🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Oct16.052551.25813@ssc.com> markz@ssc.com (Mark Zenier) writes:
>More neat stuff from
>Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
>
>bruce@pixar.com (Bruce Perens) writes:
>: The vote was strongly against auto-cancelling those two users.
>: 
>: It would have been interesting if I'd gotten a majority vote to cancel
>: them: with a majority vote I probably could have gotten away with it, and
>: it would have changed Usenet policy. We still need some kind of
>: self-regulation system that lies between moderated groups and total
>: anarchy.

I don't think so.  Usenet is a /functional/ anarchy.  Emphasis on
functional, i.e. /it works/.  If it ain't broke don't fix it... and
while it doesn't work perfectly, I think if you look at the general
perception of how well it does/doesn't work, you might find that a
greater percentage of people are happy with the way Usenet runs than
are currently happy with the the American (USA) democratic system of
Government.

But if you think that you can come up with a better system, all the
more power to you... Usenet isn't the only system that uses the Netnews
transport mechanism, and just as some thought even Usenet to be too
restrictive and created Altnet, you can always start "Democratic-net"
or "Dictatorship-of-the-masses-net" or "Bruce-is-king-net".  If you
really feel that more authority, of whatever form, is needed, that is
the /only/ way to accomplish it.  You will never succeed in imposing
any kind of additional restrictions on the existing Usenet.

--
Jurgen Botz                  |   Internet: JBotz@mtholyoke.edu
Academic Systems Consultant  |     Bitnet: JBotz@mhc.bitnet
Mount Holyoke College        |      Voice: (US) 413-538-2375 (daytime)
South Hadley, MA, USA        | Snail Mail: J. Botz, 01075-0629