Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site cbsck.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!cbsck!pmd
From: pmd@cbsck.UUCP (Paul M. Dubuc)
Newsgroups: net.flame,net.news.group
Subject: Re: A new case for the proposed deletion of net.flame
Message-ID: <1448@cbsck.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 31-Oct-85 09:00:15 EST
Article-I.D.: cbsck.1448
Posted: Thu Oct 31 09:00:15 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 2-Nov-85 03:54:34 EST
References: <4494@alice.UUCP>, <376@ihdev.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories , Columbus
Lines: 100
Keywords: cutting off our noses.....
Xref: watmath net.flame:12582 net.news.group:4127

From Ron Vaughn:

>in reference to deleting net.flame:  
>
>In article <4494@alice.UUCP> jj@alice.UUCP writes:
>>IT'S TIME!  I CALL ON NET ADMINISTRATORS WHO WANT THE NET TO
>>CONTINUE TO EXIST TO START THE DISCUSSION!
>
>pull your head out.  if there ISN'T a flame, it will rear it's ugly head
>in all the other groups.  at least in net.* if people get "out of line" you
>can say "move this to flame, that's what it's there for,"  and most of the 
>time they do.  at least now all of us flamer types and pseudo flamers, and
>even the jerks (arndt etc.) play in the sandbox here.  without flame, the
>rest of the USENET community will pay the price.

It's my impression that net.flame may have the greatest ratio of articles
cross posted to other groups.  Flames rarely start in net.flame (it's more
of a repository), they start in other groups and the flamer has to post there
initially or the right people aren't going to hear it.  So net.flame doesn't
do anything to prevent flames from starting up in other groups.

The existence of net.flame also serves as an encouragement to flamming.  The
group is there, so it seems like an acceptable practice.  If your article
is a little hot or full of ridicule, just cross post it to net.flame and
you don't have to apologize.  Net.flame's existence as a ghetto to which we
may banish persistent flamers may make the n-key last longer for readers of
other groups, but the USENET community still has to pay the price for traffic
in net.flame (system and telephone costs are the main issue here, and I think
net.flame is hurting, rather than helping, us in that area).  If we need a
ghetto for flamers why not encourage them to carry on their insults by mail
instead?  Either that, or flammers will be forced to face the fact that
flamming generates a lot of heat and little light and people who resort to
flamming without restraint or first trying to be reasonable and understand 
the other's point of veiw, will generally not be taken seriously by most
readers.

I think that if net.flame weren't around to make justifying the venting
of one's spleen all over the net, the users of other groups who don't
appreciate flamming will be faced with two choices:

1) Allow flamming to get out of hand and ruin the newsgroup.
	or
2) Actively discourage flamming as an acceptable mode of communication,
while encouraging reasonable tones of discussion.  This can be done in
a number of creative and reasonable ways if we are willing to work at it.

With the existence of net.flame, people are just too lazy to exercise the
second option.  Net.flame is an irresponsible way to handle irresponsible
behaviour.

>cut out flame and everyone WILL pay.  x% of garbage is input to the net
>each day. y% of that garbage is in flame, x% - y% is distributed across
>all the other groups.  without flame, and large chunk of y% will be added
>to the rest of the net.

How large?  How large was x% before net.flame was created?  Without net.flame,
y% will be unjustified flammage (hypothetically leaving an acceptable amount
x%-y%).  You treat these variables as constants, when their value really
depends on how comfortable we make the net for flammers.  net.flame contributes
a lot to that comfort.  I would rather have all the 'y%' of supposedly
unjustified flame distributed amoung other groups, because if it is unjustified
there is more impetus to get the flamers to cut it out and behave.

>face facts, if a guy is a schmoe in net.singles,
>i go into flame and flame him (or he flames me... whatever).  after flame is
>gone we'll just sit and flame in singles.  and music....and politics...
>and religion....and philosophy...and.......

Well, you don't go straight to net.flame do you?  Each of you battles a
few rounds in net.singles first (perhaps cross posting to net.flame).
By the time others get mad enough to tell you to keep it in net.flame,
a good part of the dammage has been done, and the net still continues
to pay for the subsequent traffic you generate in net.flame.

Besides, we could more easily think of other scenarios than the one you give.
Mail the schmoe a letter instead of posting it and encourage others to take
the same route.  Try ignoring him.  Flamming arguments have to end somewhere.
Sometimes we need to be big enough to let the schmoe have the last word in
the interest of civility (even when the schmoe is wrong).  If you really care
about setting the guy right a letter might be just as effective.  If he's
not open to reason, he's not worth arguing with (or listening to).  Let's
all get some practice at swallowing our pride, shall we?  It might do us
some good.

>	your choice, be an idiot, or wake up and smell the coffee.
>
>		ron
>
>ps: notice the sarcastic, mild flame tone in this letter?  that is because 
>it is in flame.  if there was no flame, this letter would have to be in
>a "regular group,"  except *there* it would be sarcastic and have a mild
>flame tone.  and everyone "else" would be subjected to it.  my, what a
>neat can of worms to open up for the rest of the net.  who's going to
>take the blame..er...i mean, be the proud leader of this smart move????

It *is* in a "regular group" (cross posted to net.news.group).

-- 

Paul Dubuc 	cbsck!pmd