ferry@chorus.fr (F. de Jong) (03/29/91)
Hello netters, As you have all seen there are very often postings in these two groups with offers to sell hardware and software. May I remind everybody that these are not the right groups to post these kind of things in. There is a special group called comp.sys.amiga.marketplace. In comp.sys.amiga.introduction you can find three MONTHLY POSTINGS: of which one describes all Amiga related newsgroups and their purpose. Please consult this posting before you post so you'll know where to put it. If you think that this doesn't apply to you because you can't read comp.sys.amiga.marketplace talk to your local system-administrators but please don't mis-use these groups. -- Ferry F. de Jong | This space e-mail: ferry@chorus.fr | is left white or ferry%chorus.fr@mcsun.EU.net | intentionally. root@unix> rm -rf / # Trust me, I know what I'm doing. (Sledge Hammer)
cosell@bbn.com (Bernie Cosell) (03/31/91)
ferry@chorus.fr (F. de Jong) writes: }As you have all seen there are very often postings in these two groups with }offers to sell hardware and software. May I remind everybody that these }are not the right groups to post these kind of things in. There is a }special group called comp.sys.amiga.marketplace. That's all nice and tidy, but this is a place where theory fails us and (anarchic) practice serves MUCH better. I can think of no better place to post a game-for-sale than to comp.sys.amiga.games, nor a hard disk to .hardware, etc. If the right thing is being hawked in the right group [selling ATalkIII on csa.games is clearly a nuisance to everyone], I think people should just be left alone. Do you have some specific complaint about such postings, or do you just not like seeing 'rules' flouted? Recall that the big Amiga-newsgroups reorganization was a bit of an experiment, and I think that overall it has been a pretty big success [although I confess I was pretty skeptical]. I don't have a problem deciding that csa.marketplace didn't work out so well in the face of virtually everything else to do with the reorganization being OK. /Bernie\
poirier@ellerbe.rtp.dg.com (Charles Poirier) (04/04/91)
In article <63474@bbn.BBN.COM> cosell@bbn.com (Bernie Cosell) writes: >ferry@chorus.fr (F. de Jong) writes: > >}As you have all seen there are very often postings in these two groups with >}offers to sell hardware and software. May I remind everybody that these >}are not the right groups to post these kind of things in. There is a >}special group called comp.sys.amiga.marketplace. > >That's all nice and tidy, Yes. That's why it was set up this way. >but this is a place where theory fails us and >(anarchic) practice serves MUCH better. I can think of no better place >to post a game-for-sale than to comp.sys.amiga.games, nor a hard disk >to .hardware, etc. A reasonable theory, but there was *plenty* of time for discussing this during the reorg and this is *not* what was decided upon. People voted to separate sales/wanted postings from other types of postings. If you are calling for discussion of a re-reorg, you should say so explicitly. To encourage people to abuse the organization we have now, is simply disruptive. >If the right thing is being hawked in the right group... >I think people should just be left alone. Do you have some >specific complaint about such postings, or do you just not like seeing >'rules' flouted? Specific complaint: Flouting of rules creates noise. Noise is bad. Organization is better than anarchy, on the net at least. Don't post something to a more general group when a more specific group exists for that exact purpose. >deciding that csa.marketplace didn't work out so well in the face of This claim rather jumps the gun, don't you think? You don't pitch out a brand new newsgroup just because people haven't learned to use it yet. Cheers, Charles Poirier poirier@dg-rtp.dg.com
cosell@bbn.com (Bernie Cosell) (04/07/91)
poirier@ellerbe.rtp.dg.com (Charles Poirier) writes: }>but this is a place where theory fails us and }>(anarchic) practice serves MUCH better. I can think of no better place }>to post a game-for-sale than to comp.sys.amiga.games, nor a hard disk }>to .hardware, etc. }A reasonable theory, but there was *plenty* of time for discussing this during }the reorg and this is *not* what was decided upon. People voted to separate }sales/wanted postings from other types of postings. If you are calling }for discussion of a re-reorg, you should say so explicitly. To encourage }people to abuse the organization we have now, is simply disruptive. Ah, but this is a bit disingenuous. The reorganization was a VAST change, and changed a zillion things