kanefsky@umn-cs.CS.UMN.EDU (Steve Kanefsky) (11/21/89)
In article <48512@bbn.COM> rshapiro@BBN.COM (Richard Shapiro) writes: >In article <17100@umn-cs.CS.UMN.EDU> kanefsky@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu (Steve Kanefsky) writes: >>This is a formal call for discussion on the formation of a new newsgroup >>to be called rec.video.software (the name is also up for discussion, for >>those who may be opposed to the use of "software" in this context). >> >>This unmoderated group would be for the discussion of video software in any >>currently available format, including VHS, S-VHS, Beta, ED-Beta, 8mm, and >>Laserdisc, as well as past and future video formats. > > > I would say, though, >that the charter should explicitly exclude discussions about the >artistic and/or entertainment merits of a movie or video. These belong >on r.a.m. Yes, I failed to state explicitly that I believe that rec.video.software should be devoid of any discussion which doesn't pertain directly to the video transfer. Here's one thing I haven't worked out yet, though: Should spoilers be ok with no warning in this group, should there be a complete ban on spoilers, or should the same rules apply as in Rec.arts.movies? I would much rather have either free-for-all spoilers or no spoilers at all. I don't think putting "(spoilers)" in the subject line would be feasable in this group. >I'm not crazy about the name, but it is self-explanatory and I can't >come up with anything better. I would support the proposal under this >name. Bob Niland suggested Rec.video.titles, but I still favor Rec.video.software at this point. -- Steve Kanefsky kanefsky@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu
rshapiro@bbn.com (Richard Shapiro) (11/22/89)
In article <17200@umn-cs.CS.UMN.EDU> kanefsky@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu (Steve Kanefsky) writes: >Here's one thing I haven't worked out yet, though: Should spoilers be >ok with no warning in this group, should there be a complete ban on >spoilers, or should the same rules apply as in Rec.arts.movies? If a transfer screwup happens to take place during a spoiler scene, we need to know. I agree that spoiler warnings are tedious in this situation, so I'd say we should simply ignore the whole "spoiler" issue altogether. People can just skip over articles about movies they haven't seen (which might suggest that the subject line should always contain the title of the video in question). >Bob Niland suggested Rec.video.titles, but I still favor Rec.video.software >at this point. Given this choice, I'd go with "software". The naming issue doesn't seem to be all that serious in this case -- no hierarchy confusions or bizarre acronyms to deal with. Let's just stick with "rec.video.software".