Act Acting » Voice Acting » Dan Driscoll: Questions about the FAQ

Dan Driscoll: Questions about the FAQ

Question:

–snip – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text —– I don’t buy all these controlling and oppressive systems, where newbies have no freedoms at all … You have often implied — and here you have stated clearly — that there are "controlling and oppressive systems" in place "where newbies have no freedoms at all." Could you please cite them?  Any one of them will do. — Felicity, you’re the one who made the statement.  I merely asked for clarification.  And I will keep asking until I get an answer.

lol – I’ll ignore you!!  I’ll talk over..I’ll talk over you..I’ll talk over you..I’ll talk over you..I’ll talk over you..I’ll talk over I barely remember typing it Randy, so I’m surprised you pick up on something that was just a throw away comment in response to Eric comment about competition, capitalism and the implication of freedoms etc e tfc You want me to give an example of a controlling and/or oppressive "system" that typically operates in the "free" western world? You want just one of example???  is that all? Ok- your business – THE MEDIA. I’m sure I don’t need to explain the reasons for that choice, and I’m sure you’re not interested in the others ones, – you can work out what they are. — F.

Response:

No, Felicity, this is not "bait and inflame."  It’s a simple question.  And would you fucking stop trying to read into my posts what you believe my motives to be.  You don’t know shit about me or what my motives are. I didn’t bait you into anything.  I was trying to explore reasonable options with you.  You made a statement.  I asked you about it.  You ignored the question. S T O P    C H A N G I N G    T H E     S U B J E C T  ! ! ! ! ! We’ll now try this a THIRD time… —- I don’t buy all these controlling and oppressive systems, where newbies have no freedoms at all …

You have often implied — and here you have stated clearly — that there are "controlling and oppressive systems" in place "where newbies have no freedoms at all." Could you please cite them?  Any one of them will do. — Felicity, you’re the one who made the statement.  I merely asked for clarification.  And I will keep asking until I get an answer. Randy RSG-ATLANTA Information:  http://www.YouGoGolf.com/rsg-atlanta.htm My RSG Roll Call profile:  http://u1.netgate.net/~kirby34/rsg/brownr.htm RSG FAQ:  http://ttsoft.com/thor/rsggolf.html Voiceovers/Narration/Voice Acting:  www.RandyBrownProductions.com To e-mail me, go to my website at www.YouGoGolf.com and find the link.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – You conveniently clipped a portion of my article. Allow me to repost it again.  I would appreciate a response this time… I don’t buy all these controlling and oppressive systems, where newbies have no freedoms at all … You have often implied — and here you have stated clearly — that there are "controlling and oppressive systems" in place "where newbies have no freedoms at all." Could you please cite them?  Any one of them will do. I suspect you’re in one of your bait and inflame moods again Randy (hence this post and perhaps this thread). Do you really want me to spell it all out again? You know very well what they’re like. — F.

Response:

<snip Forgive me if my news service is missing something, and forgive me if this thought seems a bit crazy, but why isn’t there a rec.sport.golf.marketplace? Makes sense, doesn’t it? Yes it does.  That’s why there is alt.golf.forsale .

Heh. Didn’t even see that one. I’d think, though I could be completely wrong, that having a "marketplace" group in the same hierarchy as RSG would be more effective than having an alt group. My newsreader only shows 26 posts in there at the moment. <shrugs Anyway, I know what a touchy subject the whole "for sale" thing is around here, and the last thing I want to do is become a part of it. Thanks for pointing out alt.golf.forsale to me. Maybe it will be useful.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – : :: I would have thought that the charter could be reviewed and fleshed out :: a bit, given the passage of time? : :Not in the Big 8 hierarchies.  Once the group and charter are :voted on and approved, the only way to change the charter is :to remove the group and start over. : : Thanks Chris.   : : I assume you agree with the rest of my post, particularly that sections : of the FAQ can not be official rules in themselves at all; they must be : in the charter too? I suppose I agree with this statement, but I fail to see what difference it makes.  Many ISPs forbid commercial posts to non-commercial groups anyway, so whatever we might decide is "official" in RSG doesn’t really matter.  The basis for com- plaining about advertising here may not be where some thought it was, but it still exists.

