A Snow and ski forum. SkiBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » SkiBanter forum » Skiing Newsgroups » European Ski Resorts
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

RFD: create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.skiing



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #71  
Old October 25th 03, 09:45 PM
Ali Hopkins
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default RFD: create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.skiing


"BrritSki" wrote in message
...


I remember Chankel relating what a bunch of arses there were in unnc.


That remark ensures a few yes votes. Including mine.

Ali


Ads
  #72  
Old October 25th 03, 10:06 PM
David Off
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default RFD: create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.skiing

John Briggs wrote:
PG wrote:

"John Briggs" wrote in message
...

David Off wrote:

John Briggs wrote:

Strictly speaking, those who are not interested in such a group and
would not take part in it, should not vote.

So only yes voters should take part in the vote... now I know where
Saddam Hussein's electorial commission have found work!

Well, certainly, if you have no interest in the uk.* hierarchy you should
not be voting "no".


Why's that? If someone is interested in preserving rsre from what he may
believe could result in unnecessary duplication and consequent dilution of
posters between groups, he is quite entitled to vote, imo.



The uk.* hierarchy is for existing and potential users of that hierarchy.


I use uk.rec.cycling, so I obviously have an interest in voting yes or
no either way.

  #73  
Old October 25th 03, 10:12 PM
David Off
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default RFD: create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.skiing

John Briggs wrote:

Only if those voting are "stakeholders" (to use an ugly modern expression)
in the uk.* hierarchy. Otherwise, the point stands - those whose only
interest in the uk.* hierarchy is opposing this particular group for reasons
unconnected with the uk.* hierarchy should not be taking part in the vote.


I'm a uk.* user and think, based on experience with the fr.* hiearchy's
experience with the same kind of group, in a country with similar
internet usage and 100x the number fo skiers, that the proposed group
will be a waste of adminstrative time.

  #74  
Old October 25th 03, 10:49 PM
Don Aitken
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default RFD: create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.skiing

[attributions restored]

On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 21:56:15 +0100, Dave J wrote:

In inside of
uk.net.news.config, 'Don Aitken' wrote:


[{R} said]

This just means that I shall vote yes, even though I have no particular
interest, just so that your wrecking tactics don't work.

So will many others, so bring it on. You will lose that gambit.

Both sides can play at that game. I have no more interest than you do,
but I will be voting no.


Your pettiness enures that I vote yes..


Exactly how is it "pettiness" if I vote no for an inadmissible reason
to cancel out the effect of {R} doing the same, but not "pettiness"
for him to do so in the first place?

I am more convinced than ever that the view that uk.* should conduct
its business as if the rest of Usenet did not exist, and feel smugly
self-righteous in doing so, is utterly indefensible. The denizens of
rsre, whether they approve or disapprove of the formation of this
group, are the people *most* affected by its possible creation, and
*most* entitled to vote on it - and a vote against is as justifiable
as a vote for. Those who propose to deny them that right are the
"wreckers".

--
Don Aitken

Mail to the addresses given in the headers is no longer being
read. To mail me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com".
  #75  
Old October 25th 03, 10:49 PM
Don Aitken
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default RFD: create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.skiing

On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 19:03:31 +0100, "John Briggs"
wrote:

Don Aitken wrote:
On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 18:13:23 +0100, "John Briggs"
wrote:

Paul Rooney wrote:
On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 17:20:27 +0100, "John Briggs"
wrote:



Strictly speaking, those who are not interested in such a group and
would not take part in it, should not vote.

Strictly speaking, that is false.

Only if those voting are "stakeholders" (to use an ugly modern
expression) in the uk.* hierarchy. Otherwise, the point stands - those
whose only interest in the uk.* hierarchy is opposing this particular
group for reasons unconnected with the uk.* hierarchy should not be
taking part in the vote.


Serious question: where does this "should" come from?


Ask yourself that.


Oh, gee, how helpful. Well, those who are not participating in this
overly repetitive argument are no doubt able to decide who they think
is making sense and who is not.

--
Don Aitken

Mail to the addresses given in the headers is no longer being
read. To mail me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com".
  #76  
Old October 25th 03, 10:49 PM
Don Aitken
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default RFD: create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.skiing

On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 22:45:34 +0100, "Ali Hopkins"
wrote:


"BrritSki" wrote in message
...


I remember Chankel relating what a bunch of arses there were in unnc.


That remark ensures a few yes votes. Including mine.

And people are criticising me for saying I'll vote no?

--
Don Aitken

Mail to the addresses given in the headers is no longer being
read. To mail me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com".
  #77  
Old October 25th 03, 10:51 PM
John Briggs
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default RFD: create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.skiing

David Off wrote:
John Briggs wrote:

Only if those voting are "stakeholders" (to use an ugly modern
expression) in the uk.* hierarchy. Otherwise, the point stands - those
whose only interest in the uk.* hierarchy is opposing this particular
group for reasons unconnected with the uk.* hierarchy should not be
taking part in the vote.


