From: tlynch@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current
Subject: Re: do we need rec.arts.startrek.dsn?
Date: 30 Dec 1992 04:22:30 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

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

>>                                        [...] Even if you had picture-perfect
>> support for the structure you propose now, your proposed B5 and DS9 groups
>> wouldn't be in place *at all* for six weeks minimum, and the transition 
>> wouldn't be close to complete for probably two months beyond that.

>Should be "seven weeks minimum."  Five-day waiting period after the
>vote results are announced....  

Pedant.  :-)

>And, of course, I'd challenge you (Tim) to do it in less than twelve.  :-)

No bet.  I wasn't talking likelihood here, I was talking the ideal Usenet
situation (oxymorons, anyone?)

>For reference:  The proposal that created rec.arts.startrek.current
>took about, oh, 30 weeks from start to finish ("start" being an article
>posted in mid-August 1991, and "finish" being the rmgroup of r.a.s
>somwhere around April 1992).

Your definition of "start" isn't the one I was using above.  By that
definition, we've "started" a proposal now, and I'm not buying that.  I'd
consider the "real" start of a proposal to be the official RFD.  'Course,
given that, we're still talking something like 24-25 weeks for r.a.s.current...

>While we're beating the subject to death, let me throw out a few ideas:

Oh, no...please, I have to get some work done...:-)

>  *  Whether or not DS9 survives as a television series, it is (at
>     the moment) generating enough netnews traffic to qualify as a
>     viable USENET newsgroup.  

At the moment.  Key phrase.

>	I'm going to make a few assumptions
>     which you may challenge at your leisure:

>     1.  DS9 will last several years as a television series.

Very likely, yes.

>     2.  DS9 will generate a lot of discussion here on USENET,

Also likely.

>	 possibly up to half the bandwidth of the newsgroup(s),
>         until that point in the distant future (1994?) when TNG
>	 stops producing new episodes.

Hmm.  That will depend on the interest level it maintains, and will also
depend on what you consider DS9-generated discussion.  Will the inevitable
TOS/TNG/DS9 wars be considered DS9-generated?

>     3.  Quality of discussion drops rapidly as a function of
>	 bandwidth; 

No argument whatsoever.

>     The conclusion:  DS9 traffic will be a Problem.

Unfortunately, this is likely.

>  *  Given the above, how do we deal with this Problem?  

[good discussion of why .tos, .tng, .ds9 wouldn't work deleted; see the 
original article for details]

>	 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.


>  *  Much as I hate to admit it, the concept of r.a.s.current isn't
>     *working*.  Newbies just don't grasp the concept; about a third
>     of the articles in r.a.s.current belong in r.a.s.misc; and I'm not
>     up to the task of educating (and re-educating) thousands of people
>     on the subject of where their articles should be posted.  This is
>     a sad, sad comment on the amount of time the average netter is
>     willing to devote to Learning the Net, and no amount of articles
>     titled "HEY! YOU THERE!" are going to raise that level.

Here, alas, is one argument that's more newsreader-specific.  Without slipping
into elitist Rawdonisms [sorry, Michael, but I calls 'em as I sees 'em], I do
have to say that inappropriate threads are far *less* difficult to deal with
when using NN.  What this has to do with anything is a more open question, 
however.

>Still reading?  Good.  Now I'm going to throw out yet another proposal,
>one that partially addresses the above problems:

>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"?  

Scott, I'm really loath to say this, but I think you're overestimating the 
willingness of the majority of r.a.s.*ers to make that distinction.  What
your proposal would do, IMO, is create the very show-divided hierarchy that
we both fought so hard against last year.  I don't have the time to fight
that battle again (in fact, after this weekend my part in this discussion very
likely ends), but that doesn't mean I want to see it.  I oppose this.

Unfortunately, I don't have anything to propose in its stead.  I agree that the
hierarchy's having problems with the current .current volume, and I'd love to
see something workable which answers it.  I don't think there is one, though.
Not with the...er...lack of maturity I'm seeing in the great majority of 
r.a.s.current readers.  

>Enough.  Questions, comments, flames?

All too many of the first two, I'm afraid...

Tim Lynch (Harvard-Westlake School, Science Dept.)
BITNET:  tlynch@citjuliet
INTERNET:  tlynch@juliet.caltech.edu
UUCP:  ...!ucbvax!tlynch%juliet.caltech.edu@hamlet.caltech.edu
"Hey, shouldn't we be putting these comics carefully into plastic bags?"
"No.  We have lives."
		--Crow and Tom, "Mystery Science Theater 3000"
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current