chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach) (06/26/85)
[This starts out as a flame, then degenerates into something resembling coherent thought. Future followups of this article will go to net.news only, in the hope that people will talk about the issue instead of foam at the mouth] In article <266@timeinc.UUCP> greenber@timeinc.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) writes: >Is anyone else offended at the idea of a site administrator taking it >upon themselves to pull the plug on a popular newsgroup, such as net.flame? Oh, probably. But they also don't pay the phone bills. >I wouldn't presume to try to run his site, but would he be offended if >all of his neighboring sites refused to pass his mail? Or his news articles? It sounds like you ARE presuming to run my site. Why is it the anarchy of Usenet runs so well until someone tries to do something that you don't agree with? Everyone is so interested in in their right to have their article posted to every machine in the bloody universe that they seem to have forgotten that it is no more than a priviledge given to them because they are part of a cooperative information exchange. >I feel that a SA should only control their machine. They shouldn't >try to control what *I* read. I'll translate this -- an SA can do anything he wants, as long as he doesn't do anything. Bullshit. [A short, romantic interlude, where chuqui goes out of the room long enough to find his nice, quiet, sane voice. This is, it seems, the end of the flame] Let me make three points, and then expound from there: o Usenet is not a right, it is a priviledge. o Usenet exists because a group of systems got together and cooperated on developing the programs and share information with each other. o Usenet is an anarchy. Too many people out there have forgotten these facts. You have NO RIGHT to my system. I allow you access to it because it is to my advantage. As a source of technical information, Usenet is second to none. Since National is in the Unix[TM AT&T Bell Laboratories] business, it helps us build better products. Because of this, it is worth a certain amount of money (CPU, disk, personnel, and phone costs) each month. Parts of it are also considered useful by people here for personal reasons, and so as a perq it is worth more money every month. National also gets added visibility in the technical and Unix markets and so as a PR, marketing, or recruitment vehicle it is worth more money. The amount it is worth, however, is not infinite. When Scott and Alex and the UCLA slime-crawlers association started off in net.flame, I decided that I'd had enough. Rather than be arbitrary, I checked with the people here on nsc that read news, and I checked with the SA's downstream of me and asked them to check with their readers. I haven't found a single person on any of these sites who was willing to go with me to my boss and help me justify the continued existence of net.flame. I haven't asked them to do so, mind you, just be willing to do so, since I am no longer willing to justify the existence of that group myself. Now, if nobody on my site cares enough about that group to say so, and nobody at any of the sites downstream care enough to say so, then WHY AM I PAYING FOR IT? I can't justify it for its technical merit. I can't justify it as a perq to my readers. I can't justify its PR value [in fact, most of the stuff posted to net.flame makes the people in it and the companies they work for by reference look rather silly, at best, so it has a NEGATIVE PR value] and I can't justify it as part of my responsibility to my downstream sites. Why, then, should I continue to carry it? Because some college age mongoloid feels it is his right to post legally questionable material to the net? So far, I've put a lot of work into being fascist and arbitrary. I could save myself a lot of time and a lot of mailbox misery by simply pulling the plug on this stuff, but I was silly enough to try to do it right. The bottom line is that I can do anything I want on this site, because Usenet IS an anarchy. Many places have -- the problems with getting stuff through net.sources.games is a good example, as well as the recent (and very quiet) loss of net.flame at Tektronix. My bottom line is that I want to do what I can to improve the network in a coordinated way. Failing that, if I can no longer tolerate the state of the network, I will do what I can to improve the network in my little corner of the world. I've worked pretty hard to keep nsc a clean system. I'd