advertising?

"Danny Colyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Ian Smith said:

3: A charter encourages teh netcop type.

That's not a reason not to have a charter, but it's a damn
good reason to have a fairly loose charter without too
many rules.

Quoted message said:

4: There's no immediate problem that would be solved by
a charter or need that it would address.

I think the fact that this thread derived from a thread
that started: "What's the rules (are there any) regarding
commercial ads on this NG ?" indicates that a charter
would be of benefit. It's not the first time that someone
has asked about the advertising rules. This is one
instance where it would be useful to have some hard and
fast rules. Another would be where someone decides they
want to advertise something,
e.g. a camper van, without asking first about the rules.

There are also times, particularly with spoilers, where
being able to point to a charter would be a good thing.
I'm thinking particularly of a thread last September
headed: "David Millar wins St 18 of Vuelta". The poster
was politely asked to refrain from posting spoilers in
subject lines. His response was: "nice try, but given the
lack of racing news on here, I'm not going to stop posting
the few great results that British riders get, cos they
*are* so few!"

Danny, if someone was posting ads too frequently or posting
spoilers without warning, I think it would make more sense
to tell them that too frequent postings make it difficult to
see other posts, or that spoilers without warning ruin the
enjoyment of the event for other people instead of simply
saying "It's against the rules!"

I think that the kind of people who ignore the reason for
not making such posts would be the kind of people who would
ignore a charter anyway.
--
Akin

aknak at aksoto dot idps dot co dot uk

in message <[email hidden]>, Danny Colyer

(') said:

Simon Brooke said:

According to <URL:http://www.usenet.org.uk/uk.rec.cyclin-
g.html#uk.rec.cycling> there is no charter for this
group. So fundamentally there are no rules.

That does raise a serious question: *should* there be a
charter for this group?

I believe there should.

A few years ago I wrote a charter for another uk.rec group
that I was considering proposing (I didn't in the end). So
here it is, with some minor modifications.

If people would like to comment, perhaps between us we can
cobble together a charter, then post a proper RFD as a
first step towards making it official:

[SNIP]

Looks good to me.

You go on about advertising at some length. I'm not
objecting, but would something like

Advertising

Short announcements (less than 50 lines) of events
relevant to readership, and For Sale or Want-To-Buy
announcements from non-commercial posters, are
welcomed; blatant off-topic or commercial advertising
is not welcome.

(mildly adapted from the charter of uk.rec.sailing) be
sufficient?

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke)
jasmine.org.uk~simonOpen ↗ ; ... of course nothing
said here will be taken notice of by ; the W3C. The
official place to be ignored is on www-style or ; www-html.
-- George Lund

in message <[email hidden]>, Danny Colyer

(') said:

Ian Smith said:

5: Any dealings which bring a newsgroup to the attention
of teh cabal are bad. Admittedly, getting a charter is
not as bad as proposing moderation, but it's still
best to keep your head below the parapet.

The cabal?

[all together now] There is no cabal.

Oh, and, btw, I am not a member of it.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke)
jasmine.org.uk~simonOpen ↗

'Victories are not solutions.' ;; John Hume,
Northern Irish politician, on Radio Scotland 1/2/95
;; Nobel Peace Prize laureate 1998; few have
deserved it so much

Simon Brooke said:

You go on about advertising at some length. I'm not
objecting, but would something like

Advertising

Short announcements (less than 50 lines) of events
relevant to readership, and For Sale or Want-To-Buy
announcements from non-commercial posters, are welcomed;
blatant off-topic or commercial advertising is not
welcome.

(mildly adapted from the charter of uk.rec.sailing) be
sufficient?

I think if there are to be rules then it needs to be made
very clear what the rules are. In particular, if the rules
specify some text that has to be in the header then it's
easy for people to filter those posts out.

But it doesn't look like a charter will be happening anyway.
I'm certainly not going to post a RFD for a charter change
when the weight of group opinion seems to be against it.

--
Danny Colyer (the UK company has been laughed out of my reply address)
speedy5.freeserve.co.ukdannyOpen ↗
Why I like OE6 - speedy5.freeserve.co.ukoe6.htmlOpen ↗
"He who dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine

Mark Thompson said:

The first paragraph should, IMHO, be dropped, as anyone
straying from the strict wording of it could be hit over
the head with it by any mad Charter Fascist (or, in this
ng, Fairy). It would also mean I'd never be able to post
off topic again :-( Maybe a short sentence along the lines
of 'for talking about cycling and stuff' would be better.

