The L-Space Web

Original Pre-Creation Survey


This page contains the results of a survey done on alt.config and alt.fan.pratchett towards the end of 1995 as to the viability of the proposed newsgroup alt.books.pratchett.


Here are the responses to the survey on whether or not AFP'ers would support the new newsgroup alt.books.pratchett.

It also includes their responses to the question

"do you think that the creation of alt.books.pratchett would irrecoverably damage alt.fan.pratchett?"

I haven't really put them in any order. Just lopped off posters names and all that messy email stuff that appears at the top :-)


Hi

1) Would you post to alt.books.pratchett if it was created?

Yes. (I support this group.)

2) Do you think the creation of alt.books.pratchett would irrecoverably damage alt.fan.pratchett?

No.


1) Would you post to alt.books.pratchett if it was created?

Not only would I post to it, I'd probably get to read most of it too. Afp is way too full of cliques, in-jokes, rubish and moronic repetition.

2) Do you think the creation of alt.books.pratchett would irrecoverably damage alt.fan.pratchett?

It'd probably change afp a bit. But I don't think you'll ever kill it.

I'd vote for abp. Go for it!


Orin Thomas writes:

[Lots, including misspellings of Tolkien's name. Shame!]

I now ask for comments. These comments will be presented in a similar way to the last surveys. Responses will be anonymous. There should be no need for finger pointing as we are discussing the proposition alt.books.pratchett not events on afp.

Sounds fine to me. I'm not sure if what you said about a.f.tolkien/ r.a.b.tolkien is true; last I read those they had almost the same contents except for some very much non-bookish stuff on a.f.tolkien, buyt either way I think it may work.

BTW. Some questions as well.

1) Would you post to alt.books.pratchett if it was created?

Yes (provided that I'd have anything *R*elevant to post of course :-).

2) Do you think the creation of alt.books.pratchett would irrecoverably damage alt.fan.pratchett?

Nope.


Orin.

1) I might do. It was to discuss the books I originally subscribed to AFP, after all. Probably yes.

2) No, not at all. I think that AFP probably has enough hardened afp-fans to survive. In fact, over the past few months, the major problem with AFP has been the 300+ new messages every day, so I don't think that AFP is going to snuff it. Newbies who post *I* threads on ABP would be pointed gently in the direction of AFP.

P.S.
You discuss philosophy in cafes? You must go to very civilized cafes, most of the ones here are just like pubs except without the booze...:)


Personally I waste enough time on the net and would rather not have to subscribe to any more newsgroups. Then again I'm quite happy with afp as it is so who am I to talk.

Given that there must be a miniscule amount of people who are on afp purely for the irrevelant 'pub' atmosphere it appears that '*I*' people would end up subscribing to both groups. Consequently, unless the numbers that seriously object to *I* are substantial there seems little point.

Also, recently there haven't been many big *R* groups. Are the proponents of abp convinced there's the traffic ?

That appears to be a no.


1) Would you post to alt.books.pratchett if it was created?

Yes

2) Do you think the creation of alt.books.pratchett would irrecoverably damage alt.fan.pratchett?

No


1) Would you post to alt.books.pratchett if it was created?

Yes - definitely

2) Do you think the creation of alt.books.pratchett would irrecoverably damage alt.fan.pratchett?

No - the "following" and readership of AFP is such that it is likely to continue in its current vein quite merrily.

My feelings are (makes me sound incredibly old this does), that as members of AFP get "older" they may well switch to the new ABF group as they get tired of the October rush of Uni students flooding AFP with "newbie" questions.


Thank you for getting this whole question of an alternative Pratchett forum up and running.

I think alt.books.pratchett sounds like an excellent compromise, especially since it doesn't imply that afp must necessarily be IRrelevant. I have to admit that I would stop reading afp if alt.books gets off the ground, and I imagine quite a few other people might as well, so in that sense afp might suffer a bit.

