Steve Watkin
What's the rules (are there any) regarding commercial ads
on this NG ?
on this NG ?
advertising?
View Full Version : advertising?
Pages :
[1]
2
James Hodson
On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 22:25:30 +0000 (UTC), "Steve Watkin"
<Steve.Watkin1@btinternet.com> wrote:
>What's the rules (are there any) regarding commercial ads
>on this NG ?
>
Hi Steve
"Dunno," is my answer to your question. However, if you put
"FS", "For Sale" or something similar in the subject, I
doubt anyone would mind too much.
James
<Steve.Watkin1@btinternet.com> wrote:
>What's the rules (are there any) regarding commercial ads
>on this NG ?
>
Hi Steve
"Dunno," is my answer to your question. However, if you put
"FS", "For Sale" or something similar in the subject, I
doubt anyone would mind too much.
James
John Mallard
Steve Watkin wrote:
> What's the rules (are there any) regarding commercial ads
> on this NG ?
Rules? what's them?
Commercial ads are generaly unwelcome. Although you'd
probably get away with suggesting a web link as long as it
was 100% on topic and didn't appear more than once a month.
Private sales are fine as long as the "private seller"
doesn't flood us with constant offers thereby suggesting
that they are possibly not private at all but a commercial
concern in disguise. Private sale ads should commence their
subject line with FS:
Err, that my opinion. Everyone else's may be completely
different.
> What's the rules (are there any) regarding commercial ads
> on this NG ?
Rules? what's them?
Commercial ads are generaly unwelcome. Although you'd
probably get away with suggesting a web link as long as it
was 100% on topic and didn't appear more than once a month.
Private sales are fine as long as the "private seller"
doesn't flood us with constant offers thereby suggesting
that they are possibly not private at all but a commercial
concern in disguise. Private sale ads should commence their
subject line with FS:
Err, that my opinion. Everyone else's may be completely
different.
Mark Thompson
> What's the rules (are there any) regarding commercial ads
> on this NG ?
Tag it properly with square brackets i.e. [FS] for For Sale.
Maybe [AD] if your advertising a site rather than a specific
item. Tags serve two purposes:
1. A properly tagged post makes it immune from flames (or in
the case of [RANT], from pedants).
2. People that don't like it can just filter it out instead
of whinging.
The only warning is that if enough people get annoyed enough
you might get complaints to your ISP and your email account
blocked, but this should only be a problem if you're
advertising products of an, er, 'adult' nature. I think
that's about as far as rules go on Usenet.
The best thing to do is whack what you want to say into your
.sig (assuming it's not overly long) and then make all sorts
of interesting and insightful comments. Greater exposure and
less intrusive, but more time consuming.
> on this NG ?
Tag it properly with square brackets i.e. [FS] for For Sale.
Maybe [AD] if your advertising a site rather than a specific
item. Tags serve two purposes:
1. A properly tagged post makes it immune from flames (or in
the case of [RANT], from pedants).
2. People that don't like it can just filter it out instead
of whinging.
The only warning is that if enough people get annoyed enough
you might get complaints to your ISP and your email account
blocked, but this should only be a problem if you're
advertising products of an, er, 'adult' nature. I think
that's about as far as rules go on Usenet.
The best thing to do is whack what you want to say into your
.sig (assuming it's not overly long) and then make all sorts
of interesting and insightful comments. Greater exposure and
less intrusive, but more time consuming.
Mseries
Steve Watkin wrote:
> What's the rules (are there any) regarding commercial ads
> on this NG ?
Don't know if there are any rules, my personal view is this.
By all means mention your company from time to time if its
relevant to the discussion or place a link in your signature
so it shows when you post. Please don't make posts simply
announcing new promotions/ products without making it clear
in the subject line, even then please don't do this very
frequently. On rec.bicycles.tech, Sheldon Brown, A Muzi and
Peter Chisolm all contribute to the discussions with some
great information and advice and manage to plug their
businesses without blatant advertising.
