Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Another try: rec.boats ON-topic
There has been some additional discussion lately about the amount of
off-topic posting in this group. When I first approached this issue, I received about 12 emails from "lurkers", 4 from names I recognized, and 1 from a person I considered a "Regular". All these emails supported some control in rec.boats. The problem for me was that any change to the Usenet hierarchy, outside of "alt", requires a lengthy proposal, debate, and voting process. A lot of work. rec.boats is one of the oldest "living" groups in Usenet. The unofficial FAQ is probably one of the best collections of sailing information to be found online. The problem enters in because the founders of this group had no idea that Usenet (newsgroups) could, and would, become battlegrounds. From reading years of the original posts, I can tell you that there was little controversy (check it yourself, with Google) about the focus of the group. I can also say, with confidence, that there was no intention to incorporate political or offensive posts into this group. I view the founders of this group with respect, but they made a mistake. There is no "newgroup" message, and no "official" FAQ. That far back, I'm sure that they didn't see this as "necessary". Today, an FAQ is "necessary', and IMO, some basic ground rules will help this group survive as a "boating" group. What those rules are, and what the FAQ says, are entirely up to you, and "us".. More importantly, they will not exist without you, and "us". I invite every person who visits this group to express their opinion. If you disagree with me, tell me. If you are trolling, go away for a while. I'll be happy to butt heads later. If you agree, or disagree, then please say so. An FAQ will not exist without user support. rec.boats.lounge (or "community", yuck) will not exist without support. And you can't dump the OT without an FAQ. Had fish for dinner, deep fried, with corn meal and spices, ) Regards, noah To email me, remove the "OT-" from wrecked.ot-boats.noah. ....as you were. ) |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Another try: rec.boats ON-topic
noah wrote:
There has been some additional discussion lately about the amount of off-topic posting in this group. When I first approached this issue, I received about 12 emails from "lurkers", 4 from names I recognized, and 1 from a person I considered a "Regular". All these emails supported some control in rec.boats. The problem for me was that any change to the Usenet hierarchy, outside of "alt", requires a lengthy proposal, debate, and voting process. A lot of work. rec.boats is one of the oldest "living" groups in Usenet. The unofficial FAQ is probably one of the best collections of sailing information to be found online. The problem enters in because the founders of this group had no idea that Usenet (newsgroups) could, and would, become battlegrounds. From reading years of the original posts, I can tell you that there was little controversy (check it yourself, with Google) about the focus of the group. I can also say, with confidence, that there was no intention to incorporate political or offensive posts into this group. I view the founders of this group with respect, but they made a mistake. There is no "newgroup" message, and no "official" FAQ. That far back, I'm sure that they didn't see this as "necessary". Today, an FAQ is "necessary', and IMO, some basic ground rules will help this group survive as a "boating" group. What those rules are, and what the FAQ says, are entirely up to you, and "us".. More importantly, they will not exist without you, and "us". I invite every person who visits this group to express their opinion. If you disagree with me, tell me. If you are trolling, go away for a while. I'll be happy to butt heads later. If you agree, or disagree, then please say so. An FAQ will not exist without user support. rec.boats.lounge (or "community", yuck) will not exist without support. And you can't dump the OT without an FAQ. Had fish for dinner, deep fried, with corn meal and spices, ) Regards, noah To email me, remove the "OT-" from wrecked.ot-boats.noah. ...as you were. ) If it's a vote thing Noah?? can you mark me down as a nay. I agree the OT stuff is a pain & I've been as guilty as anyone at times, same with the abuse I'm a bit ashamed to admit. Trouble is most of us have looked at other groups, the so called moderated groups & they're just not acceptable. I'm sure the players would argue, but for me anyway they're just commercial sites, of course if people disagree they can always go join them as some have. However they mostly come back, unless they were just spammers here anyway (which a few were). Nothing is for nothing & if putting up with a few total dipsticks, OT posts & a nasty liar or two is the price I pay for rec.boats it's cheap enough, particularly when I know they have to pay their price in putting up with the likes of me:-) K |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Another try: rec.boats ON-topic
