rec.unicycling?

General
1

Beirne Konarski wrote:

[snip]
> The list grew out of a failed vote on rec.unicycling several years ago.

It would be interesting, if anyone could remember the vote, what reasons people
gave for voting no. Perhaps they had some valid points?

A rec.unicycling, I think, would be far more convenient that all this mail
“cluttering” up my inbox. Most news-readers handle this sort of communication
better than most mail-readers.

On the same note, I would appreciate it if people DIDN’T send around mail
messages saying only “me too” to the list, but instead directed it straight to
Beirne. Discussion is, of course, welcome.

> BTW, we currently have 109 people on the mailing list.
[snip]
> If everyone on the list voted yes, we could stand 9 no votes from elsewhere.

It is unrealistic to expect everyone on the list to (a) be keeping up with the
list and following the discussion, (b) being capable of sending a news message
to the appropriate group and © caring enough to do so.

Perhaps I am being overly cynical, but I doubt if over 40 people from the list
would vote either way. I don’t mean this as a poor reflection on the list, but I
think it would be unfortunate if an enthusiastic few started the vote without
getting the expected support. (Not to mention making it even harder to get the
vote next time.)

On the other hand, I would expect that each voter on the list would be capable
of persuading a few others to vote. Rec.juggling would also be the source of a
few more votes. Having a good FAQ also would count in our favour.

I would vote yes for rec.unicycling, and what’s more, I am sure I could
persuade at least five others not on the list that what they really need in
their life is a rec.unicycling newsgroup. Even if I could only persuade them
long enough to vote…

Regards,

Julian

– Julian Orbach (julian@cs.uq.oz.au) – University of Queensland,
Brisbane, Australia

2

Re: rec.unicycling?

To quote from Julian Orbach…
>
> Beirne Konarski wrote:
>
> [snip]
> > The list grew out of a failed vote on rec.unicycling several years ago.
>
> It would be interesting, if anyone could remember the vote, what reasons
> people gave for voting no. Perhaps they had some valid points?

Apart from the usual “there’s too many groups” and “I don’t like you” arguments,
the main one was that old chestnut, “isn’t a uni a bike?”. I guess if there was
another vote this’d be raised again. I don’t remember any “valid points” made
against the group, but then I was fairly blinkered…

[blah]
>
> Perhaps I am being overly cynical, but I doubt if over 40 people from the list
> would vote either way. I don’t mean this as a poor reflection on the list, but
> I think it would be unfortunate if an enthusiastic few started the vote
> without getting the expected support. (Not to mention making it even harder to
> get the vote next time.)

You may be right, but from what I remember it wasn’t a lack of yes votes that
was a problem, rather a huge amount of nos.

BTW, I’d vote “yes” again, and could perhaps persuade one or two others.

pab.

3

Re: rec.unicycling?

Mark_Olson@itd.sterling.com (Mark Olson) wrote:

> Julian Orbach (julian@cs.uq.oz.au) wrote:
>
> > I would vote yes for rec.unicycling, and what’s more, I am sure I could
> > persuade at least five others not on the list that what they really need in
> > their life is a rec.unicycling newsgroup. Even if I could only persuade them
> > long enough to vote…
> >
>
> I would vote no for rec.unicyling, and I would pursuade at least 5 others who
> may not be on the list to vote no as well (as a matter of fact, I’ll see your
> five and raise you five). I participated in the juggling mail list many years
> ago and loved it. It was, as is the unicyling mail list, an intimate group
> that held technical discussions and was quite focused toward juggling.
> Rec.juggling carried this feeling forth initially, but, not too long into its
> short life, it begain to go downhill. Flamefests, poor humor, personal
> attacks, lack of juggling related content became the rule rather than the
> exception. I once had a lot of enthusiasm for rec.juggling but, after enduring
> a lot of noise and very little signal, no more. I certainly agree that having
> a newsgroup dedicated to unicyling will broaden the audience, but it will do
> so at a price.

