From: fein@acsu.buffalo.edu (L. Fein)
Newsgroups: rec.games.empire
Subject: Re: UManitoba game applicants: READ!!!
Date: 4 Oct 92 05:16:24 GMT
Organization: Land Of Faa Bureau of Mithrilien Defense

In article <1992Oct4.012618.28974@ccu.umanitoba.ca> roholdr@ccu.umanitoba.ca (R Ross Holder Jr) writes:
>
>In <BvIAEo.J2n@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> cashman@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Geoff Cashman) writes:
>
	
{Righteous and not so righteous dribble deleted :-) }
>>>I don't
>>>feel advertising the fact we're running a game would make it at all likely
>>>a game would begin and 53 interested parties would be S.O.L. so far as this
>>>is concerned.  Here's the facts:
>
>>This may be true, but *not* telling them could result in the game 
>>going down prematurely.  Many many players would be furious to know
>>they put that much effort into their countries to have it go for naught.
>>I have seen deities do this before, and it is fatally flawed reasoning.
>
>By "them" I presume to mean the players.  Isn't it the Diety's job to keep
>players informed of game developements?  One thing I didn't understand about
>your article is why you posted it.  I don't think Rob was planning on keeping
>the matter a secret, was he?  Indeed, not even a secret from site admins here!
>We just weren't going to advertise it, that's all.  (It is kinda difficult to
>keep anything a secret from site admins.)
>

	No, by "them" he means the System Administrators of your site.
If it is their policy that games are not to be run (or whatever)
and you violate that policy, then you deserve to get your account closed.

As far as keeping things secret from sysadmins, well, it can be done.
It's not easy, but I'd bet it could be done.. Not that I'd want to try :-)

>>[various apparent "proofs" of UManitoba's inadequacies in site management
>> deleted for brievety]
>
>>All the examples you cited may in fact be valid from your point of view.
>>They are also easy to support here in r.g.e when the opposing side has
>>very little chance of rebuttal.
>
>This is irrelevant. Since I'm being deliberately vague in raising these points
>(as the specifics are confidential)the administration would have to be equally
>vague in its "defence".
>

	And (IMHO) this thread is irrelevant to Rec.games.empire. 
I personally don't give a flying flute about your site, it's policies, 
or its admins. It's not my problem. I wouldn't play in this game simply  
because it *WILL* be shut down by the admins. Especially if they're as jumpy
as you say they are. Fortunately for me, I'm at a site with very reasonable
system administrators. 

>>We're hearing one side of the coin, and
>>as such this isn't telling me much about your site administration.
>>I'm not saying they are right, I am saying that there are certainly many
>>more factors involved in their actions. 
>
>Yes.  Politics, money - being drunk with power.

	Your opinion. Please don't state opinions as fact.

>
>>>I've concluded that provided the game doesn't interfere with system operation
>
>>Occupying 5-10% of a CPU for months can be construed as interfering with
>>system operation.  
>
>The point was made by another Diety that the game doesn't absorb CPU resources
>to this degree.  Of course, not being too learned in the specifics I have
>no idea if this is true or not but apparently others don't share this estimate.

	Yeah, me. And in private conversations with Mr. Cashman  ( a VERY good
friend of mine), he explained where he got that figure. From the docs.
I've not bothered to waste Dave Pare's (or anyone else's) time to ask him
about this, but from my EXPERIENCE, 5% seems high.. Maybe I never looked
at the right time, and in fact, I'd say he's probably right. And one person
(me) doesn't make "others" (plural) Besides THAT, not a whole lot of people
put much stock in what I have to say. If you're going into battle quoting ME,
you're in trouble :-)

>
>>>and uses the resources we've already secured 
>
>>"secured" as in how?
>
>As in secured disk space, and a machine address.

	Unfortunately, disk space can be a temporary thing. So can your access
to the machine address if you piss off your sysadmins. 

