From: cstone@husc8.harvard.edu (christopher stone)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: Proposed startrek split -- possible compromis
Date: 22 Jan 93 16:31:58 GMT
Organization: Harvard University Science Center

In article <1jnnsfINNm9v@gap.caltech.edu> tlynch@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch) 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!  

>This is a spurious argument.  This proposal, ideally, would allow people to
>remove themselves from discussions in which *they are not interested in 
>participating*.

You are, of course, assuming that only two kinds of discussions exist
in r.a.s.c.: those you want to participate in (the reviews) and those
you don't.  But really there are many discussions, some of which you are
very interested in, others partially, and still others not at all.  Kill
files can solve the problem of only the last category.  Secondly,
how can people know whether they are interested in particpating in dicussions
unless they have at least read the first few articles?  Granted, subject
lines can help in this matter, but they don't resolve the problem completely
because a broad subject line like "Review of Past Prologue" reveals
very little about what specific aspect of PP may be discussed in the
article.  Third, I think a lot of people would like to participate in
discussions about reviews, but don't want to wade through they other
nonsense like stuff about Odo's nose.  The ds9/tng split would
at least begin to address this problem, whereas the .reviews and .current
idea will leave it intact.

>This was the point of r.a.s.info:  it allowed people to get the informational
>posts without having to wade through the mire of rec.arts.startrek.

I very much like the informational posts, but we are talking about
opinionated posts in .current, not factual information such as
Paramount press releases.

>This was also the point of r.a.s.tech and r.a.s.fandom, and to some extent
>r.a.s.current.  .tech and .fandom had specialized groups of fans interested
>in the group; those people found the discussion more localized, and those 
>people *not* interested in, for instance, tech discussion had an easy chance
>to unsubscribe completely from r.a.s.tech and concentrate on the discussions
>that *did* interest them.  (And yes, I'm using myself as an example for that
>last.)

But that is exactly my point, Tim; since .tech and .fandom were so
specialized, then people could unsubscribe and the overall interest
in Star Trek on the net would not decline appreciable.  I generally
don't read .tech, either.  But the same situation is not true with the
.current and .misc groups, which have broader appeal.  If people
unsubscribe from them, there will a) be no place else left to 
discuss Star Trek on the net, and b) the overall numbers of people
interested in Star Trek on the net would decline.  Either way, it isn't
helpful in stimulating interest in Star Trek or in gaining additional
viewership for the show.
     I would also argue that you're stretching it a little to say that
.tech gives people a disincentive not to read it; it's more like
it says, "we welcome everyone, but not everyone may really be interested."
If the .reviews idea goes through, then I think there will be a positive
*disincentive* to unsubscribe from .current.
  
>
>If your aim is not to let anyone unsubscribe from anything, then no split
>you propose will do a damned bit of good.  

Obviously I will *let* people do whatever they want.  But do you
really think we should *encourage* people to unsubscribe from r.a.s.c.?

>
>>Also, remember that the *point* of reviews is to take part
>>in the ensuing debate and discussion.  

>I'd appreciate it if you didn't tell me what the point of things I happen to 
>*write* was, Chris.  My reviews express my opinions; Michael's express his.
>Neither Mike Shappe nor I respond much in the subsequent discussion, because
>we've said what we felt we needed to.  The reviews are certainly, in part,
>likely to *spark* discussion, which is good; but that does not necessitate
>that the original reviewer be a participant in the followups.

I would not be so presumptuous as to tell you why you, individually,
write reviews.  But there are a lot of reviews posted on r.a.s.c; I even
hope to post some myself after exams.  A lot of us have time constraints,
too.  But have you really never felt an inkling to see what people
have said about your criticism?  (Siskel and Ebert, for one, love
to criticize each other, not just the movies.) Much of it is excellent. 
And even if you haven't had such an inkling, can you really assume that
no other reviewers have?  or that they have no disagreements with the
opinions of their fellow reviewers?
It comes down to this: do you think that reviewing is part of an
ongoing discussion about particular episodes, or is it a one-time
contribution, with no chance to savor or debate the *reactions*
to your work?  I'd personally favor the latter, since I think no one
-- television critic or researcher -- works in a vacuum.

>>Yes, the two proposals are not mutually exclusive; I hadn't thought of
>>that.  We could have r.a.s.c.ds9 and r.a.s.c.tng *and* r.a.s.c.reviews.

>You must be kidding.  Just how many groups does Trek deserve, Chris?

"Billiyuuuns and billiyuuns" -- this is Star Trek after all :)
Seriously though, I was simply bantering this as an alternative
possibility, and not necessarily advocating it per se, as my quote
itself makes clear.  It is also good to consider all the alternative
possibilites when making decisions, and you have rightly just let us
know what you opinion is on one such option.  I also thought that maybe
both sides in this discussion could find some common ground and
compromise.  But maybe it really is a zer-sum game; we can't both
win, and only one side will get its way.  So be it.  In that case, I will
continue favoring the ds9/tng split over .reviews.

Chris