Newsgroups Main » Newsgroups Directory » Hobbies and Enthusiasts » Video
General (rec.video)
From modemac@netcom.com Sun Jan 8 19:04:33 1995
Path: uunet!bounce-back
From: modemac@netcom.com (Modemac)
Newsgroups: news.announce.newgroups,news.groups,
Subject: RFD: rec.video.reviews moderated
Followup-To: news.groups
Date: 8 Jan 1995 18:55:02 -0500
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
Lines: 136
Sender: tale@uunet.uu.net
Approved: tale@uunet.uu.net
Message-ID: <3epu0m$ie8@rodan.UU.NET>
NNTP-Posting-Host: rodan.uu.net
Xref: uunet news.announce.newgroups:6168 news.groups:128747
Newsgroup : rec.video.reviews
Status : Moderated
Distribution : World
Summary : Reviews of videos. (Moderated)
Moderator: : modemac@netcom.com (Modemac)
This is a formal Request For Discussion on the creation of a moderated
newsgroup, rec.video.reviews.
This RFD has been posted in accordance with the Guidelines for Newsgroup
Creation. Its language is based on previously submitted RFDs. The RFD is
being cross-posted to the following relevant news groups:
news.groups
news.announce.newgroups
rec.video
rec.video.releases
alt.video.laserdisc
alt.video.tape-trading
rec.arts.movies
alt.cult-movies
CHARTER
Rec.video.reviews is the video equivalent of rec.arts.movies.reviews. It
exists to serve as a place for the Usenet community to write their own
reviews of movies, TV shows and programs available on commercial video,
and for those reviews to let the world know if a video is worth buying,
renting, or avoiding.
Reviews of videos in all formats are encouraged: VHS, PAL and Beta
videotape, video laserdisc, CD-I, CD-ROM, and any other format that
allows the viewer to watch a program on video.
While the majority of reviews in rec.video.reviews will undoubtedly cover
movies on video, this newsgroup is not limited to reviews of movies. All
programs on video may be reviewed here, including cartoon collections,
episodes of TV shows commercially available, documentaries, specially
produced video programs (examples of these include Sports Illustrated and
home imrovement videos), musical concerts on video, and anything else
covering the broad spectrum of commercially available videos. The only
real limits to subjects for a review are:
- It must be commercially available, i.e. no bootlegs,
promotional, or taped-from-TV videos.
- It must be a video program, and not "interactive."
Movies on video with supplements (including movies
on CD-ROM and CD-I) are acceptable, but video
games and other "interactive entertainment" are not.
- Your language should be generally inoffensive, especially
where reviews of erotic or "controversial" videos are
concerned. For example, a blow-by-blow description of a
pornographic video would not be accepted (post it to
alt.sex.movies instead), but a tastefully-written review
of a Playboy Playmate video would be allowed.
A video review should cover as many important aspects as necessary to
allow the reader to make a fair decision on whether or not to purchase
the video. Important aspects of video quality include the format (VHS
vs. laserdisc, for instance), aspect ratio (pan-and-scan, letterbox, or
full-frame), recording method (SP, LP or EP tape trecording, or CLV/CAV
laserdisc), picture quality, flaws in the picture, flaws in the video
itself, quality of the program, price of the video, availability for
purchase, and anything else worth mentioning.
These criteria for video quality are only suggestions. There is no set
format for reviewing a a video; reviewers are encouraged to be creative
and honest in their reviews. If you feel that a video is a piece of trash
that deserves to be smashed with a sledgehammer, state your reasons why.
Likewise, if you think that people should run right out to the video store
and buy a certain video, explain what makes it so good.
To allow for easy categorization of video reviews, a review should
include the video format in its Subject: line. The following are
examples of message headers that make the contents of their reviews easy
to recognize:
VHS: Jurassic Park
PAL: "Crocodile" Dundee
LASERDISC: Terminator 2, THX Special Edition
CD-ROM: A Hard Day's Night
CD-I: Top Gun
Reviews posted to rec.video.reviews should follow these examples with
their subject headers.
This is a moderated newsgroup, and all postings will be subject to the
approval of the moderator. The moderator will treat all submitted
messages in a fair, unbiased manner, and no postings will be edited or
censored. Inappropriate postings will be forwarded to other newsgroups,
or sent back to the original poster. In general, all video reviews will
be accepted, and the only messages to be rejected will be reviews that do
not meet the requirements for a review as listed above (not commercially
available, not a "video," or especially offensive language), blatant
advertisements for commercial products, and messages that are not reviews
in themselves (including commentary on existing reviews).
RATIONALE
Rec.arts.movies.reviews serves a vital function for the members of
Usenet, by providing a place where people can go to read reviews of
movies without having to wade through hundreds of messages while
searching for one particular message. People continually post requests
for video reviews to the various video- and movie-related newsgroups.
Rec.video.reviews will therefore serve as the video counterpart to
rec.arts.movies.reviews: not only is the quality of the MOVIE important,
but the quality of the VIDEO is also a factor.
TOPICS FOR DISCUSSION:
This is the gestation period for this newsgroup, and any aspect of its
future existence may be covered. Possible topics for discussion include:
- All public replies to messages in this newsgroup will
be forwarded to another newsgroup. Which newsgroup
should handle the discussion of these reviews? Should
it be rec.video.releases, rec.video, or another newsgroup?
- Should reviews of video players and other "home theater"
equipment also be included in this newsgroup?
- And any other questions that you may think are appropriate.
FUTURE CALL FOR VOTES
After a discussion period of 21-30 days, if there are no overwhelming
objections to the proposed group, there will be a Call For Votes (CFV)
posted to the same groups as this RFD. The voting period will be at least
21 days. If the group passes by receiving 100 more YES votes than NO
votes, and (at least) twice as many YES votes as NO votes, it will be
created.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Boingy! Boingy! | Reverend Modemac | There is
Boingy!" (Yakko, | modemac@netcom.com | no
Wakko and Dot) | First Online Church of "Bob" | black and white.
From modemac@netcom.com Tue Jan 17 13:34:15 1995
Path: uunet!bounce-back
From: modemac@netcom.com (Modemac)
Newsgroups: news.announce.newgroups,news.groups,rec.video,rec.video.releases,alt.video.laserdisc,alt.video.tape-trading,rec.arts.movies,alt.cult-movies
Subject: RFD: rec.video.{reviews,misc}
Followup-To: news.groups
Date: 17 Jan 1995 13:19:53 -0500
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
Lines: 182
Sender: tale@uunet.uu.net
Approved: tale@uunet.uu.net
Message-ID: <3fh1o9$hfu@rodan.UU.NET>
NNTP-Posting-Host: rodan.uu.net
Xref: uunet news.announce.newgroups:6193 news.groups:130052 rec.video:75244 rec.video.releases:15768 alt.video.laserdisc:23440 alt.video.tape-trading:864 rec.arts.movies:242188 alt.cult-movies:73598
Newsgroup : rec.video.misc
rec.video.reviews
Status : rec.video.misc: Unmoderated
rec.video.reviews: Moderated
Distribution : World
Summary : rec.video.misc: Miscellaneous video-related topics.
rec.video.reviews: Reviews of videos. (Moderated)
Moderator: : rec.video.misc: none
rec.video.reviews: modemac@netcom.com (Modemac)
This is a formal Request For Discussion on the reorganization of the
existing Usenet newsgroup rec.video. I am proposing that two changes be
made to the newsgroup:
1) Renaming of rec.video to rec.video.misc.
2) Creation of a moderated newsgroup called rec.video.reviews.
The initial RFD posted to news.announce.newgroups was a proposal for the
creation of rec.video.reviews. With the suggestion of David Lawrence,
moderator of news.announce.newgroups, I am expanding the topic of the
original RFD to include discussion of the renaming of rec.video to
rec.video.misc.
This RFD has been posted in accordance with the Guidelines for Newsgroup
Creation. Its language is based on previously submitted RFDs. The RFD is
being cross-posted to the following relevant news groups:
news.groups
news.announce.newgroups
rec.video
rec.video.releases
alt.video.laserdisc
alt.video.tape-trading
rec.arts.movies
alt.cult-movies
About rec.video.misc:
The newsgroup rec.video.misc shall in fact cover every topic deemed as
acceptable to the original newsgroup rec.video. The name of rec.video
will be changed to rec.video.misc, and its charter shall in fact be the
original charter of rec.video. All subjects discussed on rec.video shall
be welcome on rec.video.misc.
CHARTER: rec.video.reviews
Rec.video.reviews is the video equivalent of rec.arts.movies.reviews. It
exists to serve as a place for the Usenet community to write their own
reviews of movies, TV shows and programs available on commercial video,
and for those reviews to let the world know if a video is worth buying,
renting, or avoiding.
