From: mara@panix.com (Mara Chibnik)
Subject: Re: Soc.Motss.* (was Re: new newsgroup proposal:talk.politics.motss)
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 20:00:14 GMT
Organization: (getting there)


I've taken news.groups out.  I think this is more appropriately
posted only here.  If you disagree with me, please send me email.
If you're persuasive, I'll do some kind of fix-up.

coren@speed.osf.org (Robert Coren) once again takes the words right
out of my buffer.

Jess suggested dividing soc.motss into four groups,
  >> soc.motss.coping
  >> soc.motss.politics
  >> soc.motss.politics.documents
  >> soc.motss.misc

Robert answers:
 >The problem I see with this proposal is that these topics overlap to
 >such a degree that discussions started in one [...] would "drift" into
 >areas more within the scope of another [...]. This would
 >result in one or more of several outcomes:
[undesirable consequences deleted]

I agree that there would be massive crossposting (one of the
undesirably consequences Robert mentioned).  I also think that many
of the discussions I think of as political have a great deal to do
with the kinds of things one would read about under Jess's "coping"
(and yes, I'm with Robert and Arne on the name).  For instance, one
of the most poignant bits of local news recently was an interview
with a kid whose father is gay and who was speaking about how he
felt when other kids made nasty remarks about their family and his
father's sexuality.  Stories like his-- and, no doubt, like his
father's-- are both personal and political, in the strongest senses
of both of those words.

Again, like Robert:
 >I end up skipping about half of the articles in soc.motss because
 >they're not interesting to me. That's life, and I don't have a problem
 >with it. I suspect that, under the division proposed, I would read all
 >4 groups, skipping about half the articles in each because they
 >weren't interesting to me. OK, so this means *I* wouldn't gain
 >anything by the division, BFD; but I don't actually see how the
 >soc.motss "community" at large would gain either.
My sentiments exactly.  (It's okay; we _have_ been seen in the same
place at the same time, and besides, I don't have a beard.)

I'll even go along with this:
 >(OK, I'll make a slight exception for the *.documents group, which is
 >specific in content. This is similar to the previously proposed
 > moderated "soc.motss.info" group. But even this can inspire
 >discussion that belongs somewhere else.)
Sure.  If we're good about it we'll set followups and use pointers.
I know that there are people whose software makes this hard or
impossible, but if the rest of us are careful, we'll manage.

Jess:
  >> In addition, since I'm bothering, 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.  These are not
  >> difficult things to do, they just require a bit of
  >> familiarization for new people and a very few moments of
  >> consideration for readers before sending a posting off to
  >> the world.
Robert:
 >I agree entirely, and I think that if we actually succeeded in
 >achieving this discipline it would go far to solve the problems that
 >splitting the group purports to solve: the volume would go down, it
 >would be easier for each of us to tell whether a thread was of
 >interest to us, and the reduction of extraneous noise sucked in via
 >cross-post would probably reduce the nastiness level as well.

Absolutely.  Crossposting is almost never the most desirable way to
present a discussion to soc.motss and any other (non-motss) group,
with the possible-- and occasional-- exception of soc.bi.

 >On the other hand, if we split the group but the promiscuous
 >cross-posting and sloppy subject-labelling continue as today, all we
 >will have is four groups (or however many) that look exactly as
 >soc.motss looks today.
Yup.

[some stuff deleted]

Robert, maybe we could get this organized and just take turns.
It's really awfully nice of you to do so much of my thinking and
writing for me!



-- 

  Mara Chibnik
  mara@panix.com                Life is too important to be taken seriously.