From: sterling@netcom.com
Subject: Yet Another Mud Reorganization Proposal
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 92 22:40:08 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Followup-To: news.groups

This is my proposal for the rec.games.mud reorganization.

A.  Do we need it?

     Yes.  This is the second time it's been discussed, with the first failing
because no one could agree on anything.  Thus it is IMPERATIVE we agree on what
we need this time or we'll have to wait another six months.  The majority of
readers (and some non-readers, too) think we need a better structuring so we
don't have to wade through so many posts and flames.  Volume is not the real
concern... signal:noise ratio is.  Some of the new groups may only be low
traffic, but I think the reorganization will also bring NEW traffic... people
who avoid r.g.m. now because of junk postings will be more willing to read the
one or two new groups that hold their interest.  Also, some people will be more
willing to post, if they feel they can actually get a useful discussion out of
it.

B.  What do we need?

     Everyone has a different idea.  All sorts of groups have been proposed.
The following is my vision, which I think will satisfy most people's needs.

1.     rec.games.mud.info (moderated)

     This group is long overdue.  We need a place for purely informational
postings, such as FAQs, mud lists, ftp sites, mud opening and closings, guides
for helping new users with certain types of muds, code releases, etc.  Many
people have proposed this as a .annouce group, but I think .info is better
because it's shorter and more descriptive of the actual content.  The group
is for more than just making "official" announcements... it's job is to provide
information in general.

     The only proposed moderator I've seen for such a group is Scott Goehring.
For many reasons, some of them obvious to those who read his recent posts in
r.g.m., I would vote a strong NO for this group if he moderated it.  I don't
feel Scott would be an impartial moderator; in fact he's already said as much
that he thinks my having an account is dangerous, so I don't see why he'd let
me post to the newsgroup.  As for who else I would propose for the job, I do
not know if Garrett (cyberpixie) is still interested, but I would vote for him.
If all else fails, I am also willing to moderate the newsgroup.

2.     rec.games.mud.issues

     There is a lot of talk about a group for tiny-players who are primarily
social creatures.  A lot of talk about the recent "age/vr sex" discussion as
well.  In my opinion, to best way to contain such postings is to have a group
dedicated to the serious discussion of the social issues that occur on muds.
Such a group would contain posts about virtual sex, why YY's wizards are bad,
is it really VR, etc.  The group would NOT be for flames, but would remain
unmoderated so all people could post without passing through a possible bias.

3.     rec.games.mud.admin

     Although I'm not sure about how much traffic it would generate, I like the
idea.  There are many issues that come up which are admin-related to muds, and
do not really interest other players (and vice-versa).  The group would consist
of net.bandwidth discussions, wizarding questions of how to deal with unruly
players, which server uses which resources, etc.  Since many of these questions
are generic to adminning and not to a specific type or kind of mud, a general
admin group seems to be the best place for such traffic.

4.     rec.games.mud.diku

     As much as I don't think we should split groups according to server type,
we already have a r.g.m.lp, and it seems that dikus are enough different from
lps that they have support for their own group.  So as far as I'm concerned,
give them one.  Diku specific questions can go there, although there may be
some crossposting between it and other groups an certain issues.

5.     rec.games.mud.lp

     We already have it.  It's fine as it is, but it needs to be USED more.
Too many people post to rec.games.mud about lp-specific things... possibly
because "mud" is generic enough to, in their opinion, include their traffic.
Which leads us to.....

6.     rec.games.mud -> rec.games.mud.misc

     Rename it.  This gives us a group to contain all the traffic other groups
do not, under a name people won't post lp or diku specific questions to.  This
is also the place for flamewars to go when things get out of hand in r.g.m.
issues, and for questions about servers that don't have (or need) their own
groups, such as moo.

C.  How should we vote on all these groups?

     If a consensus can't be reached on the groups we need, have the CFV
contain proposals for ALL of the groups.  One CFV, with each newsgroup passing
or failing on its own.  This way we'll get the new groups we want, and the
groups we don't want will not be created.  Don't tie votes between groups
together or the whole thing will get very complicated very fast.  It is
remotely possible in such a case for no new groups to pass, but for r.g.m. to
still be renamed to r.g.m.misc.... a change which I wouldn't mind all that
much, in the unlikely event that it occurs.

And that's my proposal.  Sorry it came out so long; hopefully those who take
the time to wade through it will have some good comments to make on it as
opposed to flaming.  One last thing... I don't mind one way or the other if
the prefix is rec.games.mud or rec.mud.  Either is acceptable to me, and I
won't make an issue out of it if people feel strongly one way or the other.

Bruce

-- 
--- sterling@netcom.com - sirbruce@gnu.ai.mit.edu - bwoodcoc@isis.cs.du.edu ---
Yes.  We fuck.  Often, and with great enjoyment of the act.  We aren't married,
we use birth control, we use interesting little toys on occasion.  We moan like
beasts in heat.  Life is *great*.  -- Bryant, ref. to Erin, on alt.brother-jed.