On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 00:17:16 +1100, K Smith wrote:
noah wrote: There has been some additional discussion lately about the amount of off-topic posting in this group. When I first approached this issue, I received about 12 emails from "lurkers", 4 from names I recognized, and 1 from a person I considered a "Regular". All these emails supported some control in rec.boats. The problem for me was that any change to the Usenet hierarchy, outside of "alt", requires a lengthy proposal, debate, and voting process. A lot of work. rec.boats is one of the oldest "living" groups in Usenet. The unofficial FAQ is probably one of the best collections of sailing information to be found online. The problem enters in because the founders of this group had no idea that Usenet (newsgroups) could, and would, become battlegrounds. From reading years of the original posts, I can tell you that there was little controversy (check it yourself, with Google) about the focus of the group. I can also say, with confidence, that there was no intention to incorporate political or offensive posts into this group. I view the founders of this group with respect, but they made a mistake. There is no "newgroup" message, and no "official" FAQ. That far back, I'm sure that they didn't see this as "necessary". Today, an FAQ is "necessary', and IMO, some basic ground rules will help this group survive as a "boating" group. What those rules are, and what the FAQ says, are entirely up to you, and "us".. More importantly, they will not exist without you, and "us". I invite every person who visits this group to express their opinion. If you disagree with me, tell me. If you are trolling, go away for a while. I'll be happy to butt heads later. If you agree, or disagree, then please say so. An FAQ will not exist without user support. rec.boats.lounge (or "community", yuck) will not exist without support. And you can't dump the OT without an FAQ. Had fish for dinner, deep fried, with corn meal and spices, ) Regards, noah To email me, remove the "OT-" from wrecked.ot-boats.noah. ...as you were. ) If it's a vote thing Noah?? can you mark me down as a nay. I agree the OT stuff is a pain & I've been as guilty as anyone at times, same with the abuse I'm a bit ashamed to admit. Trouble is most of us have looked at other groups, the so called moderated groups & they're just not acceptable. I'm sure the players would argue, but for me anyway they're just commercial sites, of course if people disagree they can always go join them as some have. However they mostly come back, unless they were just spammers here anyway (which a few were). Nothing is for nothing & if putting up with a few total dipsticks, OT posts & a nasty liar or two is the price I pay for rec.boats it's cheap enough, particularly when I know they have to pay their price in putting up with the likes of me:-) K K, thanks for the reply. I have no interest in "moderation". The posters to this group should feel free to speak their minds, and suffer the consequences of their ignorance. ) (just kidding, people). What concerns me is the volume of political posting which has nothing to do with boating. I do enjoy an intelligent argument, and there are appropriate groups for any argument conceivable. Why tear his group up with vehemence, egos, and bad manners when there are other places to do this? Regards, noah To email me, remove the "OT-" from wrecked.ot-boats.noah. ....as you were. ) |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Another try: rec.boats ON-topic
On 7 Nov 2003 02:57:06 -0600, noah
wrote: There has been some additional discussion lately about the amount of off-topic posting in this group. When I first approached this issue, I received about 12 emails from "lurkers", 4 from names I recognized, and 1 from a person I considered a "Regular". All these emails supported some control in rec.boats. I'll try another suggestion here. How about a group, within the group, that agree to abide by some rules of decency? OT posts are not the problem, but the behavior that follows. Obviously, most here enjoy talking about things other than boats, but most don't enjoy the venom in those posts. If there was a group within the group that agreed to abide by some code of conduct, and agreed to ignore the fringe group that's only here to stir things up, it might at least reduce the noise to ideas ratio. Just a few simple rules, like no personal attacks, refrain from blanket condemnation of "the other side", minimize profanity. I don't know for sure, but it seems like just a few changes in the conduct of debates would help a whole lot. Certainly there are many intelligent, thoughtful people on the group who can rationally debate without the need for the petty bickering. The few who like to do nothing more than flame away will die off if they are ignored. Anyway, just a thought. You never know, it might have some value. I've seen it work in another venue. If it goes any farther, I'll leave it up to noah to police. bb |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Another try: rec.boats ON-topic
