From: tdunn@ecst.csuchico.edu (Tim Dunn)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.games.frp.campaign
Date: 7 Nov 92 20:40:43 GMT
Organization: California State University, Chico
NNTP-Posting-Host: cscihp.ecst.csuchico.edu

cbnorman@cayley.uwaterloo.ca writes:
>I'm sorry, I assumed that whether or not a group was passed was totally
>unrelated to whether or not the person proposing it had net experience.

Believe me, it helps.  If I had any notion that you knew what you were
doing, or that you have participated in r.g.f (pre/post split) then I 
would take you much more seriously.  As is, your first proposal sounded
very much like a .newbie "I wanna" line.  There are enough people out
there that discover netnews, join a discussion and want to try to work
changes.  Your first RFD reeked of that.  R.g.f.* doesn't need any more,
they're stocked up til the next year with that level of postings.

BTW, your revised RFD is greatly improved.  I'll address the experience
issue here, and save the opinions on the new RFD after a few re-readings.

>I thought the merit of the group was the deciding factor.

It is, but to qualify for consideration, you must give the impression
that you are proposing a worthwhile change.  That pretty much implies
that you are to have some experience with r.g.f.

>As for your reference to the group being "doom-ridden" and "ill-conceived",
>more people have sent me mail saying "yes this sounds like a good idea" than have sent me messages saying they did not like the idea.  Thank goodness, the
>decision as to whether or not a newgroup is made is decided by a vote and
>not by self appointed "net gods".

Indeed, otherwise you would have created it already.  Also, have you heard
of putting a linefeed every 70 or so characters?  If I were moderating 
r.g.f.campaign, I'd bounce it for that.  Or would I?  Oh, I promised I 
wouldn't go into that this post....

I will accept the results of the vote, but I fear that, like in real-world 
elections, the issues are often clouded.  Sometimes deliberately so.  And,
like in real-world elections, the qualifications of a candidate are often
called into question.

>Now to answer the irrelevent question which you have asked, I have used the
>net for more than five years.  

The actual question is more along the lines of how long have you read
r.g.f, the groups you want to change?

>We are here to discuss a newsgroup, NOT to make charges of inexperience.

If you don't seem inexperienced to me, I won't ask.  It's not a 'charge.'
A charge would be more along the lines of "I've read r.g.f.* since before
there was a r.g.f.* and I've never seen your name before."  I haven't 
said that, and I would appreciate you not 'charging' me of making such
charges.

As for the final words I have to say about inexperience, I wouldn't have
asked if it didn't look like it to me.  Did you realize that it took the
then-poster of the FAQ to get the split of r.g.f across?  Many people 
have worked and sweated to get the current state of the groups as they
are.  At first glance (and second, and third) your first RFD proposal
un-did most of that.  *That* strikes me as inexperienced.  

Now, lemme have some time to read that second proposal, and I'll see...
No promises.  In the meanwhile, *now* do you understand why I am so 
interested in _how_long_you_have_been_involved_with_r.g.f_?  And can
you be so kind as to honor us with an answer?  *Not* just the 'net.'
Anyone who has access to a machine can claim to "use the net."  All 
Fidonet echos of newsgroups can claim to "use the net."  I'm asking
how long _you_have_read_r.g.f.*_.  Believe me, if you establish your
credentials, it will go a long way to helping your proposal pass.

-- 
Arithmetic is being able to count up to twenty without taking off your
shoes.
		-- Mickey Mouse
Xref: sparky news.groups:20435 rec.music.synth:17833