I'm a uk.* user and think, based on experience with the fr.* hiearchy's
experience with the same kind of group, in a country with similar
internet usage and 100x the number fo skiers, that the proposed group
will be a waste of adminstrative time.


In which case, it is an even greater waste of time opposing it - if there is
insufficient interest it will not be formed.
--
John Briggs


  #78  
Old October 25th 03, 11:57 PM
Alex Heney
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default RFD: create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.skiing

On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 17:20:27 +0100, "John Briggs"
wrote:

Don Aitken wrote:

snip
are both absurd. This is a matter to be resolved by vote; that is what
votes are for. Those who believe that the proposal would have a
detrimental effect on a group they read are entitled to vote no. Those
who don't care about that are entitled to vote yes.


Strictly speaking, those who are not interested in such a group and would
not take part in it, should not vote.


They should *IF* they think it will have a detrimental effect, either
on usenet as a whole (unlikely in this case), or on other specific
groups they read (likely in this case).

It isn't just a question of whether they intend reading the group, but
whether it will affect their usenet experience.

--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Keep emotionally active. Cater to your favorite neurosis.

To reply by email, my address is aDOTjDOTheneyATbtinternetDOTcom
  #79  
Old October 25th 03, 11:58 PM
Alex Heney
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default RFD: create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.skiing

On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 18:20:06 +0100, "John Briggs"
wrote:

PG wrote:

snip

Why's that? If someone is interested in preserving rsre from what he may
believe could result in unnecessary duplication and consequent dilution of
posters between groups, he is quite entitled to vote, imo.


The uk.* hierarchy is for existing and potential users of that hierarchy.
"Preserving" one's own preferred group is not a valid reason for interfering
in someone else's hierarchy.


That is your opinion. It isn't backed up by the voting process.

Has it it occurred to you that something which
needs "preserving" in this way, may not be worth preserving?


Not really. There is enough traffic for one group. It is doubtful
whether there will be enough traffic to keep two groups active, and it
is possible that spreading it across two groups will lead to both
becoming unused.

--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Useless Invention: Particle board tent stakes.

To reply by email, my address is aDOTjDOTheneyATbtinternetDOTcom
  #80  
Old October 25th 03, 11:58 PM
Alex Heney
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default RFD: create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.skiing

On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 19:21:42 +0100, "John Briggs"
wrote:

PG wrote:

snip
I am a potential user, and you say the uk. hierarchy is for potential
users. I am entitled to a vote, on request. Are you seriously suggested
that all those potential voters who agree with you should, and those who
don't, shouldn't?


Actually, I had no intention of taking part in a vote, but if you are
determined to vote against it, I would feel compelled to vote in favour.


Why?

Just because *you* think his reasons are invalid? You are, of course,
wrong about that. His reasons are as valid as any are likely to be.
More so than most.

In general, the *only* reasons which are considered *valid* for voting
against new newsgroups is the effect they will have on the rest of
usenet.

Although of course, there is absolutely no enforcement of that (how
could there be?), and people vote against for all sorts of reasons.


You have yet to explain why my reasons are invalid. I have a reasonably
in-depth knowledge of the workings of rsre, the regular contributors, the
traffic. Do you? It is my considered opinion that the potential dilution
could be bad for both groups, which will likely be covering identical
ground. I and others have explained why. That is perfectly valid
argumentation.


You don't seem to have thought this through. If your existing users are not
interested in using the new group, all they need to do is not vote. The new
group will fail to be created for lack of support. If it is created and
there are still insufficient new posters it will still fail. If it thrives,
that will be justification for its creation. If the new group thrives at
the expense of rsre, that will still justify its creation, but show that
rsre was already on the borderline. Both groups failing is an unlikely
scenario.


That is your opinion, and you are entitled to it.

But I think it is actually a quite likely scenario. Not the most
likely, which is that the uk group will never attract enough traffic
to be viable, while rsre is only reduced slightly. But probably the
second most likely scenario.

There will undoubtedly be some people who would otherwise have gone to
RSRE who will now go to the new uk group. I don't think that will be
many, and probably will not be enough to cause rsre to fail, but it
may well be enough to significantly reduce the usefulness of rsre.


Oh, and rsre is an excellent forum, if a little quiet during the summer
months (despite my efforts on the green stuff). Unlike some who have
suddenly taken an interest in this thread, I and most others who
contribute regularly to this forum actually practice the sport.


I see - and that is a pre-requisite for voting against the creation of
another forum?


Before voicing opinions at length, a little knowledge about the subject
does help, yes. Particularly as one of the main arguments against is
duplication, with two ngs potentially covering identical ground.


That is valid for two groups in the same hierarchy, but not for groups in
different hierarchies.


It is valid when so much of the potential readership is the same,
regardless of th fact that the hierarchies are different.

And most of the potential audience *is* the same. rsre is supposedly
multi-language, but in practice is almost entirely English-language.
Which means mostly people living in the UK, or ex-pats.

--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Never trust a computer you can't lift. - Stan Masor

To reply by email, my address is aDOTjDOTheneyATbtinternetDOTcom
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 05:12 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 SkiBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.