From: lmollett@lunatix.uucp (Laura Mollett)
Subject: Re: new rec.games.frp.* groups
Organization: Lexington Public Access Unix. -KY- (606) 253-1481 
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 14:50:06 GMT
Followup-To: rec.games.frp.advocacy 

In article <1992Nov10.172204.1@wharton.upenn.edu> millerl@wharton.upenn.edu writes:
>In article <1992Nov10.161850.21614@lunatix.uucp>, lmollett@lunatix.uucp (Laura Mollett) writes:
>> Well what happened to the discussion of rec.games.frp.campaigns?  Is it all
>> taking place in news.groups now?  What about rec.games.frp.cyber-or-whatever?
>> Did it die?  I hope so, but if not, I'd like to stick my two cents in here
>> for a minute or two.
>
>The discussion is going on in news.groups. Since it was proposed as an
>official RFD the discussion is supposed to go on in news.groups. I count
>that as a blessing, since news.groups filters off the junk that would
>otherwise interrupt my reading in this usually enjoyable newsgroup.
>
Hmm...that sounds like I really should have posted this in news.groups.
I looked at the discussion there, and didn't think what I had to say had
relevance really to that one, especially since I wanted to comment on both
splits at once (and if a RFD on the .cyber idea went out, I missed it).
However, mebbe I shouldn't put this in advocacy, so I redirected follow-ups
there.  I'm sorry.  I've been reading this group for awhile, but I
don't post very often, so I sometimes make newbie type mistakes :).

>> I noticed running through news.groups looking for the rec.games.frp.campaigns
>> discussion a flame fest going on there over the renaming of a group called
>> rec.music.synth.  A piece of the flame fest touched on discussion of subject
>> lines in RFD and CFV's and it occurred to me that in this group, people who
>> routinely put something like "cyberpunk" or "shadowrun" in killfiles
>
>Well, after I ran the split vote on rec.games.frp and it passed and was
>implemented there were a number of late complaints by people who had
>"rec.games.frp" in their killfiles (to hide from the FAQs) and seemed
>surprised that this caused them to miss the entire split vote.
>Personally, I think people who cut themself off like that are so
>oblivious that I'd rather not have them voting on the future of
>anything, even the roleplaying discussion newsgroups.

Well I'd have to agree about people sticking the name of their newsgroup in
a killfile...that never occurred to me.  However, surely putting "cyber" or
"shadowrun" in one doesn't fall into the same category?  I thought that was
the recommended way for dealing with a lot of posts on game systems one
doesn't play and isn't interested in?  Since I personally don't use a 
killfile (much to my sysops dismay), mebbe this isn't a problem either...but
I thought it would be a shame for someone to miss a RFD or CVF on a .shadowrun
newsgroup because they had that in their killfile, and the overwhelming number
of posts on shadowrun aren't bothering them (one of the major reasons for
the proposed split, yes?)  It sounds like a case of "do it right and miss
the important stuff."  Mebbe not, tho.
>
>> Further, I would like to say that I am opposed to ANY further splitting of
>> rec.games.frp at this time.  That includes both the campaigns group and the
>> cyber.dark future.whatever group.
>
>Presently I agree with you, and I believe a large number of people
>agree. The discussion/flamefest presently going on in news.groups is
>over the form of the proposed newsgroups, since I and several others
>think that .campaign and .cyber are deeply flawed as newsgroups and will
>have negative effects on future roleplaying discussion. In other words,
>the names are no good.

Yep.  That was one of the reasons that I wasn't sure my comments belonged in
news.groups.  It's not just that I don't like the current proposals (tho I
don't much), but I really think the group is working well with the number of
splinters it has now, and doesn't need anymore at all.  Don't get me wrong,
I _like_ the results of the previous split (see below for more on this), but
I became concerned as I saw the discussion on .cyber propose taking more and
more "systems" and putting them into another splinter.  I think all is
working well right now :).
>
>> While the .misc/.dnd split made sense and has enormously lowered traffic for
>> those who only read one or the other of these groups, in my opinion, it has
>> also seriously limited discussions and the seeds of discussions in these
>> groups.  I've seen several things posted in dnd which I do not think were
>> totally dndwhatever specific or that could have turned into less specific
>> discussions if the whole group was together (as it had been previously).
>
>This is true. When I proposed it I expected the dnd group to become an
>autonomous discussion group with lots of generic campaign advice in it,
>despite the strongly worded charter which directs only xdnd specific
>issues to the newsgroup. I thought this was acceptable since both dnd
>and misc seem to have large enough and loud enough readerships to
>sustain themselves. So what if topics don't cross? By the way, if you
>want to get a non-dnder's advice on a dnd thread, then post it to misc.
>
I don't believe I phrased my comments very well.  I agree with you that both
xdnd and .misc work well.  This was one of the more major points (in my
opinion, of course) brought up in the original split discussion...that there
would be a loss of dissemination of ideas.  What I'm trying to say is that
I believe there is that loss...tho it is very small and relatively unimportant
in the present system, it does exist.  I believe if the group is further
split in any direction I can imagine (mebbe I'm just not imagining the
correct direction, but...) that loss will become important.  Both xdnd and
.misc are self-sustaining.  A Shadowrun group might, at this point, be
self-sustaining as well, but I believe that it would work as a great loss
the general discussion group as more discussion is generated in the other
groups.  I became even more concerned about it as the people proposing the
.cyber type group added more "systems" to their proposal.  It's not that
the topics don't cross, it's that the topics generate new discussions, and
those new discussions are not generated as the group is split.  This is very,
very minor in the present split, and the advantages far outweigh the
disadvantages, so far.  But it does exist (at least _I_ think it does) and
I don't think it would continue to be advantageous if it went any further.
I hope that's clearer...I'm not a great writer (one of the reasons I don't
post too often :).
>wrt .dnd and .misc
>> How many people read both
>> groups?  It seemed to me like the long discussion in dnd of nasty monsters
>> (liches and the like) could easily have been an interesting non-genre specific
>> discussion of how to challenge more advanced (higher points/higher levels
>> whatever) PC's in any game.  
>
>I read .misc and occasionally skim over .dnd. For the most part, dnd
>works for me. All the dreadful system-specific talk (the stoneskin
>thread, the new lich threads, the dark sun threads) stay in that group
>where I don't have to filter them out with kill files, and enough
>general discussion goes on in .misc to pique my interest. The point is
>that we voted to separate dnd from misc. That it works proves we
>succeeded.
>
Again, I didn't phrase myself very well.  I'm not complaining about the
split as it stands.  I think it works very well, and in many ways I like it
_much_ better than the original monster.  I didn't vote on the original
split.  I felt at that time as I hadn't been reading the group long enough
to really know how things worked...I think I just missed the split discussion
that failed right before the very well-proposed one :).  However, I did
follow the discussion very closely.  One of the objections made was the 
possible loss of this dissemination of ideas.  It was noted before the split
was made, and it has (in my opinion) occured to some extant.  It was thought
the advantages would outweigh the problems at the time, and that does seem to
be the case.  I just don't believe that would continue to be true in any 
other split I can imagine...mebbe I'm just not able to imagine a well-proposed
idea, but I think this problem would be especially true in all the split
proposals I've seen recently...especially including .campaigns, and .cyber* or
whatever.  I was trying to use the example of what I think happens minorally
between the xdnd and .misc groups to indicate what I think would happen
majorally in another split...now I'm repeating myself so I guess I'll shut-up :)

				Laura Mollett.