From: Bad Mr. Frosty, bmfrosty@cris.com
At 01:41 AM 6/4/96 -0600, Travis Butler wrote:
On further thought, maybe a way to get MegaZone to update the
newsgroup on a more regular basis would be to challenge his position
or capability. Maybe start a group like alt.anime.creative.fast
and update it once a day. This action in itself will probabally
piss him off to the point where we'll either see r.a.a.c updated
daily or so, or he'll just stop altogether. I don't accually have
any real plans set up for doing this since it is just a thought.
<Snip>
Why do some people always make a confrontation out of everything? Why
*should* we "piss him off"? Megazone is a *volunteer*. He isn't getting
He is the head and only ACTIVE volunteer. He is also otherwise very busy
and doesn't have much time. He has volunteered that seems to require
*at least* weekly attention, but has only time to attend it once a month
or so. He has had other people volunteer to help him with the group, but
seems to ignore them (I know of myself and one other person on this list
who have offered or suggested additional people). I personally would like
nothing more than a nice happy painless solution to the problem, but when
that doesn't work. What's left?
Well, if all of the polite attempts to fix r.a.a.c have failed, then
perhaps it may indeed be time to start an alternate group -- but if that
is indeed the only alternative, then it should be done politely, in a
real attempt to fix things with an alternative, and not just to "piss him
off." That's what bothered me about the above passage: starting a group
to deliberately try and provoke him (which is what the passage seems to
suggest) goes beyond the bounds of civility and into the realm of
personal attacks, in my book. I've been through enough flamewars to
really *hate* deliberate provocation.
If I felt a new group was necessary, I'd announce it along these lines:
"There's been a problem with getting r.a.a.c updated on a timely basis;
in an attempt to ease/spread the load, we're starting a supporting group
called alt.anime.creative. This is intended as a temporary measure, and
if r.a.a.c gets back up and on its feet, we expect this group to go
away." This addresses the real problem -- getting fanfics distributed --
*without* trying to attack anyone. See the difference from the original
statement? Why make a deliberate attempt to provoke when it's not needed,
let alone desirable?
And please don't insinuate that I make a confrontation out of everything.
I wasn't trying to; my apologies if that's the way it came across. But it
seems like the last couple of times something like this has happened to
r.a.a.c, there have been posts from several different people -- both here
and on r.a.a/r.a.a.misc -- that go beyond saying "there's a problem" to
attacking Megazone personally. That's what got me upset, and that's what
I'm responding to -- this message just happened to be the straw that
broke the camel's back. The "some people" refers to all of the posters
who have done this, not you specifically.
paid for this, and he's doing it in his spare time. I can't speak for the
poster, but in the last year or two, I've realized (much to my chagrin)
that I don't have the time to do everything I want to do -- or even
everything I *promised* to do; on my web sites, for example. Sometimes
things work out that way. We're all human. (Or... hmmm, on this list,
better make that "more-or-less human." <g>) How many of us have written
fanfics, gotten stuck in something else, and haven't been able to finish
them when we promised?
Agreed. I personally have not had enough time to do all that I would
have liked to, but I think that in a situation where I had people willing
to volunteer and help out, and people were counting on me, it would be a
definate good idea to either accept the help, or try to pass the torch on.
In general, I'd agree, but I don't know enough about the specifics of
this situation to know if this is feasable. I think this is a problem,
and one that should be discussed; I just think that this discussion
should be kept within civil boundaries, more "how do we fix this" and
less "who do we blame/how do we tick the guy off." Even if the problem is
Megazone, there are better ways to deal with it then by attacking him.
Sure, I'm concerned about the long droughts on RAAC, especially in the
last couple of months. But I'm willing to look at his situation with an
open mind, and I'm not about to go into vindictive flaming mode for
something I know d*mn well that I might end up doing in similar
circumstances. There is a problem, I'd say, and something needs to be
worked out to fix it -- but I don't think any of us have a right to flame
Megazone without knowing the circumstances. I personally would go
further; I wouldn't flame him without evidence of deliberate, vindictive
intent, and probably not even then.
Who's flaming? Your message here has been more of a flame on me than
I have flamed anyone anytime in the last 2 years or so (in fact, I
believe that I've posted here more in the last two weeks than I've posted
combined everywhere else in the last 2 years :). Please remember that
what I originally posted was just a thought.
