chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach) (06/26/85)
I just got a rather intelligent letter (I like intelligent letters) that brought up some interesting points about this whole mess and my decision to consider removing net.flame from my site. I'm going to post my reply to it, because I felt there were some thoughts in it that ought to be brought into the open. All traces (I hope!) of the originator have been removed because I don't have permission to use their name with it. --- > At Tektronix, net.flame was removed in what looks to >be a management censure type of action. If tektronix did it without notification of the readers and their downstream sites, then I don't think they handled it properly. That is what I'm doing with net.flame and net.jokes, as I'm planning to remove these groups from circulation on nsc soon. > I think netters know what net.flame is used >for, and those who do not wish to read it can delete it from their >own .newsrc file. It isn't that simple, because things that go to net.flame seem to get cross posted into other areas in a way that people can't control. Also, the total lack of self control in net.flame creates an atmosphere that tends to show up in other groups as well as a higher flame level and lower intelligence quotient. There are ramifications to letting net.flame exist all over the net. Each group is interdependent of all the other groups, and not independent. > If I were a site administrator, maybe I wouldn't agree with >what is being posted in net.religion, so does that give me cause >to remove it? It depends. If the information was inflammatory, seditious, libelous or slanderous, then yes, I'd say I had justification to remove it. If I was christian and removed all the jewish postings, then I'd probably expect a call from the bnai brith. > One more thing, sites themselves do not post articles, and >sites do not feel any effect when privledges are removed. >People post articles, and individuals should be accountable for >there postings. I agree that people should be held accountable for their postings; that only makes sense. But when companies or organizations allow users the priviledge of posting, and those users misuse that priviledge, and the site does nothing about it, then the site is also responsible. Each site is responsible for the actions of their people. Also, Sites DO post articles, and people on those sites are acting as representatives of that site. This is the official policy at nsc, as a matter of fact, because we realize that anything anyone says on the net reflects on the site and the company that allows them to say those things. Dec recently made a general announcement that all posters were to consider themselves company spokesmen when speaking publicly, because they've gotten a lot of bad press recently (I won't mention names, I don't need to) and they realize it makes them look bad. AT&T is notorious for stomping on idiots. So, for that matter, is Tek, or have you forgotten Frank Adrian? People who make outrageous statements make themselves look outrageous, and make people wonder about the company that employs them (I've heard a couple of people wonder about why anyone would want to work for a company that employed someone like Ken Arndt....) A second problem is that a company is potentially liable for the content of things that are posted by their employees. If Sophie were to sue both Scott AND ucla for some of the things he said about her, then I'm sure that ucla would be less than pleased. Chances are the first thing they would do is pull off the net, the second thing they'd do is shove a modem down scott's throat. At least, I hope they would... Net.flame has gotten to the point where a majority of their postings are useless at best, and some of them are on the wrong side of the libel/slander laws (at least, how I would define them). Many are simply disgusing. None are useful, by any definition I can come up with, except as comedy relief. Libel/slander brings up a third point. It is conceivable, based on existing laws (especially the comm. act of 1934 as amended) that my site, nsc, is liable for damages for passing that crap through, regardless of where it was posted. I've talked with the lawyer here at national, and his best suggestion was to err on the conservative side and not become a precedent. This is a big unknown in law, and I'd rather not find out the hard way. >The arguement of the volume of net traffic and >the cost of the phone bills is bogus, unless you plan on removing >ALL the non-work related newsgroups, which is a major portion. Wrong again. I have a volume limit, the amount of traffic I am willing to receive. When I see that I'm spending more time on the modems moving news around than I want, or I'm simply getting more messages than I feel I can handle reasonably, it is time for something to go. This limit seems to be about a megabyte a day for me, and Usenet seems to be hovering right around that margin. I could handle more volume, but I don't particularly want to -- there isn't a lot of benefit for my site to spend money to subsidize groups like net.flame so that Scott and his friends can make fools out of themselves and insult other people. The intelligent reaction to this is not to get rid of all the non-technical groups, but to rank all the groups based on usefulness and size, and then get rid of those groups that are least useful to you with the greatest volume savings until you get down to whatever you've set as your limit. At this point, by removing net.flame and net.jokes, I can save something like 6-9% of the total volume I'm seeing (probably a little less because of cross postings, but I'm looking at that problem now as well). All I've done is something the network hasn't seen it fit to do before -- set priorities. net.unix-wizards is a lot more important to us than net.singles, and net.singles is more important to us than net.flame. By starting at the bottom of the list, I can reduce volumes without getting rid of groups that people consider important. The reality is that on this site, and on all of the sites downstream, I have not found one person willing to go with me and talk to my boss to justify the costs associated with net.flame. If I had found someone willing to do that, I might have reconsidered getting rid of it, but I haven't found anyone who was willing to stand up for the group, except on the philosophical grounds that we should accept net.all regardless. I used to believe that as well, and still do in principle, but the reality is much different. chuq -- :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...
davest@daemon.UUCP (Dave Stewart) (06/28/85)
Just for the record, net.flame was not removed universally at all Tek sites. Out of the 29 news sites our groups administers, only four have that newsgroup turned off. However, given the recent discussion in this newsgroup, it makes me wonder why we waste the disk. -- David C. Stewart uucp: tektronix!davest Small Systems Support Group csnet: davest@TEKTRONIX Tektronix, Inc. phone: (503) 627-5418
jss@sjuvax.UUCP (J. Shapiro) (07/01/85)
Alex @ UCLA-CS posted an article which brings to the fore a salient point: Many of the people who are speaking of removing net.flame did not consult with ALEX or Scott in an effort to find out why or wherefores. They simply flamed, which to my mind makes them as guilty as Scot and Alex (IF they are). Chuqi himself seems to have been guilty of this to some degree, but was enough of a mensch to admit that after speaking to Alex he feels he may have been hasty. How many of the rest of you have bothered to contact these people? I do not wish to underrate the potential problems of net.flame. I personally concluded that it served no real value 5 years ago. I would not miss it. I feel, however, that I am not out of line to INSIST that those of you who are using Alex and Scott as excuses for venting frustration admit this. If we are to remove a newsgroup - ANY newsgroup - let it not be due to misunderstanding or lack of communication WITH THE APPROPRIATE PEOPLE. I propose that when there is a problem with an individual's postings, the first person to contact is that individual. If the individual feels they behaved reasonably, and receives a reasonable amount of mail, it may be worth their while to post to the appropriate group a summary of what happened and what the reasoning was. If this does not bring a resolution of the problem, discuss it on the net. If the general concensus is that some censure is in order, send mail to the SA. But please, please, let us not make the mistake of hiding our reasons for doing things behind a smoke screen. This would indeed lead to censorship of the worst variety. I do not believe that Chuqi has been doing this. I do believe that many others have, and I think they are dead wrong. To reiterate: net.flame can go - I won't miss it. Scott and Alex may or may not be a problem. If either one is a problem, he is a problem entirely separate from the problem of the continued existence of net.flame. Jon Shapiro Haverford College