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.fan.pratchett

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

It also incluses 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 *definitiely* 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 opportunitywould 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.

---

OT> I now ask for comments. These comments will be presented in a
OT> similar way to the last surveys. Responses will be anonymous. There
OT> should be no need for finger pointing as we are discussing the
OT> 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.

OT> BTW. Some questions as well.

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

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

OT> 2) Do you think the creation of alt.books.pratchett would 
OT> 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 becuase 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

In article <824839790afpa@eniac.demon.co.uk>, Orin Thomas
<orin@connexus.apana.org.au> 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,

In article <824839790afpa@eniac.demon.co.uk>, Orin Thomas
<orin@connexus.apana.org.au> 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, juts 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?
>
>yours,
>
>Orin
>
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.