Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Moving towards creating rec.audio.pro.saloon

Last response: in Home Audio
Share
Anonymous
September 23, 2004 12:33:33 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Summing up the latest thread on this recurring topic:

1. Everyone who commented seemed to think it's a good idea, even if they
didn't all agree it was necessary. I certainly didn't see any "what a
horrible idea" posts.

2. Some folks proposed just making RAP moderated instead, but there's
much less consensus on this. Most tellingly, nobody volunteered to
moderate.

3. While RAP's charter has nothing to do with politics, there is some
interest (though certainly not on my part) in discussing politics with
people you already know, so that existing political newsgroups don't fit
the bill.

4. Of the folks who thought it was a good idea to have a saloon
newsgroup, nobody felt that he personally had the time to create it.

With that in mind, the fact that we've just lost another longtime
poster, and the fact that despite killfiles and ignore-thread commands
I'm still finding too high an SNR here, I *do* volunteer to create it.

Two questions for the first order of business:

1. Is "rec.audio.pro.saloon" the agreed-upon name? Another proposal was
rec.audio.pro.offtopic, which is certainly clearer but somewhat less fun
and less tone-setting. Is anyone actually opposed to the *name* of
r.a.p.s?

2. Is anyone actually opposed to the *idea* of r.a.p.s? That is, when
it comes to a vote, is anyone planning to vote no, and if so, could you
provide some counter-arguments, so perhaps we could head off the
concerns?

--
Jay Levitt |
Wellesley, MA | Hi!
Faster: jay at jay dot eff-em | Where are we going?
http://www.jay.fm | Why am I in this handbasket?
Anonymous
September 23, 2004 6:15:21 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Jay Levitt <jay+news@jay.fm> wrote:
> Summing up the latest thread on this recurring topic:

> 2. Some folks proposed just making RAP moderated instead, but there's
> much less consensus on this. Most tellingly, nobody volunteered to
> moderate.

I have to say...I could almost, almost go for this. Who would ever want
to moderate it, though?

> 3. While RAP's charter has nothing to do with politics, there is some
> interest (though certainly not on my part) in discussing politics with
> people you already know, so that existing political newsgroups don't fit
> the bill.

> 4. Of the folks who thought it was a good idea to have a saloon
> newsgroup, nobody felt that he personally had the time to create it.

> With that in mind, the fact that we've just lost another longtime
> poster, and the fact that despite killfiles and ignore-thread commands
> I'm still finding too high an SNR here, I *do* volunteer to create it.

> Two questions for the first order of business:

> 1. Is "rec.audio.pro.saloon" the agreed-upon name? Another proposal was
> rec.audio.pro.offtopic, which is certainly clearer but somewhat less fun
> and less tone-setting. Is anyone actually opposed to the *name* of
> r.a.p.s?

> 2. Is anyone actually opposed to the *idea* of r.a.p.s? That is, when
> it comes to a vote, is anyone planning to vote no, and if so, could you
> provide some counter-arguments, so perhaps we could head off the
> concerns?

It's a nice idea, and on it's own it might be a fun group. I don't think
it will solve anything. Do you think Will M. will actually divert his
politics there? Certainly not. Because RAP is more of a captive
audience.

Think of it this way---If you put to mail slots on your door: "regular
mail" and "junk mail"---where do you think the advertisers will put
their flyers?

Rob R.
Anonymous
September 23, 2004 8:05:00 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Jay Levitt wrote:
> 2. Is anyone actually opposed to the *idea* of r.a.p.s? That is, when
> it comes to a vote, is anyone planning to vote no, and if so, could you
> provide some counter-arguments, so perhaps we could head off the
> concerns?

I'm opposed to the idea of making a decision or bringing it up for a
vote before the US presidential election. I think that the political
stuff will die down a huge amount a few weeks after the election is
over (unless there is some kind of vote counting controversy), so at
the point the new group is likely to become unnecessary.

Basically I really don't want to see r.a.p.s created just as the
need for it is disappearing and then find we've got a group that
isn't needed and isn't used.

Also, even if the political talk doesn't trail off at all, I'm not
really sure the group is that great an idea. There are two reasons:

(1) I'm really not sure it will be effective at removing political
discussions. Groups like that tend to have fewer readers. People
who have a political message they want to get out want to reach the
widest audience, so they'll post to the "real" group (this one). Yes,
the rules would say they *should* post to r.a.p.s instead of r.a.p,
but the rules already say they *shouldn't* post to r.a.p. If they're
ignoring the rules now, why would they follow them then?

(2) I don't think the political discussions are the group's biggest
problem, long term. There are lots of political posts, but they are
isolated in their own threads and relatively easy to kill in the sense
that you can knock out 50 or 100 or more posts with one command.
Meanwhile, doppler distortion controversy has generated practically
the same amount of traffic, and we have a few people on the group
who cause arguments every chance they get, and they affect most of
the threads.

So, I haven't made up my mind for sure, but since I think r.a.p.s
would probably offer much less than the expected benefit in practice
and since I usually prefer to stick with keeping things simple, I
might very well vote against its creation.

- Logan
Related resources
Anonymous
September 23, 2004 8:22:53 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

I don't think creating an off-topic subgroup will help the S/N ratio in the
long term. There is no way to enforce a charter unless you have a moderated
group. I think it's likely that a few people would move to the off-topic
group for a while, but because it'll have a much smaller audience, they'll
eventually move back.

And this doesn't even address stalkers/trolls. Is the existence of an
off-topic group going to discourage them from posting here?

