From: EIVERSO@cms.cc.wayne.edu
Subject: Re: proposal for alt.music.techno
Organization: Wayne State University, C&IT
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 16:20:42 GMT

In article <1992Aug20.041854.4596@bradley.bradley.edu>
pwh@bradley.bradley.edu (Pete Hartman) writes:
 
>You don't seem to understand the newgroup process very well--you are SUPPOSED
>to crosspost discussion to related and affected groups.  Perhaps you should
>find the relevant FAQ in news.announce.newusers or some similar group.
 
ahem...and I quote...
 
<From: markw@gvlf8.gvl.unisys.com (Mark H. Weber)
<Subject: How to create a new "alt" group
<Date: 25 Sep 91 21:10:29 GMT
 
<There are no rules or guidelines for creation of "alt" groups, but there
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
<does appear to be an established procedure which goes something like this:
 
<   1) Propose a new alt group in alt.config. The proposal should
<      include a charter or purpose for the new group, and some
<      demonstration of the need for the group. Be prepared to explain
........
<   2) See what the alt.net.opinion of the new group is. Wait a few
<      days for replies to trickle in from the far corners of the
<      net. If the consensus (however you determine that) is that
<      the group should be created, then proceed to step 3.
 
<      (these first two steps are often ignored, which usually
<       leads to unpleasantness in step 4 below)
 
........................and so on...
 
This is a bit dated so if "policy" has undergone a major change recently,
I will conceed. Another FAQ about creating non-alt groups mentions
that you should post the request for discussion in related groups, but
that the discussion itself should go in alt.config.
 
But this is really a small point, so I'll conceed to help things along.
 
>>And do you expect me to be the main poster to alt.music.techno?
>
>Since you seem to be the main poster in favor of alt.music.techno, yes.
 
I was interested in reading posts of others, primarily. Posting possibly
daily but maybe not consistently.
 
>>                                                               How much
>>I post is not a concern of mine. I do believe that there is an interest
>>in posting and reading techno info that is hindered by the lack of a techno
>>proper newsgroup.
>
>Your belief in such a hindrance does not make it so.  Do you have any kind
>of concrete data to support this belief?
 
I have provided IDs, do you want reposts? Satisfying you is going to be a
problem. Most of those messages have expired at my site.
 
>>               Many have supported that view.
>
>I may have missed the beginning of all this, but I sure don't recall
>anything approaching "many".
 
It's been about equal pro and con. Roughly 40 posts on the subject.
 
>>                                               No one has offered a
>>convicing argument to the contrary.
>
>Let's rephrase that--no one has offered an argument that you'll listen
>to.
 
If you have evidence that anti-social persons (esp the kind that like techno
but don't go to raves) can undergo rapid personality shifts, then please
post it.
 
>>>I haven't seen any complaints in posting
>>>my reviews to both alt.rave and rec.music.industrial.  If an alt.music.techno
>>>is created by some bozo outside of everyone's desire, I will not support it in
>>>the least.
>>Where have you been?
>>Tell it to malouin@engin.umich.edu who doesn't feel welcome in alt.rave,
>
>Why doesn't this person feel welcome?  You spout off with this stuff, but
>there's no substance behind it....
 
He posted his opinions about 3 times already.
Here's a quote: "alt.rave is great for what it deals with, but there are
a lot of us out here who prefer to stay out of the party scene. IMO,
alt.music.techno would attract a much different crowd than alt.rave."
 
You may disagree with it, but it is some of the "substance" you asked for.
 
>>tell it to mjbrown@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu, arthur@sfsuvax1.sfsu.edu,
>>or aresenic@fubar.cs.montana.edu. These are just a few of the persons
>>who have posted their support for alt.music.techno. I guess this means
>>you will support it now?
>
>Three people.  Big list.  Just because I am the loudest objector doesn't
 
plus malouin = 4  plus me = 5
I found another one whose ID I had saved: jamie@cs.sfu.edu
That makes 6. There were about as many dissenters, OK? I don't deny their
existence.
 
And *don't* say that there's just just me in posting in heavy favor of
a techno group. arthur@sfsuvax1.sfsy.edu has posted 2 essays recently
on the need for alt.music.techno.
 
>mean I'm the only one.  Or that Pete Ashdown and I are the only two.  I
>can think of as many people off the top of my head who are contributing
>net.citizens in a number of music groups who are likely to agree with
>our side more than yours.  So?
 
Yeah; so? We've heard both sides; so? There's enough opinion either way.
We don't need a vote. I'd like to conclude discussion and move along.
 
>>>Yes.  We like unified discussions in single groups.  We don't need to break up
>>>our unity with comments like, "I will *NEVER* attend a rave."
>>Well, if I am to discuss techno in "your" free and open newsgroup,
>>you better be prepared for more of the same.
>
>More of what same?
 
*Please* if you're going to get this deep into it, *read* what I write!
 
MORE OF: "I will *NEVER* attend a rave." and like comments.
 
>>                                       Does this sound like fun to you?
>
>I haven't yet seen anything so offensive I couldn't hit "n" to avoid in
>ANY newsgroup.
 
But are there any newsgroups that you may have initially been interested
in the likely subject matter discussed there, but you've found yourself
eventually avoiding so as not to become offended?
 
e.g. I like basketball and I'm a Pistons fan, but I get tired of the Pistons
bashing and anti-Detroit trash talking in r.s.b.pro, and I'll stay away from
it for long periods. By staying away, I no longer disseminate info on my
local team, which many fans out-of-state are interested in.
 
No info sharing = bad thing.
 