probably listen to the right/responsibility arguments a little more if the rest of the network tried a little harder. We're still plagued by line-eaters, by braindamaged notes, by ancient news, by black holes and by all those sites that don't put in enough time to keep their systems running reliably. If I have a responsibility to them, then they have just as strong a responsibility to me to keep their end up, and I feel that many sites on the net have failed to hold up their end at all. There are many sites that don't hold up their end of the costs of transmitting news, allowing backbones and other larger sites to pay their share of the phone bill as well. There are many, many sites that don't care enough to try to keep their users in line. If I have a responsibility to carry your messages, you have a responsibility to act like an intelligent human being and not abuse that responsibility. Many people, and I won't mention any names except the people at ucla-cs, have abused that responsibility by saying things that are legally questionable. These legally questionable postings might not only make them and their site liable, but also my site for passing them along (there was a discussion of this at the Dallas Usenix). What this all comes down to, in reality, is dealing with rogue posters -- the idiots who refuse to cooperate with the rest of the network and whose only purpose is to use the net as a toy to get their jollies. There are, as I see it, three ways of dealing with these rogues: 1) Do nothing -- This is the Usenet credo. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. If you ignore it long enough you'll stop noticing it (it won't go away). Well, I can't ignore it anymore, it has become overwhelming. 2) Yell at someone. First, you yell at the user. If they screwed up out of ignorance, this tends to work. If they are rogues, this is what they want, and they enjoy watching you turn red in the face and go through apoplexy. [case in point -- the apologies (and I use that term VERY loosely) from Scott and Alex that were almost as irritating as the original articles] You can yell at the SA, but that means you are dependent upon the SA to do what they should do, and get their people to act like they are housebroken. It has also been pointed out (in large red letters, mostly) that talking to an 'authority' at the site might cause problems for the offenders employment and school standing. My opinion is that they should have thought of that in the first place, but it DOES mean I don't use this option thoughtlessly. If someone pisses on the white house lawn, then their company will probably wonder about them. If someone is pissing on MY lawn, especially when they are on company time, they why should it be different? However, since people don't think that idiots should be held responsible for their actions, this isn't a popular choice to make. Just ask my mailbox. 3) Protect yourself. This can take many forms. Removing the offending newsgroups (net.flame) is one. Patching software to reject articles from sites (such as Orphaned responses) or people that refuse to cooperate with the usenet community is another. This is something you CAN do, because it is under your control. Of course, this is fascist, and therefore illegal in this anarchy called Usenet. I'd rather not have to use this option, but if (1) is no longer tolerable and (2) doesn't work, what choice do I have? I'm looking at ways to implement (3). Initially it'll be by getting rid of net.flame in my feed, but I have decided that I need better protection from the rogue sites and the rogue users on the net. Responsibility is a nice word, but only as long as everyone holds to it. There are sites and users out there who aren't, and I now find myself in a position where I feel I have to defend myself from them. I don't think I'm alone in this, just silly enough to go public with it. I've been looking for ways to get the net as an entity do work at fixing some of these problems, and simply haven't found any solutions that could be agree upon (see (1) above). I don't feel like I can wait anymore. In some way, I have to thank the people at ucla, because they finally pushed me over the edge and got me to do what I've been trying to avoid for about a year... -- :From the misfiring synapses of: Chuq Von Rospach {cbosgd,fortune,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo}!nsc!chuqui nsc!chuqui@decwrl.ARPA The offices were very nice, and the clients were only raping the land, and then, of course, there was the money...