> What's the rules (are there any) regarding commercial ads
> on this NG ?
Don't know if there are any rules, my personal view is this.
By all means mention your company from time to time if its
relevant to the discussion or place a link in your signature
so it shows when you post. Please don't make posts simply
announcing new promotions/ products without making it clear
in the subject line, even then please don't do this very
frequently. On rec.bicycles.tech, Sheldon Brown, A Muzi and
Peter Chisolm all contribute to the discussions with some
great information and advice and manage to plug their
businesses without blatant advertising.
Peter B
"Steve Watkin" <Steve.Watkin1@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:c5sasp$81g$1@hercules.btinternet.com...
> What's the rules (are there any) regarding commercial ads
> on this NG ?
I think commercial ads would be a form of spamming, private
ads seem acceptable.
--
Regards, Pete
news:c5sasp$81g$1@hercules.btinternet.com...
> What's the rules (are there any) regarding commercial ads
> on this NG ?
I think commercial ads would be a form of spamming, private
ads seem acceptable.
--
Regards, Pete
Simon Brooke
in message <c5sasp$81g$1@hercules.btinternet.com>, Steve Watkin
('Steve.Watkin1@btinternet.com') wrote:
> What's the rules (are there any) regarding commercial ads
> on this NG ?
According to <URL:http://www.usenet.org.uk/uk.rec.cycling.h-
tml#uk.rec.cycling> there is no charter for this group. So
fundamentally there are no rules.
That does raise a serious question: *should* there be a
charter for this group?
--
simon@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke)
http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
For office use only. Please do not write or type
below this line.
('Steve.Watkin1@btinternet.com') wrote:
> What's the rules (are there any) regarding commercial ads
> on this NG ?
According to <URL:http://www.usenet.org.uk/uk.rec.cycling.h-
tml#uk.rec.cycling> there is no charter for this group. So
fundamentally there are no rules.
That does raise a serious question: *should* there be a
charter for this group?
--
simon@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke)
http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
For office use only. Please do not write or type
below this line.
Dirtylitterboxo
>That does raise a serious question: *should* there be a
>charter for this group?
>
Perhaps it is a good idea.
Cheers, helen s
--This is an invalid email address to avoid spam-- to get
correct one remove fame & fortune
h*$el*$$e*nd**$o$ts**i*$*$m*m$o*n*s@$*a$o*l.c**$om$
--Due to financial crisis the light at the end of the tunnel
is switched off--
>charter for this group?
>
Perhaps it is a good idea.
Cheers, helen s
--This is an invalid email address to avoid spam-- to get
correct one remove fame & fortune
h*$el*$$e*nd**$o$ts**i*$*$m*m$o*n*s@$*a$o*l.c**$om$
--Due to financial crisis the light at the end of the tunnel
is switched off--
Danny Colyer
Simon Brooke wrote:
> According to <URL:http://www.usenet.org.uk/uk.rec.cycling-
> .html#uk.rec.cycling> there is no charter for this group.
> So fundamentally there are no rules.
>
> That does raise a serious question: *should* there be a
> charter for this group?
I believe there should.
A few years ago I wrote a charter for another uk.rec group
that I was considering proposing (I didn't in the end). So
here it is, with some minor modifications.
If people would like to comment, perhaps between us we can
cobble together a charter, then post a proper RFD as a first
step towards making it official:
CHARTER: uk.rec.cyclling
uk.rec.cycling is for the discussion of cycling and of
legislation, policies, behaviour and road or trail
features affecting cyclists within the UK. Discussion of
cycling abroad is also encouraged, where this is of
interest to UK cyclists.
ADVERTISING - The organisers of forthcoming cycling events
in the UK may post a maximum of one advert a month. All such
adverts must include the name of the event in the header
(TLA's are acceptable).
Suppliers of cycling equipment and services may post one
advert every three months. In each case the header must
start "AD:" or "ADVERT:".