It’s in the FAQ (frequently asked questions) and *not* the actual charter.  It’s fluid and others could be easily created if anyone chose to do so. I have no ambitions BTW, but some here do point to "rules" while kicking innocent posters just because they suspect something commercial, as if This could not be further from reality. Their "rules" evidently are *NOT* written in anything resembling stone.  Sand perhaps…  maybe in a sand trap, which, of course, needs raking from time to time. That’s all. — F.

Response:

You conveniently clipped a portion of my article. Allow me to repost it again.  I would appreciate a response this time… I don’t buy all these controlling and oppressive systems, where newbies have no freedoms at all … You have often implied — and here you have stated clearly — that there are "controlling and oppressive systems" in place "where newbies have no freedoms at all." Could you please cite them?  Any one of them will do.

I suspect you’re in one of your bait and inflame moods again Randy (hence this post and perhaps this thread). Do you really want me to spell it all out again? You know very well what they’re like. — F.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – <snip ..but I would assume that any answer within the FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions) to the last question "Can I post adverts here?", must reflect what is in the charter, otherwise it would be false. May I inquire as to why you seem so intent on getting more advertising into the group? How, exactly, do you perceive that would enhance the RSG experience? <snip Ohhh … it’s *this* issue again. Damn. I wish I had never posted to this thread now. Forgive me if my news service is missing something, and forgive me if this thought seems a bit crazy, but why isn’t there a rec.sport.golf.marketplace? Makes sense, doesn’t it?

Yes it does.  That’s why there is alt.golf.forsale .

Response:

You conveniently clipped a portion of my article. Allow me to repost it again.  I would appreciate a response this time… I don’t buy all these controlling and oppressive systems, where newbies have no freedoms at all …

You have often implied — and here you have stated clearly — that there are "controlling and oppressive systems" in place "where newbies have no freedoms at all." Could you please cite them?  Any one of them will do. Randy RSG-ATLANTA Information:  http://www.YouGoGolf.com/rsg-atlanta.htm My RSG Roll Call profile:  http://u1.netgate.net/~kirby34/rsg/brownr.htm RSG FAQ:  http://ttsoft.com/thor/rsggolf.html Voiceovers/Narration/Voice Acting:  www.RandyBrownProductions.com To e-mail me, go to my website at www.YouGoGolf.com and find the link.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – "Felicity Lodge" wrote Ideally one universally agreed FAQ would be best, IMHO. I agree that ONE FAQ is the better plan.  But to get "universal" agreement is quite impossible.  You’ll never get a unanimous vote on anything.  You could put it up to a vote on whether water is wet, and someone would vote no.  You don’t need "universal agreement."  It should be enough that "most" people agree.  The only problem I see is that none of the statements in the FAQ’s rules governing behavior have ever been put up for a vote.  And frankly, I’m not sure how you would do it. But Felicity, I ask you:  if it ever *were* put up for a vote, would you be willing to go along with the majority?  Or would you continue to nit-pick over what you don’t like about the majority’s decision?  This, it seems to me, is the ultimate question for you.  You keep saying the majority is on your side.  Maybe they are, maybe they aren’t.  Are you willing to go along with a vote? Yes of course but don’t forget, you know very well that majority have not been the problem in RSG – certainly not since i joined last Nov, but a tiny minority of spam cops who used all means in front of their audiences that would gain approval from them. There sees too, to have been this misplaced idea that throwing rotten fruit at those whose opinion is at variance, or claim to take a different line from the vocal few, are best dealt with in that particular way….it really doesn’t work that way IMO…  actually, if it did i wouldn’t be here, still posting now, would I? — F.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -"Felicity Lodge" wrote Ideally one universally agreed FAQ would be best, IMHO. I agree that ONE FAQ is the better plan.  But to get "universal" agreement is quite impossible.  You’ll never get a unanimous vote on anything.  You could put it up to a vote on whether water is wet, and someone would vote no.  You don’t need "universal agreement."  It should be enough that "most" people agree.  The only problem I see is that none of the statements in the FAQ’s rules governing behavior have ever been put up for a vote.  And frankly, I’m not sure how you would do it. But Felicity, I ask you:  if it ever *were* put up for a vote, would you be willing to go along with the majority?  Or would you continue to nit-pick over what you don’t like about the majority’s decision?  This, it seems to me, is the ultimate question for you.  You keep saying the majority is on your side.  Maybe they are, maybe they aren’t.  Are you willing to go along with a vote?

