From: chroma@toad.com (Steve XI The Entity_Attache')
Newsgroups: ba.internet,ba.news.group
Subject: Re: new group on the way, and What does it take to create a ba group?
Date: 21 Jan 93 08:56:22 GMT
Reply-To: chroma@toad.com.UUCP (Steve XI The Entity_Attache')
Distribution: ba
Organization: Skyline Genetic Engineering

In article <1993Jan15.192700.26021@nas.nasa.gov> eugene@wilbur.nas.nasa.gov (Eugene N. Miya) writes:
>In article <DOOM.93Jan12025934@elaine36.Stanford.EDU>
>doom@elaine36.Stanford.EDU (Joseph Brenner) writes:
>>Okay, so the next problem is to define the "topic" of this
>>newsgroup I'd like to see created.  The best name I've been
>>able to come up with so far is "ba.hangout".  
>
>From what it sounds like, my initially impression is that what you ask
>would be extremely difficult, and I will try to illustrate why.
>I think you are searching a news group with a particular atmosphere
>like Stanford which you indirectly note three times in your post.
>And I think what's happening is a change in the composition of
>the readership.  A readership which say might like services like
>Prodigy(tm) for instance.
>
>>example: recently John McCarthy was posting to...
>
>Perhaps John could write the artificially intelligent moderator.
>Let us know if he does.
>
>>Personally I've had a lot of experience with the kind of
>>newsgroup I have in mind, coming out of my experiences on
>>what used to be the default "bboard" on the old Tops-20
>>systems they used to have at Stanford
>
>>So, does any of this make sense?  It's tough to concisely
>>describe this as a new newsgroup, because in a lot of ways
>>the idea is to create an anti-newsgroup newsgroup, to do
>>something different from what's currently being done with
>>usenet.
>
>Jef's alt.hackers was another attempt at self.moderation.
>
>>(Here's a thought about discouraging flaming: the person in
>>charge of the moderating software would be able to put
>>habitual flamers in a list that would prevent them from
>>being able to post.  You give people three warnings, lets
>>say, and if they persist they're essentially kicked off the
>>newsgroup.)  
>
>We actually considered ideas of blacklisting poor posters in misc.jobs.
>Something which would have had moderately "harmless" effect on first time
>offenders like for one week or month or something:
>	Joe Smith posted a resume in offering.
>	XYZ Co. posted in m.j.misc
>ASSUMING those people got the message, they would not do it again.
>It's fraught with problems: backups can be used to create permanent lists,
>no real enforcement ability so people can continue "violating," etc.
>
>If more individuals blasted posters for ads in *.general (pointing
>to the better groups), fine.  We certainly don't have the gun arguments
>we used to have in *.general.
>
>Best thing you can do is find knowledgeable people, and use the Net in
>"wise ways."
>
>--eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@orville.nas.nasa.gov
>  Resident Cynic, Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers
>  {uunet,mailrus,other gateways}!ames!eugene
>Second Favorite email message: Returned mail: Cannot send message for 3 days
>A Ref: Mathematics and Plausible Reasoning, vol. 1, G. Polya



There is a bulliten board in Santa Cruz does this, and I have mixed
feelings about it. It does sort of, unless one is very careful boil
down to kowtowing the sysop's tastes. However I must that some of the
people who were outright banned from posting, well they could post but
their messages were "invisible" to all but themselves and superusers,
were pretty bad and/or flame prone. Some have graduated to "USENET" fame
and now there are instructions who to put various people in kill files.

So I don't know what my exact feelings on it. At least with the
bulliten board the sysop could say: "This is my sandbox if you want
to play in it then you follow my rules." And it was clear that he
owned and despite soliciting donations still contributed the lion's
share of support and upkeep of the thing. It is not so clear with the 
next. For example, who in reality "owns" a newsgroup, as far as I
can tell it is nobody, and it in unmoderated form it is pretty much
self-maintaining. Despite the failures of this type of system I have
always marveled that it works so well.


			Be Seeing You,
			   sends steve


chroma@toad.com
Newsgroups: ba.internet