From: forbes@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (Scott Forbes)
Subject: Re: do we need rec.arts.startrek.dsn?
Organization: Usenet Sports Programming Network
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 10:17:51 GMT

tlynch@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch) writes:
>> forbes@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (Scott Forbes) writes:
>> >  *  Whether or not DS9 survives as a television series, it is (at
>> >     the moment) generating enough netnews traffic to qualify as a
>> >     viable USENET newsgroup.  
>> 
>> At the moment.  Key phrase.

If, two weeks before the premiere of _Encounter at Farpoint_, I had said
that TNG would generate "enough netnews traffic to qualify as a viable
USENET newsgroup", I would have been:

(a) performing a technological miracle, since I had no modem at the time;
(b) making an understatement about the amount of TNG traffic generated;
(c) both (a) and (b).

I'd argue that DS9 has only begun to generate traffic, given (again) that
the show isn't even on the air yet.  The sticking point, of course, is
that we don't have a TNG-specific newsgroup -- even though it "qualifies"
by this same criterion....


>> >     2.  DS9 will generate a lot of discussion here on USENET,
>> 
>> Also likely.
>> 
>> >	 possibly up to half the bandwidth of the newsgroup(s),
>> >         until that point in the distant future (1994?) when TNG
>> >	 stops producing new episodes.
>> 
>> Hmm.  That will depend on the interest level it maintains, and will also
>> depend on what you consider DS9-generated discussion.  Will the inevitable
>> TOS/TNG/DS9 wars be considered DS9-generated?

I'm assuming that DS9 will generate a traffic pattern similar to that
generated by TNG, and that a newsgroup becomes inaccessible to some
percentage of netnews readers when the bandwidth climbs above 250+
articles per day.  (I'm fudging the numbers based on past experience
and on my personal ability to "keep up" with newsgroups.)  I suspect
that, eventually, some people reading r.a.s.current will unsubscribe
as a result of the increased traffic brought on by DS9.

I think TOS/TNG/DS9 wars should be in r.a.s.misc under any scenario,
including the existing newsgroups....  As to whether they're "DS9-
generated," I'd have to say yes.  (TOS/TNG wars are TNG-generated;
at least, they wouldn't exist if TNG had never been.)


>> >     The conclusion:  DS9 traffic will be a Problem.
>> 
>> Unfortunately, this is likely.
>> 
>> >  *  Given the above, how do we deal with this Problem?  
>> 
>> [good discussion of why .tos, .tng, .ds9 wouldn't work deleted; see the 
>> original article for details]
>> 
>> >	 In short, creating a newsgroup to discuss DS9, a show that
>> >	 *isn't even on the air yet*, is going to be a hard sell.
>> 
>> Now that's an understatement.  I would bet large amounts of money that no 
>> DS9-specific group will pass until the show's been on the air at least
>> three months, and even three months is pushing it.

Three months of DS9 would take us to about 14 weeks from today, and
I'd be pretty impressed if *any* change to the r.a.s.* hierarchy
could be completed in that timeframe.  (I'd be especially stunned if
a proposal made before DS9 airs actually worked and made sense when
applied to the traffic we'll have 14 weeks from now.)


>> >create			rec.arts.startrek.original-cast
>> >rename *.current to	rec.arts.startrek.next-gen
>> >create			rec.arts.startrek.deep-space-9
>> 
>> >These groups are based not on the series, but on the cast of characters.
>> >Discussions of TOS, TAS, movies I through VI, TOS-based books, etc.,
>> >go in r.a.s.original-cast.  It's a fine distinction, but it makes an
>> >interesting difference.
>> 
>> Whoa.  Hold it.
>> 
>> We just got through large amounts of text pointing out that newbies are having
>> trouble with the definition of .current.  And now you're proposing a split
>> that differs from numerous unworkable ones by "a fine distinction"?  

I was the one who thought r.a.s.current had something to do with
voltage or water currents, remember?  :-)  I'd wager that a newbie
would parse "r.a.s.next-gen" more easily than "r.a.s.current".

(And if we actually create a group named "rec.arts.startrek.dsn",
instead of *using*the*other*eleven*letters*to*spell*out*the*name*
*of*the*series*, fercryinoutloud....)


>> Scott, I'm really loath to say this, but I think you're overestimating the 
>> willingness of the majority of r.a.s.*ers to make that distinction.  What
>> your proposal would do, IMO, is create the very show-divided hierarchy that
>> we both fought so hard against last year.  I don't have the time to fight
>> that battle again (in fact, after this weekend my part in this discussion very
>> likely ends), but that doesn't mean I want to see it.  I oppose this.

Hmmm...  I tend to think, much as you do, that any further split of
r.a.s.current will run into increasingly thorny problems involving
crossposting, topics that are appropriate in multiple groups, and
threads that would be expected to move from one group to another.

The question of what's preferable, however, depends on how much time
you have available to spend wading through 200, 300, ...? articles
of r.a.s.current traffic each day.  I'm willing to consider a split
that has drawbacks, if I think the benefits are worth having them.


Possible ways of further splitting the discussion (please add/subtract):

By broadcast medium ("show-based")
(e.g., r.a.s.books, r.a.s.movies, r.a.s.tv[.tos|.tas|.tng|.ds9])

PROS:	Some discussions are easily divided into these categories
	Some r.a.s.* readers uninterested in ST books, TAS, etc.
	  would be able to unsubscribe to these groups
	Reduces bandwidth

CONS:	Either creates small, little-used discussion groups (.tas)
	  or makes it harder to find and discuss these topics
	Some discussions involve multiple types of media
	  (e.g., novelization of movie, book about TV show, etc.)
	Some topics are not related to a single broadcast medium
	  (major characters, events, aspects of ST universe)
	Some discussions involve more than one television show
	  (e.g., the O'Brien family, Ferengi, Scotty, Spock)
	Some newsgroups will be huge (r.a.s.tv.tng, r.a.s.tv.ds9)
	Overlapping readership (movies/tv) reduces benefit of split
	Increases crossposting


By cast of characters
(e.g., r.a.s.original-cast, r.a.s.next-gen, r.a.s.deep-space-9)

PROS:	Many discussions are easily divided into these categories
	Makes common discussion topics (TNG, DS9) easier to find
	Reduces bandwidth

CONS:	Some discussions involve more than one cast of characters
	  (e.g., Kirk vs. Picard, "TOS/TNG/DS9 wars")
	Some two-part episodes start on TNG and end on DS9
	Overlapping readership (TNG/DS9) reduces benefit of split
	Increases crossposting


Arbitrary 3-way split
(e.g., r.a.s.current.a, r.a.s.current.b, r.a.s.current.c)

PROS:	Even 3-way split of traffic
	Theoretically 'clean' split; topics assigned to a group
	Reduces bandwidth

CONS:	Impossible to accomplish without moderating the groups
	Moderating the groups would be a nightmare straight from Hell
	Would confuse newbies to the point of driving them away
	Makes common discussion topics (TNG, DS9) harder to find
	Overlapping readership (A/B/C) reduces benefit of split
	Crossposting skyrockets if groups are unmoderated


Keep things the way they are
(e.g., r.a.s.current and no new groups)

PROS:	Easy to implement
	Most common discussion topic (TNG) is easy to find
	Avoids crossposting

CONS:	Poor signal-to-noise ratio, slowly getting worse
	Bandwidth of TNG discussion drowns out most other topics
	Expected DS9 traffic will overwhelm some readers
	


>> >Enough.  Questions, comments, flames?
>> 
>> All too many of the first two, I'm afraid...

Better that than flames... :-)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current