Date   : Sun, 21 Nov 2010 23:57:31
From   : robert@... (Rob)
Subject: [BeebSoc] Do we need an off topic ban on this list? :-)

On 22 November 2010 02:22, Rick Murray <heyrick.beebsoc@...> wrote:
> On 22/11/2010 00:19, Michael Firth wrote:
>
>> If the standard list will potentially ban non BBC related discussion,
>> will there be a heated debate on this list as to whether BBC micro
>> related topics will be allowed?

I added to the info page:
>About BeebSoc
>Social group for postings off-topic for the main BBC-Micro mailing lists.
>Purely On-topic postings should really be directed there

Which is how I see it.  Note the "should".  If you are starting a new
thread, and it's Beeb-related enough to satisfy JK, post it to the
main list.  If in doubt, put it here.  Otherwise, if a thread drifts
enough, feel free to cross-post (and adjust subject) if you remember,
but I wouldn't mind personally if it stays here (or there!).


> The way I see it, the off topic posts are "annoying" to a select few, but it
> is the outlook and rudeness of some people that is being most detrimental to
> the list. How can it promote a happy community people are behaving like
> pseudoreligious social pariahs on Halloween night?

I'm happy to host this list because, as I put in the post to the main
one, although I disagree with the principle of a ban, I don't want
enough of the membership to be annoyed enough to leave it.  If
splitting the list content keeps people happy, then that's OK.  God
knows, there aren't that many of us that we can afford to lose so many
members as have said goodbye recently.


>
> I mean, think about it. Is there an actual *need* for a BBC Mailing list?
> There's a quarter century of Beeb history and a heck of a lot of it is
> archived. Surely the list only exists for promoting "new" products and for
> those who can't be assed to get up and Google for info...? Or is the social
> interaction of it (apparently missed by some) as important as the question?

True,,,

> feel a part of a small community bravely taking on the world with a system
> less complicated than the average multi-purpose TV remote.

This is my thought.  It's the people I liked being on the list for,
not the topics.


>
> Frankly, I'm not *that* interested in how many MPGs a car gets. Hell, I
> can't even think in *gallons* (it isn't helpful having a mom of American
> heritage, as their imperial measurements are different again). However, the
> idea of a little GPS recorder? That interests me. My eeePC is too big, and
> my mobile phone is epic fail (I have a perfect program that draws a little
> compass and everything, but it appears as if all the readings are directed
> to /dev/null !). Maybe some sort of mini computer and SD card sort of setup
> will do the job? Maybe. I will probably, in all honesty, build that like I
> built the 6502 board I designed in 2003. ;-) I'm lazy really, but thinking
> about stuff. I like that. Thinking is good...

Yep, while the car stuff is completely uninteresting, this sort of
hardware hacking interests me, and that thread evolved back into
on-topic for the main list.  Who am I to judge therefore?

>
>
> That said, Rob's the guy in charge. Perhaps we ought to have a charter to
> point to. Like "OT is accepted, binaries and attachments aren't" or
> something? I dunno. It's not my call.

OK, having been dropped into the hot seat (thanks Rick!) as far as I'm
concerned it's any topic goes, within reason.  i.e. nothing that most
people would find offensive, or which would get any of us into
trouble.  This is, after all, supposed to be the place for the
off-topic stuff.

Without going back and checking, I think the default settings when
setting up the list were to allow small attachments up to 40K ..
however people should certainly exercise restraint - does everybody on
the list *need* that attachment right now?  Even those on dial-up, GSM
or otherwise paying per minute/kilobyte?  I can't actually see any
need for them on a mailing list, TBH so would disable that if it
becomes an issue.

Rob