From: tlynch@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current,rec.arts.startrek.misc
Subject: Re: do we need rec.arts.startrek.dsn?
Followup-To: rec.arts.startrek.misc
Date: 31 Dec 1992 05:05:48 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

As long as we're discussing group splits and the problem r.a.s.c is having 
with volume...how about moving *this* little number over to r.a.s.misc?  :-)
(Followups set there.)

forbes@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (Scott Forbes) writes:
>tlynch@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch) writes:
>>> forbes@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (Scott Forbes) writes:

[...]

>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.  

That may be an *overestimate* of ability to keep up.  250 articles a day seems
amazingly excessive to me...but then, my free time is currently rather low.

>(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 that's possible, yes; and also that it's to be fought. 

>>> >	 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.  

Granted.  I didn't say completed, though; I said "passed".  I'd even be willing
to grant "having a reasonable chance of passing" in there, 'cos even that 
seems most unlikely.

>(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.)

Good point.

>>> >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".

Perhaps.  It's the crossover points that would be more difficult; I will, 
however, grant that the boundary 'twixt these three groups will be far
smaller in volume than the all too misused .current/.misc boundary.

If you really want to make sure people realize it's separated by *casts*,
though, how about changing the names to :

r.a.s.original-cast
r.a.s.tng-cast
r.a.s.ds9-cast

That makes it a bit clearer, IMO.

>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.

Agreed.  My own circumstances have been slowly weaning me away from the 
r.a.s.* groups _anyway_, however, so I'm not the best of people to be
arguing passionately one way or the other.  As long as my reviews have a home,
that's likely to be my main selling point.  ;-)

In any case, your cast-based ideas *may* have a better shot at working than
the mess .current is now in.  I'm decidedly skeptical, but not enough to lead
a fight against it.  Let's see where the discussion goes and whether
constructive things come out of it.  (Let's also see what happens with DS9;
while odds are prohibitive that it'll be a big hit, there are always...
possibilities of things that could lessen volume.)

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

>CONS:	Some discussions involve more than one cast of characters
>	  (e.g., Kirk vs. Picard, "TOS/TNG/DS9 wars")

Those go to .misc anyway, right?

>	Some two-part episodes start on TNG and end on DS9

A bigger problem, but also IMO a rare one.  With TNG only having a year and
a half to go, how many times could they pull that stunt?

>	Overlapping readership (TNG/DS9) reduces benefit of split
>	Increases crossposting

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

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

>Better that than flames... :-)

I know.  I'm receiving a few in my mailbox right now.  

Tim Lynch