Xref: utzoo alt.aquaria:4224 news.groups:13313 Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!usc!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!psuvax1!psuvm!cunyvm.bitnet!nmbcu From: NMBCU@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU Newsgroups: alt.aquaria,news.groups Subject: Re: Call of votes - sci.aquaria (sort of moderated) Message-ID: <2604NMBCU@CUNYVM> Date: 16 Oct 89 15:01:38 GMT References: <20986@gryphon.COM> Organization: The City University of New York - New York, NY Lines: 88 DISCLAIMER: Author bears full responsibility for contents of this article In article <20986@gryphon.COM>, richard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton) says: >Since there was no clear cut resolution on the name issue >(public sentiment ran high against sci.aquaria in news.groups, >and in favour of rec.aquaria, while in my mailbox the opposite >was true, along with echos of ``I didn't want to post this >becasue I didn't want to get flamed'') I have decided to >go ahead and call for votes. In 2 days I post the results from my name survey. The sentiment from all the mail that I have received seems to be same as above. Those who are in favour of rec.* said they would vote against sci.*, but those that said they were in favour of sci.* never said that they were against rec.* and would vote no for rec.*. I don't seem to be getting anymore mail, and since you are calling for your vote now, perhaps I should post the results of that survey. I will say this, I was surprised at the light turn out. Based on the heated discussion in news.groups and alt.aquaria, I thought the name survey would have received a larger response (at least double of what it did receive). Oh well, I suppose everyone was worn out from the discussion and decided to just make thier No's and Yes's known at vote time. Just the same it was interesting and fun to hold the survey. >Some articles in alt.aquaria belong in a rec group, some >articles belong in a sci group. All alt.aquaria articles belong in a rec group, not a sci group. Especially not a moderated SCI group. >So how can a compromise be met ? >I propose then, to move alt.aquaria to sci.aquaria to ensure >world wide distribution. >I propose I will also act as an informal moderater in that >the group will not be moderated, but I will keep a close >eye on what is going around the world vs. what is kept >within North America. Technical articles should be allowed >to propogate worldwide. Requests such as ``what kind of >fish go good with pearl gouramis'' should be kept within >the continent. I call that censorship. Who are you to decide what goes where. If I post an article about Gouramis and give it a world wide distribution, then world wide distribution it is. What is this all of a sudden I'm living in a communist society. With big brother watching over my shoulder. Where are we? In China? Who are you, TASS? Spot any Aliens lately. "That's a joke son". >If in 6 months (and 12, and 18) the number of non-technical >articles with a Distribution: world line exceeds twenty five, >the group will become moderated. Probbaly with me as moderator, >although I have no problems with anybody else doing it. > Now you're saying that if there are 25 articles like the one about Gouramis, then the group will have to be moderated. Why? Because articles of that nature don't appeal to you? Why? Because they are not on your level of expertise, as far as Aquariums go? This ladies and gentleman is a farce. I urge all of you to vote NO, not because you dislike the name, but because of Richard's reason of why and when it should be moderated. SCI.* was controversial enough. Now we have what appears to be "I want you all to post what I like talking about, otherwise I won't let it get posted" moderation. A NO vote for this type of censorship is a YES vote for a free and uncensored aquaria newsgroup. >The vote begins Monday, October 16, 1989 at Midnight, and >ends, thirty days later on November 15, 1989 at midnight, when >the results will be tallied and posted. I have sent Richard my NO vote. For the following reasons: (A) More world wide access or not, aquaria belongs in the rec hierarchy, as it is more of a hobby than a science. (B) I do not wish to see this group moderated in any way. There is no reason for that. Nelson Broat P.S. - If the vote should pass. I think I will call for the discussion of rec.aquaria. An unmoderated group which would augment his group or put it out of business. :) "That may or may not be a joke sa-sa-son".