Reviews of videos in all formats are encouraged: VHS, PAL and Beta
videotape, video laserdisc, CD-I, CD-ROM, and any other format that
allows the viewer to watch a program on video.
While the majority of reviews in rec.video.reviews will undoubtedly cover
movies on video, this newsgroup is not limited to reviews of movies. All
programs on video may be reviewed here, including cartoon collections,
episodes of TV shows commercially available, documentaries, specially
produced video programs (examples of these include Sports Illustrated and
home imrovement videos), musical concerts on video, and anything else
covering the broad spectrum of commercially available videos. The only
real limits to subjects for a review are:
- It must be commercially available, i.e. no bootlegs,
promotional, or taped-from-TV videos.
- It must be a video program, and not "interactive."
Movies on video with supplements (including movies
on CD-ROM and CD-I) are acceptable, but video
games and other "interactive entertainment" are not.
- Your language should be generally inoffensive, especially
where reviews of erotic or "controversial" videos are
concerned. For example, a blow-by-blow description of a
pornographic video would not be accepted (post it to
alt.sex.movies instead), but a tastefully-written review
of a Playboy Playmate video would be allowed.
A video review should cover as many important aspects as necessary to
allow the reader to make a fair decision on whether or not to purchase
the video. Important aspects of video quality include the format (VHS
vs. laserdisc, for instance), aspect ratio (pan-and-scan, letterbox, or
full-frame), recording method (SP, LP or EP tape trecording, or CLV/CAV
laserdisc), picture quality, flaws in the picture, flaws in the video
itself, quality of the program, price of the video, availability for
purchase, and anything else worth mentioning.
These criteria for video quality are only suggestions. There is no set
format for reviewing a a video; reviewers are encouraged to be creative
and honest in their reviews. If you feel that a video is a piece of trash
that deserves to be smashed with a sledgehammer, state your reasons why.
Likewise, if you think that people should run right out to the video store
and buy a certain video, explain what makes it so good.
To allow for easy categorization of video reviews, a review should
include the video format in its Subject: line. The following are
examples of message headers that make the contents of their reviews easy
to recognize:
VHS: Jurassic Park
PAL: "Crocodile" Dundee
LASERDISC: Terminator 2, THX Special Edition
CD-ROM: A Hard Day's Night
CD-I: Top Gun
Reviews posted to rec.video.reviews should follow these examples with
their subject headers.
This is a moderated newsgroup, and all postings will be subject to the
approval of the moderator. The moderator will treat all submitted
messages in a fair, unbiased manner, and no postings will be edited or
censored. Inappropriate postings will be forwarded to other newsgroups,
or sent back to the original poster. In general, all video reviews will
be accepted, and the only messages to be rejected will be reviews that do
not meet the requirements for a review as listed above (not commercially
available, not a "video," or especially offensive language), blatant
advertisements for commercial products, and messages that are not reviews
in themselves (including commentary on existing reviews).
RATIONALE
1) Rec.arts.movies.reviews serves a vital function for the members of
Usenet, by providing a place where people can go to read reviews of
movies without having to wade through hundreds of messages while
searching for one particular message. People continually post requests
for video reviews to the various video- and movie-related newsgroups.
Rec.video.reviews will therefore serve as the video counterpart to
rec.arts.movies.reviews: not only is the quality of the MOVIE important,
but the quality of the VIDEO is also a factor.
2) The rationale for renaming rec.video to rec.video.misc is stated best
by David Lawrence, the moderator of news.announce.newgroups:
"This should have been done long ago, so it's about time to finally get it
done.
"There are both administrative and namespace consistency aspects for
doing so. Briefly: it simplifies news system administration for
people taking just that topic area, reduces cross-posting with the
hierarchy some, lessens the perception by some peple that some topics
are being "relegated to a subgroup", and keeps more clear the
distinction of hierarchy vs group in the namespace model. In the
cases of reorganizations, it also emphasizes to some sites that a
change has been made. This could be very important to the way their
feeds are configured, especially with the advent of INN and its break
>from the B/C News hierarchal feeding structure."
TOPICS FOR DISCUSSION:
This is the gestation period for this newsgroup, and any aspect of its
future existence may be covered. Possible topics for discussion include:
- All public replies to messages in rec.video.reviews will
be forwarded to another newsgroup. Which newsgroup
should handle the discussion of these reviews? Should
it be rec.video.releases, rec.video.misc, or another newsgroup?
- Should reviews of video players and other "home theater"
equipment also be included in rec.video.reviews?
- Are the reasons stated for renaming rec.video to rec.video.misc
sufficient to justify renaming the newsgroup?
- And any other questions that you may think are appropriate.
FUTURE CALL FOR VOTES
After a discussion period of 21-30 days, if there are no overwhelming
objections to the proposed group, there will be a Call For Votes (CFV)
posted to the same groups as this RFD. The voting period will be at least
21 days. If the group passes by receiving 100 more YES votes than NO
votes, and (at least) twice as many YES votes as NO votes, it will be
created. The vote will be a multiple-choice vote, so that it will be
possible to vote YES for one newsgroup (rec.video.reviews or
rec.video.misc) and NO for the other newsgroup (rec.video.misc or
rec.video.reviews) if you so desire. If you prefer, you will also be
allowed to vote YES for both newsgroups or NO for both newsgroups.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Boingy! Boingy! | Reverend Modemac | There is
Boingy!" (Yakko, | modemac@netcom.com | no
Wakko and Dot) | First Online Church of "Bob" | black and white.
From modemac@netcom.com Tue Mar 7 16:38:14 1995
Path: uunet!bounce-back
From: modemac@netcom.com (Modemac)
Newsgroups: news.announce.newgroups,news.groups,rec.video,rec.video.releases,alt.video.laserdisc,alt.video.tape-trading,rec.arts.movies,alt.cult-movies
Subject: 2nd RFD: rec.video.reviews moderated
Followup-To: news.groups
Date: 7 Mar 1995 15:36:24 -0500
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
Lines: 151
Sender: tale@uunet.uu.net
Approved: tale@uunet.uu.net
Message-ID: <3jig48$nt6@rodan.UU.NET>
NNTP-Posting-Host: rodan.uu.net
Xref: gs2.UU.NET news.announce.newgroups:6349 news.groups:137989 rec.video:78004 rec.video.releases:16553 alt.video.laserdisc:28379 alt.video.tape-trading:1405 rec.arts.movies:258683 alt.cult-movies:80828
Newsgroup : rec.video.reviews
Status : Moderated
Distribution : World
Summary : rec.video.reviews: Reviews of videos. (Moderated)
Moderator: : rec.video.reviews: modemac@netcom.com (Modemac)
This is the second Request For Discussion on the creation of a moderated
newsgroup, to be called rec.video.reviews. The initial RFD included a
proposal to rename rec.video to rec.video.misc. Discussion of that topic
revealed a majority of users against the renaming of rec.video, including
a declaration of organized opposition to the change. Therefore, in
response to this opposition, I am dropping the proposal to rename
rec.video. This RFD shall therefore be for the creation of
rec.video.reviews only.
This RFD has been posted in accordance with the Guidelines for Newsgroup
Creation. Its language is based on previously submitted RFDs. The RFD is
being cross-posted to the following relevant news groups:
news.announce.newgroups
news.groups
rec.video
rec.video.releases
alt.video.laserdisc
alt.video.tape-trading
rec.arts.movies
alt.cult-movies
CHARTER: rec.video.reviews
Rec.video.reviews is the video equivalent of rec.arts.movies.reviews. It
exists to serve as a place for the Usenet community to write their own
reviews of movies, TV shows and programs available on commercial video,
and for those reviews to let the world know if a video is worth buying,
renting, or avoiding.
Reviews of videos in all formats are encouraged: VHS, PAL and Beta
videotape, video laserdisc, CD-I, CD-ROM, and any other format that
allows the viewer to watch a program on video.
While the majority of reviews in rec.video.reviews will undoubtedly cover
movies on video, this newsgroup is not limited to reviews of movies. All
programs on video may be reviewed here, including cartoon collections,
episodes of TV shows commercially available, documentaries, specially
produced video programs (examples of these include Sports Illustrated and
home imrovement videos), musical concerts on video, and anything else
covering the broad spectrum of commercially available videos. The only
real limits to subjects for a review are:
- It must be commercially available, i.e. no bootlegs,
promotional, or taped-from-TV videos.
- It must be a video program, and not "interactive."
Movies on video with supplements (including movies
on CD-ROM and CD-I) are acceptable, but video
games and other "interactive entertainment" are not.
- Your language should be generally inoffensive, especially
where reviews of erotic or "controversial" videos are
concerned. For example, a blow-by-blow description of a
pornographic video would not be accepted (post it to
alt.sex.movies instead), but a tastefully-written review
of a Playboy Playmate video would be allowed.
