|
Another fine message from the rec.arts.movies.erotica reading room...
[Prev][Next][Subject][Thread] Re: RFD: rec.arts.movies.erotica moderated
[email protected] (Christopher B. Stone) writes: > >Furthermore, there are those sites that just drop the "sex" branches > >without even bothering to check what's in each newsgroup (can't blame > >them...bunching erotica groups together tends to make a nice little ghetto > >just beckoning to be dropped from newsfeeds.... > > ...and it is entirely legitimate to drop entire hierarchies from > newsfeeds. That's the whole *point* of keeping Usenet namespace > well-organized. That's why we have the whole RFD/CFV process. Perfectly legitimate, I agree. I believe I stressed (perhaps not strongly enough it seems) that I expect the group to be dropped by several feeds -- Britain to begin with. My argument was that I feel this group should fall under the movies branch firstly because it is more pertaining to the subject matter (it is MOVIES primarily that so happen to be erotic ) but also for a tactical reason. This is *not* to "cheat" the net into getting more propagation as I may have unknowingly seemed to imply. Why should propagation matter to me all that much anyway? It's not as if I'm upon a crusade to make people read my group. I am just concerned that the new group does not merely turn into alt.sex.movies in rec.*. As I see it, if this newsgroup goes under erotica, it will be very difficult to expand the subject matter into non-hardcore aspects as was originally the intention. Getting dropped by a kneejerk reaction won't help either (but may after all turn out to be something we'll have to live with). > Like I said, I was not planning to vote either way on this proposal. But > if you can't offer any better reason for ignoring the rec.arts.erotica.* > hierarchy, then I may cast a "NO" ballot. Our primary reason is and has always been our conviction that *movies* are our subject matter and that adult movies are as legitimate a discussion subject as all the other types currently accomodated in that hierarchy. I will grant however that just as sf movies are in the sf branch so could we go under the erotica branch (though it will still strike me as less appropriate than the alternative). Becoming an erotica group would certainly be no disaster. However, it so happens that there are some tactical advantages in the movies branch; I feel that it is legitimate to wish to use these to make the proposed newsgroup a more rounded forum. In my eyes it's not subversive; the newsgroup names are so close anyway and in practice iot's so easy for any newsadmin to grep for "erotic", "sex" etc. and drop the result. We have not tried to hide anything in any stage of this process; if anything we have been so open as to be undiplomatic (witness this current argument that could have easily been avoided by us had our primary concern been to "milk" more propagation out of unsuspecting ISPs). Of course if a sentiment arises here that rec.arts.movies is not the place for us, we are willing to change -- because we DO understand why we have the RFD/CFV process. I should also mention that as things stand, there are far too many > newsgroups in rec.arts.movies.*. People are confused about where to > post, even with seemingly obvious names like > rec.arts.movies.current-films. The groups are a mess and the addition of > *any* other movie group is bound to add to that mess. The way things are > going, I wouldn't be surprised to see discussions of _Babe_ wind up being > crossposted to the adult movies group. :) Overspecialization can get out of hand it;s true, but rec.arts.movies is certainly NOT one of those places yet. After all what's the alternative to specialization? Would you prefer the subject matter of alt.sex.movies to be dropped into rec.arts.movies.misc for example? They DO qualify as miscallaneous movies after all. But neither we, nor the ramm crowd I'm sure, would like such a bunching (not to mention the nightmares that newsgroup dropping ISPs would have then :-)). Imp. Follow-Ups:
|