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!bonnie!akgua!gatech!nsc!chuqui
From: chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach)
Newsgroups: net.news
Subject: net.flame and ucla-cs, more comments
Message-ID: <2906@nsc.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 26-Jun-85 03:05:58 EDT
Article-I.D.: nsc.2906
Posted: Wed Jun 26 03:05:58 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 27-Jun-85 06:24:57 EDT
Distribution: net
Organization: Plaidhenge
Lines: 125

I just got a rather intelligent letter (I like intelligent letters) that
brought up some interesting points about this whole mess and my decision to
consider removing net.flame from my site. I'm going to post my reply to it,
because I felt there were some thoughts in it that ought to be brought into
the open. All traces (I hope!) of the originator have been removed because
I don't have permission to use their name with it.

---

>	At Tektronix, net.flame was removed in what looks to
>be a management censure type of action.

If tektronix did it without notification of the readers and their
downstream sites, then I don't think they handled it properly. That is what
I'm doing with net.flame and net.jokes, as I'm planning to remove these
groups from circulation on nsc soon.

>  I think netters know what net.flame is used
>for, and those who do not wish to read it can delete it from their 
>own .newsrc file.

It isn't that simple, because things that go to net.flame seem to get cross
posted into other areas in a way that people can't control. Also, the total
lack of self control in net.flame creates an atmosphere that tends to show
up in other groups as well as a higher flame level and lower intelligence
quotient. There are ramifications to letting net.flame exist all over the
net. Each group is interdependent of all the other groups, and not
independent.

>	If I were a site administrator, maybe I wouldn't agree with
>what is being posted in net.religion, so does that give me cause
>to remove it?  

It depends. If the information was inflammatory, seditious, libelous or
slanderous, then yes, I'd say I had justification to remove it. If I was
christian and removed all the jewish postings, then I'd probably expect a
call from the bnai brith.

>	One more thing, sites themselves do not post articles, and
>sites do not feel any effect when privledges are removed.
>People post articles, and individuals should be accountable for
>there postings.

I agree that people should be held accountable for their postings; that
only makes sense. But when companies or organizations allow users the
priviledge of posting, and those users misuse that priviledge, and the site
does nothing about it, then the site is also responsible. Each site is 
responsible for the actions of their people.

Also, Sites DO post articles, and people on those sites are
acting as representatives of that site. This is the official policy at nsc,
as a matter of fact, because we realize that anything anyone says on the
net reflects on the site and the company that allows them to say those
things. Dec recently made a general announcement that all posters were to
consider themselves company spokesmen when speaking publicly, because
they've gotten a lot of bad press recently (I won't mention names, I don't
need to) and they realize it makes them look bad. AT&T is notorious for
stomping on idiots. So, for that matter, is Tek, or have you forgotten
Frank Adrian? People who make outrageous statements make themselves look
outrageous, and make people wonder about the company that employs them
(I've heard a couple of people wonder about why anyone would want to work
for a company that employed someone like Ken Arndt....)

A second problem is that a company is potentially liable for the content of
things that are posted by their employees. If Sophie were to sue both Scott
AND ucla for some of the things he said about her, then I'm sure that ucla
would be less than pleased. Chances are the first thing they would do is
pull off the net, the second thing they'd do is shove a modem down scott's
throat. At least, I hope they would... Net.flame has gotten to the point
where a majority of their postings are useless at best, and some of them
are on the wrong side of the libel/slander laws (at least, how I would
define them). Many are simply disgusing. None are useful, by any definition
I can come up with, except as comedy relief.

Libel/slander brings up a third point. It is conceivable, based on existing
laws (especially the comm. act of 1934 as amended) that my site, nsc, is
liable for damages for passing that crap through, regardless of where it
was posted. I've talked with the lawyer here at national, and his best
suggestion was to err on the conservative side and not become a precedent.
This is a big unknown in law, and I'd rather not find out the hard way.

>The arguement of the volume of net traffic and
>the cost of the phone bills is bogus, unless you plan on removing
>ALL the non-work related newsgroups, which is a major portion.

Wrong again. I have a volume limit, the amount of traffic I am willing to
receive. When I see that I'm spending more time on the modems moving news
around than I want, or I'm simply getting more messages than I feel I can
handle reasonably, it is time for something to go. This limit seems to be
about a megabyte a day for me, and Usenet seems to be hovering right around
that margin. I could handle more volume, but I don't particularly want
to -- there isn't a lot of benefit for my site to spend money to subsidize
groups like net.flame so that Scott and his friends can make fools out of
themselves and insult other people.  The intelligent reaction
to this is not to get rid of all the non-technical groups, but to rank all
the groups based on usefulness and size, and then get rid of those groups
that are least useful to you with the greatest volume savings until you get
down to whatever you've set as your limit. At this point, by removing
net.flame and net.jokes, I can save something like 6-9% of the total volume
I'm seeing (probably a little less because of cross postings, but I'm
looking at that problem now as well). All I've done is something the
network hasn't seen it fit to do before -- set priorities. net.unix-wizards
is a lot more important to us than net.singles, and net.singles is more
important to us than net.flame. By starting at the bottom of the list, I
can reduce volumes without getting rid of groups that people consider
important.

The reality is that on this site, and on all of the sites downstream, I
have not found one person willing to go with me and talk to my boss to
justify the costs associated with net.flame. If I had found someone willing
to do that, I might have reconsidered getting rid of it, but I haven't
found anyone who was willing to stand up for the group, except on the 
philosophical grounds that we should accept net.all regardless. I used to
believe that as well, and still do in principle, but the reality is much
different.

chuq


-- 
: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...