From: mwgertz+@cs.cmu.edu (Matthew Gertz)
Subject: R.A.S.* NETIQUETTE LIST (9/15/92 version) -- About flamewars, etc...
Summary: r.a.s.* net etiquette
Keywords: net etiquette
Organization: Dept. of ECE, The Robotics Institute, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 16:38:27 GMT



			REC.ARTS.STARTREK.* NETIQUETTE
			       (net etiquette)
			  a semi-monthly posted list

		       Last updated September 15, 1992.

  	   List maintained by Matt Gertz (mwgertz+@cs.cmu.edu)

========================================================================

PURPOSE:  To introduce new readers of rec.arts.startrek to the etiquette
and conventions of this newsgroup.  To give old readers a bit of a 
reminder about how things work in rec.arts.startrek.*.  New readers are 
urged to read this post.  

========================================================================

Changes from 9/1/92 version:  Added info about "Actor's Other Roles."
Split the list into two lists: "About Spoilers" and "Netiquette."

[Matt's notes:  Here we go -- the season starts (for most of us) in a 
couple of weeks!  This is an urgent plea to PLEASE protect spoilers.
Many of us enjoy being surprised by an episode, so please read this
post to see how you can discuss episodes without "giving it away"
to the rest of us.  Remember, Star Trek: The Next Generation is syndicated,
so we all see the episodes at different times; it's therefore too easy
to spoil things for other people...

On another note:  Folks, this is not misc.kids.  Can we please keep the
discussion of children's names over there?  The thread has nothing to
do with Trek anymore.

Speaking of proper newsgroups:  as continually mentioned, r.a.s.current
is for discussion of current and upcoming episodes, whereas r.a.s.misc
is for discussion of previous episodes, broad ideas and concepts related
to Star Trek, and everythig else that doesn't fall into r.a.s.tech and
r.a.s.fandom.]


========================================================================

REC.ARTS.STARTREK[.misc,.current,.tech,.fandom] (r.a.s.*) are unmoderated
newsgroups. This means that you can basically post whatever you want.
However, many customs have evolved on r.a.s.*. since its conception.
This posting is an attempt to list some of those customs, and some r.a.s.*
taboos.  To paraphrase Heinlein, manners are the lubrication of society.
If you respect the customs of r.a.s.*, then everyone can get the maximum
enjoyment out of this unique way to discuss "Star Trek," "Star Trek" 
movies I - VI, and "Star Trek:  The Next Generation" (all of which are 
collectively referred to as "Star Trek" in this post).

This post discusses topics that, when posted, may launch a major flamewar 
(A flamewar is what happens when a conversation degenerates into two or 
more people calling each other names).

DISCLAIMER:
The author of this posting does not presume to forbid or declare certain
topics taboo (as if he could!).  Such is *not* the purpose of this list.
Rather, this list was created to attempt to call your attention to subjects
which are likely to go nowhere, and subjects you might respond to and then
later regret having done so.  The opinions about net etiquette implied by
this posting are not necessarily those of the author of this list:  topics
for this list were submitted by readers of r.a.s.* (acknowledged at the end
of this list).  Those topics which were submitted with any degree of 
repetition or frequency were then incorporated into this list by the author.

If you are new to the net, and to r.a.s.* in particular, you are urged to
read this posting.  It is also recommended that you read the postings in
news.announce.newusers and news.newusers.questions, which will answer a lot
of the questions that you have.

Great care will be taken to keep this posting updated.  Your comments are
very much appreciated; it's not logical to pretend that this list has the
last and best word on net ettiquette.  Please send comments and suggestions
to:

			mwgertz+@cs.cmu.edu

The current plan calls for this netiquette article to be posted twice a
month.

Abbreviations used in this post:

ST:TOS or just TOS	Star Trek (the original series)
ST:TNG or just TNG	Star Trek:  The Next Generation
ST:TAS or just TAS	Star Trek (the animated series)
ST:TFS or just TFS	Star Trek (the film series)

ST:TMP, STII:TWOK, 	The six films in ST:TFS
STIII:TSFS, STIV:TVH, 
STV:TFF, STVI:TUC

IMHO			In My Honest/Humble Opinion
:-) or 8^)		"Smiley faces" to indicate humor or sarcasm.
Control-L		Character which causes some newsreader programs to
			pause and wait for the reader to hit the spacebar
			to continue.  ASCII value 12 (014,0x0C).

r.a.s.*			All of the newsgroups under the rec.arts.startrek
			node.


