Advice for sci.electronics.design

[Guy Macon]

"THE STANDARD ADVICE:

There is a way to influence what gets discussed in a newsgroup that
works well, and another way that has never worked no matter how many
people have tried it.

What works: Post articles on the topic you wish to see discussed,
and participate in the resulting discussion. Use killfiles and
filters so that you don't see the articles that you dislike.
If you don't know how to use a killfile, use good old fashioned
discipline and don't read the articles that you dislike. Never,
ever respond to articles that you dislike.

What doesn't work: Respond to articles that you dislike, complain
about articles that you dislike, complain about posters that you
dislike, complain about how terrible everyone else is for not posting
what you want them to post. Talk about how to respond to articles
that you dislike. Make the articles that you dislike the center of
attention, the main topic of discussion, and a personal crusade."

-Guy Macon

The above, of course, fully applies to my own posts - including this one.

 

[John Larkin]

"THE STANDARD ADVICE:

There is a way to influence what gets discussed in a newsgroup that
works well, and another way that has never worked no matter how many
people have tried it.

What works: Post articles on the topic you wish to see discussed,
and participate in the resulting discussion. Use killfiles and
filters so that you don't see the articles that you dislike.
If you don't know how to use a killfile, use good old fashioned
discipline and don't read the articles that you dislike. Never,
ever respond to articles that you dislike.

What doesn't work: Respond to articles that you dislike, complain
about articles that you dislike, complain about posters that you
dislike, complain about how terrible everyone else is for not posting
what you want them to post. Talk about how to respond to articles
that you dislike. Make the articles that you dislike the center of
attention, the main topic of discussion, and a personal crusade."

-Guy Macon

The above, of course, fully applies to my own posts - including this one.

Do you ever think about anything but yourself?

John

 

[Jim Thompson]

Do you ever think about anything but yourself?

John

ROTFLMAO!

I wonder, is "Guy" pronounced "Gee", and the "c" in Macon has a
diacritical mark like a cedilla ?

...Jim Thompson

 

[Fred Bloggs]

"THE STANDARD ADVICE:

There is a way to influence what gets discussed in a newsgroup that
works well, and another way that has never worked no matter how many
people have tried it.

What works: Post articles on the topic you wish to see discussed,
and participate in the resulting discussion. Use killfiles and
filters so that you don't see the articles that you dislike.
If you don't know how to use a killfile, use good old fashioned
discipline and don't read the articles that you dislike. Never,
ever respond to articles that you dislike.

What doesn't work: Respond to articles that you dislike, complain
about articles that you dislike, complain about posters that you
dislike, complain about how terrible everyone else is for not posting
what you want them to post. Talk about how to respond to articles
that you dislike. Make the articles that you dislike the center of
attention, the main topic of discussion, and a personal crusade."

-Guy Macon

The above, of course, fully applies to my own posts - including this one.

The biggest joke is the abuse of "regular contributor"- there are more
than a few "regulars" who no way in hell are "contributors." You know
who consistently posts shyte after awhile so don't read them. I find
this to be an effortless approach. You cannot shame, embarrass, anger,
or invoke any normal behavioral response from a "moron with a keyboard"-
so just let their shyte drift off to never land. I only read John Larkin
when the thread title suggests his post may be on topic and therefore
contains a mistake.

 

[Luhan Monat]

"THE STANDARD ADVICE:

There is a way to influence what gets discussed in a newsgroup that
works well, and another way that has never worked no matter how many
people have tried it.

What works: Post articles on the topic you wish to see discussed,
and participate in the resulting discussion. Use killfiles and
filters so that you don't see the articles that you dislike.
If you don't know how to use a killfile, use good old fashioned
discipline and don't read the articles that you dislike. Never,
ever respond to articles that you dislike.

What doesn't work: Respond to articles that you dislike, complain
about articles that you dislike, complain about posters that you
dislike, complain about how terrible everyone else is for not posting
what you want them to post. Talk about how to respond to articles
that you dislike. Make the articles that you dislike the center of
attention, the main topic of discussion, and a personal crusade."

