[NTLUG:Discuss] NTLUG Discuss Guidelines

[Steve Baker]

MadHat wrote:

> On the comments that that the guidelines are out of date because of the
> entries on "me too" posts and on not replying with less that is quoted
> and the length of the sig.  All three of these are not completely based
> on bandwidth, but at the same time are.  Now it was argued that a 10
> line signature takes no more time than a 4 line.

I didn't say *no* more time - but certainly negligably more.

"Me Too" posts are just annoying - I'm not (personally) concerned
about the bandwidth they consume.  It's the waste of muscle effort
to reach all the way over to that delete key that I resent  :-)

> Well, it has been that 4 lines is the "proper" netiquette for a
> signature, so that is where that number came from, and if you choose not
> to follow that, that is your choice. This and the items on "me too"
> posts and the quoting were included because if you add 100 bytes to your
> message, then send it to the list, that is 100 bytes * 300 members =
> 30Kb.

OK - so that's 30Kb - let's go nuts and assume that this happens 100 times
a day. That's 3Mb per day.

>  Now remember, we have our mail hosted by Hex.net, they have to
> pay for the bandwidth and if you have really large signatures, or quote
> a 200 line message for 4 lines of reply, that is more bandwidth they
> have to pay for.

I certainly wouldn't want to do anything that would upset our generous
hosts - but think about this...

Hex.net is an ISP - and 3Mb per day is negligable compared to one teenager's
daily download of dubious pictures from alt.pictures.fetishes.warthog

I very much doubt that any ISP would conceivably even notice an extra 3Mb
per day of bandwidth.

>  It is all just being considerate.

Sure - within reason - but the ultra-tight bandwidth saving rules are
truly out-dated and could be dispensed with.

Modern bandwidth saving rules should say stuff like "Don't post pictures"
"Don't add binary attachments greater than 5Kb", "No Posts over 70Kb"...that
kind of thing.

>  Not to mention that
> by trimming down the replied section of the email it is often easier for
> people to read.  No, it is not necessary to have more new lines than
> quoted line, it is just a guideline to try to use.

That's true.
 
> Next, no I didn't go in and say, this item is on topic and this one is
> not and this one is, etc...  because we all know, more or less :~)

But that's where this entire thread started. Let me review: It started
with a post about a marginally interesting/not-quite-on-topic Linux
"press release".  That earned the poster a mild 'wrist slap'.

There was considerable doubt as to whether it deserved that or not.

Several members said that if we are going to wrist slap people for
somewhat-off-topic posts (which has happened TWICE since then - something
pretty much unprecedented on any other list I subscribe to), you'd better
explain in some detail what you consider to be on and what off topic.

In response we get a lecture about netequette - which may or may not
be relevent in the year 2000 - I don't really care.

In the end, we are no closer to knowing what are the ground rules for
content posted here.

So, I say again, either post DETAILED content rules or stop telling people
off for what they post.

> Honestly, is something about a MS commercial's music
> about Linux, even indirectly?  Not that I can see.  Is talking about how
> MS has stated how bad Linux is Linux related?  I think so.

Actually, it was the only NTLUG post of the entire day that interested me!

Whilst it wasn't about Linux, it was Anti-Microsoft - and for a good
proportion of Linux people, that's virtually the same thing.  It perhaps
wasn't exactly on-topic - but it didn't deserve a wrist slap.

> As for the Press releases, in my eyes they are fine, as long as you
> think it pertains to the group and you have something to say about it or
> want to start a discussion about it.  If you are just wanting to pass
> that article on, this really isn't the proper place.

So did it *really* deserve a public wrist-slap?

-- 
Steve Baker                  http://web2.airmail.net/sjbaker1
sjbaker1 at airmail.net (home)  http://www.woodsoup.org/~sbaker
sjbaker at hti.com      (work)