[newsgroup reogranization]
Scott J Gorcey
500 posts on a regular basis, so I agree, another
split is necessary. But if another split is to
happen, it should at least happen in a way that
will ensure never having to split again, only
ADD.
I would propose a new startrek newsgroup heirarchy
as follows:
rec.arts.startrek.tos
rec.arts.startrek.tng
rec.arts.startrek.ds9
rec.arts.startrek.movies
rec.arts.startrek.voy (when necessary)
.current is a subjective concept, in my opinion, given
that there is now SO MUCH that can be interpreted as
current (the guy in Russia seeing second season episodes
of TNG for the first time on video would call them
current, for example, and old threads have always
reamined a part of .current anyway.
these groups would join the .misc, .tech, .fandom, .reviews,
and .info so only .current would have to be renamed or
whatever. In the first place, this would eliminate any
confusion over WHERE to post: it's obvious in the titles
of the gruop what belongs where, as it never has been with
the current set-up. It also focuses the discussion more.
I probably wouldn't read .tng, for example, because I'm
much more interested in DS9 at this point. This would also
reduce the number of posts each day in each newsgrup--splitting
up the volume would be to everyone's advantage (at least I
think so).
Also, the set up would never have to be reorganized again...
you just add to it in seven or eight years when the next new
series rolls out.
What does everyone think of this?
Scott Gorcey
Tony Sanderfoot
(Scott J Gorcey) wrote:
> I would propose a new startrek newsgroup heirarchy
> as follows:
>
> rec.arts.startrek.tos
> rec.arts.startrek.tng
> rec.arts.startrek.ds9
> rec.arts.startrek.movies
> rec.arts.startrek.voy (when necessary)
>
>
> Scott Gorcey
I'm concerned that the tos (and in a while, the tng) traffic might not
be enough to support a group on it's own...
maybe: r.a.s.newseries (ie: DS9, VOY: sounds like .current doesn't it ;)
r.a.s.oldseries (ie: TOS, TNG: to give .misc a break
obviously these names stink, but something along these lines should help
cut down the traffic, yet leave 2 viable groups...
Similarly, the r.a.s.movies group will likely be a feast-or-famine type
of group, with lots of traffic when the movie is released and
nothing at all between films. Not to mention discussion can be done in
the groups above.
Just a little fuel for the fire...
Tony
sand...@uiuc.edu
Butler, Michael J.
> In article <Cs2CB...@acsu.buffalo.edu>, v075...@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu
> (Scott J Gorcey) wrote:
> > I would propose a new startrek newsgroup heirarchy
> > as follows:
> >
> > rec.arts.startrek.tos
> > rec.arts.startrek.tng
> > rec.arts.startrek.ds9
> > rec.arts.startrek.movies
> > rec.arts.startrek.voy (when necessary)
> >
> > What does everyone think of this?
> >
> > Scott Gorcey
>
> I'm concerned that the tos (and in a while, the tng) traffic might not
> be enough to support a group on it's own...
>
> maybe: r.a.s.newseries (ie: DS9, VOY: sounds like .current doesn't it ;)
> r.a.s.oldseries (ie: TOS, TNG: to give .misc a break
>
I think this could be better handled (if the concern is low volume) by
getting rid of the .movies in Scott's above list. The old TOS movie
discussion would go into .TOS while the current movies would go into
.TNG, adding volume to each. Only problem I can see there is crossposts
since GENERATIONS itself is a crossover, but I think the bulk of those
posts would go into .TNG.
In any case, I don't think bunching DS9 and VOY together is a good idea; they
are likely to bring the most posts since they are/will be the only two
shows on the air.
Timothy W. Lynch
> It seems as though volume on .current has exceeded
> 500 posts on a regular basis, so I agree, another
> split is necessary.
I don't. I think posters getting a clue and realizing what posts are
appropriate to .current and what posts are not is necessary. I will not
favor another r.a.s.* split until I see a sign that the majority of r.a.s.*
posters have enough intelligence to use the split we currently have intelli-
gently. So far, this has not been the case.
> I would propose a new startrek newsgroup heirarchy
> as follows:
> rec.arts.startrek.tos
> rec.arts.startrek.tng
> rec.arts.startrek.ds9
> rec.arts.startrek.movies
> rec.arts.startrek.voy (when necessary)
Plus keeping .misc, .fandom, .tech, .info, and .reviews. In other words, you
want a ten-newsgroup set of r.a.s.* groups.
Sorry, Scott, but this proposal has about as much chance of passing a news-
group vote in news.groups as your average snowball has in the pits of Tartarus.
> .current is a subjective concept, in my opinion,
Your opinion does not reflect the charter of the group. R.a.s.current was
and is defined as appropriate for discussion of "Trek-related material
released for the first time within the last four months." In episode cases,
that means four months from the Paramount satellite uplink.
That is clear. That is unambiguous. That is not subjective.
> and old threads have always
> reamined a part of .current anyway.
This I can't argue with. However, given the difficulty there is in getting
people to take discussions to appropriate groups, what on *earth* makes you
think that breaking us up further into ten groups would do anything beyond
muddy the waters further?
> In the first place, this would eliminate any
> confusion over WHERE to post: it's obvious in the titles
> of the gruop what belongs where, as it never has been with
> the current set-up.
It's been clear with the current setup. Or rather, it would be were the
long-time posters setting a good example. I'll plead guilty to minor
infractions on this, but a lot of people have turned .current into .whatever
lately, thus leaving .misc to apparently become .nonsense.
> Also, the set up would never have to be reorganized again...
That's a naive assumption. The net as a whole will need a major overhaul
before long, methinks.
> What does everyone think of this?
I will not support it. I think better use of the current hierarchy is in
order before any talk of further muddying the waters. I will vote against
and campaign against any split of this type.
Tim Lynch
Scott J Gorcey
>In article <Cs2CB...@acsu.buffalo.edu>, v075...@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu
>(Scott J Gorcey) wrote:
>> I would propose a new startrek newsgroup heirarchy
>> as follows:
>>
>> rec.arts.startrek.tos
>> rec.arts.startrek.tng
>> rec.arts.startrek.ds9
>> rec.arts.startrek.movies
>> rec.arts.startrek.voy (when necessary)
>>
>> What does everyone think of this?
>>
>> Scott Gorcey
>
>I'm concerned that the tos (and in a while, the tng) traffic might not
>be enough to support a group on it's own...
This is true. If there isn't enough discussion on TOS
to merit its own newsgroup, it should probably remain in
.misc under the reorganization I propose (which is the
definition of miscellaneous, pretty stupid of me).
>maybe: r.a.s.newseries (ie: DS9, VOY: sounds like .current doesn't it ;)
> r.a.s.oldseries (ie: TOS, TNG: to give .misc a break
The point of reorganizing (imo) would be to break up
the huge volume of stuff on .current, which at present is
a forum for TNG, DS9, 7 movies, and Voyager speculation
(soon to be discussion on the actual series). That's too
much. Even breaking TNG off to go in an "oldseries" group,
you'd still have DS9, Voyager, and the movies, which
doesn't really cut into the volume the way giving each
its own group would. Is there any doubt that TNG, DS9,
VOYAGER and the movies as a group are topics that have
enough volume individually on a daily basis to merit
their own newsgroups?
I think there are a lot of positives to this approach,
as there are plenty of people who would prefer not to
see even the subject lines of posts on VOYAGER or
GENERATIONS, because it's such a temptation to spoil
oneself, but who do want to participate in DEEP SPACE
threads. Or someone who just wants to read about TNG
and doesn't want to have to wade through the hundreds,
sometimes thousands, of posts to puruse the two or
three hundred messages about TNG, of which he only
wants to read twenty or thirty anyway... all of this
is made faster and more convenient--and a lot less
frustrating--by having a TNG specific newsgroup to
act as a focus for his interests in ways a kill file
never could.
>obviously these names stink, but something along these lines should help
>cut down the traffic, yet leave 2 viable groups...
>
>Similarly, the r.a.s.movies group will likely be a feast-or-famine type
>of group, with lots of traffic when the movie is released and
>nothing at all between films. Not to mention discussion can be done in
>the groups above.
I don't know about that... there's always quite a bit of
discussion on this movie or that (usually the latest or
upcoming) no matter whether it's in the middle of the wait
between movies or two weeks prior to the premiere of one,
when, of course, there are thousands of posts each day.
Technoknight
In article <Cs2CB...@acsu.buffalo.edu>, v075...@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu (Scott J Gorcey) writes:
|> It seems as though volume on .current has exceeded
|> 500 posts on a regular basis, so I agree, another
|> split is necessary. But if another split is to
|> happen, it should at least happen in a way that
|> will ensure never having to split again, only
|> ADD.
|>
|> I would propose a new startrek newsgroup heirarchy
|> as follows:
|>
|> rec.arts.startrek.tos
|> rec.arts.startrek.tng
|> rec.arts.startrek.ds9
|> rec.arts.startrek.movies
|> rec.arts.startrek.voy (when necessary)
|> What does everyone think of this?