On the other hand, the number of *R* posts has got so small of late that any effects would probably be minimal. I can't see it doing any *lasting* damage.

It would be great to have an NG that genuinely focussed on the books, as well as afp. I got quite jealous of rec.arts.books.tolkien simply because the discussions were always worth reading (by my own subjective standards, naturally) and I wished something similar existed for Pratchett readers. So please, please, please go ahead with this.

PS: Maybe you should try to mail Mary Novak and Dick Eney? They used to contribute some excellent ideas a while back but nothing from them has appeared of late. Their addresses are probably still available amongst the oldest posts, and I would guess they'd be very interested in alt.books.pratchett.

PPS: In case I didn't make this clear enough, in answer to Question 1 I would *definitely* post to the the new NG.


YES! YES! YES! YES! I LOVE THE IDEA PLEASE MAKE IT SO!!!

Calming down now. This sounds just the sort of thing I am looking for. I've always considered myself more of a cafe sort of person. I don't see how afp can object since it will get rid of some of those people always on their necks about relevencey.

As to if i would post to it...I might if I found something relevent to say or reply to. I probably would but don't want to commit myself...but the opportunity would always be there if i wanted it. I would most certainly read it though.

Go For It !!!!!


Sounds fair. I'd expect to post from time to time, and certainly I'd expect to read. I don't think abp would damage afp.


I now ask for comments. These comments will be presented in a similar way to the last surveys. Responses will be anonymous. There should be no need for finger pointing as we are discussing the proposition alt.books.pratchett not events on afp.

I like it. I'm already happy now *and* I'll probably read all of both as long as I can manage to find the time. I've become pretty good at recognizing wasted monitor space within a split second of the time the message pops onto my screen anyway, but the idea sounds like it would serve lots of us better than just the one crowded venue.

BTW. Some questions as well.

1) Would you post to alt.books.pratchett if it was created?

Undoubtedly, when the post was about Terry, his books, etc.

2) Do you think the creation of alt.books.pratchett would irrecoverably damage alt.fan.pratchett?

Probably not; I don't think you could kill afp with anything less than a major asteroid-strike, nor hurt it with any weapon below about 20 megatons. I see the only danger as that of it suffering severely from overpopulation and a surfeit of its own resultant wastes. Funny, but one person's whimsy may be hilarious and another's just stupid and silly, so it's hard to know where to draw the dividing line. Your idea sounds like a possible solution.


In answer to your questions:

1) I would be unlikely to post to a.b.p with any regularity.

2) I think it's possible that the existence of abp would undercut afp. I'm not sure how likely that is, but it would be my main reservation about abp. I still think a mailing list would be a more sensible way of handling the lower volume of traffic abp would get, and it could be regularly blurbed in afp.


I now ask for comments. These comments will be presented in a similar way to the last surveys. Responses will be anonymous. There should be no need for finger pointing as we are discussing the proposition alt.books.pratchett not events on afp.

I'm not sure what to say at this point. Quite a bit of vitriol has been flying around the group these past weeks, and even though I still enjoy reading it, stumbling upon the flame-fests is a bit dis-heartening.

I recall when I first started posting that everyone seemed very upbeat & enjoyable, and presented to me, a pratchett fan, many different views & opened up a whole new world of experiencing (and I do mean experiencing) Terry's work.

Personally, I would like to see afp return to that medium, but I'm not sure if it can with all the hard feelings (and people not understanding that a written medium is inherently *less* friendly than a personal one) going around right now. It might be a good idea, but I would absolutely *HATE* for afp to die.

BTW. Some questions as well.

1) Would you post to alt.books.pratchett if it was created?

Probably - It would depend on the volume and quality of posts there. (Something I use to determine *ANY* newsgroup I read)

2) Do you think the creation of alt.books.pratchett would irrecoverably damage alt.fan.pratchett?

I'm not sure. 2 newsgroups are harder to read than just 1, so I'm sure that *SOME* damage would be done to afp. Irrecoverable? Hrm.