at once. Not only was snipe-here/snipe-there tricky, but much of it was mostly a guess as to what would make sense. With such a huge change, how could one have rationally argued in advance that one little change to the overall scheme would prove to work out better than some other little change after it all went into effect? To presume that we could foresee precisely just how it would all turn out in practice is surely presumptuous, and an observation on how it all feels seems hardly out of line. }>If the right thing is being hawked in the right group... }>I think people should just be left alone. Do you have some }>specific complaint about such postings, or do you just not like seeing }>'rules' flouted? }Specific complaint: }Flouting of rules creates noise. Noise is bad. Organization is better }than anarchy, on the net at least. Don't post something to a more }general group when a more specific group exists for that exact purpose. Again, this is disingenuous. Flouting of rules DOESNT necessarily create 'noise', and what it does isn't necessarily 'bad'. One must evaluate an act for its *actual* consequences, and the rather theoretical harm of "violating rules" just doesn't wash: if that is the WORST you can say about a practice, then that would just confirm a suspicion that the rule is bad. If you look at my original respose again, you'll see that I did make that distinction: if you have some _specific_ complaint about a sideffect of 'bending' the rules, that's great: that kind of discussion is the only way we can evaluate the new newsgroup reorg and see how well we did [and so serve as an even BETTER exemplar for other groups]; if you were just complaining because you have a real compulsion about rules, regardless of whether they are good or bad, effective or not, constructive or destructive, then I, at least, don't much want to hear about it... I get enough of "it doesn't make sense, but it's the law" over in misc.legal... And that was also why I posted my specific comment on WHY I though that particular practice was OK: of course I don't embrace mindless anarchy, and so I wouldn't think of having said "just leave the guy alone and plant your dumb rules where the sun don't shine". Rather, I pointed out that *this*specific* type of 'enhancement' of the rules made a LOT more sense to me that the originally proposed one: if everyone is busily discussing ATalkIII on c.s.a.datacomm (as they do from time to time), that is the natural place for someone having one for sale to link up with someone who might be interested in picking one up. Ditto for games, maybe hardward, AMAX in the c.s.a.emulation group, etc. As for "more general" versus "more specific", one could observe that the *specific* group will have the folk interested in the *specific* topic, and are probably talking about [or at the least know a bunch about] the specific program being offered [if it is posted in the right group]. On the other hand, the c.s.a.marketplace group is the more general slushbucket of ANYTHING for sale, from workstands to printers to A1000s to games to anything else vaguely Amiga related , and who would want to slog through all of THAT noise on a regular basis, just on theoff chance you'll be tempted by a DM for sale for $5, or a 350mb hard drive for $200. I would argue, for example (building on your 'more specific versus more general' observation), that if there is a *specific* newsgroup targeted at the kind of thing you want to be selling, then using the *specific* newsgroup is OK. And the c.s.a.marketplace need only be used for those things which have no more-specific home among the other groups; perhaps you could think of it as the forsale postings that would have ended up in c.s.a.misc. }This claim rather jumps the gun, don't you think? You don't pitch out }a brand new newsgroup just because people haven't learned to use it yet. I'm not sure what you mean by 'leanred to use it yet'. *.forsale newsgroups have existed around the net for a long time, and so my observation about their generally being almost-useless places to post when there is a better-targeted newsgroup is based on my observation that it really doesn't hardly work. I was willing to give the c.s.a.marketplace group a chance to see how it all felt and see how/if it all would work, and I came to the same conclusion as I have in the past. /B\
ronny@minnie.cs.su.OZ.AU (Ronald Cook) (04/08/91)