-Guy Macon

The above, of course, fully applies to my own posts - including this one.

I can see some logic in this persons advice. I am quite curious about
what such advice other 'campers' here have on the subject. Is there, in
fact, some consensus on how best to post questions, and respond to such
posts, etc.

After all, science has found order in even chaos theory.

 

[John Popelish]

The biggest joke is the abuse of "regular contributor"- there are more
than a few "regulars" who no way in hell are "contributors." You know
who consistently posts shyte after awhile so don't read them. I find
this to be an effortless approach. You cannot shame, embarrass, anger,
or invoke any normal behavioral response from a "moron with a keyboard"-
so just let their shyte drift off to never land. I only read John Larkin
when the thread title suggests his post may be on topic and therefore
contains a mistake.

(Wiping tears from my eyes)

Fred, you were doing so well till that last sentence. ;-)

Obviously, I am not filtering your posts.

 

[Bob Monsen]

Luhan Monat wrote:

I can see some logic in this persons advice. I am quite curious about
what such advice other 'campers' here have on the subject. Is there, in
fact, some consensus on how best to post questions, and respond to such
posts, etc.

After all, science has found order in even chaos theory.

The real answer is to not try to influence the discussion. Post your
opinions. Let others post theirs. Moderation is only useful in rare
cases, when some obnoxious putz tries to interfere with things. Usually,
that can be taken care of by beating the pemmican out of the offender.

http://tinyurl.com/azfdw

 

[Luhan Monat]

Luhan Monat wrote:


The real answer is to not try to influence the discussion. Post your
opinions. Let others post theirs. Moderation is only useful in rare
cases, when some obnoxious putz tries to interfere with things. Usually,
that can be taken care of by beating the pemmican out of the offender.

http://tinyurl.com/azfdw

I have notice 'consensus' building in many discussions. Such as
'airline hijackings' --- today, the passengers would mob and kill anyone
who tried, so ain't really a problem.

 

[John Larkin]

The biggest joke is the abuse of "regular contributor"- there are more
than a few "regulars" who no way in hell are "contributors." You know
who consistently posts shyte after awhile so don't read them. I find
this to be an effortless approach. You cannot shame, embarrass, anger,
or invoke any normal behavioral response from a "moron with a keyboard"-
so just let their shyte drift off to never land. I only read John Larkin
when the thread title suggests his post may be on topic and therefore
contains a mistake.

Well, you certainly can't shame, embarrass, or anger me. You aren't
nearly good enough.

John

 

[Mac]

"THE STANDARD ADVICE:

There is a way to influence what gets discussed in a newsgroup that
works well, and another way that has never worked no matter how many
people have tried it.

What works: Post articles on the topic you wish to see discussed,
and participate in the resulting discussion. Use killfiles and
filters so that you don't see the articles that you dislike.
If you don't know how to use a killfile, use good old fashioned
discipline and don't read the articles that you dislike. Never,
ever respond to articles that you dislike.

What doesn't work: Respond to articles that you dislike, complain
about articles that you dislike, complain about posters that you
dislike, complain about how terrible everyone else is for not posting
what you want them to post. Talk about how to respond to articles
that you dislike. Make the articles that you dislike the center of
attention, the main topic of discussion, and a personal crusade."

-Guy Macon

The above, of course, fully applies to my own posts - including this one.

I think you are mostly on-track. But I disagree with a few points. First,
it is always good to follow up to articles which give bad advice to people
who may or may not have the judgement to recognize it. This applies
regardless of all other considerations.

Also, when a new persona appears and posts off-topic stuff, it is totally
reasonable (and probably even good netiquette) to follow-up and say
"You're question is off-topic here. For a better idea of what is on-topic,
please see the <charter | faq list | welcome post | whatever>. For your
particular question, you might find better advice at alt.foo.bar."
Often, in other news groups, such people just say "Sorry, I didn't know.
I'll go away now." The only reason I don't do that is that I got the
impression that SED tolerated off-topic posts in a way that other groups I
read most definitely do not.