*****************************************
Flame starters and other topics:
*****************************************

Here follow some topics which are certain to get people irate.  If that's
what you want to do, fine, but be forewarned.  Also included are
self-defeating questions, which end up with no answers.  (Certain
questions from the FAQL also appear here, due to their inflammatory nature.
In these cases, the reader is referred to the FAQL.)  Finally, there are
some helpful hints about posting and replying which will make your postings
easier to read and reference.

DISCLAIMER:
Again, this is not to be interpreted as a "must/must not" list.  Rather,
it just calls to your attention topics which tend to irk people.  The
author of this list does not necessarily subscribe to any of the ideas
or opinions which might be implied by this following section, nor does
he necessarily feel that any of the topics listed before should be avoided.


A.  "Does anyone have an episode list?"  (The episode guide.)
B.  "How many times has 'x' done 'y?' Where can I get 'z'?"  (The FAQL.)
C.  Flaming the review writers.
D.  Flaming the new guy/gal on the block.
E.  "Could you send me a copy, too?"
F.  "I need information on 'x.' Could you please post the answer?"
G.  "I already said that."
H.  "So-and-so said in message number 7987..."
I.  God/Jesus/Buddha (etc.)
J.  Homosexuality and other controversial social issues.
K.  Spelling, margins, and correct English.  SHOUTING!  Gender-inclusive
    language.
L.  Replying to messages -- editing out non-salient information.
M.  Racism/sexism/WASPism.
N.  "Hey, Trekkies!  Get a life!"
O.  "I'm an authority on <...>," and rumors.
P.  Signature files.
Q.  GIF files.
R.  "I'm offended."
S.  "Shatner argued for <x> in episode <y>..."
T.  "Smiley faces," "IMHO."
U.  ST:TOS vs. ST:TNG.
V.  "Canon" vs. "non-canon."
W.  "Quit posting all of these posts about <whatever>."
X.  A brief final note on flamewars (alt.flame).
Y.  Using '*' as the entry in the 'Subject:' line. (Please don't!)
Z.  Subject lines.
AA. "When's the next Star Wars movie coming out?"
AB. Crossposting.  Posting to the correct r.a.s.* group.
AC. "In what else has actor X appeared?"
AD. Spoilers (please protect them)!

A.  "Does anyone have a list of the episodes from this season?" "Can you
give a synopsis of..." etc.

(This following section is taken nearly verbatim from Mark Holtz -- thanks,
Mark!) (And also from Tim Lynch -- also thanks!)

Mike "Vidiot" Brown (brown@vidiot.UUCP) maintains the ST:TNG Program
Guide.  It's available via anonymous FTP and UUCP (it's also for sale
through the mail).  He also gets up-to-date information from Paramount,
and posts the press releases and air schedule to the net.  This qualifies
as a "Frequently Asked Question," but it is added here as well, since
this question pops up a few times a week to many people's irritation.  To
get it via ftp, check out site ftp.cs.montana.edu.  For more info, read
the FAQL (see below).

Mark Holtz (mholtz@sactoh0.SAC.CA.US) maintains the Star Trek TOS/TAS List
of Lists and Star Trek TNG List of Lists.  These lists give out various
tidbits of information, as well as an up to date schedule of all Trek
episodes with a brief synopsis.  Do NOT e-mail Mark Holtz asking for a
copy of the lists. He has only a *VERY* limited amount of disk space
available to him, being that he calls from a public access system, and
cannot keep a copy on-line after posting.  You will instead receive 
information on where you can FTP, use e-mail server, or download from a
publicly-accessible BBS system. DO e-mail Mark Holtz if you have a
suggestion or correction to make to the list of lists.

Other lists are maintained on r.a.s.*.  Otto Heuer maintains a list of the 
lists, the posters, and when the lists are posted.  (The e-mail addresses
of poster's are only ever given so that you can help update information,
*not* to request copies -- those of us who post the lists do not have
the time or patience to e-mail them to everyone on the net.)  Archives exist 
on the net so that you can get copies.  To be honest, I'm not sure of which 
sites the lists are at now.  Check out the monthly posting of the FAQL 
for details.


B.  "How many times has <insert ST character name> said (or done)..."
"Where can I get ST parodies..."  "How do I submit scripts..."

