From: forbes@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (Scott Forbes)
Subject: The case for/against rec.arts.startrek.dsn
Organization: Usenet Sports Programming Network
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 07:59:33 GMT

cboerm48@ursa.calvin.edu (Christopher Boerma) writes:
_>	Okay, for those of us who are semi-new and not completely sure on 
_>the charter of each of the r.a.s.* groups, could you give a *brief*
_>description here? Like you said r.a.s.current is for books, episodes,
_>what-have-you that have appeared in the last 4 weeks (is that right?).
_>So, what are the others for?
_>
_>	And please, no flames to read the FAQ lists

I'm afraid Mike Shappe's "Welcome to rec.arts.startrek.*" has expired at
my site, but I *think* there are the correct charters.  I'm pulling them
from an article I archived during the Fall '91 r.a.s.* split discussion.


rec.arts.startrek.tech
  Discussions of Star Trek's depiction of future technology,
  including warp drives, phasers, photon torpedoes, transporters,
  communicators, turbolifts, android technology, medical advances,
  Geordi's visor, violations of 20th century physical laws, etc.

rec.arts.startrek.fandom
  Discussions of conventions, television stations airing Star Trek,
  news and policies from Paramount, and other fan-related issues.

rec.arts.startrek.current
  Discussion of Star Trek television programs, movies and books
  aired or released for the first time within the past four months,
  information about future programs, movies and books, and
  speculation of same, if based on information still current (such
  as speculation of cliffhanger resolutions).

rec.arts.startrek.misc
  General discussion of Star Trek; topics which are not appropriate
  for a more specific group in the rec.arts.startrek.* hierarchy.

				  .
				.   .
				  .

Other miscellaneous comments about the "rec.arts.startrek.dsn" idea,
from one of the (lesser) architects of the Fall '91 rec.arts.startrek
reorganization:

During the discussion about splitting the original rec.arts.startrek [_1]
back in August 1991, the idea was raised of splitting the newsgroup
into groups named r.a.s.tos, .tng, possibly .tas (animated series) and
other groups named according to the series being discussed.  This idea
was rejected out of hand:  There are too many discussion threads that
can't be associated with a specific group under this proposal (e.g.,
virtually all of the "tech" discussion, discussions about Spock/Scotty
crossovers into TNG, etc.).

A more popular variation involved splitting r.a.s into groups such as
r.a.s.movies, r.a.s.books, r.a.s.tv.tos, r.a.s.tv.tng and possibly even
r.a.s.tv.tng.current.  A straw poll based on this alternative proposal
won about 40% of the vote [_2], compared to about 60% in favor of the
split into r.a.s.tech, r.a.s.fandom, r.a.s.current and r.a.s.misc.

The vote to split r.a.s was, as somebody else remarked in this thread,
very close to a landslide.  About 85% of the readership voted in favor
of the proposed split, with many people making comments such as
"ANY split is better than slogging through 350 articles a day in r.a.s"
or other words to that effect.  At the time rec.arts.startrek was the
largest group in USENET [_3].  Today both r.a.s.current and r.a.s.misc
average about 200 articles/day, which is above the norm but not in the
Top 25 newsgroups.

Creating a r.a.s.dsn group will implicitly change r.a.s.current to
r.a.s.tng.current, and partially defeat the purpose of creating that
group in the first place.  (Specific references to TNG were removed
from the charter of r.a.s.current, because somebody suggested that
there might be another Star Trek TV series in the works....)  If we
created r.a.s.tv.dsn, we really ought to do away with r.a.s.current and
create r.a.s.books, r.a.s.movies, r.a.s.tv.tos and r.a.s.tv.tng instead.

Of course, this raises a few problems.  Crossposting is going to be a
real bitch under this hierarchy, and we've already seen that most people
don't take the time to figure out the difference between r.a.s.current
and r.a.s.misc under the existing setup.  Do we think that people will:
(a) intuitively understand what a "tos" is, (b) realize that their
article about the Scotty - DS9 crossover should be cross-posted to both
r.a.s.tv.tos and r.a.s.tv.dsn, and (c) do it?

And then there's the novelization of _Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan_.
You wanna put that under r.a.s.books or r.a.s.movies?

Other notes:  When _Star Trek VI_ hit the theatres, traffic in r.a.s
did something close to a voltage spike for several weeks.  When it was
over, things went back to normal.  Traffic about DS9 may do the same,
although this seems unlikely.  (It appears more likely that each episode
of DS9 will cause a separate spike, much as TNG's "Chain of Command" is
peaking in r.a.s.current right now.)

As incredible as this may sound, discussion of all other sci-fi TV shows
takes place in a *single* newsgroup [_4] called rec.arts.sf.tv...
Somehow the "Quantum Leap" fans are surviving being bundled in with
"Lost in Space" and "Battlestar Galacitca" fans; I think we can survive
having only four newsgroups to discuss TOS, TNG and DS9.

Creating a group for Deep Space Nine discussion will settle once and
for all whether the abbreviation is "DSN" or "DS9".  :-)

We don't know how long DS9 is going to last, and removing newsgroups is
virtually impossible.  What if DS9 turns out to be the "Twin Peaks" of
sci-fi television and drops out after one season?

Creating a new "rec." newsgroup on USENET will take at least 10 weeks
from start to finish.  Given that a new group wouldn't arrive until
late February at the earliest, why not wait a few weeks and see how the
initial traffic patterns shake out?

Questions, comments, corrections, feedback, etc.?
								   =====
								 =---=====
--								=-----=====
Scott Forbes		AT&T Network Wireless Systems		==---======
Naperville, IL		forbes@icbm.att.com			 =========
								   =====


[_1]  Actually the "original" newsgroup would be net.startrek, not r.a.s.
All newsgroups began with "net." until the Great Renaming of 1985 (?),
when the comp, misc, rec, soc, sci and talk hierarchies were created.

[_2]  The alternate proposal also included r.a.s.tech and r.a.s.fandom,
so it was really a choice between r.a.s.current and a media-based split.

[_3] "Largest" as measured by number of articles per day, not kilobytes.
After the r.a.s split, soc.motss ("members of the same sex", USENET's
gay/lesbian/bisexual newsgroup) moved into the top spot.

The other way to measure "largest newsgroup" is by kilobytes, but the
alt.binaries.pictures.* groups always win that contest.

[_4] Okay, two newsgroups:  "rec.arts.drwho" is for discussion of the
ever-popular BBC series of the same name.  Actually r.a.s.current alone
has more traffic than rec.arts.sf.tv and rec.arts.drwho combined.
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.misc