a hundred people
|> responded)
Let's set the record straight here. Nearly 50 people responded. The poll
was run for a mere TEN DAYS, with NO REPOST OF THE QUESTIONS. Given
that, I think 50 responses is pretty damn impressive. If I were to have
run it for three weeks, posted it to every group that had even a slight
resemblence to SF and posted a weekly reminder, I am certain I would
have gotten well over 100 votes.
|> and of rec.arts.sf-lovers and rec.arts.drwho (who weren't even polled)
That's right. They weren't. And I still got 50 responses. Kinda blows
your argument out of the water, doesn't it?
Are you seriously suggesting that I should have posted a poll on what
was then merely r.a.s's idea to SF-lovers and drwho? The r.a.s readers
would have flayed me alive! It was their group idea, their problem; it
belonged to them. Only after the poll indicated significant support for
an open sf-creative group did I open the discussion to the other groups.
So we're discussing it. If people care, we'll find out. But judging from
the letters of support and advice I get every day, I'd say people do care.
|> A significant number of people responded that they wanted the new group
|> for the purpose of getting discussions of parodies, scripts and
|> graphics out of the rec.arts.startrek group.
WE ARE!!! Do you read your own articles? No discussion of parodies is
going to be put into r.a.s! That was ditched a long time ago!
If you will recall, you were upset because I dared to mention the
possibility of a r.a.sf-c.d group. What the hell does that have to do
with keeping discussion out of r.a.s?
If you are going to argue, at least be consistant.
|> Not a single person responded that they would vote against the new group if
|> discussions were allowed in it. Applying simple logic, it's easy to
see that
|> *more* people will vote for the group if discussion is allowed.
Huh?? How are they supposed to respond that way? *There was no such
question in the poll!* I assume you're still talking about the poll? If
you're not, could you explain yourself?
|> Please modify the rec.arts.sf-creative charter to allow discussion
|> of the creative works posted there.
|> Greg Paris
Okay, let me see if I get this straight. You want people to be able to
post any comment they like directly to the group. Don't you understand
that this is against the whole reason for creating the group in the
first place? What rec.arts.startrek.info is to station lists and con
announcements, rec.arts.sf-creative is supposed be for stories,
parodies, and graphics. Read the statement of purpose "...and to provide
fans of such works with free access to them." How is free access
facilitated if you allow every work posted to generate a thread? We'll
be back to the beginning again.
Jay Hinkelman
Concerning the recent debate about r.a.sf-c, it seems some people are
misunderstanding other people. The question at hand is NOT whether
discussions of novels, TV episodes, etc. should be allowed in
r.a.sf-c. The question is whether or not reviews and comments about
the CONTENTS of r.a.sf-c should be posted to r.a.sf-c, or whether they
should be returned to the appropriate groups (if there are any, as
there will be in the case of parodies).
--
"So if you see my downeaster Alexa | Jay Hinkelman
And if you work with the rod and the reel | a...@mentor.cc.purdue.edu
Tell my wife I am trolling Atlantis |
And I still have my hands on the wheel..." -- B.Joel,"The Downeaster Alexa"
Bob Mosley III
Chris Wayne televideoscribes:
> ...no .d group whatsoever!
...the problem that I see with most of you voting against a .d group
is that you're not seeing how much this group has mutated since its
orignal proposal.
It started out as r.a.startrek.creative, then went to r.a.sf.creative.
As a result, more than the original group became involved. Now, if the
discussions are not allowed on r.a.sf.c, and there is no r.a.sf.c.d
group, then WHERE are the discussions supposed to go?? If you send them
to both the trek and snobbish-fi groups, then you'll be DOUBLING the
bandwidth required for discussions!
...the only answers are to either create a .d group, or to return the
group to its roots and make it r.a.s.c and allow the discussions on
r.a.s. proper. It's either that, or we scrap the whole thing and live
with the morass of creative works and follow-ups cluttering up r.a.s.
proper.