>>Don't you get it that there is a reason why persons want to isolate
>>themselves from rave so as to avoid offending or being offended?
>
>"Cover my eye's mommy!  I shouldn't be allowed to see that *evil*
>offensive posting!"
 
It's not that simple. There could be sh*t flying in both directions
if the anti-social non-rave techno fans let the rest of the group know
what they think of their neo-hippy idealism. My guess is they won't
even bother to post in alt.rave, but at least I'm willing to give it a try
for the time being.
 
>>Or maybe you'd love a constant flame war to unify "your" group.
>
>The only reason we're arguing is because you want to create a whole seperate
>group, which as news admins we feel is *stupid*.  Not because it's techno.
>I've argued just as vehemently against other stupid group splinterings.
 
I'm meant that arguments of a different nature could start to show up
in alt.rave. Will that help it or hurt it?
 
>You seem clueless about the newsgroup creation process, and I would say by
 
I think I proven that I am sufficiently enlightened of the process.
see above and below FAQ excerpts
 
>inference you are kind of unaware of the logic that would be nice to have
>behind newsgroup creation (not that there is usually a lot of logic, but we
>can try).
>
>You can propose a new group every day for the rest of your life, and
>sure enough USENET is huge enough that there will be people who will
>support its creation.  That doesn't mean it's a Good Thing [tm].
 
(Devo fan? ;-) )
Well, I think the vehement supression of the desires of a group of persons
to form a new newsgroup that is related but distictly different to another
group is not a good thing either.
 
>But whether or not other news admins (who are really the ones with the
>power to make or break your group) get pissed off IS a concern--one of
>the joys of USENET is that I don't have to carry or forward a group I
>don't want on my machines.  If enough admins agree with me, that group
>will have 0 propagation and will be next to useless.
 
I quote again from the FAQ.....
 
<    4) Let the individual site news administrators decide whether to
<       honor your "newgroup" message. Most admins prefer that the message
<       come from a verifiable account, messages which are obviously forged,
<       or have not been discussed in alt.config and contain no explanation
<       will probably not be honored by many sites.  Persons opposed to the
<       group, or admins who feel that the newgroup message was a forgery
<       may send out "rmgroup" messages to try to sabotage the group.
<       It may take several iterations of this process to firmly
<       establish the new group. It has been humorously suggested that
<       only alt groups which get 100 more "newgroup" than "rmgroup"
<       messages should be established. However, these "rmgroup wars"
<       are annoying to news administrators, and reduce the overall
<       acceptance (and distribution) of the "alt" hierarchy. This is
<       the reason that steps 1 and 2 above are important.
 
 
<This may sound like a lot of rigamarole, and it is. The purpose is to
<discourage creation of alt groups that might be better off as mainstream
<groups, or that might be better of left uncreated. Don't take this all
<too seriously, though. The "alt" net is the last remaining refuge away
<from the control freaks, namespace purists and net.cops (like myself) that
      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
<maintain and enforce the mainstream newsgroup guidelines. There is still
<some room for spontaneity out here on the "alt" frontier.  Successful
<groups have been created without following these suggestions. Almost
<any non-forged, serious newgroup message will at least be considered by
<most news admins.  Some groups have been created just on a whim. The
<concept behind the group better be good (or a least entertaining), though!
 
<--
<  Mark H. Weber                   | Internet: markw@GVL.Unisys.COM
......................
 
So I will agree that it is your perogative to carry alt.music.techno or not.
I must assert that supression of this alt group would be against the grain
of the net. Esp since it has not recieved unanimous support *or* condemnation.
 
Perhaps it is time you reassess your role as news admin.
My admin is pretty much open to new alt.* groups.
 
>And if you would contribute strictly techno discussions, it would be welcome,
>and voila! you would have the traffic you crave that doesn't use the word rave.
I'm willing to try. Others may not be as willing.
 
>>>No, we just won't support it.  When you have the largest contributors of
>>>alt.rave and r.m.i telling you that it is a bad idea, and only yourself
>>>whining that it is a good idea, then you've got to wonder what kind of success
>>>you'll have with it.
>>Yes, but that isn't happening. Instead those big contributors have decided
>>to be big nay sayers, but less frequent posters who have legitimate opinions
>>support the idea.
>
>So let's see that support.  Every one of those "less frequent posters" can
>post their own opinions.  I haven't seen but one or two agreeing with you.
 
Rip van Hartman, they have posted. Some are still posting. Why must
we jump through hoops to please you?
 
>>Wake up pal! It isn't just me who wants alt.music.techno.
>
>Oh yeah, a handful along for the ride, who won't go out on a limb to
>argue for the group.  I'm awake.  Where are the masses?
 
Where are the masses of nay-sayers? Both sides have stated their opinions
and it has leveled off.
 
>>There are people who don't want to have anything to do with alt.rave, but
>>would gladly subscribe to an alt.music.techno.
>>Call them anti-social, seperatists, jerks, what-have-you,
>>but saying "just discuss it in alt.rave" won't make them go away, and it
>>won't make them post to alt.rave either.
>
>That's their loss, and their inability to deal with "rave" doesn't
>mean a new group is a good idea.
 
No, it's *your* loss if you want to read their techno-specific posts too.
 
>USENET is *not* about "volume, volume,
>volume".  It isn't a case of everyone should have their own pet newsgroup
>where they can hide from the world.  The whole idea behind it is transfer
>of information, and it's usually nice to try to make that work in logical
>ways.
 
Logically, if a segment of the population will only post techno-related
info in a non-party-oriented group, then *information* will *not* be
transferred. Thus a loss for both sides.
 
--Eric
Newsgroups: alt.config