Finally, I think it is reasonable to put-forth opinions on the best way to
deal with off-topic posts if they are becoming a problem, even when such
ideas contravene one of your guidelines. For example, if a regular
responds to an obvious troll, it makes sense to tell the regular, "hey,
don't feed the trolls!" And if Guy Macon believes there is a Better Way,
it makes sense for him to post and tell everyone about it. Once. ;-)

But with trolls, or people (including regulars) who are deliberately
trying to "stir the pot," by posting about politics and so on, the best
course of action is probably to ignore them, which is what I think you are
saying.

Just my $0.02

--Mac

 

[Guy Macon]

I can see some logic in this persons advice. I am quite curious about
what such advice other 'campers' here have on the subject. Is there, in
fact, some consensus on how best to post questions, and respond to such
posts, etc.

After all, science has found order in even chaos theory.

There is indeed a consensus of the technical groups as a whole.
You can see it in action by reading groups such as comp.arch.embedded
or you can learn by reading the standard FAQ on the topic at
[ http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html ].

In sci.electronics.design itself you will find a couple of groups
of posters who dominate most topics through sheer volume of posting
and through inappropriate aggressiveness. Some of them are simply
flamers looking for trouble, but others are knowledgeable engineers
who, like most engineers, have serious control issues.

The reason most engineers have serious control issues is best
understood by reading the Dilbert comic strip. Yes, things like
that really happen, but they aren't funny when they are happening
to you. An engineer often has the solution to a problem but is
stopped from implementing that solution because bosses or customers
who know far less than he does have power over him. This, along
with the flamers looking for trouble theory, explains why we are
seeing such a rabid reaction to there being a moderated product
development newsgroup. They see it as just one more pointy-haired
boss trying to control them. What they don't understand is that I
am perfectly willing to whitelist anyone who isn't disruptive, and
that I am also perfectly willing to give them a moderator account
if they agree to reject disruptive posts.

So, how to make everyone happy? The answer is a simple one:

[1] If you wish to have a civil discussion about some aspect of
product design without having to wade through flame wars and
off-topic political posts, simply post to these two groups:
[ sci.electronics.design,misc.business.product-dev ] and read
the discussion there. You can then evaluate my performance as
a moderator and vote with your feet if you don't like how things
are run. (I would hope, of course, that you would make constructive
suggestions first, and I will approve such suggestions if the subject
line starts with the string "[POLICY]", which lets those uninterested
in moderation policy killfile them.)

[2] If you like the freedom/anarchy that allows most threads to
degenerate into flame wars and off-topic political posts, simply
post to this one group: [ sci.electronics.design ] and read the
discussion there. You will see all of the posts by the folks who
are in group [1], plus all the off-topic flames political posts
that you and others post.

By making the above choices, everyone gets what they want, and
the reader now has two choices instead of the one available now.

I invite those described in [1] above to join the discussion over
in misc.business.product-dev and to help me to build it up into a
place where working engineers can have a discussion about product
development. And please feel free to make suggestions as to how
to make it better. I want it to meet the needs of working engineers.

 

[Guy Macon]

I think you are mostly on-track. But I disagree with a few points. First,
it is always good to follow up to articles which give bad advice to people
who may or may not have the judgement to recognize it. This applies
regardless of all other considerations.

I agree 100%. I wrote the advice above for a non-technical newsgroup,
and I now see that I need to add a paragraph about responding to bad
advice. ("now children, pipe your uranium hexafluoride into the high-
speed centrifuge...") We have a responsibility to speak up about the
posting of false information. By the way, did you know that if you
plug your 120 volt PC into 240 volts it will run twice as fast?

I do think that the advice not to make such articles "the center of
attention, the main topic of discussion, and a personal crusade"
is still appropriate.

Thanks for the insightful comment. I really appreciate it.

