Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: Notesfiles $Revision: 1.7.0.10 $; site ndm20
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!convex!ndm20!tp
From: tp@ndm20
Newsgroups: net.jobs
Subject: Re: AI recruitment and etc.
Message-ID: <3900003@ndm20>
Date: Thu, 9-Jan-86 17:58:00 EST
Article-I.D.: ndm20.3900003
Posted: Thu Jan  9 17:58:00 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 17-Jan-86 02:36:52 EST
References: <2691@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Lines: 43
Nf-ID: #R:umcp-cs.UUCP:2691:ndm20:3900003:000:2241
Nf-From: ndm20!tp    Jan  9 16:58:00 1986


> ...
>Postings for job openings, items for sale, and the like, by third
>parties will be allowed, as long as the total volume does not exceed
>some threshold.  (One article per day, netwide, might be one possibility
>for the threshold.)  When the average volume over a one-month period
>exceeds this threshold, the privilege is cancelled, and no more third
>party postings at all will be permitted.
>
>	Mark Horton

And then we come back to "How do you enforce this?"  I don't see that
you can.  If mdee's feed doesn't cut her off, what can you do?  There
is no authority here.   You  can promote  a policy  and badger people
into keeping it.  That is how the net currently does things.   But if
you grant a privilege, you  set a  precedent.   You won't  be able to
cancel it.  

I suggest if we are to  adopt guidelines,  they must  be adopted from
the start in a form we believe to be sufficient  for the  future.  As
such, I'd go back to the criteria for net.announce in  coming up with
such a guideline:  the  message should  be of  more value  to the net
than the poster (someone else just made this point, but nobody seemed
to notice).  

mdee's message seems to me to violate this, as it doesn't give enough
info for a prospective job candidate to evaluate the  position.  Thus
it is a lure to get people on the phone.   She cannot  of course post
the name of the company, as she'd lose her commission  (who'd be fool
enough to call her if they could go direct to the  company?), but she
should post more details (location,  nature of  work, etc.)   so that
people  could  make  an  intelligent  decision  on  whether they were
interested.  The article as posted is merely an ad, but it could have
been posted in a form that would have  been perfectly  valid for this
newsgroup.  

The form of her message leads  me to  wonder whether  this job exists
(she could just be trying to get a line on people of  a specified set
of qualifications) or even if it does, if it was  purposely stated in
such a way as to draw an excess number of inquiries.  If such was the
intent, it seems obvious to me that this  is misuse  of the  net.  If
the item were  more informative,  it would  leave less  room for such
interpretations of its intent.