Subject:
|
Re: Should RTL be hosted on this server?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Sun, 29 Nov 1998 03:28:17 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
lpien@ctp.iwantnospamSAYNOTOSPAM.com
|
Viewed:
|
2466 times
|
| |
|
|
Todd Lehman wrote:
>
> Hello Lugnetters,
>
> I need help making a very important decision regarding the NNTP server here,
> and I'd like to hear any opinions and random thoughts you might have.
>
> If RTL were hosted on this news server, would that clearly be a good thing,
> or a bad thing, or would it make no difference in anyone's lives?
This is a question worthy of some thought. Nevertheless, I'm gonna share
my gut reactions now, and think about it and probably post again. Call
it intuition vs. deliberation... What follows is the intuition part.
My gut reaction is no. I can see why JSA wants to abstain (1) but I feel
I have to comment. After all, this is related to what I do for a living,
and Todd and I have exchanged thoughts on community building before.
> Although it would be a relatively simple technical action, I think it would
> be wise to solicit input and discussion before just jumping in and doing it
> for the sake of doing it. That is, I'd like to understand the potential
> positive and negative consequences of the action, and for us as a community
> (collective mind) to decide whether or not it might be a good thing to do.
This sentiment is admirable, and why we all kind of like you a little,
but ultimately it's your decision, you know.
> Personally, I think I'd like to see it if it didn't create a whole new set
> of problems (therein lies the concern). I am certain that it would save me
> time because I wouldn't have to go start up another session to read it from
> my other ISP, and other people have said it would save them time (and even
> money in some cases), but the larger issues of community-building may be
> more important in the long run than saving a bit of time or money.
I'm not sure why this saves all that much time... at least for me, I
tend to only read one group at once. Anyway, the way I have NS
communicator (4.5 on NT 4.0) configured, I just bounce from the server
where rtl is (for me, it's news.ctp.com) to this one.
However, with RTL hosted on the same server, I can cross post, and quote
articles easier, that's true.
But those are technical reasons and technical issues. To me the crux is
not technical.
> What do you think? Does it make things better or worse for you, easier or
> harder for you? Is it a potentially dangerous idea or is it clearly a
> win-win for everyone?
>
> Would it foster animosity and boundaries or would it bring people still
> closer together?
>
> Would it be so good that it would be far more harmful _not_ to do it?
>
> Might it be harmful to people who frequent RTL only and who do not frequent
> the groups here? Or would it help them?
I see it as harmful to the special thing that's growing here, and that
seems to be dying out on RTL. RTL seems to be turning into a far less
friendly place than it used to be and a far less useful place as well.
Frankly, I think requiring real names, and acknowledgement of terms and
conditions, and so forth is a good thing. Call me elitist. I am, and
proud of it, too.
Now some might say that the good atmosphere of LUGNET will fix the bad
one of RTL. But I don't want to take the risk. I don't want the
flamewars and chaff here. LUGNET isn't mature enough to carry the load
of fixing RTL yet.
> I'm thinking that if it were hosted here, then for legal reasons it would
> need to be hosted in the manner of a classic Usenet newsgroup, namely...
>
> 1. Articles expire from the server after 2-3 weeks.
>
> 2. Articles are not archived. (They'd be archived and searchable on
> Deja News anyway.)
These are, in essence, the same thing. There is no legal or even
"customary" requirement that you expire articles. As the server
administrator of the server hosting the group, it's your decision. You
may want to, but you don't have to. When I worked at IBM, the articles
on certain groups were never expired by the IBM news server
administrator, because we IBMers wanted to be able to go back and find
them again. (these were technical groups that were relatively high S/N
ratio, like, at the time, comp.lang.c++... but the example is valid
nonetheless)
> 3. No from-line verification or content-based message rejection; anyone
> posting is automatically passed, and binaries & HTML are passed as
> well.
This is probably more expected, but even this one is still your choice.
After all, the reader/poster of the article is there at your sufferance.
It is not unheard of for a particular server to have outbound or inbound
restrictions. You cannot prevent someone from posting a binary if they
post to another server, but you can stop them posting it to your server.
Further you can filter the article if you wish so it never appears.
There is no legal prevention on doing so, although you may get some
flamage.
Again, drawing from the IBM example, there were bans on posting things
to certain groups, even though they were carried by the server, and
certain groups had topic bans. Finally, an overall ban was in effect on
posting in a way that made it appear that you were stating an official
position of IBM. I know of at least one person who got into serious,
serious trouble for violating that one.
> The advantages of hosting RTL here:
>
> 1. Increases availability of RTL.
>
> 2. People who read news here can read RTL here as well (and post) if
> they like.
1,2 yes.
> 3. Brings RTL closer to LUGNET and reduces fragmentation of the
> online LEGO-fan community.
3 maybe, but if it fails, it may destroy what is starting to blossom
here, but still fragile. Is it worth the risk (yet? Maybe later??)
> Possible disadantages:
>
> 1. Potential for confusion about where to post new threads when posting
> on this server (particularly lugnet.general vs. rec.toys.lego).
>
> 2. Potential for confusion about crossposting.
>
> 3. Possible resentment and repeated questions from people who may feel
> sleighted by the fact that their pure-RTL articles are not archived
> along with the other lugnet.* newsgroups.
>
> 4. Possible resentment, confusion, and repeated questions from people
> who post to RTL all the time and then get rejected when posting to
> a lugnet newsgroup because they haven't yet gone through the
> news-posting setup.
5. The riff-raff factor. A barrier to entry can be a good thing,
if it filters out the right sort. And it can be a bad thing if it
excludes the good.
More later.
--
Larry Pieniazek http://my.voyager.net/lar
For me: No voyager e-mail please. All snail-mail to Ada, please.
- Posting Binaries to RTL causes flamage... Don't do it, please.
- Stick to the facts when posting about others, please.
- This is a family newsgroup, thanks.
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: Should RTL be hosted on this server?
|
| (...) Oops, I omitted the above referenced footnote from the last append: Here it is. 1 - I am reminded of the "it is better to keep silent and be thought a fool, than to speak up and remove all doubt" quote... everyone will be able to decide if I'm (...) (26 years ago, 29-Nov-98, to lugnet.general)
| | | Re: Should RTL be hosted on this server?
|
| Larry Pieniazek wrote: ...<snip>... (...) For the same reasons above, which very elegantly turned into words by Larry P., I wouldn't like to see it here, but of course it is IMHO, and would happily fit for the thing that others may want. Selçuk (26 years ago, 29-Nov-98, to lugnet.general)
| | | Re: Should RTL be hosted on this server?
|
| (...) It is, ultimately, yes, but while almost all of the administrative decisions here have been clear and solid, some (like this) are too complex and without precedent to make a comfortable gut-level determination. Input is strongly needed in this (...) (26 years ago, 29-Nov-98, to lugnet.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Should RTL be hosted on this server?
|
| Hello Lugnetters, I need help making a very important decision regarding the NNTP server here, and I'd like to hear any opinions and random thoughts you might have. If RTL were hosted on this news server, would that clearly be a good thing, or a (...) (26 years ago, 29-Nov-98, to lugnet.general)
|
132 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