Private sellers may post one advert every three months for
any given item. In each case the header must start "FS:"
or "FA:" and the products advertised for sale must be
cycling related.
People offering cycling related jobs may post a maximum of
one advert a month for each position. In each case the
header must start "JOB:".
Advertising within signature files may be posted as often as
the advertiser wishes, provided that the signature does not
exceed 4 lines and that the signature is posted only as part
of a relevant, non-advertising message, or as part of a
message conforming to the paragraphs above.
All other advertising is prohibited.
ALL posts must be in plain text, Attachments, HTML and other
types of formatted text are not permitted, however, short
(under 4 line) references to relevant FTP-able material and
Web URL's are welcome. Where an abbreviated URL is posted,
the full URL should also be posted alongside.
END CHARTER.
--
Danny Colyer (the UK company has been laughed out of my reply address)
http://www.speedy5.freeserve.co.uk/danny/
Why I like OE6 - http://www.speedy5.freeserve.co.uk/danny/misc/oe6.html
"He who dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine
> According to <URL:http://www.usenet.org.uk/uk.rec.cycling-
> .html#uk.rec.cycling> there is no charter for this group.
> So fundamentally there are no rules.
>
> That does raise a serious question: *should* there be a
> charter for this group?
I believe there should.
A few years ago I wrote a charter for another uk.rec group
that I was considering proposing (I didn't in the end). So
here it is, with some minor modifications.
If people would like to comment, perhaps between us we can
cobble together a charter, then post a proper RFD as a first
step towards making it official:
CHARTER: uk.rec.cyclling
uk.rec.cycling is for the discussion of cycling and of
legislation, policies, behaviour and road or trail
features affecting cyclists within the UK. Discussion of
cycling abroad is also encouraged, where this is of
interest to UK cyclists.
ADVERTISING - The organisers of forthcoming cycling events
in the UK may post a maximum of one advert a month. All such
adverts must include the name of the event in the header
(TLA's are acceptable).
Suppliers of cycling equipment and services may post one
advert every three months. In each case the header must
start "AD:" or "ADVERT:".
Private sellers may post one advert every three months for
any given item. In each case the header must start "FS:"
or "FA:" and the products advertised for sale must be
cycling related.
People offering cycling related jobs may post a maximum of
one advert a month for each position. In each case the
header must start "JOB:".
Advertising within signature files may be posted as often as
the advertiser wishes, provided that the signature does not
exceed 4 lines and that the signature is posted only as part
of a relevant, non-advertising message, or as part of a
message conforming to the paragraphs above.
All other advertising is prohibited.
ALL posts must be in plain text, Attachments, HTML and other
types of formatted text are not permitted, however, short
(under 4 line) references to relevant FTP-able material and
Web URL's are welcome. Where an abbreviated URL is posted,
the full URL should also be posted alongside.
END CHARTER.
--
Danny Colyer (the UK company has been laughed out of my reply address)
http://www.speedy5.freeserve.co.uk/danny/
Why I like OE6 - http://www.speedy5.freeserve.co.uk/danny/misc/oe6.html
"He who dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine
Pete Biggs
Simon Brooke wrote:
> That does raise a serious question: *should* there be a
> charter for this group?
A charter probably wouldn't change anything, for the
better or worse.
~PB
> That does raise a serious question: *should* there be a
> charter for this group?
A charter probably wouldn't change anything, for the
better or worse.
~PB
Ian Smith
On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 10:08:02 GMT, Simon Brooke <simon@jasmine.org.uk> wrote:
>
> According to <URL:http://www.usenet.org.uk/uk.rec.cyclin-
> g.html#uk.rec.cycling> there is no charter for this
> group. So fundamentally there are no rules.
>
> That does raise a serious question: *should* there be a
> charter for this group?
No.
1: It's work to produce one and get it approved.
2: No charter is as effective as self-regulation by group
participants. Newsgroup style and character does not
derive from charters.
