Re: CFD: Change in FAQ ads policy

From: soliiigm@aol.com (Sol III GM)

Date: Tue, 22 Jul 1997 00:00:00 +0000

Moved from another thread:
Graeme said
>In <19970721221201.SAA03731@ladder02.news.aol.com> kmgraphiks@aol.com
(KMGraphiks) writes:

>>I for one have no desire to go through  the whole discussion again in a
>>CFD thread. All the points have been made in the various threads on the
>>subject. If a person didn't care enough to read and respond to them
there
>>then they probably won't in the CFD thread. Plus, I'm sure lots of folks
>>are like me and don't feel like getting into it again. The point has
been
>>made that a majority of posters want to allow occasional ads so the
hobby
>>can prosper. Tradition be Darned!
>
>I can understand that desire but most of the above is simply your
opinion.
>The fact that you hold it does not make it the truth. "The majority of
>posters want.... " this sounds like all us "traditionalists" are simply
>bleating "no ads, no ads". Analysis of the facts however.....
>
>The "majority" were quite obviously new to Usenet (this isn't a
criticism)
>because they didn't know not to post votes (the reasons why this is wrong
>were well documented by another post). Naturally the majority of these
were
>of the opinion that ads are O.K. Have a real discussion in the correct
forum
>and I think you'll get a different spread (although I'm happy to be
proved
>wrong).

I hate to disagree, but I would not consider myself new to usenet.
While I have not been an active poster in the last two years, I have been
an avid reader, spending between 30 minutes and 2 hours every day.  While
I am sure that this has been done before, I have personally never seen a
newsgroup with this kind of a repeating flamewar (dating back several
years) about something that has such a small number of public supporters.
Now it is quite possible that a formal vote of this type will show
different numbers, but to date, the ratio seems to consistantly run for
the change.

>I would like to suggest the word "occasional" be replaced in future with
>"periodic" as its more accurate. Something that is regularly posted not
>something that is posted now and again.

I agree with this.
  We have to call a spade a spade, and if you are going to work on Usenet,
precise language is often called for in a governing document.
'Occasional' would leave itself open to abuse.  Periodic would still get
abused, but no more than the current wording does, in my opinion.

>Tradition _be_ darned. I don't advocate keeping anything because "thats
the
>way its done" simply that we consider all the ramifications before
opening
>the group to unscrupulous people.

They are already here.  I would like to keep the signal to noise ratio
here as high as it currently is, or higher.

Eagle
Sol III Game Master
Sol III Play By E-Mail Role Playing Game
http://members.aol.com/soliiigm/
24.  Never carry a weapon into a place where it will get you into more trouble that it can possibly get you out of.

References

Re: CFD: Change in FAQ ads policy
soliiigm@aol.com (Sol III GM)
Mon, 21 Jul 1997 00:00:00 +0000