|
Another fine message from the rec.arts.movies.erotica reading room...
[Prev][Next][Subject][Thread] Re: RFD: rec.arts.movies.erotica moderated
In article <[email protected]>, Christopher B. Stone <[email protected]> wrote: >I do agree >that the group ought to be rec.arts.erotica.movies. >[...] >It is exceedingly irresponsible to argue one *must* have >the name "foo.bat.bar" rather than "for.bar.bat," because the latter is >much more likely to be dropped. OK, let's look at other reasons... >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. Then you are casting a "NO" vote based on (at best) misinformation or (at worst) a prejudiced and deliberate disregard of the facts. Calling rec.arts.erotica.* a hierarchy is a lie. Rec.arts.erotica is a newsgroup, (I know, I created it). It was not designed to be a hierarchy, was never proposed as such in its charter, was not voted in as such, and had no short-term or long-term intentions to do so. The current charter of r.a.e describes it as being only for the distribution of *original* erotic works; no discission at all. While it might be appropriate to have a sub-group 'erotica.movies' if lots of people submitted screenplays, this has not been the case in the past, and is not the intended goal of the r.a.m.e proponents. Based on existing charters, rec.arts.erotica.movies is the wrong place. Also: It is bad Usenet practise to have a name that is both a newsgroup and a base for a hierarchy -- this is indeed a royal pain for administrators. You cannot have *both* rec.arts.erotica and rec.arts.erotica.movies; the former would have to be renamed r.a.e.misc. Failure to do so would result in the proposal being rejected by tale & co; it would never get to a CFV. On the other hand, there is no newsgroup called rec.arts.movies; it is *designed* as a hierarchy. In standard Usenet form, it contains a .misc group, a moderated .announce group, and various other groups added as necessary. In other words, if one looks at precedent and Usenet procedure, there is *no* grounds upon which to form rec.arts.erotica.movies, and plenty for rec.arts.movies.erotica. >I should also mention that as things stand, there are far too many >newsgroups in rec.arts.movies.*. Oh please. Too many? There are a great many hierarchies with a damn sight more branches than rec.arts.movies, and there's no confusion at all about them. When there's something that's relevant across more than one specific group, we have this little feature here on Usenet called cross-posting; used appropriately and in moderation, it's very useful. >People are confused about where to >post, even with seemingly obvious names like >rec.arts.movies.current-films. "People" are not confused at all. Unless you speak for some larger group or have statistics, all you describe is your own confusion. Further, we are not here to debate the appropriateness of existing movies newsgroups; if there is something confusing about the name 'movies.erotica', then say so, specifically. If not, you have no grounds for rejection. -- Evan Leibovitch, Sound Software Ltd., located in beautiful Brampton, Ontario SCO & Novell Unix Master Reseller / [email protected] / (905) 452-0504 There are two types of people: those who divide people into two types, and those who don't. Follow-Ups: References:
|