From: coren@speed.osf.org (Robert Coren)
Subject: Cross-posting, and what to do about it (was: Soc.Motss.* (was Re: new newsgroup proposal:talk.politics.motss))
Organization: Open Software Foundation
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 16:48:40 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.012442.27914@macc.wisc.edu>, anderson@macc.wisc.edu (Jess Anderson) writes:
> I think it's time for a
> little more discipline in the mechanics of posting, for
> self-restraint in cross-posting and responding to
> cross-posts, for managing the Subject line with *far*
> greater attention to actual content.

Well, who cross-posts?

(1) "New people": folks unaccustomed to the net, or even folks new to
soc.motss, who "think we might be interested" in something from
another group. These people should be quietly taken aside for an
explanation of why this is a bad idea. Most of them will understand,
or at least be polite enough to respect our wishes.(*)

(2) "Seasoned motssers" who are careless about noticing the
"newsgroups" line when following up. Well, these things happen; I've
been guilty of it myself. These people should be reminded to be more
careful; if they persistently forget, treat as (3), below.

[I am embarrassed to note that I just now did it myself, in sending my
previous post to news.groups, where it really doesn't belong. I think.]

(3) "Seasoned motssers" who should know better (and hold the
anchovies, please), but nonetheless introduce discussions from
elsewhere to soc.motss, bringing a cloud of not-very-sympathetic
outsiders in their wake, or, worse, cross-post from soc.motss in order
to stir up another group. These folk should be chastised severely.
This should either be done in e-mail (the more the better, so that
they get the point), or perhaps one person (on a rotating basis,
maybe) should be Official Chastiser, to keep the group from being
flooded with admonishments for each infraction, while making sure that
the humiliation is appropriately public (as a deterrent to others).

(4) Malicious cross-posters of the Cramer type. Unfortunately, there
is nothing we can do about these, except ignore them. People who
respond to them on soc.motss should be treated as (1) or (3), above,
as applicable.

And, by the way, I have a pet peeve about this sort of stuff: people
who respond in soc.motss and *then* redirect followups (usually
accompanied by a self-righteous announcement that they are so doing).
To me, this says, "Well, I know this subject doesn't belong here and
the soc.motss readers aren't interested in it, but of course you're
all interested in what *I* have to say."

> These are not
> difficult things to do

No, but they are just that little bit more difficult than *not* doing
them, or we wouldn't be talking about it in the first place.

> they just require a bit of
> familiarization for new people

of whom there is a constant supply, thereby keeping all our lives
interesting and active, right?

(*) And of course talking about "our wishes" raises the unanswerable
question of who "we" are. Part of the issue is that "we" -- I guess
you could describe us as "the people who care about soc.motss" -- are
a constantly changing, and mostly growing, set of extremely diverse
folk, who are unlikely to agree unanimously about anything, including
all of the above.

Plus ca change,
   Robert