RFD: uk.games.video.dreamcast

4 views
Skip to first unread message

James Sutherland

unread,
Aug 12, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/12/99
to
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
unmoderated group uk.games.video.dreamcast

Newsgroups line:
uk.games.video.dreamcast UK based discussion about Sega's Dreamcast

This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the creation of a
UK-wide unmoderated Usenet newsgroup uk.games.video.dreamcast.

*** ALL DISCUSSION MUST TAKE PLACE IN UK.NET.NEWS.CONFIG ***

This is not a Call for Votes (CFV); you cannot vote at this time. Further
procedural details are given below.

RATIONALE: uk.games.video.dreamcast

At the current time, the main groups for Dreamcast discussion are
rec.games.video.sega and alt.games.video.sega-dreamcast, with the latter
being the only Dreamcast-specific group. These groups are quite US-centric,
however, and UK-specific information is hard to come by. A considerable
amount of traffic on these groups is made up of piracy, flame and
advertising.

The nature of the console game industry makes a UK group desirable, as games
are often released much later in the UK (making spoilers hard to avoid in US
groups, where everybody has already completed the game by the time we get
it). Differing TV standards and connectivity options also mean that details
found in US groups can be misleading when a UK user is looking for
information.

While uk.games.video.misc would be a suitable place for Dreamcast
discussion, it seems that people are unwilling to post to a misc. group,
preferring to use groups specific to their system. Compare the traffic on
uk.games.video.playstation to that on uk.games.video.misc.

CHARTER: uk.games.video.dreamcast

This group is for the discussion of the Sega Dreamcast system, games and
peripherals.

Links to non-commercial web sites related to the Dreamcast system are
welcome, but should not be repeated more than once a month.

Reviews, hints, tips and cheats are welcome, however spoilers should be
protected with appropriate spoiler space. Long reviews or solutions may be
better offered as a web link. Particular care should be taken with posts
about games not yet officially released in the UK, so as not to spoil the
game for UK readers.

Discussions about piracy, "warez", "backups" or other such illegal
activities are not allowed. Discussions about the morality and legality of
such actions tend to become quickly inflammatory, and should be avoided.

Advocacy of one console over another should be avoided in general, as it
tends to lead to "system war" threads.

ADVERTISING:
Advertising (which includes wanted adverts and game trade lists) is
forbidden, with the exception of short, non-commercial adverts which are
part of the poster's regular signature, and which are not the main reason
for the post.

BINARIES & FORMATTING:
Encoded binaries (e.g. pictures, compressed files, etc.) are forbidden.
Cryptographic signatures (e.g. PGP) may be used where authentication is
important and should be as short as possible.

Posts must be readable as plaintext. HTML, RTF and similarly formatted
messages are prohibited. To see how to make your newsreader comply with
this, read <http://www.usenet.org.uk/ukpost.html>.

END CHARTER.

PROCEDURE:

This is a request for discussion, not a call for votes. In this phase of the
process, any potential problems with the proposed newsgroups should be raised
and resolved. The discussion period will continue for a minimum of 10 days,
starting from when this RFD is posted to uk.net.news.announce (i.e. until Aug
23rd) after which a Call For Votes (CFV) may be posted by a neutral vote taker
if the discussion warrants it. Alternatively, the group may be created by the
fast-track method. Please do not attempt to vote until this happens.

All discussion of this proposal should be posted to uk.net.news.config.

This RFD attempts to comply fully with the "Guidelines for Group Creation
within the UK Hierarchy" as published regularly in uk.net.news.announce.
Please refer to this document if you have any questions about the process.

DISTRIBUTION:

This RFD has been posted to the following newsgroups:
uk.net.news.announce, uk.net.news.config,
rec.games.video.sega, alt.games.video.sega-dreamcast,
uk.games.video.playstation

Proponent:
James Sutherland <ja...@guybrush.demon.co.uk>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 5.0i for non-commercial use
Charset: noconv

iQCVAwUBN7KqQGOfGXkh8vHZAQFrGwQAhSGNw5Q1e3WYOsbPIvuDvQZHmoilOdcg
Xj+4FavGFLh4wu/Mr6N1BmnctgiSqQNgQZ1dZ9Nwx6cXbUHAKrDyl6E5PchlVedp
kcF9C+P9dA4JLSQhyUq5KFqPYSSm1EK9siu0puzZnAMSI9Ck/C27dPzP/vjoIBQS
f7WWMA7peWQ=
=0Y0Z
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Lord of deXness

unread,
Aug 12, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/12/99
to
James Sutherland wrote:
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
> unmoderated group uk.games.video.dreamcast
>
> Newsgroups line:
> uk.games.video.dreamcast UK based discussion about Sega's
> Dreamcast
>
> This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the creation of a
> UK-wide unmoderated Usenet newsgroup uk.games.video.dreamcast.
>
> *** ALL DISCUSSION MUST TAKE PLACE IN UK.NET.NEWS.CONFIG ***
>

I support the reasoning behind this proposal.

deX!

wriuk

unread,
Aug 12, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/12/99
to
YES PLEASE!

James Sutherland wrote in message ...


>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
> unmoderated group uk.games.video.dreamcast
>
>Newsgroups line:
>uk.games.video.dreamcast UK based discussion about Sega's Dreamcast
>
>This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the creation of a
>UK-wide unmoderated Usenet newsgroup uk.games.video.dreamcast.
>
> *** ALL DISCUSSION MUST TAKE PLACE IN UK.NET.NEWS.CONFIG ***
>

Andy Mabbett

unread,
Aug 12, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/12/99
to
In article <7ovch1$u8g$1...@quince.news.easynet.net>, wriuk
<wr...@geocities.com> writes
>YES PLEASE!


[followed by re-quote of entire RFD, circa 111 lines]

If you must post "me toos" (which are hardly necessary), please trim the
quoted material to the minimum necessary. Thanks.

You will find a useful primer on how to post to Usenet properly at:

http://www.mahayana.demon.co.uk/computer/format.htm
--
Andy Mabbett
"In derelict sidings, the poppies entwine
With cattle trucks, lying in wait, for the next time"
Roger Waters, 1982

James Newton

unread,
Aug 13, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/13/99
to

On Thu, 12 Aug 1999, James Sutherland wrote:

>Discussions about piracy, "warez", "backups" or other such illegal
>activities are not allowed. Discussions about the morality and legality of
>such actions tend to become quickly inflammatory, and should be avoided.

<snip>


>ADVERTISING:
>Advertising (which includes wanted adverts and game trade lists) is
>forbidden, with the exception of short, non-commercial adverts which are
>part of the poster's regular signature, and which are not the main reason
>for the post.
>

These seem like an excellent way of wording the 'no adverts' rule and
getting rid of the tedious Warez stuff that crops up on
u.g.v.p(laystation) about every two to three months or so. How about
including that people violating these rules *may* be reported to their
ISPs if they ignore the posting guidelines repeatedly like the proposed
Leeds united one being discussed does? Apart from that I think that the
proposed charter looks excellent! Well done for suggesting it in u.g.v.p
Regards, James


Chris Parkin

unread,
Aug 13, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/13/99
to
Andy Mabbett <an...@pigsonthewing.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4kLmIMAd...@pigsonthewing.demon.co.uk...

> In article <7ovch1$u8g$1...@quince.news.easynet.net>, wriuk
> <wr...@geocities.com> writes
> >YES PLEASE!
>
>
> [followed by re-quote of entire RFD, circa 111 lines]
>
> If you must post "me toos" (which are hardly necessary), please trim the
> quoted material to the minimum necessary. Thanks.

Oh, what a surprise!!
Andy Mabbett nit-picks at yet another person.
Why don't you just give it rest?
Most people using Usenet would permit a novice an error of this type.
But oh no, not Lord Mabbett.
You need to get out more and perhaps meet some females, then maybe you would
stop 'getting off' on pulling people down all the time.

Charles Lindsey

unread,
Aug 13, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/13/99
to

>If you must post "me toos" (which are hardly necessary), please trim the
>quoted material to the minimum necessary. Thanks.