A video review should cover as many important aspects as necessary to
allow the reader to make a fair decision on whether or not to purchase
the video. Important aspects of video quality include the format (VHS
vs. laserdisc, for instance), aspect ratio (pan-and-scan, letterbox, or
full-frame), recording method (SP, LP or EP tape trecording, or CLV/CAV
laserdisc), picture quality, flaws in the picture, flaws in the video
itself, quality of the program, price of the video, availability for
purchase, and anything else worth mentioning.
These criteria for video quality are only suggestions. There is no set
format for reviewing a a video; reviewers are encouraged to be creative
and honest in their reviews. If you feel that a video is a piece of trash
that deserves to be smashed with a sledgehammer, state your reasons why.
Likewise, if you think that people should run right out to the video store
and buy a certain video, explain what makes it so good.
To allow for easy categorization of video reviews, a review should
include the video format in its Subject: line. The following are
examples of message headers that make the contents of their reviews easy
to recognize:
VHS: Jurassic Park
PAL: "Crocodile" Dundee
LASERDISC: Terminator 2, THX Special Edition
CD-ROM: A Hard Day's Night
CD-I: Top Gun
Reviews posted to rec.video.reviews should follow these examples with
their subject headers.
This is a moderated newsgroup, and all postings will be subject to the
approval of the moderator. The moderator will treat all submitted
messages in a fair, unbiased manner, and no postings will be edited or
censored. Inappropriate postings will be forwarded to other newsgroups,
or sent back to the original poster. In general, all video reviews will
be accepted, and the only messages to be rejected will be reviews that do
not meet the requirements for a review as listed above (not commercially
available, not a "video," or especially offensive language), blatant
advertisements for commercial products, and messages that are not reviews
in themselves (including commentary on existing reviews).
RATIONALE
Rec.arts.movies.reviews serves a vital function for the members of Usenet,
by providing a place where people can go to read reviews of movies without
having to wade through hundreds of messages while searching for one
particular message. People continually post requests for video reviews to
the various video- and movie-related newsgroups. Rec.video.reviews will
therefore serve as the video counterpart to rec.arts.movies.reviews: not
only is the quality of the MOVIE important, but the quality of the VIDEO
is also a factor.
About rec.videos.misc:
The proposal to rename rec.video to rec.video.misc was suggested to me by
David Lawrence, the moderator of news.announce.newgroups. He is more
familiar with the details of managing network news, and as such he is more
able to defend his proposal than I am. If David Lawrence wishes for
additional discussion on the renaming of rec.video, he is of course
encouraged to offer his own rationale for the renaming of the newsgroup.
However, this RFD will not cover that topic of conversation. A new RFD
will be necessary for that topic.
TOPICS FOR DISCUSSION:
The initial discussion for rec.video.reviews centered around the
question, "should reviews of video hardware and 'home theater' equipment
be included in the newsgroup?" Some users thought that hardware should
be allowed in the newsgroup, while others suggested that a separate
newsgroup for "home theater" reviews be created. This question is open
for further discussion.
Also open for discussion is a backup moderator for rec.video.reviews.
Volunteers to serve as backup moderators are encouraged to email
modemac@netcom.com and offer their services.
FUTURE CALL FOR VOTES
If there are no overwhelming objections to the proposed group, there will
be a Call For Votes (CFV) posted to the same groups as this RFD. This
vote will take place at around the beginning of March. The voting period
will be at least 21 days. If the group passes by receiving 100 more YES
votes than NO votes, and (at least) twice as many YES votes as NO votes,
it will be created.
--
+---------------------------------------+
| Reverend Modemac (modemac@netcom.com) |
+--------------+ "There is no black and white." +-------------+
| First Online Church of "Bob," A Subfaction of the Excremeditated |
From spb@ntrs.com Wed Mar 22 16:24:25 1995
Path: uunet!bounce-back
From: spb@ntrs.com (Steve Bonine)
Newsgroups: news.announce.newgroups,news.groups,rec.video,rec.video.releases,alt.video.laserdisc,alt.video.tape-trading,rec.arts.movies,alt.cult-movies
Subject: CFV: rec.video.reviews
Followup-To: poster
Date: 22 Mar 1995 15:56:26 -0500
Organization: Usenet Volunteer Votetakers
Lines: 117
Sender: tale@uunet.uu.net
Approved: tale@uunet.uu.net
Expires: 13 Apr 1995 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <rec.video.reviews-CFV1@uunet.uu.net>
References: <3jig48$nt6@rodan.UU.NET>
Reply-To: voting@ntrs.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: rodan.uu.net
Xref: gs2.UU.NET news.announce.newgroups:6487 news.groups:140800 rec.video:78742 rec.video.releases:16798 alt.video.laserdisc:30191 alt.video.tape-trading:1530 rec.arts.movies:263653 alt.cult-movies:83169
FIRST CALL FOR VOTES (of 2)
moderated group rec.video.reviews
Newsgroups line:
rec.video.reviews Reviews of commercially available videos.
Votes must be received by 29:59:59 UTC, 12 April 1995.
This vote is being conducted by a neutral third party. For voting questions
only contact Steve Bonine <spb@ntrs.com>. For questions about the proposed
group contact Modemac (modemac@netcom.com).
CHARTER
Rec.video.reviews is the video equivalent of rec.arts.movies.reviews. It
exists to serve as a place for the Usenet community to write their own
reviews of movies, TV shows and programs available on commercial video,
and for those reviews to let the world know if a video is worth buying,
renting, or avoiding.
Reviews of videos in all formats are encouraged: VHS, PAL and Beta
videotape, video laserdisc, CD-I, CD-ROM, and any other format that
allows the viewer to watch a program on video.
While the majority of reviews in rec.video.reviews will undoubtedly cover
movies on video, this newsgroup is not limited to reviews of movies. All
programs on video may be reviewed here, including cartoon collections,
commercially available episodes of TV shows, documentaries, specially
produced video programs (examples of these include Sports Illustrated and
home improvement videos), musical concerts on video, music video
collections, and anything else covering the broad spectrum of commercially
available videos. The only real limits to subjects for a review are:
- It must be commercially available, i.e. no bootlegs,
promotional, or taped-from-TV videos.
- It must be a video program, and not "interactive."
Movies on video with supplements (including movies
on CD-ROM and CD-I) are acceptable, but video
games and other "interactive entertainment" are not.
- Your language should be generally inoffensive, especially
where reviews of erotic or "controversial" videos are
concerned. For example, a blow-by-blow description of a
pornographic video would not be accepted (post it to
alt.sex.movies instead), but a tastefully-written review
of a Playboy Playmate video would be allowed.
A video review should cover as many important aspects as necessary to
allow the reader to make a fair decision on whether or not to purchase
the video. Important aspects of video quality include the format (VHS
vs. laserdisc, for instance), aspect ratio (pan-and-scan, letterbox, or
full-frame), recording method (SP, LP or EP tape trecording, or CLV/CAV
laserdisc), picture quality, flaws in the picture, flaws in the video
itself, quality of the program, price of the video, availability for
purchase, and anything else worth mentioning.
These criteria for video quality are only suggestions. There is no set
format for reviewing a a video; reviewers are encouraged to be creative
and honest in their reviews. If you feel that a video is a piece of trash
that deserves to be smashed with a sledgehammer, state your reasons why.
Likewise, if you think that people should run right out to the video store
and buy a certain video, explain what makes it so good.
To allow for easy categorization of video reviews, a review should
include the video format in its Subject: line. The following are
examples of message headers that make the contents of their reviews easy
to recognize:
VHS: Jurassic Park
PAL: "Crocodile" Dundee
LASERDISC: Terminator 2, THX Special Edition
CD-ROM: A Hard Day's Night
CD-I: Top Gun
Reviews posted to rec.video.reviews should follow these examples with
their subject headers.
This is a moderated newsgroup, and all postings will be subject to the
approval of the moderator. The moderator will treat all submitted
messages in a fair, unbiased manner, and no postings will be edited or
censored. Inappropriate postings will be forwarded to other newsgroups,
or sent back to the original poster. In general, all video reviews will
be accepted, and the only messages to be rejected will be reviews that do
not meet the requirements for a review as listed above (not commercially
available, not a "video," or especially offensive language), blatant
advertisements for commercial products, and messages that are not reviews
in themselves (including commentary on existing reviews).
Moderator: Modemac (modemac@netcom.com)
RATIONALE
Rec.arts.movies.reviews serves a vital function for the members of Usenet,
by providing a place where people can go to read reviews of movies without
having to wade through hundreds of messages while searching for one
particular message. People continually post requests for video reviews to
the various video- and movie-related newsgroups. Rec.video.reviews will
therefore serve as the video counterpart to rec.arts.movies.reviews: not
only is the quality of the MOVIE important, but the quality of the VIDEO
is also a factor.
HOW TO VOTE
Send MAIL to: voting@ntrs.com
Just replying should work if you are not reading this on a mailing list.
