From: lmollett@lunatix.uucp (Laura Mollett)
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.games.cyber renaming and unmoderation
Organization: Lexington Public Access Unix. -KY- (606) 255-9121
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 14:54:43 GMT

In article <1992Dec9.034530.8036@archtwr.tower.nullnet.fi> elandal@archtwr.tower.nullnet.fi (Ismo Peltonen) writes:
>Donald Tsang (tsang@cs.washington.edu) wrote:
>: Not so clear.  It certainly discusses roleplaying-games, but we who
>: went through the horrible FRP Split Wars of the past N-very-large years
>: decided AGAINST a split based on "genre".
>
>  I know it very well.
Well, there are some very good reasons why these people are opposed to "genre"
splits.  Why do you think the .cyber group should be a exception?
>
>:   Where would Shadowrun(tm) fit, being both "magic" and "cyber"? 
>:     Hint: the wrong answer is "crosspost".
>
>  I would welcome it to the new rgf.cyber group. I think Shadowrun IS
>cyberpunk even if it has magic, metahumans, and other 'fantasy' elements.
>
>:   Again, how does one define "cyber"?  Replacement of human tissue or
>:   organs by technological equipment?  Would AD&D's "Hand of Vecna" fit
>:   this mold, given the "sufficiently advanced X == Y" argument(*)?
>:   Are dark future games with little or no "cyberization" considered
>:   "cyberpunk"?  Where does Netrunning fit?
>
>  I have no clear definition for cyberpunk. It's partially the attitude,
>but also the technology. As long as there is big business, street
>lowlife, technological replacements for bodyparts, and the on the edge
>-attitude it may fit in cyberpunk genre, but it is a thing we may
>discuss further.

I'm really firmly opposed to anything that will further scatter the role-playing
discussion.  It's easy to kill very technical discussions, but any game system
can generate the campaign ideas, plot ideas, character ideas, and general
role-playing  advice and discussion.  I feel we lose a lot when these ideas
get too split up.  Without a real clear idea of where the dividing lines are
and what comes into what group, I'm afraid it will be even worse.  Do the
current shadowrun character quotes and death lines etc. belong in the .misc
group or would they belong in the .cyber group under your proposal?
>
>:   Are all games discussed in rec.games.cyber ROLE-PLAYING?
>:   SJG's Hacker is a board game, for example.  You would alienate
>:   people who only played these games, forcing them back into
>:   rec.games.board.
>
>  True. But boardgames are so far from roleplaying that I don't believe
>they belong to the same group.
>
>: I say just delete rec.games.cyber and just post to rec.games.frp.misc;
>: if in six months there is enough interest, discuss a proper split then.
>
>  I still believe in r.g.f.cyber group. If it doesn't pass, cyberpunk
>roleplaying will still have it's own group.

Hmm, sounds like if the general role-players don't agree the group should be
split, you intend to bypass the process and assume your opinion has more
validity.  Isn't that sorta how we got in the mess of having role-playing
discussion in two places in the first place.  If it's role-play discussion
(as you claim), it belongs in the .frp heirarchy, but if the group doesn't 
want the split in the same way you do, you'll just continue to have it 
outside the heirarchy.  Why not consider switching it back to a mailing list 
then. That's what the other systems do. 
				Laura Mollett
>-- 
>Elandal		(aka Ismo Peltonen)			| Hanuripolku 5B15
Newsgroups: news.groups