From: hades@coos.dartmouth.edu (Hades)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.games.frp.campaign
Date: 9 Nov 92 15:54:19 GMT
Reply-To: hades@Dartmouth.Edu
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
Disclaimer: Personally, I really don't care who you think I speak for.
Moderator: Rec.Arts.Comics.Info

cbnorman@cayley.uwaterloo.ca () writes:

>While I'm on a roll...

    I don't know that I would call posting a bunch of messages "on a
roll" but to each his own... But could I make one suggestion, please try
and hit the return key about every 70-80 characters, it makes responding
to you much easier, and it makes reading you easier as well.

>I'd like to address another issue raised by opponents of
>rec.games.frp.campaign.  Namely, many people have disected it and told
>me basicly that each component of .campaign can be placed in a different
>existing .frp newsgroup.  This does not surprise me, after all, their
>exists a rec.games.frp.misc group, and frankly, in any hierarchy where
>there is a .misc group, there is *some* place for people to post
>messages about anything even remotely related to the hierarchy.

    Well, it's good that it doesn't surprise you, because it shouldn't.
The reason that .misc groups exist is so that all the other stuff will
have some place to go. And for those people for whom this isn't good
enough, there is always alt.*, where anything goes.

>This is great, and wonderful, and should definitely stay.  However,
>obviously, it is not grounds for aborting a new newsgroup as otherwise
>we could just add a .misc group to every existing hierarchy and thus
>stop any further discussion of new newsgroups.  And hey, if anyone wants
>to create a new hierchy, we can always send them to misc.misc....

    No, you are correct, but people have mentioned groups other than
r.g.frp.misc in their posts as being appropriate places for posts that
you would like to see in .campaign, and I think that this should be
given greater consideration than you seem to be giving.

>Rec.games.frp.campaign is all about the campaign, and campaigning, two
>of the most important aspects of Fantasy Role Playing.

    True, but rec.games.frp is about more than "Fantasy Role Playing" it
is about all forms of role playing games, and all genres. You should be
careful how you state things. Just because a news group's name has a
possible interpretation this doesn't necessarily define the group's
content.

>Despite the fact that campaigns and campaigning have been discussed in
>other newsgroups in the past, the fact remains that their is sufficient
>interest in campaigns and campaigning to warrent an entire newsgroup
>just devoted to them.

    Ah... here we finally come to the thing. It has yet to be proven
that there is sufficient interest in this group. A few people posting
and sending email about it is not "sufficient interest". Until you can
show that there will be enough interest and traffic that would be better
served by posting to this newsgroup rather than one of the existing
groups in the hierarchy this proposal is a non-issue and should never
have been proposed as an official RFD. In fact, it is considered
ill-advised to propose a split group when there has been no discussion
about said split group in the group(s) that it would be taking traffic
from. You would know this, if you frequented news.groups.

>If I'm wrong, then hell, no one in the .frp hierarchy will vote for it.
>I think my proposal is pretty solid right now, and I'm prepared to call
>for votes.  I will wait another week at least however, and I will still
>accept suggestions for improvements.

    If you are wrong, then you have wasted the time, money and effort of
a whole lot of people on something that should never have been proposed.
You aren't the first to do this, and unfortunately you won't be the
last.

--
-Hades (Brian V. Hughes) 
	"Hey, we're on the Cutting Edge!"
	"Too bad we're not on the side you keep." - Mr. Boffo
Newsgroups: news.groups,news.admin.policy,rec.music.synth