KN>  GE> Frankly, this echo seems to suffer from what I've heard described as
KN>  GE> "Usenet Disease". That's where topics enough people want to talk 
bou
KN>  GE> to make nothing more than a decent message thread get an entire
KN>  GE> conference.
KN>         Oh nonsense George. Has a moderator here ever called you
KN>         off-topic? Any official messages to that effect? All
KN>         you've found is normal resistance to topic drift. If you
KN>         want to talk about progrock, this is the place. If you
KN>         want to talk about the Beatles there's a great _BEATLES_
KN>         echo, ditto for Pink Floyd. If you want general music
KN>         discussion there's _MUSIC_ or the very fine _CD_ECHO_.
I am well aware that there are lots and lots of narrowly focused echoes
on Fido (and other echo nets). The problem, as I see it, is that ALL
echo mail conferences on ALL nets are getting less and less message
traffic because people are shifting to the Internet. I think one of the
best ways to keep echo mail nets alive and viable is to have
fewer conferences with wider ranges of topics. Confernces that have lots
of mail to read and reply to are, frankly, a lot more fun than
conferences with small amounts of mail.
KN>         What seems to be the problem? It seems you are
KN>         complaining that you can't talk about things thatt are
KN>         clearly off topic, or determine for yourself what the
KN>         echo topic is. Is that reasonable?
The problem is that there is often a natural progression of threads that
stray into different areas. These threads, I find, are usually a lot
more interesting than the ones that stick to a very tightly focused
topic.
KN>  GE> On Fido, it seems that natural digressions of message
KN>  GE> threads into areas close to the main topic get cut off instead of
KN>  GE> wandering wherever they may.
KN>         That's absolutely correct. Fido is moderated. For most
KN>         people this is one of its attractions.
Given the steady decreasing message traffic on Fido, I have to assume
that "most" people are switching to the Internet and aren't calling
local Bulletin Boards to participate in echo mail nets anymore. I submit
that a re-evaluation of Fido policy regarding the narrowness of topics
would go a long way to preserving Fidonet as a viable institution.
Of course, moderation to prevent flaming, scatology, etc. is still
important to keeping the net alive.
So given that view, I think that this particular echo is as good a place
to start expanding the scope of discussions as any other. Besides, I
have seen a great many posts from people who say that Prog-Rock is one
of their favorite types of music, yet they also enjoy other genres. I
doubt that very many Prog-Rock fans would be that upset if a discussion
that starts on a strictly Prog-Rock topic were to be allowed to continue
it's natural flow into other areas.
In other words, I am submitting that regardless of what happened in the
past, rules that are made by men can be changed by men. I submit that
the overall success and viability of this echo (and many other echoes)
would be enhanced if the rules would lossen up rather than tighten
up (also a song by Archie Bell & the Drells, and definitly off-topic).
KN>  GE> I've lurked in here for a long time before speaking up. And I've
KN>  GE> noticed that there are a relatively few people actively 
rticipating
KN>         Relative to other echos devoted to obscure and obsolete
KN>         musical genres?
I see the same thing is other echoes that were correctly separated into
more than one when it was a good idea to do so, that chould now be
combined because changing times have made it a good idea to change.
F'rinstance -- the separate echoes on Guns and Black-Powder guns
would probably benefit from being merged.
KN>  GE> Those who
KN>  GE> own the echo seem to want to keep it extremely narrow and focused.
KN>         That is correct. This echo is for the discussion of
KN>         progrock. That's what it was set up for years ago and
KN>         that is what it has always been. I'm the acting moderator
KN>         and I don't have the authority to change this even if I
KN>         wanted to. But I might remind you that
Well, if you don't have the authority, who does? Understand, I am not
challenging the authority of the powers that be, I am attempting to get
them to change their minds. I do not dispute the rules, I am trying to
start a dialogue to convince everyone that a change in the rules would
be beneficial.
 * OLX 2.1 TD * Inalienable rights only interfere with the government.
--- Retorn
---------------