NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #19/NN_1992_19.iso/spool/comp/sys/next/misc/19172

Internet Message Format | 1992-08-31 | 20.6 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sample.eng.ohio-state.edu!purdue!yuma!csn!ale!todd
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.misc
Subject: Re: Prices on c.s.n.announce (LONG: FROM MODMAN)
Keywords: MODMAN long csna comp.sys.next.announce VOTING formats
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 31 Aug 92 22:20:53 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Liveware Corporation   Fort Collins, CO.  USA.
Lines: 436

Dear Netheads,

My name is Todd Nathan.  I am currently the volunteer moderator
for the USENET news group comp.sys.next.announce.  You may
or may have not been following the pricing inclusion/exclusion
thread on the comp.sys.next.advocacy, misc and software
groups.  I hope you find this response summary informative and useful.

I have taken some of the better/emotional/interesting/loving postings
from the Net and jumped into the public arena on this issue.
I have been avoiding this since I feel it is best dealt on a private
level since I ultimately make the decision anyway.  But it has
been pointed out I should/could/would go public on this issue.

So here I am, reluctantly I might add.  If you
have found these first 3 paragraphs too long for you likes, then kill
this article now, it only gets longer.  I have a
small residual lung capacity and a large lung volume... ;')

In article <[e-mail]>  writes:
>
> I feel very strongly about prices!  I think they are, and I'll be upset if
they
> aren't.  I think Todd should, and if he doesn't, again, I'll be upset.
>
> You should all feel strongly.  And, if you do, you should be upset too.
>
> I hope this provides a clear understanding of my feelings on this matter.
>
> Ralph
> ---
> Ralph Zazula
> Pinnacle Research, Inc.
> [e-mail] (NeXT Mail)
> [phone]

To answer this 'public' question, I do feel strongly about prices
and that is the point to my asking the net readers of c.s.n.* groups
about it.  I am in the process of reading about everything i can
get my hands on about the subject.  So please, be patient.  I will
continue to post without prices (as the policy stands) until I see
fit to do differently.  Indeed in another post, a point was made
that there is tradition and 'usage policies' for the Net as a whole
and the subnets using the net.  These are seriously being weighed and
the lack of knowledge of these policies would be stupidity on my
part, not 'doing the right thing'...  So in due time.



In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Lytras Apostolos) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Jim De Arras) writes:
> >You consider price to be 'hype', rather than 'information', I take it.
>
> No, you got me wrong. I am not generally against prices. I just think
> that we should be careful about where we're going. If we allow the hype
> to be "beautified" with prices then we will have to cope with seriously
> commercial use of this medium, sooner or later. I have received a
> mail from one reader of this newsgroup who proposes a solution that
> could be abbreviated with "take the hype out of the postings and put as
> much information in, as possible or necessary".
>
> An announcement would then look like this, e.g.
>
> Name: BLAH
> Producer: Foo, Inc.
> Category: Text Processor
> Features: imports RTF text and EPS pictures
>           comes with a developer API for custom apps
>           max. size of document: blabla
> Contact:  somestreet 234, somecity xxx
>           Fax:
>           E-Mail:
>           Phone:
> Price:    $ 0.02
>
> This would not interfere with Usenet guidelines for posting, it would not
> need an additional archive server service, it would keep hype out and
> get information in. It's quite a viable solution, IMHO. Thanks to Ronald
> C. Antony for pointing me to this.
>
> Maybe this will clear things up a little...
>
> Have fun!
> - Apostolos
> --
>      [e-mail]           |   Apostolos Lytras
>      [e-mail]    |   Informatik Club der Uni
>      [e-mail]      |   Zuerich, SysAdmin

The above format is very similiar to the one I recommend
using for posts (posted by me about 2 weeks ago).  So
all I have to say is that the differences/benefits to the
official format should be pointed out and such considered
if these differences are warrented.  I do appreicate the
interest in forming a good solid format, which will off load
work and also help the reader (which is most important)
quickly and accurately assess the post for pertinent information.

An archive server is NOT the solution for everyone, unless
it is set up for email response, and there  would be a
added time for to put the added time into maintaining such an archive.
I could do this, and will consider the ramifications for such a server...
I like the idea but it costs money to do create, maintain and moderate
such a server.