Also, when a new persona appears and posts off-topic stuff, it is totally
reasonable (and probably even good netiquette) to follow-up and say
"You're question is off-topic here. For a better idea of what is on-topic,
please see the <charter | faq list | welcome post | whatever>. For your
particular question, you might find better advice at alt.foo.bar."
Often, in other news groups, such people just say "Sorry, I didn't know.
I'll go away now." The only reason I don't do that is that I got the
impression that SED tolerated off-topic posts in a way that other groups I
read most definitely do not.

I have mixed feelings about the above. I too have seen people just
say "Sorry, I didn't know. I'll go away now." Alas, I have also seen
them launch into a flamewar that fills the newsgroup for many months.
In the old days we would have emailed them telling them that they were
off-topic, but nowdays it is common to obfuscate email addresses.
I am not saying that I disagree, merely that I have some doubts.

Finally, I think it is reasonable to put-forth opinions on the best way to
deal with off-topic posts if they are becoming a problem, even when such
ideas contravene one of your guidelines. For example, if a regular
responds to an obvious troll, it makes sense to tell the regular, "hey,
don't feed the trolls!" And if Guy Macon believes there is a Better Way,
it makes sense for him to post and tell everyone about it. Once. ;-)

More excellent advice. I know that I have, at times, had someone
tell me to stop feeding a troll, and I have always appreciated the
comment. It is an easy habit to fall into. I will work on some
wording that reflects this.

But with trolls, or people (including regulars) who are deliberately
trying to "stir the pot," by posting about politics and so on, the best
course of action is probably to ignore them, which is what I think you are
saying.

Just my $0.02

Excellent comments, and much appreciated. Thanks!

 

[Fred Bloggs]

Well, you certainly can't shame, embarrass, or anger me. You aren't
nearly good enough.

John

That's what all you moron-with-a-keyboard's say...

 

[John Fields]

I can see some logic in this persons advice. I am quite curious about
what such advice other 'campers' here have on the subject. Is there, in
fact, some consensus on how best to post questions, and respond to such
posts, etc.

After all, science has found order in even chaos theory.

There is indeed a consensus of the technical groups as a whole.
You can see it in action by reading groups such as comp.arch.embedded
or you can learn by reading the standard FAQ on the topic at
[ http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html ].

In sci.electronics.design itself you will find a couple of groups
of posters who dominate most topics through sheer volume of posting
and through inappropriate aggressiveness. Some of them are simply
flamers looking for trouble, but others are knowledgeable engineers
who, like most engineers, have serious control issues.

The reason most engineers have serious control issues is best
understood by reading the Dilbert comic strip. Yes, things like
that really happen, but they aren't funny when they are happening
to you. An engineer often has the solution to a problem but is
stopped from implementing that solution because bosses or customers
who know far less than he does have power over him. This, along
with the flamers looking for trouble theory, explains why we are
seeing such a rabid reaction to there being a moderated product
development newsgroup. They see it as just one more pointy-haired
boss trying to control them. What they don't understand is that I
am perfectly willing to whitelist anyone who isn't disruptive, and
that I am also perfectly willing to give them a moderator account
if they agree to reject disruptive posts.

So, how to make everyone happy? The answer is a simple one:

[1] If you wish to have a civil discussion about some aspect of
product design without having to wade through flame wars and
off-topic political posts, simply post to these two groups:
[ sci.electronics.design,misc.business.product-dev ] and read
the discussion there. You can then evaluate my performance as
a moderator and vote with your feet if you don't like how things
are run. (I would hope, of course, that you would make constructive
suggestions first, and I will approve such suggestions if the subject
line starts with the string "[POLICY]", which lets those uninterested
in moderation policy killfile them.)

[2] If you like the freedom/anarchy that allows most threads to
degenerate into flame wars and off-topic political posts, simply
post to this one group: [ sci.electronics.design ] and read the
discussion there. You will see all of the posts by the folks who
are in group [1], plus all the off-topic flames political posts
that you and others post.

By making the above choices, everyone gets what they want, and
the reader now has two choices instead of the one available now.

I invite those described in [1] above to join the discussion over
in misc.business.product-dev and to help me to build it up into a
place where working engineers can have a discussion about product
development. And please feel free to make suggestions as to how
to make it better. I want it to meet the needs of working engineers.