On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 13:05:59 GMT, bb wrote:
On 7 Nov 2003 02:57:06 -0600, noah wrote: There has been some additional discussion lately about the amount of off-topic posting in this group. When I first approached this issue, I received about 12 emails from "lurkers", 4 from names I recognized, and 1 from a person I considered a "Regular". All these emails supported some control in rec.boats. I'll try another suggestion here. How about a group, within the group, that agree to abide by some rules of decency? OT posts are not the problem, but the behavior that follows. Obviously, most here enjoy talking about things other than boats, but most don't enjoy the venom in those posts. Kin I git a AMEN! PREACH it, brother! If there was a group within the group that agreed to abide by some code of conduct, and agreed to ignore the fringe group that's only here to stir things up, it might at least reduce the noise to ideas ratio. You are indeed a wise man. Joe Parsons Just a few simple rules, like no personal attacks, refrain from blanket condemnation of "the other side", minimize profanity. I don't know for sure, but it seems like just a few changes in the conduct of debates would help a whole lot. Certainly there are many intelligent, thoughtful people on the group who can rationally debate without the need for the petty bickering. The few who like to do nothing more than flame away will die off if they are ignored. Anyway, just a thought. You never know, it might have some value. I've seen it work in another venue. If it goes any farther, I'll leave it up to noah to police. bb |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Another try: rec.boats ON-topic
On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 06:25:07 GMT, Joe Parsons
wrote: On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 13:05:59 GMT, bb wrote: On 7 Nov 2003 02:57:06 -0600, noah wrote: There has been some additional discussion lately about the amount of off-topic posting in this group. When I first approached this issue, I received about 12 emails from "lurkers", 4 from names I recognized, and 1 from a person I considered a "Regular". All these emails supported some control in rec.boats. I'll try another suggestion here. How about a group, within the group, that agree to abide by some rules of decency? OT posts are not the problem, but the behavior that follows. Obviously, most here enjoy talking about things other than boats, but most don't enjoy the venom in those posts. Kin I git a AMEN! PREACH it, brother! If there was a group within the group that agreed to abide by some code of conduct, and agreed to ignore the fringe group that's only here to stir things up, it might at least reduce the noise to ideas ratio. You are indeed a wise man. Joe Parsons Just a few simple rules, like no personal attacks, refrain from blanket condemnation of "the other side", minimize profanity. I don't know for sure, but it seems like just a few changes in the conduct of debates would help a whole lot. Certainly there are many intelligent, thoughtful people on the group who can rationally debate without the need for the petty bickering. The few who like to do nothing more than flame away will die off if they are ignored. Anyway, just a thought. You never know, it might have some value. I've seen it work in another venue. If it goes any farther, I'll leave it up to noah to police. bb Joe, I *think* by now that you know that I listen to your opinion. The problem comes in when some people take the postings and topics way off from "rec.boats", and way off from civil discussion. I have no desire to "police" rec.boats, and I admit enjoying discussions that waver from "boating" from time to time, but there is a lot of political nonsense and bashing here. I submit to you that it does not belong here. Regards, noah To email me, remove the "OT-" from wrecked.ot-boats.noah. ....as you were. ) |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Another try: rec.boats ON-topic
On 14 Nov 2003 19:53:09 -0600, noah wrote:
[snip] Joe, I *think* by now that you know that I listen to your opinion. The problem comes in when some people take the postings and topics way off from "rec.boats", and way off from civil discussion. I have no desire to "police" rec.boats, and I admit enjoying discussions that waver from "boating" from time to time, but there is a lot of political nonsense and bashing here. I submit to you that it does not belong here. No argument there! It is a *very* small number of people who instigate these kinds of rancorous threads, but then there's a sort of "pile-on" mentality once the discussion gets up a head of steam. One thing that could help at least a bit is when one of these kinds of threads accidentally veers back into some "boaty" area, those who followup should edit their subject line to reflect the change. This will give at least the appearance that there are a few discussions here that are other than highly unpleasant personal attacks and insults. Joe Parsons |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Another try: rec.boats ON-topic
