*POLL* acf webring (does it help?)

  • Thread starter Thread starter Anonymous
  • Start date Start date
The rules which were created years ago are clearly antiquated and do
no longer express the views of the current readers and participators.
Click to expand...

The words "In your dreams" come to mind here.
 
On 29 Oct 2003 09:51:22 -0800, (e-mail address removed) ([email protected])
wrote:

Why should I change the name when no one wants to update the FAQ ?
Click to expand...

My FAQ has been "updated" a number of times since it was created. You
obviously haven't been paying attention.

Regards, John.
 
<news:SrGnb.41438$ao4.94233@attbi_s51>:
Click to expand...
I guess the string "alt.comp.freeware" is public domain, so there was
nothing to stop you. But IMO creating a webring that will no doubt be
associated with this newsgroup should have been a decision of the
newgroup.
Click to expand...

< snip >

That, and the snipped bit, both well written and seconded. :-)
 
On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 23:33:26 +1100, "Gary R. Schmidt"

I also concur with Blinky "it's really an rtdos webring" not an ACF webring.
Click to expand...

For it to be an ACF webring it would have needed to be fully discussed
here FIRST. Voted on and restrictions on membership discussed.

IMO the name is misleading. Calling it the rtdos webring would be more
appropriate.

Regards, John.
 
On 29 Oct 2003 09:51:22 -0800, (e-mail address removed) ([email protected])
wrote:



My FAQ has been "updated" a number of times since it was created. You
obviously haven't been paying attention.
Click to expand...
The fact that they keep referring to *the* faq clearly indicates that
the problem is with John Corliss...which indicates a personal
bias...not that anyone is surprised by that...at least no one who has
been around 5th graders for any length of time.
 
Maybe it is time to set up a new FAQ based on the latest vote.
A FAQ that reflects the current views of the group.
It could be based on your message with average numbers.
Click to expand...

I would agree that a new FAQ is in order. The problem is: what do we
put in it? I suggested a very simple definition of freeware in another
thread, and it had virtually no support.

My impression is that many (not all) people want a FAQ with a lot
details, definitions, covenants, conditions, exceptions and
restrictions. They just can't agree on the details. I would not want
to try to maintain a FAQ like that, regardless of what it says.

IMO freeware is "software that can be obtained legally without
monetary payment to the software author and/or copyright holder".

That doesn't need to be a FAQ, it can be a sig. As a matter of
courtesy and information, any "conditions" (registerware, nagware,
adware, thankyouware, BeNiceToYourPetsWare, etc.) associated with the
freeware should be mentioned.

That's what I believe. IMO anything more complicated is impossible to
enforce in an un-moderated alt-NG; as we have seen. Also, I do not
believe a FAQ adopted by a simple majority is appropriate for an
un-moderated alt-NG. These NGs by their nature were designed to
facilitate free-wheeling and wide-ranging discussion. Forbearance and
tolerance of decent (rather than censorship) are the key words here.
That's the main reason they are un-moderated IMO. I don't think anyone
should try to change that with less than a 2/3 majority supported FAQ.
That will never happen here.

Obviously there are a lot of folks here that are not comfortable
and/or happy with free-wheeling and wide-ranging discussion. They want
a more focused environment with a high degree of command and control.
There is nothing wrong with that at all and I understand their
frustration in not being able to impose that kind of environment here.
An un-moderated alt-NG is just not designed for that.
 
IMO anything more complicated is impossible to
enforce in an un-moderated alt-NG; as we have seen.
Click to expand...

Can it be enforced? No.

Can it be encouraged? Yes.
These NGs by their nature were designed to facilitate
free-wheeling and wide-ranging discussion.
Click to expand...

I disagree.

As well, the sort of net-anarchy you espouse can be discouraged. You
frequently choose to call those who discourage it "control freaks."
Another has compared them to terrorists a few times. What fun.
 
i never asked anyone to endorse the webring. and no one told me i had
to accept the faq as gospel either.
Click to expand...

These rigid oldtimers have have no distance to themselves and their
preconceptions, they are completely swallowed up by their own ideas.

In their world they are the guardians of the holy rules they have
invented. They think they own this newgroup, and that they own the
abbreviation acf.

It is incredible.

And now they are getting desperate, and post loads of messages
supporting each other.
But whatever they do they cannot change the fact that the recent vote
and many messages from others show that there is no consensus on their
old rules.
 
Vic Dura said:
My impression is that many (not all) people want a FAQ with a lot
details, definitions, covenants, conditions, exceptions and
restrictions. They just can't agree on the details. I would not want
to try to maintain a FAQ like that, regardless of what it says.

IMO freeware is "software that can be obtained legally without
monetary payment to the software author and/or copyright holder".
Click to expand...

I agree, but if there is no new FAQ these oldtimers can continue to
peddle their old FAQ unchallenged by any newer document.
They can continue to beat newcomers over the head with that old FAQ,
in spite of the current views of the acf community.

So I think it would be a good idea to say basically what you said in
this message, and maybe complement it with the averages of the votes
just to show the current views of a number of participants in a new
faq.

In that way newcomers have more than one document to choose from, and
are encouraged to think for themselves instead of slavishly follow
some strict rules.
 
Big Snip

There are plenty of us still around and comments like this does not
encourage our interest in the webring. See below.
If you want your webring to be popular and successful, I think you
need to start over with strict membership criteria: freeware only, no
adware, shareware, registrationware, or gimmickware of any kind.
Click to expand...

BoB
For the duration of Swen, my address is inoperative.
 
Randy Bard said:
Because by using the name, you implicitly accept and endorse the FAQ.
If you don't like the FAQ, work to change it, or start your own forum
with its own FAQ.
Click to expand...

He does not endorse the FAQ. He does endorse the newsgroup. They
are different things.

..
 
Tiger said:
Unless the webring name is changed immediately, I agree. Note in the
faq and on the pricelessware pages that that silly webring has nothing
to do with either pricelessware nor acf. Nothing.

--
Tiger

"Flowing water never stagnates."
- Chinese proverb
Click to expand...


Whose FAQ? Certainly not the majority.
 
Blinky the Shark said:
...and to learn that ACF isn't really connected with the webring, and
that the name was simply ripped off to try an legitimize the webring.
That should be stated prominently in the ACF FAQ.
Click to expand...

but who has the authority to update the FAQ then?
 
Back
Top