From: cbnorman@cayley.uwaterloo.ca
Newsgroups: news.groups,rec.games.frp.dnd,rec.games.frp.advocacy,rec.games.frp.misc
Subject: My experience (Re: rec.games.frp.campaign)
Date: 9 Nov 92 04:10:37 GMT
Article-I.D.: magnus.1992Nov9.161642.1288
Reply-To: cbnorman@cayley.uwaterloo.ca
Followup-To: cbnorman@cayley.uwaterloo.ca
Organization: University of Waterloo
Originator: cwatters@top.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu


Please excuse this message if you've already seen it.  I forgot to 
cross-post it to other appropriate newsgroups.

A while ago I proposed a new newsgroup to be entitled rec.games.frp.campaign.
At the time which I proposed the group, I had been reading news.groups for
a period of one month, which is quite a bit less than the six month reccomended
time period.  I now see the wisdom in waiting....

Nonetheless, I made a proposal, which was badly written.  I responded quickly,
too quickly, to suggestions made to be by others and introduced new aspects
of the proposal (such as the quality control clause) which infuriated
some of the readers of this newsgroup.

My obvious inexperience in proposing newsgroups was jumped on by Tim Dunn, an
avid opponent of my proposed group.  He publicly accused me of being a "newbie"
(shocked gasp), and inferred that as a newbie my proposal should be automaticly
dumped.  Yes, he did not say that, but he most certainly suggested it.  I
ignored his questions as to my experience, and proceeded with what I viewd
as the issue: the proposal.  When his taunting messages continued I finally
retaliated with the fact that I have been a user of UseNet for five years,
which shut him up...for a day or two.

He then turned back and said that I was ignoring the real question (despite
the fact that he had never asked this question before), namely "how long
have you been reading .frp?"  I realized at that point that I would never
get him off this "newbie trip" if I answered his questions.  For this reason
I posted a message stating that I would be more than willing to reveal this
information to him, and to others, if the request was made in e-mail.  This
was made with the assumption that others would realize that the experience
of a the person is not an issue, it is the quality of the proposal and only
the quality of the proposal which should decide whether or not a new
newsgroup is created.  Tim then mailed everyone a piece of e-mail requesting
, or I should say "urging", everyone to ask me how long I've read .frp.
I should note that up until that point no one has asked me.  After his mail
was sent (so far) one person has asked me (who admitted in his letter that
he was already against my proposal).

I admit that my innitial proposal was badly conceived, and would best have
been left in the back of my mind until I had gained some more news.groups
experience (I only joined this group to make my proposal.  Up until now
I've never had any desire to create a new newsgroup).

However, though my proposal was innitially poor, it has greatly matured.
In these past few weeks, it has undergone a baptism of fire (or I should
perhaps say, a baptism of flames).  I have quickly gained, to be frank,
a whole shitload of experience.

Still, the fact remains that, if (hypothetically) Bob comes in with a proposal,
it should not matter of Bob has read Usenet for a sum total of 1 day.  If Bob
sees a need, and makes a proposal which is a good idea, Bob's newsgroup should
be created.  If Bob has been reading Usenet since 1847, and makes a dumb
proposal, his idea should be scrapped.

Up until this point, whether Bob's idea is good or bad has been determined by
a length discussion.  Bob's idea might start out rough, but in the discussion
it may be refined, and in the end emerge as an excellent proposal.

Tim seems to wish to change this process such that not only should the proposal
be discussed, but Bob himself should be discussed.  He should be disected,
probed, and basicly evaluated to see if he is worthy of making a contrabution
to news.groups.  I suggest that if Tim really believes in this policy, he
should make a formal request to change the guidlines for creating a new group
to include this clause.  Right now, it doesn't exist, and I hope it never does.

It is time to stop clouding the issues.  I make a formal request to Tim Dunn
to seek requesting information which is not relevent to the issue.  I am as
insulted and angry as if he had publicly requested knowledge of my sexual
preference and used that as "proof" that my newsgroup concept should be ignored.

And for the reccord, if anyone cares, here is all the information that he
might ever ask of me.  None of which matters what so ever.

My name is Bruce Norman
I am male, white, heterosexual
I've been reading Usenet for five years
I've been reading the .frp hierarchy for two months
I voted Concervative in the last election
I don't like salad dressing

While this information may be vitally important to Tim.  I truly, greatly, hope
that no one else gives a damn.