rec.arts.scarecrow ?

In article <022...@anon.penet.fi>, I <an9...@anon.penet.fi> wrote:

:-> i am anonymous in this post because i expect to post non-anonymously 
:-> later so i think that if i wish fair treatment i better be anonymous. 
:-> so those idealists among you who have never been harassed, stalked, 
:-> persecuted, raped, or shot at kindly keep quiet about us cowardly 
:-> anonymous posters and don't commit the ad hominum fallacy of arguing 
:-> against the poster instead of her ideas.

while this group may be liberally populated with great artists, some here
are certainly deficient in reading comprehension. the total content of
several responses to my original post was criticism of me. check
the dictionary boys under 'ad hominum.' when you attack the presenter of
an unpopular position instead of the position, you have refuted nothing
only demonstrated the poverty of your own resources.

:-> i have less concern about the censorship problem presented by 
:-> moderation than i do the problem of self-promotion regarding any arts 
:-> news group. based on several months lurking in this group, it seems to 
:-> me that the scarecrow is heavily into self-promotion. my god the man 
:-> offers more of his select collections of ascii art than you find in 
:-> the contents of some ftp sites. add to this both the size and number 
:-> of his sigs and i think it would be fair to say his ego is far from 
:-> microscopic.

some of you think the scarecrow is tremendously talented and that is the 
reason for his excesses. i have read and noted over 300 of the scarecrow's 
posts. i saw mostly art borrowed from others in combination or 
embellishment. what was original was formulaic, for example, collections 
of trains or sigs, mostly variations on a theme. having been a commercial 
artist myself, i would call the scarecrow a miniaturist, many of whom are 
incapable of a major masterpiece a la row crawford, tua xiong, or scesw, 
but often major in variations on a theme.

:-> i do likewise think his sending art directly to posters rather than 
:-> posting their requests as it appears he intends to do to be further 
:-> evidence of a tendency to self-promotion.

some of you challenged this point. let me explain. the scarecrow has
said he intends to reply directly to these requestors. he will send
them what *he* deems the appropriate art without oversight of anyone
else. a much better solution would be to send them a list of the dozens
of sites archiving ascii art and let them pick what they want. this also
cuts down on future requests from these posters, since they will now know
were to find the large collections.

:-> this of itself is enough for me to vote against this proposed 
:-> arrangement. finally, what i have said is rather evident to those who 
:-> suffered under moderators with a sense of self-promotion, but i will 
:-> make a prediction that not long after the rec group is formed, we will
:-> find that the scarecrow will be featured in the traditional press in an
:-> article on the ascii art form -- watch for it -- it's happened before.

some of you saw my original post as a flame. i suggest you read groups
specializing in flames. maybe then you'll recognize one when you see it.

i had two points to make: first, that moderation of an arts group is a bad 
idea for reasons not only of censorship but also self-promotion either of
individuals or cliques and secondly, that the scarecrow's behavior is
very typical of the self-promoters whom i have known. and as a result, i
would prefer to see a lower-profile person in the role of moderator if 
the group is approved.

as for the suggestion that these concerns are overinflated, i am of the
school that believes it is almost always easier to prevent a problem than 
to correct it. or to put it another way: waiting until it happens is
often too late to do anything about it.

:-> in general, it is a bad idea to moderate any arts-oriented news group 
:-> but IMHO it is a particularly bad idea in this case. 

I URGE everyone to VOTE NO for REC.ARTS.ASCII!

to the idiot who pointed out that i could not vote anonymously, that all
depends on what you view 'anonymity' or pseudonymity to be. i know a person 
who has nine different freenet accounts and fourteen bbs accounts. geez, that 
could be 23 NO votes for rec.arts.scarecrow if she were so inclined.  :-P  


-lion

**
  .sig size is at least directly proportional to one's desire for attention.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To find out more about the anon service, send mail to hel...@anon.penet.fi.
Due to the double-blind, any mail replies to this message will be anonymized,
and an anonymous id will be allocated automatically. You have been warned.
Please report any problems, inappropriate use etc. to adm...@anon.penet.fi.

Well, the more I think about this, the more confused I become.

an99541:
> some of you challenged this point. let me explain. the scarecrow has
> said he intends to reply directly to these requestors. he will send
> them what *he* deems the appropriate art without oversight of anyone
> else.

I don't see where Scarecrow has said that.  In his recent statement,
he said that he would answer Frequently Asked Questions directly.
I've been assuming this would be questions like, "where are there
ascii archives", "how do I view an animation", "how do I use a sig
file", etc, not requests for ascii pictures.

On the other hand, these FAQs have been pretty rare recently.
Filtering them out isn't going to substantially improve any perceived
signal-to-noise ratio.  So if this is the main thing that Scarecrow is
going to do, I'm not sure why moderation is necessary.