I'll agree to it. I'm a little tired of the "Spot", "AGT", and "old" discussions
staying forever on r.a.s.current. (Yes, I use KILL files. The titles change
weekly to defy my efforts.) Just keep the crossposting maniacs from posting
to 7 or more r.a.startrek.* groups, though.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Generic disclaimer: These thoughts and writings are my own unless otherwise
noted - although Jerrold my twin may think them too.
Jeremy H. Pace | The Vindicator Eph. 6:12
jhp...@eos.ncsu.edu | Technoknight MS V in Wolfpack ROTC
NC State, Raleigh | Computer Engineering
(coordinates 78.79 Long, 35.87 Lat North Hemi.)
"Peace, through superior firepower." - Minos V motto, ST:TNG "The Arsenal
of Freedom"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Colin Smiley
In article <2unnfu$e...@gap.cco.caltech.edu> tly...@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch) writes:
>v075...@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu (Scott J Gorcey) writes:
>> It seems as though volume on .current has exceeded
>> 500 posts on a regular basis, so I agree, another
>> split is necessary.
>I don't. I think posters getting a clue and realizing what posts are
>appropriate to .current and what posts are not is necessary. I will not
>favor another r.a.s.* split until I see a sign that the majority of r.a.s.*
>posters have enough intelligence to use the split we currently have intelli-
>gently. So far, this has not been the case.
Tim, I applaud you for being the optimist that you are. I have been a
r.a.s.* reader since well before the re-org, and I have yet to see the
current trend of ignoring the r.a.s.current charter slow or show any
sign of stopping soon. I think the biggest problem with the current
partitioning is that it expects the average reader/poster to behave
intelligently. It has been my experience that most do not. Not
because they are unintelligent, but because they do not know any better.
>> I would propose a new startrek newsgroup heirarchy
>> as follows:
>> rec.arts.startrek.tos
>> rec.arts.startrek.tng
>> rec.arts.startrek.ds9
>> rec.arts.startrek.movies
>> rec.arts.startrek.voy (when necessary)
>Plus keeping .misc, .fandom, .tech, .info, and .reviews. In other words, you
>want a ten-newsgroup set of r.a.s.* groups.
>
>Sorry, Scott, but this proposal has about as much chance of passing a news-
>group vote in news.groups as your average snowball has in the pits of Tartarus.
I think it would stand a chance of going somewhere if it managed to
rename or get rid of some groups. r.a.s.movies should not be
proposed. Put the movie discussions into the series group that the
movie refers to. .tech will be .tech. .info and .reviews should be
left alone. .misc should be used as a clearing house for general trek
discussions and all of those !@#$%^&* trek actor/actress nude posts,
the actor/actress other roles posts, as well as a convenient place
for discussions relating to SEFEB and the other similar
organizations. <duck> (Sorry Janis...)
For those of you thinking that r.a.s.* has too many newsgroups
already, take a look at rec.music.*, or rec.arts.tv.*, comp.lang.*.
The newsgroup namespace should be clearly defined. The better the
namespace definition, the less chance for error.
>> .current is a subjective concept, in my opinion,
>Your opinion does not reflect the charter of the group. R.a.s.current was
>and is defined as appropriate for discussion of "Trek-related material
>released for the first time within the last four months." In episode cases,
>that means four months from the Paramount satellite uplink.
>
>That is clear. That is unambiguous. That is not subjective.
The problem is no one pays attention to the charter to begin with! No
one really has since the last re-org. Again, the expectation is that
people are going to be intelligent, or use a little forethought and
pay attention to it. Most of the time, posters to many newsgroups post
based upon the name of the newsgroup, and not the charter.
On the few occasions that I post to any newsgroup (and I do mean few,
I've got lurking down to a science), I ask myself a few questions
first. 1) Does this post *really* belong in this newsgroup? 2) Do
people *really* need to know what I am posting about? 3) Is anyone
going to be at all interested in what I have to say?
I don't expect people to do this, but if they did it would certainly
lower the bandwidth in this group.
>> and old threads have always
>> reamined a part of .current anyway.
>This I can't argue with. However, given the difficulty there is in getting
>people to take discussions to appropriate groups, what on *earth* makes you
>think that breaking us up further into ten groups would do anything beyond
>muddy the waters further?
See above. It has been my experience that most people post to a group
based upon name, and not charter. I think that naming the groups
with more accurate names would hopefully alleviate some of the
misplaced threads problems.
>> In the first place, this would eliminate any
>> confusion over WHERE to post: it's obvious in the titles
>> of the gruop what belongs where, as it never has been with
>> the current set-up.
>It's been clear with the current setup. Or rather, it would be were the
>long-time posters setting a good example. I'll plead guilty to minor
>infractions on this, but a lot of people have turned .current into .whatever
>lately, thus leaving .misc to apparently become .nonsense.
I think everyone is guilty of violating the charter for this group(to
pick nits, this discussion probably belongs in r.a.s.misc). I know I
am. Very few people can claim that they don't do this without being
hypocritical. The problem is even if people want to obey/follow the
charter, they break the rules to reach their target audience. Why
should someone post something that belongs in r.a.s.misc to r.a.s.misc
if they aren't going to reach as many people, or get as much
attention?
>> Also, the set up would never have to be reorganized again...
>
>That's a naive assumption. The net as a whole will need a major overhaul
>before long, methinks.
I agree wholeheartedly! (With Tim...sorry Scott.) They approximate
15 million newbies per month almost necessitates an Internet-wide re-org.
>> What does everyone think of this?
>I will not support it. I think better use of the current hierarchy is in
>order before any talk of further muddying the waters. I will vote against
>and campaign against any split of this type.
I will support this re-org if it makes it past news.groups. I think
the current naming scheme of r.a.s.* needs to be overhauled and
simplified. Come to think of it, I think the whole of USENET needs
this. There is a lot of confusion out there, and the large influx in
newbies is not going to slow down any time soon.
The current hierarchy requires too much of the user. As I stated
above, most people are going to post by what they see as a name for a
newsgroup and not based upon what it says in it's charter.
Just out of curiosity, how many people can claim that they have
actually a) read the charter before posting to this group, b) read the
charter before reading this group, c) read the charter for this group
at all?
--
Colin
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Colin Smiley, | Compaq Computer Corporation | Houston, TX 77069-2000
smi...@compaq.com | P.O. Box 692000 M120511 | Phone: (713) 378-8426
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
George Lyle (233789)
annoying repetitive bandwith waste from the mainstream groups:
r.a.s.flame_b5
r.a.s.flame_from_b5
r.a.s.gay_lib
r.a.s.spam
r.a.s.capitalism
r.a.s.socialism
r.a.s.ducks_n_tots
r.a.s.wesley_in_boiling_oil
r.a.s.sub_rosa
etc. etc. :-)
George
Butler, Michael J.
>
> In article <2unnfu$e...@gap.cco.caltech.edu> tly...@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch) writes:
> >v075...@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu (Scott J Gorcey) writes:
> >> It seems as though volume on .current has exceeded
> >> 500 posts on a regular basis, so I agree, another
> >> split is necessary.
> >I don't. I think posters getting a clue and realizing what posts are
> >appropriate to .current and what posts are not is necessary. I will not
> >favor another r.a.s.* split until I see a sign that the majority of r.a.s.*
> >posters have enough intelligence to use the split we currently have intelli-
> >gently. So far, this has not been the case.
>
> Tim, I applaud you for being the optimist that you are. I have been a
> r.a.s.* reader since well before the re-org, and I have yet to see the
> current trend of ignoring the r.a.s.current charter slow or show any
> sign of stopping soon. I think the biggest problem with the current
> partitioning is that it expects the average reader/poster to behave
> intelligently. It has been my experience that most do not. Not
> because they are unintelligent, but because they do not know any better.
All the more reason for a *.ds9 *.tng *.tos etc. It would make where to put
your thoughts on Sub-Rosa or why Kira is a better character than Dax, etc.
pretty obvious.
Timothy W. Lynch
>In article <2unnfu$e...@gap.cco.caltech.edu> tly...@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch) writes:
>>v075...@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu (Scott J Gorcey) writes:
>>> It seems as though volume on .current has exceeded
>>> 500 posts on a regular basis, so I agree, another
>>> split is necessary.
>>I don't. I think posters getting a clue and realizing what posts are
>>appropriate to .current and what posts are not is necessary. I will not
>>favor another r.a.s.* split until I see a sign that the majority of r.a.s.*
>>posters have enough intelligence to use the split we currently have intelli-
>>gently. So far, this has not been the case.
>Tim, I applaud you for being the optimist that you are. I have been a
>r.a.s.* reader since well before the re-org, and I have yet to see the
>current trend of ignoring the r.a.s.current charter slow or show any
>sign of stopping soon. I think the biggest problem with the current
>partitioning is that it expects the average reader/poster to behave
>intelligently. It has been my experience that most do not.
Granted -- but as such, and given that IMO the current system *is* clearly
marked, I don't intend to support any reorg that allows for ambiguity. I
think a series-based split has far more ambiguity than people think.
For instance, the Kirk/Picard/Sisko arguments that come up, or the series
comparisons, do not fit on any group easily. And how about discussions of
some authors, such as (say) Diane Duane, who has books spanning more than
one series?
