|
From: jarrell@solaris.cc.vt.edu (Ron Jarrell)
|
|
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5
|
|
Subject: Ok, a status report on what's going on
|
|
Date: 6 Dec 1995 18:12:28 -0500
|
|
Message-ID: <4a580s$fde@solaris.cc.vt.edu>
|
|
|
|
|
|
Many people have been wondering what's going on, is anyone doing
|
|
anything, who can we kill, and why is there no discussion of Voyage to
|
|
the Bottom of the Sea here anymore, anyway?
|
|
|
|
Ok, so maybe not that last one, but that's about the ONLY thing I
|
|
haven't seen asked in either email or on the group.
|
|
|
|
First off, I'd like to convey from Joe Cochran thanks for all the
|
|
messages that were sent to him offering suggestions, support, etc. He
|
|
got FAR FAR too many to individually acknowledge.
|
|
|
|
I'm sorry this took so long to get up, but we wanted to actually HAVE a
|
|
solution, and even hopefully get it *implemented* (which we did) before
|
|
geting peoples hopes up.
|
|
|
|
Now, for the important news. No, Joe Straczynski hasn't completely
|
|
left the group. It took a while before we could announce this because
|
|
I had to have extensive talks with him, followed by quickly whipping up
|
|
and putting into production new software for the Rangers to use to
|
|
manage an all new style of feed for him.
|
|
|
|
Joe's participation in the group will be, however, significantly
|
|
different than it was before. He will no longer be reading
|
|
everything. Instead, he'll be getting the messages specifically
|
|
directed at him, and only if those messages are questions or comments
|
|
about the show, and not flames or personal attacks.
|
|
|
|
Now, that's not to say you can't write a negative message about an
|
|
episode; if you think it didn't work, that's fine. But he's not going
|
|
to see messages of the "So, Joe, are you still beating your wife?"
|
|
style.
|
|
|
|
He may, as we do this, ask to see other types of messages, he may not.
|
|
It'll also be entirely up to him whether he elects to ANSWER. Not that
|
|
this is a change; Joe often ignored questions that he couldn't answer
|
|
without giving away something he wanted to keep secret.
|
|
|
|
But if he DOES answer the question, the answer will be posted back here
|
|
to the newsgroup, like they used to be. As a major bonus, however,
|
|
since there's a much smaller target now, I've been able to do some
|
|
"value added" processing. The correct subject will be matched up in
|
|
the reply, *and* a References: header will be put in pointing at the
|
|
original question. For those who aren't into the technical details,
|
|
suffice it to say that your newsreader, if it was capable of keeping
|
|
messages grouped together (called "threading") for messages that Joe
|
|
didn't post, it'll not be able to also do it for Joe's message. No
|
|
more of that "Damn, what question is he answering??" head scratching.
|
|
|
|
For those that aren't interested in reading this newsgroup just to get
|
|
those answers, we'll also be regularly bundling them up into Q&A
|
|
digests, and sending them on to the info group moderators.. (We'll see
|
|
how many of them there are before we decide what frequency is required,
|
|
daily, bi-daily, weekly, semi-monthly, every 125,000 micro-fortnights,
|
|
etc.)
|
|
|
|
Now, what are the long term possibilities of wider participation in the
|
|
newsgroup? Well, pretty much no chance, with the existing setup. You
|
|
see, we've gotten to a point where there's just too many flamewars for
|
|
it to be worth it, from his point of view, to read the group to extract
|
|
the messages that are worth it. On GEnie, Compuserve, AOL, and other
|
|
places he hangs out the forums are smaller, and more managed, and
|
|
personal attacks and high tempers are handled.
|
|
|
|
The only equivelant on usenet that's remotely equivalent is a moderated
|
|
newsgroup. Whether people WANT a moderated newsgroup is something that
|
|
the members have to decide. And if so, whether we want to moderate
|
|
THIS group, or create a new moderated group, and leave this one for
|
|
people that want a more "anything goes" discussion.
|
|
|
|
Let me stress that the info group is NOT the appropriate place.
|
|
|
|
The key thing here is to NOT rush into this; we've already heard from
|
|
more than one group that was about to just willy-nilly throw an RFD in
|
|
for one or more groups, without bothering to talk to anyone, and with a
|
|
snowballs chance on za'ha'dum of succeding. If people want to do this
|
|
it has to be done RIGHT the first time; remember, if it gets voted down
|
|
(and a badly written one will be shot down in flames) it'll be months
|
|
before another can be attempted. If it gets passed, but is so screwed
|
|
up in design as to be unusuable, we're, again, stuck with it for
|
|
months.
|
|
|
|
The charter needs to be very carefully worded to explain exactly what
|
|
the newsgroup is for, based on the CONTENT you want in the group, not
|
|
the personalities.
|
|
|
|
And really, there's no rush, because there is already the conduit back
|
|
in place for getting the questions to JMS, and getting the answers
|
|
back.
|
|
|
|
So where do we go from here?
|
|
|
|
Well, if you want Joe to see your question, we're really appreciate if
|
|
you'd use the old standard of putting "ATTN JMS" in the subject. We'll
|
|
see those. If you forget, but ask Joe a question in a message, we
|
|
MIGHT catch it, and forward it on, we might not. If you do, then we'll
|
|
see it, and if it fits the criteria that Joe agreed to, we'll
|
|
cheerfully pass it on; what happens to it after that is in the hands of
|
|
the Great Maker, as the saying goes.
|
|
|
|
Next, people need to decide if they want to persue a moderated group.
|
|
And if so, what kind. The Rangers are willing to help coordinate the
|
|
disparate efforts currently under way to get everyone playing on the
|
|
same station!
|
|
|
|
Remember, though, that creation of a moderated group doesn't guarantee
|
|
that Joe will come back to it, it'd have to be the right KIND of
|
|
moderated group!
|
|
|
|
-Ron
|