Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site trwrdc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!trwrdc!frith
From: frith@trwrdc.UUCP (Lord Frith)
Newsgroups: net.news,net.news.group,net.flame
Subject: Re: Fear and Loathing on the Clouds
Message-ID: <1078@trwrdc.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 25-Oct-85 09:58:44 EST
Article-I.D.: trwrdc.1078
Posted: Fri Oct 25 09:58:44 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 30-Oct-85 06:24:58 EST
References: <614@h-sc1.UUCP> <1817@hao.UUCP>
Reply-To: frith@trwrdc.UUCP (Lord Frith)
Distribution: net
Organization: TRW Advanced Technology Facility, Merrifield VA.
Lines: 137
Xref: watmath net.news:4177 net.news.group:4058 net.flame:12543

I agree that net.bizarre and net.internat SHOULD have been created in
the usual Netwnews fashion HOWEVER the intent of the following fills me
with fear and loathing.  It strikes me as yet another example of one
person or group of persons attempting to assert their doctrine over the
entire community....

In article <1817@hao.UUCP> woods@hao.UUCP (Greg Woods) writes:
>>
>> Recently, however, Spafford has taken it upon himself to delete two
>> thriving, busy newsgroups --- net.internat and net.bizarre.  The case
>> of net.internat is especially distressing, as this newsgroup's
>> signal-to-noise ratio has reached heights heretofore undreamt of on USENET.
>
> The content of the groups is not the issue. These groups were created
> without going through the proper procedure which has been WELL DOCUMENTE.
> We simply cannot continue to let every bozo who thinks his topic is of
> interest and gets 10 people to agree with him create a newsgroup.

And I suppose that the privelage to create newsgroups should be reserved
to the system administrators so that those obnoxious bozos won't propagate
their drivel?  Who is this "we" that you speak of?  Is this the royal "we."
Do you speak for all site administrators or is this your own personal creedo?

>> On top of the fact that two busy newsgroups are going away, the fundamental
>> character of the net is being changed, I think, for the worse.
>
>   You are, of course, entitled to hold your own opinion. I even agree with it.
> But, we have to wake up and face reality: we can NO LONGER AFFORD to allow
> anyone to post whatever they want whenever they want. It just isn't practical
> any more. We have two choices: do something about it (i.e. change "the 
> character of the net") or let the net collapse under its own weight. I know
> which of those choices *I* prefer. How about you?

I fully disagree with your assertion that "we"  cannot allow just
anyone to post whatever they want because it isn't "practical."  The
existance of the net is NOT dependent upon how practical or effecient
you might perceive it to be.  It is reliant only upon generous backbone
sites that will shell out the bucks for long-distance high-volume
calls.  I doubt the net will ever "collapse" under it's own weight as
long as there are people to post articles and people who will read them.

>> Spaf may not have created the rules he cites, but his *centralized* 
>> enforcement of them...
> 
>    ...is absolutely mandatory. If there isn't enforcement of the rules from
> somewhere, people won't obey them.

And since WHEN is it necessary to beat people over the heads and force them to
obey a centralized set of bureacratic rules?  Usenet "rules" are actually
guidelines for use and were never made to be enforced.  If so then we would
already have a centralized bureacracy pontificating over our every action.
Perhaps the fact that people WON'T obey tells you that you shouldn't be
expecting them to do so.

And how can we trust any central body of administrators to perform the will
of the community any better than the community itself?

>> What I object to is its unilateral deletion by a cabal of topologically
>> well-placed superusers.
> 
> Tough. "topologically well-placed" sites are also the ones who PAY for most
> of it.  If you want to foot our phone bill for net.bizarre, fine. If not,
> then don't tell us what we should and shouldn't be willing to pay for.

What you are willing or not willing to pay for effects sites down the pike
that rely on you for news.  How about being a little more considerate of
the needs of people in general?  Your site may pay the bills, but that
doesn't mean you can ignore the needs of everyone else.

>> In any case, if the decision were truly a local one, there would have
>> been no need to inform the network as a whole, at length, in net.announce.
> 
>   It wasn't a local one. It's high time people start following the rules. The 
> net is now simply too big for TOTAL anarchy. If you don't like the rules,
> that's a separate issue. Submit articles asking to change them. Perhaps lots
> of people agree with you. The present set of rules was indeed agreed upon
> years ago; it's a pity we didn't enforce them then, as it wouldn't be so
> difficult to do so now.

There are those words again... "we" and "enforced."  May I suggest that the
rules of the net be enforced IN SOFTWARE according to a commonly held set
of rules?  Voting could be accomplished automatically.  That would make
a fun project.

>> Postings of this sort, no matter what the content, are symptomatic of
>> somebody trying to take control.
> 
> That's like saying the police officer who arrested you is also responsible
> for making the laws. That isn't so. By your own admission, Spafford did not
> make the rules up himself. He's just enforcing them.

But Spafford alone doesn't have a mandate from the community to enforce
them.  The police officer does.  Looks to me like you folks are holding
tenaciously to the letter of the law but not to it's spirit.  Does the
wildcat creation of a set of useful newsgroups justify the almost
punitive action of removing them?

> I couldn't disagree more. The major problem with the net right now is
> simple: TOO MUCH TRAFFIC. New groups increase traffic; that is a fact.
> We have to SLOW DOWN the rate of growth. Newsgroup creation needs to become
> MORE controlled, not less.

No no no no no no!  Slowing down the rate of growth is NOT the same as
excersising control over newsgroup creation.  You regulate flow by adapting
the network topology to the flow.  Build in more redundancy and coordinate
calls between sites more effectivly.  By controlling newsgroup creation you
also control newsgroup content.

> net.bizarre is a PERFECT illustration of why the "demonstrated need"
> criterium is so important. These postings are in fact articles that would
> not have been posted if the group had not been created. The "demonstrated
> volume" of which you speak occured AFTER the group's creation; the rules
> state that the demonstrated need should occur BEFORE creation. Thus, if the
> rules had been followed the group wouldn't have gotten created and there 
> would have been LESS traffic on the net as a result.

But this is like saying that we should know the utlitarian value of something
before using it.  This often is not the case.  I agree that the Usenet
procedures should have been adhered to.  I do NOT think that the removal
of net.bizarre or net.internat was justified since it kow-tows to the letter
of an informal law.

>> The result of this situation will probably be reminiscent of the early
>> days of net.bizarre:  people attempting to carry on a discussion on
>> newsgroups which are flitting in and out of existence on a daily
>> basis.  This is annoying to all concerned, those trying to sustain the
>> group and those trying to destroy it alike.
> 
> Tough. If those trying to create the group had followed the proper procedure
> in creating it, it wouldn't be "flitting in and out of existence".

The only reason newsgroups are "flitting OUT of existance" is because some
site administrator thinks he has to enforce the rules to the letter or the
world will come crashing down around our heads.  So what if the rules were
bent?  Instead of heavy-handed CENTRAL administration I suggest a more
reasonable approach... like educating people or enhancing the software
to facilitate the structure that the entire community thinks is desirable.