On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 13:05:59 GMT, bb wrote:
On 7 Nov 2003 02:57:06 -0600, noah wrote: There has been some additional discussion lately about the amount of off-topic posting in this group. When I first approached this issue, I received about 12 emails from "lurkers", 4 from names I recognized, and 1 from a person I considered a "Regular". All these emails supported some control in rec.boats. I'll try another suggestion here. How about a group, within the group, that agree to abide by some rules of decency? OT posts are not the problem, but the behavior that follows. Obviously, most here enjoy talking about things other than boats, but most don't enjoy the venom in those posts. If there was a group within the group that agreed to abide by some code of conduct, and agreed to ignore the fringe group that's only here to stir things up, it might at least reduce the noise to ideas ratio. Just a few simple rules, like no personal attacks, refrain from blanket condemnation of "the other side", minimize profanity. I don't know for sure, but it seems like just a few changes in the conduct of debates would help a whole lot. Certainly there are many intelligent, thoughtful people on the group who can rationally debate without the need for the petty bickering. The few who like to do nothing more than flame away will die off if they are ignored. Anyway, just a thought. You never know, it might have some value. I've seen it work in another venue. If it goes any farther, I'll leave it up to noah to police. bb bb, What you descscribe can be accomplished through a "new", officially adopted, FAQ. It does require a submission to the "powers that be", and a vote. I do love this group, but I do not want to be "police". My opinion is no better than anyone else's. It would be good, in my opinion, if the group controlled itself. Regards, noah To email me, remove the "OT-" from wrecked.ot-boats.noah. ....as you were. ) |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Another try: rec.boats ON-topic
I think an FAQ or charter is a good idea. Here is a google link to the
can.rec.boating newsgroup charter. http://www.google.ca/groups?q=group:...0ncf.ca&rnum=2 There are hundreds or possibly thousands of politics newsgroups both moderated and unmoderated for these guys to move to so I don't see the need for the creation of something new. If you feel like doing it and have the time/energy then fill your boots although they're probably perfectly capable of doing that if they want it. Policing the group then becomes easy because with a charter a serial OT poster can get reported to his ISP's abuse@ address and have his connection yanked. As for the thought that this OT stuff is like dockside chatter I have to admit that I haven't seen any bickering or name calling in my marina. Conversational topics usually remain away from charged topics and when it inadvertently strays there the conversation shifts, seemingly without effort, to safe waters. So I can't say that I see the OT stuff as being like dockside chatter. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Another try: rec.boats ON-topic
On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 14:14:57 GMT, "Paul" wrote:
I think an FAQ or charter is a good idea. Here is a google link to the can.rec.boating newsgroup charter. http://www.google.ca/groups?q=group:...0ncf.ca&rnum=2 There are hundreds or possibly thousands of politics newsgroups both moderated and unmoderated for these guys to move to so I don't see the need for the creation of something new. If you feel like doing it and have the time/energy then fill your boots although they're probably perfectly capable of doing that if they want it. Policing the group then becomes easy because with a charter a serial OT poster can get reported to his ISP's abuse@ address and have his connection yanked. Hate to burst your bubble, but ISPs are in general quite uninterested in Usenet abuse--for that matter, they are quite uninterested in Usenet in general. And in the unlikely some miscreant *did* get TOSed off by his ISP, there's always Teranews and Altopia, who really don't give a rat's ass about newsgroup charters, FAQs, topicality or appropriateness. Hear me now, believe me later. It's true. I've been through it. As for the thought that this OT stuff is like dockside chatter I have to admit that I haven't seen any bickering or name calling in my marina. Gee. Why do you suppose that is? Conversational topics usually remain away from charged topics and when it inadvertently strays there the conversation shifts, seemingly without effort, to safe waters. Amazing, isn't it? Joe Parsons So I can't say that I see the OT stuff as being like dockside chatter. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
The truth about the Off Topic Posts | General | |||
Obit: rec.boats | General | |||
the boats of rec.boats - site update | General | |||
On-Topic: rec.boats FAQ | General | |||
Virus Alert- email from rec.boats | General |