Yes of course but don’t forget, you know very well that majority have not been the problem in RSG – certainly not since i joined last Nov, but a tiny minority of spam cops who used all means in front of their audiences that would gain approval from them. There sees too, to have been this misplaced idea that throwing rotten fruit at those whose opinion is at variance, or claim to take a different line from the vocal few, are best dealt with in that particular way….it really doesn’t work that way IMO…  actually, if it did i wouldn’t be here, still posting now, would I? — F.

Response:

"Felicity Lodge" wrote Ideally one universally agreed FAQ would be best, IMHO.

I agree that ONE FAQ is the better plan.  But to get "universal" agreement is quite impossible.  You’ll never get a unanimous vote on anything.  You could put it up to a vote on whether water is wet, and someone would vote no.  You don’t need "universal agreement."  It should be enough that "most" people agree.  The only problem I see is that none of the statements in the FAQ’s rules governing behavior have ever been put up for a vote.  And frankly, I’m not sure how you would do it. But Felicity, I ask you:  if it ever *were* put up for a vote, would you be willing to go along with the majority?  Or would you continue to nit-pick over what you don’t like about the majority’s decision?  This, it seems to me, is the ultimate question for you.  You keep saying the majority is on your side.  Maybe they are, maybe they aren’t.  Are you willing to go along with a vote? Dan?  Is this possible? I think that freedoms, especially of expression and to choose for oneself, are widely overlooked, but OTOH I feel a few minimal and non-interfering checks and balances, here and there, shouldn’t be underestimated in a caring, civilised world.

My only point in raising this whole issue is this: Why even *have* rules about spam in the FAQ when they’re (a.) nothing more than one person’s opinion and expressed will, and (b.) they’re entirely unenforcable?  Seems to me like an exercise in mental masturbation.  Every reputable ISP in the world has rules governing spam in their Terms of Service and/or Acceptable Usage Policies.  We always end up turning to them for enforcement anyway, so what purpose does it serve to include "rules" governing this in the FAQ? All that can really be said in the FAQ about it is, "most members of the group have expressed a desire that advertising and spam not be posted." Most members of the group would also like to find a million dollars slipped under their door in the morning, but expressing their will about it in a document doesn’t mean a damn thing. To frame the point in a political context that we’re all familiar with:  why pass a law that’s unenforcable to prohibit a certain activity when there are already enforcable laws on the books that deal with precisely the same activity?  It seems redundant and silly to me. Perhaps more importantly, why tell spammers that the reason their spam is unacceptable is because it’s prohibited in the group’s FAQ when the FAQ itself is a non-binding document that serves no other purpose in this context than to express the will of *some* (or even *most*) of the participants?  It’s non-binding and unenforcable.  Wouldn’t it be more effective and meaningful to frame one’s objections to spam posts by stating that the articles posted are a violation of AUP and TOS of the poster’s ISP? Though the FAQ carries no weight in this context, the violator is clearly subject to reprimand, and ultimately termination of service, if he continues to violate the terms of his ISP’s service and Acceptable Usage Policies. Why not rely on that instead of an impotent expression of the group’s desire in an FAQ that it seems to me would be better focused on Frequently Asked Questions ABOUT GOLF. FOCUS, PEOPLE! I don’t buy all these controlling and oppressive systems, where newbies have no freedoms at all …

