Re: CFD: Change in FAQ ads policy

From: graeme@discreet.co.uk (Graeme Griffiths)

Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 00:00:00 +0000

In <19970724064801.CAA09606@ladder02.news.aol.com> kmgraphiks@aol.com
    (KMGraphiks) writes:

>Moved to the CFD: Change in FAQ ads policy

Thanks.

>Graeme Griffiths writes:

>>You seem to have a very adamant view on it if its "just cosmetic". It is
>>presumed that the FAQ reflects the views of the group and that an ISP
>would
>>accept it in lieu of a charter for this group. The distinction between
>"ads
>>are not welcome" and "ads are welcome" must be very clear because that is
>>what you will have to live with.

>One of my adamant views is that the FAQ is powerless in this unchartered
>newsgroup. I'm hoping someone will post a "Modern FAQ" that is ad
>friendly, this will of course have just as much authority as Greg's FAQ
>(any takers out there?).

I'm not sure I understand this. The FAQ has no power but you want a "modern"
one writing anyway. The FAQ should simply reflect the majority view on the
group. If most people want to see periodic ads then thats what the FAQ
should say. Chartering is a much more rigid mechanism and could be seen as
an invitation to spammers.

>IMHO you and the other traditionalists are too concerned with policying
>the newsgroup. It seems you want to have everything down in black&white,
>following every possible usenet rule and tradition so that if there is
>some infraction (in your minds) you can document all the "evidence" and go
>to an ISP to have the scoundrel excommunicated.

If we undertook to flame every individual who failed to dot i's and cross
t's ala "Usenet tradition" then there would be a lot more pointless traffic.
No-one leaps upon newbies for minor transgressions of "tradition". Usually a
friendly word is passed on to point someone in the right direction. [1] A
more pressing need, however, is seen when a group of people seem to be
pushing for open advertising in the Big 8. [2]

>I don't believe this is
>necessary. This is a relatively small newsgroup of PBM players and PBM
>moderators who keep this hobby alive by needing each other. Abuses by
>anyone will be met by "natural" affects such as less respect for a player
>and/or less business for a moderator. If an outside spammer sneaks in he
>will either be ignored or the recipient of a lot of nasty email.

This is where we obviously differ. For a start I doubt you'll ever get mail
to a spammer (and I'm not talking about a game moderator here) that will be
read. For a start most of them are pretty clever at forging headers and
misdirecting people. If you can get anything on them its their route onto
the Net and thats all you can do, shut a door. The only way to shut one is
to persuade the owner that its being misused and persuade the other
door-keepers to be extra vigilant. This becomes more difficult as the lines
become blurred.

>The
>purpose of the FAQ should be to WELCOME the uninitiated into the ng, not
>to hand them a dress code that they will be held accountable for. I
>predict the future growth of PBEM will be with the internet newbies who
>have just discovered our world. We want them to feel welcome not
>intimidated by unenforceable rules or insulted by internet and usenet
>veterans.

I don't think you'll find anyone who disagrees with that first sentence. As
Greg has pointed out the ads stuff is a way down so as not to ram this down
peoples throats and put them off.

We were all Newbies once, (with the possible exception of Greg ;-) very few
of us got screamed at for annoying groups but I'd be surprised if anyone
didn't screw up at least once even if it was just slight. No-one is
suggesting that us "veterans" have more valid views just that we have
experience that should be taken into account when proposing a change to the
group (or indeed Usenet).

As you say, no-one can really stop someone advertising their game and the
FAQ simply states that periodic ads put more customers off than they create.
If you can prove thats wrong then I think you have a case. I think people
are fairly evenly split on the issue but only a free vote would prove it
either way. I think its interesting and worthy of note that it appears to be
evenly split that those with lengthy Usenet experience are (for the most,
Eagle excepted) against periodic ads while those with less are (generally)
for it. I think more can be read in that a blanket refusal to change or a
Kow Towing to "tradition"

[1] Please don't point out different experiences of this unless it was ME
who hassled/reported you.
[2] Go to news.groups and ask.
--
Graeme Griffiths - Discreet Logic (Newbury, UK)
Disclaimer: I do not speak for anyone but myself and I do that badly.
Mail: graeme@discreet.co.uk
Spam: All unsolicited mail will be reported, and billed for my time.

References

Re: CFD: Change in FAQ ads policy
kmgraphiks@aol.com (KMGraphiks)
Thu, 24 Jul 1997 00:00:00 +0000
Re: CFD: Change in FAQ ads policy
lindahl@pbm.com (Greg Lindahl)
Thu, 24 Jul 1997 00:00:00 +0000

Referenced By

Re: CFD: Change in FAQ ads policy
kmgraphiks@aol.com (KMGraphiks)
Thu, 24 Jul 1997 00:00:00 +0000
Re: CFD: Change in FAQ ads policy
lindahl@pbm.com (Greg Lindahl)
Thu, 24 Jul 1997 00:00:00 +0000