>
>>What if a person is logged into the console of 
>>picard (the machine proposed for the game) and starts work on some
>>research that requires a great deal of the attention of  the CPU?
>
>I guess things will slow down.  Oh well - it happens not infrequently.
>
	Yes, due to (probably) academic causes. Not Empire. From an 
administrative standpoint, resources spent on things like Empire are
wasted resources. And if they find this an unacceptable circumstance,
the *poof* goes the game..

>>That person could possibly start tossing processes that were 
>>chewing up 1/20th of the CPU into the can.  What exactly do you
>>mean by "secured"?  Is this *your* machine?
>
>No.
>
>>Do you have any particular
>>rights to it?
>
>I suppose as much as any other student at the University of Manitoba.

	Here at UB, we have a neat little sign posted in the labs
"If you are *playing games* you may be asked to relinquish your terminal
to someone with *academic* work to do" (italics not mine)
Now, were I to extrapolate this, it could easily read (IMHO)
"if you are using CPU time to play games, your process may be stopped for
someone who has academic work to do" 

>
>>Is it a general user workstation, or does it sit in
>>an office? 
>
>Irrelevant.  It is an unreserved Sparcstation which, by convention at this
>university, means it may be accessed by the student body.
>
>>I'm sorry, but until the site administration knows that the machine
>>will have processes running on it chewing up 5-10% of the cpu for
>>months, you haven't "secured" anything.
>
>So what?  The game isn't likely to go down - we've avoided crawling to the
>tallest spire in the village and shouting it out for every constucturalist
>bureaucrat to hear.  But if it does, I'll resort to the philosophy of
>Peter Langston himself who wrote, "It should be remembered that Empire is
>merely an interesting pastime; in the vernacular _it's just a game_"
>(from the 'info introduction' command or "Introduction to Empire").
>

SO WHAT? You piss away a few weeks of free time, and find that there's no
reward at the end, et cetera et cetera. I'd be pretty damn pissed.
I also seem to remember you saying something about not being able to
keep secrets from sysadmins. Well, when s/he sees 50+ new processes
being run, someone's eyebrows are going to go up... And someone's game is 
going to go down..

>[Stuff deleted.]
>
>>Any "experienced" deity willing to be an offsite deity for this game
>>would be foolish given the constraints I would have had to have faced.
>>Having access to the code is paramount for a deity.  Without it, you can
>>not deity.
>
>That may very well be and his offer to help out players is certainly kind.
>Fortunately, we have an on-site Diety who will be consulting with other
>experienced players and Dieties (even here at U of M) and I'm sure we'll be
>okay.  I, as a player, would feel much more comfortable with
>Geoff as a Diety...but there aren't exactly a whole lot of games being
>organized right now - this is the best we can do for now.  And this new
>Diety will gain invaluable experience (with help) that will make possible
>that many more games in the future.
>
	Don't count on it. I am not saying you folks are incompetant, far 
from it. But I don't know of ONE reputable deity that would "absentee deity"
Piss on that. What if he needs to restore from backup? Do you guys even
know about Dave Nye's tools for this? It's better to ask first and look 
stupid than find out the hard way and BE stupid..

If these sysadmins aren't going to be looking, you could just gve the
deity access to the account that the game is being run out of. Who'd know?
Are you willing to take that chance?


>I realize Mr. Cashman's whole point in this was to serve as a guideline
>for future Dieties to not start Empire games without expressed site approval.
>To this end (as a result of the above counter-rebuttal) I maintain this
>policy has and will continue to result in next to no Empire games being run.
>When site administrators expressly disapprove, then and only then take
>the game down (if it isn't taken down for you).  Many sites won't officially
>sanction games, but will tolerate them if they don't intefere substantially
>with system preformance - whatever that means.  You don't know until you
>try.
>

	NOT! Geoff hit the nail on the head. And he spoiled your supper.
Just because he's right and yo're wrong, (IMHO) doesn't mean you need to
spread your doomsayer's wisdom all over Empire Land.

Oh, and maybe you don't know until you ASK. Did you ask your admins?
How bad can asking be? And if it's that bad there, go somewhere else.
Seriously, man.. 


Larry, AKA LOF