You have often implied — and here you have stated clearly — that there are "controlling and oppressive systems" in place "where newbies have no freedoms at all." Could you please cite them?  Any one of them will do. Randy

Response:

–snip This is a little silly. The FAQ in question remains the "official" one of RSG until the community at large decided there is a better one to refer people to, until the charter is changed (is it referred to in the charter?), until the FAQ is taken down, or any other set of circumstances that make it no longer "official." There is nothing stopping other FAQs from being written and adopted by the group, either. Write your own and post pointers to it.

Ideally one universally agreed FAQ would be best, IMHO. —snip If you don’t like the idea of *who* maintains the most widely accepted FAQ, I’d suggest you craft a superior FAQ and point people to it. "Capitalism" will go to work and the best one will win, eh?

I think that freedoms, especially of expression and to choose for oneself, are widely overlooked, but OTOH I feel a few minimal and non- interfering checks and balances, here and there, shouldn’t be underestimated in a caring, civilised world.  I don’t buy all these controlling and oppressive systems, where newbies have no freedoms at all … — F.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – May I inquire as to why you seem so intent on getting more advertising into the group? How, exactly, do you perceive that would enhance the RSG experience? Have you ever been to a newsgroup where spam is rampant and out of control? Pretty soon, that’s all you see in some of those newsgroups.  They’re ghost towns, with nothing but "adverts," as you like to call them.  You’ll see fifty "adverts" for every post containing "content." How would heading down that path possibly improve RSG?  Or is that what you’re wanting to do — kill RSG?

By my rough reckoning RSG is not far from 50 posts of nonsense to every post containing golf content what with the endless "what constitutes an advert" threads to "you said this/no you said that" bickering and now pathetic diatribes on American politics. Crispin Roche

Response:

"Eric San Juan" wrote If there’s a personal agenda here, I’d rather not get involved with it.

Let me make this very clear to you and Mr. Driscoll.  I have no personal agenda here.  I respect Mr. Driscoll, and I stated in the original post that I commend his work in updating and maintaining the document.  In point of fact, if you scroll down far enough on the FAQ document, you’ll find my name on it.  Mr. Driscoll solicited my input when he first took ownership of it and he received it from me then.  I have no complaints about what is contained in the document, per se. Dan owes no one any apologies for what is contained in the document or for his own process of evolving its content.  I merely thought it was a good idea to get it out on the table exactly what it all means, considering the recent thread on "content appropriateness." I always have and always will have a problem with censorship.  And I don’t approve when any one person — whether it’s Dan Driscoll, Felicity Lodge or myself — tries to impose their own set of rules on a group of people and then pretends as if their stated rules carry some weight, when in fact, they do not. Compliance is voluntary.  And until such time that someone’s content posted here is in violation of their own ISP’s Terms of Service or Acceptable Use Policies, it’s all nothing but a wish list.  That should be made clear. Therefore, I can’t help wondering whether inclusion of these "rules" in the FAQ is even necessary.  Is it not already stated in everyone’s ISP’s TOS and AUP? It’s kind of like the old political question:  why pass a new law when the laws already on the books cover the crime? If you don’t like the idea of *who* maintains the most widely accepted FAQ, I’d suggest you craft a superior FAQ and point people to it. "Capitalism" will go to work and the best one will win, eh?