Your mail message should contain one of the following statements:
I vote YES on rec.video.reviews
I vote NO on rec.video.reviews
You may also ABSTAIN in place of YES/NO - this will not affect the outcome.
Anything else may be rejected by the automatic vote counting program. The
votetaker will respond to your received ballots with a personal acknowledge-
ment by mail - if you do not receive one within several days, try again.
It is your responsibility to make sure your vote is registered correctly.
Only one vote per person, no more than one vote per account. Addresses and
votes of all voters will be published in the final voting results list.
From spb@ntrs.com Tue Mar 28 19:46:36 1995
Path: uunet!bounce-back
From: spb@ntrs.com (Steve Bonine)
Newsgroups: news.announce.newgroups,news.groups,rec.video,rec.video.releases,alt.video.laserdisc,alt.video.tape-trading,rec.arts.movies,alt.cult-movies
Subject: 2nd CFV: rec.video.reviews moderated
Supersedes: <rec.video.reviews-CFV1@uunet.uu.net>
Followup-To: poster
Date: 28 Mar 1995 19:29:32 -0500
Organization: Usenet Volunteer Votetakers
Lines: 119
Sender: tale@uunet.uu.net
Approved: tale@uunet.uu.net
Expires: 13 Apr 1995 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <rec.video.reviews-CFV2@uunet.uu.net>
References: <3jig48$nt6@rodan.UU.NET> <rec.video.reviews-CFV1@uunet.uu.net>
Reply-To: voting@ntrs.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: rodan.uu.net
Xref: gs2.UU.NET news.announce.newgroups:6526 news.groups:141878 rec.video:79080 rec.video.releases:16864 alt.video.laserdisc:30893 alt.video.tape-trading:1578 rec.arts.movies:265769 alt.cult-movies:84167
LAST CALL FOR VOTES (of 2)
moderated group rec.video.reviews
Newsgroups line:
rec.video.reviews Reviews of commercially available videos.
Votes must be received by 29:59:59 UTC, 12 April 1995.
This vote is being conducted by a neutral third party. For voting questions
only contact Steve Bonine <spb@ntrs.com>. For questions about the proposed
group contact Modemac (modemac@netcom.com).
CHARTER
Rec.video.reviews is the video equivalent of rec.arts.movies.reviews. It
exists to serve as a place for the Usenet community to write their own
reviews of movies, TV shows and programs available on commercial video,
and for those reviews to let the world know if a video is worth buying,
renting, or avoiding.
Reviews of videos in all formats are encouraged: VHS, PAL and Beta
videotape, video laserdisc, CD-I, CD-ROM, and any other format that
allows the viewer to watch a program on video.
While the majority of reviews in rec.video.reviews will undoubtedly cover
movies on video, this newsgroup is not limited to reviews of movies. All
programs on video may be reviewed here, including cartoon collections,
commercially available episodes of TV shows, documentaries, specially
produced video programs (examples of these include Sports Illustrated and
home improvement videos), musical concerts on video, music video
collections, and anything else covering the broad spectrum of commercially
available videos. The only real limits to subjects for a review are:
- It must be commercially available, i.e. no bootlegs,
promotional, or taped-from-TV videos.
- It must be a video program, and not "interactive."
Movies on video with supplements (including movies
on CD-ROM and CD-I) are acceptable, but video
games and other "interactive entertainment" are not.
- Your language should be generally inoffensive, especially
where reviews of erotic or "controversial" videos are
concerned. For example, a blow-by-blow description of a
pornographic video would not be accepted (post it to
alt.sex.movies instead), but a tastefully-written review
of a Playboy Playmate video would be allowed.
A video review should cover as many important aspects as necessary to
allow the reader to make a fair decision on whether or not to purchase
the video. Important aspects of video quality include the format (VHS
vs. laserdisc, for instance), aspect ratio (pan-and-scan, letterbox, or
full-frame), recording method (SP, LP or EP tape trecording, or CLV/CAV
laserdisc), picture quality, flaws in the picture, flaws in the video
itself, quality of the program, price of the video, availability for
purchase, and anything else worth mentioning.
These criteria for video quality are only suggestions. There is no set
format for reviewing a a video; reviewers are encouraged to be creative
and honest in their reviews. If you feel that a video is a piece of trash
that deserves to be smashed with a sledgehammer, state your reasons why.
Likewise, if you think that people should run right out to the video store
and buy a certain video, explain what makes it so good.
To allow for easy categorization of video reviews, a review should
include the video format in its Subject: line. The following are
examples of message headers that make the contents of their reviews easy
to recognize:
VHS: Jurassic Park
PAL: "Crocodile" Dundee
LASERDISC: Terminator 2, THX Special Edition
CD-ROM: A Hard Day's Night
CD-I: Top Gun
Reviews posted to rec.video.reviews should follow these examples with
their subject headers.
This is a moderated newsgroup, and all postings will be subject to the
approval of the moderator. The moderator will treat all submitted
messages in a fair, unbiased manner, and no postings will be edited or
censored. Inappropriate postings will be forwarded to other newsgroups,
or sent back to the original poster. In general, all video reviews will
be accepted, and the only messages to be rejected will be reviews that do
not meet the requirements for a review as listed above (not commercially
available, not a "video," or especially offensive language), blatant
advertisements for commercial products, and messages that are not reviews
in themselves (including commentary on existing reviews).
Moderator: Modemac (modemac@netcom.com)
RATIONALE
Rec.arts.movies.reviews serves a vital function for the members of Usenet,
by providing a place where people can go to read reviews of movies without
having to wade through hundreds of messages while searching for one
particular message. People continually post requests for video reviews to
the various video- and movie-related newsgroups. Rec.video.reviews will
therefore serve as the video counterpart to rec.arts.movies.reviews: not
only is the quality of the MOVIE important, but the quality of the VIDEO
is also a factor.
HOW TO VOTE
Send MAIL to: voting@ntrs.com
Just replying should work if you are not reading this on a mailing list.
Your mail message should contain one of the following statements:
I vote YES on rec.video.reviews
I vote NO on rec.video.reviews
You may also ABSTAIN in place of YES/NO - this will not affect the outcome.
Anything else may be rejected by the automatic vote counting program. The
votetaker will respond to your received ballots with a personal acknowledge-
ment by mail - if you do not receive one within several days, try again.
It is your responsibility to make sure your vote is registered correctly.
Only one vote per person, no more than one vote per account. Addresses and
votes of all voters will be published in the final voting results list.
There are no bounced acknowledgements at this time.
From spb@ntrs.com Fri Apr 14 17:43:30 1995
Path: uunet!bounce-back
From: spb@ntrs.com (Steve Bonine)
Newsgroups: news.announce.newgroups,news.groups,rec.video,rec.video.releases,alt.video.laserdisc,alt.video.tape-trading,rec.arts.movies,alt.cult-movies
Subject: RESULT: rec.video.reviews fails 96:19
Supersedes: <rec.video.reviews-CFV2@uunet.uu.net>
Followup-To: news.groups
Date: 14 Apr 1995 17:30:16 -0400
Organization: Usenet Volunteer Votetakers
Lines: 152
Sender: tale@uunet.uu.net
Approved: tale@uunet.uu.net
Message-ID: <rec.video.reviews-RESULT@uunet.uu.net>
References: <3jig48$nt6@rodan.UU.NET> <rec.video.reviews-CFV2@uunet.uu.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: rodan.uu.net
Xref: gs2.UU.NET news.announce.newgroups:6632 news.groups:144788 rec.video:79963 rec.video.releases:17109 alt.video.laserdisc:32894 alt.video.tape-trading:1734 rec.arts.movies:271098 alt.cult-movies:86793
RESULT
moderated group rec.video.reviews fails 96:19
There were 96 YES votes and 19 NO votes, for a total of 115 valid votes.
There were 2 abstains and 1 invalid ballot.
For group passage, YES votes must be at least 2/3 of all valid (YES and NO)
votes. There also must be at least 100 more YES votes than NO votes.
There is a five day discussion period after these results are posted.
Unless serious allegations of voting irregularities are raised, the group may
not be voted on again for six months.
Voting closed at 29:59:59 UTC, 12 April 1995.
