Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!att!cbnews!military From: military@att.att.com (Bill Thacker, moderator) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: sci.military guidelines and etiquette Message-ID: <11485@cbnews.ATT.COM> Date: 17 Nov 89 06:09:38 GMT Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM Lines: 135 Approved: military@att.att.com From: military@att.att.com (Bill Thacker, moderator) Guidelines for sci.military (revised 5-10-89) Following is a set of guidelines for using sci.military. By observing these guidelines, you will help maintain the overall quality of the newsgroup, avoid having articles rejected for inappropriate content, and save *me* a lot of headaches 8-) CHARTER: sci.military exists for the discussion of military technology and related subjects. Certain peripheral topics, including history, tactics, organization, and theory, are welcome to a limited extent, but are considered "guests" in the "sci" heirarchy; such postings should be factual, interesting, and as brief as possible, and will be rejected if they are in any way imflammatory. Arms control discussions properly belong in soc.politics.arms-d, and are not appreciated here. MODERATION: My main goal as moderator is to keep the newsgroup flame-free and interesting. I also attempt to weed out redundant postings as much as possible; my criterion is that unless a posting adds new information to the dicussion, it's not worth posting. I do, from time to time, insert in brackets ( [] ) moderator notes. These may attempt to clarify a question, or head off possible flames resulting from imprecise wording. Often, I will answer simple questions (e.g., "What is the name of the M1 tank ?" ) simply to prevent a flood of answers from the readership. Finally, as I enjoy contributing, myself, I sometimes use this method to "followup" an article. I feel this makes for somewhat faster-paced discussions, and saves a bit of bandwidth. If I reject a submission, I *always* attempt to reply to the author, explaining my reasoning. If you submit an article and don't see it posted, and haven't gotten mail from me, you can assume it's been lost in the works, not rejected. All my moderation policies are subject to debate; as they now exist, they are simply my impression of what makes an enjoyable newsgroup for the readership. I welcome any comment, good or bad, as to my procedures. ETIQUETTE: Experience with the group so far has prompted the following observations: 1) Try to be sure of the facts you post. The readers here are very sharp, and I'll get a barrage of postings correcting any mistake. 2) Think twice before submitting a one- or two-line article. If your article says little, there's a good chance someone else will say it before you. You might consider expounding a bit, which will make the article more interesting, and less likely to be rejected for redundancy. 3) Be VERY CAREFUL about political content. By no means should you be intentionally abrasive; try to stick to established facts, and state them rationally. Only mention politics when it directly affects the technological discussion. I will be very strict on this issue; unsupported opinions and unnecessary political content will result in my returning your article for revision, delaying its posting by several days. 4) If I reject your submission, don't take it personally; it's not meant that way. I'll try to briefly explain my reasoning, and suggest changes to make the article more suitable. If I seem terse or gruff, please understand that it's because I'm trying to process many articles each day, and I like to do it as quickly as possible. REFERENCES: The content of this newsgroup will be relatively technical, filled with facts and figures that are not considered common knowledge. When possible, I urge posters to include references and other resources. Also, don't forget that interests vary, and not everyone will be familiar with all the technical jargon and acronyms you may mention. FAIR USE: It is illegal to quote in entirety a copyrighted work, unless written permission from the copyright holder has been obtained. Please, don't send in articles transcribed from published sources without such permission; instead, paraphrase them into your own words and quote only the most significant passages. SECURITY: I possess no US Government security clearance, nor have I ever applied for one. I am unqualified to deduce whether submitted materials are, in fact, military secrets or otherwise classifed. Knowing that many of those subscribing to the Net have access to classified information, I urge all posters to double-check their submissions; let's not have anyone get into trouble over this group. GROUP -vs- LIST: The military discussion is carried on in two forums (fora ?): the Usenet newsgroup "sci.military", and a private mailing list. The latter has been added at the request of ARPANet readers; all materials posted to sci.military will be broadcast to the List, as well. Further, submissions to the List will be posted to the newsgroup. Thus, there is no need to join both the List and the group; if you can subscribe to the newsgroup, you needn't sign up for the List. Mail to the mailing list is in the form of a daily digest, mailed every day but Saturday. Unfortunately for those on the list, I have little skill or patience for tracking down snags in mail-paths. Too, I find that many machines have a tendency to go off the "air" for short periods. I therefore make no attempt to re-send bounced digests. I do, however, archive old mail digests, so that, should you miss one or more copies, just write me, and I'll forward it to you. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Bill Thacker moderator, sci.military military@att.att.com "War is a matter of vital importance to the State; the province of life or death; the road to survival or ruin. It is mandatory that it be thoroughly studied." - Sun Tzu