I agree about the quoting, but actually a modest number of "me toos"
is rather essential, because the Committee will usually reject a
fast-track request if it cannot see that there is a reasonable degree of
support for the group.

--
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Email: c...@clw.cs.man.ac.uk Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Voice/Fax: +44 161 437 4506 Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5

Andy Mabbett

unread,
Aug 13, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/13/99
to
In article <rfd-uk.games.video....@clw.cs.man.ac.uk>,
James Sutherland <ja...@threepwood.screaming.net> writes

>CHARTER: uk.games.video.dreamcast
>
>This group is for the discussion of the Sega Dreamcast system, games and
>peripherals.
>
>Links to non-commercial web sites related to the Dreamcast system are
>welcome, but should not be repeated more than once a month.

I don't think "links" is the right word; and what about people who
include such URLs in their sigs, when their posts are otherwise on-
charter?

>Reviews, hints, tips and cheats are welcome, however spoilers should be
>protected with appropriate spoiler space. Long reviews or solutions may be
>better offered as a web link.

what is "long"?

[...]


>Discussions about piracy, "warez", "backups" or other such illegal
>activities are not allowed.

So if someone posts about new pirated game, no one can tell them "don't
buy it, it's pirated"? Perhaps you would do better to ban /advocay/ of
piracy, etc.

> Discussions about the morality and legality of
>such actions tend to become quickly inflammatory, and should be avoided.

I don't see how you could hope to stop it, then.

>ADVERTISING:
>Advertising (which includes wanted adverts and game trade lists) is
>forbidden, with the exception of short, non-commercial adverts which are
>part of the poster's regular signature, and which are not the main reason
>for the post.

I think the word "commercial" is redundant there, if the other criteria
apply; once again, how can you tell if such a reference is commercial?

James Sutherland

unread,
Aug 13, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/13/99
to
James Newton <jne...@liverpool.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.10.990813...@uxa.liv.ac.uk...

> On Thu, 12 Aug 1999, James Sutherland wrote:
> >Discussions about piracy, "warez", "backups" or other such illegal
> >activities are not allowed. Discussions about the morality and legality

of
> >such actions tend to become quickly inflammatory, and should be avoided.
> <snip>

> >ADVERTISING:
> >Advertising (which includes wanted adverts and game trade lists) is
> >forbidden, with the exception of short, non-commercial adverts which are
> >part of the poster's regular signature, and which are not the main reason
> >for the post.
> >
> These seem like an excellent way of wording the 'no adverts' rule and
> getting rid of the tedious Warez stuff that crops up on
> u.g.v.p(laystation) about every two to three months or so.

The problem I see with the UGVP charter is that it's not very precise in
defining it's terms. It simply contains the phrases "No adverts" and "No
posts generating piracy", without actually defining what an advert is or
what "generating piracy" means. This means we get loads of problems with
people thinking it's OK to ask how to (legally) backup their games, or
that - say - a wanted ad isn't really an advert (because it isn't
commercial, and it isn't selling anything).

I've tried to express in the UGVD charter what I believe the group's
interpretation of the UGVP charter is, as explained it the FAQ, as I think
that in general UGVP has worked pretty well.

> How about
> including that people violating these rules *may* be reported to their
> ISPs if they ignore the posting guidelines repeatedly like the proposed
> Leeds united one being discussed does?

You mean the:

---
WARNING:
Anyone posting contrary to this charter may be reported to their
"postmaster" and/or Service Provider.
---

Section? RFD Maker put this in the charter when I first started to write
it, and I wasn't too sure whether to leave it in or not. I'm fairly easy
either way, to be honest. My only thought about it was that it seemed to
encourage the kind of "hardline" approach to charter enforcement which I
think has made UGVP a slightly more unfriendly place that it really needs to
be. Then again, if the charter is clear and unambiguous, it shouldn't scare
people too much, as they'll be sure when they post that they're not going to
get reported for breaking a rule that they didn't really understand.

> Apart from that I think that the
> proposed charter looks excellent! Well done for suggesting it in u.g.v.p

It seemed appropriate to include the Playstation group, as there's been a
lot of UK Dreamcast discussion in there over the last few weeks (now that
we're in the preorder stage for UK DCs).

One thought has just occured to me. Should we have something about not
crossposting to the US groups? The UGVP charter doesn't have this, but the
FAQ does (if people crosspost, we simply get back some of the confusion and
risk of spoilers that we try to avoid by having a UK.* group). Is it
implicit that crossposting is A Bad Thing, or does a charter need to state
it explicitly?

Cheers,

James

--
Work: jam...@gremlin.co.uk Home: ja...@threepwood.screaming.net
WWW: http://www.guybrush.demon.co.uk/ ICQ: 7223489
I have original games to trade - see my WWW page for details.


Dave Mayall

unread,
Aug 13, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/13/99
to
On Fri, 13 Aug 1999 17:03:06 +0100, "Chris Parkin"
<Ch...@minibus.co.uk> wrote:


>Oh, what a surprise!!
>Andy Mabbett nit-picks at yet another person.
>Why don't you just give it rest?
>Most people using Usenet would permit a novice an error of this type.
>But oh no, not Lord Mabbett.
>You need to get out more and perhaps meet some females, then maybe you would
>stop 'getting off' on pulling people down all the time.

And how is the novice to learn of his mistakes. If he doesn't learn,
he will carry on making them.

Read what is said, not who said it.

--
Dave Mayall

This posting is made in a personal capacity, the views expressed
may not be those of the UK Usenet Committee.

James Sutherland

unread,
Aug 13, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/13/99
to
Andy Mabbett <an...@pigsonthewing.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:S2lMs3Bj...@pigsonthewing.demon.co.uk...
> >Links to non-commercial web sites related to the Dreamcast system are
> >welcome, but should not be repeated more than once a month.
>
> I don't think "links" is the right word;

I'm open to suggestions for an alternative.

> and what about people who
> include such URLs in their sigs, when their posts are otherwise on-
> charter?

Yes, good point. This section may be redundant, to be honest. What I'm
after avoiding is a problem that exists in uk.games.video.playstation, which
is that if somebody has a PlayStation web site (a FAQ or review site for
instance), they can't post a message about it because the group's charter
has a blanket "No adverts" rule.

However, what you equally don't want is a weaker attitude to adverts, which
excludes this sort of post, but which then means that somebody could spam
the group with adverts for their site without breaking the charter.

"Non-commercial" has a problem of not being well-defined (is a site with
banner ads commercial, for instance?), but I'm not sure of a non-awkward way
to rephrase it.

How about replacing the above paragraph with:

"Posts announcing non-commercial web sites related to the Dreamcast system


are welcome, but should not be repeated more than once a month."

I think that solves the problems you raised, but doesn't fix the
definition-of-commercial problem. What _I_ mean by non-commercial is a site
which is run by an individual, and not by or on behalf of a company. Any
suggestions on how to express this in a nice way?

> >Reviews, hints, tips and cheats are welcome, however spoilers should be
> >protected with appropriate spoiler space. Long reviews or solutions may
be
> >better offered as a web link.
>
> what is "long"?

Not short? I get your point, but the whole sentence is basically just a
suggestion, rather than a strict rule anyway. Perhaps it's more FAQ
material? I think you can trust people to be sensible about this, but it
_is_ worth pointing it out to them, as otherwise people _will_ post complete
solutions and the like without really thinking.

> [...]


> >Discussions about piracy, "warez", "backups" or other such illegal
> >activities are not allowed.
>

> So if someone posts about new pirated game, no one can tell them "don't
> buy it, it's pirated"? Perhaps you would do better to ban /advocay/ of
> piracy, etc.

It's not ideal, but it might be better that way. Telling them not to buy it
probably won't change their mind, and can really only lead to abusive
threads and flame wars.

In my experience, piracy is a subject which rarely leads to good things on
Usenet, and IMO it's best just to leave it alone.

> > Discussions about the morality and legality of
> >such actions tend to become quickly inflammatory, and should be avoided.
>

> I don't see how you could hope to stop it, then.

