Newsgroups Main » Newsgroups Directory » Hobbies and Enthusiasts » Video

General ( rec.video )

From [email protected] Sun Jan  8 19:04:33 1995 Path: uunet!bounce-back From: [email protected] (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: [email protected] Approved: [email protected] Message-ID: <[email protected]> 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:	: [email protected] (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, |        [email protected]        |       no Wakko and Dot)   |   First Online Church of "Bob"   | black and white.  From [email protected] Tue Jan 17 13:34:15 1995 Path: uunet!bounce-back From: [email protected] (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: [email protected] Approved: [email protected] Message-ID: <[email protected]> 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: [email protected] (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, |        [email protected]        |       no Wakko and Dot)   |   First Online Church of "Bob"   | black and white.  From [email protected] Tue Mar  7 16:38:14 1995 Path: uunet!bounce-back From: [email protected] (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: [email protected] Approved: [email protected] Message-ID: <[email protected]> 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: [email protected] (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 [email protected] 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 ([email protected]) | +--------------+     "There is no black and white."    +-------------+ |  First Online Church of "Bob," A Subfaction of the Excremeditated  |  From [email protected] Wed Mar 22 16:24:25 1995 Path: uunet!bounce-back From: [email protected] (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: [email protected] Approved: [email protected] Expires: 13 Apr 1995 00:00:00 GMT Message-ID: <[email protected]> References: <[email protected]> Reply-To: [email protected] 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 <[email protected]>.  For questions about the proposed group contact Modemac ([email protected]).  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 ([email protected])  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:   [email protected] 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 [email protected] Tue Mar 28 19:46:36 1995 Path: uunet!bounce-back From: [email protected] (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: <[email protected]> Followup-To: poster Date: 28 Mar 1995 19:29:32 -0500 Organization: Usenet Volunteer Votetakers Lines: 119 Sender: [email protected] Approved: [email protected] Expires: 13 Apr 1995 00:00:00 GMT Message-ID: <[email protected]> References: <[email protected]UU.NET> <[email protected]> Reply-To: [email protected] 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 <[email protected]>.  For questions about the proposed group contact Modemac ([email protected]).  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 ([email protected])  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:   [email protected] 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 [email protected] Fri Apr 14 17:43:30 1995 Path: uunet!bounce-back From: [email protected] (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: <[email protected]> Followup-To: news.groups Date: 14 Apr 1995 17:30:16 -0400 Organization: Usenet Volunteer Votetakers Lines: 152 Sender: [email protected] Approved: [email protected] Message-ID: <[email protected]> References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]>.  For questions about the proposed group contact Modemac <[email protected]>.  rec.video.reviews Final Vote Ack  Voted Yes ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ [email protected]                                      Matti Aaltonen [email protected]                                     Adrian John Howard [email protected] [email protected]                                                 Andy Latto [email protected]                                                    Jim Ault [email protected]                                                C Smith [email protected] [email protected]                                         Chris Stamper [email protected]                                                 Colin Bell [email protected]                                               Christopher Ward [email protected]                                             Dan Rothschild [email protected]                                    David Brazendale [email protected]                                          Christine De Michele [email protected]                                      Wolfgang Demmel [email protected]                                                   Doug Krause [email protected]                              david klementovic [email protected]                                    David Legge [email protected]                                                      Erik Bailey [email protected]                                         Elissa O'Bryan [email protected]                                         Emanuele Accenti [email protected]                                       Elvis Presley's Corpse [email protected]                                Fernando J. Piquero T. [email protected] [email protected]                                    Gordon R. Kennedy [email protected]                                                    Kiran Wagle [email protected]                                                 Harold Fink [email protected]                                            Hoyt J. Heaton [email protected]                                      Joern Krueger [email protected]                                              John Yeates [email protected]                                                  Marcus Jager [email protected]                                                 J.D. Falk [email protected]                                              Jim Moody [email protected]                                            Jeffrey Keezel [email protected]                                     Jennifer Lautenschlager [email protected]                                                           Jonboy [email protected] [email protected]                                       John R. Sylva P. (UCV) [email protected] [email protected]                                     Kevin Charman [email protected]                                                          Phil Kim [email protected]                                           Bob Kirkland [email protected]                                                Kurt Kohler [email protected]                                        Martin Schroeder [email protected]                               Lars Jorgen Aas [email protected]                                                   Luiz Cunha [email