In article <[e-mail]>
[e-mail] (Anil Trivedi) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Lytras Apostolos) writes:
>
> >    Because of Usenet's roots in academia, and because Usenet depends
> >    so heavily on cooperation (sometimes among competitors), custom
> >    dictates that advertising be kept to a minimum.  It is tolerated
> >    if it is infrequent, informative, and low-hype.
> ...
>
> All of this sound fine, but sadly irrelevant. Why should the mention
> of *prices* be regarded as any more of an advertizement than say that
> of technical *features* and *specs* of a product?
>
> -----

The point is well taken by Anil AND Lytras.  The point of having
any information from commercial sectors is indeed a form of advertising
especially if the producer of such materials is the vendor of the
product.  And from the readers' standpoint the announcement is likely
not complete without pricing.  This is almost the crux of this
issue in a nutshell.  If prices are out of line and a no-no then
likely we will have to do away with anything that is 'hyped' and
more than 'just the facts mam'.  I personally and considering
the ramifications of this issue and again will not post pricing
until there is a space for such a decision to be made.  Right now
I am reading up on the issues and usage policies of available policy
posted subnets of the Net.  Please, I highly recommend everyone
read the news.announce and news.answers groups to get a good
feeling of these issues and related topics.



In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Jim De Arras) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]>
> [e-mail] (Robert D. Nicholson) writes:
> > I think the pricing server idea is a good one, although it still lets them
> > get the message accross but its better than blatant pricing information
> spread
> > across the net.
> >
>
> <flame on>
> "blatant pricing information spread[ing] across the net"!  Sounds like prices
> are some disease.  They are INFORMATION!  Get it?
>
> Do you think CSN* is some sort of 'cold fusion' discussion group?  No, it's a
> GREAT BIG COMMERCIAL!  It is for the support of commercial products of NeXT.
> Most folks plan to *gasp* make money either using these machines, helping
> other's use them, or in just plain honing thier marketable skills.
>
> This anti-price-only mentality plain baffles me.  I could understand (but not
> support) an anti-commercial postings mindset, but not this cock-eyed mess
> where, say, a Jack Reynold's style post (and I like your posts, Jack, don't
> take offence here) magically becomes NOT a commerical if the $599.95 is
changed
> to $xxx.xx.  What powerful magic!  Now, suddenly, I see the posting as purely
> informational, where before I say only a blatent, offensive, commercial.
>
> Bullshit.
>
> <flame off>
>
> There, now I feel better.  Offended folks please respond by e-mail
>
> Jim De Arras
> [e-mail] (NeXTMAIL, with prices, welcome)

Directed at Jim and the people who are going to rally against my
decisions to 'XXX' out prices.  Well, since the policy stands
as it is for historic and legal reasons (being some subnets may
not carry c.s.n.announce due to price inclusions) it is prudent
that we not 'decide' for them what they can and can't read.  I personally
feel that not having people read a post with prices due to not being
able to receive it is worse than reading about a product which has no prices
but includes a phone number.  And that is what this whole decision is going
to come down to, what is worse and what can we live with.  Again
the 'right thing' is not going to cure all the ills of this issue.

I openly recommend again that readers spend a few weeks reading
the flow of traffic and interjecting comments and questions
to the people subscribing to the news.* groups.  I have found
there information to be helpful and insightful.

There is no place at this time to have a call for a vote.  You can
VOTE all you want, but there are policies here.  A call for discussion
needs to happen for quite a while and then if enough interest (seems
there is, but we need to formalize it...) is shown a call for
vote (CFV) will occur.  But the issues here are NOT going to get
voted on since a vote will cover issues like 'should the group
go away', and 'should we unmoderate the group'.  You can't vote
on something like 'should we or should we not force prices down
the throats of the ENTIRE Net'.  I for one will not support such
a vote and am pretty sure the Net will not either.

If I am mistaken on this please send me mail and point out other situations
where a groups charter was modified in such a radical manner...
I have no proof such changes have ever been made while moderating
this group.

Note:  Since taking over the moderator job, nothing baffles me
any more.  I think in a way this has been a great discussion
and it does need to be dealt with, and is being dealt with.
Some of you may not think so, but I been spending about 3-4 hours
of my personal and professional time these past few weeks
dealing this your comments, questionaires, insults and opinions.
I enjoy most of these categories (go figure out which I do not)
and encourage all of you voice your feelings.


