Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site mit-eddie.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!gds From: gds@mit-eddie.UUCP (Greg Skinner) Newsgroups: net.news,net.news.group Subject: Re: the recent rmgroups have started me thinking ... Message-ID: <255@mit-eddie.UUCP> Date: Wed, 30-Oct-85 16:05:38 EST Article-I.D.: mit-eddi.255 Posted: Wed Oct 30 16:05:38 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 2-Nov-85 01:34:45 EST References: <179@mit-eddie.UUCP> <1823@hao.UUCP> Organization: MIT Lusers and Hosers Inc., Cambridge, Ma. Lines: 96 Xref: watmath net.news:4196 net.news.group:4111 > From: woods@hao.UUCP (Greg Woods) > This is only true if the users casting the votes are also the ones > PAYING for it. Everyone seems to forget that part. In the past, the cost > wasn't such a major problem as it is now. The "correct" way to phrase the > above paragraph is: the net should be for each site the net they choose > it to be on that site. The problem with instituting a truly democratic > net is that the backbone sites will pull out, as soon as other people > start telling them what they should pay for. No backbone, no net. What makes you think the backbone sites will be told what they should pay for? For one, they are free not to carry the groups they don't want to, tough luck on the rest of the net. Also, the backbone sites will get to vote on what sorts of netwide traffic will exist. What I am objecting to is one or a few people making a decision to do something independent of all the othefr sites, like removing a group with productive traffic in it. > No, it is the exponential growth of the net (and hence, the cost associated > with it) that is jeopardizing the net. The actions of a few, in this case, > are an attempt to save the net in some form by adding a little organization > to it, given that it is impossible for it to continue unlimited as it has > in the past. What I was referring to is the decisions of individuals to do something that has netwide effect. This puts the fault on both the creators and destroyers of net.bizarre and net.internat. True, if the creators of net.internat and net.bizarre had obeyed the rules, we wouldn't be shouting like this. But if there had been some discussion about the removal of net.bizarre and renaming of net.internat before the rmgroups, we wouldn't be shouting like this either. [I metioned the suggestion of thef voting scheme here for future netwide decisions.] > I disagree wholeheartedly. Although it sounds good on paper, the facts are > that you cannot FORCE any site to agree with a netwide decision that affects > THEIR phone bills. Trying to do this will only result in many sites, > including those who are generously donating phone time/money to the > rest of the net, off the net altogether. You seem to think that the netwide votes will always be in opposition to the backbone votes. Judging from the comments I've seen from other news/site admins on reducing net volume, I'd say most people are in favor of removing some groups or at least restricting their distribution. Also, the site vote would have to be a function of how many outgoing feeds the site has, so sites like ihnp4 will have lots of voice in determining which groups will exist on the net. In the final instance, a site like ihnp4 can reject any netwide decision and refuse to pass a newsgroup, which will undoubtedly reduce traffic in certain high-volume low-content groups. That is what we want. Simply rmgrouping all the groups a set of individuals don't want to exist is unfair to the rest of the net -- let them worry about footing the bills for the groups they want to keep and the backbone sites can worry about footing their own bills. As an aside, the rmgrouping of net.bizarre and net.internat did NOT help decrease the volume of postings, because (1) many people have chosen not to honor the rmgroup message and (2) the flames that have sprung up as a result of the rmgrouping take the place of the traffic in the deleted groups. So, in effect, articles which would not have been posted otherwise were posted, which is what we are trying to prevent. >> the removal of said groups should have been done on a site-to-site basis, in >> other words they should have no longer agreed to carry it, leaving the >> rest of the sites who wish to carry the groups alone. > This does not follow. This would only be true if the groups had been > created properly in the first place. Since they weren't, this doesn't apply. Of course it does. Read my above two paragraphs. No one is *forcing* any site to do *anything*! But with the rmgroups, you are forcing sites *not* to receive the articles they want. A backbone site is within its rights not to carry traffic, but it shouldn't make that decision for the whole net. >> What is needed is better use of regional >> distribution, moderation where necessary, and above all cooperation of >> all users of the net to abide by the rules. > I agree with the first two. Experience has shown over and over again that > the last is unrealistic. We have seen both ignorant and malicious users not > cooperating. I see no reason to expect things to improve in the future. > We have to enforce the rules or they are useless. I believe that if voting rules were adopted, those people who were not cooperating would be quick to cooperate once told they'd lose their news feeds if they didn't. We don't even need voting to do this -- if someone on some site is doing things he oughtn't, the site can be warned that they will cut them off if the malicious behavior isn';t stopped. -- It's like a jungle sometimes, it makes me wonder how I keep from goin' under. Greg Skinner (gregbo) {decvax!genrad, allegra, ihnp4}!mit-eddie!gds gds@mit-eddie.mit.edu