Charter of rec.arts.startrek.info
K...@psuvm.psu.edu
part of r.a.s.info. I felt that r.a.s.info would be the ideal place
for such things. If you are going to interpret the original charter
word for word then perhaps it technically shouldn't be there. In that
case, the charter should be changed.
I was under the impression that rec.arts.startrek would be the group in
which discussion about each trek episode or trek in general would take
place. I was also under the impression that r.a.s.info would be the kind
of group where information about the show, program guides, pictures, etc.
-all other trek stuff- would be posted.
If the original charter excluded them then r.a.s.info, in my opinion, is
not serving the net community in the proper way. If I am looking for
information, program guides, pictures, etc. I want to be able to find it
without digging through the massive volume of rec.arts.startrek and the
first place I would look would be r.a.s.info. Perhaps I was mislead about
the original purpose for r.a.s.info but that's how I feel about the
situation.
If other people agree, please post or let it be known so the charter can
be altered by whoever has placed themselves in charge.
Am I biased about this? Of course :-)
Kevin S.
KPS at PSUVM
Kyle Jones
> I was under the impression that rec.arts.startrek would be the group in
> which discussion about each trek episode or trek in general would take
> place. I was also under the impression that r.a.s.info would be the kind
> of group where information about the show, program guides, pictures, etc.
> -all other trek stuff- would be posted.
Sorry, but that's not the group the readers voted on. Those PostScript
pictures don't convey any new information. Sure they're nice to look
at, but we all know what the Enterprise looks like.
Jim The Big Dweeb Griffith
>In article <1990Mar2.1...@talos.pm.com>, kjo...@talos.pm.com (Kyle
>a few people are not receiving all of the 13 parts of the posting. I don't
>think they should be excluded from r.a.s.info because somebody feels like
>pulling a verbatim. Like I said, if the charter clearly states that only
>new information should be posted there, then perhaps the charter should be
>changed. Please read my entire posting next time.
[Oh boy, I must be a moderator now - I've been flamed!]
I debated a long time before rejecting the pictures as inappropriate to the
group. The purpose of r.a.s.i. is to relay current news and information
about Star Trek. In my opinion, Enterprise pictures do not qualify as
either news or information. I feel that they fall under the category of
"Star Trek creative works". As such, if I accept said articles, I set a
precedent for accepting clever .signatures, ASCII images, and will lead to
other creative works, such as novels, parodies, scripts, etc. All of these
clearly fall outside of both the group's charter and intent, and I do not
intend to set such a precedent.
I do not feel justified in accepting the articles simply because "r.a.s'
volume is so high that some people won't be able to get it there". I also
will not trivially change the charter, as that is not acceptable USENET
behavior. I have to support the charter that was voted on and approved.
On another note, I also do not intend to continually justify every decision
I make. I never casually reject a submission. If I reject a submission,
you can be sure that I've agonized over it for a significant amount of
time... However, at this stage of r.a.s.i.'s development, feedback is
essential to the group's existance, and I welcome discussion on it, although
I anticipate being completely totalitarian in my imposition of policy...
Jim
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edited by Jim Griffith - the official scapegoat of rec.arts.startrek.info
E-mail submissions to trek...@scam.berkeley.edu or ...!ucbvax!scam!trek-info
K...@psuvm.psu.edu
Dweeb" Griffith) says:
>I debated a long time before rejecting the pictures as inappropriate to the
>group. The purpose of r.a.s.i. is to relay current news and information
>about Star Trek. In my opinion, Enterprise pictures do not qualify as
>either news or information. I feel that they fall under the category of
>"Star Trek creative works". As such, if I accept said articles, I set a
>precedent for accepting clever .signatures, ASCII images, and will lead to
>other creative works, such as novels, parodies, scripts, etc. All of these
>clearly fall outside of both the group's charter and intent, and I do not
>intend to set such a precedent.
>
>I do not feel justified in accepting the articles simply because "r.a.s'
>volume is so high that some people won't be able to get it there". I also
>will not trivially change the charter, as that is not acceptable USENET
>behavior. I have to support the charter that was voted on and approved.
Understandable
> I never casually reject a submission. If I reject a submission,
>you can be sure that I've agonized over it for a significant amount of
>time... However, at this stage of r.a.s.i.'s development, feedback is
>essential to the group's existance, and I welcome discussion on it, although
>I anticipate being completely totalitarian in my imposition of policy...
Thanks for agonizing over it :-) I can't forsee another group being
created for things like pictures so I thought it would have been appropriate
for them to be placed in something like r.a.s.info. I suppose I was hoping
that it would be r.a.s. something-other-than-info where people get program
guides, convention information *and* pictures. But I can see your point.