Goodmorning,
Obviously you have really agonized over this. To answer your questions, I don't believe afp would degenerate into something totally irrelevant, but if it did, (have you ever read alt.fan.Dave Barry?!) posters would have just what they wanted. I would certainly read afbp; posting would depend upon the thread- I've already stated my objections there, (have you ever read alt.fan.heinlein? They get into word fights over physics problems, seriously discuss the possibility of interstellar travel *in their lifetimes* and have *no* sense of humor. RAH wrote science *fiction*- and often a good deal of it tounge-firmly-in-cheek)

Your pub/cafe analogy is a good one- I suppose I'll have to start getting dressed in the mornings now, comb my hair, put on some make-up, make myself much more presentable for afbp....


An RFD's a Request for Discussion -- first stage of the Big 7 group creation process.

Which leads me to think... why not have a go at rec.arts.books.pratchett? Would certainly have to stay *R*, as Big 7 charters are much more enforceable than alt. Usually. Um. And the group creation process is a nightmare, though there are lots of people out there who will help (Thank God for the UVV..)

I think we may as well go for a rec.arts.books.pratchett for these reasons - and because it's a big seven group :)

I'm attaching the 'Guidelines for usenet group creation (part1)' so that everyone can see what it entails. There's also a part 2 which is more of an FAQ and a bit friendlier to read.


Hi,

just received your mail. Bit busy, so I can't take the time to read and digest the full story. This is just a gut reaction.

alt.books.pratchett... I deplore the fact that this seems necessary. On the other hand, I do see the point. Managing threads from *R* to *I* is a moderator type of job.. not sure that is going to be popular.. The idea is workable, but perhaps this had better be done anonymously.

I've never subscribed to, or read, any of the Tolkien groups, so I cannot judge whether this is a desirable way for afp to go, nor whether a group like afp would go in this direction.

Yes, I would post to this group, about twice a year I expect. I would definitely subscribe though.

As to damage to afp... It would tend to move the relevant bits off afp... A lot of people, (mostly those who tend to make relevant posts) would move away from afp, which would lead to a lower signal/noise ratio.

As I said, this is a gut reaction... I'll meditate on this further, when I have more time, and I may get back to you on this.


Hi Orin.

With regard to whether or not abp should be created - definitely. Like many people, I no longer have the time to read/search through afp in its entirety, and regrettably unsubscribed a couple of months ago. (There was a tear in my eye as I watched my news software remove it).

Alt.books.pratchett would however appear an excellent solution to the problem of signal to noise ratio, providing a suitable forum for discussion for those whose interest is more concerned with relevant issues, but who still enjoy the occasional 'witty ripost' where appropriate.

In answer to your questions, yes I would post to abp if I had something relevent to say, and no, I don't believe it would detract from afp at all.

Hope this is the sort of thing you wanted to hear,


On Tue, 20 Feb 1996, Orin Thomas wrote:

.... A new group (probably alt.books.pratchett) would be able to be policed. It would be afp started all over again. Not afp as it is now ... but afp as it was in 1992. (which was a bloody good read almost every post).

Well, given how impressed I am by afp as it is now, I fully expect to be blown away by abp.

Please let me know when it starts up as I'm sure I can be persuaded to join in.


Marginalized? However so? Usenet allows anyone to start new threads as they see fit, however *I* or *R*.

The creation of abp would also have the added bonus (to denizens of afp) of ending complaints about irrelevancy and excessive posting. Anyone makeing such a complaint could be politely pointed in the direction of abp.

A very handy thing, perhaps.

Again, I draw on my analogy to a cafe and a pub. You can discuss philosophy in both. It is probably easier to do so in a cafe, but, you can sing the song about the hedgehog at the top of your voice and dance on the table at the pub.

Which is why pubs are so much more fun.. <G> Good analogy, tho'.

I now ask for comments. These comments will be presented in a similar way to the last surveys. Responses will be anonymous. There should be no need for finger pointing as we are discussing the proposition alt.books.pratchett not events on afp.