I absolutely do NOT have a problem with *who* is maintaining it.  I think Dan does a fantastic job.  I salute his initiative in taking on the project. There is no competition here.  I have no desire to draw up an FAQ and try to "win" ANYTHING. I just thought it was curious that the document was copyrighted.  Probably just ignorance on my part for finding it odd.  Still, I remain concerned about any one person (Dan or anyone else) having so much control (however "official" or "unofficial" it is) over such a large and diverse group. Randy

Response:

: :: I would have thought that the charter could be reviewed and fleshed out :: a bit, given the passage of time? : :Not in the Big 8 hierarchies.  Once the group and charter are :voted on and approved, the only way to change the charter is :to remove the group and start over. : : Thanks Chris.   : : I assume you agree with the rest of my post, particularly that sections : of the FAQ can not be official rules in themselves at all; they must be : in the charter too? I suppose I agree with this statement, but I fail to see what difference it makes.  Many ISPs forbid commercial posts to non-commercial groups anyway, so whatever we might decide is "official" in RSG doesn’t really matter.  The basis for com- plaining about advertising here may not be where some thought it was, but it still exists. cb

Response:

It strikes me as curious that you’ve opted to COPYRIGHT the rec.sport.golf FAQ document.  I’d seen the FAQ a number of times before, and I guess I’d just never noticed until now. This does raise quite a few questions: 1.  Who owns the FAQ?  Maybe I’m naive, but I always thought it was a public document, "owned," in a manner of speaking, by all of us who participate in RSG, and merely "maintained" by you, much like the curator of a museum maintains the exhibits.

The answer to this, as well as the same question rephrased below several time, is that the person who wrote the FAQ is the person who owns it, or if it was passed to him with the original writer’s good graces. He is well within his write to inlcude a copyright notice because he wrote the FAQ. If one were to take his FAQ and place their name on it, that would be plagerism. It is, in fact, automatically copyrighted with or without the notice. The notice simply serves as just that – notice. 2.  If, as I suspect the copyright implies, YOU own the FAQ, will your children own the RSG FAQ it when you die?  Is the ultimate control over RSG’s "official code of conduct" now strictly a Driscoll family asset until such time that you relinquish ownership of it to someone else?

This is a little silly. The FAQ in question remains the "official" one of RSG until the community at large decided there is a better one to refer people to, until the charter is changed (is it referred to in the charter?), until the FAQ is taken down, or any other set of circumstances that make it no longer "official." There is nothing stopping other FAQs from being written and adopted by the group, either. Write your own and post pointers to it. The newsgroup "rules" outlined within the FAQ mirror the FAQ for virtually every other rec group to a tee, no pun intended. There is nothing unusual about them in the least. 3.  Other than having the personal initiative to take on this task, what gives one person the right to hold this type of control?

He wrote it. It’s his work. <snip If there’s a personal agenda here, I’d rather not get involved with it. Who and how the newsgroup is "controlled" (erm, yeah) is, well … no comment. But as far as copyright is concerned, the FAQ being copyrighted by its author is a common practice you will see followed almost across the board. If you don’t like the idea of *who* maintains the most widely accepted FAQ, I’d suggest you craft a superior FAQ and point people to it. "Capitalism" will go to work and the best one will win, eh?

Response:

<snip ..but I would assume that any answer within the FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions) to the last question "Can I post adverts here?", must reflect what is in the charter, otherwise it would be false. May I inquire as to why you seem so intent on getting more advertising into the group? How, exactly, do you perceive that would enhance the RSG experience?

<snip Ohhh … it’s *this* issue again. Damn. I wish I had never posted to this thread now. Forgive me if my news service is missing something, and forgive me if this thought seems a bit crazy, but why isn’t there a rec.sport.golf.marketplace? Makes sense, doesn’t it?

Response:

May I inquire as to why you seem so intent on getting more advertising into the group?

I’m not!  The question was raised in another thread started by Dan Driscoll and seems have been raised here too by you. How, exactly, do you perceive that would enhance the RSG experience?

I don’t.  It could be a bad thing, but I haven’t closed my mind one way or the other. Have you ever been to a newsgroup where spam is rampant and out of control?

yes Pretty soon, that’s all you see in some of those newsgroups.  They’re ghost towns, with nothing but "adverts," as you like to call them.  You’ll see fifty "adverts" for every post containing "content." How would heading down that path possibly improve RSG?  

it’s a golf group. i can’t see it myself, but I could be wrong..doubt it. Or is that what you’re wanting to do — kill RSG?

eh? I’ve learnt a lot in here and enjoy the group now it’s settling down after all the wasted bandwidth caused by the obsessed anti-spam people. You know my views Randy. — F.