Also, I'd argue that this will muddy the waters where the .tech group is
concerned, and whatever else you might have to say about the current situation,
the r.a.s.tech split worked like a charm. (At least, I believe it has; not
being a reader of .tech, I may not be the best qualified to judge.)
>>> I would propose a new startrek newsgroup heirarchy
>>> as follows:
>>> rec.arts.startrek.tos
>>> rec.arts.startrek.tng
>>> rec.arts.startrek.ds9
>>> rec.arts.startrek.movies
>>> rec.arts.startrek.voy (when necessary)
>>Plus keeping .misc, .fandom, .tech, .info, and .reviews. In other words, you
>>want a ten-newsgroup set of r.a.s.* groups.
>>
>>Sorry, Scott, but this proposal has about as much chance of passing a news-
>>group vote in news.groups as your average snowball has in the pits of
>>Tartarus.
>I think it would stand a chance of going somewhere if it managed to
>rename or get rid of some groups.
I don't, but that's something that could only be resolved by being attempted,
which I personally do not believe should be done.
>r.a.s.movies should not be proposed.
That I completely agree with. Of course, I don't want the rest of them
proposed *either* :-), but .tos and .movies seem the least workable of the
bunch.
>>> .current is a subjective concept, in my opinion,
>>Your opinion does not reflect the charter of the group.
[evidence deleted]
>The problem is no one pays attention to the charter to begin with!
Agreed. I don't think changing the namespace is going to solve that problem,
and I also think the implicit challenge you, Scott, and everyone else in this
discussion are making of having to pick up everything and everyone in
r.a.s.current to move to the new proposed hierarchy is not feasible. Remember
how long it took for the old r.a.s group to die off? Hell, I still see it
in the listings on news.lists.
>On the few occasions that I post to any newsgroup (and I do mean few,
>I've got lurking down to a science), I ask myself a few questions
>first. 1) Does this post *really* belong in this newsgroup? 2) Do
>people *really* need to know what I am posting about? 3) Is anyone
>going to be at all interested in what I have to say?
Agreed to all. However, most people don't.
>>This I can't argue with. However, given the difficulty there is in getting
>>people to take discussions to appropriate groups, what on *earth* makes you
>>think that breaking us up further into ten groups would do anything beyond
>>muddy the waters further?
>See above. It has been my experience that most people post to a group
>based upon name, and not charter. I think that naming the groups
>with more accurate names would hopefully alleviate some of the
>misplaced threads problems.
Ones that are misplaced from the start; perhaps, though I doubt it. Ones that
mutate across series, however? Absolutely NOT; I think it'll make matters
worse.
>>> What does everyone think of this?
>>I will not support it. I think better use of the current hierarchy is in
>>order before any talk of further muddying the waters. I will vote against
>>and campaign against any split of this type.
>I will support this re-org if it makes it past news.groups.
That's an easy claim to make; if it makes it past news.groups, that means it
passes the vote. Then you'll have no choice. :-)
>The current hierarchy requires too much of the user.
While I don't think this is the way you mean it, it strikes me that you're
campaigning for the hierarchy to be dumbed down. I don't think things should
work that way; newbies *should* read a while to learn what is appropriate
before posting. I did, and most of the netters whose work I respect did.
Perhaps I'm turning crotchety in my old age :-), but I happen to think that
method does a lot more than renaming groups.
>Just out of curiosity, how many people can claim that they have
>actually a) read the charter before posting to this group, b) read the
>charter before reading this group, c) read the charter for this group
>at all?
My guess is that anyone who was here three years ago for the reorganization
will say yes, and that the majority of those more recent recruits will say no.
Perhaps what is needed is for someone to volunteer to periodically post the
charters. Mike Shappe did so ages ago in the hierarchy's first months, but
quit when it seemed no one paid attention.
Tim Lynch
Taki Kogoma
rec.arts.startrek.current:
>Perhaps what is needed is for someone to volunteer to periodically post the
>charters. Mike Shappe did so ages ago in the hierarchy's first months, but
>quit when it seemed no one paid attention.
Oh what the hell. I've already got the software set up for
alt.fan.pern's FAQs and the 'getalife' monthly note. I suppose I can
start cross-posting the rec.arts.startrek.* charters (and *only* the
charters). I'll talk to Uncle Mikey about it.
(If I don't I wise up and change my mind, that is. ;-)
--
Capt. Gym Z. Quirk - kog...@unm.edu | "I'll get a life when someone
(Known to some as Taki Kogoma) | demonstrates that it would be
Retired 'Secret Master of | superior to what I have now."
rec.arts.startrek' | -- Gym Quirk
Taki Kogoma
rec.arts.startrek.current:
As opposed to the Kirk/Picard/Sisko, Q/Trelane, Riker/Kirk, etc.
cross-series arguments?
Butler, Michael J.
> >All the more reason for a *.ds9 *.tng *.tos etc. It would make where to put
> >your thoughts on Sub-Rosa or why Kira is a better character than Dax, etc.
> >pretty obvious.
>
> As opposed to the Kirk/Picard/Sisko, Q/Trelane, Riker/Kirk, etc.
> cross-series arguments?
Yes. Compare the potential crossposting there with what goes on now.
Charles Leader
: In article <Cs2CB...@acsu.buffalo.edu>, v075...@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu (Scott J Gorcey) writes:
: |> It seems as though volume on .current has exceeded
: |> 500 posts on a regular basis, so I agree, another
: |> split is necessary. But if another split is to
: |> happen, it should at least happen in a way that
: |> will ensure never having to split again, only
: |> ADD.
: |>
: |> I would propose a new startrek newsgroup heirarchy
: |> as follows:
: |>
: |> rec.arts.startrek.tos
: |> rec.arts.startrek.tng
: |> rec.arts.startrek.ds9
: |> rec.arts.startrek.movies
: |> rec.arts.startrek.voy (when necessary)
: |> What does everyone think of this?
: I'll agree to it. I'm a little tired of the "Spot", "AGT", and "old" discussions
: staying forever on r.a.s.current. (Yes, I use KILL files. The titles change
: weekly to defy my efforts.) Just keep the crossposting maniacs from posting
: to 7 or more r.a.startrek.* groups, though.
: Jeremy H. Pace | The Vindicator Eph. 6:12
I'll agree to it too. I've become discouraged enough with this group (and
some of the others) because of all the MASSIVE amounts of posts that the
only group I consistently read anymore is r.a.s.creative, with an
occasional glance through r.a.s.current to see what's going on. Breaking
current down would be great for people like me who would only read posts
re one or two series as time allows. (Personally, I'm not interested in
the new upcoming Voyager. I'm not condeming it per se, I just don't want
to wade through that to find out what's up with TNG.)
That's my .02 worth, anyway.
Charles
David Steers
r.a.s.go_away_faggets
r.a.s.gays_in_ST
r.a.s.ranks
r.a.s.best_episodes
r.a.s.cortese
r.a.s.worst_episodes
r.a.s.worst_actors
r.a.s.troi_porno_films
r.a.s.yar_nude
r.a.s.inconsistencies
r.a.s.omar.polls
r.a.s.did.not.log.out.flames
r.a.s.spelling.luwaxanwa_troy
r.a.s.uniform_colors
etc. etc.
--
Keep a cool and _\|/_ Have a good Weekend!
{ó ò}
==================================ooO=(_)=Ooo==================================
Bill Moore
ane...@charlie.usd.edu
>In <sanderft-2...@lazarow2.life.uiuc.edu> sand...@uiuc.edu writes:
>
>> In article <Cs2CB...@acsu.buffalo.edu>, v075...@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu
>> (Scott J Gorcey) wrote:
>> > I would propose a new startrek newsgroup heirarchy
>> > as follows:
>> >
>> > rec.arts.startrek.tos
>> > rec.arts.startrek.tng
>> > rec.arts.startrek.ds9
>> > rec.arts.startrek.movies
>> > rec.arts.startrek.voy (when necessary)
>> >
>> > What does everyone think of this?
>> >
>> > Scott Gorcey
>>
>> I'm concerned that the tos (and in a while, the tng) traffic might not
>> be enough to support a group on it's own...
>>
>> maybe: r.a.s.newseries (ie: DS9, VOY: sounds like .current doesn't it ;)
>> r.a.s.oldseries (ie: TOS, TNG: to give .misc a break
>>
>
>I think this could be better handled (if the concern is low volume) by
>getting rid of the .movies in Scott's above list. The old TOS movie
>discussion would go into .TOS while the current movies would go into
>since GENERATIONS itself is a crossover, but I think the bulk of those
>posts would go into .TNG.
>
>In any case, I don't think bunching DS9 and VOY together is a good idea; they
>are likely to bring the most posts since they are/will be the only two
>shows on the air.
>
And it seems clear from Voyager's premise that it's plotlines will almost never
intersect with DS9's after the initial Starfleet-must-team-up-with-Maquis
set-up gets resolved; I mean, who's going to care about the Cardassian border
in the far reaches of whereever they get thrown to? (I could be wrong, but
that's the way it sounds to me right now.)
Blanche Cohen
the current divisions, they appear to be clearly identified as to content.
