Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!udel!rochester!cornell!vax5.cit.cornell.edu!kxgj
From: kxgj@vax5.cit.cornell.edu
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.games
Subject: Re: ADMIN: "For sale" postings
Message-ID: <1991Apr8.144654.3905@vax5.cit.cornell.edu>
Date: 8 Apr 91 18:46:54 GMT
References: <8982@chorus.fr> <63474@bbn.BBN.COM> <1991Apr3.201752.21009@dg-rtp.
Distribution: comp
Organization: CIT, Cornell University
Lines: 75

In article <63589@bbn.BBN.COM>,
cosell@bbn.com (Bernie Cosell) writes:
> poirier@ellerbe.rtp.dg.com (Charles Poirier) writes:
>
> >but this is a place where theory fails us and
> >(anarchic) practice serves MUCH better.  I can think of no better place
> >to post a game-for-sale than to comp.sys.amiga.games, nor a hard disk
> >to .hardware, etc.
>
> A reasonable theory, but there was *plenty* of time for discussing this duri
> the reorg and this is *not* what was decided upon.  People voted to separate
> sales/wanted postings from other types of postings.  If you are calling
> for discussion of a re-reorg, you should say so explicitly.  To encourage
> people to abuse the organization we have now, is simply disruptive.
>
> Ah, but this is a bit disingenuous.  The reorganization was a VAST
> change, and changed a zillion things at once.  Not only was
> snipe-here/snipe-there tricky, but much of it was mostly a guess as to
> what would make sense.  With such a huge change, how could one have
> rationally argued in advance that one little change to the overall
> scheme would prove to work out better than some other little change
> after it all went into effect?  To presume that we could foresee
> precisely just how it would all turn out in practice is surely
> presumptuous, and an observation on how it all feels seems hardly out
> of line.

he also adds other possible reasons (specific) for allowing the posting
of forsale adds to all groups and asks again for specific reasons for
not allowing it.  Here's my $.02--

I personally do not think the 'other group postings' should be encouraged
(allowed, if you must) because I want to see the postings.  One of the
things I have liked most about the reorg. was the ability to go to one
group and what ggodies might be offered (boy I want disposable income  :-).
I was frustrated before having to look in *.sys, *.games, misc.forsale,
... for possible things to spend my money on.  Now, with all the groups,
encouraging many locations for posting guarantees that I will miss some
(many?) of the offers.  A second reason, - As has been pointed out,
the reorg. is new and needs some time for shaking out.  If you perceive
that marketplace is not working, maybe that will change with time
(I personally think that it is working pretty well--I have purchased my
first items through the net (hard drive, controller, perfect sound)
recently and it was convenient to search on location for comparison
deals, offers, ...).  If you promote/advertise that not using marketplace
is acceptable then you guarantee that it won't succeed.  I submit that
it might be better to hold off judgment (by suggesting actions contrary
to general net desires) until it has been demonstrated that there is a
need (longterm) to act differently than the (oh so odious) rules
'dictate'.  One last comment, the promoter of multiple group forsale
postings feels that having all items lumped together is a negative thing
because he you have to wade through a bunch of extraneous offers to get
to the thing you want whereas if all group postings were the norm, then
you could just go to the group you wanted (e.g. communications to look for
a modem for sale) and look there.  I find the argument weak because
you still have to wade through the non-forsale extraneous articles in the
other groups.  Also, if you are not sure what you want and are just looking
for good deals that cannot be passed up (That's how/why I made my recent
purchases), looking in all the groups is not really a valid approach.  Lastly,
if the extran. postings in forsale bothers one, that person could just do
a search for the given thing that person wants once he/she gets into
*.marketplace.  This has got to be easier than traversing the full *.amiga*
heirarchy.

In summary, you can want to abide by the rules and not be anal-retentive.
THere may be (usually are) reasons (valid) for the rules that a given
individual may not be aware of so blindly(?) promoting rules violations is
reckless (and inconsiderate) in my mind (it's odd for me to be
defending rules as I am a society 'hater' from way back).  One's use of
a given commodity that makes the rules cumbersome (looking for specific
products) might differ from anothers use (window shopping, just looking
to see what's available) that validates those rules.  Be careful when
suggesting 'anarchy' (bad word as this is NOT what was suggested) on a
topic that was voted on.  You may be in the minority.

Kirk