faigin@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Daniel Faigin) (06/27/85)
[look three times before you jump into the fray]
It looks like, from the discussion I have read, that net.flame
has gotten out of control. It destroys reputations, creates
useless traffic, and opens the net up to libel.
Question: Why do flames have to be worldwide. Why do they have to
be distributed at all. The purpose of net.flame is to get
aggression "off of your chest", e.g., to release steam. This can
be done locally just fine.
Proposal: A newsgroup for flaming is appropriate. However, it
should not be distributed. Therefore, what I propose is that
net.flame be removed and replaced at each site by a site local
"flame" newsgroup. If certain sites want such a newsgroup but
cannot afford the storage, allow people to post the flames but
send them immediately to /dev/null. After all, it is the action
of posting the flame that is effective, not necessarily the
responses to it.
Daniel
--
UUCP: {akgua allegra ihnp4 hplabs sdcsvax trwrb cbosgd}!sdcrdcf!faigin
ARPA: sdcrdcf!faigin@UCLA-LOCUS.ARPA --or-- sdcrdcf!faigin@LOCUS.UCLA.EDU
W: SDC, 2500 Colorado MD 52-46; Santa Monica CA 90406; (213) 820-4111 x6493
H: 11743 Darlington Avenue #9; Los Angeles CA 90049; (213) 826-3357
Don't have good ideas if you aren't willing to be responsible for them.
-- A. J. Perlis, SIGPLAN 17:9 Sept 1982lauren@vortex.UUCP (Lauren Weinstein) (06/29/85)
Gee, wanna take a guess as to how I feel about removing net.flame? Bets in place? OK... While the decision to carry any particular groups (based on questions of cost, disk space, legal liabilities, etc.) must rest with the administrators of each particular system, I personally feel that net.flame serves a very useful purpose in an unmoderated network environment. If most other groups were moderated, we wouldn't have to worry about the junk from net.flame spilling into other groups--but they aren't and it will. Net.flame serves a very useful function--sort of like a septic tank much of the time. Few people are big fans of septic tanks, but unless you've got some alternative they tend to be useful for many homeowners. I won't even attempt to address any possible liability questions regarding net.flame. But I would submit that widespread deletion of that group would result in widespread contamination of other groups by equally "tasteful" material of a similar nature. This would intensify as the net continues to drastically grow. Remember that a single person can cause immense net disruption if they really want to--and eventually, just in normal course of things, we'll have more and more people around who primarily want to flame. If we block off the septic tank, we'll find all sorts of fun stuff backing up into the other groups. Then what? Will people start calling for the turning off of other groups since they also have become "offensive" as a result? Net.flame certainly isn't a substitute for even low level moderation. Eventually (fairly soon) net traffic volumes will be so high that no group could possibly divert off all the flames. But to the extent that people are interested in seeing the net continue to function in the short term, I recommend that people consider very carefully the results of taking away the flamers' podium in the absence of moderation on most other groups. --Lauren--
howard@cyb-eng.UUCP (Howard Johnson) (07/05/85)
My guess that you would not support removing net.flame was correct (and I agree with your reasons). As the system administrator of a site which feeds four other sites (two are partial feeds because they have limited disk space), I just pass on whatever "news" I get. But after an informal poll of our news readers (and none of them subscribe to net.flame), I just expire certain less valuable newsgroups sooner than the others. -- ..!ut-sally!cyb-eng!howard or cyb-eng!howard@ut-sally.ARPA
sophie@mnetor.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (07/10/85)
I don't know if this conversation has died a natural death yet or not.
I was away on holidays, so I haven't caught up yet, but I want to state
my opinion anyway (since I am one of the supposedly libelled, it might
be relevant).
1 - offense is in the eyes of the beholder. I was much less offended
by net.flamers using 4-letter words to describe some of my personnal
parts (sticks and stones...) than by some of the serious (!?) comments
other people have made about women in other newsgroups such as
net.women. As a matter of fact, I was amused by the idea of a
"squat-in" for me and Jeannette. I would be lying if I said I enjoyed
those yukky words that Scott (or Alex, can't remember) used to describe
female bodily parts, but I though they revealed more about their
authors than about me. Hey, these guys can't even make a good joke or
flame without resorting to obscenity! besides, it was pretty obvious
from the language used that these guys didn't even know what they were
talking about.....