I haven't heard too many other people squawking about this except for you
and I so if it is not something worth debate and people don't mind sorting
through r.a.s. for the 10 out of 13 parts that are sometimes only there...
so be it.
Chris Wayne SCONS
I'd like to throw in my support for Jim Griffith. He is doing what he
was 'hired' for and very well, I think. He should not have to explain himself.
If you have doubts as to the validity of an item or if you think it should be
in RASI, send it to Jim and let him decide. All he can do is refuse it, and
then you just post it to RAS.
However, I too like many others, were under the impression RASI was for
posting parodies, stories, scripts, pictures, lists, any newspaper articles,
be it new and informative to strickly commercial, whatever. If this is what
most people thought, then I would suggest we all take a vote to redefine the
charter and make it crystal clear as to what is acceptible and what's not.
In any case, don't flame Jim.
In addition to the above things that should be included in RASI, include
such things like episode critiques from Mark Leeper and the other one (sorry
guy, forgot your name - your critique is more famous than you are). I would
just limit the 'offical' critiques to 2 or 3 persons. Set up a list to be
posted (monthly, semi-annually, quarterly, whatever) that'll have the answers
to the most commonly asked questions. I.e., what does NCC stand for? what does
'conn' mean? McCoy doctor quotes. Birthday dates to addressess, etc. If
any of this brings up a discussion, have said discussion in RAS and if this
discussion reveals and error, correct it and repost the original on RASI.
These are just thoughts on the matter; my idea of what RASI should be. If
most of you think things need to be changed, let's do it now or leave it as is.
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."
Jim The Big Dweeb Griffith
> However, I too like many others, were under the impression RASI was for
>posting parodies, stories, scripts, pictures, lists, any newspaper articles,
>be it new and informative to strickly commercial, whatever. If this is what
>most people thought, then I would suggest we all take a vote to redefine the
>charter and make it crystal clear as to what is acceptible and what's not.
>In any case, don't flame Jim.
The problem with allowing parodies, stories, scripts, and pictures is that if
I allow *any* of them, I have to allow *all* of them. Look at the furor that
arose over Neale Davidson's work. And that was just one person's work. If
the charter is amended to allow such works, then I have no basis or grounds
for saying "this work is acceptable, this one is not". I would guess that
roughly 15% of the postings to r.a.s. fall in the "creative" category. If
I allow them, the signal-to-noise ratio of r.a.s.i. will drop significantly.
I've already had to deal with the "commercial" issue. I do not want this
group becoming "rec.arts.startrek.forsale" or "rec.arts.startrek.fanclubs".
If I allow a single article which essentially advertises a club or business,
I have no grounds for rejecting subsequent submissions of a similar nature.
The reason why r.a.s.i. was created was that many people did not want to bother
with the endless discussions and numerous articles in r.a.s., just to get to
the occasional piece of information. R.a.s.i. was created to provide a
Star Trek newsgroup with as high a signal-to-noise ratio as is possible. If
I allow any creative work or commercial advertisement, that ratio will drop.
> In addition to the above things that should be included in RASI, include
>such things like episode critiques from Mark Leeper and the other one (sorry
>guy, forgot your name - your critique is more famous than you are). I would
>just limit the 'offical' critiques to 2 or 3 persons. Set up a list to be
>posted (monthly, semi-annually, quarterly, whatever) that'll have the answers
>to the most commonly asked questions. I.e., what does NCC stand for? what does
>'conn' mean? McCoy doctor quotes. Birthday dates to addressess, etc. If
>any of this brings up a discussion, have said discussion in RAS and if this
>discussion reveals and error, correct it and repost the original on RASI.
>These are just thoughts on the matter; my idea of what RASI should be. If
>most of you think things need to be changed, let's do it now or leave it as is.
OK, again, I have no grounds for saying "this person is qualified to write a
review, but this person is not". How do I make the decision? By whether or
not I agree with the review?
The idea of a canonical list of frequently-asked questions is a good one.
However, many questions exist because no clear answer exists. "Why didn't
they use the shuttlecraft in 'The Enemy Within'?" The real answer is that
they hadn't developed shuttlecraft as an aspect of the Enterprise yet. But
many people insist on appending one or more "Star Trek" answers as well.
I would have to "reject" some proposed "frequently-asked questions" as being
too nebulous to answer. I don't mind doing this. If I pose a question and
an answer, and people start questioning that answer, I'd probably simply
remove the question rather than debate the answer. In short, it would have
to contain only questions with clear-cut answers.