This vote was conducted by a neutral third party. For voting questions
only contact Steve Bonine <spb@ntrs.com>. For questions about the proposed
group contact Modemac <modemac@netcom.com>.
rec.video.reviews Final Vote Ack
Voted Yes
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
aaltonen@retina.tte.vtt.fi Matti Aaltonen
adrianh@cogs.susx.ac.uk Adrian John Howard
andrew@research.att.com
andyl@harlequin.com Andy Latto
ault@cs.albany.edu Jim Ault
brafox@u.washington.edu C Smith
CHARLESESOLA@delphi.com
clstampe@mailbox.syr.edu Chris Stamper
crb11@cus.cam.ac.uk Colin Bell
cward@Think.COM Christopher Ward
dan.r@ix.netcom.com Dan Rothschild
David@masthead.demon.co.uk David Brazendale
demichel@usc.edu Christine De Michele
demmel@coteam7.cup.hp.com Wolfgang Demmel
dijon@netcom.com Doug Krause
djk@ecdcsvr.tredydev.unisys.com david klementovic
dr_legge@postoffice.utas.edu.au David Legge
ebail@ctp.com Erik Bailey
elissa@worf.infonet.net Elissa O'Bryan
emaccenti@digibank.it Emanuele Accenti
epc@Cs.Nott.AC.UK Elvis Presley's Corpse
fpiquero@sagi.ucv.edu.ve Fernando J. Piquero T.
garvin@BAST.CIMDS.RI.CMU.EDU
gord@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA Gordon R. Kennedy
groo@netcom.com Kiran Wagle
halfin@finknet.com Harold Fink
hheaton@xmission.com Hoyt J. Heaton
J.KRUEGER@aigm.westfalen.de Joern Krueger
J.Yeates@sussex.ac.uk John Yeates
jager@netcom.com Marcus Jager
jdfalk@cais.cais.com J.D. Falk
jim@duntone.demon.co.uk Jim Moody
jkeezel@leo.vsla.edu Jeffrey Keezel
jlauten@netcom.com Jennifer Lautenschlager
jonboy@io.org Jonboy
jsk591@lulu.acns.nwu.edu
jsylva@conicit.ve John R. Sylva P. (UCV)
Kerry@alaska.net
kevin_charman@mindlink.bc.ca Kevin Charman
kimp@rpi.edu Phil Kim
kirklarj@ttown.apci.com Bob Kirkland
kohler@oneworld.com Kurt Kohler
L15D@ZFN.UNI-BREMEN.DE Martin Schroeder
Lars.Jorgen.Aas@stud.idb.hist.no Lars Jorgen Aas
lcunha@net.usp.br Luiz Cunha
levin@BBN.COM
lf7z@midway.uchicago.edu Scraping Glenn Off The Wall
lrodrgz@free.org Luis A. Rodriguez
marier@zso.dec.com Shawn Marier
MAZULEC@minna.acc.iit.edu Lech Mazur
Merrill.Palmer@GDEsystems.COM L. Merrill Palmer
michael@nathan.north.de Michael Klaene
modemac@netcom.com Modemac
moss@bastille.cchem.berkeley.edu David Maurice
msattler@jungle.com Michael Sattler, San Francisco
mthul@netaxs.com Jenn
nexus@netcom.com Sherman Wan
nmakry@athena.compulink.forthnet.gr Nikolaos Makrymanolakis
Olaf.Laczak@Helsinki.FI Olaf Laczak
pdecker@lds.loral.com Philip Decker
philly@sv.span.com Dave Williams
pierre@shell.portal.com Pierre Uszynski
pjh1@leicester.ac.uk P.J. Humble
radrayer@panix.com Rebecca Drayer
rew@moontarz.nuance.com Ryan Waldron
Richard@challrj.demon.co.uk Richard John Challis
rick@bcm.tmc.edu Richard H. Miller
Roshne@faerun.sojourn.com Rod Shelton
rufinus@dxcern.cern.ch J. Rufinus
rwa2@ti.com Ron Anderson
shade@cix.compulink.co.uk Adrian Barritt
shimeall@cs.nps.navy.mil timothy shimeall
simeon@astra.limmat.net.ch Peter W. Simeon
SKIRS@dbsoftware.com Susan Kirshbaum
skogstj@oih.no ThE GReEdY BaZtARd
slg@sunray.cb.att.com
sommer@oasys.dt.navy.mil Dave Sommer
Steve_Hoffmann@qmail4.nba.TRW.COM Steve Hoffmann
stu@valinor.mythical.com Stu Labovitz
swhatle@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM Steven Whatley
t-doolen@tamu.edu Timm Doolen
tacraft@ccs.carleton.ca telnet accountschristina craft
techint@winternet.com Technical Intelligence-MN-USA
tenzil@io.com James Kiley
teshima@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu Lani Teshima-Miller
thomas@kjemi.unit.no Thomas Skogestad
twpierce@midway.uchicago.edu Tim Pierce
U59138@UICVM.CC.UIC.EDU
waiming@nsrc.nus.sg Leong Wai Ming
watsr@essex.ac.uk Watson R J
wdsilva@maple.can.net Wendyann D'Silva
wesleyer@dcc.unicamp.br Wesley Elias Ribeiro
whd@bnr.ca huw (w.h.) davies
wlrc@riker.neoucom.edu William R. Cruce
zajonc@ix.netcom.com dub
zoller@usa.acsys.com Brian Kent Zoller
Voted No
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ab@nova.cc.purdue.edu Allen Braunsdorf
booda@us1.msrcnavo.navy.mil Martin H. Booda
burt+@CMU.EDU Burt N Holzman
Chris_Marble@hmc.edu Chris Marble
jayj@hpislj.lvld.hp.com Jay Johannes
jcmurphy@smurfland.cit.buffalo.edu Jeff Murphy
Jim_Mann@transarc.com
jrm@globalvillag.com John R. MacWilliamson
khan@JTP.CS.NYU.EDU Hasnain Khan
mike@best.com Mike
mikeq@PrimeNet.Com Michael Quinlan
nick@inferno.fc.hp.com Nick Ingegneri
polzer@uran.informatik.uni-bonn.de Andreas Polzer
ptbast@owl.WPI.EDU Pete Bastien
rorschak@daimi.aau.dk Jesper Lauridsen
smarry@turing.toronto.edu Smarasderagd
stainles@bga.com Dwight Brown
tgm@netcom.com Thomas G. McWilliams
U15310@UICVM.CC.UIC.EDU Tom Ascher
Abstained
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mmt@redbrick.com M Mike Taksar KC6ZPS
otto@vaxb.acs.unt.edu M. "couch potato" Otto
Votes in error
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
burkat@panix.com Tom Burka
! Conflicting votes
From modemac@shell1.tiac.net Tue Nov 4 23:45:03 1997
Path: news.isc.org!bounce-back
From: Modemac <modemac@shell1.tiac.net>
Newsgroups: news.announce.newgroups,news.groups,rec.video,rec.video.releases,alt.video.laserdisc,alt.video.dvd,alt.cult-movies,rec.arts.movies.reviews
Subject: RFD: rec.video.reviews moderated
Followup-To: news.groups
Message-ID: <878715009.15482@isc.org>
Approved: newgroups-request@isc.org
Archive-Name: rec.video.reviews
Date: Wed, 05 Nov 1997 07:30:10 GMT
Lines: 211
Xref: news.isc.org news.announce.newgroups:918
REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
moderated group rec.video.reviews
This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for a moderated USENET
newsgroup. This is not a Call For Votes (CFV), and you cannot vote at
this time. Procedural details are listed below. Please note that this
message will be posted to news.groups and any discussion regarding this
RFD should be posted in this newsgroup only.
Newsgroup Line:
rec.video.reviews Reviews of videos. (Moderated)
RATIONALE: rec.video.reviews
Rec.arts.movies.reviews serves a vital function for the members of
Usenet, by providing a place where people can go to read reviews of
movies without having to wade through hundreds of messages while
searching for one particular review. People continually post requests
for video reviews to the various video- and movie-related newsgroups;
furthermore, the market and public interest in commercial video covers
a greater genre than merely "movies" on video. Rec.video.reviews will
therefore serve as the video counterpart to rec.arts.movies.reviews:
not only is the quality of the MOVIE important, but the quality of the
VIDEO is also a factor.
No difference shall be recognized between "current" videos and "past"
videos. Because videos from all eras of the history of film and
television are constantly being released, updated, and re-released,
reviews of video programs contanining both "current" and "past"
material shall be allowed on rec.video.reviews. This criterion makes
this discussion on-topic for the newsgroups
rec.arts.movies.current-films and rec.arts.movies.past-films.
The audience and topic of discussion of rec.video.reviews is similar,
though not identical, to rec.arts.movie.reviews, and it is likely that
many of the readers of rec.arts.movies.reviews shall be interested in
rec.video.reviews. This makes the posting of this initial Request For
Discussion on-topic for rec.arts.movies.reviews, though further
discussion shall take place on the newsgroup news.groups.
CHARTER: rec.video.reviews
Rec.video.reviews is the video equivalent of rec.arts.movies.reviews.
It exists to serve as a place for the participants in the Usenet
community to write their own reviews of movies, TV shows and programs
available on commercial video, and for those reviews to let the world
know if a video is worth buying, renting, or avoiding.
Reviews of videos in all formats are encouraged: VHS, PAL and Beta
videotape, video laserdisc, DVD, CD-ROM, and any other format that
allows the viewer to watch a program on video.
