From: magnus@thep.lu.se (Magnus Olsson)
Subject: Re: Why alt.folklore.computers should stay in alt (was: leave alt.folklore.computers alone, rmgroup comp.society.folklore)
Organization: Theoretical Physics, Lund University, Sweden
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 14:15:55 GMT

In article <563@ulogic.UUCP> hartman@ulogic.UUCP (Richard M. Hartman) writes:
>In article <1992Nov5.000856.15656@pollux.lu.se> magnus@thep.lu.se (Magnus Olsson) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov4.174323.4347@u.washington.edu> starfish@stein.u.washington.edu 
>>(Sarah Skovronsky) writes:
>>
>>So, why are people so afraid to move from alt? I think it's because
>>they're afraid to destroy something fine.  Since a.f.c seems to be
>
>An understandable fear, but perhaps unjustified.
>
>>a) New participants
>
>certainly

But please note that many old participants might be lost (maybe
because their newsadmins won't carry the new group), so the net effect
may be a loss.

>
>>b) A new name
>
>by definition	:)
>
>>c) Possibly a new charter, and certainly a new *interpretation* of
>>   what the group's about.
>
>why?

You've already answered the question yourself: Either new readers _or_
a new name will lead to a new interpretation of what is appropriate to
post in the group. Not even putting "this group is for exactly the
same topics as the old alt.foklklore.computers" in the charter will
help, as the new readers won't know what alt.folklore.computers was
about in the first place.

>>Misc.folklore.computers, Talk.folklore.computers: Here, people would
>>probably be more tolerant, but the group name would still be
>>*strongly* misleading.  And the mainstream Usenet is *much* more fussy
>>about misleading group names than is alt. 
>
>how is talk.folklore.computers more misleading (you even emphasize
>"*strongly* misleading" than the current alt.folklore.computers?

No, it's not *more* misleading. IMHO alt.folklore.computers is also
"*strongly* misleading", but 

a) on altnet, people don't care so much about the "appropriateness" of
postings, and

b) a.f.c has been on alt for several years, and people have come to
accept that its contents doesn't necessarily fit its name. If it were
moved, we would have to start from scratch with all the new readers.

>I think it fits the best of the possibilities, and also fits what
>you currently describe as occurring in the current a.f.c... 

I'm afraid I can't agree with you here. The group has a *very* strong
factual content - descriptions of how, say, command syntax in TOPS-20
compares with the VMS equvalents can't really be called "folklore",
can they?


>>Soc.culture.hackers
>
>not really, from what you describe.  I would guess a group with 
>this name would be discussions of hacking techniques and anecdotes.
>(probably in both the old and new senses of the word "hack", although we
>would certainly want to discourage those posts in the new sense...)

You see why I considered that name to be bad? You and I get totally
different ideas of what it's about, and we're only two persons...

>>Is it really broken, since so many people seem to want to fix it?
>
>It is not really broken, as much as it seems, by traffic, to deserve
>a place in the "real" heirarchy.  Consider it a promotion... :)

It might "deserve" a promotion. I don't know if it *needs* or *wants*
one. And I'm *very* dubious about whether a move to talk could be
considered a promotion...

>>I don't think so.  A.f.c has a very high readership for altnet.
>>Granted, some fascist newsadmins refuse to touch altnet with a
>>ten-foot pole.  Perhaps they believe that autobogitification is
>
>This, on the other hand, is NOT a legitimate reason (IMHO) for
>moving the group.  That is an internal political matter at each
>site...

Exactly. But the original proposal was made for exactly that reason
(to convince a stubborn newsadmin that the group was worth carrying,
it would have to move into the mainstream. Sigh.)

>>Note: Before anybody digs out old, "incriminating" archive entries
>>from the discussion of comp.society.folklore last year: I admit that I
>>did support (and vociferously defend) the creation of c.s.f.  But that
>>was with the original (and still valid) charter that made c.s.f an
>>_alternative_ to, not a replacement for alt.folklore.computers. 
>
>An interesting proposition, if a high percentage were crossposted
>from the original group, perhaps you could sort of clone the atmosphere...

Unfortunately, that wouldn't work - c.s.f is moderated. Even if it
hadn't immediately crashed to the gorund, it could never have replaced
a.f.c. 


Magnus Olsson                   | \e+      /_
Dept. of Theoretical Physics    |  \  Z   / q
University of Lund, Sweden      |   >----<           
Internet: magnus@thep.lu.se     |  /      \===== g
Bitnet: THEPMO@SELDC52          | /e-      \q

Xref: sparky news.groups:21285 rec.games.frp.misc:8199