dunlops@stolaf.UUCP (Steve Dunlop) (06/19/84)
- If net.general is removed, people will still post garbage to newsgroups
in which it doesn't belong -- net.announce could become the next net trashcaan.
Removing net.general won't fix anything.
- There is still a need for a newsgroup for announcements and items of
interest to nearly everyone. Net.announce doesn't entirely fill this
need.
- Net.general once did serve as a valid newsgroup for general interest items.
With some work, and cooperation from individual sites, it could be this
way again. I would suggest the following:
o New releases of net software would prevent anyone but site
administrators from posting to net.general. If anyone else wanted
to post to net.general, they would mail their posting to their
site administrator. Although this is censorship, I think that it
is necessary to keep net.general alive. If a site administrator
refuses to post an article to net.general, users can still post
their articles to other newsgroups. This would help keep obscene
and inappropriate articles out of net.general, without really
denying anyone use of the net. It would also prevent accidental
postings to net.general.
o Articles posted in net.general would be limited to 24 lines.
I am sure that many people will feel that the limited censorship I have
proposed is a violation of rights and goes against the philosophy of the net.
There is some truth to this, but eventually we are going to have to realize
that the net has become too large to allow unlimited posting of articles to
all newsgroups. Posting net articles is, more than ever, a privilege, NOT a
right.
-- Steven Dunlop
ihnp4!stolaf!dunlopsalb@alice.UUCP (Adam L. Buchsbaum) (06/20/84)
Some of Steven Dunlop's arguments are invalid. People cannot directly post to net.announce, since it is a moderated group. Since most postings to net.general are simply by mistake, this will prevent most if not all of those articles from going into net.announce. net.announce is already moderated; why moderate net.general (by having only site admins post to it)?
chuqui@nsc.UUCP (06/20/84)
>- If net.general is removed, people will still post garbage to newsgroups > in which it doesn't belong -- net.announce could become the next net trashcan. > Removing net.general won't fix anything. Don't forget that net.announce is a MODERATED newsgroup. You DON'T post to it, you mail to the moderator and he decides if it is appropriate. The net has gotten large enough that this has become neccessary if distateful. It can't get out of control as long as the moderator keeps it that way. >- There is still a need for a newsgroup for announcements and items of > interest to nearly everyone. Net.announce doesn't entirely fill this > need. If it is of interest to nearly everyone net.announce is appropriate. With the exception of those articles, I'd love for you to show me a single article in the last month that came over net.general that couldn't have been posted as legitimately to net.net-people, net.wanted, net.unix-wizards or one of the other existing newsgroups. >- Net.general once did serve as a valid newsgroup for general interest items. > With some work, and cooperation from individual sites, it could be this > way again. I would suggest the following: We've tried to get net.general to work. Many people, myself included, have tried to suggest, counsel, reason, or bludgeon people into using net.general properly. We've written articles, posted mail, made suggestions, screamed, yelled, whimpered, and finally given up in disgust. > o New releases of net software would prevent anyone but site > administrators from posting to net.general. If anyone else wanted > to post to net.general, they would mail their posting to their > site administrator. Although this is censorship, I think that it > is necessary to keep net.general alive. If a site administrator > refuses to post an article to net.general, users can still post > their articles to other newsgroups. This would help keep obscene > and inappropriate articles out of net.general, without really > denying anyone use of the net. It would also prevent accidental > postings to net.general. > > o Articles posted in net.general would be limited to 24 lines. Arbitrary decisions like this simply don't work because they don't have a basis in the real world. Beyond that, (I seem to remember pointing this out sometime before... *sigh*) it takes TIME to write new software, it takes TIME to get it working, distributed, and installed, and it doesnt' solve the problem for sites that aren't willing to install the stupid software regardless of what we do. I'd be more than willing to bet that a significant percentage of the problems we have in net.general would NOT be solved by a software fix because the sites causing the problems would not install the new software unless we did something radical like release a new and incompatible usenet protocol that FORCED them to upgrade. Anyone want to fight for that one? >I am sure that many people will feel that the limited censorship I have >proposed is a violation of rights and goes against the philosophy of the net. >There is some truth to this, but eventually we are going to have to realize >that the net has become too large to allow unlimited posting of articles to >all newsgroups. Posting net articles is, more than ever, a privilege, NOT a >right. Agreed. That is why we have the concept of a moderated newsgroup such as net.announce and mod.all. Please don't try to create new and unreasonable restrictions when we can work with what we have. chuq P.S. I have been told that I was volunteered to be the lucky soul to actually send out the rmgroups for net.general and net.followup. Let me just say that I expect that deleting these groups will probably generate more hate mail than anything else in the history of the net, so I consider this a true honor. Thank you all, and I certainly can't wait. I might even be able to get wobegon when nobody is looking! (*JUST KIDDING!!! HONEST!!!) -- >From the ledge of the seventh cornice: Chuq Von Rospach {amd70,fortune,hplabs,ihnp4}!nsc!chuqui (408) 733-2600 x242 You can't always get what you want, but if you try sometime you just might find, you'll get what you need! -- Rolling Stones
gregbo@hou2e.UUCP (G.SKINNER) (06/26/84)
Why is everyone so bent on keeping news articles <= 24 lines? Suppose there
is an article someone is posting that has some explicit descriptions or
information that cannot be shortened to <= 24 lines?
The other ideas are ok, but I would be opposed to new versions of netnews
that limit article size. In my opinion *that* is censorship.
Greg Skinner (gregbo)
{cbosgd, ihnp4}!hou2e!gregbo