Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!cmcl2!rutgers!att!cbnews!military@att.att.com From: military@att.att.com (Bill Thacker, moderator) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: sci.military guidelines and etiquette Message-ID: <3327@cbnews.ATT.COM> Date: 21 Jan 89 02:03:58 GMT Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM Lines: 136 Approved: military@att.att.com Guidelines for sci.military (revised 1-20-89) 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 article rejected for inappropriate content, and save *me* a lot of headaches 8-) CHARTER: " sci.military Military sci. ; technology and related matters [moderated] " " More verbosely, sci.military is for the discussion of the technical " and technological side of military issues. Other facets, such as " history, tactics, and theory, are welcome to the extent that they " relate to technological matters. Similarly, policy and political " topics, such as arms control, are tolerated only as they impact " military issues (e.g., missile /ABM developmemts). " (from the sci.military Call for Votes) MODERATION: I intend to make my moderation as transparent as possible. When volume is low, I'll probably post virtually anything that is submitted; when volume is high, I may be more picky. I intend to adhere to my earlier suggestion: " The moderator would be responsible primarily for ensuring that " political debates do not rage unchecked; also, that person should " be sure that postings fit the group's definitions. For topics that " do not meet the requirements, the author can be referred to " soc.politics.arms-d or talk.politics, for example. It is acknowledged " that this is a fine line to tread; the moderator must use good " judgement and listen to feedback from the readers. I may accept for posting some "improper" topics from time to time; if the readership doesn't object, and volume permits, they will then become fair game. j ETIQUETTE: Experience with the group so far has prompted the following observations: 1) Try to be sure of the facts you post. In particular, be careful about designations, names, and acronyms. If you post an article about the "M2 Bradstone Fighting Vehicle", I'll guarantee you'll get a half-dozen email replies, and I'll get as many submissions, correcting your error. As moderator, I will put in a brief editorial note whenever I detect an error of this type; it tends to prevent the resultant flood. 2) Think twice before submitting a one- or two-line article. Are you simply offering a correction to a small error, pointing out some obvious point, or answering a simple question ? Odds are, several other people are even now submitting that same response. If you think this may be the case, wait a day or so; if you don't see someone else address your point, then go ahead and submit. Alternately, go ahead and answer the question, but expound upon it; give your article some "meat", so even if someone else beats you to the answer "C-130", your article will still be worth reading (and posting). 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 claims 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 20-30 articles daily, 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. 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 should be 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. ADDRESSES: Submissions to the newgroups should be mailed to "military@att.att.com"; most modern versions of news software should allow you to (F)ollowup to a posting, mailing your submission to me. Submissions to the mailing list should be sent to the same address, "military@att.att.com". General questions about either the group or the list should be sent to this address. Requests for addition/deletion from the List should be sent to "military-request@att.att.com", and include the keywords "pretty please with sugar on top" 8-) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 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