Re: [FAQ] New PBM FAQ

From: sjoerd@cs.vu.nl (Sjoerd Schreuder)

Date: Fri, 01 Aug 1997 00:00:00 +0000

kmgraphiks@aol.com (KMGraphiks) writes:

>Greetings,
>As you all probably know I have never been happy with the old FAQ and how
>it deals with PBM players and moderators in this newsgroup. Since it's
>obvious that a lot of others feel the same way I've decided to post a new
>FAQ that I feel better represents the membership. I welcome all your
>suggestions and comments on the new FAQ and will probably repost it here
>monthly. If anyone would like to donate web space for it that would be
>greatly appreciated.

A nice FAQ, much shorter than Greg's, but as not everyone has www-access,
I think the long list of games had some usage. You might consider posting
the FAQ twice a month, as most sites won't keep it longer than a 14 days.

There is one remark I like to make: I don't like the last paragraph
of part 6 "What is an acceptable post to rec.games.pbm?" IMO,
it doesn't belong in a FAQ at all: you must still be mad at Greg.

It's sad this group has two FAQs, but I guess it's unavoidable at the moment.
Let's just have two FAQs for some time, and maybe it's possible to combine
them somewhere in the future.

I hope the heated discussions will disappear now. It's the advantage of
the anarchy in Usenet: if one doesn't agree, everyone has the power to
do it otherwise. Contacting ISP and mailbombing used to be some of the
instruments to stop abuse, but maybe they won't work anymore when most
people have no professional need to be part of Internet. *snif*
Those good old days (almost no SPAM, everyone knew the netiquette)
won't return... [Hmm, I sound I'm 85, in stead of 25 ;-) ] Well, maybe
Usenet is growing up, with all the problems that arise during that process.

Sjoerd Schreuder

Relevant part of the FAQ:

>6.  What is an acceptable post to rec.games.pbm?
>    ---------------------------------------------

[snip]

>If your discussion with another member of the group degenerates into a
>'flame war', you should move the discussion to private email. Even though
>the discussion is quite interesting to you and may consume the greater
>part of your daily thought, it's usually dull and offensive to others. You
>rarely 'gain points' by perpetuating a nasty or rude discussion. On the
>other hand, if you disagree with another reader, you should not hesitate
>to put forth your views. A frank discussion isn't a flame war; it's a
>frank discussion. People who complain of 'being flamed' are often, in
>actuality,  complaining about posts that contradict or deny their own
>opinions.

I don't think this should be in a FAQ. Flame wars are rare enough not
to mention them in the _F_AQ.

>Finally, and perhaps most important, rec.games.pbm is a non-moderated
>(open) forum. Everyone is equal. Some readers will try to assume authority
>and set arbitrary policies, but you have no obligation to listen to them
>unless they make sense. Don't let yourself be bullied. If someone
>threatens to 'contact your ISP' and 'get you in trouble' over one of your
>posts, let everyone on rec.games.pbm know about it. The best way to
>counter a bully's threats is to publicize them.

I don't like this last paragraph at all.

References

[FAQ] New PBM FAQ
kmgraphiks@aol.com (KMGraphiks)
Fri, 01 Aug 1997 00:00:00 +0000

Referenced By

[FAQ] New PBM FAQ
kmgraphiks@aol.com (KMGraphiks)
Fri, 01 Aug 1997 00:00:00 +0000