Well, by putting in the charter that talking about it is not allowed, it
hopefully stops the first "Is it legal to copy my games?" post, and hence
the inflammatory thread never happens.

> >ADVERTISING:
> >Advertising (which includes wanted adverts and game trade lists) is
> >forbidden, with the exception of short, non-commercial adverts which are
> >part of the poster's regular signature, and which are not the main reason
> >for the post.
>

> I think the word "commercial" is redundant there, if the other criteria
> apply; once again, how can you tell if such a reference is commercial?

Yes, I think you're right. Drop the ", non-commercial", then. I guess that
making somebody change their .sig because it has a link to their company's
web site in it _is_ too extreme.

Andy Mabbett

unread,
Aug 13, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/13/99
to
In article <7p1g1k$jns$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk>, Chris Parkin
<Ch...@minibus.co.uk> writes

>> If you must post "me toos" (which are hardly necessary), please trim the
>> quoted material to the minimum necessary. Thanks.
>

>Oh, what a surprise!!
>Andy Mabbett nit-picks at yet another person.

I'm not sure how one "nit picks at" someone.

>Why don't you just give it rest?

Because nobody in their right mind wants to see a flood of me- toos, nor
a flood of repeats of the original post.

>Most people using Usenet

Not only am I "most people", but if we all did what someone thought
"most people" would do, we'd all be automata.

>would permit a novice

This "novice" has already made over 100 posts under that identity.

>an error of this type.
>But oh no, not Lord Mabbett.

You seem to have mis-typed "Andy". HTH

>You need to get out more and perhaps meet some females,

More presumptions - why would I want to meet more? And do try to be
original in your abuse, please.

> then maybe you would
>stop 'getting off' on pulling people down all the time.

<sigh> How can I stop something I've never started?

Andy Mabbett

unread,
Aug 13, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/13/99
to
In article <Lf_s3.18562$6J1.2...@news4.giganews.com>, James Sutherland
<ja...@threepwood.screaming.net> writes

>> >Links to non-commercial web sites related to the Dreamcast system are
>> >welcome, but should not be repeated more than once a month.
>>
>> I don't think "links" is the right word;
>
>I'm open to suggestions for an alternative.

Sorry - I meant to include some. What about "URLs for..." or even
simply, "recommendations of..."; though you could simply drop that
section - it's hardly a major issue, surely?

>> and what about people who
>> include such URLs in their sigs, when their posts are otherwise on-
>> charter?
>
>Yes, good point. This section may be redundant, to be honest.

See ;-)

[...]


>"Non-commercial" has a problem of not being well-defined (is a site with
>banner ads commercial, for instance?), but I'm not sure of a non-awkward way
>to rephrase it.

Quite - what about simply:


ADVERTISING

Advertising is forbidden, with these exceptions:

Suppliers of goods and services relevant to the playing of
Dreamcast in the UK may post, not more than once every 3 months,
an invitation of four lines or fewer, to visit their web site or
request details. The subject line should begin "ADVERT: "

>I think that solves the problems you raised, but doesn't fix the
>definition-of-commercial problem. What _I_ mean by non-commercial is a site
>which is run by an individual, and not by or on behalf of a company. Any
>suggestions on how to express this in a nice way?

An individual may "be" a company.

[...]

Your sig- sep is broken, BTW.

James Sutherland

unread,
Aug 13, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/13/99
to
Andy Mabbett <an...@pigsonthewing.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:M3BbsGAz...@pigsonthewing.demon.co.uk...

> In article <Lf_s3.18562$6J1.2...@news4.giganews.com>, James Sutherland
> <ja...@threepwood.screaming.net> writes
> >I'm open to suggestions for an alternative.
>
> Sorry - I meant to include some. What about "URLs for..." or even
> simply, "recommendations of..."; though you could simply drop that
> section - it's hardly a major issue, surely?
>
It has been in uk.games.video.playstation. The somewhat hardline
interpretation of the "No adverts" clause in the UGVP charter prohibits
somebody from making a post announcing their new PSX site (FAQs, review
sites and the like). When this happens, somebody will invariably point out
that their post is against the charter, and we'll have the whole "what's an
advert?" debate all over again. For this reason, I'm quite keen to keep a
section which explicitly allows such posts, as I think that they're
generally of interest to the readers of the group.

<snip>


>
>
> ADVERTISING
>
> Advertising is forbidden, with these exceptions:
>
> Suppliers of goods and services relevant to the playing of
> Dreamcast in the UK may post, not more than once every 3 months,
> an invitation of four lines or fewer, to visit their web site or
> request details. The subject line should begin "ADVERT: "
>

Well, this is really the opposite of what I intended. Certainly, in UGVP,
adverts from suppliers of goods and services and most definitely not wanted,
no matter how infrequent the posting. The number of people supplying
mod-chips and chipping services alone makes these adverts most unwanted (and
all indications are that a region mod for the Dreamcast will be available
quite soon).

This version also has certain other problems which I tried to fix with mine,
which mainly stem from not clearly defining what an advert is (something
we've had endless debates over). I think it has to be made clear that
"wanted" ads and "games for trade" ads really _are_ adverts, and as such are
not allowed. I also think that you need to be sure to allow ads in sigs,
too, as this has been an issue where people have been confused.

Maybe something like this, which amalgamates the advertising section with
that troublesome paragraph about non-commercial website ads, is a nicer way
to express it:

ADVERTISING:
Advertising (which includes wanted adverts and game trade lists) is
forbidden, with these exceptions:

Adverts of no more than four lines, which are part of the poster's regular
signature, and which are not the main reason for the post, are allowed.

Owners of web sites with information relevant to the playing of the
Dreamcast in the UK may post, not more than once every 3 months, an advert
for their site, providing that the site is not used to sell, nor advertise
for sale, any goods or services.

> An individual may "be" a company.
>

Which is why I needed a better way to express it.

> Your sig- sep is broken, BTW.
>

That's odd - the space is there when I compose the post, but OE must be
stripping it off. I'll have to look into getting a new newsreader when I
have the time - OE just seems to get worse with each new version. I'm
half-tempted to go back to using "tin".

Geep

unread,
Aug 13, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/13/99
to
In article <IGOKQ5BM...@pigsonthewing.demon.co.uk>, Andy Mabbett
<an...@pigsonthewing.demon.co.uk> writes

>
>Because nobody in their right mind wants to see a flood of me

True :))
--
Graeme
Hertford, England

Blade Runner

unread,
Aug 13, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/13/99
to
On Fri, 13 Aug 1999 20:36:19 +0100 in uk.net.news.config, Andy Mabbett
wrote:

> ADVERTISING
>
> Advertising is forbidden, with these exceptions:
>
> Suppliers of goods and services relevant to the playing of
> Dreamcast in the UK may post, not more than once every 3 months,
> an invitation of four lines or fewer, to visit their web site or
> request details. The subject line should begin "ADVERT: "

'the playing of' is redundant. Dreamcast is a console system, not a
game.

--
Geoff (Blade Runner)
Simple RFD creation with the online RFD Maker
http://www.cthree.freeserve.co.uk/rfdmaker/
Be an Agent. http://www.onelist.com/subscribe/uk-dot-star_agents


Paul Womar

unread,
Aug 14, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/14/99
to
Chris Parkin <Ch...@minibus.co.uk> wrote:

> Oh, what a surprise!!
> Andy Mabbett nit-picks at yet another person.

Someone made a posting with over a hundred redundant lines in it, that's
not exactly nit-picking.

> Why don't you just give it rest?

> Most people using Usenet would permit a novice an error of this type.

How will the "novice" know he has made a mistake unless he is told?
--
-> The email address in this message *IS* Valid <-

Lee Maguire

unread,
Aug 14, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/14/99
to
James Sutherland <ja...@threepwood.screaming.net> wrote:
>ADVERTISING:
>Advertising (which includes wanted adverts and game trade lists) is
>forbidden

In that case I would suggest the simultaneous creation of
uk.games.video.dreamcast.forsale [1] for the purpose of advertising
secondhand items/trade/wanted ads.

