From: tdunn@ecst.csuchico.edu (Tim Dunn)
Subject: META: Divide this Group
Organization: California State University, Chico
Date: Mon, 07 Sep 1992 17:25:36 GMT


Brian Kendig writes:
>Robert A. Jung writes:
>>Rajendra Singhwrites:
>>>Why don't we divide this group into: rec.games.video.genesis [etc.]
>>Wouldn't a kill file be sufficient?
>A killfile isn't useful unless everyone includes the name of a system
>in the title of their post, is it?  

After weathering the rec.games.frp split, I would think that this group
is very much on the small side to think about splitting.  Using headers
isn't that hard.  I forgot the FAQ, but if it doesn't have a list of
standardized headers, how about:

2600: Atari 2600
5200: Atari 5200
7800: Atari 7800
GBOY: Gameboy
GEAR: Game Gear
GEN:  Sega Genesis
LYNX: Atari Lynx
MEGA: MegaDrive
META: Stuff about administrivia, like this
MISC: Anything not pretaining to one hardware platform -- specs, comparisions
      of implementations -- "MISC: Krusty's on GEN vs. SNES", "Game Copiers"
NEO:  Neo Geo
NES:  Nintendo 8-bit
PCE:  PC-Engine 
SEGA/SMS: Sega master system
SFC:  Super FamiCom
SNES: Super Nintendo
TG16: Turbo Graphix-16

Did I forget any?

>(Heck, could you imagine the chaos if they'd left comp.sys.mac and
>c.s.ibm and c.s.amiga all under "comp.sys", and never broken them down? ;)

New computer platforms that are from established houses will probably 
stay around for a while.  Everyone knows of 'instant dinosaurs,' the
exception the above statement, so no need bringing them up.

>>The USENET gods don't like creating "popular theme of the year" newsgroups 
>Well, we could create alt groups; alt.games.lynx already exists...

Creating alt groups is probably the best answer, except for the limited
propagation.  I don't get alt.games.sf2, as much as I would.  Still, I
feel that if someone want to read only about the NeoGeo system for
example, they should create their own alt group.

>Besides, ten years is an awfully long time -- and look at the number
>of Atari 2600 postings that still come through here!  

What, 5 per day, on a 'heavy' day?  That's not enough for a newsgroup.

>If after five years a system has _completely_ died out, then the 
>newsgroup can be rmgroup'ed, easy as pie.

It's not that easy.  For some reason, sites don't pay as much attention
to rmgroups as they do to creating them, so dead groups are still
propagated.  Some other sites merely alias them to existing groups.  It
is not a sure thing, and not as easy as you make it sound.

>>The only incentive split folks can ever give is "it's convenient for me". 
>Hmm?  Convenience is a Good Thing, imo.  ;) And besides, wouldn't a
>r.g.v split help people get to only the news about systems they want
>to read about, while not increasing the network load nor
>inconveniencing anyone?

Ask your news admin about what having five new groups would do.  Moreover,
once the precedent is started, then each new machine will clamor to have a 
group, and no one will be around to maintain the dead ones.  We all have
fleeting attention spans for games, once a home 32 bit machine comes out,
we'll all flock to that, leaving the old favorites in the lurch.

>Computers are supposed to make our lives easier and more convenient! ;)

Only if we use them properly...  And what is convenient for one is not
neccessarily what is convenient for all.

>Am I missing something here, or it it not really a big thing to just
>create a bunch of alt groups for the various systems and use them
>instead of r.g.v?

You are right, it's easy to creat alt groups.  However, the specs for
creating *non-alt* groups are pretty stringent:

1) A formal "Request for Discussion" (RFD) must be posted to the relevant
   newsgroups and to news.groups.  It must give some idea of a charter for
   the new groups.  Now wait for everyone to work themeselves into a flurry
   and then for the dust to die down.

2) Looking at the surviving proposal, a "Call for Votes" (CFV) must be
   posted to the same groups, and votes must be taken from all UseNet users
   (whether they read anything close to the group or not) for some period
   of time, a month I believe.

3) Votes must be tallied, verified (no ballot stuffing or funky addresses,
   like Phred_Phlintstone@Bedrock) and forwarded to the news.groups.announce
   moderator.  For a proposal to pass, you must have at least 66% voting 
   "yes" and a margin of 100 votes.

4) You then wait the week to a month for the individual newsadmins to make
   the changes.  By this time, easily half a year could have gone by, and
   the Atari Jaguar could be out (yeah, right!) and the SNES could have been
   recalled (again, right!)

5) Oh, and you will get flamed, during the RFD, during the CFV and after
   the voting process is over.  If the proposal wins, then there will be
   some chatter about it being a mis-count, or a fix-job.  Some people will
   never rest.  In fact, on rec.games.frp, during one vote-call, the flames
   made up fully half the volume of the pre-split newsgroup.

-- 
A nuclear war can ruin your whole day.
Newsgroups: rec.games.video