Response:

{cut for brevity} BTW, the section regarding adverts in uk.sport.golf *is* in the *CHARTER*, and *not* the FAQ which I think contains the "Frequently Asked Questions", as it should!  I’m sure it’s not an artificial vehicle for current subscribers, at any particular moment in time, to come in and try to change the rules. I assume in RSG in the past, that some individuals decided they fancied changing or adding to the charter, had problems, and so just added to the FAQ??? Is this how the parts covering adverts etc ended up in the FAQ?

It is fairly common for newsgroup FAQs to contain the answer to the frequently asked questions "What can I post in this newsgroup?" and "Can I post adverts here?"  Nothing more sinister than that. Crispin Roche

Response:

: I would have thought that the charter could be reviewed and fleshed out : a bit, given the passage of time? Not in the Big 8 hierarchies.  Once the group and charter are voted on and approved, the only way to change the charter is to remove the group and start over. cb

Response:

Don’t tempt her. Randy

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – : I would have thought that the charter could be reviewed and fleshed out : a bit, given the passage of time? Not in the Big 8 hierarchies.  Once the group and charter are voted on and approved, the only way to change the charter is to remove the group and start over. cb

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – {cut for brevity} BTW, the section regarding adverts in uk.sport.golf *is* in the *CHARTER*, and *not* the FAQ which I think contains the "Frequently Asked Questions", as it should!  I’m sure it’s not an artificial vehicle for current subscribers, at any particular moment in time, to come in and try to change the rules. I assume in RSG in the past, that some individuals decided they fancied changing or adding to the charter, had problems, and so just added to the FAQ??? Is this how the parts covering adverts etc ended up in the FAQ? It is fairly common for newsgroup FAQs to contain the answer to the frequently asked questions "What can I post in this newsgroup?" and "Can I post adverts here?"  Nothing more sinister than that.

..but I would assume that any answer within the FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions) to the last question "Can I post adverts here?", must reflect what is in the charter, otherwise it would be false. — F.

Response:

May I inquire as to why you seem so intent on getting more advertising into the group? How, exactly, do you perceive that would enhance the RSG experience? Have you ever been to a newsgroup where spam is rampant and out of control? Pretty soon, that’s all you see in some of those newsgroups.  They’re ghost towns, with nothing but "adverts," as you like to call them.  You’ll see fifty "adverts" for every post containing "content." How would heading down that path possibly improve RSG?  Or is that what you’re wanting to do — kill RSG? Randy

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – {cut for brevity} BTW, the section regarding adverts in uk.sport.golf *is* in the *CHARTER*, and *not* the FAQ which I think contains the "Frequently Asked Questions", as it should!  I’m sure it’s not an artificial vehicle for current subscribers, at any particular moment in time, to come in and try to change the rules. I assume in RSG in the past, that some individuals decided they fancied changing or adding to the charter, had problems, and so just added to the FAQ??? Is this how the parts covering adverts etc ended up in the FAQ? It is fairly common for newsgroup FAQs to contain the answer to the frequently asked questions "What can I post in this newsgroup?" and "Can I post adverts here?"  Nothing more sinister than that. ..but I would assume that any answer within the FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions) to the last question "Can I post adverts here?", must reflect what is in the charter, otherwise it would be false. — F.

Response:

: I would have thought that the charter could be reviewed and fleshed out : a bit, given the passage of time? Not in the Big 8 hierarchies.  Once the group and charter are voted on and approved, the only way to change the charter is to remove the group and start over.

Thanks Chris.   I assume you agree with the rest of my post, particularly that sections of the FAQ can not be official rules in themselves at all; they must be in the charter too? — F.