What I would like is a net-license for the 15M newbies (each!) that are
coming in here. Altho I've been on the net for over 10 years, one of my
clients just got net access a couple weeks ago. The librarian and I are
going crazy trying to educate people. My boss' attitude is that everyone can
fend for themselves - he, of course, has no idea what the net is, how it
operates, how powerful and insidious it can become (and addictive!). His
philosophy characterizes the problem. And its being encouraged by the
media blitz!
On the bright side, at one of the local colleges, we're offering a separate
course on how to deal with the internet. It will include operations as well
as etiquette (sp?), ethics, and the future. Makes sense to me!
Would you let 10,000 16-year olds with brand new drivers' licenses on the
LA freeway at the same day and time? .... Nevermind...that's how it works
now, doesn't it? Can anyone come up with a reasonably good analogy?
--
bc
"It might be interesting to explore useless for a while"
"Chocolate is a serious business"
Timothy W. Lynch
Michael, the crossposting that goes on now doesn't happen because people
are confused. It goes on now because people are lazy and careless. A new
split is hardly going to change that.
Tim Lynch
Butler, Michael J.
I'm not going to argue about the motivations of hundreds/thousands of posters
I don't know ... I'll just say that a *.ds9 *.tng etc wouldn't NEED a
charter to explain things. They are inherently less confusing.
But crossposting isn't even the real issue. Volume and convience is.
.current is too big. even with appropriate posts.
.current offers too much for those interested in a specific area of Trek.
Your main argument against the change (it seems) is that posters are not
using the newsgroups responsibly as it is ... by crossposting. I
haven't heard you say that you think crossposting would INCREASE as a
result of a change, just that it wouldn't decrease much (which I disagree
with).
So what are the real negatives in a restructuring of r.a.s.*? How would
they outweigh the positives?
Colin Smiley
>smi...@maharet.im.hou.compaq.com (Colin Smiley) writes:
>>In article <2unnfu$e...@gap.cco.caltech.edu> tly...@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch) writes:
>>>v075...@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu (Scott J Gorcey) writes:
>>Tim, I applaud you for being the optimist that you are. I have been a
>>r.a.s.* reader since well before the re-org, and I have yet to see the
>>current trend of ignoring the r.a.s.current charter slow or show any
>>sign of stopping soon. I think the biggest problem with the current
>>partitioning is that it expects the average reader/poster to behave
>>intelligently. It has been my experience that most do not.
>
>Granted -- but as such, and given that IMO the current system *is* clearly
>marked, I don't intend to support any reorg that allows for ambiguity. I
>think a series-based split has far more ambiguity than people think.
>
>For instance, the Kirk/Picard/Sisko arguments that come up, or the series
>comparisons, do not fit on any group easily. And how about discussions of
>some authors, such as (say) Diane Duane, who has books spanning more than
>one series?
There is a clearly obvious place for discussions such as these.
r.a.s.misc! If it doesn't belong in one of the clearly defined series
groups, then it belongs in r.a.s.misc.
>Also, I'd argue that this will muddy the waters where the .tech group is
>concerned, and whatever else you might have to say about the current situation,
>the r.a.s.tech split worked like a charm. (At least, I believe it has; not
>being a reader of .tech, I may not be the best qualified to judge.)
I thought .tech was to be left alone? I don't read the .tech group
either, but I agree that it should not be touched. That part of the
last re-org worked fine.
>>>> I would propose a new startrek newsgroup heirarchy
>>>> as follows:
>>>> rec.arts.startrek.tos
>>>> rec.arts.startrek.tng
>>>> rec.arts.startrek.ds9
>>>> rec.arts.startrek.movies
>>>> rec.arts.startrek.voy (when necessary)
>>>> .current is a subjective concept, in my opinion,
>
>>>Your opinion does not reflect the charter of the group.
>[evidence deleted]
>
>>The problem is no one pays attention to the charter to begin with!
>
>Agreed. I don't think changing the namespace is going to solve that problem,
>and I also think the implicit challenge you, Scott, and everyone else in this
>discussion are making of having to pick up everything and everyone in
>r.a.s.current to move to the new proposed hierarchy is not feasible. Remember
>how long it took for the old r.a.s group to die off? Hell, I still see it
>in the listings on news.lists.
The lengthy die off time could be blamed on busy/lazy/slow news admins
who do not have the time to check all rmgroups that come across. In
many cases large sites have one news gateway which reflects the
current state of the USENET namespace, but machines getting news from
that gateway machine still have old groups on them. In the case of
the old r.a.s, it is now r.a.s.misc. Some people just didn't change
the name of the group. IMO for this re-org to succeed r.a.s.current
needs to be *removed*. The resulting newsgroups will hopefully be named
obviously enough to let people know where to go.
>>>> What does everyone think of this?
>
>>>I will not support it. I think better use of the current hierarchy is in
>>>order before any talk of further muddying the waters. I will vote against
>>>and campaign against any split of this type.
>
>>I will support this re-org if it makes it past news.groups.
>
>That's an easy claim to make; if it makes it past news.groups, that means it
>passes the vote. Then you'll have no choice. :-)
Shhhh! That was my hole card... :-) What I meant to say was that I
would support the re-org if there appears to be enough momentum behind
it. I do not want to quit reading r.a.s.current because of
overwhelming bandwidth.
>>The current hierarchy requires too much of the user.
>
>While I don't think this is the way you mean it, it strikes me that you're
>campaigning for the hierarchy to be dumbed down.
I don't think of it as dumbing it down, I think of it as simplifying
it.
> I don't think things should
>work that way; newbies *should* read a while to learn what is appropriate
>before posting. I did, and most of the netters whose work I respect did.
>Perhaps I'm turning crotchety in my old age :-), but I happen to think that
>method does a lot more than renaming groups.
Again, I think you are asking too much of the user and the old fogies
like us who have been around so long. If a newbie sits down and reads
a group for a while, they are going to post articles with subject
content that parallels what they see on the group. Both you and I
have admitted that we don't always follow the charter for posting
guidelines. This equates to newbies who will not post the proper
subject content to the newsgroup after seeing what everyone else is
posting.
If we are looking for an alternate solution to a re-org, then the
solution lies within ourselves. If we set a proper example for
others, others may follow. The problem with this is that some people
are going to have to become net-policemen, informing others by e-mail
(certainly not by posting), that the content of their article is
better suited to another named group. The problem with this is that
the high irritability factor a lot of r.a.s.* readers tend to display
will lead to plenty of e-mail flame wars between the "police" and the
perpetrator of the charter violation.
I think we can all agree that r.a.s.current has a large problem with
misplaced subjects and traffic congestion. The reason I am putting
myself behind this re-org is that I see the re-org as the least
painful of the possible solutions to our problems. If anyone else has
ideas on how to resolve this issue, I would be more than happy to see
them.
>>Just out of curiosity, how many people can claim that they have
>>actually a) read the charter before posting to this group, b) read the
>>charter before reading this group, c) read the charter for this group
>>at all?
>
>My guess is that anyone who was here three years ago for the reorganization
>will say yes, and that the majority of those more recent recruits will say no.
>Perhaps what is needed is for someone to volunteer to periodically post the
>charters. Mike Shappe did so ages ago in the hierarchy's first months, but
>quit when it seemed no one paid attention.
What we need is an automated database that acts as a newbie detector.
If you have not posted to this newsgroup in the past year, upon your
first post(and entry into the database), you will receive a copy of
the charter and some posting guidelines.
Gina Goff
>> Michael, the crossposting that goes on now doesn't happen because people
>> are confused. It goes on now because people are lazy and careless. A new
>> split is hardly going to change that.
>Your main argument against the change (it seems) is that posters are not
>using the newsgroups responsibly as it is ... by crossposting. I
>haven't heard you say that you think crossposting would INCREASE as a
>result of a change, just that it wouldn't decrease much (which I disagree
>with).
discuss both TNG and DS9 characters or compare the ship-oriented vs.
station-oriented nature of TNG and DS9. Although I expect TNG postings
to diminish somewhat in the future, Voyager postings will doubtless come
along to take up the slack. With a .tng/.ds9 scheme, there would be a
significant amount of appropriate and inappropriate crossposting. I don't
see how crossposting would go down, and I'd expect it to go up. Why do
you believe otherwise?
>So what are the real negatives in a restructuring of r.a.s.*? How would
>they outweigh the positives?
summer of '91?) and additional crossposting because of trans-genre
discussions. Also, some groups (.tos now, and .tng in the not-too-distant
future) would have insufficient traffic to justify their existence. As a
positive, if you're only interested in one series and not the others, you
would see fewer postings (not zero, but fewer) about the other series.
Readers who follow more than one series and have suboptimal news software
would be screwed, however, because they'd see the same crossposted article
in multiple groups.
Gina
Gina Goff
smi...@maharet.im.hou.compaq.com (Colin Smiley) writes:
#In article <2unnfu$e...@gap.cco.caltech.edu> tly...@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W . Lynch) writes:
#>Granted -- but as such, and given that IMO the current system *is* clearly
#>marked, I don't intend to support any reorg that allows for ambiguity. I
#>think a series-based split has far more ambiguity than people think.
#>
#>For instance, the Kirk/Picard/Sisko arguments that come up, or the series
#>comparisons, do not fit on any group easily. And how about discussions of
#>some authors, such as (say) Diane Duane, who has books spanning more than
#>one series?
