Larry Dighera
January 11th 07, 03:33 AM
On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 00:31:32 -0000, Jim Logajan >
wrote in >:
>Larry Dighera > wrote:
>> The rec.aviation.stories newsgroup is not for follow up discussion, so
>> it may not have been the right forum for this thread depending on what
>> the OP had in mind when he started this message thread.
>
>You can of course modify the charter or try experimental (i.e. temporary)
>changes to the charter if you feel it would be useful. As moderator you
>pretty much "own" the group.
That's the way I understand it too. But I think I'll stick with the
original charter until a need to deviate presents itself.
>The stories group appears to have been dormant many years before the
>original moderator died.
I believe that was due to Mr. Peck's lack of performing moderation
duties during that period. I know I submitted stories, and they went
into a black hole without any response.
>Perhaps allowing follow-ups might be useful - in
>this case the thread itself was a call for stories and it appears most of
>them would have been appropriate to that group.
If anyone would like to publish their stories posted to this message
thread, they can do so by posting them to rec.aviation.stories. They
might even consider crossposting them to both newsgroups.
>IMHO I suspect the original r.a.s charter was flawed - shorter stories
>should have been allowed
What do you feel would be a reasonable lower limit? How many words,
lines or bytes?
>as well as follow-ups.
I disagree with you here, with the possible exception of corrections.
Follow up discussion can take place in the appropriate rec.aviation.*
newsgroups. That will prevent the stories from being lost amongst the
clutter of extemporaneous chit chat.
In short, I believe the existence of an aviation newsgroup that is
devoid of contentious argument and inane blather is worth preserving.
There are plenty of other newsgroups that provide a forum for that
sort of content already.
Of course, I would prefer that the stories submitted to the
rec.aviation.stories newsgroup were well written, perfectly formatted,
grammatically correct, polished literary works that reflected
positively on the aviation community, but I'm a realist. As the
current acting moderator of the rec.aviation.stories newsgroup, I am
committed to approving any story submitted that falls within the
current charter guidelines.
So, sharpen your quill, gather your wits, and commit your interesting,
entertaining, informative and enlightening thoughts and experiences to
an article submission, be it non-fiction or fictional, and post it to
rec.aviation.stories.
CHARTER
rec.aviation.stories (MODERATED)
A home for one of the greatest strengths of rec.aviation --
longer postings of stories and experiences, including
descriptions of cross-country trips, "I learned about flying from
that", airshow reports, and so on. The moderator will reject
shorter articles and subjects which aren't appropriate to the
group, and will ensure that articles meet minimum readability
standards (i.e., line lengths).
Follow-ups will be directed to other groups. It is expected that
this group will typically contain only one or two articles a
week.
Articles for anonymous posting will be accepted.
....
rec.aviation.stories
A number of netters brought up this group as a very strong desire
at Oshkosh. People felt that one of the greatest strengths of
the net was the "I was there" stories -- stories which are very
different from the semi-sanitized accounts one sees in commercial
magazines. The desire was to have a forum for these longer
stories, one in which (a) it could be ensured that they'd be
easily found, (b) they wouldn't be intermixed with other stuff,
and (c) they wouldn't get drowned out by follow-ups.
A moderated newsgroup makes sense in this case, and also will
allow a final formatting check to be done to ensure that the
articles are easy to read (line lengths, etc.).
....
Q: "Why _three_ moderated groups?"
A: The three groups serve quite distinct purposes. Most readers
will probably place .announce near the top of their reading lists,
since it will be low-volume and will contain short articles.
Readers will accord .stories a special place, since they'll want
to take the time to sit down and enjoy the few articles which are
posted to that group.
wrote in >:
>Larry Dighera > wrote:
>> The rec.aviation.stories newsgroup is not for follow up discussion, so
>> it may not have been the right forum for this thread depending on what
>> the OP had in mind when he started this message thread.
>
>You can of course modify the charter or try experimental (i.e. temporary)
>changes to the charter if you feel it would be useful. As moderator you
>pretty much "own" the group.
That's the way I understand it too. But I think I'll stick with the
original charter until a need to deviate presents itself.
>The stories group appears to have been dormant many years before the
>original moderator died.
I believe that was due to Mr. Peck's lack of performing moderation
duties during that period. I know I submitted stories, and they went
into a black hole without any response.
>Perhaps allowing follow-ups might be useful - in
>this case the thread itself was a call for stories and it appears most of
>them would have been appropriate to that group.
If anyone would like to publish their stories posted to this message
thread, they can do so by posting them to rec.aviation.stories. They
might even consider crossposting them to both newsgroups.
>IMHO I suspect the original r.a.s charter was flawed - shorter stories
>should have been allowed
What do you feel would be a reasonable lower limit? How many words,
lines or bytes?
>as well as follow-ups.
I disagree with you here, with the possible exception of corrections.
Follow up discussion can take place in the appropriate rec.aviation.*
newsgroups. That will prevent the stories from being lost amongst the
clutter of extemporaneous chit chat.
In short, I believe the existence of an aviation newsgroup that is
devoid of contentious argument and inane blather is worth preserving.
There are plenty of other newsgroups that provide a forum for that
sort of content already.
Of course, I would prefer that the stories submitted to the
rec.aviation.stories newsgroup were well written, perfectly formatted,
grammatically correct, polished literary works that reflected
positively on the aviation community, but I'm a realist. As the
current acting moderator of the rec.aviation.stories newsgroup, I am
committed to approving any story submitted that falls within the
current charter guidelines.
So, sharpen your quill, gather your wits, and commit your interesting,
entertaining, informative and enlightening thoughts and experiences to
an article submission, be it non-fiction or fictional, and post it to
rec.aviation.stories.
CHARTER
rec.aviation.stories (MODERATED)
A home for one of the greatest strengths of rec.aviation --
longer postings of stories and experiences, including
descriptions of cross-country trips, "I learned about flying from
that", airshow reports, and so on. The moderator will reject
shorter articles and subjects which aren't appropriate to the
group, and will ensure that articles meet minimum readability
standards (i.e., line lengths).
Follow-ups will be directed to other groups. It is expected that
this group will typically contain only one or two articles a
week.
Articles for anonymous posting will be accepted.
....
rec.aviation.stories
A number of netters brought up this group as a very strong desire
at Oshkosh. People felt that one of the greatest strengths of
the net was the "I was there" stories -- stories which are very
different from the semi-sanitized accounts one sees in commercial
magazines. The desire was to have a forum for these longer
stories, one in which (a) it could be ensured that they'd be
easily found, (b) they wouldn't be intermixed with other stuff,
and (c) they wouldn't get drowned out by follow-ups.
A moderated newsgroup makes sense in this case, and also will
allow a final formatting check to be done to ensure that the
articles are easy to read (line lengths, etc.).
....
Q: "Why _three_ moderated groups?"
A: The three groups serve quite distinct purposes. Most readers
will probably place .announce near the top of their reading lists,
since it will be low-volume and will contain short articles.
Readers will accord .stories a special place, since they'll want
to take the time to sit down and enjoy the few articles which are
posted to that group.