I wouldn't mind people posting "for sale" postings in comp.sys.amiga.games if they limited their distributions appropriately. It is unlikely that someone in Australia will want to buy a bunch of NTSC-based games or incompatible hardware from someone living on the other side of the world. Unfortunately, we still get these postings, with "world" distribution, even here - and they're a waste of my time and that of others in other countries. Come to that, they're a waste of time for many people living in the US. I doubt that someone from California is really THAT interested in a second-hand game for sale in New York. So please, keep them off! ...Ronny
kxgj@vax5.cit.cornell.edu (04/09/91)
In article <63589@bbn.BBN.COM>, cosell@bbn.com (Bernie Cosell) writes: > poirier@ellerbe.rtp.dg.com (Charles Poirier) writes: > > >but this is a place where theory fails us and > >(anarchic) practice serves MUCH better. I can think of no better place > >to post a game-for-sale than to comp.sys.amiga.games, nor a hard disk > >to .hardware, etc. > > A reasonable theory, but there was *plenty* of time for discussing this duri > the reorg and this is *not* what was decided upon. People voted to separate > sales/wanted postings from other types of postings. If you are calling > for discussion of a re-reorg, you should say so explicitly. To encourage > people to abuse the organization we have now, is simply disruptive. > > Ah, but this is a bit disingenuous. The reorganization was a VAST > change, and changed a zillion things at once. Not only was > snipe-here/snipe-there tricky, but much of it was mostly a guess as to > what would make sense. With such a huge change, how could one have > rationally argued in advance that one little change to the overall > scheme would prove to work out better than some other little change > after it all went into effect? To presume that we could foresee > precisely just how it would all turn out in practice is surely > presumptuous, and an observation on how it all feels seems hardly out > of line. he also adds other possible reasons (specific) for allowing the posting of forsale adds to all groups and asks again for specific reasons for not allowing it. Here's my $.02-- I personally do not think the 'other group postings' should be encouraged (allowed, if you must) because I want to see the postings. One of the things I have liked most about the reorg. was the ability to go to one group and what ggodies might be offered (boy I want disposable income :-). I was frustrated before having to look in *.sys, *.games, misc.forsale, ... for possible things to spend my money on. Now, with all the groups, encouraging many locations for posting guarantees that I will miss some (many?) of the offers. A second reason, - As has been pointed out, the reorg. is new and needs some time for shaking out. If you perceive that marketplace is not working, maybe that will change with time (I personally think that it is working pretty well--I have purchased my first items through the net (hard drive, controller, perfect sound) recently and it was convenient to search on location for comparison deals, offers, ...). If you promote/advertise that not using marketplace is acceptable then you guarantee that it won't succeed. I submit that it might be better to hold off judgment (by suggesting actions contrary to general net desires) until it has been demonstrated that there is a need (longterm) to act differently than the (oh so odious) rules 'dictate'. One last comment, the promoter of multiple group forsale postings feels that having all items lumped together is a negative thing because he you have to wade through a bunch of extraneous offers to get to the thing you want whereas if all group postings were the norm, then you could just go to the group you wanted (e.g. communications to look for a modem for sale) and look there. I find the argument weak because you still have to wade through the non-forsale extraneous articles in the other groups. Also, if you are not sure what you want and are just looking for good deals that cannot be passed up (That's how/why I made my recent purchases), looking in all the groups is not really a valid approach. Lastly, if the extran. postings in forsale bothers one, that person could just do a search for the given thing that person wants once he/she gets into *.marketplace. This has got to be easier than traversing the full *.amiga* heirarchy. In summary, you can want to abide by the rules and not be anal-retentive. THere may be (usually are) reasons (valid) for the rules that a given individual may not be aware of so blindly(?) promoting rules violations is reckless (and inconsiderate) in my mind (it's odd for me to be defending rules as I am a society 'hater' from way back). One's use of a given commodity that makes the rules cumbersome (looking for specific products) might differ from anothers use (window shopping, just looking to see what's available) that validates those rules. Be careful when suggesting 'anarchy' (bad word as this is NOT what was suggested) on a topic that was voted on. You may be in the minority. Kirk
