From: msp@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu (Michael S. Pettersen)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: re: soc.motss.*
Date: 15 Dec 92 16:08:12 EST
Organization: The Ohio State University, Department of Physics

It does indeed seem to me that the tone of soc.motss has degenerated
during the time that I've been reading it, though I'm not sure how
much of this is simply a factor of having seen some of the same topics
discussed over and over.  I think some analysis of the causes of the
change are in order.  If one doesn't know the source of the problem, one
can't fix it.  If the problem is cross-posting and intrusion by homophobes,
it's not clear to me how the split Jess described will fix it.  Nor does
Jess's solution solve the volume problem, at least to my taste: I'd be 
interested by topics in all four groups, and would have to wade through 
the same chaff, but I'd have to do it in four groups.

Now I do indeed think that part of the problem is the ever-increasing
volume.  I don't necessarily think that the proportion of the kind
of postings that keeps me reading soc.motss has gone down.  But there
are simply so _many_ postings that one has more to wade through to 
find those articles.  (And I don't mean to say that those articles
aren't good ones; they're just the ones that I don't happen to be
interested by.)

Another consequence of the growth of soc.motss is that with a larger
number of regulars, the probability that some of them will simply
rub each other the wrong way increases.  (I am emphatically _not_ speaking
only of the recent spat between Arne and Melinda, I would point out.)
One way to solve this is for people to use their kill files.
It saves everyone from high blood pressure.

Kill files are also good for homophobic intrusions.  It's a pity that
Walter fooled many of us for a while into thinking he was worth our 
while to talk to.  Fortunately, we have our K keys.  And those of
us who don't have K keys (I know, I used to work under VMS before I
moved here and saw the Light of Unix)--those of us who don't have K
keys, as I was saying, would benefit from others using _their_ K
keys.

As for the fatigue factor, I don't see how we can prevent old topics
from being rehashed by people who haven't seen them before (not to
mention by those who _have_ seen them before), except to provide
our own fresh, new, squeaky clean topics.  (A division of soc.motss
into soc.motss.old and soc.motss.new seems impractical, not to mention
elitist.)

Finally, I arrive at my proposal.  This is simply to divide the
group arbitrarily into soc.motss.a, soc.motss.b, soc.motss.c,
and soc.motss.d.  This would give everyone space to breathe, reduce the
volume, and allow people with similar tastes and interests to gravitate
together (and those with strong antipathies to repel each other).
I expect that each house of motss would gradually develop its own
character.  (One could attempt to seed this process.  I amused myself
for a while by trying to list four archons to assign to the four
houses; can you imagine soc.motss.jessanderson, soc.motss.stevedyer,
soc.motss.melindashore, soc.motss.arnoldzwicky, soc.motss.donaldagarrat, 
soc.motss.marachibnik, soc.motss.thaaaang, and last and definitely least, 
soc.motss.claytoncramer, which is identified with \dev\null.)

In the end, though, it's up to us to keep our own house clean.

Since this message violates some of my own advice, it will self
destruct in 5 seconds.
--
Mike Pettersen, Ecole Normale Superieure
msp@phsyique.ens.fr
Perfect love casteth out fear.
Newsgroups: soc.motss