These are FAQs: Frequently Asked Questions.  Otto "Hack-Man" Heuer
(hackman@pnet51.orb.mn.org) puts out the FAQL (Frequently Asked Questions
List) every month.  This answers a lot of questions, and is 99% accurate
8^)  It also explains abbreviations like "IMHO" "BTW" and so forth.
This list exists because many questions are asked with an irritating
frequency.  If it's a trivia question, check the FAQL first.  All of the
people who put out these lists work hard at them, and understandably get
upset when these lists are ignored.


C.  Flaming the review writers.

Several r.a.s.*'ers put out a review or synopsis on every episode
(including, but not limited to, Atsushi Kanamori and Tim Lynch).  It does 
no good to flame them over "having the gall" to dicate what is "good" and
"bad."  First of all, they wear asbestos underwear; secondly, the rest of
us like 'em too much, and they know it.  Flaming the well-entrenched 
personalities because they post reviews will get you nowhere.  Disagreeing
with all opinions *in* the reviews, though, is an r.a.s.* favorite sport!

In a related topic, flaming people who appear (to you) to consider
themselves "gods of r.a.s.*," "gods of Star Trek tech fandom," etc., will
also get you nowhere.  Such people are not insecure enough to be bothered
by such posts.  If you *do* have a private beef with someone on the net,
there's always e-mail...


D.  Flaming the new guy/gal on the block.

New people will make netiquette mistakes.  It's a fact of life.  We
suggest that you don't flame them across the newsgroup; just e-mail them
a nice note welcoming them to r.a.s.* and explain what custom they missed.
Remember when *you* were new to the net...?  


E.  "Me, too!"

Every now and then someone will ask the net for a certain program or file.
Other people will then respond to this, saying, "Me, too!"  "Me, three," ad
nauseam.  This is self-defeating.  Due to net time-lags, the original post
may have reach other parts of the net *days* before it got to you -- the
original poster may have already gotten the file he/she wanted, and is not
going to be looking at the newsgroups solely to find others who want the
information!  One good idea is to send that poster an e-mail note asking
them to forward the file (or whatever) to you when they get it from whom-
ever ends up giving it to them.


F.  "I need information on (whatever).  Please post the answer..."

This will clog the newsgroup with 500 billion wrong answers.  If you are in
search of information (or trivia), we suggest that you request that the info
be e-mailed to you.  Later on, you can summarize the answers and post the
result to r.a.s.*, as we'll all be interested in the (hopefully correct)
answer.  This is especially a good thing to do if you are taking a straw
poll (i.e. "Rate this episode on a scale of 1-10").

Obviously, if you can't receive e-mail (as happens with a few people), then
of course no one can blame you for wanting an answer posted.


G.  "I already said that!"

Because of the net lag time, posts don't show up at the same time
everywhere.  If someone posts an article that is "old news" to you, it may
very well be because of the net lag, which that person can't control.
Please be understanding about this.  The writer of this netiquette post has
encountered a couple net lags which were almost a month long, thanks to
computer down-time.


H.  "So-and-so said in message 7987..."

Your message number is unique to your system, and so is useless to everyone
else.  It is suggested that you give the reference number of the message
instead, which will look something like "In message
<25980030@bilge.ece.cmu.edu.>..."  (If you are replying to a posting, your
posting program will probably do this automatically for you.)


I.  God/Jesus/Buddha (etc.)

Some Star Trek episodes seem to indicate that there is still some large
amount of deity worship in the future, while other episodes seem to indicate
the opposite.  The truth is that they have been very inconsistent about
this, so that arguments about it (*using* *Star Trek* *facts*) are kind of
futile.  For those who wish to argue about deities from a non-Star Trek
point of view, there are other newsgroups which are set up for that very
purpose.


J.  Homosexuality and other controversial social issues.

Some people feel that Star Trek should be "obligated" to introduce
homosexual characters.  Other people are homophobic.  Whatever your
attitude, you're not going to convince anyone else with your views on the
subject via the net, and it's useless to try -- it just turns into a
flamewar.  (But go ahead anyway, if you don't believe this.  Many people on
the net actually *enjoy* flamewars...)