In the absence of any obvious uk.* group for this purpose I would
anticipate that some posters would ignore the charter (or not have read
it) and post to the proposed group anyway. Advising posters that they
are in violation of charter without being able to point them in the
direction of the correct group generally leads to indignation.

[1] precedence with uk.games.video.playstation.forsale
--
Lee Maguire <{$news-reply$}@wetware.demon.co.uk>

Blade Runner

unread,
Aug 14, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/14/99
to
On 14 Aug 1999 17:01:23 +0100 in uk.net.news.config, Lee Maguire
wrote:

>In that case I would suggest the simultaneous creation of
>uk.games.video.dreamcast.forsale [1] for the purpose of advertising
>secondhand items/trade/wanted ads.

I note from Toys R Us today that Dreamcasts are not yet available.
(someone will correct me if I am wrong) Perhaps it may be wiser to
leave the formation of this group until such time as people have
something to sell/trade?

Michael Bungey

unread,
Aug 14, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/14/99
to
In article <ey0t3.14407$uK1.2...@news5.giganews.com>, at 22:57:41 on
Fri, 13 Aug 1999, James Sutherland <ja...@threepwood.screaming.net>
spewed forth the following:

>ADVERTISING:
>Advertising (which includes wanted adverts and game trade lists) is
>forbidden, with these exceptions:
>
>Adverts of no more than four lines, which are part of the poster's regular
>signature, and which are not the main reason for the post, are allowed.
>
>Owners of web sites with information relevant to the playing of the
>Dreamcast in the UK may post, not more than once every 3 months, an advert
>for their site, providing that the site is not used to sell, nor advertise
>for sale, any goods or services.

This needs to have an exception for freebie sites where banner ads are
forced upon people.
--
Michael Bungey

Michael Bungey

unread,
Aug 14, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/14/99
to
In article <rfd-uk.games.video....@clw.cs.man.ac.uk>,
at 12:04:48 on Thu, 12 Aug 1999, James Sutherland <ja...@threepwood.scre
aming.net> spewed forth the following:

>At the current time, the main groups for Dreamcast discussion are
>rec.games.video.sega and alt.games.video.sega-dreamcast, with the latter
>being the only Dreamcast-specific group. These groups are quite US-centric,
>however, and UK-specific information is hard to come by. A considerable
>amount of traffic on these groups is made up of piracy, flame and
>advertising.
>
>The nature of the console game industry makes a UK group desirable, as games
>are often released much later in the UK (making spoilers hard to avoid in US
>groups, where everybody has already completed the game by the time we get
>it). Differing TV standards and connectivity options also mean that details
>found in US groups can be misleading when a UK user is looking for
>information.

This rationale is good. I support it :)
--
Michael Bungey

Kim Wild

unread,
Aug 14, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/14/99
to
On Thu, 12 Aug 1999 12:04:48 GMT, "James Sutherland"
<ja...@threepwood.screaming.net> wrote:

>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
> unmoderated group uk.games.video.dreamcast
>
>Newsgroups line:
>uk.games.video.dreamcast UK based discussion about Sega's Dreamcast
>
>This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the creation of a
>UK-wide unmoderated Usenet newsgroup uk.games.video.dreamcast.
>
> *** ALL DISCUSSION MUST TAKE PLACE IN UK.NET.NEWS.CONFIG ***
>

I am all for such a group and feel that it would be great for UK
Dreamcast users.

Kim
Senior Staff member for www.PlaystationFan.com
Writer for www.vgextreme.com and www.stormloader.com/gamersedge

Kim Wild

unread,
Aug 14, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/14/99
to
On Fri, 13 Aug 1999 22:57:41 +0100, "James Sutherland"
<ja...@threepwood.screaming.net> wrote:


>
>ADVERTISING:
>Advertising (which includes wanted adverts and game trade lists) is
>forbidden, with these exceptions:
>
>Adverts of no more than four lines, which are part of the poster's regular
>signature, and which are not the main reason for the post, are allowed.
>
>Owners of web sites with information relevant to the playing of the
>Dreamcast in the UK may post, not more than once every 3 months, an advert
>for their site, providing that the site is not used to sell, nor advertise
>for sale, any goods or services.
>

I agree with this reasoning.

Graham Goring

unread,
Aug 14, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/14/99
to
In article <37b5d9d1...@news.freeserve.net>, Kim Wild
<k...@goaway.com> writes

>I am all for such a group and feel that it would be great for UK
>Dreamcast users.

I, too am all for uk.games.video.dreamcast as the group which has in
effect spawned it (uk.games.video.playstation) is a far better place to
be than the utter chaos of the alt.blah.blah.blah equivalent. I also
agree that there needs to be a definition of advertisements to avoid
the interminable discussions that arise out of situations where a non
commercial page is plugged and then chartered.

Graham Goring

--

/========================================================\ Cheeses That
| "And lo, it came to pass that The Evil One eventually | I Have Eaten
| uploaded his most despicable of web pages. And there | No. 03
| befell a time of much wailing and gnashing of teeth." |
| Book Of Brevelation - The New Toastament | A Nice Mild
\==== http://www.duketastrophy.demon.co.uk/index.htm ====/ Stilton

James Sutherland

unread,
Aug 14, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/14/99
to
Blade Runner <blac...@geocities.com> wrote in message
news:37f1b667....@news.freeserve.co.uk...

> On 14 Aug 1999 17:01:23 +0100 in uk.net.news.config, Lee Maguire
> wrote:
>
> >In that case I would suggest the simultaneous creation of
> >uk.games.video.dreamcast.forsale [1] for the purpose of advertising
> >secondhand items/trade/wanted ads.
>
> I note from Toys R Us today that Dreamcasts are not yet available.
> (someone will correct me if I am wrong) Perhaps it may be wiser to
> leave the formation of this group until such time as people have
> something to sell/trade?
>
This is correct. I think the need for the general group exists already
(look at the DC talk in the PS group at the moment), but we should probably
leave the .forsale group until it's needed.

James Sutherland

unread,
Aug 14, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/14/99
to
Michael Bungey <sp...@saintmatt.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:yeoCKKAP...@saintmatt.demon.co.uk...

> In article <ey0t3.14407$uK1.2...@news5.giganews.com>, at 22:57:41 on
> Fri, 13 Aug 1999, James Sutherland <ja...@threepwood.screaming.net>
> spewed forth the following:
<snip>

> >Owners of web sites with information relevant to the playing of the
> >Dreamcast in the UK may post, not more than once every 3 months, an
advert
> >for their site, providing that the site is not used to sell, nor
advertise
> >for sale, any goods or services.
>
> This needs to have an exception for freebie sites where banner ads are
> forced upon people.
>
Christ, that'll make it convoluted. So:

Owners of web sites with information relevant to the Dreamcast in the UK may


post, not more than once every 3 months, an advert for their site, providing
that the site is not used to sell, nor advertise for sale, any goods or

services. The site may contain "banner"-style adverts if it is beyond the
control of the site's owner to remove them.

Actually, that's not so bad.

I'll pull together the charter as it stands, and post a revised version in
the morning.

Gavin Jopson

unread,
Aug 14, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/14/99
to
Kim Wild wrote in message <37b5d9f6...@news.freeserve.net>...

>On Fri, 13 Aug 1999 22:57:41 +0100, "James Sutherland"
><ja...@threepwood.screaming.net> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>ADVERTISING:
>>Advertising (which includes wanted adverts and game trade lists) is
>>forbidden, with these exceptions:
>>
>>Adverts of no more than four lines, which are part of the poster's regular
>>signature, and which are not the main reason for the post, are allowed.
>>
>>Owners of web sites with information relevant to the playing of the
>>Dreamcast in the UK may post, not more than once every 3 months, an advert
>>for their site, providing that the site is not used to sell, nor advertise
>>for sale, any goods or services.
>>
>
>I agree with this reasoning.
>
Me too, the allowance of any commercial advertising is the thin end of the
wedge.
Good idea for a newsgroup, finances permitting I would hope to be a regular
user (pretending not to hear the groans)....
--
Gavin Jopson
ICQ - 16749275

Gavin Jopson

unread,
Aug 14, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/14/99
to
Blade Runner wrote in message <37f1b667....@news.freeserve.co.uk>...

