kenr@aat.UUCP (12/14/83)
Although I enjoyed debenedi's paper, I disagree with the conclusion. His USENET paper, if you'll remember, concludes with the thought that the net "is particularly well-suited for resolving conflicts among groups." This is undermined somewhat, as he continues: "One problem with USENET is that no one knows when a decision has been reached." I disagree with the first assertion because I believe the second. How well suited can USENET be for conflict resolution if nobody knows when a decision is reached? I don't believe that much is ever really resolved on the net. Certainly everyone gets a chance to speak, but a consensus is seldom if *ever* achieved; most discussions end because the point has become moot, or because enough participants feel that the argument is futile and thus become interested in something else. Newsgroup creation arguments frequently become moot, for example, because some news administrator somewhere creates the newsgroup after tiring of the discussion. Other topics die because newer, more interesting topics take their place. The life of "net.motss" is a prime example of both phenomena. Discussion raged for weeks about whether or not the newsgroup should be formed, then the newsgroup appeared as if by magic, along with a note that said words to the effect that "net.motss" was created, please discuss related topics there, stop cluttering this newsgroup. Within the new newsgroup, boors cast aspersions, and the rest of us either replied or watched. Eventually the discussion wound down; there hasn't been traffic in "net.motss" in weeks. There was no resolution. We just talked about something else. The only conclusion that I come to with respect to USENET is that we are all bored, and, ultimately, we don't really care what happens to a discussion if something more interesting pops up. That's the way I am, that's the way we all are. Now let's talk about something else. Later, Ken Rhodes decvax!cbosg!cbosgd!aat!kenr
debenedi@yale-com.UUCP (Robert DeBenedictis) (12/17/83)
* With regards to my conclusion that the net is good at resolving group conflicts: I don't hold to this as closely as my paper does. Papers have to have conclusions with semi-broad generalizations or they're not good. HOWEVER, I do have a great optimism for this means of communication. (This comes from having read The Network Nation by Hiltz and Turoff.) And I *do* think the net is good for group decision making *even if* no one knows when a decision has been reached. (Maybe) a big problem with group decisions is just giving people the opportunity to add their two-cents worth. (Maybe) people don't really care about the outcome of things as much as they think they do. I'm not *really* disagreeing with Ken Rhodes, I like the way he writes and thinks (particularly a recent article of his to net.singles). I ackmowledge that my conclusion is not THAT valid, but I think it is somewhat valid. Now, on to some other things Ken Rhodes said in his article (aat.215): Discussion raged for weeks about whether or not the newsgroup [net.motss -RD] should be formed, then the newsgroup appeared as if by magic, along with a note that said words to the effect that "net.motss" was created, please discuss related topics there, stop cluttering this newsgroup. I just want to point out that it the group was NOT created by magic, it was AS IF by magic. According to Steve Dyer (wivax.19017): Although it finally appeared "without warning" to the net at large, its appearance actually was the culmination of roughly a week of private (UUCP mail) discussion and coordination among several of the original proponents of the newsgroup, together with Mark Horton in his role as unofficial USENETmeister. After a consensus (of sorts) was reached, I created the news group. Ken also said: Eventually the discussion wound down; there hasn't been traffic in "net.motss" in weeks. I don't know about YOUR machine but I just did an ls -l of the net.motss directory (yes, we run an outdated version of news) and got the following: 9 Dec 2 14:52 2 Dec 14 12:52 2 Dec 3 00:08 2 Dec 14 13:49 7 Dec 3 01:42 5 Dec 14 16:48 9 Dec 5 15:33 2 Dec 15 01:58 2 Dec 6 12:28 2 Dec 15 02:07 2 Dec 7 01:36 5 Dec 15 14:28 7 Dec 7 10:40 5 Dec 16 09:10 1 Dec 10 02:47 3 Dec 16 09:15 7 Dec 10 23:37 5 Dec 16 12:19 2 Dec 13 11:36 13 Dec 16 17:33 The first number is the number of Blocks (512 bytes), the other stuff is the date. We've recieved 20 articles over the past two weeks. Maybe someone is cutting off net.motss news to your site. Ken concludes: The only conclusion that I come to with respect to USENET is that we are all bored, and, ultimately, we don't really care what happens to a discussion if something more interesting pops up. That's the way I am, that's the way we all are. Now let's talk about something else. I agree. USENET is a leisure time activity. But there are worse ways to waste your time. USENET is FUN, it is NOVEL. It's the first thing like it that I ever came across. It's still new, it's still evovling. I find a freshness and excitement in this medium that I don't find in most TV or books. Sure, someday I may decide that it's artificial and alienating and that only someone who's incredibly bored would ever choose to deal with others in such a medium. That day hasn't come yet. Power to those who can come up with "something more interesting." "Now, We're Never Alone" Another Message In The Bottle from Robert DeBenedictis