Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: Notesfiles $Revision: 1.6.2.17 $; site ccvaxa.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!ccvaxa!preece From: preece@ccvaxa.UUCP Newsgroups: net.news Subject: Re: STARGATE (READ THIS!) Message-ID: <10300003@ccvaxa.UUCP> Date: Sun, 20-Jan-85 01:47:00 EST Article-I.D.: ccvaxa.10300003 Posted: Sun Jan 20 01:47:00 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 22-Jan-85 05:48:05 EST References: <504@vortex.UUCP> Lines: 53 Nf-ID: #R:vortex:-50400:ccvaxa:10300003:000:3124 Nf-From: ccvaxa!preece Jan 20 00:47:00 1985 There's a lot of acrimony and ill feeling going on here that is not productive and not relevant. There are also some important points that seem to be getting ignored in what has turned into personal attacks and personal defenses. I hope nobody out there really believes that the people behind Stargate are doing it because they want to control the content of the net. That's silly. I hope the people who are working for Stargate don't think that those opposed to it are just naturally contrary. That's blind. It has seemed obvious to me that the kind of net that we've had for some time cannot possibly continue in its present form. I learned about this kind of network using Plato's notesfiles; it was not uncommon for a discussion to take place on that net in essentially real time -- reply following statement about as fast as one could type. You can do that when every site talks to every site all the time. The idea of adding a layer of moderation is appalling to me as much for the added delay time as for the censorship. And it is censorship, by definition, whether it's necessary or not. But a network with many thousands of participants, many of them days apart in transit time, cannot be the same beast it has been. And the number of sites that take everything is bound to decrease with the continued growth in the number of groups and the volume of submissions. I don't have any answers to the problems. I think it's going to be necessary to have some kind of moderation sooner or later -- it just isn't possible to keep up with everything. I don't like the idea of editing and I don't like the idea of moderator's screening things for form, but I think that sooner or later there are going to be true digests where there were open groups, 'true digests' meaning that someone does the work of reading submissions and selecting the ones that are worth reading. I think there will be multiple digests in any given subject area, just as there are bunches of magazines on the newstand in any given area. And I think they'll be paid for, somehow. I don't really like this vision, but I have a very hard time imagining what benefit one is going to derive from an open notesfile with thousands of submissions a day, and that's not that far from where we are now. So don't fight Stargate just because it's different. The net is going to be different whether you like it or not; the volume is going to make it qualitatively different even if it's technical nature doesn't change. DO fight for what you think is important in the net. I think diversity is an important part of that. I think the openness is important. I think speed and reliability of distribution are important. Consider your own criteria and make them known to those who are making things work and are working on possible futures for the net. They need to remember that the net, working or not, would be pretty pointless without the community of people who read and write the notes and that there's no point in spending a lot of energy moving towards a net that the users wouldn't use. scott preece ihnp4!uiucdcs!ccvaxa!preece