And what about on-topic threads that get "hijacked" by political posters?

(I'm not opposing the effort, but I think it's heading in the wrong
direction.)

Stu.
Anonymous
September 23, 2004 8:56:21 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Jay Levitt wrote:
> Summing up the latest thread on this recurring topic:
>

> 2. Some folks proposed just making RAP moderated instead, but there's
> much less consensus on this. Most tellingly, nobody volunteered to
> moderate.

I might be wrong but I am not sure that this /can/ be done. Normally,
you would have to create rec.audio.pro.moderated.

> 3. While RAP's charter has nothing to do with politics, there is some
> interest (though certainly not on my part) in discussing politics with
> people you already know, so that existing political newsgroups don't fit
> the bill.

Fair enough. I for one would probably subscribe to it and perhaps
participate.

> With that in mind, the fact that we've just lost another longtime
> poster, and the fact that despite killfiles and ignore-thread commands
> I'm still finding too high an SNR here, I *do* volunteer to create it.
>

Great stuff. As I said in another thread, it's really a three month
project. Just yell if you need a helper.

> Two questions for the first order of business:
>
> 1. Is "rec.audio.pro.saloon" the agreed-upon name? Another proposal was
> rec.audio.pro.offtopic, which is certainly clearer but somewhat less fun
> and less tone-setting. Is anyone actually opposed to the *name* of
> r.a.p.s?

I prefer 'offtopic' to 'saloon'. I consider it to be clearer. As far as
I know, 'saloon' is an Americanism. I'd probably be able to work out
what it meant. A saloon is more comonly a class of car in the UK. For
someone from a non English speaking country, it might be even less
clear. Anyway, I don't consider it to be of crucial importance.

> 2. Is anyone actually opposed to the *idea* of r.a.p.s? That is, when
> it comes to a vote, is anyone planning to vote no, and if so, could you
> provide some counter-arguments, so perhaps we could head off the
> concerns?

I'd vote in favour.

--
***My real address is m/ike at u/nmusic d/ot co dot u/k (removing /s)
np:
http://www.unmusic.co.uk
http://www.unmusic.co.uk/amh-s-faq.html - alt.music.home-studio FAQ
http://www.unmusic.co.uk/wrap.php?file=vhs.html - vhs purchase log.
Anonymous
September 24, 2004 12:19:13 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Jay Levitt wrote:

> 1. Is "rec.audio.pro.saloon" the agreed-upon name? Another proposal was
> rec.audio.pro.offtopic, which is certainly clearer but somewhat less fun
> and less tone-setting. Is anyone actually opposed to the *name* of
> r.a.p.s?
>
> 2. Is anyone actually opposed to the *idea* of r.a.p.s? That is, when
> it comes to a vote, is anyone planning to vote no, and if so, could you
> provide some counter-arguments, so perhaps we could head off the
> concerns?

I like the name and the idea. I don't think it will completely solve
the problem, though.
Anonymous
September 24, 2004 2:28:18 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Ty Ford wrote:

> That and their too afraid to post to a real political newsgroup because
> they'd never be able to compete.


Um, I guess such a silly statement doesn't really deserve a resonse.

(..)

b.t.w., that would be they're. Good spelling helps to compete.
Anonymous
September 24, 2004 8:35:57 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

I honestly don't think this is true. At least not generally.

Ty Ford wrote:
>They need something equal to the charge
> they get for pissing people off.
> That and their too afraid to post to a
> real political newsgroup because they'd
> never be able to compete.
Anonymous
September 24, 2004 9:20:35 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

> Ty Ford wrote:
>>They need something equal to the charge
>> they get for pissing people off.
>> That and their too afraid to post to a
>> real political newsgroup because they'd
>> never be able to compete.


"Per Karlsson" wrote ...
>I honestly don't think this is true. At least not generally.

OK, then lets see them move their political discussions
over there and we'll find out. I'm not holding my breath.
Anonymous
September 24, 2004 12:45:01 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 23:28:18 -0400, Pete Dimsman wrote
(in article <2rhiiiF1a6ib6U1@uni-berlin.de>):

>
>
> Ty Ford wrote:
>
>> That and their too afraid to post to a real political newsgroup because
>> they'd never be able to compete.
>
>
> Um, I guess such a silly statement doesn't really deserve a resonse.
>
> (..)
>
> b.t.w., that would be they're. Good spelling helps to compete.
>

I guess you lost my respect months ago by your continued abuse of the
newsgroup.

BTW, pick up a grammar and punctuation book sometime real soon, Dude.

While you're at it, look up the word pedantic in the dictionary.

Ty Ford



-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com
Anonymous
September 24, 2004 3:01:09 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Ty Ford wrote:


> Dearest Bob,
>
> "If you stand up for what you believe in, prepared to be shot down."
>
> In this case it's to stop the trashing of what was once a nice newsgroup.
>
> Got it?
>

All I got from that is that there is something very wrong
with you and it isn't OT newsgroup postings.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein
Anonymous
September 24, 2004 4:17:32 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

This might be a good idea, if you can find a place to put a spigit on my
monitor. Unless there is a bandwidth problem, why censure anything that is
honest discussion.
I mean aren't OT threads, kinda like channels you don't want to watch on the
tube. Keep on surfing dude.
Watching this stuff, bubble up, is healthy. We are but a microcosm anyway,
and it just shows how important this stuff is, well at least for the next 6
weeks.