Now there is some stuff that is really VERY hard to take, such as the
discussion on rape and women's clothing that was going on for a while
in net.women. That's real stuff!! That is very PAINFUL to take if you
are a woman, much more painful than some silly pee-pee-ca-ca-cucumber
discussion. Yet I heard very few censorship cries when that discussion
was going on. There were women on the net who had been raped and who
read that discussion. I can't imagine how much it would have hurt them
to hear all those same stupid sexist nasty arguments again and again.
It hurt me and I haven't been raped. Yet this discussion went on and
on and on.... no net-wide discussion of whether this should be stopped
or the system administrators of those people called, even though it
hurt so much. I am not suggesting that such a discussion can be stopped
or that even that it should be stopped; it probably shouldn't:
hopefully something was learned by it. All I am saying is that the most
obviously offensive postings are not necessarily the most harmful.
2 - Volume:
Well, I haven't caught up yet on net.flame and I was only gone for 2
weeks but I did notice something very interesting: how much complaining
was done about the size of trash. Seriously guys, scott's and alex's
"contributions" were nothing in volume compared to what you generated
to reprimand them and lecture them (and us) on how costly this all is.
Chuq, I usually agree with you, but did you need multiple messages of
150+ lines to express your opinion on wasting space and courtesy?
To be perfectly honest, I find this quite suspect.
Not that I can't understand the argument behind cutting net.flame
because of cost. I don't think people should pay for something they
don't want (please, please, let's not start a discussion on income
tax here), but I don't see why this should result in a usenet-wide
censorship of certain newsgroups. Each site is probably quite capable
of deciding what they can afford.
3 - Most importantly, I don't think removing net.flame will work.
Lauren and others made the point about flames spilling into other
newsgroups very well so I won't repeat it. On the net, I don't think
that censorship works very well when it comes to shutting people up.
Ranting and raving doesn't work either (I learned that from my
pre-palsy-walsy days with Ken Arndt). The best two ways I have found
so far to deal with offensive postings are to either ignore them
completely or turn them into a joke.
4 - So, if it isn't clear by now, I vote to keep net.flame.
'nough said..
--
Sophie Quigley
{allegra|decvax|ihnp4|linus|watmath}!utzoo!mnetor!sophiegreenber@timeinc.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) (07/12/85)
In article <1256@mnetor.UUCP> sophie@mnetor.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) writes: > >Now there is some stuff that is really VERY hard to take, such as the >discussion on rape and women's clothing that was going on for a while >in net.women. That's real stuff!! That is very PAINFUL to take if you >are a woman, much more painful than some silly pee-pee-ca-ca-cucumber >discussion. Yet I heard very few censorship cries when that discussion >was going on. There were women on the net who had been raped and who >read that discussion. I can't imagine how much it would have hurt them >to hear all those same stupid sexist nasty arguments again and again. >It hurt me and I haven't been raped. Yet this discussion went on and >on and on.... no net-wide discussion of whether this should be stopped >or the system administrators of those people called, even though it >hurt so much. I am not suggesting that such a discussion can be stopped >or that even that it should be stopped; it probably shouldn't: >hopefully something was learned by it. All I am saying is that the most >obviously offensive postings are not necessarily the most harmful. > The major point here (I think) was that old idea of social redeemability. The postings that caused this whole mess regarding net.flame really weren't very important, these postings were rude and offended many people. The discussion regarding women's clothing and rape was actually quite enlightening: it illustrated some of the differences between some women's opinions and some men's. Calling for censorship on something that *you* are uncomfortable with is pretty dumb, I feel. And calling what was felt by many to be legitimate issues "stupid sexist nasty arguments" doesn't help here. So you disagreed with certain viewpoints. That's is no reason to call for censorship, is it? And no reason to label it with silly terms that haven't been proven nor justified. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------ Ross M. Greenberg @ Time Inc, New York --------->{ihnp4 | vax135}!timeinc!greenber<--------- I highly doubt that Time Inc. they would make me their spokesperson.