In article <[e-mail]>
[e-mail] (Pascal Chesnais) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]>
> [e-mail] (veenu.r.rashid) writes:
> > I think all the other comp.sys.*.* newsgroups routinely carry price
> > information about their products, without much flamage about this
> > content.  I wonder who thought up this policy here.
>
> For the record - I did.  csn.announce is carried across many
> different networks,  each with their own idea of what is appropriate
> use of tax payer's money.  The administrators for each of these
> networks has defined policies concerning what is correct and what
> is not.  Traffic that they believe is wrong is not carried.
>
> In the beginning I asked about these policies and got copies
> and formulated an acceptable compromise.  Feel free to vote,
> but the current moderator has the last say as to what happens
> on csn.announce,  and the network admins that carry csn.announce
> have the final say about if it goes through their wires or
> not.
>
> I would strongly urge that you do not deluge the moderator of
> csn.announce with "we must have a vote...."  He has a very
> difficult job to do with a bunch of very vocal people with
> little clue as to what is going on.
>
> pasc

Pascal has said more accurately in 3 paragraphs
than I can in a lifetime.  Indeed there are commercial-free
subnets, and I don't want to exclude them from information
due to the fact that prices are or are not included (as stated
above).  Also, he is right.  I do have the say as to whether
something goes through or not.  I have been rather 'light'
on some posts.  I have only refused 3 out of 100+ requests.
That is very low.  I feel that Pascal ran the group with
a slightly heavier hand [ meant as a perception statement,
nothing more, nothing less ].  I want to thank
Pascal for coming forward and stating his views and to some
extent my own.  As for the clueless people, yeppers I have
had a few email messages from them. ;'<


In article <![e-mail]> [e-mail] (Garance A. Drosehn)
writes:
> [e-mail] (Edmund Ronald) writes:
> > After seeing yet another $XXX.XX on c.s.n.announce the other night,
> > rather than yell or reboot my cube, I posted a call for people willing
> > to vote to send me mail so that I can make a credible call for a vote
> > on this single issue: Leaving prices in, instead of emasculating all
> > those sexy product announcments :-)
>
> Hmm.  Should we be debating this in csn.advocacy?
>
> In any case, I would kinda like to see the prices included too.
>
> I do have some reservations though.  I don't want to see the newsgroups
> flooded with pricing wars, and I don't want to see the newsgroups flooded
> with product information.  Assuming the prices show up only in moderated
> posts (to csn.announce), maybe there isn't much danger of the above
> happening.  I don't feel comfortable about it, however.
>
> I know if *I* was selling something, there would be a strong temptation for
> me to figure out any way possible to keep my product in the "public eye"
> (usenet) for as much as possible.  I don't want usenet to become the
> electronic equivalent of my own US mailbox, where I get much more junk mail
> than real information.
>
> --
> Garance Alistair Drosehn     =     [e-mail]
> ITS Systems Programmer            (handles NeXT-type mail)
> Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute;           Troy NY    USA

To assure you all, your email box will NOT become a junk mail
bin for email from product manufactures.  That is what the
moderator is supposed to help avoid.  If there are ever
unauthorized usages of the c.s.n.announce group I will do
what I can to track down and deal with the individual(s) who
have misused the group.  Unauthorized usage is unlikely
and would be very detrimental to an organization of any size.
I also assure you I have refused a post on the grounds that someone
tried to 'flood' the c.s.n.announce with more than one 'informative'
posting of their pre-release software.  It was promptly trimmed
and the rest rejected.  Pre-release notices will be sent out
once, and then from that point on minor 'site location' of
upgrades will be posted.  As for the final release, it will
be allowed and encouraged as a full blown ANNOUNCEMENT: to
the readers of c.s.n.announce.  It was good this situation came
up since it forced me to deal with how to handle multi-post
happy companies...  ;')


