Why Splitting RMR is Unnecessary

Why Splitting RMR is Unnecessary

Post by Edmund C. Ha » Wed, 22 Jul 1998 04:00:00



A recent post to r.m.r suggested splitting it into about 10 sub groups.
(I don't have the root post on my newsserver yet, so I'm starting a new
thread.)

Having run a newsgroup split a while back, I can say that r.m.r probably
should not split into that many groups. In fact, the message traffic
doesn't warrant it.

What is needed is for a few people to exercise some restraint. If you
look at the big mega threads that consume the most bandwidth, you'll
find the same few people posting "Did So! Did Not!" messages and always
trying to get in the last word. A random sampling of messages from recent
threads hasn't shown any new information being posted.

</FLAME ON>
I'm really, really fed up with it. You are overgrazing the commons,
peeing in the pool, playing bad music at 3 AM on a weeknight. STOP IT.

I'm the Net.Cop and I'm here to chew gum and kick ass. Guess what? I'm
outta gum.

In particular, I want the following people to stop messing up our
newsgroup:








Some of the above post a lot of technical stuff. Keep it up.
Some of the above throw gasoline on the fire. Stop it.
</NOFLAME>

The next time someone posts an inflammatory message, or trolls, don't
reply. If you want, I'll post the following message:

"There have been many long threads about political issues in the TRA.
Please look in the DejaNews archives for details."

It's time for a cease fire. Please. Pretty please with sugar and AP on
it.
--
Edmund Hack   \ "If I had a time machine,

N.B. remove second l in email address above.

 
 
 

Why Splitting RMR is Unnecessary

Post by WBRZ-T » Wed, 22 Jul 1998 04:00:00


AMEN   BROTHER!!!!!!!


IAR # 159



Quote:
> A recent post to r.m.r suggested splitting it into about 10 sub groups.
> (I don't have the root post on my newsserver yet, so I'm starting a new
> thread.)

> Having run a newsgroup split a while back, I can say that r.m.r probably
> should not split into that many groups. In fact, the message traffic
> doesn't warrant it.

> What is needed is for a few people to exercise some restraint. If you
> look at the big mega threads that consume the most bandwidth, you'll
> find the same few people posting "Did So! Did Not!" messages and always
> trying to get in the last word. A random sampling of messages from recent
> threads hasn't shown any new information being posted.

> </FLAME ON>
> I'm really, really fed up with it. You are overgrazing the commons,
> peeing in the pool, playing bad music at 3 AM on a weeknight. STOP IT.

> I'm the Net.Cop and I'm here to chew gum and kick ass. Guess what? I'm
> outta gum.

> In particular, I want the following people to stop messing up our
> newsgroup:








> Some of the above post a lot of technical stuff. Keep it up.
> Some of the above throw gasoline on the fire. Stop it.
> </NOFLAME>

> The next time someone posts an inflammatory message, or trolls, don't
> reply. If you want, I'll post the following message:

> "There have been many long threads about political issues in the TRA.
> Please look in the DejaNews archives for details."

> It's time for a cease fire. Please. Pretty please with sugar and AP on
> it.
> --
> Edmund Hack   \ "If I had a time machine,

> N.B. remove second l in email address above.


 
 
 

Why Splitting RMR is Unnecessary

Post by John Horto » Wed, 22 Jul 1998 04:00:00


I could not agree more. What blows my mind is that Darrel is involved with
the trash on the group and he is also involved with Rocketry Online, one of
the best things we have. He really is on the good side of the force, I
think. I will never start or respond to trash again.

what ever

 
 
 

Why Splitting RMR is Unnecessary

Post by John Horto » Wed, 22 Jul 1998 04:00:00


truth is after I posted my comment above, I thought, now I slammed Darrel!
Exactly the thing we are trying to stop.

Darrel if you read this, Rocketry Online rocks and I go there all the time.
I don't mean to trash you at all. I like others are just tired of what is
bad in RMR. We all have stepped in it around here, but what I think we all
want is an exchange of Rocket ideas.