While the majority of reviews in rec.video.reviews will undoubtedly
cover movies on video, this newsgroup is not limited to reviews of
movies. All programs on video may be reviewed here, including cartoon
collections, music video collections, commercially available episodes
of TV shows, documentaries, specially produced video programs
(examples of these include sports, stand-up comic, and home
improvement videos), musical concerts on video, and anything else
covering the broad spectrum of commercially available videos. The
only real limits to subjects for a review are:
- It must be commercially available, i.e. no bootlegs,
promotional, or taped-from-TV videos.
- It must be a video program, and not "interactive."
Movies on video with supplements (including movies
on CD-ROM, laserdisc, and DVD) are acceptable, but video
games and other "interactive entertainment" are not.
- Your language should be reasonably inoffensive, especially
where reviews of erotic or "controversial" videos are
concerned. For example, a blow-by-blow description of a
pornographic video would not be accepted (post it to
rec.arts.movies.erotica instead), but a tastefully-written
review of a Playboy Playmate video would be allowed.
Exceptions to these rules can be made under exceptional circumstances,
at the discretion of the moderator of rec.video.reviews.
A video review should cover as many important aspects as necessary to
allow the reader to make a fair decision on whether or not to purchase
or rent the video. Important aspects of video quality include the
format (VHS vs. laserdisc, for instance), aspect ratio (pan-and-scan,
letterbox, or full-frame), recording method (SP, LP or EP tape
recording, or CLV/CAV laserdisc), picture quality, flaws in the
picture, physical flaws in the video itself, quality of the program,
price of the video, availability for purchase, and anything else worth
mentioning.
These criteria for video quality are only suggestions. There is no
set format for reviewing a a video; reviewers are encouraged to be
creative and honest in their reviews. If you feel that a video is a
piece of trash that deserves to be smashed with a sledgehammer, state
your reasons why. Likewise, if you think that people should run right
out to the video store and buy a certain video, explain what makes it
so good.
To allow for easy categorization of video reviews, a review should
include the video format in its Subject: line. The following are
examples of message headers that make the contents of their reviews
easy to recognize:
Subject: VHS: Jurassic Park
Subject: PAL: "Crocodile" Dundee
Subject: LASERDISC: Terminator 2, THX Special Edition
Subject: CD-ROM: A Hard Day's Night
Subject: DVD: Contact
Reviews posted to rec.video.reviews should follow these examples with
their subject headers.
This is a moderated newsgroup, and all postings will be subject to the
approval of the moderator. The moderator will treat all submitted
messages in a fair, unbiased manner, and no approved postings will be
edited or censored. Inappropriate postings will be forwarded to other
newsgroups, or sent back to the original poster. In general, all
video reviews will be accepted, and the only messages to be rejected
will be reviews that do not meet the requirements for a review as
listed above (not commercially available, not a "video," or especially
offensive language), blatant advertisements for commercial products,
and messages that are not reviews in themselves (including commentary
on existing reviews).
END CHARTER.
MODERATOR INFO: rec.video.reviews
Moderator: Robot Moderator To Be Announced.
The robot will forward each incoming message to the moderator of
rec.video.reviews. If more than one person volunteers to moderate the
newsgroup, the robot will forward each incoming message to one member
of the moderation team. The initial moderator of rec.video.reviews
is:
Moderator: Modemac <modemac@tiac.net>
Members of the team may change or be added before the Call For Votes
(CFV). The number of members of the moderating team will be at least
1 but not more than 5 (however, 2 moderators should be sufficient).
Should a moderator leave the group for any reason, applications for
moderators will be accepted and reviewed by the existing moderating
board.
Should the actions of any member of the moderation team be brought to
question, a moderator will be removed by a general consensus on the
newsgroup news.groups, or (if necessary) a Call For Votes on the
newsgroup news.announce.newgroups.
I have proposed myself as the initial moderator of rec.video.reviews
based upon the observation that this newsgroup will be (mostly)
non-controversial, and its purpose shall be straightforward and
obvious.
The newsgroup moderator or moderators shall maintain an unbiased, open
opinion of all submitted reviews, and the criterion for rejection of a
reviews shall never be merely because the moderator disagrees with the
opinion of that review.
Volunteers to serve as additional moderators are encouraged to email
modemac@tiac.net and offer their services. Based upon the message
traffic seen on rec.arts.movies.reviews, it may be that two moderators
(or more?) could be necessary to ensure a steady flow of traffic on
rec.video.reviews. I am willing to resign as the initial moderator
for rec.video.reviews if it is shown that this task can be performed
by an appropriate number of volunteers.
END MODERATOR INFO.
TOPICS FOR DISCUSSION:
The initial discussion for rec.video.reviews will probably be centered
around the question, "should reviews of video hardware and 'home
theater' equipment be included in the newsgroup?" Possible outcomes
of this discussion include the allowing of reviews of audio and video
hardware on rec.video.reviews, as long as the reviews are oriented
towards the "home theater" aspect of these products; or, the final
outcome could be the creation of two moderated newsgroups,
rec.video.reviews.hardware and rec.video.reviews.software. This
question is open for discussion.
Also open for discussion is a backup moderator for rec.video.reviews.
PROCEDURE:
This is a request for discussion, not a call for votes. In this phase
of the process, any potential problems with the proposed newsgroup
should be raised and resolved. The discussion period will continue
for a period of at least 21 days not to exceed 28 days starting from
the date this RFD was first posted to the newsgroup
news.announce.newsgroups, after which a Call For Votes (CFV) will be
posted by a neutral vote taker if the discussion warrants it. No
votes will be taken until the CFV is announced. All discussions
regarding this proposal should be posted to news.groups.
DISTRIBUTION:
news.groups
news.announce.newsgroups
rec.video
rec.video.releases
alt.video.laserdisc
alt.video.dvd
alt.cult-movies
rec.arts.movies.reviews
All messages regarding this proposal should be directed to the group
news.groups, the newsgroup responsible for discussion of proposals
regarding new newsgroups. When a Call For Votes (CFV) is issued, it
will be posted to all of the aforementioned newsgroups.
Proponent: Modemac <modemac@tiac.net>
From modemac@shell1.tiac.net Mon Nov 17 06:00:06 1997
Path: news.isc.org!bounce-back
From: Modemac <modemac@shell1.tiac.net>
Newsgroups: news.announce.newgroups,news.groups,rec.video,rec.video.releases,alt.video.laserdisc,alt.video.dvd,alt.cult-movies
Subject: 2nd RFD: rec.video.reviews moderated
Followup-To: news.groups
Message-ID: <879774419.3458@isc.org>
Approved: newgroups-request@isc.org
Archive-Name: rec.video.reviews
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 13:46:59 GMT
Lines: 245
Xref: news.isc.org news.announce.newgroups:957
REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
moderated group rec.video.reviews
This is the second formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for a moderated
USENET newsgroup. This is not a Call For Votes (CFV), and you cannot
vote at this time. Procedural details are listed below. Please note
that this message will be posted to news.groups and any discussion
regarding this RFD should be posted in this newsgroup only. The first
Request for Discussion was posted to news.announce.newgroups on
November 5, 1997.
CHANGES from previous RFD:
- Changed the wording of the charter to allow greater acceptance of
"bootleg" reviews, while placing a greater emphasis on rejection of
"pirated" and illegal copies of commercial videos.
- Clarified language in the charter allowing for the acceptance of
"controversial" material in video reviews, while disallowing the use of
gratuitously vulgar language.
- Added a request for a moderation submission email address, independent
from the regular email address of the moderator of rec.video.reviews.
- Placed more emphasis on the need for at least one additional moderator
on rec.video.reviews.
Newsgroup Line:
rec.video.reviews Reviews of videos. (Moderated)
RATIONALE: rec.video.reviews
Rec.arts.movies.reviews serves a vital function for the members of
Usenet, by providing a place where people can go to read reviews of
movies without having to wade through hundreds of messages while
searching for one particular review. People continually post requests
for video reviews to the various video- and movie-related newsgroups;
furthermore, the market and public interest in commercial video covers
a greater genre than merely "movies" on video. Rec.video.reviews will
therefore serve as the video counterpart to rec.arts.movies.reviews:
not only is the quality of the MOVIE important, but the quality of the
VIDEO is also a factor.
No difference shall be recognized between "current" videos and "past"
videos. Because videos from all eras of the history of film and
television are constantly being released, updated, and re-released,
reviews of video programs contanining both "current" and "past"
material shall be allowed on rec.video.reviews. This criterion makes
this discussion on-topic for the newsgroups
rec.arts.movies.current-films and rec.arts.movies.past-films.
