Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84 chuqui version 1.7 9/23/84; site nsc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!nsc!chuqui
From: chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach)
Newsgroups: net.followup,net.jobs,net.news
Subject: Re: Headhunters in net.jobs
Message-ID: <2338@nsc.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 9-Feb-85 03:30:30 EST
Article-I.D.: nsc.2338
Posted: Sat Feb  9 03:30:30 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 10-Feb-85 03:43:02 EST
References: <2331@nsc.UUCP> <1116@amdahl.UUCP>
Reply-To: chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach)
Distribution: net
Organization: The Village
Lines: 108
Xref: watmath net.followup:4433 net.jobs:993 net.news:3118
Summary: 

In article <1116@amdahl.UUCP> gam@amdahl.UUCP (gam) writes:
>> Go ahead. Make rules. But I also suggest you look for ways of turning
>> rules into policies. Without a rule maker or a rule enforcer, a rule is a
>> very lonely thing.
>
>True.  A method of enforcement is that the site become "non-gratia",
>and other sites may cut-off news to/from that site.  Yes, I
>generally don't like those things, but by "rule" I meant some
>specific guideline by which a site may be cut off from netnews
>-- to my knowledge no such rule has ever been made.

There is the basic reality that we have been unable to get sites to upgrade
to B news, much less 2.10.2 (which is to their own advantage, fer goodnews
sake). We simply have no power upon a site to do or not do anything, and
that includes having them not ship news to another site. Because of this
discussion, I resubscribed to net.general to see what was going on. Not to
my suprise, of 20 messages on my system, 7, count them, seven, were 'test'
messages. Last I heard, there was a specific guideline that posting 'test'
messages to net.general was not to be done. The reason a specific guideline
isn't made about cutting news off to a site is that it is unenforcable--
many, if not most, usenet connections are (or were) set up because two
people at two sites knew each other. Since we don't have any way of
enforcing a rule having a site cut another site off from news (how, by
having their site cut them off? Infinitely recursive...) why make the rule?

>I have further decided that if it is OK for AA Personnel to
>post what clearly amounts to an ad for that company as long as
>they pay for it then we are opening a big can of worms.

I never said I thought this was OK. I don't, I find it irritating. But
making rules is a silly thing to do when nobody listens to you. 

>The reason such exploitation has not been seen so far is because I think
>almost all Usenet sites are fairly responsible in their collective
>use.  And if they weren't so responsible you'd see them cut
>off the net fast.  Is this not so?

Actually, I think the reason is because of the peer pressure involved-- and
the only real way of dealing with this problem under current and realistic
circumstances. If someone on the net does something that you don't like,
drop them a mail note and TELL them. If a company realizes that it is
getting more bad vibes out there than good vibes, it will do something
about it. If AA gets 2 responses says 'because of your postins I'll NEVER
consider your firm' to every positive response then I'll bet they'll stop
it. There are a few things to keep in mind when writing these kinds of
letters though: do NOT be abusive-- calm, cool, and rational speaks,
flaming gets ignored ('he's just a troublemaker, don't pay any attention'),
and don't send massive numbers of letters. A single, intelligent letter of
disrespect will do wonders. don't overwhelm the mailbox, and don't insult
their intelligence (I'm speaking from experience here-- I've seen every
type of letter I expect them to get, and I know what I do and don't
read...).

There is a basic problem I think we are going to have to face here. The
character of the network is changing. It started out primarily as a
cooperative set of Unix sites working together to make Unix better. These
sites are now being overwhelmed by Unix users, sites that are based upon
Unix, but aren't really involved IN Unix. This means that the kind of
person reading the net is changing-- less technical or computer oriented,
and less knowledgable or interested in the ramifications of their postings.
They don't know about uucp, or uucp costs and overheads, multipoint
networks, software overheads, and the like. They know personnel, marketing,
scheduling, or whatever. This has the advantage that we will be able to use
the net to find out greater varieties of things from a wider demographic of
people, but it also means that we have users who are less aware of the
problems the net has because they simply don't understand software. We are
simply going to have to accept the fact that these users are going to
'screw up' (at least to our way of thinking) or find ways of helping them
adapt. I think we'll end up doing both-- infusions of new blood is always
good, because it takes us into areas we never would have thought of on our
own, but we can only go so far unless we are able to radically restructure
the way the net is put together and thinks. There are some of us who have
been working on the latter on and off for a while, and have some ideas, but
it tends to be really hard to get things done when you've got a
responsibility but no authority to do it with... Coaxing and cajoling only
go so far, and a single dingo like Frank Adrian can put months or years of
work into oblivion with a single blow (for those that didn't follow it, he
singlehandedly almost cancelled the Stargate project with a well timed and
completely false flame). 

My personal feeling is that it is time to start seriously addressing what
we think Usenet ought to look like and how to get it there. The structure
we have worked great for 10 sites, or a hundred, or a thousand (maybe) but
we estimate there are over 2000 sites (if you figure 10 users a site, that
is 20000 readers) out there, and anarchy simply has inertial limits. The
biggest worry I have is that the net is going to hit some critical limit
and collapse like a black hole, and I'd like to avoid that if I can. Under
existing circumstances all we can do is hope and pray for luck to be with
us, but luck tends to be fickle.

Anyway, I think the headhunter problem is really just a symptom. We can
stamp out this occurence using peer pressure, but we have to realize we are
treating a symptom. Others are going to try it, and more and more are going
to get into the act when they realize they CAN get away with it merely by
ignoring the rabble rousers. As long as Usenet is dedicated to anarchy, the
anarchists are going to have to accept that fact that everyone lives by
their own rules. If you want complete freedom of the net, everyone else
gets it, too...

chuq (here's to freedom-- may we not choke on it)

Unix is a trademark of ATT Bell labs, last I looked.
Chuq is a trademark of his parents.
-- 
From the ministry of silly talks:               Chuq Von Rospach
{allegra,cbosgd,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo}!nsc!chuqui nsc!chuqui@decwrl.ARPA

Life, the Universe, and lots of other stuff  is a trademark of AT&T Bell Labs