BTW. Some questions as well.

1) Would you post to alt.books.pratchett if it was created?

Probably not. I don't feel entirely qualified, and find single-subject newsgroups that actually enforce topicality to be almost universally boring. Witness alt.fan.douglas-adams.

2) Do you think the creation of alt.books.pratchett would irrecoverably damage alt.fan.pratchett?

Yes. I enjoy the *I* even more than the endless hair-splitting of annotations, which seem to attract mutiple postings of the same answers. If even a portion of the "regulars" chose to defect entirely, something wonderful and valuable would be lost.

I can read the books any time I like. The only way to meet other fans is through groups like afp.


1) I think rec.books.pratchett would be a very good idea. Include annotations, details of when new books are published, that sort of thing. However, I can't see myself posting to it _too_ much, as most of the annotations have already been mentioned by the time I get the paperback. People would have to take care that they replied to irrelevant stuff on afp only, and not abp.

2) Would certainly change the character of afp to some extent, but it shouldn't be terminal. I find part of the fun of afp is seeing where on earth the discussion is going to head next. As long as everyone feels free to dip in and out of afp at will, and it doesn't get cliquey, then I think it'll be fine.

Hope this helps.


I now ask for comments. These comments will be presented in a similar way to the last surveys. Responses will be anonymous. There should be no need for finger pointing as we are discussing the proposition alt.books.pratchett not events on afp.

I think it would be a jolly good idea - I, like a number of others in your previous survey, stopped reading afp when I could no longer afford the time to read it (or afford to download it all for that matter - I only had a 2400 baud modem until fairly recently...)

BTW. Some questions as well.

1) Would you post to alt.books.pratchett if it was created?

Probably ;-)

2) Do you think the creation of alt.books.pratchett would irrecoverably damage alt.fan.pratchett?

No, I think it would complement the existing afp.


[Some very good thoughts]

Sorry - I've been off-line for a good couple of weeks with my PC being only temporarily working, or I would have responded to the previous survey. Anyway...

Some ponderings:

OK, so I'm not as much of an old-timer as some of the regulars, but I've been around here on and off for getting on for 18 months now. I won't admit that the major reason I bought a modem was to read afp at home, but it had a significant effect on me doing so.

I *like* afp. It's one of the friendliest places I've found on the net. Like most things, nothing stays the same. That's evolution. People come. People go. It's the way things are. Whether or not this is for the best is another matter entirely, but it can't be prevented. Such is life.

Personally, I'd say that the quality of afp has dropped in the past couple of months. Maybe it's just the latest newbie influx, maybe not. I do feel that the media pushing the internet like it does has brought an awful lot of people into contact with a new medium for the first time. And like anything new, people make mistakes and flounder somewhat. As long as they're prepared to learn I have no problems. When I do get the time I like to mail obvious newbies and give them a few pointers (eg. What do *I*, *R*, etc mean? Who is X? That sort of thing) Of late, I've not had the time to read any news, let alone afp, so this has slipped somewhat. But I try to help out where I can. It's when folk refuse to accept that there are established ways of doing things and try to invoke their own priorities on something already working to the satisfaction of the regulars that it begins to irritate me a little. Not that I'm opposed to change, you realise - it's just a matter of good manners. I myself lurked for a good 6 months before posting anything, and I like to think I don't post excessively, or not in the spirit of the group. YMMV, naturally.

Anyway, such rambling brings me onto the subject of abp. In principle a good idea, if people are really bothered about the state of afp and where or where not it might be going. I've noticed up and down cycles before, and some real gems can be found lurking in the depths of the most *I* threads. Assuming everyone can stick to the conventions, I don't see any problems with afp as it is. But this sadly isn't the case. I'm probably as guilty as anyone else in this matter, and don't tend to change headers as frequently as I should. More often than not, I wonder if I should, if so many people are following a thread, without splitting into daughter threads. But that's really another matter entirely.

