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