---
Macon, you're a fraud.

You're not interested in moderating the group in order to make it more
"productive", what you're interested in is having dominion over a
population. Whether or not you ever exercise the power, merely being
_able_ to puts your ilk in a heady state of being.

Besides, I believe, there's a fundamental flaw in your concept of a
public forum dedicated to product development in that anyone doing
product development is going to be constrained (either by an NDA or by
prudence) in what they can divulge without compromising their
marketing position. I certainly wouldn't blab about what I might be
doing (loose lips sink ships, you know) to the world if I expected to
hit the market with my new widget before anyone else could.

So what are you going to wind up with? A bunch of idiot sheep who
think they have something which is going to make them rich and a bunch
of vultures looking to fleece them.

That being the case, what you'll be left with is endless dreary
discussions about "How can I get my widget to the marketplace?" which
could be easily handled with a FAQ. That leaves just about zero
discussion except for the wimps who can't take it on sed and want
Big Brother to do their filtering for them.

As bad as you might think sed is, everyone here is free to say just
exactly what they want, including: "Go **** yourself, Macon." without
having to wait for approval from anyone before it's disseminated and
the entire planet can read it.

 

[Jim Thompson]

The biggest joke is the abuse of "regular contributor"- there are more
than a few "regulars" who no way in hell are "contributors." You know
who consistently posts shyte after awhile so don't read them. I find
this to be an effortless approach. You cannot shame, embarrass, anger,
or invoke any normal behavioral response from a "moron with a keyboard"-
so just let their shyte drift off to never land. I only read John Larkin
when the thread title suggests his post may be on topic and therefore
contains a mistake.

Fred Bloggs? I don't recognize the name. Oh! I remember now, you're
the name-caller.

...Jim Thompson

 

[Ban]

More excellent advice. I know that I have, at times, had someone
tell me to stop feeding a troll, and I have always appreciated the
comment. It is an easy habit to fall into. I will work on some
wording that reflects this.

He Guy, remember when you posted all these trolls in April? Now you just do
the same...

Subject: THE ART OF TROLLING: Winding up the net
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2005 04:40:05 +0000
Organization: <a href="http://www.guymacon.com/"> http://www.guymacon.com/
</a>
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
X-Complaints-To: [email protected]
Lines: 225
Xref: news-in.tin.it sci.electronics.design:5441308

It seems you are seeking attention from the members of this NG. Have you
ever thought why you are in need? You want to be appreciated as everybody
does. But when someone else does a similar thing, you lament about having to
read this BS, which is not on topic or whatever. Thompson writes about
sunset bbq in Phoenix, I write being granddad, Rich shows his teeth and
Genome his frying pan- you know at least we let the others participate in
our little lives, it might be boring but it also transmits a taste of the
real person.
These little personal bits are annoying you for what reason? Because you
want to be anonymous, you want people to respect you because of your
knowledge. You are afraid people might reject you or say you are not worth
anything. You hide behind a false facade, but still those personal bits come
through. But because you do it unconsciously, you leave this goofy feeling
in the reader. It doesn't make you a popular guy here, and I'm sure it has
been like this already your whole life.
Now you will say you are sharing this with a lot of people here, right, but
I have accepted it. Look at Rich, he even shows his fears his weak spots his
depression. So if you want attention why not saying it and sharing something
of your *real* self: the fear of getting old and dying, our craving for
appreciation love affection reputation prestige. That is life, and it is one
of the reasons I enjoy participating here.
Have the guts to be real Guy.

 

[Guy Macon]

You're not interested in

what you're interested in is

You have incorrectly assessed my internal mental state.

Besides, I believe, there's a fundamental flaw in your concept of a
public forum dedicated to product development in that anyone doing
product development is going to be constrained (either by an NDA or by
prudence) in what they can divulge without compromising their
marketing position. I certainly wouldn't blab about what I might be
doing (loose lips sink ships, you know) to the world if I expected to
hit the market with my new widget before anyone else could.

