[MUD-Dev] META: Making the list public?

clawrenc at cup.hp.com clawrenc at cup.hp.com
Thu Jul 17 10:48:28 New Zealand Standard Time 1997


In <Pine.GSO.3.96.970717003026.9947I-100000 at dryslwyn>, on 07/16/97 
   at 08:13 PM, Martin Keegan <martin at cam.sri.com> said:

>On Tue, 15 Jul 1997 clawrenc at cup.hp.com wrote:

>> Writing as List Owner:

>You should get a separate email address called listowner at foo if
>muddev goes public.

Agreed.

>> A)  Should the archives be requestable or browsable by non-members? 
>> Note that this effectively makes ever poster's email address open.

>The archives would be of great use for brainwashing (wrong word)
>newcomers into "The Ways of the List" 

<kof>  Worked for you, eh?

>> B)  Should the list be echoed (one way) to a newsgroup?  If it is
>> echoed to a newsgroup should that group be a private group on a
>> private newsserver, or should I create a moderated alt.mud.development

>Private newsservers don't go to DejaNews. They also pose technical
>problems for many non-NNTP-admin users.

DejaNews == making traffic public == automatic external archiving ==
publicised email addresses.

>> group?

>Such a group would simply have to be moderated, and each message
>would have to have an annoying tag appended to it telling people not
>to reply but to join the list, etc.

That is the intention should I go the group route.

>> C) Should the list be split into seperate lists, divided by topic? 
>> What should the topic splits be?  (Note: I'm not keen on this motion. 
>> Convince me)
>
>Everyone's gut reaction is no.

Not quite accurate FWIW.  Tho that is the publicaly stated position. 
Careful with the generalities.

>> E) How should new membership be handled?
>> 
>>   Possible membership options:
>> 
>>     1) Publicise the list but only allow membership by application. 
>> ie New members would have to apply, stating *why* they should be
>> considered as members.  These applications would be posted to the list
>> as well as my decisions on them.  (I'm not fond of this approach for
>> the overhead it puts on me).
>>
>>     2) Publicise the fact of the list, but leave membership by
>> invitation only.  Require any new member to be sponsored by an
>> existant member.

>I'm in favour of this as opposed to #1. (probably with #3 thrown in -
>though you need to define "actively posting")

Okay.  Currently I don't query the source of new subscribe messages,
or how they found out about the list.  Should I require that existant
members email me on other's they invite?  Essentially this equates to
existant members sponsoring new members to the list.  If I do that,
should the sponsoring member be held accountable to any exent for the
new member's conduct on the list?

>>     3) Variation on #2: require the sponsor to also be an actively
>> posting member.
>> 
>>     4) Make membership uncontrolled.
>
>No. Your moderation power goes out the window then.

Defninition of "uncontrolled membership":

  The subscription address and instructions are widely promulgated.  

  I retain the ability to ban specific email addresses, domains, users
etc, or refuse them membership.

  I retain the ability to put specific members postings on hold, or to
require all of a specific members postings be authorised by me (ie
standard moderated list style).

  I retain the ability to wave my ASCII arms about and whine at people
on the list.

>>     5) Something else?

>"Abuse it and lose it" means that AOL will eventually have read-only
>access to the Net. The Net could be given read-only access to the
>list through the web or Usenet. Getting onto the list could be an
>intelligence test like on your BBS.

It has a certain appeal.

>> Do realise however that taking the list public opens it to the Reese
>> idiot intolerace flames, Katrina's dunno-how-C++-works prattles,

>I submit that a lot of those people are fired up by the flamebouyant
>culture of r.g.mad, and would be able to distinguish between JCL
>(writing as list-owner) and JCL (anti-reset whipping boy) after a few
>days on the list. I don't see Reese getting himself kicked off for
>disobeying a "This thread dies here"  request from JCL (walo). 

Combat MUD freaks understand big guns.  As list owner I have-um big
gun.

<guffaw>

>In another post, you define "infraction". Disregarding requests from
>the list owner ought to be included in this definition (hopefully not
>explicitly)

True.

>> Addledbrain III's LP-is-da-deity pieties, DikuHeads R00L chants etc of

>Addledbrain III's blatant lies are what get to me. He's not the sort
>of person who'd get invited anyway, though, is he?

*I* wouldn't invite him.  I'm not about to make that claim for all the
other members, tho I would hope its also true.

>I am in favour of a "minimalist" change to make the list public,
>probably by making it and its archives publicly available, and
>keeping membership rules as they are. As it is now, there are people
>who refuse to join because the thing isn't public.

I keep meaning to have a chat with him.  <sigh>  One of these weeks. 
Right now I'm stuck in LibC test runs...

>One problem with this approach is that newbies would have to send
>begging letters to list members in order to get on, and this would
>bring about pressure for a further liberalisation of the rules.

Bingo.  Sponsorship and stated results on sponsorship attempts might
help.

--
J C Lawrence                           Internet: claw at null.net
(Contractor)                           Internet: coder at ibm.net
---------------(*)               Internet: clawrenc at cup.hp.com
...Honorary Member Clan McFUD -- Teamer's Avenging Monolith...




More information about the MUD-Dev mailing list