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...