We all love to read other people's opinions.  Well-thought-out discussions
about social issues as relevant to Star Trek episodes, including such
topics as homosexuality, money, socialism/capitalism, are something that
makes r.a.s.* intellectually interesting.  However, if you stand on a
soapbox constructed of your own morals, you're not going to convince anyone.
Please be objective.  The issue of homosexuality (if in fact it is an
issue) isn't going to be solved on r.a.s.* (for those who think it needs to
be "solved").  As with religion, if you want to discuss social issues for
their own sake, and not for Star Trek's, allow us to suggest other news-
groups perhaps more appropriate for it.  And, as always, there is e-mail...


K.  Spelling, margins, and correct English.  SHOUTING!  Gender-inclusive 
    language.

It is easiest to read posts when they are spelled correctly, using correct
English.  Misspelling character names can occasionally lead to confusion
(yes, we know, they have such weird names it's sometimes hard to know how to
spell them.  They're usually listed in the credits, though).  Right-
justifying text often makes it harder to read, so we suggest leaving
it "as is".  It is also suggested that you set your word wrap to less than
80 characters (for instance, 72 is a good round number), since many of us
use 80-column screens to read the posts.  This also makes quotes look much
nicer when you reply to someone's posting, since otherwise line endings 
will have a tendency to wrap around or even go off the screen.

On the other hand, flaming someone because of spelling mistakes or grammar
mistakes is generally considered very bad manners.  Not everyone is E.B.
White, after all.

CAPITALIZING ALL OF YOUR LETTERS IS OFTEN INTERPRETED TO BE SHOUTING
BY MANY R.A.S.* FOLK.  IT IS ALSO MORE DIFFICULT TO READ THAN NORMAL
TYPEFACE, SO WE SUGGEST THAT you use lower-case characters.  And by the
way: asterisks around a word are generally considered to indicate
emphasis-italics ("I can't believe that Spock would do something like
*that* to McCoy!"), whereas underscores usually indicate title-italics 
("I just finished reading _Doctor's_Hors_D'oeuvres_ by Diane Duane, and 
boy am I hungry!").

Society is gradually changing to a more "gender-inclusive" language; i.e.,
"Humanity" vs. "Mankind," "Where No One Has Gone Before" vs. "Where No Man
Has Gone Before," etc.  Complaining about the way someone on r.a.s.* uses
or doesn't use gender-inclusive language has been the subject of major
flamewars, so be forewarned.  Additionally, allow us to point out that
there are appropriate newsgroups for arguing about this subject, and of
course there is e-mail.  (On the other hand, if a character on "Star Trek"
uses terms which bother you, we encourage you to opine!  That's what we're
here for!)


L.  Replying to messages -- editing out non-salient information.

When replying to a message, it is generally considered good manners to edit
out all the parts which are not relevant to your response(s).  Nothing is
more frustrating to a reader than to search through 120 lines of quoted
text to find, at the end, a one-line response.  If someone actually wants
to re-read an entire post, they can use the reference number to locate it,
which is its purpose for existence.  

In addition, you should make sure all quotes are attributed to the proper
writer.  If you remove all of a writer's text, make sure you remove his/her
attribution as well.  Otherwise, people get assigned to the wrong opinions,
and bad feelings result.

Finally, it is suggested that you trim down (or delete) the .signatures of
those you are quoting.  After four or five responses to a message, the sigs
at the end can get quite voluminous.


M.  Racism/sexism/WASPism.

Stereotyping on the basis on race, gender, etc., is fodder for flames.  Be 
forewarned.

Where Star Trek is concerned:  yes, the females had to wear mini-skirts.
Yes, the third season of the original season gradually reduced the extras
in the crew to mostly white men and women.  Yes, it could have been done
better.  The facts remain that 1) Star Trek was a pioneer as far as race
relationships and gender roles go, in the 1960's; and 2) It was a quarter
of century ago, and you can't change what was.  Constructive comments and
criticism are all *always* appreciated on r.a.s.*, though, especially in
relation to "The Next Generation" (since it's still in production). Again,
if you just want to argue about races and racism (or whatever) in general,
we suggest discussing it on the appropriate newsgroup.