#
#There is a clearly obvious place for discussions such as these.
#r.a.s.misc! If it doesn't belong in one of the clearly defined series
#groups, then it belongs in r.a.s.misc.
All that would do is move the clump from rasc to rasm, and there would
be tons of crossposts between rasm and the new groups. Try again.
Gina
Butler, Michael J.
> How are you measuring crosspostings?
I measure crosspostings by counting those messages which are crossposted to
other newsgroups. How do you measure crossposting?
> significant amount of appropriate and inappropriate crossposting. I don't
> see how crossposting would go down, and I'd expect it to go up. Why do
> you believe otherwise?
>
In looking over the last two hundred posts, I saw only two that could
appropriately be crossposted under the proposed structure ... "Diane Duane"
and this thread (ironically).
Inappropriate crossposting would most definitely go down. Why would someone
want to send the TNG group a post about Sisko? (Not Sisko/Picard, as that
would be appropriate).
Why don't we just dump all the newsgroups in a single rec.internet thread and
forget the whole thing. Less crossposting.
Gina Goff
>
>> How are you measuring crosspostings?
>
>I measure crosspostings by counting those messages which are crossposted to
>other newsgroups. How do you measure crossposting?
DOWN made me wonder how you measure it. If you split .current into
.current.tng and .current.ds9, for example, you're going to have more
crossposting because there will be some threads that cover both series.
>> significant amount of appropriate and inappropriate crossposting. I don't
>> see how crossposting would go down, and I'd expect it to go up. Why do
>> you believe otherwise?
>>
>
>In looking over the last two hundred posts, I saw only two that could
>appropriately be crossposted under the proposed structure ... "Diane Duane"
>and this thread (ironically).
threads:
Re: Improving on CGI vs. Models
DSN "The Jem'Hadar"/Odyssey question (spoiler)
Re: The Dominion: DS9's explosive introduction
Re: Picard's Life Experiences
The articles still cover "current" episodes, but the content of the
postings has migrated from the original subject line. (The first one
is TNG & DS9, the next two have migrated from DS9 to TNG, and the last
contains articles that are both TOS and TNG.)
>Inappropriate crossposting would most definitely go down. Why would someone
>want to send the TNG group a post about Sisko? (Not Sisko/Picard, as that
>would be appropriate).
down. Most of the inappropriate postings and crosspostings we have now are
between .current and .misc. Splitting .current won't reduce that -- it
will only mean we have even more crossposting, since we'll also see the
crossposts between .tng and .ds9 (and .tos, .voyager, etc.).
Gina
Butler, Michael J.
> Again, I don't see how/why you think inappropriate crossposting would go
> down. Most of the inappropriate postings and crosspostings we have now are
> between .current and .misc. Splitting .current won't reduce that -- it
> will only mean we have even more crossposting, since we'll also see the
> crossposts between .tng and .ds9 (and .tos, .voyager, etc.).
>
> Gina
"Trek vs. Babylon 5" pops up from time to time. Perhaps we should have
rec.arts.tv.babylon5 and .current form into one group. What about the
"Enterprise v. a Star Destroyer"? Let's dismantle rec.arts.sf.starwars
and bring 'em here ... plenty of room. For that matter, I'd like to
discuss why I think Douglas Adams and Terry Pratchett would make good
Trek writers ... let's get rid of those alt.fan groups and dump them here.
(Sigh)
Where do you draw the line? I think .current is too general and overtaxed
in trying to deal with four distinct Trek genres. It also has too much
volume.
I will not convice you of that. You will not convince me otherwise.
So why doesn't someone (more knowledgable about these things than I) put it
up for a vote and we'll see how things play out.
Power to the People M.J.
Linda Heise
: So why doesn't someone (more knowledgable about these things than I) put it
: up for a vote and we'll see how things play out.
After AGT, I expected the volume on this group to go down, but instead it
increased. Could this be due to the fact that school's out, people have
more time, or we're desperate to talk about ANYTHING treckish since the
season's over?
I've been reading this group for only about six months, so I'm sure older
readers would know more. Have you long-termers noticed this trend in
other summers? Maybe the volume will drop--or at least become more
pertinent to current topics--in the fall. Then the reorg would be
unnecessary.
L
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Linda Heise Let us practice the establishment of peace
ljh...@crl.com in our hearts and on earth.
San Francisco, CA Thich Nhat Hanh
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Taki Kogoma
disucussed.]
ljh...@crl.com (Linda Heise) was observed writing in
rec.arts.startrek.current:
>I've been reading this group for only about six months, so I'm sure older
>readers would know more. Have you long-termers noticed this trend in
>other summers? Maybe the volume will drop--or at least become more
>pertinent to current topics--in the fall. Then the reorg would be
>unnecessary.
The main reason the volume remains at the current level (as opposed to
dropping as you anticipated), is that DS9 essentially gave us a
season-end cliffhanger. In fact, the parallels between the discussion
regarding the Dominion and the 'What to do about the Borg'/'Is Sela
for Real?'/etc. sparked from TNG cliffhangers is uncanny.
Timothy W. Lynch
>> Michael, the crossposting that goes on now doesn't happen because people
>> are confused. It goes on now because people are lazy and careless. A new
>> split is hardly going to change that.
>I'm not going to argue about the motivations of hundreds/thousands of posters
>I don't know ... I'll just say that a *.ds9 *.tng etc wouldn't NEED a
>charter to explain things. They are inherently less confusing.
In title, yes -- until you start realizing the actual topics that are
addressed in your average posts.
>But crossposting isn't even the real issue. Volume and convience is.
Agreed, particularly since *crossposting* is minor. I believe you (and I)
have really been meaning to refer to *misposting*, i.e. the placing of
articles in completely inappropriate groups. That is not a minor issue;
r.a.s.current's traffic would be cut by at least half, IMO, were people to
post appropriately. Summers are usually bad for r.a.s.*, but they're not
often this bad.
>.current is too big. even with appropriate posts.
I disagree.
>.current offers too much for those interested in a specific area of Trek.
I disagree. Sounds like a deadlock.
>Your main argument against the change (it seems) is that posters are not
>using the newsgroups responsibly as it is ... by crossposting. I
>haven't heard you say that you think crossposting would INCREASE as a
>result of a change, just that it wouldn't decrease much (which I disagree
>with).
Misposting is the issue, IMO, not crossposting. And I think that, at minimum,
misposts and topic drift would stay the same; I think it equally likely that
it will increase.
And one of the reasons it will increase is that you're talking about a
major overhaul of the hierarchy, and that is something that leaves loads of
chaos in its wake even if the split is *perfect*. Groups do not die easily,
and new ones are not always accepted easily by site admins.
>So what are the real negatives in a restructuring of r.a.s.*? How would
>they outweigh the positives?
To a restructuring in general? Difficult to say; I'm sure there's some
reorganization plan out there that would satisfy me. But this one isn't it.
It's difficult to implement, it's IMO no clearer than the current split, it's
a major pain in the ass to do, and all it will do is create *more* groups for
people to wreck due to their inattention. I do not intend to be a party to
this.
A question, Michael: were you here in the summer/fall of 1991, when the
current hierarchy was formed? If not, do you have an inkling of how major
an undertaking you're proposing?
Tim Lynch
Timothy W. Lynch
>In article <2uqh97$7...@gap.cco.caltech.edu> tly...@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch) writes:
>>>I think the biggest problem with the current
>>>partitioning is that it expects the average reader/poster to behave
>>>intelligently. It has been my experience that most do not.
>>
>>Granted -- but as such, and given that IMO the current system *is* clearly
>>marked, I don't intend to support any reorg that allows for ambiguity. I
>>think a series-based split has far more ambiguity than people think.
>>
>>For instance, the Kirk/Picard/Sisko arguments that come up, or the series
>>comparisons, do not fit on any group easily. And how about discussions of
>>some authors, such as (say) Diane Duane, who has books spanning more than
>>one series?
>There is a clearly obvious place for discussions such as these.
>r.a.s.misc! If it doesn't belong in one of the clearly defined series
>groups, then it belongs in r.a.s.misc.
So, suppose a discussion of "Crossover" starts, which leads to "Mirror,
Mirror", which leads to _Dark Mirror_, which leads to a discussion of
Diane Duane in general. By your argument, this thread should begin in
.ds9, then move in turn to .misc, .tng, and back to .misc.
Do you seriously expect people to do that? If so, I think you've got who's
the optimist and who isn't substantially mixed up. :-)
And I don't consider the above example particularly unlikely.
>>Also, I'd argue that this will muddy the waters where the .tech group is
>>concerned, and whatever else you might have to say about the current
>>situation, the r.a.s.tech split worked like a charm.
>I thought .tech was to be left alone?
I didn't say otherwise. I think it will be less obvious where tech-related
articles go, however, if people are discussing technical issues raised in
a recent DS9 episode, for instance: will it go to .ds9, or to .tech?
>>>The problem is no one pays attention to the charter to begin with!