The only problem I forsee with the creation of a new group is the level of cross-posting that will no doubt ensue. I don't think it will change the nature of afp too much. Who knows for sure until it goes ahead? I suspect afp may well decline a little, but that's evolution for you. Unless it degenerates into serious slanging matches and flame wars I imagine I'll stick around.

The creation of abp would also have the added bonus (to denizens of afp) of ending complaints about irrelevancy and excessive posting. Anyone makeing such a complaint could be politely pointed in the direction of abp.

This is the advantage of having a new group - a new charter can be more rigidly enforced. How well this will be dealt with is a matter for the future posters to decide, but if dealt with politely I can see no problems.

[Good points on threads and drift]

Agreed.

This does not mean, however, that relevant discussions on afp should move to abp. If people feel that they can have *R* discussions on afp they should go for it.

Afp is far more like a friendly local to me. It's just one where the residents have something in common, and tend to have a sense of humour that appeals to me. Maybe I'm warped :) And the *R* threads aren't that uncommon, given the fact that most topics have already been done to death before. But the newcomers can't be expected to know this.

Again, I draw on my analogy to a cafe and a pub. You can discuss philosophy in both. It is probably easier to do so in a cafe, but, you can sing the song about the hedgehog at the top of your voice and dance on the table at the pub.

Good analogy. The only problem is, I suspect I'll end up buying drinks in both. :)

BTW. Some questions as well.

1) Would you post to alt.books.pratchett if it was created?

Undoubtably, assuming I get time in which to do it, no doubt on more of an *R* nature. I suspect abp will be considerably lower traffic than afp, so taking the two groups hopefully won't be too much of an extra strain. I have no objection to such a group being created, and would be willing to support it when the vote comes.

2) Do you think the creation of alt.books.pratchett would irrecoverably damage alt.fan.pratchett?

See above (if lengthy) comments, But in brief, no. It'll change, especially if some of the regulars choose to jump ship for calmer seas, but I don't think it will spiral downwards like some doom-mongerers would have you believe. I'd like to think that some of the folk who make afp what it is would be wanting to post to both groups, and not just the one.

Apologies for the length of this post, Orin. I sort of got carried away. Or is that 'should be'?


I would prefer rec.arts.books.pratchett - this has the advantage of greater propagation.

1) Would you post to alt.books.pratchett if it was created?

probably

2) Do you think the creation of alt.books.pratchett would irrecoverably damage alt.fan.pratchett?

no


Hi Orin,
abp is probably worth a try. I currently read all of afp, with the occasional exception of computer threads, if short of time, but it can be a waste of time and energy. I used to see real 'regulars' unsubscribing and think I'd miss it too much, but now I can appreciate their motives.

If apb gets going, I would read and (probably) post to both, (you of all people know how devoted I am to the books!) unless I couldn't keep up, then I would be forced to choose, and I would go for whichever interested me most.

In answer to your second question, I think the creation of abp would *alter* the nature of afp, but not necessarily spoil it. If I believed that I would oppose it, as, maddening though afp can be, it is still preferable to alot of real life:)


In your message dated Tuesday 20, February 1996 you wrote :

I feel that if people just stick to the tagging conventions, and make sure they get changed, it should all just die out, and people can choose what the read.

Another group, if unmoderated will just lead to cross posting and more traffic, no matter what we do to try and prevent it.

To be honest, I don't read every thread, but I do download almost all of them. I also expire the news frequantly to get rid of the old stuff.


On 20 Feb 1996 18:09:58 -0000, you wrote:

I now ask for comments. These comments will be presented in a similar way to the last surveys. Responses will be anonymous. There should be no need for finger pointing as we are discussing the proposition alt.books.pratchett not events on afp.

Just 2 small questions for consideration, is a newbie going to look first for alt.fan.pratchett or alt.books.pratchett?

And, which of the two is more *appropriate* for a newbie?

BTW. Some questions as well.

