cja (11/05/82)
Regarding: From: uofm-cv!mb2b!sb1!ll1!ihldt!ihps3!harpo!eagle!mhuxt!mhuxj!cbosgd!mark (Mark Horton) Newsgroups: net.general Title: proper use of net.general and the Mac Whopper debate ... However, so far I have read 6 followups in net.general and countless ones in net.followup. These people should all have known better. ... I can understand the point about not doing followups in net.general - I hate digging through recursive arguments in net.general as much as anybody. But I thought net.followup was defined precisely *for* followups: comments, occasionally essays, sparked by something seen in another newsgroup. I think this convention is one of the most useful features of this network. Granted, one can argue this feature is being abused by endless regurgitation of The Great Burger Debate, but to stifle the many for sake of the few makes no sense either. Chuck Antonelli
mark (11/06/82)
In response to Chuck Antonelli's comment on net.followup: net.followup is there primarily to take the load off net.general. But there are limits to what we want to see in net.followup as well. If a discussion springs up in net.followup, fine. But if it lasts more than a few days, it should be moved to net.misc or some other newsgroup. In the particular case of the Burger Wars, the original article was asking for a POLL, not a discussion. He wanted votes. In the case of polls, it is never proper to just post votes to the net. Votes should always be mailed to the author, who should tabulate the results and post one article summarizing what was said. I'm beginning to think that we need a document on network etiquette, which should be required reading for all persons on the network. Mark Horton
rick (11/08/82)
A 'net etiquette' document that was required reading for every new netnews reader, wouldn't be hard to implement. It could be an article posted to net.general with a very long expiration time, coupled with a shell procedure to be run as part of the netnews installation procedure, that posted a copy of the same etiquette article to 'general' with an equally long expiration date. The first (net.general) posting would get to all current sites (which are not likely to do a full installation in the near future) and the second posting (general -- at installation time) would get to all future sites. Now all we need is such an article. Any volunteers to write one? (* silly question! *) Rick Thomas houxi!u1100s!rick
derek (11/09/82)
What is everybody's idea of proper net manners? Please reply by mail and I will summarize to 'net.news'. Derek Andrew U of Saskatchewan
death (11/10/82)
So if a discussion gets old on net.followup, it should be moved to net.misc, and when it gets old there does it have to move again, to maybe net.beating.dead.horse? Discussions on the network seem to follow a common progression: 1. First article appears. 2. First rebuttals appear. 3. By now, it has been distributed to all sites, and all sorts of things start to happen; things are interesting. 4. Time passes...intrest wanes. However, people who only read news once a week or so keep responding to month old articles. Discussion gets old. 5. Discussion gets very old; people start to say, "maybe this should not continue on the network", others who are still interested keep discussion going, and say "let's hear it for the 'n' key! If you aren't interested, unsubscribe!" 6. Everyone finally gets tired of it all and discussion ceases. We are now into phase 5 of Burger Wars; Mark Horton just said that net.followup was the wrong place for such a discussion and called for a halt to it all. Now, me, I happen to prefer stupid cheap thrills like burger debates instead of long diatribes on highly morally charged issues; not because of any preference for the shallow over the profound, but after months of maudlin orations, a lighter discussion about injection-molded burgers is a welcome change. So "let's hear it for your 'n' key" and all those other things, give it two weeks, and it'll go away. == death ==