From: os9ug@gkcl.ists.ca (OS-9 User Group)
Subject: Re: rec.games.strategic
Reply-To: sizone!justin@ee.ryerson.ca (Justin Wells)
Organization: y
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 92 05:12:16 GMT


>
>This, I really don't like.  It seems that what you're REALLY trying to do
>is *discriminate* against the serious game-players ("gamers").

"serious game-player" != "gamer"

I spend about an hour a day studying, and about 6 hours a week playing
a board game (Go), and I am most definately NOT a "gamer".

"Gamer" is a term which identifies the whole set of people who play
the sorts of games mostly discussed in this group.  This includes all
war playing, role playing, fantasy, and simulation games, although
none of those terms in and of itself seems to sum it up properly.
It seems to be a term that most people who play these games would
identify with.  It also seems to be a term that nobody who is a 
serious game player from the abstract/pure-strategy sphere would 
ever think to apply to themselves.  So it seems to be a good word
to differentiate the group on.

>>rec.games.simulation       another good suggestion someone made.
>
>This is a more reasonable suggestion, but not all "gamer" games are purely
>simulations; this hardly seems the place to discuss games like Civilization
>or 1830 either.  Now, if we wanted to kick out all the WiF people...  :-)

What exactly is 1830 if it isn't a simulation?  My understanding was
that it simulated a stock market.  Or have I got the wrong game?  Anyway,
if you are looking for a name with a 100% success rate at dividing the
group in a way everyone feels is appropriate, you won't find one.  If you
find a name that seems 95% effective, you've got a very good name.  

Either "simulation" or "gamer" would seem to hit the mark about 95% of
the time.  If the name conveys the spirit of what is to be discussed,
and accurately hits most of the material -- what else do you need?

>Taking someone else's suggestion and modifying it, why not create the group:
>
>rec.games.family (or rec.games.traditional)

rec.games.family and rec.games.traditional probably wouldn't generate
enough news independently.  My view is that they are viable as a 
combined group (ie: as rec.games.board, if a rec.games.board.<whatever>
group was created to handle the simulation type games).

Also I would like to say this:

"rec.games.abstract" or "rec.games.pure-strategy" would probably be
the best name for a group dealing with shogi, chinese chess, etc.
type posts.  "abstract" is bad because it is not a word that would
immediately jump to your mind if you were looking for posts on shogi.
(even though it is a reasonable name once you stop and think about it).
.
And "traditional" is inaccurate, since a group dedicated to games
of pure strategy is not limited to talking only about games that
have been around for a long time.  

"Classical" is even worse since it implies on the one hand that the
group will only discuss games with long historys; and on the other
it is a misuse of the word "classical".  Something which is classical
is something which defines or epitomizes a class.  Hence D&D is just
as much a "classic" game as chess, in the sense that they are both
the epitomy of a certain class of game.

Someone also suggested "rec.games.perfect-knowledge" which, once you
are familiar with the jargon, is an ideal name -- but obviously is
relying on a knowledge of game theory, which most likely the average
shogi or chinese chess player hasn't got.


Maybe the best approach would be to start a mailing list, and see how
busy it is for about a year.  If it gets good traffic, turn it into
a newsgroup.


Justin
>