[Meta] POLL - RPE35mm Charter Amendments?

Discussion in '35mm Cameras' started by Simone Wellington, Jun 29, 2004.

  1. POLL - (2 questions with multiple parts. Please answer all parts)


    1) Would you support amendments to the rec.photo.equipment.35mm charter

    1A] ...not allow posts/replies from anonymous remailers/mail to news
    gateways? (Dizum has agreed to block any newsgroup with such a ban in
    their charter)

    { } Yes

    { } No


    1B] ...not allow posts/replies from Google Groups?

    { } Yes

    { } No


    1C] ...specifically not allow posts containing any FOR SALE notices,
    FOR AUCTION notices, FOR TRADE notices, or any other form of
    advertisements (personal or commercial)?

    { } Yes

    { } No


    1D] ...write the [SI] Shoot-in activity into the charter as an official
    rec.photo.equipment.35mm group activity?

    For those who do not know what the Shoot-in is, see-

    { } Yes, write it into the charter as long as Shoot-in posts are
    prefixed with an [SI] tag.

    { } No, do not allow the discussion of the Shoot-in in


    2) Would you support... (check all that apply)

    2A] ...turning rec.photo.equipment.35mm into a moderated group??

    { } Yes

    { } No


    2B] ...the creation of a new moderated group

    { } Yes

    { } No





    Please don't bite my head off, folks. I'm just trying to help and see
    how everyone really feels on the various points.

    -Simon Wellington
    Simone Wellington, Jun 29, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  2. Simone Wellington

    Matt Clara Guest

    The Dizum thing sounds like an excellent idea, the others are more fluff
    than anything else; that is, they may or may not change a thing around
    Matt Clara, Jun 29, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  3. Simone Wellington

    Steve Young Guest

    This is great news if a newsgroup may selectively decide not to allow posts from
    an anon gateway. Now if all others would follow step :)
    I'm mixed on this one. As long as the originating ISP addy sticks through, I'd
    say OK with Google, but no anon to/through Google.
    I'll start by saying NO auction posts/pointers. IMO, they don't bring
    discussion info along with them, such as price asked. Often this type of
    equipment brings prices, through the bidding, that we would never pay. And too,
    auctions have a tendency to bark a countdown. So there is no sense to them here.

    To me, For Sale & Trade is a different ball game
    (but I'll abide by a majority vote and henceforth carry the party line:)
    Group moderation is the wrong way to solve the problems IMHO
    It's only a man-hour absorbing sink/trap, and it doesn't help any other Usenet
    group. It may also irreparably change the tone of the group.
    see directly above
    I'll never bite off heads for asking constructive questions :)
    Steve Young, Jun 29, 2004
  4. Simone Wellington

    Colm Guest

    Colm, Jun 29, 2004
  5. 1) Would you support amendments to the rec.photo.equipment.35mm charter
    I would not participate in a moderated group, but neither would I vote
    against the creation of a new one.
    Richard Cockburn, Jun 29, 2004
  6. Simone Wellington

    Photodad2 Guest

    Yes. This will help with the SPAM.
    No. I don't see this as a problem.
    Yes. That's what the marketplace groups are for.
    Absolutely. This is one of the best parts of this group.
    Absolutely not. It isn't needed and would likely destroy the group.
    Mo. Why would you want one? I've been on usenet a long time and, IMHO,
    this group is not experiencing enough problems to even think about going
    moderated. Every group I've been a part of that went moderated quickly
    died. Let's not go there.

    As my Dad used to say, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

    Walt Hanks
    Photodad2, Jun 29, 2004
  7. Simone Wellington

    Lionel Guest

    Nice work Simon! How the hell did you pull that one off? :)
    {x} Undecided

    I initially thought it'd be worth banning the same stuff in RPD, but I
    went through my news spool & found that a significant percentage of
    Google posts there were legitimate, rather than troll posts. That said,
    I haven't done the same exercise for RPE35mm, so it may be worth banning
    them here.
    There's already a bunch of marketplace groups where such stuff is
    I love the Shoot-In. IMO, it encourages a feeling of community &
    valuable discussion of equipment & technique.
    {X} Undecided.
    {X} Undecided.
    Thanks for making the effort to help, Simon. You are very welcome to
    email me at this email address if you wish to discuss any of this stuff
    Lionel, Jun 29, 2004
  8. Simone Wellington

    Steve Young Guest

    (maybe more suck than you?;)

    Allow me to echo: *kudos* *guys*
    Steve Young, Jun 29, 2004
  9. Lionel, please check your e-mail. Thanks.

    -Simon Wellington
    Simone Wellington, Jun 29, 2004
  10. Simone Wellington

    Lionel Guest

    You should've gotten a return email from me by now. :) Please email me
    if you haven't received it.
    Lionel, Jun 29, 2004
  11. Simone Wellington

    Thad Guest

    Thad, Jun 29, 2004
  12. Simone Wellington

    Alan Browne Guest

    Google is a legitimate posting origin. I admit that it is also
    an appetizing vector for trolls. Having said that, I don't
    believe there are very many (any) regular legitimate posts from
    google... so i doubt it would really have an impact if not allowed.
    The current charter has the basis, just needs stronger, more
    specific wording as I suggested a couple weeks ago.