N.  "Hey, Trekkies!  Get a life!"

Periodically, some bozo on the net (who has probably never read this
newsgroup in his life) posts a really obnoxious comment about us onto
r.a.s.*  The result is like stepping on an ant hill.  For weeks, people
angrily respond to this message.  This is futile.  The person who posted
the original message won't see your response, because he/she doesn't 
actually read the newsgroup (in all likelihood) -- he/she just though it 
would be "cool" to flame some Trekkies (or he/she left him/herself logged
on after leaving the terminal room, and someone else snuck in to use
their account to produce this message of eloquence).  It's best to ignore
folk like this.  It's not their fault that the doctor accidently dropped
them on their head when they were born.  Feel sorry for them instead.


O.  "I'm an authority on <...>," and rumors.

If you are, that's great; we love to hear input "straight from the horse's
mouth."  Be forewarned, though: many of us on the net are authorities about
physics, video, the military, astronomy... we cover a wide range of fields,
so you'll probably get blasted by a real authority if you're not *really*
an authority but try to pass yourself off as one.  (You'll get to know
who's whom in the coming weeks, and what their expertises are.)  Don't 
mistake this -- everyone *still* wants your input no matter who you are,
but if you're not sure about some topic, don't confuse other netters by
asserting yourself as an authority, when in fact you might be incorrect in
your answer.  If you're unsure, it's best to say so.  *Someone* will know
the right answer, and then we'll all learn something new.

The same can be said for rumors.  It's best to substantiate your stories;
otherwise, r.a.s.* becomes adrift with the rumors that half of the cast of
Star Trek have just died, and so forth.  Your mother's sister's husband's
best friend's friend is probably a questionable source, unless your
mother's sister's husband's best friend's friend is a member of the cast,
crew, or a journalist.  8^)


P.  Signature files.

Many posting programs look for a file called ".signature" to append to all
outgoing posts.  People usually put in their names, e-mail addresses, and a
quote or two that they really like.  They are a lot of fun to play with.
On the other hand, it is easy to get carried away.  For instance, a one-line
post followed by a thirteen-line sig is an incredible waste of bandwidth.
On USENET, it is respectfully suggested that people try to keep it down to
reasonable lengths.


Q.  GIF files.

GIF files are files which, when run through a GIF viewer, will cause a
picture to be shown on your PC.  There are lots of Star Trek GIFs.  (See
the FAQL for ftp addresses, and also check out alt.binaries.pictures.misc
for new GIFs.)  Certain r.a.s.* folk are limited in the size of the
posts they can receive, so, if your GIF file is very long, it's often a
good idea to put it on an ftp site, or e-mail it to people(*), or post it
to alt.binaries.pictures.misc, rather than posting it on r.a.s.*.
Furthermore, this will reduce the load on the r.a.s.* net groups, something 
which pleases the system administrators who graciously allow us access
to r.a.s.*

(*)  This will probably annoy your sysadmin, and so is not recommended.


R.  "I'm offended."

If so, send the poster an e-mail message first.  Perhaps you just
misunderstood the post.  No sense in flaming the poster, then finding out
that you missed a sentence, or didn't see the smiley face ":-)" or
whatever.

In general, it's a bad idea to immediately flame back at a poster.  Save
the message, read it again a couple hours later.  Relax.  Drink a nice
hot cup of herbal tea.  Are you still angry?  If not, let it slide.  If
so, you are now at least in a more rational state of mind to properly
respond to the message and point out its (perceived) mistakes.  Flaming
right back at a message can often be embarrassing for *you* if it turns
out that you misunderstood it (or even if you didn't).  Give your blood a
chance to cool down first.

Who was it who said that "more and deadlier wars have been fought over a
simple misunderstanding?"  The writer of this post forgets...


S.  "Shatner argued for <x> in episode <y>..."

A typical response to this goes, "No, he didn't.  His character Captain
Kirk did," so be forewarned.  Confusing actors with their characters often
generates nasty messages.  This is justifiable, in a sense.  For example,
if actor X has a certain political view, but his or her character Y has a
diametrically opposed view, then we do X a discredit every time we equate
his or her views to be the same as Y's -- in some cases, it might actually
and technically be a slander.

On a similar note:  We all like to know what the stars of the show are
up to now -- who doesn't?  However, these stars of "Star Trek" have a right
to their personal lives as well, which have nothing to do with "Star Trek."
It doesn't make sense to flame actor X for the way he/she interacts (or
doesn't interact) with actor Y off the set.  Much of the time, people jump
to conclusions about actor X based on a shockingly small amount of evidence, 
which may be either incorrect or taken out of context.  Please use
discretion when passing judgement on an actor's behavior -- your infor-
mation may be incorrect, out of context, and, at any rate, nobody's busi-
ness but the actor and those he/she directly affects.  Slander (or would
it be libel on a newsgroup?) is an ugly phenomenon.