3: A charter encourages teh netcop type.
4: There's no immediate problem that would be solved by a
charter or need that it would address.
5: Any dealings which bring a newsgroup to the attention of
teh cabal are bad. Admittedly, getting a charter is not
as bad as proposing moderation, but it's still best to
keep your head below the parapet.
In summary - it aint broke, so don't try and fix it.
regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|
>
> According to <URL:http://www.usenet.org.uk/uk.rec.cyclin-
> g.html#uk.rec.cycling> there is no charter for this
> group. So fundamentally there are no rules.
>
> That does raise a serious question: *should* there be a
> charter for this group?
No.
1: It's work to produce one and get it approved.
2: No charter is as effective as self-regulation by group
participants. Newsgroup style and character does not
derive from charters.
3: A charter encourages teh netcop type.
4: There's no immediate problem that would be solved by a
charter or need that it would address.
5: Any dealings which bring a newsgroup to the attention of
teh cabal are bad. Admittedly, getting a charter is not
as bad as proposing moderation, but it's still best to
keep your head below the parapet.
In summary - it aint broke, so don't try and fix it.
regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|
Danny Colyer
I wrote:
> If people would like to comment, perhaps between us we can
> cobble together a charter, then post a proper RFD as a
> first step towards making it official
I've just thought of an addition:
SPOILERS: When posting results or a review of a sporting
event that has taken place within the last month, the header
must include either "Results" or "Spoiler".
--
Danny Colyer (the UK company has been laughed out of my reply address)
http://www.speedy5.freeserve.co.uk/danny/
Why I like OE6 - http://www.speedy5.freeserve.co.uk/danny/misc/oe6.html
"He who dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine
> If people would like to comment, perhaps between us we can
> cobble together a charter, then post a proper RFD as a
> first step towards making it official
I've just thought of an addition:
SPOILERS: When posting results or a review of a sporting
event that has taken place within the last month, the header
must include either "Results" or "Spoiler".
--
Danny Colyer (the UK company has been laughed out of my reply address)
http://www.speedy5.freeserve.co.uk/danny/
Why I like OE6 - http://www.speedy5.freeserve.co.uk/danny/misc/oe6.html
"He who dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine
Danny Colyer
Ian Smith wrote:
> 3: A charter encourages teh netcop type.
That's not a reason not to have a charter, but it's a damn
good reason to have a fairly loose charter without too
many rules.
> 4: There's no immediate problem that would be solved by a
> charter or need that it would address.
I think the fact that this thread derived from a thread that
started: "What's the rules (are there any) regarding
commercial ads on this NG ?" indicates that a charter would
be of benefit. It's not the first time that someone has
asked about the advertising rules. This is one instance
where it would be useful to have some hard and fast rules.
Another would be where someone decides they want to
advertise something,
e.g. a camper van, without asking first about the rules.
There are also times, particularly with spoilers, where
being able to point to a charter would be a good thing. I'm
thinking particularly of a thread last September headed:
"David Millar wins St 18 of Vuelta". The poster was politely
asked to refrain from posting spoilers in subject lines. His
response was: "nice try, but given the lack of racing news
on here, I'm not going to stop posting the few great results
that British riders get, cos they *are* so few!"
Spoilers may not be an immediate problem, but they will
become a problem as the racing season progresses
(particularly with a certain event coming up in July, and
with the olympics coming up later this year).
> 5: Any dealings which bring a newsgroup to the attention
> of teh cabal are bad. Admittedly, getting a charter is
> not as bad as proposing moderation, but it's still best
> to keep your head below the parapet.
The cabal?
--
Danny Colyer (the UK company has been laughed out of my reply address)
http://www.speedy5.freeserve.co.uk/danny/
Why I like OE6 - http://www.speedy5.freeserve.co.uk/danny/misc/oe6.html
"He who dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine
> 3: A charter encourages teh netcop type.