As one who's finally working on a work of his own, I for one would like
to see a more orderly location to post the finished product. r.a.s.c
would work just as well, with comments going to r.a.s.c.d
OM
msh...@heights.cit.cornell.edu
I'm sorry, Dave, but as far as I can see, you are wrong.
True, SF-Lovers hasn't asked for an SF-Creative group, but SF lovers is NOT
the only place that Science Fiction Lovers hang out.
There were MANY people when the pre-official discussion and informal polls were
held who said they wanted the title genericized and that they planned to post
non-Trek related material--and NOT just RASer, either.
The charter, as it now reads, reflects the Will of the Net with regards to
everything except where discussion about stories posted to the group should
be held.
Thank you
MSS
Marco Hernandez
Dr. Who, does anyone know the date the first episode was aired ?
--
Marco Hernandez
Big Electric Cat
UUCP: ..!cmcl2!dasys1!rhody Internet: dasys1!rh...@cmcl2.nyu.edu
Chris Preston
>>the posting of original, reader-created works of science fiction and
>
> at least one of which has cropped up here, to be posted. Perhaps it
> will also encourage the posting of individual short stories.
Yes. Capital idea. The point here is, of course, stories (works, opi,
whaterver), not the expostulations of all the various
net.allthings.expert on the content of these stories.
>
>>TYPE OF GROUP : Moderated. The initial candidate for moderator is Mike
>>Shappe (msh...@heights.cit.cornell.edu).
>
> I think moderation is essential BUT the moderator should serve only to
> filter out non-creative works (esp. flames), collect and summarize
> requests for past stories, discussions of stories, etc (or filter them
> out entirely), and assign appropriate keywords to each article.
Filter them out period. If there is to be critique, send it to the
author or the moderator for forwarding. Let's not waste the extra
bandwidth showing how much better "we" could have done it. This should
not be a forum so much as a source type of group. If one finds stylistic
problems or technical parodoxes, by all means, send E-mail. Authors
don't like critics that much and this should not be a breeding ground for
them. Who wants to post a story and then receive commentary criticizing
his work to the entire world?
>
>>Section 1 - Appropriate material
> [...]
>> - Original graphics of SF characters, ships, or technology
>> - Original reports on fictional technology, said reports to be
>>written as an essay. Random comments on such technology are not
Why? This is not creativity, this is expostulation. If I want to read
lengthy arguments about characters, technical details, ships, etc sf-lovers
and startrek both have this in spades. Let's stick to creativity.
>>allowed.
>
> With such a wide variety of material, a coherent scheme for assigning
> Keywords is a must. Some obvious ones are:
>
> fiction - original fictional story
> parody - a parody of some existing work
> technology - Discussion of technology
Leave this out altogether.
> star_trek - ANYTHING relating to Star Trek in ANY form
Fine.
> letter - Letters to the editor
Bleck, phttpth, ptooey. Why pretend to be a magazine? Let's keep it pure
in content. If you don't like it, don't read it. Also, spare the rest
from having disk space taken up by lengthy commentary justifying this or
that gripe or acclaim. Send it to the author or the moderator for
forwarding.
> administrivia - Meta-comments from the moderator
> monthly - Monthly (possibly automated) administrivia
Sure, two sentences: "Mail me your stories for posting. Anything else
will not be posted."
>
> This seems acceptable as long as this "right to edit" does not extend
> to ANY original material -- especially stories, parodies and essays.
Leave the stories as they are written. I may not like spelling errors,
and cringe when I see myself having made them, but the moderator should
not be burdened with this. The moderator should separate bogus
"I hated this story, HI I'M BIFF" and so forth. Editing should be
done by the author. The moderator should be a filter *not* an editor.
>
>>Section 2 - Duties
>>3. The moderator must label all posts concerning Star Trek with
>>the label STAR TREK: in the header. Likewise, any post concerning a
>>television program should be given an appropriate header.
>
> The "keywords" field is ideal for this (see my above comments).
>
>>5. If the moderator deems an article to be offensive to a certain
>>portion of the population, he must include a warning at the top of the
>>article, and include whitespace or a ^L.