>>
>>Agreed. I don't think changing the namespace is going to solve that problem,
>>and I also think the implicit challenge you, Scott, and everyone else in this
>>discussion are making of having to pick up everything and everyone in
>>r.a.s.current to move to the new proposed hierarchy is not feasible. Remember
>>how long it took for the old r.a.s group to die off? Hell, I still see it
>>in the listings on news.lists.
>The lengthy die off time could be blamed on busy/lazy/slow news admins
>who do not have the time to check all rmgroups that come across.
And will happen again if another reorg happens. I don't care about blame;
what I care about is that it will make any reorg you propose difficult at
best to implement for months if not longer.
>In
>many cases large sites have one news gateway which reflects the
>current state of the USENET namespace, but machines getting news from
>that gateway machine still have old groups on them. In the case of
>the old r.a.s, it is now r.a.s.misc. Some people just didn't change
>the name of the group. IMO for this re-org to succeed r.a.s.current
>needs to be *removed*.
And it will not and cannot be. Groups on Usenet will not die.
>>>The current hierarchy requires too much of the user.
>>
>>While I don't think this is the way you mean it, it strikes me that you're
>>campaigning for the hierarchy to be dumbed down.
>I don't think of it as dumbing it down, I think of it as simplifying it.
Suit yourself. I disagree.
>> I don't think things should
>>work that way; newbies *should* read a while to learn what is appropriate
>>before posting. I did, and most of the netters whose work I respect did.
>>Perhaps I'm turning crotchety in my old age :-), but I happen to think that
>>method does a lot more than renaming groups.
>Again, I think you are asking too much of the user and the old fogies
>like us who have been around so long.
Asking people to be patient and learn the rules before "playing the game" is
asking too much? If true, I find that an appalling reflection on the maturity
level and intelligence of the net.
>If we are looking for an alternate solution to a re-org, then the
>solution lies within ourselves. If we set a proper example for
>others, others may follow.
Correct, and I have tried to be such on occasion, as has Mike Shappe,
as have others.
>The problem with this is that some people
>are going to have to become net-policemen, informing others by e-mail
>(certainly not by posting), that the content of their article is
>better suited to another named group. The problem with this is that
>the high irritability factor a lot of r.a.s.* readers tend to display
>will lead to plenty of e-mail flame wars between the "police" and the
>perpetrator of the charter violation.
What makes you think it'll be limited to email? And what makes you think
a reorganization will suddenly make people behave as far as posting
appropriate articles is concerned?
>I think we can all agree that r.a.s.current has a large problem with
>misplaced subjects and traffic congestion. The reason I am putting
>myself behind this re-org is that I see the re-org as the least
>painful of the possible solutions to our problems.
I disagree, but I don't see any solutions as of yet. I reiterate, however,
that I do not and will not support this proposal. As such, I might as well
get out of the way and let those who *do* talk about this until it dies.
Tim Lynch
Butler, Michael J.
> A question, Michael: were you here in the summer/fall of 1991, when the
> current hierarchy was formed? If not, do you have an inkling of how major
> an undertaking you're proposing?
>
> Tim Lynch
No. I am interested in hearing about it.
Let me ask you something since you obviously were here in summer 91 ... was it
necessary? (Okay, you don't have to answer ... I know the answer).
So regardless of how much a pain in the a$$ it might be, the
central question would still be: is it necessary?
I say yes. You say no.
Taki Kogoma
trek releases.]
tly...@juliet.caltech.edu was observed writing in
rec.arts.startrek.current:
>smi...@maharet.im.hou.compaq.com (Colin Smiley) writes:
>>There is a clearly obvious place for discussions such as these.
>>r.a.s.misc! If it doesn't belong in one of the clearly defined series
>>groups, then it belongs in r.a.s.misc.
>
>So, suppose a discussion of "Crossover" starts, which leads to "Mirror,
>Mirror", which leads to _Dark Mirror_, which leads to a discussion of
>Diane Duane in general. By your argument, this thread should begin in
>.ds9, then move in turn to .misc, .tng, and back to .misc.
Um, Tim. I hate to have to point this out, but under the
currently-existing setup, it would have to move from .current to
.misc, back to .current, and then back to .misc (or .fandom). (With
potential for many digressions to .tech.)
>Do you seriously expect people to do that? If so, I think you've got who's
>the optimist and who isn't substantially mixed up. :-)
Of course, the fact that it (properly moving threads) doesn't happen
now does support your argument. ;-)
>And I don't consider the above example particularly unlikely.
I see worse topic-drift on a regular basis, yes. ;-)
[...]
>>I think we can all agree that r.a.s.current has a large problem with
>>misplaced subjects and traffic congestion. The reason I am putting
>>myself behind this re-org is that I see the re-org as the least
>>painful of the possible solutions to our problems.
>
>I disagree, but I don't see any solutions as of yet. I reiterate, however,
>that I do not and will not support this proposal. As such, I might as well
>get out of the way and let those who *do* talk about this until it dies.
To be honest, Tim. The first six months of the rec.arts.startrek.*
re-org was generally quite good about topicality. Alas, people got
lazy and the result is the mess we're arguing about now.
Nicholas C. Hester
In article <16FE5C2...@ricevm1.rice.edu>, GI...@ricevm1.rice.edu (Gina Goff)
says:
>
>Again, I don't see how/why you think inappropriate crossposting would go
>down. Most of the inappropriate postings and crosspostings we have now are
>between .current and .misc. Splitting .current won't reduce that -- it
>will only mean we have even more crossposting, since we'll also see the
>crossposts between .tng and .ds9 (and .tos, .voyager, etc.).
I agree. I was "there" at the Battle of Trek Reorganization, though
just another faceless grunt. Can't let the carnage reoccur...
I've watched this group degenerate into the morass it is today, and
I've come forward to make the ulitmate sacrifice and volunteer to
become the moderator for ras.current.
Does anyone know how to do it from an IBM 3090-200J mainframe running
VM/ESA 1.0?
Nick
Mary Ellen Curtin
every time I wait three days between downloads.
I suggest we combine Scott Gorcey's suggestion, in which r.a.s.c. becomes:
> rec.arts.startrek.tos
> rec.arts.startrek.tng
> rec.arts.startrek.ds9
> rec.arts.startrek.movies
> rec.arts.startrek.voy (when necessary)
with Tony Sanderfoot's, viz.:
>maybe: r.a.s.newseries (ie: DS9, VOY: sounds like .current doesn't it ;)
> r.a.s.oldseries (ie: TOS, TNG: to give .misc a break
to get:
r.a.s.ds9
r.a.s.voy
r.a.s.oldseries
r.a.s.movies
This last group will get relatively little traffic until November, but
then should explode for at least a year. Its long-term viability is
going to depend on the interval between movies. If the interval is
more than three years, this group may be too much of a boom-and-bust
proposition. But maybe we could just fire it up when it's needed (i.e.
from 6 months before a movie comes out to perhaps 18 months after),
then pack it away into .misc until it's needed again.
just my two louis d'or worth,
Mary Ellen
internet: <p01...@psilink.com>
postal: 9 Titus Mill Rd., Pennington, NJ 08534, USA
Colin Smiley
>In article <16FE5C2...@ricevm1.rice.edu>, GI...@ricevm1.rice.edu (Gina Goff)
>says:
>>
>>Again, I don't see how/why you think inappropriate crossposting would go
>>down. Most of the inappropriate postings and crosspostings we have now are
>>between .current and .misc. Splitting .current won't reduce that -- it
>>will only mean we have even more crossposting, since we'll also see the
>>crossposts between .tng and .ds9 (and .tos, .voyager, etc.).
>
>I agree. I was "there" at the Battle of Trek Reorganization, though
>just another faceless grunt. Can't let the carnage reoccur...
>
>I've watched this group degenerate into the morass it is today, and
>I've come forward to make the ulitmate sacrifice and volunteer to
>become the moderator for ras.current.
Unfortunately, I don't think this group will ever let itself be
moderated. Can you stand getting 200-500 messages a day and having to
ratify them?
I once proposed an alternate moderation policy for this group. The
idea was to have a board of moderators. This board would get mail
distributed from some central mailing address in some sort of even
distribution(to prevent massive mail overload to any one board
member). The individual members of the board would then decide
whether or not each article would belong in r.a.s.current or should be
sent to r.a.s.misc based mainly upon subject line, and secondly on
content(this would also have the added benefit of enforcing more
correct subject lines). Unfortunately, as good as this idea sounds, I
don't think we would be able to convince the group to let it happen.
>Does anyone know how to do it from an IBM 3090-200J mainframe running
>VM/ESA 1.0?
I've worked on those before(I find VM machines to be most unfriendly,
but then I am a UNIX bigot anyway). I think your 3090 would be
better suited to number crunching than mail processing...
Colin Smiley
>In <2uvl9j$8...@gap.cco.caltech.edu> tly...@cco.caltech.edu writes:
>
>> A question, Michael: were you here in the summer/fall of 1991, when the
>> current hierarchy was formed? If not, do you have an inkling of how major
>> an undertaking you're proposing?
>
>
>Let me ask you something since you obviously were here in summer 91 ... was it
>necessary? (Okay, you don't have to answer ... I know the answer).
I'll answer this because I was there as well. I remember the original
r.a.s. It was much like current is today, except that all of the
.tech discussions were here as well. It was a zoo. The daily volume
of the original r.a.s. was reaching 600-800 articles a *day*. Not so
surprisingly, many of the same subject threads still appear today in
.current.