Tom

"Per Karlsson" <per@mad.scientist.com> wrote in message
news:1096025757.464388.19380@k17g2000odb.googlegroups.com...
> I honestly don't think this is true. At least not generally.
>
> Ty Ford wrote:
> >They need something equal to the charge
> > they get for pissing people off.
> > That and their too afraid to post to a
> > real political newsgroup because they'd
> > never be able to compete.
>
Anonymous
September 24, 2004 4:17:33 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 08:17:32 -0400, Tommy B wrote
(in article <wfU4d.1881$zG1.566@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>):

> This might be a good idea, if you can find a place to put a spigit on my
> monitor. Unless there is a bandwidth problem, why censure anything that is
> honest discussion.
> I mean aren't OT threads, kinda like channels you don't want to watch on the
> tube. Keep on surfing dude.
> Watching this stuff, bubble up, is healthy. We are but a microcosm anyway,
> and it just shows how important this stuff is, well at least for the next 6
> weeks.
>
> Tom

Because Tom, the charter for the group say no off topic posting.

Organic excess is no excuse for dumping one's person ashtray in the group.
You do drive between the lines on the highway, right?

Ty Ford




> "Per Karlsson" <per@mad.scientist.com> wrote in message
> news:1096025757.464388.19380@k17g2000odb.googlegroups.com...
>> I honestly don't think this is true. At least not generally.
>>
>> Ty Ford wrote:
>>> They need something equal to the charge
>>> they get for pissing people off.
>>> That and their too afraid to post to a
>>> real political newsgroup because they'd
>>> never be able to compete.
>>
>
>



-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com
Anonymous
September 24, 2004 5:41:56 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

>You do drive between the lines on the highway, right?
I try when there are other folks around, at 3 AM, well that's another story.
Anyway that's an issue of safety, this is only free expression.

>Because Tom, the charter for the group say no off topic posting.

Then enforce it, amend it or let it be.
What can I say.

>Organic excess is no excuse for dumping one's person ashtray in the group.
If it was one person, it would be a very short thread, and we would not be
having this discussion.
Presonally, I like organic excess,
as long as I'm wearing the right shoes!

Tom




"Ty Ford" <tyreeford@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:juednZkh0K7AiMncRVn-tQ@comcast.com...
> On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 08:17:32 -0400, Tommy B wrote
> (in article <wfU4d.1881$zG1.566@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>):
>
> > This might be a good idea, if you can find a place to put a spigit on my
> > monitor. Unless there is a bandwidth problem, why censure anything that
is
> > honest discussion.
> > I mean aren't OT threads, kinda like channels you don't want to watch on
the
> > tube. Keep on surfing dude.
> > Watching this stuff, bubble up, is healthy. We are but a microcosm
anyway,
> > and it just shows how important this stuff is, well at least for the
next 6
> > weeks.
> >
> > Tom
>
> Because Tom, the charter for the group say no off topic posting.
>
> Organic excess is no excuse for dumping one's person ashtray in the group.
> You do drive between the lines on the highway, right?
>
> Ty Ford
>
>
>
>
> > "Per Karlsson" <per@mad.scientist.com> wrote in message
> > news:1096025757.464388.19380@k17g2000odb.googlegroups.com...
> >> I honestly don't think this is true. At least not generally.
> >>
> >> Ty Ford wrote:
> >>> They need something equal to the charge
> >>> they get for pissing people off.
> >>> That and their too afraid to post to a
> >>> real political newsgroup because they'd
> >>> never be able to compete.
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
>
> -- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other
audiocentric
> stuff are at www.tyford.com
>
Anonymous
September 24, 2004 8:31:35 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 08:33:33 -0400, Jay Levitt <jay+news@jay.fm>
wrote:

>Summing up the latest thread on this recurring topic:
>
>1. Everyone who commented seemed to think it's a good idea, even if they
>didn't all agree it was necessary. I certainly didn't see any "what a
>horrible idea" posts.
>
>2. Some folks proposed just making RAP moderated instead, but there's
>much less consensus on this. Most tellingly, nobody volunteered to
>moderate.
>
>3. While RAP's charter has nothing to do with politics, there is some
>interest (though certainly not on my part) in discussing politics with
>people you already know, so that existing political newsgroups don't fit
>the bill.
>
>4. Of the folks who thought it was a good idea to have a saloon
>newsgroup, nobody felt that he personally had the time to create it.
>
>With that in mind, the fact that we've just lost another longtime
>poster,

Who was that? I'm in the middle of a move and haven't read 1/4 of
just the on-topic posts in recent weeks.

> and the fact that despite killfiles and ignore-thread commands
>I'm still finding too high an SNR here, I *do* volunteer to create it.
>
>Two questions for the first order of business:
>
>1. Is "rec.audio.pro.saloon" the agreed-upon name? Another proposal was
>rec.audio.pro.offtopic, which is certainly clearer but somewhat less fun
>and less tone-setting. Is anyone actually opposed to the *name* of
>r.a.p.s?

I obviously haven't followed the previous thread that prompted
this.

>2. Is anyone actually opposed to the *idea* of r.a.p.s? That is, when
>it comes to a vote, is anyone planning to vote no, and if so, could you
>provide some counter-arguments, so perhaps we could head off the
>concerns?

I'm not sure I can put my finger on it, but the idea of starting a
new sub-newsgroup because the main group has "too many off-topic
threads" seems like a bad precedent and a bad solution to the problem.
It just doesn't seem right. Has such a thing ever happened before?
Perhaps it's just a sense that if this is done, "the terrorists,
er, trolls win."
The off-topic threads are not in any real sense related to RAP -
they're not about anything like live sound or video production, which
might each be justifiable for making new subgroups if appropriate
groups didn't already exist.

