From: sander@engin.umich.edu (Scott D Anderson)
Subject: Re: newsgroup reorganization
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 92 22:00:39 EDT
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor

In article <1992Apr9.163909.14087@lucid.com> yduj@lucid.com (Judy Anderson) writes:
>In article <RSNYDER.92Apr9094427@nutrimat.fergie.dnet.ge.com> rsnyder@fergie.dnet.ge.com (Bob Snyder) writes:
>>True, but there are Tiny-based muds out there which are not "social"
>>in nature, as I recall.
>
>All the more reason to separate out the mud type from the activity
>that goes on there, no?  Seems to me that 90% of the "tiny" posts are

This is what really bothers me about having a r.g.m.tiny...
WHY WHY WHY do we need to insist on breaking up the group based
upon the *server* distinctions? For most intents and purposes,
the server is invisible to the player. Examples: LP and Dikus
have emote commands (at least the ones i have seen), and some
(gag) tiny-*derivatives* have very sophisticated RPG systems (if
you don't believe me, go read the manuals on LambdaMOOs RPG :)

If you want to make distinctions on server type, put server specific
discussions in a r.g.m.{code|source|server|etc.} type group. I don't
believe that there is enough server question related stuff being
posted to justify separate groups for each kind... If there were
a r.g.m.server group, you would have to page thru perhaps 3 other
posts about different server types... not a big deal, IMHO...

I see these separate types of posts in r.g.m now:
announce type posts - where is blah.mud, new mud coming up, etc.
server relate questions - how do i compile x.server, what about 
  this server on that OS, etc.
social stuff - Bruce flames, NMI, netsex, etc.
admin stuff - aussie muds closing, disputes over net rights vs. mudding, 
  other stuff of that sort.
rpg stuff - how to control player killing, etc.

i think the admin stuff could be subsumed with .social within someting
like rec.games.mud.discussion, or just leave it here in the main group.

other than LP (which is pretty much the only *large* sub-type of mud
that generates enough type-specific questions) i dont see any reason
to divide along mud types... i mean seriously, i haven't seen that
many diku-specific posts (sorry guyz) to really rate a separate group...
and i *don't* have a kill file... :)  MOO seems to me (limited as my
experience is) to be the only other game-based coding system... and
MOO is *certainly* not large enough to generate a separate new group.
i don't even see that much stuff on the moo mailing list... most of
the discussion is currently limited to lambdaMOO (being the only 
really open MOO around) and the coding questions/discussions all
take place there with no problem...

has anyone done an accurate (not guessing like i have done) survey
of the types of posts along these lines? perhaps such a survey, if
done properly, would automagically suggest reasonable lines upon 
which to divide the group...

>
>yduJ on LambdaMOO        yduJ@lucid.com      'yduJ' rhymes with 'fudge'
>    [ LambdaMOO is lambda.parc.xerox.com 8888 / 13.2.116.36 8888 ]
>   Join the League for Programming Freedom, league@prep.ai.mit.edu

btw thanks for the 'stroke of genius' comment... *blush* :)

Baal@GodNet (sigh beta testing still :)

-- 
CHOOSE          CHEAP                   Scott Anderson
  TWO:         /     \                  sander@engin.umich.edu
              /       \                 Entropy at its finest:
          FAST---------EASY            "Spam, spam, spam! Wonderful SPAM!"
Newsgroups: rec.games.mud