phil@amdcad.UUCP (Phil Ngai) (06/27/85)
In article <2908@nsc.UUCP> chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: >In article <266@timeinc.UUCP> greenber@timeinc.UUCP writes: >>Is anyone else offended at the idea of a site administrator taking it >>upon themselves to pull the plug on a popular newsgroup, such as net.flame? > > There are sites and users >out there who aren't (responsible), and I now find myself in a position >where I feel I >have to defend myself from them. I don't think I'm alone in this, just >silly enough to go public with it. I've been looking for ways to get the >net as an entity do work at fixing some of these problems, and simply >haven't found any solutions that could be agree upon (see (1) above). I >don't feel like I can wait anymore. In some way, I have to thank the people >at ucla, because they finally pushed me over the edge and got me to do what >I've been trying to avoid for about a year... I like net.flame (when I want to read something mindless) but I think it has gotten out of control. If the newsgroup continues to consist of primarily personal (and very offensive) attacks on other net posters and juvenile attempts to break the system by screwing with Followup-To lines, then I'd have to side with Chuq. (by the way, it's privilege, not priviledge) -- Just another facist system administrator. Phil Ngai (408) 749-5720 UUCP: {ucbvax,decwrl,ihnp4,allegra}!amdcad!phil ARPA: amdcad!phil@decwrl.ARPA
campbell@maynard.UUCP (Larry Campbell) (06/27/85)
Chuq, I'm surprised you got flamed at so much for suggesting that
system administrators be notified about rogue posters. This followup
is my attempt to explain why rogue posters should be exposed, even at
the cost of official sanctions from their employer or university.
Usenet isn't a video game, it's a community. A community is composed
of people -- real live people, with feelings that get hurt and
sensibilities that get offended. In this sense Usenet is a microcosm
of any of the other communities you might belong to -- your school,
company, town, neighborhood, country, or world.
All communities impose certain restrictions on behavior, in order to
make life more pleasant (or at least bearable) for their members.
Communities also impose sanctions (ostracism, firing, jail) on those
who willfully or repeatedly flout these sanctions. Imposing a
sanction does not make someone a fascist.
These sanctions are not revenge, they are education (or should be). If
a rogue poster is put on academic suspension as a result of a flame
being called to the attention of their system administrator, GREAT!
Not because I'm vengeful, but because it just might teach them a
little bit of consideration. Perhaps they'll realize that this is
REAL. You're not shooting down Klingons, you're not flaming at a
computer, you're hurting and offending real live people who deserve
more consideration than that. (Not to mention jeopardizing the
continued existence of Usenet itself.)
So for what it's worth... here's a vote for notifying system
adminstrators about rogue posters. AFTER first notifying the poster
in question and getting an unsatisfactory response.
- Larry Campbell
The Boston Software Works, Inc., 120 Fulton St., Boston MA 02109
UUCP: {decvax, security, linus, mit-eddie}!genrad!enmasse!maynard!campbell
ARPA: decvax!genrad!enmasse!maynard!campbell@DECWRL.ARPAmatt@oddjob.UUCP (Matt Crawford) (06/27/85)
Yet Another Usenet Motto: In loyalty to their kind They cannot tolerate our minds. In loyalty to our kind We cannot tolerate their obstruction. (Does that date me?) _____________________________________________________ Matt University crawford@anl-mcs.arpa Crawford of Chicago ihnp4!oddjob!matt
greenber@timeinc.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) (06/27/85)
Chuq:
What you do at your site is up to you (of course). What you feed to other
sites is quite a question!
My feeling is that if you don't want net.flame at your site, then just
let it pass through. OK...there is an expense associated with just
"letting it pass through". So perhaps you can have the feeds that
feed you net.flame feed the sites that you are currently feeding.
(Did that last sentence make sense??? I think so.....)
My only concern here is that some SA doesn't decide that some one
news group, one that is valuable, isn't valuable at their site.
So they pull the plug. Imagine what happens if ihnp4 decides that
they only think that net.wombat is valuable. So the net degrades
down to one newsgroup --- unless somebody up or down stream from ihnp4
decides that even net.wombat isn't important or valuable. Then we
have no net!
Perhaps some type of "policy" in the anarchy of USENET should be set
such that if a site decides that they no longer wish to participate
in a given news group, they can pull the plug on their machine
without affecting anyone else on the net??
I can understand how you feel towards the Scott Turners of the
world, but just think how their respective mothers feel. Would
you want to take credit for the likes of him????