-----
http://mindspring.com/~benbradley
Anonymous
September 24, 2004 8:31:36 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Ben Bradley wrote:

> I'm not sure I can put my finger on it, but the idea of starting a
> new sub-newsgroup because the main group has "too many off-topic
> threads" seems like a bad precedent and a bad solution to the problem.
> It just doesn't seem right. Has such a thing ever happened before?
> Perhaps it's just a sense that if this is done, "the terrorists,
> er, trolls win."
> The off-topic threads are not in any real sense related to RAP -
> they're not about anything like live sound or video production, which
> might each be justifiable for making new subgroups if appropriate
> groups didn't already exist.


I agree. I just don't see that many of them, and they tend to stay in
their own threads.

In fact, if you try to look for them, you have to scroll though ALL
these threads about "audio".

: )
September 24, 2004 10:00:38 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Don Cooper <dcooper28800@comcast.net> writes:


>Ben Bradley wrote:

>> I'm not sure I can put my finger on it, but the idea of starting a
>> new sub-newsgroup because the main group has "too many off-topic
>> threads" seems like a bad precedent and a bad solution to the problem.
>> It just doesn't seem right. Has such a thing ever happened before?
>> Perhaps it's just a sense that if this is done, "the terrorists,
>> er, trolls win."
>> The off-topic threads are not in any real sense related to RAP -
>> they're not about anything like live sound or video production, which
>> might each be justifiable for making new subgroups if appropriate
>> groups didn't already exist.


>I agree. I just don't see that many of them, and they tend to stay in
>their own threads.

>In fact, if you try to look for them, you have to scroll though ALL
>these threads about "audio".

Would the new group be only for political posts, or for "traditional"
OT posts as well (such as scotch, pizza, BBQ, deli sandwiches, etc) ?

I'd hesitate to call it "saloon" if only the former.
Anonymous
September 24, 2004 10:00:39 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <cj1nc6$1kb2$1@msunews.cl.msu.edu>, georgeh@gjhsun.cl.msu.edu
says...
>
> Would the new group be only for political posts, or for "traditional"
> OT posts as well (such as scotch, pizza, BBQ, deli sandwiches, etc) ?

Everything - the thinking is that this group will be where people who
are part of the audio community can hang out talk about anything they
wish. Those of us who are here for audio and not social discourse would
have our OT-free board, and the rest can use the saloon.

I believe that also addresses the "there are already politics" groups -
this isn't a political forum, it's an off-topic, social forum. I've
seen this work on many web-based message boards, though I'm not sure if
there's precedent in USENET or not.

--
Jay Levitt |
Wellesley, MA | Hi!
Faster: jay at jay dot eff-em | Where are we going?
http://www.jay.fm | Why am I in this handbasket?
Anonymous
September 24, 2004 10:35:32 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Ben Bradley" <ben_nospam_bradley@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:45i8l05d1k4sfl9gqog3m91t3j80j9481q@4ax.com...
> I'm not sure I can put my finger on it, but the idea of starting a
> new sub-newsgroup because the main group has "too many off-topic
> threads" seems like a bad precedent and a bad solution to the problem.
> It just doesn't seem right. Has such a thing ever happened before?
> Perhaps it's just a sense that if this is done, "the terrorists,
> er, trolls win."
> The off-topic threads are not in any real sense related to RAP -
> they're not about anything like live sound or video production, which
> might each be justifiable for making new subgroups if appropriate
> groups didn't already exist.

Firstly, if you try to create a group under the "big 8" hierarchy, which rec
is, specifically for the purpose of housing off-topic political posts, the
admins who will set up the newsgroups will say, "there are already tons of
newsgroups for politics, use one of those." (sound familiar)

Secondly, in the highly unlikely event the admins create the group, what
makes anyone think it'll get used?

Stu
Anonymous
September 24, 2004 11:07:55 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

For one thing, the political NGs are full of real crazies...

Al

On 24 Sep 2004 04:35:57 -0700, "Per Karlsson" <per@mad.scientist.com>
wrote:

>I honestly don't think this is true. At least not generally.
>
>Ty Ford wrote:
>>They need something equal to the charge
>> they get for pissing people off.
>> That and their too afraid to post to a
>> real political newsgroup because they'd
>> never be able to compete.
Anonymous
September 24, 2004 11:09:41 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <MuC4d.30762$1d6.25972@fe1.texas.rr.com>, lshaw-
usenet@austin.rr.com says...
> I'm opposed to the idea of making a decision or bringing it up for a
> vote before the US presidential election.

I think this is an excellent point. Personally, I think the OT traffic
is not solely election-related, as we've seen perennial complaints here
about it, but certainly that's part of it. I do think that some folks
might vote against a new group now for just that reason, so I'll wait
till after the election before doing an RFD.

--
Jay Levitt |
Wellesley, MA | Hi!
Faster: jay at jay dot eff-em | Where are we going?
http://www.jay.fm | Why am I in this handbasket?
Anonymous
September 24, 2004 11:10:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 08:38:53 -0400, Ty Ford <tyreeford@comcast.net>
wrote:

>On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 08:17:32 -0400, Tommy B wrote
>(in article <wfU4d.1881$zG1.566@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>):
>
>> This might be a good idea, if you can find a place to put a spigit on my
>> monitor. Unless there is a bandwidth problem, why censure anything that is
>> honest discussion.
>> I mean aren't OT threads, kinda like channels you don't want to watch on the
>> tube. Keep on surfing dude.
>> Watching this stuff, bubble up, is healthy. We are but a microcosm anyway,
>> and it just shows how important this stuff is, well at least for the next 6
>> weeks.
>>
>> Tom
>
>Because Tom, the charter for the group say no off topic posting.

