🚀 go-pugleaf

RetroBBS NetNews Server

Inspired by RockSolid Light RIP Retro Guy

Article View: az.config
Article #127

Re: az.adult newsgroup

#127
From: Jim Strait
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 00:00
58 lines
3115 bytes
216-5888@mcimail.com (Arthur L. Rubin) wrote in
<39584E30.2C01@mcimail.com>: 

>Jim Strait wrote:
>
>A lot of good things, but...I have a nit to pick with you.
>
>... 
>
>> I would suggest you set up a FAQ for the proposed group.  You need
>> solid logical responses to key questions.  "Why can't discussions
>> under this group be handled under az.general?",  "What posts would be
>> on topic for this newsgroup?",  "How many people would be interested
>> in this newsgroup?", "Why not just set up a listserver instead of a
>> newsgroup?", "Would this group be moderated?".  The comment that their
>> is no way to answer to it is "It would take up too much bandwidth." 
>> Once you have good solid answers to these questions revitalize a CFD
>> in az.general.  
>
>That should be az.config, rather than az.general.  It's clearly
>inappropriate to have the discussions in az.general.
>

az.config would be appropriate for the technical aspects of a proposed new 
newsgroup, but to decide if it would be popular and worth while I still 
think az.general would be more appropriate.  If very few are interested in 
the proposed group then there is no need to propose it under az.config.  
az.config is a very small subset audience for judgement of the "need" for 
the group.   

>> Bring it
>> to the attention of a large local ISP Newsgroup Administrator.
>
>Unless the net has changed significantly in the last 5 years,
>or unless az.*'s charter specifically requires a Newsgroup
>Administrator, you're wrong.  NA's have nothing to say about
>what groups are created -- they have something to say, and
>may choose to say it, about the groups that are propagated,
>but that discussion should be done after the group is
>created (provided that binary's, including pictures, are
>not allowed, even (especially) in signatures).
>

Not much has changed in the az.* line up in the last 5 years.  If a small 
ISP NA wanted to set up az.troublemaker and it became so popular that 
several ISP (or newsserver) NA's wanted it, I suspect it would start 
showing up, charter or not.  Local newsgroups seem a lot more lax than the 
big guys.  


Thanks for your feedback.  


-----------------------------------------------------------
From: Jim Strait
      E-Mail: Jim@Strait.org        
      WWW Home page: http://www.Strait.org/
      Phoenix, Arizona   USA
Technical Details
Message-ID: <8F60C4FDBJimStrait@24.1.240.74>
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!unknown!not-for-mail
References: <XqU15.1369$li3.32941@news.uswest.net> <394899C5.8DC830CB@hotze.com> <GBo25.64$RY6.4201@news.uswest.net> <8F5FF7B8AJimStrait@24.1.240.74> <39584E30.2C01@mcimail.com>

Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 105828,4dafab32e2c4aebc
X-Google-Attributes: gid105828,public
From: Jim@Strait.org (Jim Strait)
Subject: Re: az.adult newsgroup
Date: 2000/06/28
Message-ID: <8F60C4FDBJimStrait@24.1.240.74>
X-Deja-AN: 639818495
References: <XqU15.1369$li3.32941@news.uswest.net> <394899C5.8DC830CB@hotze.com> <GBo25.64$RY6.4201@news.uswest.net> <8F5FF7B8AJimStrait@24.1.240.74> <39584E30.2C01@mcimail.com>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@home.net
X-Trace: news1.rdc1.az.home.com 962158883 24.14.249.241 (Tue, 27 Jun 2000 19:21:23 PDT)
Organization: @Home Network
User-Agent: Xnews/03.04.11
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 19:21:23 PDT
Newsgroups: az.config