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
Ross M. Greenberg @ Time Inc, New York
--------->{ihnp4 | vax135}!timeinc!greenber<---------
I highly doubt that Time Inc. they would make me their spokesperson.woof@psivax.UUCP (Hal Schloss) (06/28/85)
I must say that I agree with many of the sentiments I have seen regarding
removing net.flame. As the local SA for the news on this machine, I must
justify to management the existence of the news, and the phone bills
that we pay in it's support. I find it impossible to think of a reason
that management would buy to support a newsgroup like net.flame. As it is
we let it go by so long as it is not a problem.
Much of why we get the news is limited to a very few newsgroups, as a COURTESY
to others we pass on all the news right now. If at any time though, we find
that some portion of the news is too expensive to send, or too offensive to
stomach I see no reason why we should pay for it.
I think that of lot of the net.flame type of problems or request for missing
modems going to the entire world, or summer employees at one company looking
for others, is due to SA's not enforcing a new user to review some of the
"Netiquette" type of documents that exist. So long as some users view news
as a "right" to blindy blast messages at others without some forethought,
we can expect many other people to become offended.
With some feeling of trepidation,
--
Hal Schloss
(from the Software Lounge at) Pacesetter Systems Inc.
{trwrb|allegra|burdvax|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|sdcsvax|aero|uscvax|ucla-cs|
bmcg|sdccsu3|csun|orstcs|akgua|randvax}!sdcrdcf!psivax!woof
or {ttdica|quad1|scgvaxd|nrcvax|bellcore|logico}!psivax!woof
ARPA: ttidca!psivax!woof@rand-unix.arpaheiby@cuae2.UUCP (Ron Heiby) (06/28/85)
The sites I control have not been receiving net.flame or about a dozen other high volume low content groups for several months. It was done after taking a poll of the people on my sites. No one has complained. I have never seen any coherent argument for having net.flame, anyway (except to have one central cesspool). -- Ron Heiby heiby@cuae2.UUCP (via ihnp4) AT&T-IS, /app/eng, Lisle, IL (312) 810-6109
chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach) (06/29/85)
In article <270@timeinc.UUCP> greenber@timeinc.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) writes: >Chuq: > >What you do at your site is up to you (of course). What you feed to other >sites is quite a question! Uh, what I feed to other sites is something I do at my site. By definition, then, it is up to me (of course). >My feeling is that if you don't want net.flame at your site, then just >let it pass through. OK...there is an expense associated with just >"letting it pass through". So perhaps you can have the feeds that >feed you net.flame feed the sites that you are currently feeding. >(Did that last sentence make sense??? I think so.....) I think that what you are trying to say is that if one of my downstream sites still wants net.flame, then they should be able to get it from someone else. (right?) Well, the only reason I haven't yet pulled the plug is because I'm attempting to find out whether or not my downstream sites want it, and if they do, how to do it. There are a lot of possibilities, actually. I think I'm already doing what you suggest, although I bet a lot of other sites aren't. >My only concern here is that some SA doesn't decide that some one >news group, one that is valuable, isn't valuable at their site. >So they pull the plug. Imagine what happens if ihnp4 decides that >they only think that net.wombat is valuable. So the net degrades >down to one newsgroup --- unless somebody up or down stream from ihnp4 >decides that even net.wombat isn't important or valuable. Then we >have no net! That is one thing that I've been trying to avoid from the start. NO system should arbitrarily cut out newsgroups without discussing it with their neighbors, because they have a responsibility to their neighbors to pass news. If they can't come to an agreement, then the upstream site tends to have veto powers, but at the least a downstream site needs to know what is going on and can find a new feed if the change is unacceptable. Any site that makes these kind of structural changes silently is abrogating their responsibilities. This DOESN'T mean they shouldn't do it, it DOES mean they should consider the implications of what they are doing and make sure that the groups affected know what is happening and have some feedback in the decision. >Perhaps some type of "policy" in the anarchy of USENET should be set >such that if a site decides that they no longer wish to participate >in a given news group, they can pull the plug on their machine >without affecting anyone else on the net?? Policy? forget it. A large number of sites have already pulled the plug on a large number of groups, just ask Europe or Australia. There is absolutelt no reason to try to set up unenforcable policies, especially when all they do is give people a false sense of security. >I can understand how you feel towards the Scott Turners of the >world, but just think how their respective mothers feel. Would >you want to take credit for the likes of him???? Hell, Scott isn't any worse than a half a dozen others in net.flame. He just got lucky enough to get noticed by the net. That doesn't make what he did any more acceptable, just makes keeping net.flame around a little less acceptable. -- :From the misfiring synapses of: Chuq Von Rospach {cbosgd,fortune,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo}!nsc!chuqui nsc!chuqui@decwrl.ARPA The offices were very nice, and the clients were only raping the land, and then, of course, there was the money...