>On 14 Aug 1999 17:01:23 +0100 in uk.net.news.config, Lee Maguire
>wrote:
>
>>In that case I would suggest the simultaneous creation of
>>uk.games.video.dreamcast.forsale [1] for the purpose of advertising
>>secondhand items/trade/wanted ads.
>
>I note from Toys R Us today that Dreamcasts are not yet available.
>(someone will correct me if I am wrong) Perhaps it may be wiser to
>leave the formation of this group until such time as people have
>something to sell/trade?
>
As far as I know - Imports are readily available and as proven in U.G.V.P.
import discussion and trading is common.

Gavin Jopson

unread,
Aug 14, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/14/99
to
Kim Wild wrote in message <37b5d9d1...@news.freeserve.net>...

>On Thu, 12 Aug 1999 12:04:48 GMT, "James Sutherland"
><ja...@threepwood.screaming.net> wrote:
>
>>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>
>> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>> unmoderated group uk.games.video.dreamcast
>>
>>Newsgroups line:
>>uk.games.video.dreamcast UK based discussion about Sega's Dreamcast
>>
>>This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the creation of a
>>UK-wide unmoderated Usenet newsgroup uk.games.video.dreamcast.
>>
>> *** ALL DISCUSSION MUST TAKE PLACE IN UK.NET.NEWS.CONFIG ***
>>
>
>I am all for such a group and feel that it would be great for UK
>Dreamcast users.
>
I too agree!

Siegfried II

unread,
Aug 15, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/15/99
to

James Sutherland wrote in message ...

>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
> unmoderated group uk.games.video.dreamcast
>
>Newsgroups line:
>uk.games.video.dreamcast UK based discussion about Sega's Dreamcast
>
>This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the creation of a
>UK-wide unmoderated Usenet newsgroup uk.games.video.dreamcast.
>
> *** ALL DISCUSSION MUST TAKE PLACE IN UK.NET.NEWS.CONFIG ***
>

Dreamcast group, eh ? I'll second that !

S.

James Sutherland

unread,
Aug 15, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/15/99
to
OK, I think that this is the charter as it currently stands, from the
discussions we've had so far:

--------------

CHARTER:


This group is for the discussion of the Sega Dreamcast system, games and
peripherals.

Reviews, hints, tips and cheats are welcome, however spoilers should be


protected with appropriate spoiler space. Long reviews or solutions may be

better offered as a URL. Particular care should be taken with posts about
games not yet officially released in the UK, so as not to spoil the game for
UK readers.

Discussions about piracy, "warez", "backups" or other such illegal

activities are not allowed. Discussions about the morality and legality of


such actions tend to become quickly inflammatory, and should be avoided.

Advocacy of one console over another should be avoided in general, as it
tends to lead to "system war" threads.

ADVERTISING:
Advertising (which includes wanted adverts and game trade lists) is
forbidden, with these exceptions:

Adverts of no more than four lines, which are part of the poster's regular
signature, and which are not the main reason for the post, are allowed.

Owners of web sites with information relevant to the Dreamcast in the UK may


post, not more than once every 3 months, an advert for their site, providing
that the site is not used to sell, nor advertise for sale, any goods or

services. The site may contain "banner"-style adverts if it is beyond the
control of the site's owner to remove them.

BINARIES & FORMATTING:
Encoded binaries (e.g. pictures, compressed files, etc.) are forbidden.
Cryptographic signatures (e.g. PGP) may be used where authentication is
important and should be as short as possible.

Posts must be readable as plaintext. HTML, RTF and similarly formatted
messages are prohibited. To see how to make your newsreader comply with
this, read <http://www.usenet.org.uk/ukpost.html>

WARNING:
Anyone posting contrary to this charter may be reported to their
"postmaster" and/or Service Provider.

--------------

Graham Goring

unread,
Aug 15, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/15/99
to
In article <__tt3.3857$uh1....@news5.giganews.com>, James Sutherland
<ja...@threepwood.screaming.net> writes

>OK, I think that this is the charter as it currently stands, from the
>discussions we've had so far:

Seems very fair to me. It appears to be well tailored to not only avoid
adverts, but all of those bloody discussions about the nature of adverts
and that kinda' thing. Hurrah!

I hereby blessed this charter with my seal of approval.

"It's better 'n chips!"

taz

unread,
Aug 15, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/15/99
to
On Sat, 14 Aug 1999 22:38:20 +0100, Graham Goring
<gra...@dukeVOMITtastrophy.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>In article <37b5d9d1...@news.freeserve.net>, Kim Wild
><k...@goaway.com> writes

>>I am all for such a group and feel that it would be great for UK
>>Dreamcast users.
>

>I, too am all for uk.games.video.dreamcast as the group which has in
>effect spawned it (uk.games.video.playstation) is a far better place to
>be than the utter chaos of the alt.blah.blah.blah equivalent. I also
>agree that there needs to be a definition of advertisements to avoid
>the interminable discussions that arise out of situations where a non
>commercial page is plugged and then chartered.

I am also for the formation of a UK dreamcast newsgroup. I think if it
follows the way that the uk.games.video.playstation goes it will be of
great benefit to UK dreamcast users.

Taz

Kim Wild

unread,
Aug 16, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/16/99
to
On Sun, 15 Aug 1999 08:27:48 +0100, "James Sutherland"
<ja...@threepwood.screaming.net> wrote:

>OK, I think that this is the charter as it currently stands, from the
>discussions we've had so far:
>

That's a great charter and defines an advert clearly so there is no
confusion.

Mr R.J. Holt

unread,
Aug 16, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/16/99
to
Kim Wild (k...@goaway.com) wrote:
: On Sun, 15 Aug 1999 08:27:48 +0100, "James Sutherland"
: <ja...@threepwood.screaming.net> wrote:

This all seems reasonable to me, lets do it.
Later,
BOB
--
E-Mail bob...@liverpool.ac.uk


<<<<Joolz>>>>

unread,
Aug 16, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/16/99
to
Yep, does the job for me.

Definitely gets my backing.

<<<<Joolz>>>>

Andy Mabbett

unread,
Aug 16, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/16/99
to
In article <__tt3.3857$uh1....@news5.giganews.com>, James Sutherland
<ja...@threepwood.screaming.net> writes

>CHARTER:
[...]
>Long reviews or solutions

Still no indication of the meaning of "long" there :-(

[...]


>Discussions about piracy, "warez", "backups" or other such illegal
>activities are not allowed.

I think I know what you mean, but backups are not illegal. Selling
pirate software by claiming it is a backup maybe, but that's not what
you're saying.

[...]
>ADVERTISING:
[...]


>Owners of web sites with information relevant to the Dreamcast

Why only owners? What happens if I want to tell you about somebody
else's site? Am I forbidden, or can I do it as often as I like?

[...]


>The site may contain "banner"-style adverts if it is beyond the
>control of the site's owner to remove them.

Somehow, I think that's going to be very hard to measure.

David Damerell

unread,
Aug 16, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/16/99
to
Andy Mabbett <an...@pigsonthewing.demon.co.uk> wrote:
><ja...@threepwood.screaming.net> writes

>>Discussions about piracy, "warez", "backups" or other such illegal
>>activities are not allowed.
>I think I know what you mean, but backups are not illegal. Selling
>pirate software by claiming it is a backup maybe, but that's not what
>you're saying.

Read it more carefully; for once, that's a correct use of double quotes to
indicate that although something is called a 'backup', it's not really.

[It bugs me when you see signs offering, frex, "Fresh" Bread. Is it not
really fresh?]
--
David/Kirsty Damerell. dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
"We have always been quite clear that Win95 and Win98 are not the systems to
use if you are in a hostile security environment." "We absolutely do recognize
that the Internet is a hostile environment." Paul Leach <pau...@microsoft.com>

Derek Jolly

unread,
Aug 16, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/16/99
to
James Sutherland wrote this. Honest guv!

>The site may contain "banner"-style adverts if it is beyond the
>control of the site's owner to remove them.