Yeah and it's against the law to eat pussy in some states too.

Ty, if you are going to enforce this like a cranky grandma, I for one
would like to see you go after the other OT threads just as hard, or
risk being seen as a hypocrite..

Al
Anonymous
September 25, 2004 12:20:36 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Jay Levitt" <jay+news@jay.fm> wrote in message
news:MPG.1bbe3de07718b84698981e@news-east.giganews.com...
> I believe that also addresses the "there are already politics" groups -
> this isn't a political forum, it's an off-topic, social forum. I've
> seen this work on many web-based message boards, though I'm not sure if
> there's precedent in USENET or not.

I'd suggest that you subscribe or crosspost a question/message about this to
news.groups

That's where discussion like this have to end up if anything is actually
going to be done. I was involved in (opposing) the creation of a moderated
group, and read news.groups for a couple months, I learned stuff about
usenet by osmosis. They are the keepers of usenet, when it comes to the big
8 hierarchy.


Stu Venable
Anonymous
September 25, 2004 12:41:07 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Jay Levitt" <jay+news@jay.fm> wrote in message
news:MPG.1bbe3de07718b84698981e@news-east.giganews.com...
> I believe that also addresses the "there are already politics" groups -
> this isn't a political forum, it's an off-topic, social forum. I've
> seen this work on many web-based message boards, though I'm not sure if
> there's precedent in USENET or not.

Also, one major reason new newsgroups are defeated is if an existing group
already satisfies the requirements of the proposed group.

Here are a couple of faqs about usenet new group creation:
http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/faqs/big-eight.html
http://www.dmcom.net/bard/ngfaq.txt
Anonymous
September 25, 2004 12:51:25 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

georgeh wrote:

> Would the new group be only for political posts, or for "traditional"
> OT posts as well (such as scotch, pizza, BBQ, deli sandwiches, etc) ?
>
> I'd hesitate to call it "saloon" if only the former.

My druthers would a wide open gathering place.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein
Anonymous
September 25, 2004 1:10:32 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Stu Venable wrote:


> Firstly, if you try to create a group under the "big 8" hierarchy, which rec
> is, specifically for the purpose of housing off-topic political posts, the
> admins who will set up the newsgroups will say, "there are already tons of
> newsgroups for politics, use one of those." (sound familiar)

This would have a much different purpose than that. It's to
be a place where any kind of discussion among us would be
welcome, where "us" is, by intent only, the rec.audio.pro
community.

> Secondly, in the highly unlikely event the admins create the group, what
> makes anyone think it'll get used?

What makes you think it won't get used? I believe that the
people who talk to each other here about broader matters
don't do it to be contrary, but simply because they aren't
willing to give up the ability to communicate with others in
this group about things other than audio just because some
choose to immerse themselves in it in order to annoy
themselves. Why wouldn't we use it?

You really don't seem to want this. Administrative reasons
and sheer pessimism aside, why is that?


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein
Anonymous
September 25, 2004 7:14:04 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"playon" <playon@comcast.net> wrote in message...

> For one thing, the political NGs are full of real crazies...


If it makes any difference, I played a few of the politico groups
a couple of weeks ago.... lo and behold, a couple of shmucks
from over there followed me here and posted. Not as follow-ups
to any message of mine, but in common threads with the same
material they posted on the politico groups. I never replied, and
they disappeared.

Those people are goof-balls.... on alt.politics.kerry and alt.politics.bush
people are accusing their opposition of eating the vaginal matter of the
candidates wives and children... real sickos...
Anonymous
September 25, 2004 10:13:27 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"David Morgan (MAMS)" <mams@NOSPAm-a-m-s.com> wrote in message
news:0o55d.2182$Wu1.1960@trnddc02...
>
> "playon" <playon@comcast.net> wrote in message...
>
>> For one thing, the political NGs are full of real crazies...

I don't know if anyone has mentioned this but a rec.audio.politics-religion
would be more fitting. I'm a member of other audio "coffeehouses" and care
about the non-audio conversation there but about 95% of that is
religion-politics.
Anonymous
September 25, 2004 12:24:20 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 02:13:27 -0400, Ricky W. Hunt wrote
(in article <b085d.106312$MQ5.103647@attbi_s52>):

> "David Morgan (MAMS)" <mams@NOSPAm-a-m-s.com> wrote in message
> news:0o55d.2182$Wu1.1960@trnddc02...
>>
>> "playon" <playon@comcast.net> wrote in message...
>>
>>> For one thing, the political NGs are full of real crazies...
>
> I don't know if anyone has mentioned this but a rec.audio.politics-religion
> would be more fitting. I'm a member of other audio "coffeehouses" and care
> about the non-audio conversation there but about 95% of that is
> religion-politics.
>
>

I'm not surprised. A time honored policy of polite society is NOT to discuss
politics or religion.

Ty Ford



-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com
Anonymous
September 25, 2004 4:00:00 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Ty Ford wrote:

> I'm not surprised. A time honored policy of polite society is NOT to discuss
> politics or religion.


And that whole Doppler thing, either.
Anonymous
September 26, 2004 7:17:36 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

I think having an appropriate place to carry on political discussions is a
great idea. I don't think you'll find many people will leave RAP to post their
thoughts, though.