avolio@decuac.UUCP (Frederick M. Avolio) (06/29/85)
Some folks have no idea of the costs -- phone, disk space, cpu cycles,
etc. -- of moving news around the world. Might be interesting for
some of the "backbone" systems to post this information. (Seismo does
-- take a look at the stats they post and figure how it would affect
*your* site.) It might sober those who insist that a site must pass
all the news through even if people on it don't read it. No one is
stopping a site 30 hops away from a backbone to call other sites
farther away who still would be willing to send certain groups. This
is not fascism. This is not censorship. It is practical.
[Digression: To many people their own company's, let alone
other people's company's -- phone bill is totally insolated
from them. I know someone (his initials are F.A.) who was
using -- with his manager's okay -- his telephone charge card
to charge the long distance calls from his home terminal to
the machine at the work site. It wasn't until the company
finally started breaking out individual charges by person
that this person found out that over a 3 month period the
monthly average was around $500.00 in calls. Needless to say
said person now has -- for $26/month -- a work-local exchange
in his home!]
I agree that if a SA is going to disappear a new group he/she does
have a responsibility to poll the folks downstream from that site and,
as Chuq mentioned, trying to help them find another source for a
particular group or groups (if they indeed want them). And I think it
would also be smart for folks to start off with a subset of the net --
only things users on their site want. Groups can be added if their is
a demand for them. This makes for much less traffic (but a much
messier -- now that word looks funny -- much messier news/sys file...
as cvl!andie and dolqci!mike could tell you).
Finally, yes, net.flame should go away. I does not serve a useful
purpose. If one needs to argue with another it is best carried out
one to one via mail. At the very least, postings to net.flame should
be forced in the software (I know it is easy to get around!) to go
*only* to net.flame. (One of the sillier things people write in
postings is "Send flames to /dev/null." That is exactly where *all*
flames should *always* go.)
-Fredrjv@ihdev.UUCP (ron vaughn) (06/29/85)
jesus christ chuq. are you long winded or what? if you have a point to make, make it, but just becuase you like to listen to yourself type doesn't mean others do. in some respects i agree with you, but if it takes 104,321 lines to explain it..... yes, there are assholes on the net and you are probably right in this case, but then some SA says "i'm not here to run a dating service, no more net.singles." see where this leads? you have a good arguement for cutting out net.flame, but pull your head out -- >50% of the stuff that comes across *all* the newsgroups is crap or huge quotes of previous crap. your arguments for dumping net.flame could be applied to a LOT of groups by any SA. thats' why people don't like seeing an SA dump a group, it's just a start. and once the idea catches on, we'll have every other site passing on every other news group, the whole 'system' could be fouled up that way. chuq - don't come back with 84 screens of counter argument explaining all sides of the issue and logically reaching all possible conclusions and anticipating all my questions and hitting on all tangent topics and...... i normally agree with you, but my god, if anyone can stretch a few good sentences of thought into a few screenfulls of ascii... :-) just say what you mean and don't make your articles so long everyone skips them. back to sleep zzzzzzzz... ron vaughn ...!ihnp4!ihdev!rjv
david@ukma.UUCP (David Herron, NPR Lover) (06/30/85)
In article <261@ihdev.UUCP> rjv@ihdev.UUCP (R. J. Vaughn) writes: >yes, there are assholes on the net and you are probably right in this >case, but then some SA says "i'm not here to run a dating service, >no more net.singles." see where this leads? you have a good arguement >for cutting out net.flame, but pull your head out -- >50% of the >stuff that comes across *all* the newsgroups is crap or huge quotes of previous >crap. your arguments for dumping net.flame could be applied to >a LOT of groups by any SA. thats' why people don't like seeing an >SA dump a group, it's just a start. and once the idea catches on, >we'll have every other site passing on every other news group, the >whole 'system' could be fouled up that way. One way of viewing this is as "evolution". Much of Unix is the way it is because of evolution. So why not our biggest playground? We are talking about scarce resources here. Computer time, phone money, and disk space. Different sites are squeezed in different ways. But the squeeze is causing