(I don't think Usenet as a whole is heading towards more moderation.
Unmoderated traffic and unmoderated groups will probably always
dominate.)
--

In article <134...@anon.penet.fi>,  <an9...@anon.penet.fi> wrote:
>In article <022...@anon.penet.fi>, I <an9...@anon.penet.fi> wrote:
>
>while this group may be liberally populated with great artists, some here
>are certainly deficient in reading comprehension. the total content of
>several responses to my original post was criticism of me. check
>the dictionary boys under 'ad hominum.' when you attack the presenter of
>an unpopular position instead of the position, you have refuted nothing
>only demonstrated the poverty of your own resources.
>
>[flame of scarecrow]
>
>some of you saw my original post as a flame. i suggest you read groups
>specializing in flames. maybe then you'll recognize one when you see it.
>
>[further flame of scarecrow]
>
>-lion
>
>**
>  .sig size is at least directly proportional to one's desire for attention.
>
>[for those of you who missed it, that was another flame of scarecrow]

I wonder what a picture of superiority would look like.

     _
    (_)
     |
    /|\
   / | \
  /  |  \
  \  |   \
   \ |    \
     |
    / \
    | |
    | |      o
    | |      /\
    | |       /\        

    M E      you

or maybe...
     _
    (_)
     |
    /|\
   / | \
  /  |  \
  \  |   \
   \ |    \
     |
    / \
    | |
    | |      
    | |     o__
    | |     / <\        

    M E      you

or even...
     _
    (_)
     |
    /|\
   / | \
  /  |  \
  \  |   \
   \ |    \
     |
    / \
    | |
    | |      
    | |      
    | |     o/_\/        

    M E      rip


I would like to thank Colin Douthwaithe (sorry if the spelling's wrong)
for remaining polite throughout most of these discussions.

-- 
       ___   ___  /  \____                  ############################
      /   \_/   \ \_   __ \                 # Bram Cohen               #
     /           \_/  /  \/                 # bco...@acsu.buffalo.edu  #
    /\            ___/                      # Just trying to be myself #

>On the other hand, these FAQs have been pretty rare recently.
>Filtering them out isn't going to substantially improve any perceived
>signal-to-noise ratio.  So if this is the main thing that Scarecrow is
>going to do, I'm not sure why moderation is necessary.

All along, it's been stated that if r.a.a (mod) were to pass, it wouldbe a
"light" moderation. Now I know that some people have stated that there's
no such thing as "light" moderation, but there *really* is.

What it really means is that Bob would remove ONLY the things that 99%
of the subscibers would not like to read. For example, a picture might
be requested 10 times inside two weeks (which happens occationally). THAT
picture would become a FRP (Frequently Requested Picture), and Bob would
possibly choose to cut any further requests/posts in favour of personally
responding with the FAQ and maybe even the pic. If however, at a later date
the picture had not been seen for a while, it would loose it's FRP status,
and would possibly be posted (and why not).

All anyone would be missing 100% of the time is the *really* off target
posts. The ever-popular MAKE.MONEY.FAST posts would be a thing of the past,
as would any other similar post. Is this "really" moderation? It's really
just a global "kill file" (no offence Bob :).

I think it's just nice to have the moderation option there in THIS case.
If Bob saw the noise dropping down, he could easily put it into "auto".
I find this whole "moderation=no freedom of speak" argument more of an
excuse rather than a reason.

But it's up to the individual to decide.
Row.

Brad Cohen:
>[for those of you who missed it, that was another flame of scarecrow]

I think you're missing the point.  an99451 is uncomfortable with the
idea of Scarecrow as a moderator, and has managed to express some of
the reasons for the discomfort.  Your response does not address any of
this.  Instead, it seems to be trying to make sure noone else dares
hold a similar opinion.

I've thought about responding to an99451's concerns, and basically, I
can't.  I don't really know Scarecrow at all.

Two minor points though.

an99451:
>  .sig size is at least directly proportional to one's desire for attention.

I don't think this is even vaguely true.  People choose signatures
that look good to them.  It's no secret that large ascii art tends to
look better than small ascii art.  So it's not surprising that there's
a general tendency towards larger signatures that has to be countered
by things like 4-line limits and warlording.

> as for the suggestion that these concerns are overinflated, i am of the
> school that believes it is almost always easier to prevent a problem than 
> to correct it.

This is the same sort of reasoning that is leading some people to
believe that moderating the group is necessary.  The saying goes, an
ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.  But is a pound of
prevention worth an ounce of cure?  Real-world tradeoffs are more
complex than this.

I voted yes for rec.arts.ascii because I like the idea of a mainstream
ascii art group, but I think I'd prefer it were unmoderated.  Is this
enough reason to change my vote to no?  I don't know.  I haven't
decided yet.
--

Row:
> What it really means is that Bob would remove ONLY the things that 99%
> of the subscibers would not like to read. For example, [...]