Thinking about this, this wouldn't be a bad idea for
uk.games.video.playstation either.

During my charter stint I had to charter a few posts that were very
relevant to the newsgroup, purely because the advertised sites
were with a free web space provider and had enforced banner ads.

Opinions?
--
**********************************************************************
* Derek Jolly (jol...@xsagetetra.com) (Remove the 'x' for e-mail) *
* PAL->NTSC AR codes etc.: http://members2.easyspace.com/rivet *
**********************************************************************


Blade Runner

unread,
Aug 16, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/16/99
to
On Mon, 16 Aug 1999 11:58:07 GMT in uk.net.news.config, Derek Jolly
wrote:

>During my charter stint I had to charter a few posts that were very
>relevant to the newsgroup, purely because the advertised sites
>were with a free web space provider and had enforced banner ads.

>Opinions?


Yes, you are a pedantic nitwit. Sometimes I think Carstairs has a
point.

Blade Runner

unread,
Aug 16, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/16/99
to
On 16 Aug 1999 12:53:27 +0100 (BST) in uk.net.news.config, David
Damerell wrote:

>[It bugs me when you see signs offering, frex, "Fresh" Bread. Is it not
>really fresh?]

and, like eggs, who would buy any other sort?

Derek Jolly

unread,
Aug 16, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/16/99
to
Blade Runner wrote this. Honest guv!

>
>On Mon, 16 Aug 1999 11:58:07 GMT in uk.net.news.config, Derek Jolly
>wrote:
>
>>During my charter stint I had to charter a few posts that were very
>>relevant to the newsgroup, purely because the advertised sites
>>were with a free web space provider and had enforced banner ads.
>
>>Opinions?
>
>
>Yes, you are a pedantic nitwit. Sometimes I think Carstairs has a
>point.

Quite possibly. I won't deny it. :)

The current definition of adverts applied by the charter posters in
u.g.v.p. means that posts advertising web sites with banner
ads are against the charter, so the poster gets sent a copy of the
FAQ stating how their post broke the charter, and an FCV's posted
to the newsgroup. I'm just suggesting that it should be relaxed to
allow posts about web sites that are relevant to the newsgroup but
have enforced banner ads.

Gavin Jopson

unread,
Aug 16, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/16/99
to
Derek Jolly wrote in message
<934804687.27802.0...@news.demon.co.uk>...

>James Sutherland wrote this. Honest guv!
>
>>The site may contain "banner"-style adverts if it is beyond the
>>control of the site's owner to remove them.
>
>Thinking about this, this wouldn't be a bad idea for
>uk.games.video.playstation either.
>
>During my charter stint I had to charter a few posts that were very
>relevant to the newsgroup, purely because the advertised sites
>were with a free web space provider and had enforced banner ads.
>
>Opinions?


I suppose as long as the content outweighs the ads it wouldn't be a problem

Andy Mabbett

unread,
Aug 16, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/16/99
to
In article <RKy*T7...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, David Damerell
<dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes

>>>Discussions about piracy, "warez", "backups" or other such illegal
>>>activities are not allowed.
>>I think I know what you mean, but backups are not illegal. Selling
>>pirate software by claiming it is a backup maybe, but that's not what
>>you're saying.
>
>Read it more carefully;

I do not need to, thank you.

> for once, that's a correct use of double quotes to
>indicate that although something is called a 'backup', it's not really.

Hence "I think I know what you mean". That's not to say anyone else
will, or that somebody will not seek to exploit such easily- avoidable
ambiguity at a later date.

Blade Runner

unread,
Aug 16, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/16/99
to
On Mon, 16 Aug 1999 14:28:10 GMT in uk.net.news.config, Derek Jolly
wrote:

>I'm just suggesting that it should be relaxed to


>allow posts about web sites that are relevant to the newsgroup but
>have enforced banner ads.

You'll need to RFD a charter change then. However I'd say that sites
which have a pop up banner (eg geocities) are different than sites
which carry banner advertising in the page. Also some sites may well
use a free utility, chat page etc that comes with a banner ad, again,
this does not come with the site pages.

~ Steve ~

unread,
Aug 16, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/16/99
to
How about a uk.games.video.dreamcast.forsale too, as after about 3 weeks of
the UK
release uk.games.video.dreamcast will be flooded with forsale ads.

Which I belive is against the charter for the proposed
uk.games.video.dreamcast ???

James Sutherland

unread,
Aug 16, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/16/99
to
Andy Mabbett <an...@pigsonthewing.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:auvOKVAJ...@pigsonthewing.demon.co.uk...

> In article <__tt3.3857$uh1....@news5.giganews.com>, James Sutherland
> <ja...@threepwood.screaming.net> writes
>
> >CHARTER:
> [...]
> >Long reviews or solutions
>
> Still no indication of the meaning of "long" there :-(
>
Well, I'm not convinced it's necessary, but I don't object to one going in
there. I guess 100 lines is a nice round figure. I open to suggestions
from people, though.

> [...]


> >Discussions about piracy, "warez", "backups" or other such illegal
> >activities are not allowed.
>
> I think I know what you mean, but backups are not illegal. Selling
> pirate software by claiming it is a backup maybe, but that's not what
> you're saying.

While backups aren't illegal (necessarily), the term "backups" (with quotes)
is now used by the pirates (and their customers) to describe pirate games.
I wish they used a different word, but that's how it is. It's hard to
correct the ambiguity when it's one created by other people.

I guess the options would be:

- Keep it as it is, and accept that a few people who are new to video games
newsgroups may misunderstand.

- Drop the "illegal". I think this is my prefered option.

- Drop the "backups". Don't like this, as it leaves a loophole for people
to claim they're not talking about piracy.

> [...]
> >ADVERTISING:
> [...]
> >Owners of web sites with information relevant to the Dreamcast
>
> Why only owners? What happens if I want to tell you about somebody
> else's site? Am I forbidden, or can I do it as often as I like?

As it stands, you are forbidden, as it doesn't come under either of the
exceptions to the no adverts rule. I think you'd be OK to respond to a
question like "does anybody know any good review sites?", though, as that
wouldn't really be interpreted as an advert.

There are two reasons not to allow anybody to advertise any site.

Firstly, it opens up a whole load of problems like "can I post an advert for
my site, given that somebody else posted one a month ago?". It just gets
really complicated.

Secondly, it means that people who want to plug their site just use the
increasingly-common "hey, I found this great site" trick with a load of fake
accounts.

I don't think you really lose very many genuine posts this way, and it
prevents a whole load of problems.

> [...]


> >The site may contain "banner"-style adverts if it is beyond the
> >control of the site's owner to remove them.
>

> Somehow, I think that's going to be very hard to measure.

Not if you're the owner of the site, and the charter _is_ mainly there to
guide people wanting to post to the group. I don't think it's hard to tell
if a banner is placed there by the web space provider or the site's owner,
in any case - it's only really places like GeoCities or Xoom who do it.

James Sutherland

unread,
Aug 16, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/16/99
to
~ Steve ~ <st...@internetuser.free-online.co.uk.REMOVE> wrote in message
news:7p9j8v$fnh$2...@neptunium.btinternet.com...

> How about a uk.games.video.dreamcast.forsale too, as after about 3 weeks
of
> the UK
> release uk.games.video.dreamcast will be flooded with forsale ads.
>
Well, we discussed this briefly earlier in the thread. Personally, I'd be
tempted to wait a bit. There's unlikely to be many ads at first, as pirated
games are not yet available, and the system is also not yet out in the UK.
It may be hard to justify the creation based on an _expected_ need. With
the UGVD group, the need is clearly already there (just look at the DC
discussions in PlayStation group).

That said, if somebody wants to start an RFD for
uk.games.video.dreamcast.forsale, then go ahead. I have little interest in
the forsale groups, so I'm probably not the best person to do it (I've never
even looked at UGVP.forsale, as far as I can remember).