kms@uncecs.edu (Ken Steele) (04/09/91)
In article <2272@cluster.cs.su.oz.au>, ronny@minnie.cs.su.OZ.AU (Ronald Cook) writes: > I wouldn't mind people posting "for sale" postings in > comp.sys.amiga.games if they limited their distributions appropriately. > It is unlikely that someone in Australia will want to buy a bunch of > NTSC-based games or incompatible hardware from someone living on the > other side of the world. > > Unfortunately, we still get these postings, with "world" distribution, > even here - and they're a waste of my time and that of others in other > countries. Come to that, they're a waste of time for many people living > in the US. I doubt that someone from California is really THAT > interested in a second-hand game for sale in New York. > > So please, keep them off! > > ...Ronny Living in the wilds of Western North Carolina in the Southern USA, which is located many miles from civilzation (almost as far as Australia :-), I find that I do my business with places and individuals in California, Massachusetts, Texas, and other such exotic locations. I have shipped packages to Germany, Norway, and England. The point is that IF someone in Australia or New Zealand had something I wanted then I would do business with them. Bernie Cosell is right. It makes much sense to post for sale notices in the appropriate topic group, and requires little perspicacity to recognize and bypass such a posting if one is not interested. -- Ken Steele Dept. of Psychology kms@ecsvax.bitnet Mars Hill College kms@ecsvax.uncecs.edu Mars Hill, NC 28754 {some big name site}!mcnc!ecsvax!kms
xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan) (04/09/91)
[Note followup; we have a newsgroup for ranting; please use it early and
often when conversation turns to argument. No matter how great your urge
to express your deeply felt anger at another poster's idiotic inability
to understand your crystal clear logic, the rest of the group just wish
both you bozos would go away; help make the other groups nicer places to
read by restricting acrimony to the proper forum.]
Just a couple of comments on the issues from the guy who created the current
situation.
1) When I ran the vote changing comp.sys.amiga.games from a bogus, 60%
distribution newsgroup to the current legitimate, much better distributed
newsgroup, sale and swapping and general market access news about games
were explicitly _in_ the group charter, following the existing practice.
2) When I ran the grand reorganization, c.s.a.* was rife with
crossposted, frequently _reposted_, forsale articles; the sellers were
frustrated enough to repost often because their ads were being ignored
in the existing, very high traffic groups, and the group readers were
furious and frequently flaming, because the ads were bulking up to as
much as 20% of the articles in groups already tedious in the extreme to
traverse. The reason most ads were ignored, I suspect, is that most
folks with competent news software had "/sale/a:j" in their kill files
for all of c.s.a.*.
3) Over fairly strenuous objections that misc.forsale.computers already
existed, I managed to get c.s.a.marketplace voted in as a newsgroup, so
that there would be an _Amiga specific_ place for _Amiga specific_ ads,
to keep them from being scattershot across all of c.s.a.*.
Those thinking that c.s.a.marketplace is "unsuccessful" haven't bothered
to go and look at the traffic level there.
The clueless few still crossposting to other c.s.a.* groups with their
ads are active nuisances and should be flamed to toast IN EMAIL by
everyone; but even now the immense burden of misplaced ads has been
greatly lightened in the other groups, and of necessity, no one reading
c.s.a.marketplace is going in there killing all articles with "for sale"
in them.
The clueless, whose crosspostings get their articles junked by the
competent news software kill files so that their postings are the only
ones _not_ seen by those reading c.s.a.marketplace, we will always have
with us; USENet attracts the clueless like a dust magnet.
[
Fairly major clue for those lacking even one; you know who you are:
Folks with itchy wallets are just naturally cruising c.s.a.marketplace.
Putting your ad anywhere else is just irritating folks who will
subsequently decide _not_ to buy from such a drip; net sales
transactions depend on a lot of trust and respect on both sides; why
blow your chances with a misplaced ad?