competition amongst the newsgroups for these resources. Some groups will die. Either because places don't want to carry them any more, or there will be a common agreement to go ahead and rmgrp the group. Tell me something. What's really wrong with dumping a group? Isn't that act a statement that somebody doesn't feel that the subject is worth listening to? That it isn't worth bringing a few hundred miles over phone lines just so it can be thrown away? Isn't it up to the newsgroup itself to make sure of it's survival? I'm personally tired of paying for net.flame. On the other hand, there are people at this site who regard that group as a fun-filled free-for-all. Sigh. At any rate .. JJ, count a FOR vote for KILLING net.flame please. -- --- David Herron --- ARPA-> ukma!david@ANL-MCS.ARPA or ukma!david<@ANL-MCS> --- or david%ukma.uucp@anl-mcs.arpa --- Or even anlams!ukma!david@ucbvax.arpa --- UUCP-> {ucbvax,unmvax,boulder,oddjob}!anlams!ukma!david --- {ihnp4,decvax,ucbvax}!cbosgd!ukma!david "It's *Super*User* to the rescue!"
chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach) (07/02/85)
In article <261@ihdev.UUCP> rjv@ihdev.UUCP (R. J. Vaughn) writes: >jesus christ chuq. are you long winded or what? if you have a point >to make, make it, but just becuase you like to listen to yourself type >doesn't mean others do. in some respects i agree with you, but if >it takes 104,321 lines to explain it..... I'm sorry if you think I'm a bit longwinded. In case you were wondering, my first drafts of most articles tend to be about 30% larger than what really gets posted (you DO proofread your articles, don't you, and run them through spell?) so it could be worse. Actually, I don't like listening to myself type -- the keyclicks tend to give me a headache after a while. >yes, there are assholes on the net and you are probably right in this >case, but then some SA says "i'm not here to run a dating service, >no more net.singles." see where this leads? In reality, this has already happened at some sites. when volume gets to a certain level (that level usually being dictated by the cost of transporting it) something goes. Depending on the SA, they cut out any subset of the net from the 'least useful' to the 'non-technical'. One of my hopes out of all of this is to reduce some of the volume and try to minimize the number of sites that remove the 'non-technical' because I DO like the idea of keeping around things like net.singles. If net.singles were to threaten the existence of net.unix-wizards on the network, then I would jetison it. The same argument applies to net.flame threatening net.singles (and net.unix-wizards) and that is why I'm taking my current stand. I think SOMETHING has to get done to reduce volume, and net.flame is the least useful group I can find. >you have a good arguement >for cutting out net.flame, but pull your head out -- >50% of the >stuff that comes across *all* the newsgroups is crap or huge quotes of previous >crap. your arguments for dumping net.flame could be applied to >a LOT of groups by any SA. I can't fix the entire net overnight. To fix something, you have to start somewhere. I think net.flame is a good place to start, and then we can work on cleaning up the garbage elsewhere. If we wait until we have a complete solution to fix anything, the only complete solution we'll ever find is destruction of the net. True, I can probably find an article in any given newsgroup that can be used to justify that groups removal. My hope is to get the net back into a shape where the SA doesn't feel they need to remove groups, and I think net.flame is a step in that direction. >thats' why people don't like seeing an >SA dump a group, it's just a start. and once the idea catches on, >we'll have every other site passing on every other news group, the >whole 'system' could be fouled up that way. I hate to tell you, but a LOT of sites (based on my recent mail) have already caught onto the fact that they can clean up the net by removing certain groups. It HAS already fouled up certain groups (net.sources.games is a good example), and I'd like to find a way to get the network to agree on which groups it won't pass around to minimize this kind of partitioning. I don't WANT one site to cut off net.flame and another to cut off net.games and another to cut off net.religion -- that does everyone a disservice. If we have to cut stuff off, we should all cut off the same stuff, and net.flame seems to be far and away the candidate for least productive group on the net. -- :From the misfiring synapses of: Chuq Von Rospach {cbosgd,fortune,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo}!nsc!chuqui nsc!chuqui@decwrl.ARPA The offices were very nice, and the clients were only raping the land, and then, of course, there was the money...