You are correct, and I expect that there will be a lack of details
about products under development. I briefly considered offering an
option that would allow posts to go through a user-defined chain of
mixmaster anonymizers, but I concluded that keeping the product
details secret is more important than keeping the name of the
developer secret. I don't know whether this will be a fatal flaw.

So what are you going to wind up with? A bunch of idiot sheep who
think they have something which is going to make them rich and a bunch
of vultures looking to fleece them.

I won't allow the vultures to post, and those who think they have
something which is going to make them rich (but lack the skills to
develop it) will have to be told the truth. They might not like it
but it's the right thing to do.

That being the case, what you'll be left with is endless dreary
discussions about "How can I get my widget to the marketplace?" which
could be easily handled with a FAQ.

Which, of course, I will handle with a FAQ.

That leaves just about zero discussion

Perhaps. Time will tell.

except for the wimps who can't take it on sed and want
Big Brother to do their filtering for them.

Such people do exist. You obviously are not one of them, of course,
so I would expect you to continue using s.e.d as you always have, knowing
that it is unmoderated and that no proposal to moderate it will be
allowed to be voted upon.

As bad as you might think sed is, everyone here is free to say just
exactly what they want, including: "Go **** yourself, Macon." without
having to wait for approval from anyone before it's disseminated and
the entire planet can read it.

Indeed they are, and I wouldn't change that even if I could.

I have a question for you; should I whitelist you so that your
posts go straight to misc.business.product-dev without moderation?
The answer to that depends on whether you are inclined to follow
the moderation policy when posting to m.b.p-d. even though you
strongly disagree with it and very much prefer unmoderated groups.
Your comments above about vultures and sheep were quite insightful,
and I would have approved them in a heartbeat in a [POLICY] post
to m.b.p-d.

 

[Guy Macon]

But when someone else does a similar thing, you lament about having to
read this BS, which is not on topic or whatever. Thompson writes about
sunset bbq in Phoenix, I write being granddad, Rich shows his teeth and
Genome his frying pan

You have incorrectly identified my "lament." I *LIKE* things like
the BBQ and grand-dad posts. What I don't like is the fact that
they (as well as post after post about George Bush) are usually
labeled in the subject line as posts about electronic design, thus
wasting my time when I wish to read about electronic design.

I think that people should have choices and that it is rude to erect
artificial barriers limiting those choices. Those who fill threads
that start out being about electronics with posts about politics are
erecting a barrier limiting the choice of reading about electronics
without politics.

 

[Bob Monsen]

I have notice 'consensus' building in many discussions. Such as
'airline hijackings' --- today, the passengers would mob and kill anyone
who tried, so ain't really a problem.

The good thing about anarchy is that it allows natural patterns to
become apparent. By forcing arbitrary external rules upon a system, one
influences the kinds of patterns that appear, and thus limits the
possible responses.

Japanese gardeners will wait until a path emerges before they put down
stepping stones.

This clearly doesn't apply to everything in life, but I'd say that
unmoderated usenet groups are a fairly good example of 'emergent
behavior'. You simply never know what is going to happen next, and
trying to control it, to 'influence the discussion', is going to make it
worse, not better.

On a side issue, people often confuse the fact that a group is named,
for example, 'sci.electronics.design' with the notion that only
electronics can be discussed. From my perspective, a better way to view
the situation is that it's like a club. The name of the club attracts
certain types of people, who then do whatever they want when they get
together. There are shared interests, which create a context within
which people can get to know each other, make inside jokes, etc. If a
club is devoted to, say, flying, then the people who are flying
enthusiasts will attend, and often talk about flying, but just as often
talk about recipies, spouses, children, investments, movies, politics, etc.

 

[Pig Bladder]

Luhan Monat wrote:


The real answer is to not try to influence the discussion. Post your
opinions. Let others post theirs. Moderation is only useful in rare
cases, when some obnoxious putz tries to interfere with things. Usually,
that can be taken care of by beating the pemmican out of the offender.

http://tinyurl.com/azfdw

http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

Cheers!
Rich