Sure. Sounds good.
> Additionally, I think the policy concerning obscene (*)
> material should be decided upon. Such material should either (a) be
> specifically excluded from this group, (b) be included, but contain
> the keyword "obscene", or (c) be ROT-13ed in addition to containing the
> keyword "obscene".
>
> (*) I realize that "obscene" is in the eye of the beholder. This is
> one case where the moderator must put himself in the position to
> judge.
No, no, no, no, no, no, no! Absolutely not to (a), fine but let's say
offensive to *** in (b) and skip (c) as well. Since the Supreme Court
cannot come up with a clear definition of obscenity, it is both absurd
and wrong to leave this to one individual sitting at a terminal. Even if
T*d Ka*d*s get's on here and puts together a world inhabited by white,
protestant, hetorosexual, superbeings who collectively destroy the
inferior everybodybutthem I would prefer having the option to read (and
laugh at) what he wrote versus having a censor out there who limited the
_stories_ I had access to in this group. Label it, sure, why not (when
is the last time that warning labels were put on F/SF books? SFBC
listings, sure, but the books themselves). This runs counter to what SF
stands for. SF is often suggestive, touching on topics that are ignored
or reviled in the collective mainstream of society. Some hate "Stranger
in A Strange Land," others "A Boy and His Dog," and half the High School
Librarians in America hate anything by Stephen King (exaggeration and not
necessarily SF, but it fits with my point). Let us not embark upon
censorship from the outset. Otherwise, why have the group at all, and if
this is to be the part of the moderator's duties, then let's not.
cbp
-------------------
Intercomputer Communications Corp.
DOMAIN: c...@icc.com PATH: ...!ukma!spca6!icc!cbp
Chris Preston
References: <24...@unix.cis.pitt.edu>
From article <24...@unix.cis.pitt.edu>, by jwc...@unix.cis.pitt.edu (John W Connelly):
> In article <2...@rayssd.ssd.ray.com> g...@quahog.ssd.ray.com (Greg Paris) writes:
>>My question about rec.arts.sf-creative is, where does all the discussion go?
>>
>>works posted on r.a.sf-c. Where will that take place? rec.arts.startrek?
>>rec.arts.sf-lovers? Personally, I don't welcome such discussion in either
>>group. I'm pretty sure that many readers of r.a.s would love to get all
>>discussions of parodies, scripts, and graphics *out* of that newsgroup and
>
> Agreed. Keep parody discussion out of r.a.s.
>
>>My personal opinion is that the discussion should be held in the new group
>>itself. The charter should be modified to accept discussion of creative works.
>
> Again, agreed. Seems the most logical place.
No, it is not the logical place. Commentary has little to do with
creativity. This is a unnecessary burden to place upon the moderator.
Make an r.a.s.c.d as has been mentioned. For the most part, commentary
could just as easily be left out altogether. Why not send it to the
author (via the moderator if need be) where it stands a chance of doing
some good. Sending a critique of someone's story to the whole world is
more likely to turn an author off and make him/her defensive, especially
when TAK or somebodylikethat comes along to give a dissertation on how
the author is promoting this or that "politically correct," "socially
nonredeeming" whateveritisthisweek, or the merry flamers see someone they
know and hate and are off to find some way to gain additional celebrity
through line by line diatribes punctuated with "idiot" and "fool."
Let's keep things spartan and leave it to creative work, period.
Let's not decide that this is a "good place to dump what we don't want to
read elsewhere, even if it doesn't fit there."
cbp
sarah
>"obscene" because it's so vague. Are you sure we can't just lump it in
>with offensive?
>
> ---------- Ryan Mathews
To an extent, I agree with Ryan. I'm also against censor-ship whenever
feasible, but agree that an editor is not necessarily a censor.
Back to the former topic, however, would/should slash fiction be
allowed? Joan Winston states in "Star Trek Lives!" that "until you've
seen a truly awful Star Trek story, you haven't lived." I feel that
I could do without the slash fiction or the negligible dimension it
might add to my life.