My feelings are maybe not so strong that I would vote NO, but I do appreciate
the high quality, low noise and friendly atmosphere in this forum - better than
any of the newsgroups I follow…

I fear some of these benefits could be lost in a newsgroup.

The volume of mail is generally bearable - except on days like today! :wink:

Peter Philip of the LUNIs, London’s Unicycle Hockey Team

(back in the saddle after recent accident - thanks to all who expressed concern)

4

Re: rec.unicycling?

Julian Orbach (julian@cs.uq.oz.au) wrote:

> I would vote yes for rec.unicycling, and what’s more, I am sure I could
> persuade at least five others not on the list that what they really need in
> their life is a rec.unicycling newsgroup. Even if I could only persuade them
> long enough to vote…
>

I would vote no for rec.unicyling, and I would pursuade at least 5 others who
may not be on the list to vote no as well (as a matter of fact, I’ll see your
five and raise you five). I participated in the juggling mail list many years
ago and loved it. It was, as is the unicyling mail list, an intimate group that
held technical discussions and was quite focused toward juggling. Rec.juggling
carried this feeling forth initially, but, not too long into its short life, it
begain to go downhill. Flamefests, poor humor, personal attacks, lack of
juggling related content became the rule rather than the exception. I once had a
lot of enthusiasm for rec.juggling but, after enduring a lot of noise and very
little signal, no more. I certainly agree that having a newsgroup dedicated to
unicyling will broaden the audience, but it will do so at a price.

5

Re: rec.unicycling?

Julian Orbach <julian@cs.uq.oz.au> (JO) writes:

JO> A rec.unicycling, I think, would be far more convenient that all this mail
JO> “cluttering” up my inbox. Most news-readers handle this sort of
JO> communication better than most mail-readers.

Sad but true. Personally, I use nice mail sifting software, but my access to
news is awkward.

Mail from this list goes to a seperate file and waits 'till I have time to read
it. My mailreader threads messages, is connected to my rolodex, and has many
other nice features. Alas, this is not common.

A newsgroup would be more high-profile. Mailing lists must be sought out,
whereas newsgroups are easier to stumble across.

Newsgroups are much more efficient for a large readership, mailing lists are
much more efficient for a small readership.

I usually prefer newsgroups, but I think I like this better as a mailing list. I
wouldn’t vote NO though. I could easily go either way.

-Seth

6

Re: rec.unicycling?

pbennett@lssec.bt.co.uk wrote :

> Apart from the usual “there’s too many groups” and “I don’t like you”
> arguments, the main one was that old chestnut, “isn’t a uni a bike?”. I guess
> if there was another vote this’d be raised again. I don’t remember any "valid
> points" made against the group, but then I was fairly blinkered…

Well, the “too many groups” argument is fair, and the “I don’t like you”
argument is to be expected.

The Bike vs. Uni argument is a likely one, which can be reduced by making the
differences clear in any opening proposal. I see a very significant difference
between needs and discussion of the riders of the two.

Mark_Olson@itd.sterling.com wrote:

>I would vote no for rec.unicyling, and I would pursuade at least 5 others who
>may not be on the list to vote no as well (as a matter of fact, I’ll see your
>five and raise you five).

I certainly don’t want to get in a bidding war with you! :slight_smile: Besides, you need
only see 1/3 of my yes’s with no’s to cancel me out!

>I participated in the juggling mail list many years ago and loved it. It was,
>as is the unicyling mail list, an intimate group that held technical
>discussions and was quite focused toward juggling. Rec.juggling carried this
>feeling forth initially, but, not too long into its short life, it begain to go
>downhill. Flamefests, poor humor, personal attacks, lack of juggling related
>content became the rule rather than the exception. I once had a lot of
>enthusiasm for rec.juggling but, after enduring a lot of noise and very little
>signal, no more. I certainly agree that having a newsgroup dedicated to
>unicyling will broaden the audience, but it will do so at a price.