sorgatz@ttidcc.UUCP ( Avatar) (07/03/85)
Reply-To:
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Organization: Transaction Technology, Inc. (CitiCorp), Santa Monica
Keywords: sites refusing to carry newsgroups
< munch! gobble! chomp! chew! Why don't "THEY" fix this bug? >
In view of the limited resources that are available at _most_ sites, I think
it should be the SA's right to limit the news that is available. As a matter
of fact, we @ TTI dont get 'net.jokes'...I'd be in favor of getting rid of
'net.motss' (it's like this: WHO CARES?! If "they" wanna be queer, let 'em do
it off the premises!) and a few others. If that wound up including 'net.flame'
..oh well. Tough. This pastime _isnt_ a right, it's a a freebie!
-Avatar->
Erik K. Sorgatz
Transaction Technology Inc. (Citicorp's R/AD West) ... . ... . ...
3100 ocean Park Blvd. (zone V1) . | |..|..| | .
Santa Monica, Ca. 90405 |.|....|....|.|
USENET path: {garfield,lasspvax,linus,cmcl2,seismo} |.|....|....|.|
!philabs!ttidca!sorgatz | | ...|... | |
("..My poor Krel! Even they must have evolved up from the ..| | .|. | |..
mindless primative..after a million years of shining sanity, they could
hardly have know what was destroying them!" -Dr. Morbius F.P.)rdh@sun.uucp (Robert Hartman) (07/03/85)
> In article <266@timeinc.UUCP> greenber@timeinc.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) writes: > >Is anyone else offended at the idea of a site administrator taking it > >upon themselves to pull the plug on a popular newsgroup, such as net.flame? > > Oh, probably. But they also don't pay the phone bills. > > >I feel that a SA should only control their machine. They shouldn't > >try to control what *I* read. > > I'll translate this -- an SA can do anything he wants, as long as he > doesn't do anything. > > Let me make three points, and then expound from there: > > o Usenet is not a right, it is a priviledge. > > o Usenet exists because a group of systems got together and > cooperated on developing the programs and share information > with each other. > > o Usenet is an anarchy. > [ A very long and coherent flame about irresponsible flamers. ] Anarchy won't work unless open access is coupled with INDIVIDUAL accountability. I hate to say it, but I completely agree that a mechanism for containing rogue postings is in order. I think that sites who don't contain their rogues fairly promptly should be *temporarily* shut off, to give them time to do what they have to to correct their problems with the rogue. SA's who value the net can, and should, take up net.mischief with the offender's boss, dean, or whoever authorizes his/her computer access. Admittedly, this won't stop someone whose aim in life is to trash the net, but it WILL give them time to figure out the rules before they trash their reputation in the Unix community along with it. I wouldn't hire the guy who drew the pig for *anything*. ;-) If you crap in the nest, you can't stay in the nest. -bob.