Blade Runner

unread,
Aug 17, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/17/99
to
On Mon, 16 Aug 1999 22:48:29 +0100 (BST) in uk.net.news.config, Dave
Sparks wrote:

> >> [It bugs me when you see signs offering, frex, "Fresh" Bread. Is it
> >> not really fresh?]
>

> BR> and, like eggs, who would buy any other sort?
>
>Those who like hundred-year-old soldiers with their
>hundred-year-old eggs.

:o)

I recently saw some eggs that required no less than four adjectives to
let the customer know that they were fresh.

Gavin Jopson

unread,
Aug 17, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/17/99
to
James Sutherland wrote in message ...
>Andy Mabbett <an...@pigsonthewing.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:auvOKVAJ...@pigsonthewing.demon.co.uk...
>> In article <__tt3.3857$uh1....@news5.giganews.com>, James Sutherland
>> <ja...@threepwood.screaming.net> writes
>>

>


>While backups aren't illegal (necessarily), the term "backups" (with
quotes)
>is now used by the pirates (and their customers) to describe pirate games.
>I wish they used a different word, but that's how it is. It's hard to
>correct the ambiguity when it's one created by other people.
>
>I guess the options would be:
>
>- Keep it as it is, and accept that a few people who are new to video games
>newsgroups may misunderstand.
>
>- Drop the "illegal". I think this is my prefered option.
>
>- Drop the "backups". Don't like this, as it leaves a loophole for people
>to claim they're not talking about piracy.
>

Why not just have no discussions of backups whatsoever - illegal or
not......

Tim Miller

unread,
Aug 17, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/17/99
to
Blade Runner wrote:
>
> On 14 Aug 1999 17:01:23 +0100 in uk.net.news.config, Lee Maguire
> wrote:
>
> >In that case I would suggest the simultaneous creation of
> >uk.games.video.dreamcast.forsale [1] for the purpose of advertising
> >secondhand items/trade/wanted ads.
>
> I note from Toys R Us today that Dreamcasts are not yet available.
> (someone will correct me if I am wrong) Perhaps it may be wiser to
> leave the formation of this group until such time as people have
> something to sell/trade?
>
You can already get them on import. Indeed, I've seen newsgroup
advertising for US Dreamcasts already (before they've been released).

Tim (tm)
--
Tim Miller
tim at poyningsclose.freeserve.co.uk
http://www.poyningsclose.freeserve.co.uk
uk.local.southwest http://www.uklsw.org

James Sutherland

unread,
Aug 17, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/17/99
to
Gavin Jopson <ga...@jopson0.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:7pc2ua$tn$1...@news4.svr.pol.co.uk...

>
> Why not just have no discussions of backups whatsoever - illegal or
> not......
>
Well, that's why I think the best option is to remove the "illegal" part,
and leave the "backups" in (possibly without the quotes). This makes it:

Discussions about piracy, "warez", backups or other such activities are not


allowed. Discussions about the morality and legality of such actions tend
to become quickly inflammatory, and should be avoided.

That way, you can't talk about backups in either sense of the word, nor can
you talk about whether you should be allowed to copy games for whatever
purpose.

We also avoid possible "backups aren't illegal" posts from people who read
the charter and take offence at the "illegal" part which was there.

<<<<Joolz>>>>

unread,
Aug 18, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/18/99
to
James Sutherland wrote in message ...
>Gavin Jopson <ga...@jopson0.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:7pc2ua$tn$1...@news4.svr.pol.co.uk...
>>
>> Why not just have no discussions of backups whatsoever - illegal or
>> not......
>>
>Well, that's why I think the best option is to remove the "illegal" part,
>and leave the "backups" in (possibly without the quotes). This makes it:
>
>Discussions about piracy, "warez", backups or other such activities are not
>allowed. Discussions about the morality and legality of such actions tend
>to become quickly inflammatory, and should be avoided.
>
>That way, you can't talk about backups in either sense of the word, nor can
>you talk about whether you should be allowed to copy games for whatever
>purpose.
>
>We also avoid possible "backups aren't illegal" posts from people who read
>the charter and take offence at the "illegal" part which was there.

Yep that's it, knock the topic on the head. It's got to be
better that way.

Another thing which came up in UGVP a while ago, was "Off Topic" threads.
Now I don't propose that they be banned, as this would detract from the
character of the newsgroup as a whole, but any off topic threads should be
marked as so in the subject line. Any comments?

<<<<Joolz>>>>


Michael Bungey

unread,
Aug 18, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/18/99
to
James Sutherland wrote this

>>Well, that's why I think the best option is to remove the "illegal" part,
>>and leave the "backups" in (possibly without the quotes). This makes it:
>>
>>Discussions about piracy, "warez", backups or other such activities are not
>>allowed. Discussions about the morality and legality of such actions tend
>>to become quickly inflammatory, and should be avoided.
>>
>>That way, you can't talk about backups in either sense of the word, nor can
>>you talk about whether you should be allowed to copy games for whatever
>>purpose.
>>
>>We also avoid possible "backups aren't illegal" posts from people who read
>>the charter and take offence at the "illegal" part which was there.

How about also adding something to the charter such as
"Rude and inflammatory posts are discouraged"?
--
Michael Bungey

Barney Pitt

unread,
Aug 18, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/18/99
to
James Sutherland wrote:
>
> OK, I think that this is the charter as it currently stands, from the
> discussions we've had so far:
>
> --------------

First off, are you proposing that designated persons will be
responsible for periodically posting the charter (or part of it)
in response to charter-breaching posts (a la
uk.games.video.playstation [ugvp])? If so, shouldn't this policy
form part of the charter? I know that in theory it is acceptible
to point out charter breaches in any newsgroup, but I've only
seen it applied and (almost) working in ugvp.

And if a certain standard post (shorter than the full charter)
is to be posted to charter-breachers, shouldn't its wording be
fixed by the charter?



> CHARTER:
> This group is for the discussion of the Sega Dreamcast system, games and
> peripherals.
>
> Reviews, hints, tips and cheats are welcome, however spoilers should be
> protected with appropriate spoiler space.

... or an indication of possible spoilers in the subject line.

> Long reviews or solutions may be
> better offered as a URL. Particular care should be taken with posts about
> games not yet officially released in the UK, so as not to spoil the game for
> UK readers.

Good.

> Discussions about piracy, "warez", "backups" or other such illegal


> activities are not allowed. Discussions about the morality and legality of
> such actions tend to become quickly inflammatory, and should be avoided.

I agree with other contributors that 'illegal' should be dropped.
`Discussions about piracy, copies of, and copying of software
(legal or otherwise) are not allowed' leaves no ambiguity.

I think it's important to also indicate why piracy/'backup' posts
are against the charter, ie because they are OF NO INTEREST to the
general readership but have a home in another group - not because
they are (or may be) immoral or illegal.

I think the Ex Cathedra, holier-than-thou charter posts in ugvp
enrage some people and lead to fruitless flame wars, where a
polite indication that such posts are appropriate in another group,
rather than this one, would avoid the antagonism. (FWIW, I oppose
piracy, mildly).

I'd be in favour of establishing a uk.games.video.dreamcast.forsale
and a uk.games.video.dreamcast.backups (since pirates invariably
call them backups) so there was a completely appropriate forum to
direct transgressors to. Unfortunately It might be hard to justify
them (particularly the latter) until the inevitable swamping of the
proposed group with inappropriate posts had been proven to occur.

In the meantime, such posts could be directed to an existing
group with no advertising/piracy qualms.

Maybe something like...
`This is not a judgement on the morality or legality of copying
games, for whatever purpose. However, this is a group for the
general discussion of dreamcast hardware and games, and posts
dealing with the sale or manufacture of copied software belong
on [blah.blah.blah]'.

I get almost as bored of chipping queries as I do of piracy posts
on ugvp, and I'd be happy to lose them, too. I know chips have the
(arguably) admirable and legitimate purpose of allowing imports
to be played, they just generate dull threads. Perhaps I'm being
Draconian.

> Advocacy of one console over another should be avoided in general, as it
> tends to lead to "system war" threads.
>
> ADVERTISING:
> Advertising (which includes wanted adverts and game trade lists) is
> forbidden, with these exceptions:
>
> Adverts of no more than four lines, which are part of the poster's regular
> signature, and which are not the main reason for the post, are allowed.

