Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!att!cbnews!military
From: military@att.att.com (Bill Thacker, moderator)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: sci.military guidelines and etiquette
Message-ID: <8881@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Date: 9 Aug 89 03:57:43 GMT
Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM
Lines: 135
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: military@att.att.com (Bill Thacker, moderator)

            Guidelines for sci.military
		(revised 5-10-89)

Following is a set of guidelines for using sci.military.  By observing
these guidelines, you will help maintain the overall quality of the 
newsgroup, avoid having articles rejected for inappropriate content,
and save *me* a lot of headaches 8-)



CHARTER:

sci.military exists for the discussion of military technology and
related subjects.  Certain peripheral topics, including history, tactics, 
organization, and theory, are welcome to a limited extent, but are
considered "guests" in the "sci" heirarchy;  such postings should be
factual,  interesting, and as brief as possible, and will be rejected
if they are in any way imflammatory.  Arms control discussions properly
belong in soc.politics.arms-d, and are not appreciated here.


MODERATION:

My main goal as moderator is to keep the newsgroup flame-free and
interesting.  I also attempt to weed out redundant postings as much
as possible; my criterion is that unless a posting adds new information
to the dicussion, it's not worth posting. 

I do, from time to time, insert in brackets ( [] )  moderator notes.
These may attempt to clarify a question, or head off possible flames
resulting from imprecise wording.  Often, I will answer simple questions
(e.g., "What is the name of the M1 tank ?" ) simply to prevent a flood
of answers from the readership.  Finally, as I enjoy contributing, myself,
I sometimes use this method to "followup" an article.  I feel this makes
for somewhat faster-paced discussions, and saves a bit of bandwidth.

If I reject a submission, I *always* attempt to reply to the author,
explaining my reasoning.  If you submit an article and don't see it posted,
and haven't gotten mail from me, you can assume it's been lost in the
works, not rejected.

All my moderation policies are subject to debate; as they now exist, they
are simply my impression of what makes an enjoyable newsgroup for the
readership.  I welcome any comment, good or bad, as to my procedures.


ETIQUETTE:

Experience with the group so far has prompted the following observations:

1)  Try to be sure of the facts you post.  The readers here are very
sharp, and I'll get a barrage of postings correcting any mistake.

2)  Think twice before submitting a one- or two-line article.  If
your article says little, there's a good chance someone else will say it
before you.   You might consider expounding a bit, which will make
the article more interesting, and less likely to be rejected for
redundancy.

3)  Be VERY CAREFUL about political content.  By no means should you be
intentionally abrasive; try to stick to established facts, and state
them rationally.  Only mention politics when it directly affects the
technological discussion.  I will be very strict on this issue; 
unsupported opinions and unnecessary political content will result in
my returning your article for revision, delaying its posting by
several days.

4)  If I reject your submission, don't take it personally; it's not
meant that way.  I'll try to briefly explain my reasoning, and
suggest changes to make the article more suitable.  If I seem
terse or gruff, please understand that it's because I'm trying to
process many articles each day, and I like to do it as quickly as 
possible.


REFERENCES:

The content of this newsgroup will be relatively technical, filled with
facts and figures that are not considered common knowledge.  When possible,
I urge posters to include references and other resources.  Also, don't
forget that interests vary, and not everyone will be familiar with all
the technical jargon and acronyms you may mention.


FAIR USE:

It is illegal to quote in entirety a copyrighted work, unless written 
permission from the copyright holder has been obtained.  Please, don't send
in articles transcribed from published sources without such permission;
instead, paraphrase them into your own words and quote only the
most significant passages.


SECURITY:

I possess no US Government security clearance, nor have I ever applied
for one.  I am unqualified to deduce whether submitted materials are, in
fact, military secrets or otherwise classifed. Knowing that many of those
subscribing to the Net have access to classified information, I urge all 
posters to double-check their submissions;  let's not have anyone get into
trouble over this group.


GROUP -vs- LIST:

The military discussion is carried on in two forums (fora ?): the
Usenet newsgroup "sci.military", and a private mailing list.  The latter
has been added at the request of ARPANet readers; all materials posted
to sci.military will be broadcast to the List, as well.  Further,
submissions to the List will be posted to the newsgroup.  Thus, there
is no need to join both the List and the group; if you can subscribe
to the newsgroup, you needn't sign up for the List.  

Mail to the mailing list is in the form of a daily digest, mailed
every day but Saturday.

Unfortunately for those on the list, I have little skill or patience for
tracking down snags in mail-paths.  Too, I find that many machines have
a tendency to go off the "air" for short periods.  I therefore make no
attempt to re-send bounced digests.  I do, however, archive old mail
digests, so that, should you miss one or more copies, just write me,
and I'll forward it to you.



-  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  - 
Bill Thacker      moderator, sci.military      military@att.att.com

"War is a matter of vital importance to the State; the province of life
or death; the road to survival or ruin. It is mandatory that it be 
thoroughly studied."   -  Sun Tzu