The only idea proposed that falls under the charter that was passed is the
idea of the canonical list of frequently-asked questions. Getting r.a.s.i.
created took several weeks' worth of discussion, two weeks' worth of voting,
and many more weeks' worth of making sure the group was created and propagated
correctly. It would be unethical for me to unilaterally change the group's
charter without going through at least that much effort again. Personally, I
have no interest in doing so, and I would probably not be interested in
moderating a newsgroup with a charter other than the one that was already
approved.
Jim
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Griffith /--OO--\ |
...!ucbvax!scam!griffith | "It's difficult to work in a group when you're
BEWARE BATS WITHOUT NOSES! | omnipotent"
Bob Mosley III
>
> I'd like to throw in my support for Jim Griffith. He is doing what he
> was 'hired' for and very well, I think.
...I too, would like to throw in my support for the Griff. He's done a damn
fine job geting r.a.s.i. set up and running, and seems to be doing as well
a job keeping it going.
> He should not have to explain himself.
...BZZZT! Sorry Chris, but as one who fully believes that unquestioned (and
unanswered) authority leads inevitably to corruption. Now, don't get me
wrong - I'm not saying that Jim will inevitably take over r.a.s. and become
the moder-dictator of that as well. I don't think Jim's THAT power hungry
(:-) :-):-) :-)), but a reasonable request for an explanation should be
honored.
> If you have doubts as to the validity of an item or if you think it should be
> in RASI, send it to Jim and let him decide. All he can do is refuse it, and
> then you just post it to RAS.
...Again, I feel that if he does decide against posting the submission, he
should explain why if asked (and asked nicely).
> However, I too like many others, were under the impression RASI was for
> posting:
> parodies,
...uh-uh. That belongs on r.a.s., as these generally draw repeated commentary.
COLLECTIONS of parodies, however, should not be excluded from this. I would
suggest that a vote of the r.a.s. readership be taken to determine if the
parody is worth submitting. And then, only if a request is made to do so
by the author or another contributor.
> stories,
...Nope. I submit all the flack about Neall's "confirmed sold" novel as
evidence against this. Nothing that would go into r.a.s.i. should be
material that would be Rospached (Kill-filed with extreme prejudice).
Some may say that parodies should fall under this category as well, but
look back, people - have you EVER seen anyone get as upset about a parody
as people do over fan fiction? And we havn't even seen hide nor hair of
Lt. Mary Sue around these here parts!
> scripts,
if script:=fan_fiction
then post_on_ras
else if script:=official_paramount_goodies
then post_on_rasi;
> pictures,
...I'm a little split on this. If these are standard GIF, PICT, TIFF, $#!+
files of Kirk, Spock, Picard, Worf eating a tribble, or a still of Marina
Sirtis from "Blind Date" (or whatever it was called), then stick it...uh...
on r.a.s.
...if it's a set of Autocad or MacDraft blueprints of the "E", a phaser,
or anything else, then that should go in r.a.s.i. if it is in fact based
on official Paramount information.
> lists,
...especially episode lists, novel lists (including group reviews), cast
&crew lists, the infamous redshirt list (i'd like to see a repost of that
if anyone has it), ship lists, anything that has all the data that new
r.a.s. rookies always ask for.
> any newspaper articles
...I've already made my comments on this to Jim in e-mail. To sum up what
I said: F*ck the papers and print the articles, as they'll be castrating
themselves if they make a big stink about it.
> be it new and informative to strickly commercial, whatever. If this is what
> most people thought, then I would suggest we all take a vote to redefine the
> charter and make it crystal clear as to what is acceptible and what's not.
..I remember someone getting into a big flap on news.admin over the overhauling
of charters some years ago. Has the Spaf ever laid down any "laws" concerning
this?
> In any case, don't flame Jim.
...agreed, by all means!
> In addition to the above things that should be included in RASI, include
> such things like episode critiques from Mark Leeper and the other one (sorry
> guy, forgot your name - your critique is more famous than you are). I would
> just limit the 'offical' critiques to 2 or 3 persons. Set up a list to be
> posted (monthly, semi-annually, quarterly, whatever) that'll have the answers
> to the most commonly asked questions.
...again, agreed as far as the lists go. But I have a problem with the
critiques. Who will determine whether X's reviews are more suited for
r.a.s.i than Y's? And lord knows what Q would do if J(im) said "your
critique is too bland for reposting"...
...good points made, Chris.
OM
Evelyn C. Leeper
> In addition to the above things that should be included in RASI, include
> such things like episode critiques from Mark Leeper and the other one (sorry
Unless you're in some alternate war-time universe or something ( :-) ),
Mark Leeper is not writing any episode critiques.
Evelyn C. Leeper | +1 201-957-2070 | att!mtgzy!ecl or e...@mtgzy.att.com
--
If I am not for myself, who is for me? If I am only for myself what am I?
And if not now, when? --Hillel