I'd be happier if Bob were saying this, not you.  You've given me a
good idea of how you would approach moderation, and I think it's
mostly reasonable, except for one thing.

> All anyone would be missing 100% of the time is the *really* off target
> posts. The ever-popular MAKE.MONEY.FAST posts would be a thing of the past,
> as would any other similar post.

If those Make.Money.Fast articles hadn't been posted, would Mike
Jittlov have created his Big.Money.Fast parody?
--

>If those Make.Money.Fast articles hadn't been posted, would Mike
>Jittlov have created his Big.Money.Fast parody?

Ahh, good point :). Mind you, the MMF posts get cross posted to virtually every
group you can think of, and all the moderation of r.a.a would do is mean that
we could miss seeing it on our favourite group, and the 55 follow-ups it gets.
Mike probably found it on alt.fan.mike-jittlov anyway ;).

I must admit that I voted YES for purely personal (and probably selfish)
reasons. But then thats the idea of a public vote. I like the thought of
having a rec. group, I like the thought of having possibly a larger user
base, and I like like the idea of possibly separating requests from an art
group (not that rec. would do that in any way). What I dont like is wading
through "crap" (disclaimer: these are my thoughts and I do not try to imply
that everyone on this group thinks the same way), hoping to find the occational
"art" related posting.

Having said that, if I hadn't talked to Bob quite a lot with regard to
moderation, I would have been a lot less comfortable in voting YES to
the moderation aspect. Remember that the moderator is not doing it for
himself, or for the group, he does it for the people who read the group.
If people like to see a certain thing posted which would otherwise have
been cut, then I can only imagine that he'd be quite happy to go along
with that. After all, it means less work for him.

A little word about requests. In no way am I trying to say that people
should request all they like, when they like. But the groups that I'm
aware of created a separate .request group for the simple reason that
they can take over a group (as we've seen here to an extent). Of course
being able to request ascii art is *very* handy, but reading them is
NOT. Althought it's just a matter of hitting "n" (on my system anyway),
it's not always readily apparent that it is a request (some people dress
them up :), and also, due to the huge number of requests here, there
is still a significant time-based objection.

Remember, if r.a.a (mod) passes, then a.a-a will still be here so people
can request *whatever they like*. There'll still be people fulfilling
the requests.

Something to think about anyway.
Row.

Felix Lee (fle...@cse.psu.edu) wrote:
: Row:
: > All anyone would be missing 100% of the time is the *really* off target
: > posts. The ever-popular MAKE.MONEY.FAST posts would be a thing of the past,
: > as would any other similar post.
: If those Make.Money.Fast articles hadn't been posted, would Mike
: Jittlov have created his Big.Money.Fast parody?

I don't understand you people.  There's here (alt.ascii-art) and there's 
alt.binaries.pictures.ascii (or whatever it's called).  Trust me, the 
Make Money Fast and other completely pointless posts would show up HERE 
and THERE.  (Not to mention on alt.fan.mike.jittlov.)

Those two groups are NOT going to get deleted, so why is everyone acting 
as if when rec.ascii-art is created then that's the only thing anyone 
will be able to access??  This paranoia is ridiculous.  And no one is 
suggesting that EVERYTHING will be moderated -- just r.a-a.

For a couple of days I briefly lost all access to any alt groups, and it 
made me realize that a rec ascii group is needed.  I don't happen to care if 
it's moderated, but if it is, I'm glad it'd be Scarecrow.

Just add a clause to the charter that outlines the method of removing the 
moderator if necessary and everybody shut up.

As for you, Colin -- Paul was right.  When you respond to a 4+ page 
message I post please DON'T just pull out of context the two little clauses 
you want to butcher.  I don't care if you happen to have enough time to have 
this war against r.a-a moderated, but if you're going to waste MY time with 
it, at least be fair.

               />
             \/<    /       Troy Fore
 -{\\\\<>\\\\(*)XXX<:::<=====================================================-
             /\<    \       tfo...@st6000.sct.edu
               \>

           "At the touch of love, everyone becomes a poet."  -- Plato

Troy Fore:
>Those two groups are NOT going to get deleted,

Right.  At least, not anytime soon.  This is one of the reasons I
haven't changed my yes vote yet.

> This paranoia is ridiculous.

It's not paranoia; it's planning ahead.  The proponents of
rec.arts.ascii clearly did quite a bit of planning ahead, in writing
the charter, in laying groundwork for the RFD and CFV, in choosing to
make it moderated, and in choosing a moderator.  Such an effort
certainly deserves a matching effort on my part.  Anything less would
be disrespectful.  :)
--