That's not a reason not to have a charter, but it's a damn
good reason to have a fairly loose charter without too
many rules.
> 4: There's no immediate problem that would be solved by a
> charter or need that it would address.
I think the fact that this thread derived from a thread that
started: "What's the rules (are there any) regarding
commercial ads on this NG ?" indicates that a charter would
be of benefit. It's not the first time that someone has
asked about the advertising rules. This is one instance
where it would be useful to have some hard and fast rules.
Another would be where someone decides they want to
advertise something,
e.g. a camper van, without asking first about the rules.
There are also times, particularly with spoilers, where
being able to point to a charter would be a good thing. I'm
thinking particularly of a thread last September headed:
"David Millar wins St 18 of Vuelta". The poster was politely
asked to refrain from posting spoilers in subject lines. His
response was: "nice try, but given the lack of racing news
on here, I'm not going to stop posting the few great results
that British riders get, cos they *are* so few!"
Spoilers may not be an immediate problem, but they will
become a problem as the racing season progresses
(particularly with a certain event coming up in July, and
with the olympics coming up later this year).
> 5: Any dealings which bring a newsgroup to the attention
> of teh cabal are bad. Admittedly, getting a charter is
> not as bad as proposing moderation, but it's still best
> to keep your head below the parapet.
The cabal?
--
Danny Colyer (the UK company has been laughed out of my reply address)
http://www.speedy5.freeserve.co.uk/danny/
Why I like OE6 - http://www.speedy5.freeserve.co.uk/danny/misc/oe6.html
"He who dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine
Peter B
"Ian Smith" <ian@astounding.org.uk> wrote in message
news:slrnc84v25.1ho.ian@phlegethon.smithnet...
Re. against charter for this group:
> In summary - it aint broke, so don't try and fix it.
I'm inclined to agree, in the few years I've been
subscribing I've not really seen a problem with the
exception perhaps of spoilers, and unfortunately it's no
more use pointing to the breach of a charter after the fact
than it is to point to the error committed and its potential
effect on another reader. Advertising hasn't been a problem
and some has provided us with a bit of mirth and iconic
punchlines. And of course should a bona-fide commercial
enterprise abuse a non commercial group killfiling will be
far more effective than pointing to a charter.
--
Regards, Pete
news:slrnc84v25.1ho.ian@phlegethon.smithnet...
Re. against charter for this group:
> In summary - it aint broke, so don't try and fix it.
I'm inclined to agree, in the few years I've been
subscribing I've not really seen a problem with the
exception perhaps of spoilers, and unfortunately it's no
more use pointing to the breach of a charter after the fact
than it is to point to the error committed and its potential
effect on another reader. Advertising hasn't been a problem
and some has provided us with a bit of mirth and iconic
punchlines. And of course should a bona-fide commercial
enterprise abuse a non commercial group killfiling will be
far more effective than pointing to a charter.
--
Regards, Pete
Mark Thompson
> CHARTER: uk.rec.cyclling
Looks okish. I like the shortness of it. I'm a big fan of
using square brackets to enclose tags - make it much
easier to filter without unintentially getting rid of
wanted posts. I'm a bit wary of legitimising advertising
on the group, 'cos a post once a month would be quite a
lot if all the shops etc started doing it (but then,
that's the beauty of tags
- we wouldn't have to see them at all if we didn't want to).
The first paragraph should, IMHO, be dropped, as anyone
straying from the strict wording of it could be hit over the
head with it by any mad Charter Fascist (or, in this ng,
Fairy). It would also mean I'd never be able to post off
topic again :-( Maybe a short sentence along the lines of
'for talking about cycling and stuff' would be better.
One other thing, we should also bear in mind that charters
are not designed to save lives, and that newsgroups that
introduced charters have seen massive increases in
breaches, whereas they experienced none before the
introduction of the charter.
