Re: New group??

[jreiter@comet.net (Jordan Reiter)]

In article <4umr26$64p@nnrp1.news.primenet.com>, johnlb@primenet.com (John
Bowling) wrote:

>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.

Anybody remember the bestselling book _All I need to know I learned in
Kindergarden_ that was popular in the 80s? I feel the same is true for
usenet and the internet in general.  Even if I am a complete idiot when it
comes to using computers, by following basic rules to life in general (be
polite, tell the truth, read the instructions, ask relevant, specific
questions if you are confused, etc.) then there would never be a problem. 
Most of the idiocy you see in most newsgroups is a reflection of people
unwilling to be polite and too lazy to read up before posting.  After all,
which would you rather read: a post by a person entering the Apple II
world for the first time who couldn't tell a 5.25" disk from Westphalian
pumpernickel with beluga caviar but politely and eagerly asks for
information, or a haughty, obscene, and self-riteous post from an avid
Apple II poster? The overall problem is not the fact that there are too
many new users, but that more and more of the internet community--old and
new--do not follow the basic rules which allow for effective, pleasant,
and productive communication.

Just my 2 centimes,
Toby Reiter
------------------------------------------
**Flame Fests lead to Flame feasts!!
**Resist the temptation: Don't feed Henrik!!