protected] [email protected]                           Scraping Glenn Off The Wall [email protected]                                             Luis A. Rodriguez [email protected]                                                Shawn Marier [email protected]                                           Lech Mazur [email protected]                                L. Merrill Palmer [email protected]                                         Michael Klaene [email protected]                                                     Modemac [email protected]                                 David Maurice [email protected]                             Michael Sattler, San Francisco [email protected]                                                          Jenn [email protected]                                                   Sherman Wan [email protected]                    Nikolaos Makrymanolakis [email protected]                                            Olaf Laczak [email protected]                                            Philip Decker [email protected]                                               Dave Williams [email protected]                                        Pierre Uszynski [email protected]                                               P.J. Humble [email protected]                                              Rebecca Drayer [email protected]                                           Ryan Waldron [email protected]                               Richard John Challis [email protected]                                             Richard H. Miller [email protected]                                          Rod Shelton [email protected]                                              J. Rufinus [email protected]                                                       Ron Anderson [email protected]                                       Adrian Barritt [email protected]                                      timothy shimeall [email protected]                                     Peter W. Simeon [email protected]                                           Susan Kirshbaum [email protected]                                              ThE GReEdY BaZtARd [email protected] [email protected]                                           Dave Sommer [email protected]                               Steve Hoffmann [email protected]                                          Stu Labovitz [email protected]                                    Steven Whatley [email protected]                                                  Timm Doolen [email protected]                         telnet accountschristina craft [email protected]                            Technical Intelligence-MN-USA [email protected]                                                      James Kiley [email protected]                             Lani Teshima-Miller [email protected]                                          Thomas Skogestad [email protected]                                        Tim Pierce [email protected] [email protected]                                             Leong Wai Ming [email protected]                                                   Watson R J [email protected]                                         Wendyann D'Silva [email protected]                                   Wesley Elias Ribeiro [email protected]                                                   huw (w.h.) davies [email protected]                                        William R. Cruce [email protected]                                                       dub [email protected]                                         Brian Kent Zoller  Voted No ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ [email protected]                                         Allen Braunsdorf [email protected]                                    Martin H. Booda [email protected]                                                   Burt N Holzman [email protected]                                              Chris Marble [email protected]                                           Jay Johannes [email protected]                                 Jeff Murphy [email protected] [email protected]                                     John R. MacWilliamson [email protected]                                               Hasnain Khan [email protected]                                                             Mike [email protected]                                             Michael Quinlan [email protected]                                          Nick Ingegneri [email protected]                              Andreas Polzer [email protected]                                                Pete Bastien [email protected]                                         Jesper Lauridsen [email protected]                                         Smarasderagd [email protected]                                                  Dwight Brown [email protected]                                            Thomas G. McWilliams [email protected]                                             Tom Ascher  Abstained ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ [email protected]                                          M Mike Taksar KC6ZPS [email protected]                                   M. "couch potato" Otto   Votes in error ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ [email protected]                                                     Tom Burka    ! Conflicting votes   From [email protected] Tue Nov  4 23:45:03 1997 Path: news.isc.org!bounce-back From: Modemac <[email protected]> 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: <[email protected]> Approved: [email protected] 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 <[email protected]>  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 [email protected] 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 <[email protected]>  From [email protected] Mon Nov 17 06:00:06 1997 Path: news.isc.org!bounce-back From: Modemac <[email protected]> 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: <[email protected]> Approved: [email protected] 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 <[email protected]>  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 [email protected] 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 <[email protected]>  From [email protected] Thu Jul 29 06:43:33 1999 Path: news.isc.org!bounce-back From: [email protected] (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: <[email protected]> Approved: [email protected] 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:   [email protected] Moderator Address:              [email protected]  Proponent: Modemac <[email protected]>  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 <[email protected]>  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 [email protected] 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.