Looks okish. I like the shortness of it. I'm a big fan of
using square brackets to enclose tags - make it much
easier to filter without unintentially getting rid of
wanted posts. I'm a bit wary of legitimising advertising
on the group, 'cos a post once a month would be quite a
lot if all the shops etc started doing it (but then,
that's the beauty of tags
- we wouldn't have to see them at all if we didn't want to).
The first paragraph should, IMHO, be dropped, as anyone
straying from the strict wording of it could be hit over the
head with it by any mad Charter Fascist (or, in this ng,
Fairy). It would also mean I'd never be able to post off
topic again :-( Maybe a short sentence along the lines of
'for talking about cycling and stuff' would be better.
One other thing, we should also bear in mind that charters
are not designed to save lives, and that newsgroups that
introduced charters have seen massive increases in
breaches, whereas they experienced none before the
introduction of the charter.
Ian Smith
On Sun, 18 Apr 2004, Danny Colyer <danny@speedy5.freeserve.giggle> wrote:
> Ian Smith wrote:
> > 4: There's no immediate problem that would be solved by
> > a charter or need that it would address.
>
> I think the fact that this thread derived from a thread
> that started: "What's the rules (are there any) regarding
> commercial ads on this NG ?" indicates that a charter
> would be of benefit.
But the very fact that there was a reasonably consistent
response - 'well, OK, in extreme moderation, and don't annoy
anyone' - proves that a charter isn't needed.
In fact, I'd say that post was an excellent example of teh
way a co-operative group functions perfectly well without
a charter.
> The poster was politely asked to refrain from posting
> spoilers in subject lines. His response was: "nice try,
> but given the lack of racing news on here, I'm not going
> to stop posting the few great results that British riders
> get, cos they *are* so few!"
But pillocks are pillocks regardless. Someone who's that
dozy will probably be unaware that newsgroups even had such
a thing as a charter. Your cited pillock, for example,
didn't say "there's no charter to say I can't". Do you
really think someone so stupid they can't work out that
other readers might not want spoilers in subject lines will
first check the charter to see if they are forbidden?
Even if they know of a charter, they are likely to be of teh
"doesn't apply to me", "doesn't apply to this case", or
"who's going to stop me" types. For example your cited chap
could have come back with a "I know it says in teh charter,
but given the lack of racing news on here..." Indeed, that's
more-or-less what he said, just that rather than cite the
(non-existent) charter he says - "I know it might have
pissed some people off, but given the lack..."
> > 5: Any dealings which bring a newsgroup to the attention
> > of teh cabal are bad. Admittedly, getting a charter
> > is not as bad as proposing moderation, but it's still
> > best to keep your head below the parapet.
>
> The cabal?
They run usenet. Nothing happems without their agreement, or
at least their turning-of a blind eye. Sometimes things
carry on as they were because it doesn't bother the cabal,
but it doesn't do to attract the attention of teh cabal.
I come back to - the group is a good group, with a good
atmosphere, no spam problems and no inappropriate
advertising problems. A charter _might_ make it less likely
to have such problems in teh future, but has just as much
potential to cause damage to the atmosphere in ways we can't
predict, or even to cause problems we don't currently have.
It's a cliche, but I think this is genuinely a case of ain't
broke, don't fix. Messing with the dynamic of complex
systems (even in ways apparently to improve said system) is
something taht I think is only worth risking in cases where
something is definitely wrong with teh system. Newsgroup
'feel' or 'atmosphere' is a complex system - in some ways
even more complex than many other social interactions. Does
anyone really think that there's something badly
functionally wrong with teh newsgroup?
regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|
> Ian Smith wrote:
> > 4: There's no immediate problem that would be solved by
> > a charter or need that it would address.
>
> I think the fact that this thread derived from a thread
> that started: "What's the rules (are there any) regarding
> commercial ads on this NG ?" indicates that a charter
> would be of benefit.
But the very fact that there was a reasonably consistent
response - 'well, OK, in extreme moderation, and don't annoy
anyone' - proves that a charter isn't needed.