Why not instead do the world and yourself a favor and stick to the
program?
You're not going to miss a single potential customer by putting your ad
_only_ in c.s.a.marketplace; all the potential customers are already
there, circling ads for bargains like sharks on a feeding frenzy.
You have in addition the joyful opportunity to be a decent human being
and a better net citizen, a dramatic change in your usual brain dead
slime mold lifestyle.
]
4) Despite all the above, the existing practice for c.s.a.games at the
time of the reorganization, and the general character of the group as a
place to talk about games including their availability, made it make
sense to leave open the chance for used game ads to occur in c.s.a.games
_as_ _well_ _as_ c.s.a.marketplace, and the reorganization proposal
_explicitly_ mentioned that _several_ times; it is still the case that
game ads are part of the charter of c.s.a.games; this was not changed.
5) No other groups but c.s.a.marketplace and c.s.a.games should have ads
in them; putting your ad crossposted in a group as busy as c.s.a.misc or
c.s.a.hardware is a near guarantee that it will be nailed by anyone
using killfiles, and so never seen even in c.s.a.marketplace. The ads in
c.s.a.games should be game ads _only_, and really, as at least one
poster has mentioned, you're better off putting them instead in
c.s.a.marketplace; that's where the folks with more money than
sense [;-)] are cruising for a bargain; might as well put your ad where
they are most likely to trip over it.
6) I'm glad Ferry posted his original complaints about misplaced ads; it
helps him work through this strong fascist tendency he has, and actually
serves on occassion to remind the c.s.a.* group when things have gone a
little awry. I wish, though, he'd paid better attention to the
reorganization and left c.s.a.games out of his rant.
7) There are smileys everyplace there should be in the above.
/// It's Amiga
/// for me: why
Kent, the man from xanth. \\\/// settle for
<xanthian@Zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> <xanthian@well.sf.ca.us> \XX/ anything less?
--
Convener, COMPLETED comp.sys.amiga grand reorganization.andrew@teslab.lab.OZ (Andrew Phillips) (04/10/91)
In article <1991Apr9.030944.7626@uncecs.edu> kms@uncecs.edu (Ken Steele) writes: >It makes much sense to post for sale notices in the appropriate group, ... In <1991Apr8.144654.3905@vax5.cit.cornell.edu> kxgj@vax5.cit.cornell.edu writes: I personally do not think the 'other group postings' should be encouraged (allowed, if you must) because I want to see the postings. One of the things I have liked most about the reorg. was the ability to go to one group and what ggodies might be offered (boy I want disposable income :-). I agree with Ken. But to satisfy people who are only interested in spending it would make immense sense to cross-post any games for sale to c.s.a.games and c.s.a.marketplace. In article <1991Apr9.030944.7626@uncecs.edu> kms@uncecs.edu (Ken Steele) writes: >In article <2272@cluster.cs.su.oz.au>, ronny@minnie.cs.su.OZ.AU (Ronald Cook) writes: >> I wouldn't mind people posting "for sale" postings in >> comp.sys.amiga.games if they limited their distributions appropriately. > ... >The point is that IF someone in Australia or New Zealand >had something I wanted then I would do business with them. Here I have to agree *strongly* with Ronny. It seems that many in the U.S. seem to think that world=us or world=na. It gets a little annoying to see masses of news articles that are inappropriate outside the U.S. Most for sale postings should be restricted to the local city or state. Under *very* rare circumstances it should perhaps be posted world-wide. I have (successfully) sold games in this group with a distribution of syd (Sydney) or nsw (state). Inappropriate use of the distribution feature is a waste of time and money. Not only are they a waste of time for the people who have to wade through them, they are also a burden on the intercontinental links. Andrew. -- Andrew Phillips (andrew@teslab.lab.oz.au) Phone +61 (Aust) 2 (Sydney) 289 8712