1) Would you post to alt.books.pratchett if it was created?

Yes.

2) Do you think the creation of alt.books.pratchett would irrecoverably damage alt.fan.pratchett?

No.

'Nuff said, IMHO. Good luck with the proposal.


In article <824839790afpa@eniac.demon.co.uk> in alt.fan.pratchett.announce you wrote:

I now ask for comments. These comments will be presented in a similar way to the last surveys. Responses will be anonymous. There should be no need for finger pointing as we are discussing the proposition alt.books.pratchett not events on afp.

I would vote for a rec.arts.books.pratchett, but not alt.books.pratchett Another alt. group is not very useful I think. And rec. groups spread wider.

BTW. Some questions as well.

1) Would you post to alt.books.pratchett if it was created?

If I had something useful to say, heck even if I had something relevant to say, yes...

2) Do you think the creation of alt.books.pratchett would irrecoverably damage alt.fan.pratchett?

Nothing can damage alt.fan.pratchett :) Well, not really, irrelevant threads really kill this group for me.


Hi Orin

I now ask for comments. These comments will be presented in a similar way to the last surveys. Responses will be anonymous. There should be no need for finger pointing as we are discussing the proposition alt.books.pratchett not events on afp.

There's no doubt that the traffic on afp is too high to be coped with comfortably, and a lot of it is pretty much pointless (even though I'm not posting as much these days...). I believe that abp would a worthwhile move, and one that newsadmins should be prepared to lend their support to.

BTW. Some questions as well.

1) Would you post to alt.books.pratchett if it was created?

Only if I could come up with something appropriate ;)

2) Do you think the creation of alt.books.pratchett would irrecoverably damage alt.fan.pratchett?

It shouldn't. If anybody wants to participate in both, then they subscribe to both. If afp foundered because 'names' were no longer posting there, then it probably wasn't worth saving (IMHO of course :) ).

Many posters have forcibly expressed the view that afp is a collection of people with a common interest, not a group dedicated to the discussion of Terry's work. On that basis, they shouldn't need the relevant stuff to continue posting on Terry-free threads.


This is all very difficult. I tend to agree with the view that the majority of relevant topics are those that have already been discussed, abp colud soimply become a ground for therehashing of old comments and some could use its existence as justification for excessive posting to afp. I couldn't manage to increase the volume of news I read in a day so if abp wasn't very low volume I'd ignore it. As such I might work if the majority of afpers just redirected those who complain about lack of relevancy to it. If however it resulted in a significant number of afp defecting it could destroy afp.

Summary: If not many current afpers will leave afp to join abp then I'm in favour. If you get lots of replies saying people will leave afp for abp then I'm against, but then if that is the case they will probably leave anyway.

Conclusion: It'll probably do more good than harm


I now ask for comments. These comments will be presented in a similar way to the last surveys. Responses will be anonymous. There should be no need for finger pointing as we are discussing the proposition alt.books.pratchett not events on afp.

I am against it unless all articles in abp would also show up in afp, just like it is now with afpa. Why? Because the propagation of newsgroups over the world isn't too good, and there should be a way for all afp readers to read the abp too.

BTW. Some questions as well.

1) Would you post to alt.books.pratchett if it was created?

Probably.

2) Do you think the creation of alt.books.pratchett would irrecoverably damage alt.fan.pratchett?

Maybe. Not if my first comment is used.


I now ask for comments. These comments will be presented in a similar way to the last surveys. Responses will be anonymous. There should be no need for finger pointing as we are discussing the proposition alt.books.pratchett not events on afp.

Well, of course, if someone wants to create it, no one else could stop it, really. I'm neutral on the matter, but I predict, Pterry fans being what they are, keeping *I* off will be VERY difficult. Keeping it from taking over would possibly be more work than anyone's willing to put into it.

BTW. Some questions as well.

1) Would you post to alt.books.pratchett if it was created?