In fact, I'd say that post was an excellent example of teh
way a co-operative group functions perfectly well without
a charter.
> The poster was politely asked to refrain from posting
> spoilers in subject lines. His response was: "nice try,
> but given the lack of racing news on here, I'm not going
> to stop posting the few great results that British riders
> get, cos they *are* so few!"
But pillocks are pillocks regardless. Someone who's that
dozy will probably be unaware that newsgroups even had such
a thing as a charter. Your cited pillock, for example,
didn't say "there's no charter to say I can't". Do you
really think someone so stupid they can't work out that
other readers might not want spoilers in subject lines will
first check the charter to see if they are forbidden?
Even if they know of a charter, they are likely to be of teh
"doesn't apply to me", "doesn't apply to this case", or
"who's going to stop me" types. For example your cited chap
could have come back with a "I know it says in teh charter,
but given the lack of racing news on here..." Indeed, that's
more-or-less what he said, just that rather than cite the
(non-existent) charter he says - "I know it might have
pissed some people off, but given the lack..."
> > 5: Any dealings which bring a newsgroup to the attention
> > of teh cabal are bad. Admittedly, getting a charter
> > is not as bad as proposing moderation, but it's still
> > best to keep your head below the parapet.
>
> The cabal?
They run usenet. Nothing happems without their agreement, or
at least their turning-of a blind eye. Sometimes things
carry on as they were because it doesn't bother the cabal,
but it doesn't do to attract the attention of teh cabal.
I come back to - the group is a good group, with a good
atmosphere, no spam problems and no inappropriate
advertising problems. A charter _might_ make it less likely
to have such problems in teh future, but has just as much
potential to cause damage to the atmosphere in ways we can't
predict, or even to cause problems we don't currently have.
It's a cliche, but I think this is genuinely a case of ain't
broke, don't fix. Messing with the dynamic of complex
systems (even in ways apparently to improve said system) is
something taht I think is only worth risking in cases where
something is definitely wrong with teh system. Newsgroup
'feel' or 'atmosphere' is a complex system - in some ways
even more complex than many other social interactions. Does
anyone really think that there's something badly
functionally wrong with teh newsgroup?
regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|
Danny Colyer
Mark Thompson wrote:
> The first paragraph should, IMHO, be dropped, as anyone
> straying from the strict wording of it could be hit over
> the head with it by any mad Charter Fascist (or, in this
> ng, Fairy). It would also mean I'd never be able to post
> off topic again :-( Maybe a short sentence along the lines
> of 'for talking about cycling and stuff' would be better.
Yeah, I'm not entirely happy with the first paragraph. Ian's
point that "Newsgroup style and character does not derive
from charters" was well made. This group includes a lot of
friendly banter that is, IMHO, central to the group's
character and that could easily run counter to a carelessly
worded charter.
A carelessly worded charter could also, if observed, prevent
evolution of the group's character. This isn't the same
group as when I first started reading it 10 years ago, and
it's not the same as when I returned 5 years ago. I liked
what it was back then, but I also like what it is now and
stagnation would be a shame.
(Speaking of fairies, ISTM that the PSF and Guy have had
an enormous affect on the character of urc since they
started posting).
I seem to be in a minority in thinking that a charter
would be a good thing. Whatever, if a charter is
introduced then I think any rules on what the ng is
actually for would have to be very carefully worded. They
would need to be clear and unambiguous, while at the same
time still allowing the various barely-cycling-related
bits that many of us so enjoy.
--
Danny Colyer (the UK company has been laughed out of my reply address)
http://www.speedy5.freeserve.co.uk/danny/
Why I like OE6 - http://www.speedy5.freeserve.co.uk/danny/misc/oe6.html
"He who dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine
> The first paragraph should, IMHO, be dropped, as anyone
> straying from the strict wording of it could be hit over
> the head with it by any mad Charter Fascist (or, in this
> ng, Fairy). It would also mean I'd never be able to post
> off topic again :-( Maybe a short sentence along the lines
> of 'for talking about cycling and stuff' would be better.