T.  "Smileys" and "IMHO."

The character combination :-) (and variations thereof) is a smiley face.
When correctly used, it indicates sarcasm or humor.  It is also occasion-
ally (and incorrectly) used to make insecure posters flame-proof when they 
post insults.  Flaming a smileyed comment/insult is often futile ("Hey, I
was just joking.")

When you *are* just joking, it is suggested that you *do* use a smiley.
Humor doesn't carry well over the net.

"IMHO" stands for "In My Humble/Honest Opinion" and is used to indicate
such. If you want to *flame* someone's personal opinions, we suggest that
you take it to e-mail.  r.a.s.* exists so that people can *express* their
opinions about Star Trek.  As always, however, *intelligent* discussion
about opinions (insofar as they are related to "Star Trek") is one of the
best things about r.a.s.*


U.  ST:TOS vs. ST:TNG.

(ST:TOS = the original "Star Trek," while ST:TNG = "Star Trek: The Next
Generation.") As a tongue-in-cheek swipe at either series, this is a fun
topic on r.a.s.*.  As a serious study of the pros and cons of either series,
this is a fun topic on r.a.s.*.  However, when it becomes a flame war, and
when fans of one series start to question the mental state of the fans of
the other series, it's not so much fun for everyone (except those who like
flame wars).  Some of us like TOS better.  Some prefer TNG.  It's almost a
guarantee that *flaming* about it won't change anyone's opinion on the
matter.  


V. "Canon" vs. "non-canon"

"Canon" means that Gene Roddenberry (or his duly appointed representative)
has declared something to be officially part of the "Star Trek" universe.
This includes the TV episodes and the movies, primarily.  "Non-canon" is
everything else (the books, the animated series, comic books, the story you
made up when you were playing "Star Trek" with your friends during recess
back in Kindergarten, etc.)  You can get into some pretty good arguments
with people on the net about whether or not something actually "happened"
in the "Star Trek" universe or not.  Since "Star Trek" is science fiction
(to most of us, anyway), some people have pointed out that arguing about
whether something fictional is "real" or "unreal" involves a lot of null
statements ("Nothing unreal exists" -- from _Star Trek IV: The Voyage
Home_).  Still, can be a lot of fun, when it doesn't degenerate into name
-calling.


W.  "Quit posting all of these posts about <whatever>."

The very nature of this post simply serves to prolong a topic, not speed
its demise.  We suggest the liberal use of KILL files to remove subjects
that you don't wish to see, using e-mail to point out more appropriate
newsgroups for topics which don't belong on r.a.s.*, and changing the
Followup-To: field in your posts to more appropriate newsgroups when the 
subject starts to leave the realm of Star Trek.


X.  A brief final note on flamewars (alt.flame).

There is a net group dedicated to flamewars: alt.flame.  Would-be
flamethrower artists are respectfully directed there.  And as always,
remember that there are real, live people on the other end of the net with
feelings just as strong and real as yours.  If you don't get alt.flame
(and many people don't), then we suggest confining flames to e-mail.


Y.  Using '*' as the entry in the 'Subject:' line. (Please don't!)

Please don't put an '*' (asterisk) as the entry in your 'Subject:' line.
If somebody reading your post decides that they don't wish to read any
followups to your message and therefore pushes 'k' (or whatever their
program uses to kill subjects they don't care about), *every* *single*
*message* would be marked as killed.  This is because '*' is a wild card
and will match any subject.  It is generally considered the height of bad
manners on USENET newsgroups to put an asterisk as the 'Subject:' of a
post.


Z.  Subject lines.

When subject lines don't accurately relate to the matter of a post, readers
get bogged down in reading posts that they aren't particularily interested
in.  We suggest using subject lines that accurately refect the contents of
a post, perhaps preceded by some word identifying it as a particular type
of post.


AA. "When's the next Star Wars movie coming out?"

The r.a.s.* newsgroups are for Star Trek related discussions only.
If you want to talk about something else, then take it to e-mail or
to another more appropriate newsgroup ("Star Wars," for instance, has
its own newsgroup).  Conversations on r.a.s.* are generally considered
appropriate if they in some way involve Star Trek in addition to
any other subject matter.


