|
|
|
|
Andy Tinkham <tinkha@rpi.edu>
Sun, 22 Sep 1996 17:18:15 -0400
Hey everyone... I have a proposal that I'd like to throw out about
this newsgroup/mailing list stuff (yes, I know it's died down
now, but I've been sick and haven't had a chance to post this
until now).
Basically, my proposal is this:
Have both (but different from now)
I was talking to Gail Kaiser (the postmaster here) and she said
that it is possible to have a newsgroup/mailing list mirror set
up. Anything posted to the newsgroup would be mailed out to the
mailing list and anything mailed to the mailing list would be
posted to the newsgroup. It's already been set up a couple times
here, mostly for ITS/ACS/whatever staff, and she said that she
wouldn't have any problem doing it for us.
Personally, I would like this option. For one thing, we could
have our own newsgroup which would settle any conflict left there...
However, I almost never check USENET news, since there's too many
other places that I've found on there that can suck me in, and
I would prefer to get messages via e-mail. Other people want threading
and such that a newsgroup would provide, plus a newsgroup makes
a good place to archive things.
Of course, things would be set up so that there was no infinite
loops where something gets posted to the newsgroup, then gets
mailed to the list, which means it gets posted to the newsgroup,
which means it gets mailed, etc. etc. or anything like that.
I am willing to work with Gail to set this up for us, if people
are interested...
Andy
--
Andy Tinkham <tinkha@rpi.edu><tinkha@visi.com>
Bill Moller <mollew@rpi.edu>
Sun, 22 Sep 1996 18:24:22 -0400
I agree that something should be done Andy, but if it's still
going to be mailed to us, then why put it in a newsgroup. Your
plan would not solve the email-overload (though it's died down
somewhat.)
Andy Tinkham <tinkha@mixer.visi.com>
Mon, 23 Sep 1996 16:48:03 -0400
Bill Moller once expounded (Sep 22 at 6:24pm to be precise) on "RE: A proposal..."
> I agree that something should be done Andy, but if it's still going to be
> mailed to us, then why put it in a newsgroup. Your plan would not solve
the
> email-overload (though it's died down somewhat.)
Actually, it would solve the e-mail overload. One thing that I
forgot to mention would be that those who didn't want to get e-mail
would be unsubscribed from the list and could just go read it
in the newsgroup. It might merit having some kind of setup (either
another alias or some other setup) so that messages like Mick's
from today about the MOO class being cancelled still got e-mailled
to everyone, but the general discussion would only be sent to
those who wanted to read the messages in e-mail and to the newsgroup,
where everyone else could go get them.
Andy
--
Andy Tinkham <tinkha@rpi.edu><tinkha@visi.com>
Mick Doherty <doherm>
Mon, 23 Sep 1996 20:44:17 -0400
I was never convinced that the whole argument was about "e-mail
overload." Is that really what it comes down to? Convenience?
I'd be more than happy to see Andy set this up, especially since
we could hook the interface to the class website pretty easily,
should one end up being created.
But is that all the argument is? Convenience?
Interesting meta-commentary on the use of technology if ya ask
me ...
<devilishly advocated smirk>
Bill Moller <mollew@rpi.edu>
Mon, 23 Sep 1996 20:52:27 -0400
What did you think it was all about?
Mon, 23 Sep 1996 20:56:52 -0400
RE: A proposal...
> What did you think it was all about?
Now, that would be telling.
You figure it out.
Dennis Payne <dulsi@identical.stu.rpi.edu>
Mon, 23 Sep 1996 21:23:41 -0400 (EDT)
> But is that all the argument is? Convenience?
> Interesting meta-commentary on the use of technology if ya
ask me ...
Ah Mick, what the hell did you think technology is for. I suppose
at one point survival was its use but a microwave is for convenieve.
As for my opinion on the idea, I think you should go for it just so I can unsubscribe from that stupid electronics newsgroup :)
I plan on remaining with the mailing list.
Dennis Payne
dulsi@identical.stu.rpi.edu
payned@rpi.edu
Heather Carlson <tinkham@visi.com>
Fri, 27 Sep 1996 14:15:58 -0500 (CDT)
>> What did you think it was all about?
>
> Now, that would be telling.
> You figure it out.
I didn't see all of the discussion, but the part I did see brought
up interesting issues about property rights in cyberspace. Who
"owns" the rights to a newsgroup once it has been created?
Can it be abandoned?
To extend that to the idea of virtual realities and MOOs, I would
wonder whether anyone can "own" a virtual reality space?
If the virtual world is built through the contributions of its
population, who has a right to change it? A real example of this
comes when someone decides to write an FAQ or web page guide to
a newsgroup or IRC channel that has a feeling of a virtual space
to it. I would think it would apply to directions and guides for
using an established MOO. Is that right, Mick?
Heather Carlson
Dept. of Information and Decision Sciences hcarlson@csom.umn.edu
University of Minnesota tinkham@visi.com
Minneapolis, MN USA
Jester <gentrj>
Sat, 28 Sep 1996 14:55:53 -0400
re: who owns a "virtual space" like a MOO?
Before I begin, I must ask ... why does everyone focus on MOO
around here? Why not go for MUSH or MUSE ... its much nicer from
a coding standpoint (both hard and soft), and often lends itself
to a better "atmosphere" due to its enhanced functionality.
Considering i'm the codger who is normally pushing for old technology
use, it seems odd that all you web-mavens are clinging on to obsolescent
M* technology :)
Anyhow ...
I used to play as both an Admin and a very major character (a "feature c
character", ie one of the handful the whole place revolvs
around) on the Battletech MUSE. The issue of ownership was one
that often came up. A bit of history on the place: It was spawned
out of an earlier BT MUSE and the initial bunch of admins (this
was about 4 years ago) somehow allowed themselves to be corraled
into placing one guy in charge. (those damn manager types). Anyhow,
he proceeded to chase out all of the original admins. Now, 4 years
later, the place is in shambles. There are lots of questions as
to ownership. The original coders claim they own it. Guzzer, the
head admin, claims to have written the code, but this is not the
case. Also, his new admins never wrote anything worthwhile.
The players claim they own it - at least, the ones who've been
there for any length of time. For, without them, the place would
have been nothing.
The guy who owns the machine (yes, some player bought a SPARCstation
and is paying some place across the country from him to plug it
in and run the MUSE from it) claims that he owns it - but gives
his vote to Guzzer.
All of these "factions" have been arguing for so long
it is sickening - and nothing has every really come of the MUSE
due to the petty bickering.
Anyhow, the way i've looked at it is this: Yer (the dude who bought
the Sun) is the correct one. He owns the machine. he has every
right to just unplug the thing, and down goes the muse. However,
the muse entity - that which exists on the net, that is a trickier
question. Surely, the code and "structure" of the place
is owned by the original coders. They put in the time. the problem
is, there has been a lot of coding done since (not hard, but soft)
and "building" done there. If I go back there, can i
lay claim to the various "planets" that I "built"?
Miss Carlson, you brought up a good point, and one that i think
is very tricky to solve. I thought i'd bring a semi-real world
issue of the sort you were mentioning (or rather, a fake game
that is played by people who take it all too seriously <grin>).
For instance - who owns the account: gentrj@rpi.edu? Surely, RPI
owns all the physical aspects of it. The way i look at it, they
have every right to shut me off by unplugging machines, deleting
my account, putting a "*" in my password field, or not
allowing me to conenct to remote pleasures. However, given those
restraints - the "net entity" is all mine. I control
the mind, RPI controls the body, so to speak.
j