Yeah, I'm not entirely happy with the first paragraph. Ian's
point that "Newsgroup style and character does not derive
from charters" was well made. This group includes a lot of
friendly banter that is, IMHO, central to the group's
character and that could easily run counter to a carelessly
worded charter.
A carelessly worded charter could also, if observed, prevent
evolution of the group's character. This isn't the same
group as when I first started reading it 10 years ago, and
it's not the same as when I returned 5 years ago. I liked
what it was back then, but I also like what it is now and
stagnation would be a shame.
(Speaking of fairies, ISTM that the PSF and Guy have had
an enormous affect on the character of urc since they
started posting).
I seem to be in a minority in thinking that a charter
would be a good thing. Whatever, if a charter is
introduced then I think any rules on what the ng is
actually for would have to be very carefully worded. They
would need to be clear and unambiguous, while at the same
time still allowing the various barely-cycling-related
bits that many of us so enjoy.
--
Danny Colyer (the UK company has been laughed out of my reply address)
http://www.speedy5.freeserve.co.uk/danny/
Why I like OE6 - http://www.speedy5.freeserve.co.uk/danny/misc/oe6.html
"He who dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine
John Mallard
No Charter for me thanks. This NG works very well on Self
Moderation. The last thing we want is Flame Wars over
whether or not a post transgresses the Charter.
--
Cheerful Peddling John Mallard
Moderation. The last thing we want is Flame Wars over
whether or not a post transgresses the Charter.
--
Cheerful Peddling John Mallard
Steve Peake
On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 17:48:04 +0100, Danny Colyer wrote:
> I seem to be in a minority in thinking that a charter
> would be a good thing. Whatever, if a charter is
> introduced then I think any rules on what the ng is
> actually for would have to be very carefully worded. They
> would need to be clear and unambiguous, while at the same
> time still allowing the various barely-cycling-related
> bits that many of us so enjoy.
I just think it isn't needed, maybe if advertising ever
became a problem then one could be introduced, otherwise I
think leaving well alone is the best option.
Steve
> I seem to be in a minority in thinking that a charter
> would be a good thing. Whatever, if a charter is
> introduced then I think any rules on what the ng is
> actually for would have to be very carefully worded. They
> would need to be clear and unambiguous, while at the same
> time still allowing the various barely-cycling-related
> bits that many of us so enjoy.
I just think it isn't needed, maybe if advertising ever
became a problem then one could be introduced, otherwise I
think leaving well alone is the best option.
Steve
Tim Hall
On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 13:05:46 +0000 (UTC), Ian Smith
<ian@astounding.org.uk> wrote:
>On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 10:08:02 GMT, Simon Brooke
><simon@jasmine.org.uk> wrote:
>>
>> According to <URL:http://www.usenet.org.uk/uk.rec.cycli-
>> ng.html#uk.rec.cycling> there is no charter for this
>> group. So fundamentally there are no rules.
>>
>> That does raise a serious question: *should* there be a
>> charter for this group?
>
>No.
<SNIP>
>In summary - it aint broke, so don't try and fix it.
>
Wot 'e sed. Leave well alone.
Tim
<ian@astounding.org.uk> wrote:
>On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 10:08:02 GMT, Simon Brooke
><simon@jasmine.org.uk> wrote:
>>
>> According to <URL:http://www.usenet.org.uk/uk.rec.cycli-
>> ng.html#uk.rec.cycling> there is no charter for this
>> group. So fundamentally there are no rules.
>>
>> That does raise a serious question: *should* there be a
>> charter for this group?
>
>No.
<SNIP>
>In summary - it aint broke, so don't try and fix it.
>
Wot 'e sed. Leave well alone.
Tim
vBulletin, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0