:-)!
Sarah L. Winters
sa...@menolly.UUCP InterNet: sa...@menolly.sr.com
UUCP: {ames, att, decwrl, usc, pyramid, jato}!srhqla!menolly!sarah
"If I'm laden at all, I'm laden with sadness, that everyone's heart
isn't filled with the gladness of love for one another." Neil Diamond
Chris Wayne SCONS
>
>Chris Wayne televideoscribes:
>
>> ...no .d group whatsoever!
>
>As a result, more than the original group became involved. Now, if the
>discussions are not allowed on r.a.sf.c, and there is no r.a.sf.c.d
>group, then WHERE are the discussions supposed to go?? If you send them
>to both the trek and snobbish-fi groups, then you'll be DOUBLING the
>bandwidth required for discussions!
NO! you missed the whole point! If something is posted to RASFC, its
subject header should then include, say, 'Star Trek' provided, of course,
that the contents of the post is ST related, then any discussions that arise
should be done in RAS! Simple, eh? Pretend that RASFC is a TV. When ST
is shown on TV, the discussion that 'episode' creates is in RAS. What makes
RASFC any different from that?
--
msh...@heights.cit.cornell.edu
}To an extent, I agree with Ryan. I'm also against censor-ship whenever
}feasible, but agree that an editor is not necessarily a censor.
}Back to the former topic, however, would/should slash fiction be
}allowed? Joan Winston states in "Star Trek Lives!" that "until you've
}seen a truly awful Star Trek story, you haven't lived." I feel that
}I could do without the slash fiction or the negligible dimension it
}might add to my life.
I am not prepared to ban any sub-genre of science fiction from the group.
I WOULD be prepared, once the group is started, to entertain additions to
the Group Guidelines (NOT the charter) that would possible define the limits
of the group's taste. That doesn't mean I'd LIKE them, but I'd be willing
to listen if someone had a convincing argement.
As far as obscenity goes...as I've said before, I'm pretty hard to shock.
If *I* find it obscene, it's probably a lot nastier than most people would
want to see.
Perhaps such posts will simply be made ROT-13....hmm...now THERE'S a thought...
MSS
--
Mike Shappe (Uncle Mikey)
Cornell Office of Information Technologies
msh...@heights.cit.cornell.edu, mshappe%biar...@wrath.cs.cornell.
"Only the beginning of what I want to feel forever..." -- Chicago
John Pimentel
>I don't think censorship would happen. Remember, the moderator is supposed to
>explain why the article was rejected. So this is what would happen:
Actually, in the last Rev, this part was "accidently" left out.
With the current wording, this is not required and will probably cause
problems.
> ---------- Ryan Mathews
Deborah Brown
>In article <25...@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU> mat...@cs.Buffalo.EDU (Ryan D Mathews) writes:
>>
>>I'm not sure. I'm an anti-censorship freak, and I hate the word
>>"obscene" because it's so vague. Are you sure we can't just lump it in
>>with offensive?
[...]
>Back to the former topic, however, would/should slash fiction be
>allowed? Joan Winston states in "Star Trek Lives!" that "until you've
>seen a truly awful Star Trek story, you haven't lived." I feel that
>I could do without the slash fiction or the negligible dimension it
>might add to my life.
As much as I wouldn't want to read slash fiction, since it IS an original
work, it would fit into the definition of "acceptable" submissions. To
add my .02 to the discussion, "offensive" is a much better word than
"obscene". I would prefer that someone not decide for me that something
is obscene, but rather that I might find it offensive.
Slash should be allowed as long as it's labeled as such in the keywords.
***********************************Oh boy!*************************************
Quote: "If you look into my eyes, you'll see another soul." Sam, QUANTUM LEAP
Disclamer: "Disclaim THIS, pal!" (my employer thinks I'm working)
I am: Debbie Brown cci632!jloda!deb -OR- deb%jloda@cci632
********** It's 1995: do you know where your quantum physicist is? ************