These are strange times. Not since the early 70's has the US found itself
embattled in an unpopular war. Never has the world found itself so permeated
with terrorists. Never has the United States acted alone in a war of
agression. Historically, we (in the US) have been able to trust our government
to more or less act on our behalf and trust that decisions on both foreign and
domestic issues were well thought ou t and well presented. A lot of people
don't trust this government. Personal freedoms and safety- things we used to
take for granted- are being eroded from within our government and from outside
forces.

I don't want a televised football game interrupted with spurious gossip. If
there's a tornado bearing down on my town, I wantt the show interrupted.
Joe Egan
EMP
Colchester, VT
www.eganmedia.com
Anonymous
September 26, 2004 10:04:40 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

EganMedia wrote:

> I think having an appropriate place to carry on political discussions is a
> great idea. I don't think you'll find many people will leave RAP to post their
> thoughts, though.

I'm hoping that it won't be like leaving RAP, but like
stepping around the corner from where you work to hang out
with the same folks for different reasons, when there is an
obnoxious, self rightous co-worker going around from office
to office listening in and telling people to quit talking
about anything but work because it says so somewhere in the
company guidelines that were written in antiquity.

I sure agree about your conclusions with respect to the
times. I've been around a fairly long time now and the
situation at ground level is the worse it's ever been by
such a wide margin that it truly terrifies me.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein
Anonymous
September 26, 2004 10:34:49 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On 26 Sep 2004 15:17:36 GMT, eganmedia@aol.com (EganMedia) wrote:

>Never has the United States acted alone in a war of
>agression.

Better check the history books on that one...
Anonymous
September 27, 2004 1:23:33 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Instead of starting a new "rec.audio.pro.saloon" group, I would instead
suggest that we just change the group's charter so that it becomes
"rec.audio.pro.moderated."

Then, make it part of the charter that only audio-related matters can be
discussed here. That encompasses a broad range of material, going all the
way from how to align a 24-track deck to room acoustics, but would
specifically exclude political discussions and other controversial issues.

If you want some help or info on how to get a group charter vote going, talk
to me in email.

--MFW
September 27, 2004 1:34:03 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <0001HW.BD7C816500145FD3F05095B0@news-server.socal.rr.com>,
Marc Wielage <mfw@mmusictrax.com> wrote:

> Instead of starting a new "rec.audio.pro.saloon" group, I would instead
> suggest that we just change the group's charter so that it becomes
> "rec.audio.pro.moderated."
>
> Then, make it part of the charter that only audio-related matters can be
> discussed here. That encompasses a broad range of material, going all the
> way from how to align a 24-track deck to room acoustics, but would
> specifically exclude political discussions and other controversial issues.
>
> If you want some help or info on how to get a group charter vote going, talk
> to me in email.
>
> --MFW
>
>

That will solve your problem as most everyone would leave
the beauty of most NG is thier unmoderated fomat, warts and all they are
much better than any moderated group
the cure is worse than the disease
George
Anonymous
September 27, 2004 1:34:04 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

George wrote:

> That will solve your problem as most everyone would leave
> the beauty of most NG is thier unmoderated fomat, warts and all they are
> much better than any moderated group
> the cure is worse than the disease

sci.physics went a similar route by creating
sci.physics.research which is moderated (somehow.) The
original group had become too much of a place for people
with crank theories. Even though it's still that way, many
of the old people like Uncle Al (sure wish he'd get
interested in audio) and John Baez, to name a few, remained
scouting for the items that were still within the original
scope. I'm in a really good technical discussion there
right now that found an expert interested in the problem I'm
working on enough to do what I can't. (I think he just took
a long trip to a dead end but that's more my fault than his
in how I originally described the problem.)

I'd still prefer going the other route, though, just because
having a saloon really makes it explicit what the group is
all about and hanging it off RAP more concretely states who
it is for. Making it an alt group seems to me to defeat the
purposes of making it a hangout more specific to this group.
Sure that can't and won't be enforced (not the nature of
the beast) but steering it that way isn't a bad thing.

If as has been said by others, this high OT content is
hitting groups across the board, the powers-that-be might be
persuaded that a saloon (or some such) is a good solution
across the board.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein
Anonymous
September 27, 2004 5:25:28 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

killermike wrote:

> Jay Levitt wrote:
>
> > Two questions for the first order of business:
> >
> > 1. Is "rec.audio.pro.saloon" the agreed-upon name? Another proposal was
> > rec.audio.pro.offtopic, which is certainly clearer but somewhat less fun
> > and less tone-setting. Is anyone actually opposed to the *name* of
> > r.a.p.s?
>
> I prefer 'offtopic' to 'saloon'. I consider it to be clearer. As far as
> I know, 'saloon' is an Americanism. I'd probably be able to work out
> what it meant. A saloon is more comonly a class of car in the UK.

Sedan in the US.

> For
> someone from a non English speaking country, it might be even less
> clear. Anyway, I don't consider it to be of crucial importance.

The use of 'saloon' is indeed an americanism. There is a historical use of
'saloon bar' in the UK but not much used anymore.

I'd prefer 'opinion' maybe.


> > 2. Is anyone actually opposed to the *idea* of r.a.p.s? That is, when
> > it comes to a vote, is anyone planning to vote no, and if so, could you
> > provide some counter-arguments, so perhaps we could head off the
> > concerns?
>
> I'd vote in favour.

I'm in favour - bur preferably with a name other than saloon.