To make a short story of it, there were many, many arguments over what
the group names/charters should be. Toss in the rec.arts.sf.* re-org
that wanted in encompass r.a.s, and you get a huge meta
discussion/flamewar. Crossposting many places, flaming everywhere.
The current re-org arguments parallel the past ones in that there
exists a faction of the r.a.s.* groups that wanted/always wanted the
groups to be named by series.
>So regardless of how much a pain in the a$$ it might be, the
>central question would still be: is it necessary?
>
>I say yes. You say no.
Regardless of our views on the past and future re-orgs, I think we can
all agree on this: r.a.s.current has problems. Too many people are
lazy and don't pay attention to where they post. Cross-posting is not
as big as a problem as many users are making it out to be. The real
problem is that many inappropriate subject threads are being posted to
r.a.s.current. Right?
If we could reduce the misplaced threads on r.a.s.current, would
things be better? I think so.
Ironically, our own posts are adding to the clutter in this group.
Followups to r.a.s.misc.
Colin Smiley
In article <2uvlqu$8...@gap.cco.caltech.edu> tly...@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch) writes:
>>In article <2uqh97$7...@gap.cco.caltech.edu> tly...@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch) writes:
>>There is a clearly obvious place for discussions such as these.
>>r.a.s.misc! If it doesn't belong in one of the clearly defined series
>>groups, then it belongs in r.a.s.misc.
>
>So, suppose a discussion of "Crossover" starts, which leads to "Mirror,
>Mirror", which leads to _Dark Mirror_, which leads to a discussion of
>Diane Duane in general. By your argument, this thread should begin in
>.ds9, then move in turn to .misc, .tng, and back to .misc.
Or, if we limit the series groups to discussion of "canon" material
only, then the crosspost would go from .ds9 to .misc and remain there.
>Do you seriously expect people to do that? If so, I think you've got who's
>the optimist and who isn't substantially mixed up. :-)
No, no, I'm a pessoptimist... I cynically say that the worst will
happen while secretly hoping for the best. And don't even ask me
about that whole glass of water thing... :-)
>And I don't consider the above example particularly unlikely.
Nor do I. But then, I do not think our biggest problem is that of
crossposting. The biggest problem facing r.a.s.current today is
inappropriate subject threads. I originally thought that the
proposed re-org scheme would significantly reduce the number of
inappropriate subject threads in the wrong groups. If it comes down
to any one thing I would like for the r.a.s.* hierarchy, it it to
clear r.a.s.current of its unnecessary clutter. Just say no to thread
abuse... :-)
>I didn't say otherwise. I think it will be less obvious where tech-related
>articles go, however, if people are discussing technical issues raised in
>a recent DS9 episode, for instance: will it go to .ds9, or to .tech?
I don't. If your subject is "transporter dynamics", it belongs in
.tech. Why? Because the subject says nothing about any series.
However, if your subject is "transporter dynamics in _The Jem'Hadar_"
it belongs in .ds9.
I think we're just arguing semantics on this now...
>>Again, I think you are asking too much of the user and the old fogies
>>like us who have been around so long.
>
>Asking people to be patient and learn the rules before "playing the game" is
>asking too much? If true, I find that an appalling reflection on the maturity
>level and intelligence of the net.
I don't think of it as a slam to the maturity level and intelligence
of the net. I am happy to say that I have made many acquaintances on
the net whom I consider to be both intelligent and mature (but then I
have also encountered many who are not). I do think of it as a slam
to the relative patience level of many people on the net. Consider;
when someone asks a fairly easy question on the net, why are there so
many replies? More often than not it is because people naively expect
to be the first person with the right answer. So, without looking to
see if the answer has been posted already, or waiting a while to see
if people are posting correct or incorrect information, they go and
post their answer right away. Granted, some of this is due to
net-lag, but how many times is it not?
Now, if we take this same level of impatience and apply it to posting
the right thread into the right group, we have the problem we are
currently experiencing. People just do not want wait and decide if
what they are posting belongs in the group they are posting it in.
They just want to post what they want to say right away in the group
where the most people will see it.
>>The problem with this is that some people
>>are going to have to become net-policemen, informing others by e-mail
>>(certainly not by posting), that the content of their article is
>>better suited to another named group. The problem with this is that
>>the high irritability factor a lot of r.a.s.* readers tend to display
>>will lead to plenty of e-mail flame wars between the "police" and the
>>perpetrator of the charter violation.
>
>What makes you think it'll be limited to email?
I don't. I just hope that it will be limited in such a fashion by the
"police." While a public chastisement may be effective way expose the
wrongdoings of a perpetrator, it also has the unfortunate side effect
of inflaming the discussion and putting the perpetrator on the
defensive because he/she feels like he/she is being ganged up on or
attacked, when the original intention was just to educate the person.
> And what makes you think
>a reorganization will suddenly make people behave as far as posting
>appropriate articles is concerned?
I am beginning to think that a re-org will not make a hill of beans of
difference. At this point, all I care about is cleaning up the junk
and inappropriate thread content in r.a.s.current.
Followups are in r.a.s.misc, where you will also probably find me
talking about this, since it does not belong here.
Ron C. Carman
>smi...@maharet.im.hou.compaq.com (Colin Smiley) writes:
>>On the few occasions that I post to any newsgroup (and I do mean few,
>>I've got lurking down to a science), I ask myself a few questions
>>first. 1) Does this post *really* belong in this newsgroup? 2) Do
>>people *really* need to know what I am posting about? 3) Is anyone
>>going to be at all interested in what I have to say?
>Agreed to all. However, most people don't.
Most people don't even make it to Step #1.
>>The current hierarchy requires too much of the user.
>While I don't think this is the way you mean it, it strikes me that you're
>campaigning for the hierarchy to be dumbed down. I don't think things should
>work that way; newbies *should* read a while to learn what is appropriate
>before posting. I did, and most of the netters whose work I respect did.
>Perhaps I'm turning crotchety in my old age :-), but I happen to think that
>method does a lot more than renaming groups.
Tim, if such an attitude qualifies one as old and crotchety, then
I need to go out and get myself a cane and a pair of bifocals. ;-)
I don't believe any reorganization can work to reduce traffic (which IMO
is not unmanageable to begin with) until and unless people start
1) thinking *BEFORE* they post, 2) gently redirecting inappropriate
threads by resetting the headers, and 3) replying via E-mail to
people who perpetually mispost, encouraging them to learn proper
etiquette.
>>Just out of curiosity, how many people can claim that they have
>>actually a) read the charter before posting to this group, b) read the
>>charter before reading this group, c) read the charter for this group
>>at all?
>My guess is that anyone who was here three years ago for the reorganization
>will say yes, and that the majority of those more recent recruits will say no.
>Perhaps what is needed is for someone to volunteer to periodically post the
>charters. Mike Shappe did so ages ago in the hierarchy's first months, but
>quit when it seemed no one paid attention.
Agreed. I went looking for a copy a while back, but came up empty.
I've already seen one fellow offering to do this, but if he is unable,
I may be able to fill in...
Ron Carman
--
| Ron C. Carman || That's the trouble with feeling as if you're |
| rcca...@netcom.com || on top of the world. It's always a sure sign |
| rcca...@ukpr.uky.edu || you and it are about to switch places. |
| U.S. SnailMAIL: P.O. Box 24352 Lexington, KY 40524-4352 |
Taki Kogoma
rec.arts.startrek.current:
>I once proposed an alternate moderation policy for this group. The
>idea was to have a board of moderators. This board would get mail
>distributed from some central mailing address in some sort of even
>distribution(to prevent massive mail overload to any one board
>member).
This is how the moderation panels for the recently
soc.history.moderated and soc.history.war.world-war-ii newsgroups
function. IMO, it works rather well.
> The individual members of the board would then decide
>whether or not each article would belong in r.a.s.current or should be
>sent to r.a.s.misc based mainly upon subject line, and secondly on
>content(this would also have the added benefit of enforcing more
>correct subject lines). Unfortunately, as good as this idea sounds, I
>don't think we would be able to convince the group to let it happen.
FWIW, I'm considering volunteering for such duty. ('Comming out of
retirement', as it were. ;-)
Burgin Joshua M
>tly...@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch) writes:
>
>>smi...@maharet.im.hou.compaq.com (Colin Smiley) writes:
>
>>>On the few occasions that I post to any newsgroup (and I do mean few,
>>>I've got lurking down to a science), I ask myself a few questions
>>>first. 1) Does this post *really* belong in this newsgroup? 2) Do
>>>people *really* need to know what I am posting about? 3) Is anyone
>>>going to be at all interested in what I have to say?
>
>>Agreed to all. However, most people don't.
>
> Most people don't even make it to Step #1.
Most people think that the rules don't apply to them. They say, I
don't need to read 'news.newsuers.questions' I know what I'm doing
here.
And then they post Make.Money.Fast
Joshua
--
Joshua M. Burgin <jbu...@haverford.edu>
"There may be no 3 in THREE, but there is a 4 in FIVE, and 9 in SIX,
and 1 in EIGHT, and in TWELVE, there's 55!" -- from _3_in_Three.