Dunno. Since I suspect most relevant threads will be cross-posted, I guess I would, indirectly. Otherwise, I would not likelty subscribe, because rmta and afp already take up enough time.

2) Do you think the creation of alt.books.pratchett would irrecoverably damage alt.fan.pratchett?

That's hard to say. I'm guessing that the majority of those who would forsake afp for abp would be those who have already dropped afp because they did not like the direction, or those who still hang out, but don't post and don't like the lack of relevancy. So I suspect not.


Discussion generated by the previous survey has led to the proposal that a new newsgroup alt.books.pratchett would better suit the purposes of those marginalised by irrelevancy on alt.fan.pratchett

Some have suggested that the split would create an environment similar to that on the tolkein groups alt.fan.tolkein and rec.arts.books.tolkein. One is more "serious" and the other more "fannish". This appears to work quite well.

I think it would be a very good idea.

1) Would you post to alt.books.pratchett if it was created?

Definitely yes.

2) Do you think the creation of alt.books.pratchett would irrecoverably damage alt.fan.pratchett?

Don't think so. It will still remain a meeting place for people that share a common approach to... uhm, all kinds of stuff.

PS: Is afpa an usenet newsgroup? My server seems not to have it - or is it a mailing list?


Hi, Orin! Just replying to your ANNOUNCE article in afp

Orin Thomas writes:
Discussion generated by the previous survey has led to the proposal that a new newsgroup alt.books.pratchett would better suit the purposes of those marginalised by irrelevancy on alt.fan.pratchett

It has already been mentioned that afp is in danger of losing Pterry, due to the wealth of posts.

I would envisage the difference between afp and abp to be similar to that between a pub and a coffee shop. With afpa serving as a common notice board.

Ah, but don't the posts from afpa automatically get copied to afp ? There is a danger of overlapping or missing out of article from abp.

This does not mean, however, that relevant discussions on afp should move to abp. If people feel that they can have *R* discussions on afp they should go for it.

Again, will someone have the position of being responsible for cross- posting relevant articles in both groups ?

I now ask for comments. These comments will be presented in a similar way to the last surveys. Responses will be anonymous. There should be no need for finger pointing as we are discussing the proposition alt.books.pratchett not events on afp.

Personally, I am for the idea of creating a new group as you detail above. I *do* miss the posts by Pterry, and it's highly likely he'll be attracted to this new group, where internal bickering *should* be less, and the content more *R*elevant.

However, would a separate FAQ be created ?

Would the main AFP FAQ include info about these new groups ?

BTW. Some questions as well.

1) Would you post to alt.books.pratchett if it was created?

Yes. I assume that abp would be the main place to post annotations and raise queries and general discussion about the actual books.

2) Do you think the creation of alt.books.pratchett would irrecoverably damage alt.fan.pratchett?

This is quite a complicated issue. I would guess that two factions would develop (assuming that abp will be unmoderated), with afp dwindling into total irrelevancy.

Quite often, we need *R* material in afp to keep us on track.


Greetings Orin,

Orin Thomas writes:
I now ask for comments. These comments will be presented in a similar way to the last surveys. Responses will be anonymous. There should be no need for finger pointing as we are discussing the proposition alt.books.pratchett not events on afp.

I think it's an excellent idea. I can no longer afford the time (or have the patience) to wade through a.f.p. It was OK when there were just a few hundred of us, but now... It reminds me of throwing a party in your parent's house while they're away, and the entire population of London turn up (without a bottle).

BTW. Some questions as well.

1) Would you post to alt.books.pratchett if it was created?

Sure would.

2) Do you think the creation of alt.books.pratchett would irrecoverably damage alt.fan.pratchett?

It could hardly damage it any more than the current occupants are already managing :-(


I think that the creation of abp would be an excellent idea. My reason being that during my stay at afp, I was hoping to have some discussion on Pratchett. The fact that it was all irrelevent gibberish didn't bother me, until there was *too* much irrelevent gibberish.