 
 
 

Why Splitting RMR is Unnecessary

Post by jeff » Wed, 22 Jul 1998 04:00:00


i couldn't agree more. in addition ive added some names to my killfile. i
wont say who but it really cuts down on the flames messages i have to sift
thru
jeff
 
 
 

Why Splitting RMR is Unnecessary

Post by jeff » Wed, 22 Jul 1998 04:00:00


I dont agree with the last post but so as not to start a flame war i wont
say anything else about it
jeff
 
 
 

Why Splitting RMR is Unnecessary

Post by Ralph Parke » Wed, 22 Jul 1998 04:00:00


Quote:

> in addition ive added some names to my killfile. i wont say who but it
> really cuts down on the flames messages i have to sift

Wonderful!  Why don't we just add everyone to our killfiles and then we have really solved
our problems -- zero posts.  I don't understand why the default position with killfiles is
to kill the person instead of the topics.  All involved with the posting of their opinion
have contributed valuable content to this newsgroup.  All you are doing is sending a
message to posters that their opinions are not welcome and that you abhor their right to
post it.  How long before these individuals tire of censorship of personal rights and
decide to quit posting technical content as well?

RP

 
 
 

Why Splitting RMR is Unnecessary

Post by Edmund C. Ha » Fri, 24 Jul 1998 04:00:00



Quote:

>> in addition ive added some names to my killfile. i wont say who but it
>> really cuts down on the flames messages i have to sift

>Wonderful!  Why don't we just add everyone to our killfiles and then we
>have really solved our problems -- zero posts.  I don't understand why the
>default position with killfiles is to kill the person instead of the topics.

Um. My newsreader does it both ways, under my control.

Quote:
>  All involved with the posting of their opinion have contributed valuable
>content to this newsgroup.  

I'd say most, but not all of the offenders I listed have posted
valuable stuff. Several exist just to troll.

Quote:
>All you are doing is sending a message to posters that their opinions are
>not welcome and that you abhor their right to post it.  

I don't abhor their right to post anything. Rights come with responsibilites
attached. Free speech is not absolute if you cause harm (slander), freedom
of association can become criminal (***), freedom of the press
can lead to damages (libel). Freedom of speech does not give you the
right to stand outside my house using a bullhorn at 4 AM.

Quote:
>How long before these individuals tire of censorship of personal rights and
>decide to quit posting technical content as well?

There is no cenorship involved. I don't subscribe or read "National
Review" or "Mother Jones". Is that censorship? No. Just because someone
posts something, we don't have to read it.

The participants in the TRA "debate" are not debating, they are yelling
at each other and refusing to listen. No new information has been
developed by either side in at least a year. They are simply acting like
spoiled children in public. Usenet is a commons, and the users must
police it to preserve it.

Again, I welcome their technical posts. I just want the travelling TRA
flamefest to go away. Permanently.

--
Edmund Hack   \ "If I had a time machine,

N.B. remove second l in email address above.

 
 
 

Why Splitting RMR is Unnecessary

Post by spamfre » Sat, 25 Jul 1998 04:00:00



Quote:
>Again, I welcome their technical posts. I just want the travelling TRA
>flamefest to go away. Permanently.

It's just usenet... what's missing a few posts? It won't shatter my
life.  I prefer to whack any thread that a certain list of people post
to. If you are using the trn newsreader, the following killfile
disappears over 90% of the flames:

/69charger/f:Tj





If you prefer to just prune threads whenever one of these people
posts, then use "T," in place of "Tj". However, note that you'll have
to make a bigger list of polsters then, because this list isn't
complete - it's just what I have experimentally determined makes most
of the pol postings go away. It seems that polsters prefer to follow
up to polsters instead of other threads.

I'm sure I miss some technical posts, but who cares? I'm not bent on
reading every USENET article posted to RMR. All that matters is there
is enough content left after applying this killfile to provide an
enjoyable, interesting, and almost entirely flame-free reading
experience.