I was surprised by this post. I am a regular reader of rec.juggling, and while
there certainly is a level of noise, I think it is far from excessive. Indeed, I
would say it is one of the more “on-track” news-groups that I have read, and I
found it (and its related archives) strongly stimulated my interest in juggling
while I was learning. This list (and especially its FAQ) is providing the same
stimuli for my unicycling.

None-the-less you have made a strong point; increasing the availability via a
newsgroup will increase the noise. Many of the extra people it reaches will not
be the hard-core dedicated unicyclists on the list at the moment (2 out of every
3 posts seem to be from a member of the executive of some unicycling association
or unicycle hockey team!) It will certainly increase the number of us “newbie
unicyclists” who will ask the same old questions about how to do the basics, and
which way is forward on a unicycle.

I guess a question the list has to ask itself is, is the desired future of the
mailing list about providing a serious discussion area about unicycling, or is
it about providing a forum to introduce the sport of unicycling to the masses.

I, for one, don’t have a clear-cut answer to that question.

ObUnicycling (for fear of this message being declared part of the noise
problem!) : My unicycling has certainly improved in the last couple of weeks.
The main thing stopping me from going further than ever before is that I am too
unfit, and my muscles just get too tired to continue.

Can anyone recommend some appropriate warm-ups to try before unicycling?

Regards,

Julian

– Julian Orbach (julian@cs.uq.oz.au) – University of Queensland,
Brisbane, Australia

7

Re: rec.unicycling?

According to Peter Philip:
*

  • Mark_Olson@itd.sterling.com (Mark Olson) wrote:
  • > Julian Orbach (julian@cs.uq.oz.au) wrote:
  • >
  • > > I would vote yes for rec.unicycling, and what’s more, I am sure I
  • > > could persuade at least five others not on the list that what they
  • > > really need in their life is a rec.unicycling newsgroup. Even if I
  • > > could only persuade them long enough to vote…
  • > >
  • [Much info deleted] * The USA brought up their the subject of the
    unicycling e-mail in their annual meeting this summer. It was decided to
    promote and help however possible. One of the ways to promote electronic
    discussion of unicycling is to make it more visible, hence a newsgroup. The
    problem of new users asking the same questions, that is why we have a FAQ.
    For the problem of ununi related topics, that is why news has all those
    nifty ways to delete messages.

I would personally support a newsgroup.

Andy Cotter cotter.cae.wisc.edu Vice President of Unicycling Society of America
(612) 788-9137

8

Re: rec.unicycling?

> Mail from this list goes to a seperate file and waits 'till I have time to
> read it. My mailreader threads messages, is connected to my rolodex, and has
> many other nice features. Alas, this is not common.

Wow! What mailreader are you using? (My conscience is saying “it doesn’t matter!
Whatever it is, I are going to spend more time setting it up than I will save.
Stop it, and get back to your project report!”, but when have I ever listened to
my conscience?)

> A newsgroup would be more high-profile. Mailing lists must be sought out,
> whereas newsgroups are easier to stumble across.
Agreed.

> Newsgroups are much more efficient for a large readership, mailing lists are
> much more efficient for a small readership.
Agreed

However, because of the first point, it may well be that the additional profile
we get would lead us into a large enough readership to need a newsgroup, so it
is difficult to base a decision on this point. Let’s not forget the huge
advertising effect of everyone starting up their favourite newsreader and
getting “rec.unicycle - do you wish to subscribe?” on their screen.

> I usually prefer newsgroups, but I think I like this better as a mailing list.
> I wouldn’t vote NO though. I could easily go either way.

As I conceded in a message on the list, there is a strong argument against
rec.unicycling due to the likely increase in noise. I certainly don’t grudge
anyone who feels it isn’t worth it. It is a difficult decision.

However, Beirne’s description of the set-up with a moderator could leave both
“factions” happy. Have you considered that?

Regards,

Julian