Re: New group??

[johnlb@primenet.com (John Bowling)]

In article <4ulpcc$8tn@gap.cco.caltech.edu>,
Nathan Mates <nathan@cco.caltech.edu> wrote:
>In article <4ujtr3$j4o@nnrp1.news.primenet.com>,
>John Bowling <johnlb@primenet.com> wrote:
>>Interesting point, considering that the reality of having a driver's
>>neither gives anyone any kind of guarantee that the driver knows anything
>>about driving or that they are willing to go along with any rules.  
>
>   I don't know how it is in your state, but California requires a
>written and driving test to get a license. At a minimum, you can be
>sure that they didn't kill (or paid off) the instructor, and got at
>least 35/40 multiple choice questions right. [The odds of pulling that
>stunt by guessing is in the ballpark of 10^-18, something considered
>pretty darn impossible to.]

Every state has some form written and driving test to get a license.
Some have only 20 questions, and only require 15 right.
They don't, however, in any state, ever test anyone after the first time,
and people *do* forget (or ignore) rules.  And judging by the way new
drivers in Az drive, the test has gotten easier to pass.

>   What it does guarantee is that they are _supposed_ to know the
>rules, and can therefore be found at fault when they

40 questions can attest to someone's knowing over 200 rules?

>misbehave. Basically, licensing is an implicit contract saying "I know
>what the rules of the road are, and am liable if I break them." Little

With the current state of enforcement everywhere, it's more "Sure I know,
but I've gotten away with this everyday for 5 years, so why start doing
it right now?"

>stuff like what a red light is and what side of the road to drive on.
>Even if people do muck up, they are responsible for their actions, and
>can't try and claim ignorance about the laws.
>
>   An "Internet Driver's License" could concievably cover stuff like
>huge .sigs, inappropriate posts (off topic stuff and the %*%@$@
>illegal 'Make Money Fast by putting your name on a scan and sending it
>to the world' posts), etc. If they've got a license and misbehave) people
>will be free to flame them for breaking the guidelines which they are
>responsible for knowing about.

We're not free to flame them now?
I agree that something needs to be done, but imitating a broken process
will not do it!

I will also add to your list of flame bait those who try to foist their
beliefs off on others.  In some newsgroups, religious kooks are the vast
majority of the spammers.

>   Other ideas from this internet old-timer (with the net doubling every
>8-12 months, anyone here more than 2 years is an old timer) are:
>1) Preventing people from posting in a newsgroup until they read the
>FAQ,

This would require at least weekly posting of the FAQ, and possibly daily
posting of where it is kept, for *every* newsgroup that has one.
And what of newsgroups that don't?

I suggested to someone else who thought a post of mine was inappropriate
(in a bicyling newsgroup [it wasn't inappropriate]) the above, and that
an even better way would be to post a brief statement of what was
appropriate to the news group, and that the netiquette portion of most
FAQs *not* be placed in each and every FAQ, but only a pointer to where
it is.  I have gotten tired of reading FAQs which mostly reiterate some
generic info and say little about the specific newsgroup.  And like
many of people, probably won't read the FAQ on any other newsgroups I
join.

>      2) Preventing people from posting their first week to 6 months
>on a group until they get a proper sense of what the heck is on topic,
>3) Internet 'clue patrols' that punish (prevent from posting?) people
>who break the guidelines for groups, etc.

A form of moderation?  Why not take away their license?  Impound their
keyboard.  Require a breathalizer test?

>   The internet was formed by people with a clue who (generally)
>behaved.  Now, even if the precentage of clueless folks is the same,
>they're joining the net in record droves, making them more and more
>prevalent.

And, like driving rules enforcement, you're never going to get them to
behave!  And if the current set of newbies see the light, in three months
there's a new set to train.  And most of them couldn't pass a simple test.

John

--
--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--
- John Bowling          -- Shouldn't you be commuting by bicycle?
- johnlb@primenet.com   -- No, that's not a valid excuse!
--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--