Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84 chuqui version 1.7 9/23/84; site nsc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcs!lsuc!pesnta!amd!nsc!chuqui
From: chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach)
Newsgroups: net.followup,net.jobs,net.news
Subject: Re: Headhunters in net.jobs
Message-ID: <2331@nsc.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 8-Feb-85 14:56:52 EST
Article-I.D.: nsc.2331
Posted: Fri Feb  8 14:56:52 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 8-Feb-85 17:15:12 EST
References: <290@bbnccv.UUCP> <1108@amdahl.UUCP>
Reply-To: chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach)
Distribution: net
Organization: The Village
Lines: 61
Xref: utcs net.followup:4292 net.jobs:967 net.news:2683
Summary: 

In article <1108@amdahl.UUCP> gam@amdahl.UUCP (gam) writes:
>> Anyone else mildly annoyed/offended at finding the rash of headhunter
>> ads from AA Personnel via "The Solution" posted to net.jobs?
>
>Traditionally, postings to net.jobs have been by or for *explicitly
>named* companies.  AA Personnel and "The Solution" are hiding that
>information and are in fact using that resource without naming
>who the position is with.

I think I ought to point out that the Solution is (I believe) a timesharing
system, and AA personnel a client. This implies, of course, that AA
Personnel is paying cold cash for their access to the network and
the postings they do. This also gives them a BETTER claim to do so than
many, because they ARE directly supporting the costs of the network,
rather than pretending that it is free.

>I think it would *should* be an established "rule" that postings
>to net.jobs give the Name of the company and a contact person.
>Anything else should be considered as an ad and therefore a violation
>of Usenet ethics.

Rule? Usenet? Rule? (vicious, hysterical laughter.....) Lets create a
rule-- no headhunters on the net. Lets create a rule-- Chuqui can't post
any more. Lets create a rule-- No redheaded blue eyed Polish people with
lefthanded traits can post the to the net in net.jokes on alternate
Thursday. Better yet, lets TRY to enforce these rules.

You can create rules as much as you want, but enforcement of these rules is
another matter entirely. Every time someone has tried to do something to
improve the quality of the network (Stargate, moderation, or whatever) a 
small but extremely dedicated group of people has jumped on any attempt at
giving anyone responsibility as a fascist attempt at censorship. Usenet,
and its people, seem to LOVE the laissez faire anarchy that exists out
there. One disadvantage of this is the inability of anyone to keep anyone
else from doing something, even if it is of great detriment to the group at
large. If they want to do it, nothing in the world we can do can stop them.
Period. 

If the Solution wants to sell CPU cycles to a firm that wants to post job
listings, you can't stop them. If that firm wants to post job listing, you
can't stop them. If they want to post them to net.general or
net.unix-wizards or net.wobegon, you can't stop them. This is one of the
BIG advantages of the net as it currently stands. If you want to do
something, We (meaning the fascist upper management inner circle of Usenet
dictators) can't stop you. But it also means that if someone else does
something you don't like, you can't stop them, either. Bridges run both
ways. As long as you want the advantages of a free and unrestricted network
you have to also accept the limitations-- we all know these quite well--
innapropriate postings, endless duplications, useless banter, wild flaming,
and other useful additions to our little group. 

Go ahead. Make rules. But I also suggest you look for ways of turning
rules into policies. Without a rule maker or a rule enforcer, a rule is a
very lonely thing.

Chuq von rospach
-- 
From the ministry of silly talks:               Chuq Von Rospach
{allegra,cbosgd,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo}!nsc!chuqui nsc!chuqui@decwrl.ARPA

Life, the Universe, and lots of other stuff  is a trademark of AT&T Bell Labs