I'd prefer two lines max (and discourage *all* signatures longer
than two lines).



> Owners of web sites with information relevant to the Dreamcast in the UK may
> post, not more than once every 3 months, an advert for their site, providing
> that the site is not used to sell, nor advertise for sale, any goods or

> services. The site may contain "banner"-style adverts if it is beyond the


> control of the site's owner to remove them.
>

> BINARIES & FORMATTING:
> Encoded binaries (e.g. pictures, compressed files, etc.) are forbidden.
> Cryptographic signatures (e.g. PGP) may be used where authentication is
> important and should be as short as possible.
>
> Posts must be readable as plaintext. HTML, RTF and similarly formatted
> messages are prohibited. To see how to make your newsreader comply with
> this, read <http://www.usenet.org.uk/ukpost.html>

I wholeheartedly agree with all of that.

> WARNING:
> Anyone posting contrary to this charter may be reported to their
> "postmaster" and/or Service Provider.
>

Suggestions:

OFF-TOPIC:

Brief off-topic digressions generating from on-topic threads are
fine, but should be marked [OT] in the subject line. Where a
follow-up post no longer refers to the subject matter indicated
in the subject line, the subject line should be changed as
appropriate.

CROSS-POSTING:

Cross-posting a message to another newsgroup is discouraged.
Cross-posting to two or more other newsgroups is not permitted.

Thanks for putting in the effort, James (and others).

Barney.

James Sutherland

unread,
Aug 18, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/18/99
to
Barney Pitt <barne...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:37BAE3...@bigfoot.com...

> First off, are you proposing that designated persons will be
> responsible for periodically posting the charter (or part of it)
> in response to charter-breaching posts (a la
> uk.games.video.playstation [ugvp])? If so, shouldn't this policy
> form part of the charter?
> <snip>
>
No, I'm most definitely not, and even if I were, I don't think it should go
in a charter. Personally, I don't think that the charter posts in UGVP are
the right way to go, and in any case you can't possibly advocate spam in a
charter (whether the group likes it or not, they _are_ spam by the formal,
lose-your-account-for-doing-it definition). It amazes me that nobody's got
in trouble for doing it so far, to be honest.

If, once the group gets started, people wish to start pointing out charter
violations, then they are, of course, free to do so - discussing a group's
charter is AFAIK always considered on-topic.

<snip>


>
> I agree with other contributors that 'illegal' should be dropped.

Yup, already done.

> I think it's important to also indicate why piracy/'backup' posts
> are against the charter, ie because they are OF NO INTEREST to the
> general readership but have a home in another group - not because
> they are (or may be) immoral or illegal.

To my mind, that's FAQ information, rather that charter information. The
charter as it stands is too long to post very frequently in the group, so
I'd see it being posted together with the FAQ on possibly a weekly basis.
The FAQ can cover the rational behind the charter.

> I'd be in favour of establishing a uk.games.video.dreamcast.forsale
> and a uk.games.video.dreamcast.backups (since pirates invariably
> call them backups) so there was a completely appropriate forum to
> direct transgressors to. Unfortunately It might be hard to justify
> them (particularly the latter) until the inevitable swamping of the
> proposed group with inappropriate posts had been proven to occur.

Indeed. IMO, we should wait until it's necessary. I doubt we'd get a group
created until that time, anyway. As I've pointed out, though, if somebody
wants to propose sister groups, then they should feel free. I've no
interest in a .forsale group, so I wouldn't know where to start drafting a
charter. I think it would be inappropriate for me to get involved in the
creation of a .backup group.

> In the meantime, such posts could be directed to an existing
> group with no advertising/piracy qualms.
>

There's the alt. group already. I'm sure somebody could create an alt.UGVD
group, too - like with UGVP.

> I get almost as bored of chipping queries as I do of piracy posts
> on ugvp, and I'd be happy to lose them, too.
>

Difficult. Certainly, at first there's going to be a lot of geniune
interest in following the progress of import mods (none currently exist for
the DC). I know I'll be interested. Once it becomes common-place, though,
the discussions do get tedious. Again, I'd have thought that this is FAQ
info - if somebody can't be bothered to look for an answer in a FAQ, they
almost certainly won't have read the charter in any case.

> > Adverts of no more than four lines, which are part of the poster's
regular
> > signature, and which are not the main reason for the post, are allowed.
>
> I'd prefer two lines max (and discourage *all* signatures longer
> than two lines).
>

If you say 2 lines, though, you're potentially forcing people to change
their .sig before they can post in the group. Is 4 lines really that much?
I think long .sigs are implicitly discouraged by standard netiquette, in any
case.

> Suggestions:
>
> OFF-TOPIC:

See my reply to Joolz and Michael B (erm, once I've finished it, since this
is going to be posted first).

> CROSS-POSTING:
>
> Cross-posting a message to another newsgroup is discouraged.
> Cross-posting to two or more other newsgroups is not permitted.

Yes, cross-posting. I mentioned this earlier, then completely forgot it.
There definitely should be a no cross posting rule - I'll put it in the next
draft.

> Thanks for putting in the effort, James (and others).

S'OK.

James Sutherland

unread,
Aug 18, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/18/99
to
<<<<Joolz>>>> <j...@thebar.freewire.co.ukREMOVE> wrote in message
news:7pdoka$lkr$1...@starburst.uk.insnet.net...

> Another thing which came up in UGVP a while ago, was "Off Topic" threads.
> Now I don't propose that they be banned, as this would detract from the
> character of the newsgroup as a whole, but any off topic threads should
be
> marked as so in the subject line. Any comments?
>
Oh, my. This is a tricky one.

A charter defines what's on topic. In general, it does this by starting
with a broard subject (eg. Dreamcast hardware and games), then lopping bits
out of that subject until you get a set of topics which are, well, on-topic.

If we say in the charter "you can post off-topic stuff as long as you mark
it with OT: in the header", then what's to stop somebody posting "OT: pirate
games for sale"?

Now, you could try to make a distiction between off topic posts which are
off-topic by virtue of not being about the Dreamcast, and off-topic posts
which are off-topic by virtue of being one of the types of Dreamcast post
which is not allowed by the charter, but I'd find it hard to justify.
Really, logically, an advert for an online video game store is probably of
far more interest to the _general_ readership of the group than a post about
what some particular group member got up to at the pub last night.

Now obviously, threads naturally stray from their initial subject, and this
is perfectly normal and nothing to get upset about (and certainly nothing
that should be convered by a group's charter). To be honest, though, my own
opinion is that if a thread has gone so far off topic that you want to start
marking new posts with "OT:", then frankly it should be taken to email
anyway.

James Sutherland

unread,
Aug 18, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/18/99
to
Michael Bungey <sp...@saintmatt.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:G1j$wYAu1n...@saintmatt.demon.co.uk...

>
> How about also adding something to the charter such as
> "Rude and inflammatory posts are discouraged"?

I'd hope that goes without saying.

However, it seems from UGVP that it doesn't. There are frequently posts
there which are of an offensive or lewd nature. People need to remember, I
think, that young kids play video games, and are getting online more and
more. At the moment, UGVP isn't somewhere I'd feel comfortable recommending
to a child.

The issue, then, is how to deal with it. I'm not convinced that a charter
is the correct way. Firstly, it's going to be incredibly hard (short of
coming up with a list of offensive words) to clearly define a "rude" post.
Secondly, though, I think this is something best dealt with in the group by
discussions with offenders - having what would certainly be a weakly worded
section in the charter would, IMO, simply make such discussions harder in
the end.

Andy Mabbett

unread,
Aug 19, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/19/99
to
In article <G1j$wYAu1n...@saintmatt.demon.co.uk>, Michael Bungey
<sp...@saintmatt.demon.co.uk> writes

>How about also adding something to the charter such as
>"Rude and inflammatory posts are discouraged"?

Not only is "discouraged" pretty meaningless in a charter, but one
person's rude is another's frankness.

Someone will no doubt consider this a rude reply...

Barney Pitt

unread,
Aug 19, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/19/99