Graham
Anonymous
September 27, 2004 5:25:29 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 01:25:28 +0100, Pooh Bear
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

>killermike wrote:
>
>> Jay Levitt wrote:
>>
>> > Two questions for the first order of business:
>> >
>> > 1. Is "rec.audio.pro.saloon" the agreed-upon name? Another proposal was
>> > rec.audio.pro.offtopic, which is certainly clearer but somewhat less fun
>> > and less tone-setting. Is anyone actually opposed to the *name* of
>> > r.a.p.s?
>>
>> I prefer 'offtopic' to 'saloon'. I consider it to be clearer. As far as
>> I know, 'saloon' is an Americanism. I'd probably be able to work out
>> what it meant. A saloon is more comonly a class of car in the UK.
>
>Sedan in the US.
>
>> For
>> someone from a non English speaking country, it might be even less
>> clear. Anyway, I don't consider it to be of crucial importance.
>
>The use of 'saloon' is indeed an americanism. There is a historical use of
>'saloon bar' in the UK but not much used anymore.
>
>I'd prefer 'opinion' maybe.
>
>
>> > 2. Is anyone actually opposed to the *idea* of r.a.p.s? That is, when
>> > it comes to a vote, is anyone planning to vote no, and if so, could you
>> > provide some counter-arguments, so perhaps we could head off the
>> > concerns?
>>
>> I'd vote in favour.
>
>I'm in favour - bur preferably with a name other than saloon.
>
>
>Graham

How about, "maroon"?

Al
Anonymous
September 27, 2004 9:30:55 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

playon wrote:

> On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 01:25:28 +0100, Pooh Bear
> <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >I'm in favour - bur preferably with a name other than saloon.
> >
> >Graham
>
> How about, "maroon"?
>
> Al

You want to attract the alt.conspiracy crowd ?


Graham ;-)
Anonymous
September 27, 2004 10:44:27 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 21:04:40 -0400, Bob Cain wrote
(in article <cj7o4p084s@enews3.newsguy.com>):

>
>
> EganMedia wrote:
>
>> I think having an appropriate place to carry on political discussions is a
>> great idea. I don't think you'll find many people will leave RAP to post
>> their
>> thoughts, though.
>
> I'm hoping that it won't be like leaving RAP, but like
> stepping around the corner from where you work to hang out
> with the same folks for different reasons, when there is an
> obnoxious, self rightous co-worker going around from office
> to office listening in and telling people to quit talking
> about anything but work because it says so somewhere in the
> company guidelines that were written in antiquity.

Thanks Bob. We all appreciate your observations. Wanna lower your voice?

> I sure agree about your conclusions with respect to the
> times. I've been around a fairly long time now and the
> situation at ground level is the worse it's ever been by
> such a wide margin that it truly terrifies me.
>
>
> Bob

Be very afraid. It will only get worse. Then you die and they throw dirt on
you.

Ty Ford




-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com
Anonymous
September 27, 2004 10:46:34 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 17:23:33 -0400, Marc Wielage wrote
(in article <0001HW.BD7C816500145FD3F05095B0@news-server.socal.rr.com>):

> Instead of starting a new "rec.audio.pro.saloon" group, I would instead
> suggest that we just change the group's charter so that it becomes
> "rec.audio.pro.moderated."
>
> Then, make it part of the charter that only audio-related matters can be
> discussed here. That encompasses a broad range of material, going all the
> way from how to align a 24-track deck to room acoustics, but would
> specifically exclude political discussions and other controversial issues.
>
> If you want some help or info on how to get a group charter vote going, talk
> to me in email.
>
> --MFW
>
>

Not a bad idea Marc. Who would do the moderating?

BTW, My newsreader says your email is invalid.

Ty Ford

>



-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com
September 27, 2004 3:32:34 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <V9-dnRjwnpcXcsrcRVn-pg@comcast.com>,
Ty Ford <tyreeford@comcast.net> wrote:

> On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 17:23:33 -0400, Marc Wielage wrote
> (in article <0001HW.BD7C816500145FD3F05095B0@news-server.socal.rr.com>):
>
> > Instead of starting a new "rec.audio.pro.saloon" group, I would instead
> > suggest that we just change the group's charter so that it becomes
> > "rec.audio.pro.moderated."
> >
> > Then, make it part of the charter that only audio-related matters can be
> > discussed here. That encompasses a broad range of material, going all the
> > way from how to align a 24-track deck to room acoustics, but would
> > specifically exclude political discussions and other controversial issues.
> >
> > If you want some help or info on how to get a group charter vote going,
> > talk
> > to me in email.
> >
> > --MFW
> >
> >
>
> Not a bad idea Marc. Who would do the moderating?
>
> BTW, My newsreader says your email is invalid.
>
> Ty Ford
>
if you enjoy a moderated forum , there is one at wwww.prosoundweb.com
George
Anonymous
September 27, 2004 3:32:35 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

George wrote:

> if you enjoy a moderated forum , there is one at wwww.prosoundweb.com


That thing's got more ads than Times Square. Like he really needs the money.
September 27, 2004 8:39:36 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <41581C29.FC27CAC4@comcast.net>,
Don Cooper <dcooper288@comcast.net> wrote:

> George wrote:
>
> > if you enjoy a moderated forum , there is one at wwww.prosoundweb.com
>
>
> That thing's got more ads than Times Square. Like he really needs the money.

but at least your free from having to think about the future of your
country(for usa residents only)
George
Anonymous
September 30, 2004 1:38:58 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

George wrote:

> but at least your free from having to think about the future of your
> country(for usa residents only)


Do they have a political section?
Anonymous
October 2, 2004 1:19:55 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Marc Wielage wrote:

>
> That would be the moderators. Volunteers would have to manually approve each
> and every message in the group.

