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!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!ihnp4!nsc!chuqui From: chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach) Newsgroups: net.news,net.news.group Subject: Re: Removing net.flame Message-ID: <2916@nsc.UUCP> Date: Fri, 28-Jun-85 14:49:04 EDT Article-I.D.: nsc.2916 Posted: Fri Jun 28 14:49:04 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 29-Jun-85 04:46:03 EDT References: <3892@alice.UUCP> Reply-To: chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach) Organization: Plaidhenge Lines: 152 Xref: watmath net.news:3522 net.news.group:3196 Summary: In article <3892@alice.UUCP> jj@alice.UUCP writes: > >In the last few weeks, a spate of activity heretofore unknown on >USENET has been seen in nut.flame. Due to the extremely prejudicial >nature of this traffic, and to the continued insistance from >those posting the "traffic" that nut.flame is an "anything goes" >newsgroup in which questions of legality and net survival are >not to be considered, I PROPOSE: > It is in the interest of those who wish to see nutnews continue >as the nation's number one use of cpu and user cycles to formally, >and permanantly remove nut.flame from the list of newgroups supported >by nutnews. I think that JJ is right. It is time to get rid of net.flame. My comments on the whole situation are below, excerpted from a letter I wrote last night to someone. I think the network is at a critical point -- it is either going to move forward and grow better, or it is going to fall back and eventually die. I look at this as a maturation point. The net has simply grown too large to be everything to everybody, and we are going to have to figure out what the network ought to be and take it there. There isn't a lot of choice, actually, since if we do nothing I firmly believe we are sounding the death knoll of the network. I've seen that happen once before, I don't want to see it again if I can help it. Just for my information, if you are an admistrator that is considering (or removing) net.flame from your site, please drop me a line and let me know, and tell me how many sites downstream are going to be affected. The reality of the situation is that if enough sites do remove net.flame (and my mail indicates a LOT of sites seem to be leaning in that direction) net.flame will die regardless of the bitching and moaning. If that is the case, we probably ought to just ratify the reality and do away with it. chuq ==== begin excerpt ===== I should point out my philosophy of net.flame. Given the context of the entire network, and I am looking at this on a netwide basis, I think that net.flame creates a significant problem for the entire net by its simple existence. It condones flaming and personal abuse, and I don't think the network can survive that long term. When the network was small (under 100 sites) most of the people knew each other pretty well, and it was OK to get out and let your hair down after a long hack session. The network is now well over 2000 sites and probably 10000 readers (with something like 500 active posters over a months time) and at the current phone costs and volume levels is becoming increasingly noticed by management that doessn't see the environment, only the money. It is EASY to justify net.unix-wizards, but try to justify net.singles or net.motss or net.music or net.religion (of which I only read one, but I fight for them all) or any of the other "non-technical" groups. My fight, and I've been carrying this on in one way or another for two years, is to keep Usenet at the cost/volume level that is under the notice of a majority of managements. If we don't do that, these bean counters will come in and cut apart the net for us, and they will usually cut it down to work related groups only. This is a critical mistake in the long term because it is the non-technical groups that bring in the people that make up the postings that make the technical groups as useful as they are. If we had only technical groups, a lot of the people that read the net would simply leave, and we would be cutting off a significant part of what makes Usenet as good as it is -- the brainpower available. So, you end up with a dilemma. I see a time (not very far off, I think) where if you do nothing, someone does it for you (to you?). If you do something, you have to be careful to do it right. I think that what ultimately has to happen is for the net to shrink and to refocus itself on the priorities. I see these priorities as being the systems it supports (Unix and the other stuff like net.micro) and the people (net.singles, net.motss, net.religion, and the other groups). net.flame is a problem in a number of ways. It generates a lot of volume, which ups the cost of the net, making it more likely to become the focus of a bean counter. It generates very little useful information, and the network has gotten big enough that useless information can no longer be ignored -- the static level is interfering with the information exchange. It generates a LOT of articles that, if taken out of context, would give someone a lot of great ammunition if they want to get a site off the net; and I guarantee you that they WOULD take it out of context. Worst of all, I think that it generates an atmosphere that says "hey, you can say anything you want"; that flaming is okay; that anything goes. This atmosphere leaks out into the other groups -- take a look at net.religion or net.music sometime. My position is that if we can get rid of net.flame and come down hard on the really bad flamers we will cause the others to think twice before they flame. If we can make the flame unacceptable, then maybe people will start talking to each other instead of yelling, and we might actually learn something. It's hard enough to get information across this network as it is, we don't need to make it harder, and I really believe that the flames DO make it harder to get real communication across. It is too easy to forget that the thing on the other end of the CRT is a human being, too, and that they have feelings. My philosophy is simple -- never say anything you wouldn't say in a room full of people. The network is simply a very large room. 90% of what I see come through net.flame would make most people either blush or get mad, and that means that the group fails as a communication medium -- you are no longer talking to a person, you are throwing darts at a piece of cardboard. And you don't see it when the cardboard starts bleeding. I have a vision of where I'd like to see the network go, and I do what I can to take it there. I'm not saying I'm right, because I'm probably not, but at least I'm trying. I'm willing to sacrifice a lot to get it there. I think net.flame has to go because it creates a negative environment on the net and I think Scott gave the net the push it needed to realize what a problem net.flame is. Any dozen articles a month could have served the same purpose, as far as I'm concerned. I think Scott just had the bad luck not to duck fast enough, and not to be quite smart enough to back off when people started yelling. If he had backed off and been nice and contrite, it would have blown over in a couple of days. What he did, though, was stand up and say "yeah? You and what army?" which isn't a completely sane thing to do in front of a mob, and he is getting trampled for it. With any luck, it will teach the other flamers to be a little more careful about what they say, because the mob is going to be looking for other people to trample. I, of course, am not afraid to stand in front of the mob and play cheerleader, either... *grin* But I always run the risk of tripping and getting trampled, too. For your information, one thing I've always been willing to sacrifice for the net, and I've done it a couple of times in one way or another, is me. That is how far my committment to this sucker goes. I've never really figured out why, either. >I guess what I have learned from all of this are things >we should have gotten from your net.announce.newusers posting: It is >easy to lose the meaning when all you see are the words. Look at me as a GREAT example of that. I've been hacking this net for over two years now, and I put out a LOT of volume (although I've been more or less out of it since the first of the year until now because I've been working on other stuff, like REAL writing). Despite that, I still put my foot in my mouth with great regularity. If I, as close to a professional Usenet poster as you will probably find continues to screw up, what chance does a rank amateur have? >While I understand that net.flame has a cost, >it does have some benefits, specifically providing a place for people >to vent their anger. To tell the truth, I like to flame. I consider flames lazy writing. With a little bit of thought, you can say the same things in ways that are at least as satisfying and a LOT more productive. Too many people on the net are taking the lazy way out, and it doesn't help them and it doesn't help others. If all you want to do is vent frustration, then go punch a parking meter. The net is here to communicate. You can do both if you try. -- :From the misfiring synapses of: Chuq Von Rospach {cbosgd,fortune,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo}!nsc!chuqui nsc!chuqui@decwrl.ARPA The offices were very nice, and the clients were only raping the land, and then, of course, there was the money...