The audience and topic of discussion of rec.video.reviews is similar,
though not identical, to rec.arts.movie.reviews, and it is likely that
many of the readers of rec.arts.movies.reviews shall be interested in
rec.video.reviews. This makes the posting of this initial Request For
Discussion on-topic for rec.arts.movies.reviews, though further
discussion shall take place on the newsgroup news.groups.
CHARTER: rec.video.reviews
Rec.video.reviews is the video equivalent of rec.arts.movies.reviews.
It exists to serve as a place for the participants in the Usenet
community to write their own reviews of movies, TV shows and programs
available on commercial video, and for those reviews to let the world
know if a video is worth buying, renting, or avoiding.
Reviews of videos in all formats are encouraged: VHS, PAL and Beta
videotape, video laserdisc, DVD, CD-ROM, and any other format that
allows the viewer to watch a program on video.
While the majority of reviews in rec.video.reviews will undoubtedly
cover movies on video, this newsgroup is not limited to reviews of
movies. All programs on video may be reviewed here, including cartoon
collections, music video collections, commercially available episodes
of TV shows, documentaries, specially produced video programs
(examples of these include sports, stand-up comic, and home
improvement videos), musical concerts on video, and anything else
covering the broad spectrum of commercially available videos. The
only real limits to subjects for a review are:
- It must be commercially available, i.e. no unique
promotional videos, taped-from-TV videos, or pirated
copies of commercially available videos.
- It must be a video program, and not "interactive."
Programs on video with supplements (including movies
on CD-ROM, laserdisc, and DVD) are acceptable, but video
games and other "interactive entertainment" are not.
- Reviews of "hardcore" pornography, and the use of
gratuitously vulgar language, are not allowed. Reviews
of videos containing "controversial" subject matter and
erotic material *will* be allowed on rec.video.reviews,
so long as these reviews are written in a manner that
reflects both the audience for these particular videos,
and the readership of the newsgroup as a whole. For example,
a blow-by-blow description of a pornographic video would
not be accepted (post it to rec.arts.movies.erotica
instead), but a tastefully-written review of a Playboy
Playmate video or a 1970s John Waters movie would be
allowed.
Exceptions to these rules can be made when necessary, at the discretion of
the moderator of rec.video.reviews. These exceptions will be based on the
moderator's decision that a video review will be useful and/or appeal to a
reasonable percentage of the readers of the newsgroup. Thus, a review of a
video with widespread appeal (such the unofficial "bootleg" version of
YELLOW SUBMARINE containing the "Hey Bulldog" sequence, or the "alternate"
ending of ARMY OF DARKNESS) would certainly be welcome on
rec.video.reviews.
A video review should cover as many important aspects as necessary to allow
the reader to make a fair decision on whether or not to purchase or rent the
video. Important aspects of video quality include the format (VHS vs.
laserdisc, for instance), aspect ratio (pan-and-scan, letterbox, or
full-frame), recording method (SP, LP or EP tape recording, or CLV/CAV
laserdisc), picture quality, flaws in the picture, physical flaws in the
video itself, quality of the program, price of the video, availability for
purchase, and anything else worth mentioning.
These criteria for video quality are only suggestions. There is no set
format for reviewing a a video; reviewers are encouraged to be creative and
honest in their reviews. If you feel that a video is a piece of trash that
deserves to be smashed with a sledgehammer, state your reasons why.
Likewise, if you think that people should run right out to the video store
and buy a certain video, explain what makes it so good.
To allow for easy categorization of video reviews, a review should include
the video format in its Subject: line. The following are examples of message
headers that make the contents of their reviews easy to recognize:
Subject: VHS: Jurassic Park
Subject: PAL: "Crocodile" Dundee
Subject: LASERDISC: Terminator 2, THX Special Edition
Subject: CD-ROM: A Hard Day's Night
Subject: DVD: Contact
Reviews posted to rec.video.reviews should follow these examples with
their subject headers.
This is a moderated newsgroup, and all postings will be subject to the
approval of the moderator. The moderator will treat all submitted
messages in a fair, unbiased manner, and no approved postings will be
edited or censored. Inappropriate postings will be forwarded to other
newsgroups, or sent back to the original poster. In general, all
video reviews will be accepted, and the only messages to be rejected
will be reviews that do not meet the requirements for a review as
listed above (not commercially available, not a "video," or especially
offensive language), blatant advertisements for commercial products,
and messages that are not reviews in themselves (including commentary
on existing reviews).
END CHARTER.
MODERATOR INFO: rec.video.reviews
Moderator: Robot Moderator To Be Announced.
The robot will forward each incoming message to the moderator of
rec.video.reviews. If more than one person volunteers to moderate the
newsgroup, the robot will forward each incoming message to one member
of the moderation team. The initial moderator of rec.video.reviews
is:
Moderator: Modemac <modemac@tiac.net>
Members of the team may change or be added before the Call For Votes
(CFV). The number of members of the moderating team will be at least
1 but not more than 5 (however, 2 moderators should be sufficient).
Should a moderator leave the group for any reason, applications for
moderators will be accepted and reviewed by the existing moderating
board.
Should the actions of any member of the moderation team be brought to
question, a moderator will be removed by a general consensus on the
newsgroup news.groups, or (if necessary) a Call For Votes on the
newsgroup news.announce.newgroups.
I have proposed myself as the initial moderator of rec.video.reviews
based upon the observation that this newsgroup will be (mostly)
non-controversial, and its purpose shall be straightforward and
obvious.
The newsgroup moderator or moderators shall maintain an unbiased, open
opinion of all submitted reviews, and the criterion for rejection of a
reviews shall never be merely because the moderator disagrees with the
opinion of that review.
Volunteers to serve as additional moderators are encouraged to email
modemac@tiac.net and offer their services. Based upon the message
traffic seen on rec.arts.movies.reviews, it may be that two moderators
(or more?) could be necessary to ensure a steady flow of traffic on
rec.video.reviews. I am willing to resign as the initial moderator
for rec.video.reviews if it is shown that this task can be performed
by an appropriate number of volunteers.
END MODERATOR INFO.
TOPICS FOR DISCUSSION:
Open for discussion is an additional moderator for rec.video.reviews.
Based upon the existing traffic on rec.arts.movies.reviews, it may be
necessary for more than one person to serve as moderator for
rec.video.reviews. In addition, should the sole moderator of
rec.video.reviews become unable to perform the duties of moderation
due to unforseen circumstances, the additional moderator will be able
to perform necessary duties in his absence.
Equally important is the necessity of a submission address for
rec.video.reviews. This address must be located upon a reliable,
easily accessible mail server, and this address cannot be used for
anything other than receipt of submissions and correspondence for the
moderators of rec.video.reviews. Because the possibility exists that
a moderator for rec.video.reviews may have to resign at some time in
the future, an independent email address for submissions will help to
ensure a smooth transition between old and new moderators, without
disrupting the flow of traffic to the newsgroup.
PROCEDURE:
This is a request for discussion, not a call for votes. In this phase
of the process, any potential problems with the proposed newsgroup
should be raised and resolved. The discussion period will continue
for a period of at least 21 days not to exceed 28 days starting from
the date this RFD was first posted to the newsgroup
news.announce.newsgroups, after which a Call For Votes (CFV) will be
posted by a neutral vote taker if the discussion warrants it. No
votes will be taken until the CFV is announced. All discussions
regarding this proposal should be posted to news.groups.
DISTRIBUTION:
news.groups
news.announce.newsgroups
rec.video
rec.video.releases
alt.video.laserdisc
alt.video.dvd
alt.cult-movies
rec.arts.movies.reviews
All messages regarding this proposal should be directed to the group
news.groups, the newsgroup responsible for discussion of proposals
regarding new newsgroups. When a Call For Votes (CFV) is issued, it
will be posted to all of the aforementioned newsgroups.
Proponent: Modemac <modemac@tiac.net>
From modemac@modemac.com Thu Jul 29 06:43:33 1999
Path: news.isc.org!bounce-back
From: modemac@modemac.com (Modemac)
Newsgroups: news.announce.newgroups,news.groups,rec.video,rec.video.releases,alt.video.dvd,rec.arts.movies.current-films,rec.arts.movies.past-films
Subject: RFD: rec.video.reviews moderated
Followup-To: news.groups
Message-ID: <933255859.21608@isc.org>
Approved: newgroups-request@isc.org
Archive-Name: rec.video.reviews
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 13:44:20 GMT
Lines: 228
Xref: news.isc.org news.announce.newgroups:11103 news.groups:323504 rec.video:168558 rec.video.releases:27059 rec.arts.movies.current-films:269076 rec.arts.movies.past-films:115234
REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
moderated group rec.video.reviews
This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for a moderated USENET
newsgroup. This is not a Call For Votes (CFV), and you cannot vote at
this time. Procedural details are listed below. Please note that this
message will be posted to news.groups and any discussion regarding this
RFD should be posted in this newsgroup only.
