From: cstone@husc8.harvard.edu (christopher stone)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: Proposed startrek split -- possible compromis
Date: 22 Jan 93 15:26:29 GMT
Organization: Harvard University Science Center

In article <C18703.6v6@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> hades@Dartmouth.Edu writes:
>cstone@husc8.harvard.edu (christopher stone) writes:
>
>>In article <1jg80oINNd1g@spud.Hyperion.COM> koreth@spud.Hyperion.COM (Steven Grimm) writes:
>>>In <1993Jan18.114316.19501@husc3.harvard.edu> cstone@husc8.harvard.edu (christopher stone) writes:
>>>>Wrong.  Splitting it into .reviews will *EXACERBATE* the problem of
>>>>too much traffic in .current.
>>>
>>>While at the same time causing it to cease being a problem at all for some
>>>subset of the readers (those who unsubscribe to .current) and making it much
>>>less of a problem for others (those who continue to skim .current but read
>>>the reviews).
>
>>But think of how many *will* unsubscribe to current!  Surely you will
>>agree that we should not split the r.a.s. hierarchy in a way that
>>will *discourage* people from taking an interest in and participating
>>in intelligent discussion about Star Trek!  Let's not provide
>>disincentives for people to unsubscribe to .current.
>
>    Disincentives? The people who would unsubscribe from .current are
>those people who aren't interested in the debates but are interested in
>the review of the shows. That is the whole purpose of subscribing only
>to .reviews. There is no disincentive here.
>
>>Also, remember that the *point* of reviews is to take part in the
>>ensuing debate and discussion.  
>
>    No, the point of a review if for the reviewer to express his/her
>opinion on what ever is the subject of said review. The debate and
>discussion that you talk about is a side effect of UseNet.

Then why does the reviewer not talk to a small group of friends or
even to a wall?  Posting to an international computer network with
a huge partipcation rate is, IMHO, a contribution to an ongoing
discussion about Star Trek.

>
>>Being able to do a little more than skim current is an important part of
>>this, but under the .reviews scheme, people *still* won't have the
>>energy to post a lot of followups.
>
>    So? All of this talk about this proposal not reducing the level of
>traffic in .current, and here you are complaining that more people won't
>post followups to reviews. 
>
>>We could have r.a.s.c.ds9 and r.a.s.c.tng *and* r.a.s.c.reviews.  I
>>would be willing to compromise and accept .reviews if we also split
>>current so people could manageably critique the reviews.  DS9 reviews,
>>however, should be crossposted to r.a.s.c.ds9, and tng reviews to
>>r.a.s.c.tng; the moderator would be responsible for this.
>
>    Am I the only that really doesn't want to deal with 5 level
>newsgroup names? The proposal is for rec.arts.startrek.reviews, and not
>r.a.st.current.reviews. Is there some law someplace that says you can't
>review something that might not be considered current? It would be quite
>trivial to set the Followup-To: header to rec.arts.startrek.misc instead
>of .current.
>

Ooops, sorry, it would be r.a.s.reviews.  But I would still only supprt
it concurrently with a ds9/tng split :)  Also, you can of course review
something that's not current -- that's why we already have r.a.s.misc.
I think most of the .reviews group would deal with recent material in
practice.
From: jls@atglab.atg.com (Jerome Schneider)
Reply-To: jls@atg.com
Date: 26 Jan 93 08:30:36 GMT
Message-ID: <1993Jan26.083036@atglab.atg.com>