greenber@timeinc.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) (07/06/85)
In article <1106@mnetor.UUCP> clewis@mnetor.UUCP (Chris Lewis) writes: (Quotes me) >>... >>I feel that a SA should only control their machine. They shouldn't >>try to control what *I* read. > >I am ONLY trying to control OUR machine. > >But, we're running out of disk space, CPU cycles, modem bandwidth, and >the telephone bills are going up. Not to mention that nobody >down-stream of us would particularly miss net.flame and some of the >other newsgroups either. Let us assume for a moment that I am the system administrator at ihnp4 or any other backbone site. And I don't program in anything but COBOL. So there is obviously no need for net.lang.c, right? You talk about how the net is a public service and that sites have no responsibility to anyone but themselves. WRONG! We are a community. We have our problems, our joys (Lets have congrats for Yet Another Net Engagement to Gregg and Karen!), our problems --- and our responsibilities. One of those responsibilities, like taxes, is to provide for the general welfare, even if it is not in our own personal interests. I happen to enjoy reading net.flame, as well as net.wobegon. The message traffic in net.flame seems, by itself, to justify the existance of net.flame. If SA's feel that they can't afford the space, cycles, or other limited resources, then we should work on solving the problem --- not merely postponing it. Eventually we are going to hit enough message traffic that machines won't be able to handle even the technical groups. I think that many of the SA's are using the idea of "heavy burden" as a vehicle for removing net.flame. Net.flame might be an embarrasment to many, but I still feel that a site DOES have a responsibility to other sites dowstream to continue feeding them ALL groups. If you decide that you don't want to carry one group, then I feel the SA that is pulling the plug should arrange to have downstream sites fed by other sites. Makes it a little more work to pull the plug on a group, so SA's might think twice about pulling the plug on a group that they don't want. > >Netnews is a public service, brought to most free by SA's that put in >long hours of unpaid overtime to keep the whole thing from falling >apart and companies that pay the bills. We do it primarily for the >technical material and partially for mail access to the world, and >sometimes for some light entertainment. But, the cost of carrying >material that is at best in poor taste, and frequently legally >actionable is getting MUCH too high. Management is starting to put >pressure on too. > As for justifying it to management --- howzabout telling management that as a member of the USENET community, you have the responsibility to *at least* transfer ALL newsgroups (whether they are needed/wanted or not) in order to get the ones that you need/want? BTW ---- I would be interested in finding out what the actual, real costs of a group like net.flame are. I mean, are we talking $10 or $1000? >Chris Lewis, >UUCP: {allegra, linus, ihnp4}!utzoo!mnetor!clewis Ross -- ------------------------------------------------------------------ Ross M. Greenberg @ Time Inc, New York --------->{ihnp4 | vax135}!timeinc!greenber<--------- I highly doubt that Time Inc. they would make me their spokesperson.
lauren@vortex.UUCP (Lauren Weinstein) (07/07/85)
While I support the concept of keeping net.flame flowing whenever possible, I think it's going too far to say that all sites have some sort of "responsibility" to pass along all groups. To the extent that they are able to do so without problems, then full pass-through is to be encouraged, at least for the time being. But many sites are operating in more restricted environments, and have disk limits, CPU limits, or management edicts with which to deal. It is not terribly reasonable to try force these sites into disrupting their own local operations for the sake of Usenet! There are very few machines on the net whose sole reason for existence is Usenet--most of them are supposed to be accomplishing other work as well! As we see more smaller machines join the net, the number of sites unable, for one reason or another, to pass all or even any groups will increase. What this means is that more sites will need to get their feeds from multiple points instead of just one, and more sites will have to pay for some or all of the calls. As volume increases, this will be true even for technical groups, much less the non-technical newsgroups. Trying to "force" all sites into passing all groups is most likely to result in many sites being forced to drop off the network completely. While I personally think that net.flame serves a useful purpose, I still feel that each site must make an individual decision regarding what groups they can reasonably pass. The more the better, but it still IS up to the individual site. --Lauren--