Response:

: It strikes me as odd that while we occasionally talk about how no one "owns" : RSG, it appears the widely referred-to document that serves as it’s : generally accepted "rules of engagement" is, indeed, owned by one person — : you. There’s nothing keeping you or anyone else from writing his own RSG FAQ and attaching a copyright mark to it.  The FAQ is only as official as everyone agrees it to be.  (Which, more than likely, is not very.)

I think I’ve mentioned this before, but wasn’t 100% sure.  Anyone could write a faq and ask for opinions etc  there could even be several FAQ’s, perhaps one for each clique  :-)   It simply contains any Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) that might appear in the group. That’s all. I’ve tried pointing out a couple of times the problem with RSG old guard pointing to the FAQ as a document describing what is permissible here.  Truthfully, neither the FAQ nor the regulars carry any authority beyond their ability to voice their displeasure both here and to ISP abuse desks (some of whom may care, and others may not).  Now before someone accuses me of echoing Felicity, in truth this is what makes Felicity (and George) look silly: the "clique" here (TINC) lacks the capability to do them any real harm. So it’s pathetic to keep going on about being being victimized by them.

"going on"??  ..only in response to some of their silly collective behaviour, which I believe that by far the vast majority of RSGers would condemn anyway, if they chose to speak out against this vocal minority 9and in some cases if they’d read all the posts properly).   Problem is, they know that they would then become a target too, as happened to me when I spoke out about their activities. Things seem ok right now anyway, so let’s keep it that way. Anyway, there is only one document about RSG that carries any real weight, and that is the charter that was subject to vote and ratified when RSG was created.  (Somehow I doubt that any of the voters on that charter are still around to see what has become of their creation.)  And even the charter is generally treated with less than reverence by most ISPs.

I would have thought that the charter could be reviewed and fleshed out a bit, given the passage of time?   There can only be *one* rec.sport.golf in usenet, a prime name, so I would have thought there would be some means of maintaining the charter so it doesn’t fall behind the times, and reflects popular opinion as to current posting rules etc e tc.  As you indicate, they’re not rules at all if they’re not in the charter, only statements in a FAQ which don’t carry any real weight officially. BTW, the section regarding adverts in uk.sport.golf *is* in the *CHARTER*, and *not* the FAQ which I think contains the "Frequently Asked Questions", as it should!  I’m sure it’s not an artificial vehicle for current subscribers, at any particular moment in time, to come in and try to change the rules. I assume in RSG in the past, that some individuals decided they fancied changing or adding to the charter, had problems, and so just added to the FAQ??? Is this how the parts covering adverts etc ended up in the FAQ? — F.

Response:

: It strikes me as odd that while we occasionally talk about how no one "owns" : RSG, it appears the widely referred-to document that serves as it’s : generally accepted "rules of engagement" is, indeed, owned by one person — : you. There’s nothing keeping you or anyone else from writing his own RSG FAQ and attaching a copyright mark to it.  The FAQ is only as official as everyone agrees it to be.  (Which, more than likely, is not very.) I’ve tried pointing out a couple of times the problem with RSG old guard pointing to the FAQ as a document describing what is permissible here.  Truthfully, neither the FAQ nor the regulars carry any authority beyond their ability to voice their displeasure both here and to ISP abuse desks (some of whom may care, and others may not).  Now before someone accuses me of echoing Felicity, in truth this is what makes Felicity (and George) look silly: the "clique" here (TINC) lacks the capability to do them any real harm. So it’s pathetic to keep going on about being being victimized by them. Anyway, there is only one document about RSG that carries any real weight, and that is the charter that was subject to vote and ratified when RSG was created.  (Somehow I doubt that any of the voters on that charter are still around to see what has become of their creation.)  And even the charter is generally treated with less than reverence by most ISPs. cb

Response:

It strikes me as curious that you’ve opted to COPYRIGHT the rec.sport.golf FAQ document.  I’d seen the FAQ a number of times before, and I guess I’d just never noticed until now. This does raise quite a few questions: 1.  Who owns the FAQ?  Maybe I’m naive, but I always thought it was a public document, "owned," in a manner of speaking, by all of us who participate in RSG, and merely "maintained" by you, much like the curator of a museum maintains the exhibits. 2.  If, as I suspect the copyright implies, YOU own the FAQ, will your children own the RSG FAQ it when you die?  Is the ultimate control over RSG’s "official code of conduct" now strictly a Driscoll family asset until such time that you relinquish ownership of it to someone else? 3.  Other than having the personal initiative to take on this task, what gives one person the right to hold this type of control?  Other than owning the copyright on a document that has been widely and *voluntarily* embraced by others as the "official code of conduct" of the group, what gives you (or any one person) the right to set the rules? 4.  Did Marcello (the person who previously kept the FAQ for many years) ever copyright the old document before you obtained it?  If not, why did you feel the need to do so? 5.  Is copyrighting a newsgroup FAQ standard operating procedure in all newsgroups?  What is the copyright intended to protect? 6.  If one person holds the copyright to the FAQ, what weight (if any) does that give it in an "unowned" forum such as RSG? It strikes me as odd that while we occasionally talk about how no one "owns" RSG, it appears the widely referred-to document that serves as it’s generally accepted "rules of engagement" is, indeed, owned by one person — you. I’ve often received e-mails from people who’ve called me "the group leader," which is laughable.  I always respond by saying, "There is no group leader, we’re each just one voice in a roomful of thousands of voices.  Some voices are louder than others.  Some voices are clearer than others.  But each is just one voice."  But now I’m not so sure. If you hold the copyright on the newsgroup’s "official code of conduct," it seems to me that would make YOU "the big kahuna" of the group with all the decision-making authority about the newsgroup’s rules of engagement, would it not?  Indeed, if there is such a thing as "the group leader," it would be you. All that said, I feel it’s only fair to acknowledge that the FAQ serves a much broader (if often overlooked) purpose than merely to lay out the ground rules for conduct in RSG.  It also, as the name suggests, answers a lot of "Frequently Asked Questions" concerning golf, from swing mechanics to clubmaking.  The work you’ve done in updating and maintaining this document is to be commended, and I don’t mean to trivialize the significance of your efforts or the usefulness of the document’s content. That said, nearly all of the discussions we read in RSG concerning the FAQ pertain to its stated rules of conduct, not what it says on the subject of "how to cure a slice."  So I am specifically referring to the portion of the document that spells out the rules governing "conduct," including the matter of what is and is not appropriate content for posting.  This gets into an area of censorship that I’ve never been comfortable with. Am I wrong in saying that the previous version of the document — the one maintained by Marcello — did not even peripherally address these "conduct" issues?  Isn’t it true that the FAQ’s stated "rules" concerning spam and other "content appropriateness" guidelines were incorporated into the FAQ only after you took over ownership of the document? While I’ve always found you to be reasonable and an appropriate choice for this "curator" task (and I certainly wouldn’t want to take it on myself), it does strike me as a clear conflict of interest for the keeper of such a document to render a public opinion on the rules of "content appropriateness" right in the midst of newsgroup discussions concerning those rules.  It’s a little like a judge biasing a jury in his courtroom, is it not? Which leads me to the final question: 7.  Do you perceive your role in maintaining this document as more of a "curator," or as more of a "final authority?" The difference, it seems to me, is profound. Randy RSG-ATLANTA Information:  http://www.YouGoGolf.com/rsg-atlanta.htm My RSG Roll Call profile:  http://u1.netgate.net/~kirby34/rsg/brownr.htm RSG FAQ:  http://ttsoft.com/thor/rsggolf.html Voiceovers/Narration/Voice Acting:  www.RandyBrownProductions.com To e-mail me, go to my website at www.YouGoGolf.com and find the link.

Response:

Related Posts

Leave a Reply