<Sigh> I'm sorry, but I'm afraid we have different definitions of
flaming. I define flames as personal attacks -- which is why I originally
removed your name from the post, in an attempt to address it to the group
as a whole and not single out someone, and also why I tried to respond to
the statement alone and not the person who made it. I strongly disagree
with the statement as it came across to me, and as I said I think the
deliberate provocation in the statement is a personal attack; but I'm
trying to argue the idea and not the personalities... if that makes any
sense. <rueful grin> I'm saying that I disagree with your statement; I'm
not saying that you're stupid for making it. :)
Another response I'm combining with this one...
-----------------------------------------------
From: Harold Ancell, hga@access.digex.net
The content of this message has been quite adequately rebuted in
detail; here's a few more points:
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 96 01:41:25 -0600
From: Travis Butler <tbutler@tfs.net>
[...] There is a problem, I'd say, and something needs to be
worked out to fix it -- but I don't think any of us have a right to flame
Megazone without knowing the circumstances.
The circumstances are utterly irrelevant.
If you step up to a service responsibility that's big in scale (or
very important), it's your responsibility to see that service is
maintained in foreseeable situations, like vacations. You don't see
newspapers shutting down when the editor in chief goes on vacation, do
you?
True. We also pay a subscription fee to get the newspaper, and the
newspaper pays the managing editor a salary for his services. That gives
both us and the newspaper a certain right or claim on the editor's
services. Do we pay a subscription fee to r.a.a.c (in specific, not a
general Internet access fee)? Do we pay Megazone for maintaining r.a.a.c?
This is part of what I'm trying to get at. Moderating r.a.a.c is a
service that Megazone is offering to us as a gift, *not* something we can
claim as a right. The only claim we have on him is the promises he's made
to us. If he breaks those promises, then we've got a right to talk to him
about it; but as I said originally, many of us are guilty of breaking
similar promises (the Panda Hunt thread being a recent and funny
example). I *don't* consider this grounds for personal attacks,
especially without knowing the reasons why he didn't keep those promises.
It's the personal attacks I'm opposed to, not civil discussion of the
problem.
I'll reiterate: Megazone has a straightforward and crystal clear set
of rules for running raac; it would be simple in principle for him
to find a few trustworthy people to cover the raac posting duties
while he's unavailable, leaving offical integration into the archive
for his return (a "New" directory would suffice in the meanwhile).
He has had multiple offers of help, and apparently turned them all
down; it's clear that timeliness of service is pretty low on his list
of priorities, although going beyond that is supposition.
Exactly. *Supposition.* Not proof. I don't know his reasons for refusing
help, either; and without knowing those reasons, I'm not willing to say
anything beyond "It would be nice if he could have help maintaining the
archive, but there might be reasons why this wouldn't work, and I'm
willing to keep an open mind on the subject until I find out why he's
refusing help."
A suggestion; if service continues to be poor during the summer, in
the fall when everyone returns to the net, the actual fanfic authors
on the list might want to put together a petition asking Megazone
impliment the above (with some of us being prepared to completely
assume responsibility in case he "decides to take his marbles home" as
one of us put it).
And as long as the petition is politely done and not deliberately
provocative, I think this would be a good idea. But storming in waving an
accusation like a red flag isn't likely to achieve much of anything good.
As I said below, understanding sympathy -- "We know there's been a
problem getting the traffic handled, and we'd like to help" -- usually
gets better results than provocation -- "We think you aren't doing your
job, and if you don't fix it we're going to start an alternative group."
I personally would go further; I wouldn't flame him without
evidence of deliberate, vindictive intent, and probably not even
then.
Besides, one almost always gets better results from understanding
sympathy (as long as it's honest!) than from flaming tirades.
Echoing the target of your message, you would do well to follow your
own advice, seeing as how you are the person who escalated this topic
beyond frustration, to flames.
<Sigh> Again, Harold, it looks like we're disagreeing on the definition
of flames. Please, could you read my reply to the first message, and then
tell me how deliberately trying to shift discussion away from a person
and to the statement and the group fits your definition of flaming, when
suggesting a deliberate provocation of a person does not? I'm not trying
to pick a fight with anyone. I'm trying to say that going beyond
criticism to making personal attacks on Megazone, for not keeping up with
something he's offering us -- freely and without compensation -- is
wrong. Especially when many of us are guilty of the same failure to
deliver something we've promised in a timely fashion.
Travis Butler
(The Professor, formerly of Myth and Magick!, Lawrence, KS;
tbutler@tfs.net, now from the Wandering Powerbook;
<http://www.tfs.net/personal/tbutler/>;
Mac page <http://www.tfs.net/business/tbutler/>)
..Cats are the proof of a higher purpose to the universe.