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Gianfranco Ciardo) writes:
> In article <![e-mail]> [e-mail] (Garance A. Drosehn)
writes:
> > In any case, I would kinda like to see the prices included too.
>
> Good!
>
> > I do have some reservations though.  I don't want to see the newsgroups
> > flooded with pricing wars, and I don't want to see the newsgroups flooded
> > with product information.  Assuming the prices show up only in moderated
> > posts (to csn.announce), maybe there isn't much danger of the above
> > happening.  I don't feel comfortable about it, however.
>
> Maybe???? There is exactly as much danger as there is now!!!!
> Why should the "commercial advertisement" increase once the price is allowed?
> At most, there will be more reasons to do repeated postings following a price
> change, but that seems much better than seeing an announce saying that
product
> XYZ is now selling at the reduced price of $xxx.xx, down from $xxx.xx. :-(
> Now, that will be informative!
>
> The moderator will still have the opportunity to refuse a posting if it
> is a repeat, exactly as much as he does now.
>
> > I know if *I* was selling something, there would be a strong temptation for
> > me to figure out any way possible to keep my product in the "public eye"
> > (usenet) for as much as possible.  I don't want usenet to become the
> > electronic equivalent of my own US mailbox, where I get much more junk mail
> > than real information.
>
> What has this to do with the "price" VS. "no price" issue ?????
> The possibility of being flooded with commercial advertisement is already
> here.  The reason we do not see twenty times a day ads for product XYZ in
> the csn* newsgroup is certainly not the "no price" policy currently in place.
>
> I don't mind a discussion about the price issue in this group, but please,
> let's use some solid arguments.
>
> BTW, I find it funny that the price censorship applies to actual values,
> but not to orders of magnitude (I am sure everyone has noted the $xx.xx
> VS. the $xxx.xx in several postings, lately).

I am sure most have noticed the 'magnitude' technique.  I chose to do this
so maybe some people could use this to gauge their feelings about
whether to investigate the price at all.  Some would say that
$yyyy.xx is way out of range as apposed to $yy.xx or even $yyy.xx.
I made an assumption here, but that is the way I am doing it.
I appologise to those who are insulted by this decision, but
it was something I considered and thought would actually benefit
you without risking the reprecussions of actual numerical postings.
There you have my reasoning, flawed in the eyes of some.

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Edmund
Ronald) writes:
> Todd, the csna moderator has again been in touch with me, very politely
> asking me to call off my campaign for a vote on the question of prices
> in the forum he feeds and cares for.
>
> I have recieved lots of messages in support of a vote, heavily in favour
> of having pricing info, ie. not taking it out. Some of this mail comes
> from europe, where I too happen to live, and this makes me want to point out
> that software prices here are often inflated, around 180% of US list.
> Knowing the (low) US prices allows us to order direct, purchasing things
> we could never afford at local rates!
>
> Also, people in europe cannot call 800 numbers, and find long distance
> a bit expensive to use on a day to day basis! Thus USENET acts as a
> window on the US market for us, and we resent anyone putting "curtains"
> across that window to prevent us from seeing those "obscene, commercial" :-)
> prices of those "nice, sexy" :-) products.
>
> I remain in favor of a vote on the issue of prices on csna, and would
> request todd to deal publicly with the issue here. A flame war seems
> unlikely as we have all been (I believe) talking politely, and fairly
> rationnally.
>
> Edmund.

Okay, so here I am publically.  You got what you request Edmund.  I do
appreciate you being cordial about all this.  I respect your needs
and the above post fully clearified some needs and desires of our
friendly neighbors in Europe.  Thanks for publically posting the
subject of a private mail message. (tongue in cheek) ;')...
You did it with great editorial grace.

As for the reasoning, indeed you are 'using' the net at a gauge
to base decisions on purchase pricing.  But local economics are
not a reason to give you what you 'need', at the risk and likely
elimination of others.  No offence, but what makes YOU more important
than others.  I just can't see the real rational here.  I guess
it does come down to a dog eat dog world where at the cost of others
someone will do what it takes to get what they 'want'.

I understand that 800 number don't usually work from Europe.  I
am sorry, but maybe that is an issue Ma Bell and your local
Euro-Bell (ignorance on what phone companies are called shown here
in big fashion ;')) should deal with, not c.s.n.announce.  Two
wrongs (if they are) will not make something right here.

As for the call for a vote, I have outlined what my feelings
are about a vote in the above message, and such you can refer
above for this issue.  Summary about it, it is NOT appropriate
for this topic.  The quesitonaire was BAD, written at 3 in
the morning (last time that happens) but did serve as a tool
for people to voice their opinions.  I have somewhere around
300+ messages to date stating interest int he topic and how
the individual feels.

I have read EVERY single message about pricing which I have
received, and responded to about 90% of them without a form
letter.  I appreciate each and everyone of your feelings about
this issue, but I DO NOT LIKE OR APPRECIATE this effort to
call for a vote on an issue which to some extent is not going
to be voted on at all, and also indirectly/directly attempts
to derail and undermine my efforts to bring some needed changes
to the policy of c.s.n.announce.  End of diatribe.


Regards,

Todd Nathan
csna modman