From: shell@gandalf.Berkeley.EDU (Shelly Culbertson)
Newsgroups: rec.music.phish
Subject: Re: Grovels, Tape Pleas, and Personals (was: Digestifier)
Date: 15 Dec 92 04:57:18 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Statistics, U. C. Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: gandalf.berkeley.edu


In article <1992Dec15.000004.24801@leland.Stanford.EDU> samuels@waldron.Stanford.EDU (Steve Samuels) writes:
>In article <1gbtg8INNplu@agate.berkeley.edu>, I wrote: 
>>My personal opinion on this is that, from the number of posts complaining
>>about ticket and tape grovels, it has become clear that due to the volume
>>involved it is no longer considerate to post such articles to the net.
>
>I understand this is a personal opinion, but I cannot agree with it.

Fair enough -- certainly I qualified it as my opinion, and the point
of posting, in part, was to stimulate discussion so that we might get
a feeling for the net consensus on this issue.

>The solution you present (i.e. stop posting) does not address the
>protestations, only your problems.  

I'd like to clarify why the high volume of such posts concerns me -- they
don't actually bother me personally, I don't mind flipping by them when 
reading news; but I do worry that people who might have something interesting
to add to our community here will end up not getting involved because they
can't keep up with the volume or don't have the patience to sift a large
number of articles for a relative few concerned with actual discussion.

>Shelly, you don't worry about not getting tickets due to your position with 
>the band, other folks don't have that luxory.  

This has only been the case for a few (less than four) months; Phish have
been selling out shows for much longer than that.  I am quite familiar
with the effort required to get tickets for any popular band -- usually
it means getting tickets the day they go on sale....the only shows that
come to mind as having sold out in less than a day on the current tour
are Port Chester; even New Years tickets were available for at least 24
hours.  For folks who have access to the net and to the hotline, knowing
what's happening well in advance of the on-sale date should not be difficult.

>I also cannot support your argument presented later
>that basically tells everyone "that's not what the net is for".

I don't know how many times I've posted that I have *no* desire to define
the net for its users.  As one voice among many, I simply wished to express
my ideas about what might make this community more comfortable for the
majority....but I'm ready to admit that I could be misperceiving the
feelings of the majority.

>>My advice is that we try to focus less on using the net as a source to
>>fulfill our material needs (tapes and tickets), and more as a source
>>of inspiration where we can share our thoughts and stories.
>
>First of all, this is how the net would best serve YOU, not necessarily
>everyone.  

Again, my honest intention was to make this a more interesting place
for everyone, certainly not just for myself; that would be absurd.

>One must first get in to a Phish show to have stories and
>thoughts.  I can think of no more proper use of a PHISH net than
>aquiring tickets and tapes of PHISH.  This is certainly more germane
>than posts about yeP, God Street Wine, or Deadheads Against
>Discrimination (which I posted).  In fact, acquiring tickets in this
>manner seriously undermines scalpers (who are the scum of the Earth).

It seems to me that the fundamental difference of opinion between us
concerns the overall function of the net.  I had just never thought of
it as a primary source for tickets and tapes-on-request; on the other
hand, it's the perfect environment for tape trees.  I think the difference
is that somewhere along the line I got the idea that it is irresponsible 
to post to a wide distribution on Usenet (or a large mailing list) to fulfill
ones own individual needs, but rather articles should should be relevant
to all users of the group, or at least a majority.  But as we define the
Phish.Net by how we use it, this may not be a custom that we choose to
accept -- that's fine, I've just been operating from a different perspective. 

>That doesn't mean there isn't a problem.  The amount of ticket grovel,
>single tape requests, and personal messages is increasing exponentially
>and is causing many people many headaches, especially if they read the
>list in digestified form.  But simply saying that they shouldn't post
>seems a bit dictatorial, even though it's just a suggestion.

How can a suggestion be dictatorial?...I don't know what more I could
have done to qualify it as my individual opinion only.

>There may very well be solutions that would address everyone's concerns,
>but you'll (plural, as I', addressing the whole community here as well
>as Shelly) never find them until you sit down and think about it.  How
>can we address the posting problem and yet take care of the concerns of
>those who want tapes and tickets?  Off the top of my head I can think of
>two or three simple solutions.  First I'll start off with your
>suggestion: 
>
>1) People voluntarily stop making such posts.  Problems: is that fair to
>them?  Isn't that what this newsgroup is about?  

I think that's a question that needs to be answered -- *is* this newsgroup
all about tape and ticket grovels?  Certainly it can be, if that's what
we want. 

>Sets up a reward system
>for those that break the rules (i.e. those who request a ticket, may in
>fact get one while those who follow the rule surely will not).  May
>force people to search for alternate means of acquiring tickets to shows
>(i.e. scalpers).  Doesn't allow those who have extras to get rid of them
>to a person in the Net community.

Wait a minute!  Why can't folks get rid of their extras this way?  In
fact, that would be my first suggestion (if I'm allowed to make them 
anymore ;-) -- for whatever reason, it seems more community-oriented 
to accept a custom of people posting when they have extras to offer *instead*
of people posting to ask for extras.  The same number of tickets would find
good homes with potentially far fewer posts. 

(suggestions 2, 3 and 3a deleted to save space, but they seemed like
good enough ideas -- perhaps someone else will choose to follow up on 
them.)

>Regardless of whether you agree wih these answers or not, you will NOT
>be able to solve the problem by telling people to stop (look how
>successful the multi-billion dollar War On Drugs was), especially when
>it's not in their best interest.  

I do not want to tell people what to do, I think I've been clear about
that.

>Identify the problem from all perspectives, get together and try to work out 
>a solution that will satisfy everyone.  

That's my intention in responding to your article (also to defend my own
perspective a bit, for I must admit that I felt somewhat attacked by
what you wrote.  Was that your intention?) 

>You'll be surprised how often this will not only
>solve the problem, but also make things better then before.

I certainly hope so!

>HammaH
>PhD in social psychology (specialty: conflict resolution) expected '93
>	anyone know of jobs in business schools near you?


Shelly