Hi Mark

I wouldn't disagree with that. Most regulars do usually
abide by this yet to be torpedoed charter ... but not
always. In fact, I'm probably one of the worse
transgressors.

Still, Danny's "uk.rec.cycling is for the discussion of
cycling and of legislation, policies, behaviour and road or
trail features affecting cyclists within the UK. Discussion
of cycling abroad is also encouraged, where this is of
interest to UK cyclists." isn't a bad place to start.

James

James Hodson said:

Mark Thompson said:

The first paragraph should, IMHO, be dropped, as anyone
straying from the strict wording of it could be hit over
the head with it by any mad Charter Fascist (or, in this
ng, Fairy). It would also mean I'd never be able to post
off topic again :-( Maybe a short sentence along the lines
of 'for talking about cycling and stuff' would be better.

Hi Mark

I wouldn't disagree with that. Most regulars do usually
abide by this yet to be torpedoed charter ... but not
always. In fact, I'm probably one of the worse
transgressors.

I'm another vote for leaving it as it is (charter-free, I
mean). I don't see how devoting months of tedious haggling
to generate a vacuous document that no-one reads is going to
improve the group in any way.

James
--
If I have seen further than others, it is by treading on the
toes of giants. ne.jphomeOpen ↗

James Annan said:

I'm another vote for leaving it as it is (charter-free, I
mean). I don't see how devoting months of tedious haggling
to generate a vacuous document that no-one reads is going
to improve the group in any way.

Hi T'other James

If you want vacuous, I'm your man.

In rec.kites, another NG I regularly read, there are
occasioinal spkes of OT comments but, in the main, most
posts are on topic.

Rec.kites has been overtaken by one particular web-based
forum during the last two or three years and I hope URC
doesn't go the same way. "Proper" NGs do have their place.

The <http://www.gwtw-kites.com/> forums have superceded
rec.kites as the legitimate kiting BB as I'm reasonably
certain Dave (it is Dave, isn't it?) could confirm.

I simply find "proper" NGs easier to navigate even though I
now have a broadband connection. In the days when I was
connected through a 28,800 modem off-line NGing was
immesurably simpler and cheaper.

James

Quoted message said:

Still, Danny's "uk.rec.cycling is for the discussion of
cycling and of legislation, policies, behaviour and road
or trail features affecting cyclists within the UK.
Discussion of cycling abroad is also encouraged, where
this is of interest to UK cyclists." isn't a bad place
to start.

There were two reasons for me being unsure of that wording.
The first is that I like reading utterly OT posts - the
chicken nearly made me fall of the chair. The second, and
possibly more important, is that the paragraph effectively
says what is legal. An unintended result of this is to
outlaw anything that isn't specifically legal, even if it is
appreciated by the group. Having said that, on the
newsgroups I post to that have charters I still happily
start an off topic thread, but make sure I stick [OT] in the
subject line with instructions on how to block it at the
bottom of the post. I will then quite happily do the usenet
equivalent of mooning at any idiot who takes issue. Replying
to an off topic thread is perfectly ok, as only a *complete*
idiot would continue reading an off topic thread and
complain about it. Unfortunately this highlights one of the
flaws in public newsgroups.m.

James Hodson said:

On 18 Apr 2004 15:23:49 GMT, Mark Thompson

Quoted message said:

The first paragraph should, IMHO, be dropped, as anyone
straying from the strict wording of it could be hit over
the head with it by any mad Charter Fascist (or, in this
ng, Fairy). It would also mean I'd never be able to post
off topic again :-( Maybe a short sentence along the
lines of 'for talking about cycling and stuff' would be
better.

Hi Mark

I wouldn't disagree with that. Most regulars do usually
abide by this yet to be torpedoed charter ... but not
always. In fact, I'm probably one of the worse
transgressors.

Still, Danny's "uk.rec.cycling is for the discussion of
cycling and of legislation, policies, behaviour and road
or trail features affecting cyclists within the UK.
Discussion of cycling abroad is also encouraged, where
this is of interest to UK cyclists." isn't a bad place
to start.

I'm still entirely opposed to having a charter.

If someone thinks we must have one, the wording to allow
regulars to be OT would be something like "of cycling and
between cyclists", then anyone who is a cyclist can say what
they like.

Still think it would be better without, however.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|