    Neither. No specific language regarding the SI is required (for
    or against). The SI participants are very consistent in their
    use of the [SI] prefix, as such, it is both easy to ignore and/or
    filter. That assholes like TP use the SI as an NG protest or
    attack against some of its participants is simple pettiness. He
    claims that it specifically is the reason that some NG posters
    have left, but I haven't seen any posts from legitiamte posters
    stating the SI itself is the sole reason.
    On the other hand I don't (can't really) object to the creation
    of a moderated group r.p.e.35mm.moderated but I doubt that it
    would be very active. It would die from lack of use.
    YES. Or rather, why not? er, I'm ambivalent.
    See 2A comments above.
    Good job.

    Alan Browne, Jun 29, 2004
  13. Simone Wellington

    Dallas Guest

    Simone Wellington said:

    Simon or Simone?

    Haven't seen you around here before. You seem to have a very healthy
    interest in a group you contibute absolutely nothing to. Hmm...
    Dallas, Jun 29, 2004
  14. Either is fine, thank you. My legal name is Simone. My friends call me
    Hi Dallas. I read the group daily. I frequently search the archives for
    information. I've made several contributions to the SI. I've offered my
    comments on some of the mandates. I've had my personal details
    broadcasted publicly. Am I not entitled to a voice? I am not trying to
    impose my will on anyone. The will of the majority is what counts. That
    is what this poll is all about.

    Regular contributors to this newsgroup have my full respect. In an effort
    to help preserve their integrity, I've initiated this poll.
    Simone Wellington, Jun 29, 2004
  15. My service provider does not include the Usenet server. I use Google
    for the newsgroups.
    Yes. They already have the newsgroups for those adverts.
    Leroy Jolicoeur, Jun 29, 2004
  16. Simone Wellington

    Bandicoot Guest

    This is a no brainer, and the point about Dizum at least is good news.
    Used by a few trolls, yes, but it is a legitimate means of posting for many
    newbies - the people we are here to help, right? - and for a number of
    people whose ISPs don't provide a proper news service.
    There are groups for these already, they clearly don't belong here and a
    specific ban might help mop up any regular offenders (if such a person ever
    materialised) even though 'one-off' cases will surely still happen.
    Not sure it needs to be written in, but it certainly shouldn't be banned.
    Mandating the [SI] tag if it is in is perhaps no bad thing, though it is
    pretty widely respected by posters anyway.

    I prefer the idea that the charter stated that SI-like activities were
    permissible, but should be indicated by an agreed filterable tag, rahter
    than making the SI and only the SI the one permanent exception: that would
    seem a hostage to fortune if some other good idea arose and was seen to be
    'banned' just because the SI was mentioned and it wasn't. It is also
    problematic if the SI evolves over time.
    Not necessary and would probably kill the group.
    Not bothered much - I doubt it would get much traffic (r.p.m. isn't that
    thrilling, after all).
    Definitely no biting: well done for starting a worthwhile discussion - after
    so many stupid threads about the charter from various nitwits, this was a
    brave start.

    Bandicoot, Jun 29, 2004
  17. Nevertheless, the group will not be satisfied until it is proven that you
    are not a witch (i.e. that you do not weight the same as a duck).
    Martin Francis, Jun 29, 2004
  18. Simone Wellington

    LEDMRVM Guest


    LEDMRVM, Jun 30, 2004
  19. Simone Wellington

    Bandicoot Guest

    Hey Martin, do you remember that business recently when someone or other was
    in court claiming they hadn't saved someone from drowning because they
    couldn't swim themsleves (not because they were stoned at the time) and then
    it was claimed that they could swim after all? I remember thinking that for
    the first time ever the old witch test would actually work: through him in
    the pool and if he drowned he was innocent...

    Bandicoot, Jun 30, 2004
  20. Simone Wellington

    Magnus W Guest

    Mixed feelings. Some posters only have access to Google groups, some don't
    know that there is anything else. OTOH some trolling would stop. OTTH
    "serious" trolls will not use google anyway.
    This is already in the charter, no?
    Simple: the group is for 35mm equipment. That does not mean "pictures taken
    with 35mm equipment" or "composition help" or whatever. Prefixed with [si]
    doesn't always work, just as people don't use "(was: Foo)" for subject
    changes inside a thread, "Meta"-designation for meta discussions (except
    for this thread ;-) and so on. If r.p.e.35mm users want a shoot-in, someone
    should construct a site for it, create a forum, and have a go at it there.
    It's not on-topic, however, and will never be (because the group name is so
    self explanatory I'm surprised that people don't get it). Sure, you can
    rewrite the charter and then it would technically be on-topic, but having
    the SI here is really about convenience: "it's too hard to go to another
    forum, mailing list, usenet group, create a site, etc etc, so it's easier
    if it stays here, because I'm here, and I want it". Veeeery bad motivation
    for a group/list to allow off-topic stuff.

    As the SI is a rpe35mm activity with rpe35mm people participating, by all
    means post monthly/weekly/whatever info about it, but the discussions
    should be kept out of the group IMO. Create a site with a forum, choose
    moderators, and you should even be troll- and TP-free. Wait, the latter is
    a subset of the first...
    Who would mod this mud?
    There is a rec.photo.moderated. It doesn't see much use.
    good work.
    Magnus W, Jun 30, 2004
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.