From: towel@elcsci.com (Big Wilber)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games
Subject: Re: ***** Proposed RFD:  c.s.i.p.g reorganization  -- please examine
Date: 21 Jan 93 19:57:20 GMT
Article-I.D.: elcsci.1993Jan21.115721.1863
Organization: Electro Scientific Industries, Portland OR

In article <1jhl6rINN2hk@iskut.ucs.ubc.ca>, lermer@theory.chem.ubc.ca (Noah Lermer) writes:
> In article <C12wxJ.5yM@polaris.async.vt.edu> jsciv@polaris.async.vt.edu (Joseph Cochran) writes:
>>
>>RFD: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games reorganization
>>
>    General comments: This is too many new groups - cross-posting could
>      be a real problem. We should probably aim for 4-5.
>>
>>comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action
>>
>    Do we really need this? Traffic is rather low, and would probably
>    be readily accomodated by c.s.i.p.g.misc.
>>
>>comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.advocacy
>>
>    Again, I'm not sure - I find piracy, crack arguments are easily
>    gotten rid of by my kill file. This could go into .misc.
>>
>>comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.adventure
>>
>    Necessary. Very high trafic here.
>>
>>comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.misc
>>
>    Necessary.
>>
>>comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg
>>
>    Initialy I was against this idea - why .adventure and .rpg (which
>    should be .crpg BTW - don't want DND, GURPS stuff here too) ?
>    But they ARE different enough and there is more than enough traffic
>    to justify this.
>>
>>comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.simulation
>>
>    This one seems poorly defined at the moment - is Civilization 
>    .simulation or .strategic (the latter I think)? What about
>    the MS Flight Simulator? What about F15? I would not vote for this
>    group as currently defined - in fact I'm not at all sure its necessary.
>>
>>comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic
>>
>    A good idea.
>>
>>comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.announce (moderated)
>>
>    A good idea if we can find a moderator.
> 
> To summarize:
> 
> c.s.i.p.g.action         - No, probably not enough traffic.
>          .advocacy       - Convince me we need it.
>          .adventure      - Yes
>          .crpg           - Yes (but note name change). 
>          .misc           - Necessary. Yes.
>          .simulation     - Purpose unclear to me - perhaps .flightsim better.
>          .strategic      - Yes.
>          .announce       - Nice idea. Yes, if possible.
> 
> So, I would vote for 5 new groups (6 if .simulation/.flightsim were better
> defined. My feeling is that this is a big split, but probably warranted.
> 
> My experience with the recent split of the comp.os.os2 groups has been
> very positive - cross posting can be discouraged by (gentle) e-mail
> reminders to the offenders. 
> 
> For those arguing against the split, my only question is why? You just
> subscribe to all the groups. I don't see the problem. Cross-posting is
> easy to get rid of with a kill file.
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

then why argue against a split of 9, 14 or even 96 sub groups if clear
organizational seperation can be acheived?

I was originally against the split because I figured it would be done
haphazardly, without REAL clear organizational seperation, and become
a trash post dumping ground and cross posting nightmere.  in other words
I figured it would just exasperbate the problem it was trying to solve
in the long run.

if it can be done in a very clear and organizationally correct way, and we 
aint there yet, I would then fully support it.

by the way, I'm not convenced that the name ".strategic" is a better method
than ".strategy".  the name "strategy" is used in gamming magazines, ads, etc
to describe games that require thoughtout, planned methods of play.  and it
seems to me that one look inside the group would reveal it's true nature.
the more common way to describe the type of games going into this group would
be "strategy games" rather than "games that are strategic in nature", thus I
personally believe that to name it ".strategic" would cause more initial
confusion, not less.

again, the arguement that people will think the group, if named ".strategy",
is for posting specific game strategies, is unfounded in my opinion.  now
if it were to be named ".strategies"........

> 
> My 0.02$(CDN, and not worth very much :)
> Bruce Hollebone
> hollebon@cemaid.chem.ubc.ca
> 


+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Lee Towe                                       Towel@elcsci.com |
| MIS computer operations                        ^(@,@)^ Who..Who |
| Electro Scientific Industries                                   |
| Portland, Oregon, USA                    compuserve: 70614,1721 |
|     Caution: if you use UNIX, you just might turn into one      |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games