Newsgroup Line:
rec.video.reviews Reviews of videos. (Moderated)
Newsgroup Submission Address: rvr-submissions@modemac.com
Moderator Address: rvr-moderator@modemac.com
Proponent: Modemac <modemac@modemac.com>
RATIONALE: rec.video.reviews
Rec.arts.movies.reviews serves a vital function for the members of
Usenet, by providing a place where people can go to read reviews of
movies without having to wade through hundreds of messages while
searching for one particular review. People continually post requests
for video reviews to the various video- and movie-related newsgroups;
furthermore, the market and public interest in commercial video covers
a greater genre than merely "movies" on video. Rec.video.reviews will
therefore serve as the video counterpart to rec.arts.movies.reviews:
not only is the quality of the MOVIE important, but the quality of the
VIDEO is also a factor.
No difference shall be recognized between "current" videos and "past"
videos. Because videos from all eras of the history of film and
television are constantly being released, updated, and re-released,
reviews of video programs contanining both "current" and "past"
material shall be allowed on rec.video.reviews. This criterion makes
this discussion on-topic for the newsgroups
rec.arts.movies.current-films and rec.arts.movies.past-films.
The audience and topic of discussion of rec.video.reviews is similar,
though not identical, to rec.arts.movies.reviews, and it is likely that
many of the readers of rec.arts.movies.reviews shall be interested in
rec.video.reviews. This makes the posting of this initial Request For
Discussion on-topic for rec.arts.movies.reviews, though further
discussion shall take place on the newsgroup news.groups.
CHARTER: rec.video.reviews
Rec.video.reviews is the video equivalent of rec.arts.movies.reviews.
It exists to serve as a place for the participants in the Usenet
community to write their own reviews of movies, TV shows and programs
available on commercial video, and for those reviews to let the world
know if a video is worth buying, renting, or avoiding.
Reviews of videos in all formats are encouraged: VHS, PAL and Beta
videotape, video laserdisc, DVD, CD-ROM, and any other format that
allows the viewer to watch a program on video.
While the majority of reviews in rec.video.reviews will undoubtedly cover
movies on video, this newsgroup is not limited to reviews of movies. All
programs on video may be reviewed here, including cartoon collections,
music video collections, commercially available episodes of TV shows,
documentaries, specially produced video programs (examples of these
include sports, stand-up comic, and home improvement videos), musical
concerts on video, and anything else covering the broad spectrum of
commercially available videos. The only real limits to subjects for a
review are:
- It must be commercially available, i.e. no unique
promotional videos, taped-from-TV videos, or pirated
copies of commercially available videos.
- It must be a video program, and not "interactive."
Programs on video with supplements (including movies
on CD-ROM, laserdisc, and DVD) are acceptable, but video
games and other "interactive entertainment" are not.
- Reviews of "hardcore" pornography containing language
considered "offensive" AND unnecessary, and
the use of gratuitously vulgar language in general, are
not allowed. Reviews of videos containing "controversial"
subject matter and erotic material *will* be allowed on
rec.video.reviews, so long as these reviews are written
in a manner that reflects both the audience for these
particular videos, and the readership of the newsgroup
as a whole. For example, a blow-by-blow description of
a pornographic video would not be accepted (post it to
rec.arts.movies.erotica instead), but a tastefully-written
review of a Penthouse video or a 1970s John Waters movie
would be allowed.
Exceptions to these rules can be made when necessary, at the discretion of
the moderator of rec.video.reviews. These exceptions will be based on the
moderator's decision that a video review will be useful and/or appeal to a
reasonable percentage of the readers of the newsgroup. Thus, a review of a
video with widespread appeal (such the unofficial "bootleg" version of
YELLOW SUBMARINE containing the "Hey Bulldog" sequence, or the "alternate"
ending of ARMY OF DARKNESS) would certainly be welcome on
rec.video.reviews.
A video review should cover as many important aspects as necessary to
allow the reader to make a fair decision on whether or not to purchase
or rent the video. Important aspects of video quality include the
format (VHS vs. laserdisc, for instance), aspect ratio (pan-and-scan,
letterbox, or full-frame), recording method (SP, LP or EP tape
recording, or CLV/CAV laserdisc), picture quality, flaws in the
picture, physical flaws in the video itself, quality of the program,
price of the video, availability for purchase, and anything else worth
mentioning.
These criteria for video quality are only suggestions. There is no
set format for reviewing a a video; reviewers are encouraged to be
creative and honest in their reviews. If you feel that a video is a
piece of trash that deserves to be smashed with a sledgehammer, state
your reasons why. Likewise, if you think that people should run right
out to the video store and buy a certain video, explain what makes it
so good.
To allow for easy categorization of video reviews, a review should
include the video format in its Subject: line. The following are
examples of message headers that make the contents of their reviews
easy to recognize:
Subject: VHS: Jurassic Park
Subject: PAL: "Crocodile" Dundee
Subject: LASERDISC: Terminator 2, THX Special Edition
Subject: CD-ROM: A Hard Day's Night
Subject: DVD: Contact
Reviews posted to rec.video.reviews should follow these examples with
their subject headers.
This is a moderated newsgroup, and all postings will be subject to the
approval of the moderator. The moderator will treat all submitted
messages in a fair, unbiased manner, and no approved postings will be
edited or censored. Inappropriate postings will be forwarded to other
newsgroups, or sent back to the original poster. In general, all
video reviews will be accepted, and the only messages to be rejected
will be reviews that do not meet the requirements for a review as
listed above (not commercially available, not a "video," or especially
offensive language), blatant advertisements for commercial products,
and messages that are not reviews in themselves (including commentary
on existing reviews).
END CHARTER.
MODERATOR INFO: rec.video.reviews
Moderator: Robot Moderator To Be Announced.
The robot will forward each incoming message to the moderator of
rec.video.reviews. If more than one person volunteers to moderate the
newsgroup, the robot will forward each incoming message to one member
of the moderation team. The initial moderator of rec.video.reviews
is:
Moderator: Modemac <modemac@modemac.com>
Members of the team may change or be added before the Call For Votes
(CFV). The number of members of the moderating team will be at least
1 but not more than 5 (however, 2 moderators should be sufficient).
Should a moderator leave the group for any reason, applications for
moderators will be accepted and reviewed by the existing moderating
board.
Should the actions of any member of the moderation team be brought to
question, a moderator will be removed by a general consensus on the
newsgroup news.groups, or (if necessary) a Call For Votes on the
newsgroup news.announce.newgroups.
I have proposed myself as the initial moderator of rec.video.reviews
based upon the observation that this newsgroup will be (mostly)
non-controversial, and its purpose shall be straightforward and
obvious.
The newsgroup moderator or moderators shall maintain an unbiased, open
opinion of all submitted reviews, and the criterion for rejection of a
reviews shall never be merely because the moderator disagrees with the
opinion of that review.
Volunteers to serve as additional moderators are encouraged to email
modemac@modemac.com and offer their services. Based upon the message
traffic seen on rec.arts.movies.reviews, it may be that two moderators
(or more?) could be necessary to ensure a steady flow of traffic on
rec.video.reviews. I am willing to resign as the initial moderator
for rec.video.reviews if it is shown that this task can be performed
by an appropriate number of volunteers.
END MODERATOR INFO.
TOPICS FOR DISCUSSION:
The initial discussion for rec.video.reviews will probably be centered
around the question, "should reviews of video hardware and 'home
theater' equipment be included in the newsgroup?" Possible outcomes
of this discussion include the allowing of reviews of audio and video
hardware on rec.video.reviews, as long as the reviews are oriented
towards the "home theater" aspect of these products; or, the final
outcome could be the creation of two moderated newsgroups,
rec.video.reviews.hardware and rec.video.reviews.software. This
question is open for discussion.
Also open for discussion is a backup moderator for rec.video.reviews.
PROCEDURE:
This is a request for discussion, not a call for votes. In this phase
of the process, any potential problems with the proposed newsgroup
should be raised and resolved. The discussion period will continue
for a period of at least 21 days not to exceed 28 days starting from
the date this RFD was first posted to the newsgroup
news.announce.newsgroups, after which a Call For Votes (CFV) will be
posted by a neutral vote taker if the discussion warrants it. No
votes will be taken until the CFV is announced. All discussions
regarding this proposal should be posted to news.groups.
DISTRIBUTION:
news.groups
news.announce.newsgroups
rec.video
rec.video.releases
alt.video.dvd
rec.arts.movies.reviews
rec.arts.movies.current-films
rec.arts.movies.past-films
All messages regarding this proposal should be directed to the group
news.groups, the newsgroup responsible for discussion of proposals
regarding new newsgroups. When a Call For Votes (CFV) is issued, it
will be posted to all of the aforementioned newsgroups.
USENET FACT: Flaming
Flaming is the hostile interaction between multiple Usenet users.