So making abp as well as afp would give us the best of both worlds, wouldn't it? Those wanting irrelevent chat could go to afp, and those wanting 'proper' chat could go to abp. In no way would afp be severly affected by the creation of abp, as afp is too well established. It might require some effort to convert people to abp, but it could be a worthwhile addition to the Pratchett stable.

In article <824839790afpa@eniac.demon.co.uk> you write:

1) Would you post to alt.books.pratchett if it was created?

Yes, most definately.

2) Do you think the creation of alt.books.pratchett would irrecoverably damage alt.fan.pratchett?

Nope, afp is already too well established.


Alt.books.pratchett seems more reasonable to me.

Hi, just spotted this through an alta vista search (funny what you can turn up).

As someone who read afp for years before giving up because of the noise level (the various in-jokes from different brit. unis., etc. were straining my kill file) I'd like to say that I'd love to see something like abp. Who knows, maybe even TP would be willing to read it (maybe not - I remember him *liking* the fact that afp wasn't all about his books).


I now ask for comments. These comments will be presented in a similar way to the last surveys. Responses will be anonymous. There should be no need for finger pointing as we are discussing the proposition alt.books.pratchett not events on afp.

BTW. Some questions as well.

1) Would you post to alt.books.pratchett if it was created?

2) Do you think the creation of alt.books.pratchett would irrecoverably damage alt.fan.pratchett?

Orin: I think ABP is an excellent idea. I'm recent to AFP and the learning curve is just too steep, so all I can do is skim it looking for *R*s. Yes, I would post.

Good luck.


1) Would you post to abp?

Yes, but see below.

2) Do you think abp would damage afp?

Depends... I think the main point here is what people would do with crossposting. If I wanted to ask a *R* question or something, I'd rather post it to both groups. Likewise, I'd like to be able to just read afp for the nice atmosphere and not miss out on any interesting *R* stuff that people post in abp. Perhaps if all messages in abp started off crossposted to afp, and then when the topic drift got too great, people just removed abp from the groups?

(hmm.. that doesn't answer the question very well.. it would damage it if people didn't crosspost relevant stuff from abp, as afp is still primarily a congregating place for fans of Terry Pratchett's books)


According to Orin Thomas:

Further call for comment.

abp would also not be as strictly relevant as the original name (afp.relevant) implied. Given the subject matter, it would not be surprising if one in five posts to abp bordered on the silly. The main difference would be that on abp all *new* threads would have to be *R*. (If you wanted to start an *I* thread - afp's would be your place :-)

If it got to the point where a threads header had to be changed to something *I* then the post would probably move. For example:

Original Post: Use of Aquaducts in Ankh and not Morpork {*R*}

drift ... Who was the Green train in Thomas the Tank engine. {*I*}

My Suggestion: All threads in abp should be relevant. When a thread turns *I*
a) change the Subject to *I* <wossname> (was Re: <whatever>)
b) change the Newsgroups to alt.fan.pratchett,alt.books.pratchett
AND
c) set Followup-To: alt.fan.pratchett

because any site that carries abp will certainly carry afp.

Crossposting between abp and afp should be allowed only
1) in the above case
2) for announcements (x-posted to afpa, afp, and maybe abp)
Followup-To should *always* be set to one group.

This does not mean, however, that relevant discussions on afp should move to abp. If people feel that they can have *R* discussions on afp they should go for it.

Especially if their feed doesn't carry abp. But no crossposting except as mentioned above.

BTW. Some questions as well.

1) Would you post to alt.books.pratchett if it was created?

Yes.

2) Do you think the creation of alt.books.pratchett would irrecoverably damage alt.fan.pratchett?

Could be. But the damage done to alt.fan.pratchett by the exit of people like Rich Holmes etc. *has* already been done.


[Prev Page] [Up] [Next Page]
This section of L-Space is maintained by The L-Space Librarians

The L-Space Web is a creation of The L-Space Librarians
This mirror site is maintained by The L-Space Librarians