From: tlynch@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: Proposed startrek split -- possible compromis
Date: 23 Jan 1993 02:21:16 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

cstone@husc8.harvard.edu (christopher stone) writes:
>In article <1jnnsfINNm9v@gap.caltech.edu> tlynch@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch) writes:
>>cstone@husc8.harvard.edu (christopher stone) writes:

>>>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.  

Not completely.  Yes, everything is in shades of grey, but not *that* many.
There are discussions that are *definitely* worth following, ones that 
definitely are not, and ones that might be.  However, r.a.s.reviews would
appeal to those people for whom group 1 is small and group 3 is huge, *regard-
less* of the size of group 2.  Trust me, I know whence I speak.

>how can people know whether they are interested in particpating in dicussions
>unless they have at least read the first few articles?  

You *are* new.  :-)  I can't speak for anyone else here, but from looking at
subject lines and the names of the people participating in the discussion, I
could tell you in 95% of the cases whether it was something I'd be interested
in.  Sure, I may be missing stuff; but given the small amount of time I have
to spend on r.a.s.c, I can live with that.

And that's the other thing you're ignoring; the time factor.  A great many
people want r.a.s.reviews because whether r.a.s.c is interesting or not, they
*cannot* spare the time to follow the discussion.  I get at least ten
distinct pieces of mail *per week* from people in this situation; it's what
led me to create the FTP site for my reviews in the first place.  You might
want to take a straw poll to find out how many people are in that situation;
I suspect the answer will surprise you.

>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, 

How, in God's name?  All you're proposing are two stepchildren of r.a.s.c,
both with the same abysmal S/N ratio that we currently "enjoy".  R.a.s.reviews
will at least be a group that is either 100% signal or 100% noise, depending
on your opinion of reviews. 

>>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.

I am talking about the point of a low-volume, low-to-no-noise group helping
people who have difficulty with the full-fledged, high-volume, high-noise
group.  That is the idea behind r.a.s.reviews, and that was the idea behind
r.a.s.info.  

>>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.  

It is, depending on what group of people we're talking about.  Your split
proposal is dealing with those people who want to discuss *either* TNG or
DS9, but not both.  The r.a.s.reviews proposal is dealing with those people
who want to read reviews to get a feel for others' opinions, and who may well
respond directly to those writers, but who cannot or do not wish to follow the
discussion into the abyss that is r.a.s.c.  I don't know how large you think
your group is, but I could give you anecdotal evidence for the former until
the *next* presidential inauguration.

>If people
>unsubscribe from them, there will a) be no place else left to 
>discuss Star Trek on the net, 

But those people have already decided that they can't or won't discuss it.
You're missing the point of the group.

>and b) the overall numbers of people
>interested in Star Trek on the net would decline.  

Reading the net?  Not likely; they'd stay with .reviews.  Posting about it?
90% of the group's nonsense *anyway*.

>Either way, it isn't
>helpful in stimulating interest in Star Trek or in gaining additional
>viewership for the show.

I think this is needlessly idealistic.  R.a.s.* isn't around for the purpose
of "gaining additional viewership for the show"; Paramount can find its own
shills, thank you.  R.a.s.*, as you yourself have said, is a place where
those people interested in discussing Trek-related matters can do so.  Creating
r.a.s.reviews does nothing, IMO, to damage that.

>     I would also argue that you're stretching it a little to say that
>.tech gives people a disincentive not to read it; 

No more than you're stretching to claim that r.a.s.reviews is going to provide
such a disincentive.  You're apparently seeing this as booting people off of
r.a.s.current; I'm seeing your opposition as refusing to let those people who
*want* to leave find an out.  Cut the apron strings.

>>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.?

If they're already inclined to leave and will benefit by the creation of r.a.s.
reviews -- yes.  The group exists for its readers, not the other way around.

>>>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.  

...Leaving aside the fact that you just did...

>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?  

Of course I have; I read most or all of the public responses, and respond to 
all the private ones (which are numerous).  I participated a great deal in 
discussion when I had the time.  But for those who do *not* have the time,
r.a.s.reviews will serve a purpose.  I stand by what I said; reviews are
excellent springboards for discussion, but the reviewer doesn't need to get
involved.  Do Siskel and Ebert, to continue your example, talk back to all
the television viewers who disagree?  Even if they could, do you think they'd
want to?

>(Siskel and Ebert, for one, love
>to criticize each other, not just the movies.) 

And when both of us had time, Michael Rawdon and I had some epic, no-holds-
barred debates, and the same holds true for many other pairings (trios, 
etc.).  

>Much of it is excellent. 

Given the current environment on r.a.s.current?  Pardon me if I disagree
with *that* assertion.  Some of it is intriguing, but most of it is not.

>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?

Then those people with the interest and the time will continue participating on
r.a.s.current.  Those who do *not* have both will not.  This does not seem to
be an argument against r.a.s.reviews.

>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 think it is the former in general, and is the latter when appropriate.  Now
is not an appropriate time.

Tim Lynch
Newsgroups: news.groups