L.O.L.

> There are ways to do it in a semi-automated

It takes people about 2 minutes to get around ANYTHING you want to
program a "bot" to do. Waste of time. Though it can be a bit amusing.
Anonymous
October 2, 2004 2:26:52 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Pete Dimsman <pd@nospam.com> wrote:
>Marc Wielage wrote:
>
>>
>> That would be the moderators. Volunteers would have to manually approve each
>> and every message in the group.
>
>L.O.L.

It works pretty well. Check out comp.risks as the best possible example
of moderation, with Peter Neumann selecting everything that gets into the
digest. comp.dcom.telecom is another example with somewhat more sloppy
moderation. (Again it's a single moderator handling everything, but he had
a brain aneurism five or six years ago and has not really been the same
since).

A weirder example is rec.audio.high-end, which used to be moderated by my
friend Tom Kreuger. He burned out on the process and turned it over to
a whole team of people, some of whom are good and some of whom are not, and
there isn't as consistent a policy as a result.

There are also some moderated mailing lists which have two tiers of membership.
Long-time members get to post directly, while folks who have not been on for
so long have to have all posts approved by the moderator. This actually works
very well to reduce moderator burnout.

>> There are ways to do it in a semi-automated
>
>It takes people about 2 minutes to get around ANYTHING you want to
>program a "bot" to do. Waste of time. Though it can be a bit amusing.

That's the point of moderation: there is a human being in the loop.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
October 2, 2004 2:26:53 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Scott Dorsey wrote:

>>>That would be the moderators. Volunteers would have to manually approve each
>>>and every message in the group.

> It works pretty well. Check out comp.risks as the best possible example
> of moderation, with Peter Neumann selecting everything that gets into the
> digest.

It can work well, but it depends on your goal. It can be great for a
business or a scientific (technical) oriented group where the goal is
JUST a transfer of information. Not a lot of fun but it does serve a
purpose.

Moderated groups for recreational purposes, tend to fail, in my opinion.
Yes they still have people posting, but, depending on the moderators,
and the guidelines are so subjective, can be so stifling that you lose
most of the posters. Some of those posters are good to lose, they are
just trouble makers, but you also lose some of the most fun and
entertaining people.

R.a.p. is a little of both. Yes it is a technical site to help people
learn the ins and outs of recording and production techniques, but it is
also a group of people that like to bs about other stuff too. This irks
some people to the nth degree. Others welcome it. How are the moderators
going to reconcile these opposing views?
Anonymous
October 2, 2004 8:38:12 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Sat, 2 Oct 2004 10:47:20 -0400, Pete Dimsman wrote
(in article <2s7tbpF1httb7U1@uni-berlin.de>):

>
>
> Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
>>>> That would be the moderators. Volunteers would have to manually approve
>>>> each
>>>> and every message in the group.
>
>> It works pretty well. Check out comp.risks as the best possible example
>> of moderation, with Peter Neumann selecting everything that gets into the
>> digest.
>
> It can work well, but it depends on your goal. It can be great for a
> business or a scientific (technical) oriented group where the goal is
> JUST a transfer of information. Not a lot of fun but it does serve a
> purpose.
>
> Moderated groups for recreational purposes, tend to fail, in my opinion.
> Yes they still have people posting, but, depending on the moderators,
> and the guidelines are so subjective, can be so stifling that you lose
> most of the posters. Some of those posters are good to lose, they are
> just trouble makers, but you also lose some of the most fun and
> entertaining people.
>
> R.a.p. is a little of both. Yes it is a technical site to help people
> learn the ins and outs of recording and production techniques, but it is
> also a group of people that like to bs about other stuff too. This irks
> some people to the nth degree. Others welcome it. How are the moderators
> going to reconcile these opposing views?

If everyone played by the rules, there would be no problems. Problem is, they
don't.

Ty


-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com
Anonymous
October 2, 2004 8:38:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Sat, 2 Oct 2004 16:38:12 -0400, Ty Ford <tyreeford@comcast.net>
wrote:

>On Sat, 2 Oct 2004 10:47:20 -0400, Pete Dimsman wrote
>(in article <2s7tbpF1httb7U1@uni-berlin.de>):
>
>>
>>
>> Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>
>>>>> That would be the moderators. Volunteers would have to manually approve
>>>>> each
>>>>> and every message in the group.
>>
>>> It works pretty well. Check out comp.risks as the best possible example
>>> of moderation, with Peter Neumann selecting everything that gets into the
>>> digest.
>>
>> It can work well, but it depends on your goal. It can be great for a
>> business or a scientific (technical) oriented group where the goal is
>> JUST a transfer of information. Not a lot of fun but it does serve a
>> purpose.
>>
>> Moderated groups for recreational purposes, tend to fail, in my opinion.
>> Yes they still have people posting, but, depending on the moderators,
>> and the guidelines are so subjective, can be so stifling that you lose
>> most of the posters. Some of those posters are good to lose, they are
>> just trouble makers, but you also lose some of the most fun and
>> entertaining people.
>>
>> R.a.p. is a little of both. Yes it is a technical site to help people
>> learn the ins and outs of recording and production techniques, but it is
>> also a group of people that like to bs about other stuff too. This irks
>> some people to the nth degree. Others welcome it. How are the moderators
>> going to reconcile these opposing views?
>
>If everyone played by the rules, there would be no problems. Problem is, they
>don't.

Come on Ty -- this is usenet... if you expect rules enforced, go to a
moderated web forum.

Al
!