Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watnot!watmath!looking!brad
From: brad@looking.UUCP
Newsgroups: news.stargate
Subject: Re: Stargate is a hybrid, a broadcast common carrier
Message-ID: <769@looking.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 30-Mar-87 12:34:01 EST
Article-I.D.: looking.769
Posted: Mon Mar 30 12:34:01 1987
Date-Received: Tue, 31-Mar-87 05:29:10 EST
References: <1369@ncc.UUCP> <764@looking.UUCP> <18049@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <12738@watnot.UUCP>
Reply-To: brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton)
Organization: Looking Glass Software Ltd. Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 68

In article <12738@watnot.UUCP> ccplumb@watnot.UUCP (Colin Plumb) writes:
>The undesirable postings are the extended flames that some people post.
>We want to discourage them.
>
>The desirable postings (why I read netnews, and would pay for it if
>necessary) are the informative, well-thought-out ones.  Code.
>Bug fixes.  Reviews.  Advice.
>We want to encourage them.
>
>Why should a person who doesn't enjoy parading his/her opinions
>up and down (I refer to those somewhat more modest than myself)
>*pay* to contribute them?  The people who'd pay would be those
>who most strongly believe their opinions are right, and *that*
>is the definition of `fanatic.'
>	-Colin Plumb (watmath!watnot!ccplumb)

I don't know how often I can say this.

THE COLLECT POSTING METHOD IS AN INTEGRAL PART OF A POSTER PAYS SCHEME.
A GOOD FILTER IS ALSO PART.

While these systems could be done without if the cost for posting were
high (for example, anybody can 'post' to the New York Times if they want
to pay the advertising rates.  You rarely see flaming opinions, and if you
do, they cost enough and so are done well.  On the other hand, anybody
with something truly interesting to say [in the eyes of the editors] can
say it in the letters column.  And somebody with something fascinating will
actually get PAID to write something.) if you want a cheap poster-paid
posting then you need a good collect mechanism.

People posting interesting articles (like source code etc.) won't have to
pay the cost of sending them.  In fact, we might set up a system where
the default is that you get to post things collect.  Only the annoyances
and flamers would get shut out, at the request of the payers.  If you want
to be a common carrier, you have to take anything that doesn't violate the
law, but there is nothing that says that flamers can't be charged for the
cost of sending their diatribes.

In fact, with a good filter mechanism, you won't see an annoying flamer
even if they do pay.  That's up to you.

Note that we can go further.  If people write interesting articles, we can
actually PAY them to do so in such a network.  An article could be posted
with the condition, "to see this article, pay your share of the transmission
charges, plus a royalty of 25 cents."  For good postings (only from people
with reputations as very good posters) you would gladly pay the royalty.
Software postings.  Valuable reviews and reports, expert consulting etc.
Legal advice.

The opposite is a little harder.  We could set it up so that a flamer or
advertiser could pay YOU to read a posting, but there would be no real way
to find out if you actually read it, except your word, and too many people
would probably accept all the postings they get paid for and just copy them
to /dev/null.

The result of poster-pays, default collect:

Stuff you like is posted for free (or is paid for), you pay a minimal
fee to receive it, as the cost is distributed amongst all readers.

"Stuff you like" is defined as stuff you have stated you will accept, based
on fancy pattern matching on topic, keywords and articles, plus stuff from
moderators/editors that you like.

Stuff that nobody likes must be paid for by the person who posts it.
No censorship, just personal responsablity for what you post.
-- 
Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473