REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)                   unmoderated group rec.guns.softair This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the creation of a world-wide unmoderated Usenet newsgroup rec.guns.softair.  This is not a Call for Votes (CFV); you cannot vote at this time.  Procedural details are below. Newsgroup line: rec.guns.softair        The Use, maintenance and collection of softair guns. RATIONALE: rec.guns.softair As of now there is no newsgroup that handles the various aspects of the large and growing hobby of soft-air guns so people involved with it have to rely on non-related newsgroups, mailinglists, websites and private email, severely limiting net access to information. This newsgroup would serve as a gathering point for those interested in the use, maintenance and collection of them. Although softair guns replicates real guns they aren't and thus discussions related to them doesn't bellong in rec.guns (especially when the discussion  expands to other aspects of the hobby). Softair guns as a sport relates to paintballing but the hardware part differs a lot from what's used in that sport, so much as to make a new group desirable to avoid confusion. CHARTER: rec.guns.softair Discussions about where to buy, comparison between manufacturers, ways to modify and improve softair guns are welcome. Also discussions concerning the collecting aspect of the hobby as well as questions and discussions about the rules of various softair gun skirmish scenarios would be welcome. END CHARTER. PROCEDURE: This is a request for discussion, not a call for votes.  In this phase of the process, any potential problems with the proposed newsgroups should be raised and resolved.  The discussion period will continue for a minimum of 21 days (starting from when the first RFD for this proposal is posted to news.announce.newgroups), after which a Call For Votes (CFV) may be posted by a neutral vote taker if the discussion warrants it.  Please do not attempt to vote until this happens. All discussion of this proposal should be posted to news.groups. This RFD attempts to comply fully with the Usenet newsgroup creation guidelines outlined in How to Create a New Usenet Newsgroup and How to Format and Submit a New Group Proposal .  Please refer to these documents (available in news.announce.newgroups) if you have any questions about the process. DISTRIBUTION: news.announce.newgroups,news.groups,rec.guns,alt.collecting, alt.military.collecting,rec.collecting,alt.sport.paintball, no.sport.paintball,rec.sport.paintball,alt.sport.air-guns Proponent: Thomas Andersson < This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it

hello er det noen som vet tlf. nr. til thor han bor ved lagunen i bergen og driver et paintballutleie han har også en bane

The purpose of this post is to oppose creation of a group rec.guns.softair and to ask that the process not be continued following the RFD. Such a group would be the first split of group rec.guns , something we as a community have vehemently opposed in the past, for a variety of reasons, all of which remain true today: 1.  Cultural unity.  I'm sorry if this is a tough one for outsiders to grok, but the sad fact is, gunowners have a strong need right now to remain united in one community.  There is a strong united we stand, divided we fall sort of phenomenon in play, and we foster unity by preserving discussion among all of our technical topics in one place.  We learn from one another, build across shooting disciplines or activities, and as much as possible try to ensure our electronic community does not fragment into little pockets, each ignorant of the others concerns or in some cases very existence. That's the positive way to say it.  The other way is to observe that we have experienced proposals to split in the past, issued from innocuous looking sources where ultimately a more nefarious goal was sought, namely, peeling off a gun group to serve as the voice of reasonable gun control, all in support of very unreasonable political ends.  Our community has come to look at reasonable looking proposals through jaded eyes.  In the end, the only practical way to proceed has been to, again, stick with our unity principle and avoid having to judge the political merits of a proposal to split. In splitting off one subgroup, it is entirely unreasonable to believe we would not get sliced up further.  In that case, chaos would rein, as has been experienced in other domains where vicious debates raged over which sort of taxonomy should rule decomposition.  (Would we break up further by shooting discipline or by type of gun?  Do we break up by activities, and then further specialize by kind of gun under the activity?) I simply don't care to see my group degenerate into such chaos. 2.  Management complexity.  No subgroup under rec.guns could possibly exist unmoderated, not and remain useful.  If you want a sample of what some folks feel it is important for gun owners to have to wade through, go look at the dreck in talk.politics.guns.  I cull obscene dreck out of rec.guns daily.  I have no doubt that this dreck would flow downhill to an unmoderated subgroup in a heartbeat. That having been said, the complexity of moderating multiple groups is one we have never been willing to take on.  Yes, there are team moderated groups out there.  It is not my impression that there are any servicing the load we experience in my group (currently at nearly 800 messages processed daily.) =================================================== Conclusion: A split should come from within a group, not from without.  The proponent of this RFD does not appear in rec.guns.  In point of fact, his own statement of rationale gives the most compelling reason NOT to establish a softair sub group. Specifically:    Although softair guns replicates real guns they aren't and thus    discussions related to them doesn't belong in rec.guns (especially when    the discussion expands to other aspects of the hobby). If such discussion doesn't belong in rec.guns, then it does not belong in a specialized subgroup of rec.guns. Discussion such as the proponent wishes is entirely suitable for the existing rec.sport.paintball.  If the regulars there believe strongly that airsoft gab is so dramatically different as to warrant creation of a new group, then I suggest you look at the level of traffic on airsoft topics there before making any decisions about a split.  My sense is there is not the level to justify a new group.  If you do go forward with a new group, I ask you to carve up another domain that does not threaten us, thank you. In my seven years as moderator of rec.guns, I've seen the breakup question debated many times.  We always stayed whole.  (The fact that the first we hear of this proposal is via an RFD crossposted our way should be another sign of how inappropriate the split would be.)  I'd like to refer anyone interested in this to review our prior discussions via any archive server. Please.  Do not go forward with rec.guns.airsoft.  It would be an illogical split whose proposal will needlessly engulf us in flammage none of us need. Jim Purtilo aka MODERATOR, rec.guns