Jeanne Goodman
Charter? What charter?
--On the menu of a Swiss restaurant: Our wines leave you nothing to hope for.
********************************************************************
System: fourd.com Phone: 617-494-0565
Cute quote: Being a computer means never having to say you're sorry
********************************************************************
Ron C. Carman
"Mary Ellen Curtin" <p01...@psilink.com> writes:
>I'm all for splitting r.a.s.current: at present I risk "hard-disk barf"
>every time I wait three days between downloads.
I feel for you. However, that does not change the fact that the
size of your download is not likely to change substantially by
splitting ras.* (especially not in any of the ways so far proposed).
[She proposes creating:]
> r.a.s.ds9
> r.a.s.voy
> r.a.s.oldseries
> r.a.s.movies
Your oldseries group is not viable. Granted, there is an occasional
reference to TOS in r.a.s.*, but the posts which *center* around "Classic
Star Trek" in this heirarchy would not serve to fill a small hand-bill.
They *certainly* do not deserve their own group.
If any split proposal is to have a ghost of a chance of passing, you
will have to sacrifice that group.
>This last group will get relatively little traffic until November, but
>then should explode for at least a year. Its long-term viability is
>going to depend on the interval between movies. If the interval is
>more than three years, this group may be too much of a boom-and-bust
>proposition. But maybe we could just fire it up when it's needed (i.e.
>from 6 months before a movie comes out to perhaps 18 months after),
>then pack it away into .misc until it's needed again.
Just in case you are not familiar with the details of newsgroup
creation, I will mention that a newsgroup *cannot* be "fired up"
and "packed away" at a whim. Once a newsgroup is created, it exists
forever, unless it is permanently removed.
If, on the other hand, you meant that it would be perfectly ac-
ceptable to create a group and then leave it perpetually empty,
I will have to say that that is ridiculous. Your .movies group
*Might* get 6-9 months of real activity once every 2-3 YEARS.
Don't fix it if it ain't broke.
Scott J Gorcey
>In <2ut5bs$q...@gap.cco.caltech.edu> tly...@cco.caltech.edu writes:
>
>> ST...@Jetson.uh.edu (Butler, Michael J.) writes:
>> >In <2uqnu5$5...@vesta.unm.edu> kog...@unm.edu writes:
>>
>> >>>All the more reason for a *.ds9 *.tng *.tos etc. It would make where to put
>> >>>your thoughts on Sub-Rosa or why Kira is a better character than Dax, etc.
>> >>>pretty obvious.
>> >>
>> >> As opposed to the Kirk/Picard/Sisko, Q/Trelane, Riker/Kirk, etc.
>> >> cross-series arguments?
>>
>> >Yes. Compare the potential crossposting there with what goes on now.
>>
>> Michael, the crossposting that goes on now doesn't happen because people
>> are confused. It goes on now because people are lazy and careless. A new
>> split is hardly going to change that.
>>
>> Tim Lynch
>
>I'm not going to argue about the motivations of hundreds/thousands of posters
>I don't know ... I'll just say that a *.ds9 *.tng etc wouldn't NEED a
>charter to explain things. They are inherently less confusing.
>
>But crossposting isn't even the real issue. Volume and convience is.
>
>..current offers too much for those interested in a specific area of Trek.
>
>Your main argument against the change (it seems) is that posters are not
>using the newsgroups responsibly as it is ... by crossposting. I
>haven't heard you say that you think crossposting would INCREASE as a
>result of a change, just that it wouldn't decrease much (which I disagree
>with).
>
>So what are the real negatives in a restructuring of r.a.s.*? How would
>they outweigh the positives?
I too thought Tim's objection was a bit too much the
paternal net icon rejecting any change because the children
haven't learned to use the current system yet so don't
deserve a better one... which may be the case, but I'd
argye, as you do Mike, that a series-specific reorg WOULD
improve the record of most netters in posting to the right
group, as where their thoughts go will be self-explanatory.
I don't think forcing people to use the current system
properly before 'allowing' any change is the right way to
do it--because I fault the system as much as the people
for the confusion. A new system--.ds9 .voyager .tng .misc
.tech and .info--would better help the people to organize
their posts properly.
Scott
Scott J Gorcey
Actually, I've been sort of argued down from there. I still
don't like the newseries oldseries ideas, in any way, but I
think something liek this might be more workable...
.ds9 .voy .tng (which includes discussion of tng movies)
.misc (tos, the first seven movies, and truly misc stuff)
and .tech and .info should be left as they are.
This is both smaller, yet still as "user friendly" as
my original suggestion was.
Christopher Stone
>
>Michael, the crossposting that goes on now doesn't happen because people
>are confused. It goes on now because people are lazy and careless. A new
>split is hardly going to change that.
It will if the new groups are unambiguously and succinctly named. It
would be very difficult for a newbie to stumble across r.a.s.ds9 and say,
"Just what belongs in there?" By contrast, just what is so miscellaneous
about r.a.s.m.? "Miscellaneous" often connotes "unimportant," but if we
stick to the letter of the charter, r.a.s.m. should probably the most
important Trek group! Also, "current" carries a different meaning in
different countries, where viewing schedules do not always coincide with
those in the USA.
In other words, better names translate into less carelessness.
You may try to rebut my opinion by arguing that people should read the
group for a while before posting. Unfortunately, this assumption is not
very realistic. People *will* post right away -- that's a constraint we
must operate under. This will be even more true as commercial
internet-access providers come to eclipse university sites on the net.
People who have to pay for their net.access will not take kindly to
requests to avoid using that access to the fullest.
--
////// // // ////// // ////// Christopher Stone
// // // // // // // cst...@husc.harvard.edu
// ////// ///// // //////
// // // // // // // "Consensus is the negation
////// // // // // // ////// of leadership." -Margaret Thatcher
Christopher Stone
>
>For instance, the Kirk/Picard/Sisko arguments that come up, or the series
>comparisons, do not fit on any group easily. And how about discussions of
>some authors, such as (say) Diane Duane, who has books spanning more than
>one series?
I've been away for the past couple of weeks, so I haven't kept up with
this debate. You will recall from a flamwar last year that I think the
r.a.s.* groups were very poorly, very obscurely, named. I won't go into
that again. Tim points out if we split r.a.s.* along series lines, there
will eb some overlap between groups (i.e., Kirk vs. Picard vs. Sisko
threads.) That is true. But Tim, *any* system of classification is
bound to have some overlap. Let's say they do a new Borg episode, and
someone wants to compare it with "BOBW." Technically BOBW should not be
discussed on .current, and new episodes should not be on .misc -- hence
there will be overlap between the two.
>>Just out of curiosity, how many people can claim that they have
>>actually a) read the charter before posting to this group, b) read the
>>charter before reading this group, c) read the charter for this group
>>at all?
>
>My guess is that anyone who was here three years ago for the reorganization
>will say yes, and that the majority of those more recent recruits will say no.
>Perhaps what is needed is for someone to volunteer to periodically post the
>charters. Mike Shappe did so ages ago in the hierarchy's first months, but
>quit when it seemed no one paid attention.
I read it right after the great split debate, and during the "Rush
Limbaugh for captain" debacle last year. HOWEVER, earlier this year I
made no less than THREE posts requesting that someone post a copy of the
charter, or at least e-mail it to me. (I was considering doing an RFD
for a non-Trek group at the time.) Not only did I never receive a copy
of the charter, but I received several messages saying that I would never
be able to find a copy because no one *had* one!
Rick Garner
Has anyone noticed that everytime someone of importance came to the
Enterprise-D, they arrived on an Excelsior-class starship?
Can't remember the ship name on "Best of Both Worlds," but the U.S.S. HOOD
got quite a few trips in ST:TNG.
Has anyone heard the rumor that the Enterprise-B will be shown for the
first time in ST: GENERATIONS? Kirk takes the ship out on her maiden
voyage! Oh, no. I'm thinking TITANIC for some reason...
<Rick>
--
Rick Garner inet: rga...@mc.edu
Mississippi College (601)924-0617
Clinton, MS 39058
Lee Atchison
: I once proposed an alternate moderation policy for this group. The
: idea was to have a board of moderators. This board would get mail
: distributed from some central mailing address in some sort of even
: distribution(to prevent massive mail overload to any one board
: member). The individual members of the board would then decide
: whether or not each article would belong in r.a.s.current or should be
: sent to r.a.s.misc based mainly upon subject line, and secondly on
: content(this would also have the added benefit of enforcing more
: correct subject lines). Unfortunately, as good as this idea sounds, I
: don't think we would be able to convince the group to let it happen.
How about the following:
rec.arts.startrek.current - as is today
rec.arts.startrek.moderated - The posts to .current that the
moderator thinks "passes the appropriate tests".
Soooo, those opposed to the concept of moderation can read r.a.s.c, and
those who want to reduce the amount of garbage posts in their lifes can
read r.a.s.m.
Is this possible with the current readers?
-lee
--
----
Lee Atchison
Scientist/Engineer
Hewlett Packard, VXI Systems Division
P.O. Box 301, M.S. CU308
Loveland, CO 80539
l...@lvld.hp.com