AB. Crossposting.  Posting to the correct r.a.s.* group.

The rec.arts.startrek newsgroup was split into various subgroups in order
to make certain subject material more accessible to the readers.  Cross-
posting your messages to all of the subgroups defeats this purpose,
and increases bandwidth.  Please post your message only to the appropriate
newsgroup(s).  For instance, someone wanting to sell Star Trek cards
should not post to r.a.s.current or r.a.s.tech.  Someone discussing new
episodes should not post to r.a.s.misc or r.a.s.fandom.  Posting to
the wrong groups will generate more flames than usable responses.


AC. "In what else has actor X appeared?"

This is another FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTION which is answered in the
monthly postings of the various FAQL's.  This particular thread is one
that many of us would rather not see pop up on r.a.s.misc again,
and certainly not on r.a.s.current, since it does so at an
alarming rate.

AD. Spoilers (please protect them)!

Many people on r.a.s.* would like to be surprised by an episode.  If you
blurt out what happens in the episode to them, they won't enjoy it as 
much (it's like knowing what's in the present before you unwrap it --
no fun at all for some of us).  Please confine all discussion of current
and upcoming episodes to r.a.s.current (or r.a.s.tech, if the topic is of
a technological nature).  Also, protect them from unwary readers by
inserting blank lines in front of the information, and by putting
*SPOILERS FOR <EPISODE>* in the subject line.  For more information
and the rationale behind this, please see the the semimonthly posting
on spoilers posted by Matt Gertz.

Please don't post spoilers on r.a.s.misc or r.a.s.fandom!

****************

When it all comes down to it, we're all here because we enjoy talking about
"Star Trek."  Much of the above netiquette suggestions boil down to the
following statement:  r.a.s.*'ers aren't the issue.  "Star Trek" is the
issue.  When we make the r.a.s.*'ers the issue instead of "Star Trek," our
conversations are quickly reduced to battles of ego. 

Many thanks to the people who had suggestions for this list, or merely words
of encouragement.  These include, among others:  James P. Callison
<jpcallis@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu>, Mike Kelsey <KELSEY@SLACVM.BITNET> (thanks
for proofing, Mike!), Albert Crosby <acrosby@uafhp.uark.edu>, Dorothy Bowe
<dot@athena.mit.edu> (oh super proof-reader!), Dave Spensley
<davesp@ecs.comm.mot.com>, Cindy Brown
<@BITNET.CC.CMU.EDU:ICSPROFS@ASUVM.INRE.ASU.EDU>, John Whelan
<YZEY@VAX5.CIT.CORNELL.EDU>, hackman@pnet51.orb.mn.org (Otto "Hack-Man"
Heuer) (big thanks for the help and encouragement), Andrew Hackard
(andy@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu), Brian A. Cole (tuc%jomby.cs.wisc.edu@cs.wisc.edu),
Tim Lynch (tlynch@juliet.caltech.edu) (the Supreme Summarizer), Mark Holtz
(mholtz@sactoh0.SAC.CA.US) (thanks for the error corrections!),
Michael.Rosen@samba.acs.unc.edu, Alan Coopersmith (alanc@ocf.berkeley.edu),
Jamesena Talbott <jt1v+@andrew.cmu.edu>, Eric Rossing <rossing@cs.hope.edu>,
markl@stat.tamu.edu (Mark A. Lindsay), starpath@bard.MIT.EDU (David E. 
Hollingsworth), chisnall@cosc.canterbury.ac.nz (The Technicolour Throw-up),
sharonc@meaddata.com (Sharon Crichton),John G Dobnick<jgd@convex.csd.uwm.edu>,
botteron@gnu.ai.mit.edu (Carol J. Botteron), David Richardson, b645zax@utarlg.
uta.edu,ahernsd@expert.cc.purdue.edu (Sean Ahern), Suman Chakrabarti 
<scstr@orville.psu.edu>, vicki@stout.atd.ucar.EDU (Vicki Holzhauer),
fau@po.CWRU.Edu (Francis A. Uy), romain@shadow.eng.pyramid.com (Romain Kang),
Windsor A. Morgan <wmorgan@stsci.edu>.

Comments are welcome and appreciated!

-- 
Matt Gertz, mwgertz+@cs.cmu.edu
Dept. of ECE, The Robotics Institute at Carnegie Mellon University.