The purpose of this post is to oppose creation of a group rec.guns.softair and to ask that the process not be continued following the RFD. Sorry, I don't think we can do that.  You'll just have to vote it down if you don't want them invading your community.  (I doubt this will be too hard, there's an awful lot of rec.guns readers) Jay

                 unmoderated group rec.guns.softair rec.guns.softair    The Use, maintenance and collection of softair guns. As of now there is no newsgroup that handles the various aspects of the large and growing hobby of soft-air guns so people involved with it have to rely on non-related newsgroups, mailinglists, websites and private email, severely limiting net access to information. Although softair guns replicates real guns they aren't and thus discussions related to them doesn't bellong in rec.guns (especially when the discussion  expands to other aspects of the hobby). On the contrary, rec.guns is a fine place to discuss Soft-Air guns, just as it is for airguns, shotgunning, or anything else related to firearms. But if you really insist on having your own, more power to you. However, if you make it unmoderated, even if you think it's a cute, kinder, gentler hobby (and newsgroup), you're going to get overwhelmed by anti-gun zealots within about a week.  They won't care that you are talking about kinder, gentler, toy guns

In article <735d8t$ This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it (Jay Denebeim) writes: #Sorry, I don't think we can do that.  You'll just have to vote it down #if you don't want them invading your community.  (I doubt this will be #too hard, there's an awful lot of rec.guns readers) I guess I was really showing my naivete by actually having believed the text in the rec.guns.softair RFD, specifically #                                                  .... In this phase # of the process, any potential problems with the proposed newsgroups # should be raised and resolved.  The discussion period will continue # for a minimum of 21 days (starting from when the first RFD for this # proposal is posted to news.announce.newgroups), after which a Call For # Votes (CFV) may be posted by a neutral vote taker if the discussion # warrants it.  .... My post in opposition to the proposal pointed out an unfixable problem with the proposed newsgroup (i.e., the proponent doesn't even believe his group is a specialization of rec.guns).  The process offered should not invite people to fix problems if the invitation isn't sincere. As it is, a plan to force through a vote in spite of fundamental flaws in the proposal only raises the spectre of yesteryear's battles, where supposedly-neutral vote takers ushered through attempts to carve up my group just to screw with the firearms community, not because it had any sane technical merit for newsgroup organization.  We don't need to revisit that kind of nonsense. Why go through the vote if discussion does not warrant it?  Why indeed.